Sanctions Implementation and Enforcement

Baroness Chapman of Darlington Excerpts

Thursday 15th May 2025 Lords Chamber

[The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Baroness Chapman of Darlington) (Lab)]

My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat a Statement made in another place. The Statement is as follows:

“With permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, I will make a Statement on the cross-government review of sanctions implementation and enforcement. I promised to update the House on this issue at the earliest opportunity, and I am glad to have the chance to do so today. For those Members who want to get into the full details, they are being published on GOV.UK.

Sanctions are a powerful tool in our armoury and a vital foreign policy and national security tool. They are used to deter and disrupt threats and malign behaviour and demonstrate our values. Our sanctions support UK interests, protect our citizens and defend international peace and security.

Maximising economic pressure on Russia is key to securing a just and lasting peace in Ukraine, as we debated in the House yesterday. As I said then, the UK has sanctioned over 2,400 targets under our Russia regime and international sanctions have deprived Putin of $450 billion since the invasion began, an amount of money that would have allowed him to prosecute his terrible war for many more years.

Since July 2024, this Government have introduced more than 500 new sanctions designations against individuals, entities and ships. Just last Friday, the Prime Minister announced a major package of sanctions to target the decrepit and dangerous shadow fleet carrying Russian oil. This is the largest package of sanctions against the shadow fleet, with 110 targets. According to some estimates, sanctions have crippled 200 ships—almost half of Putin’s entire fleet.

President Zelensky is serious about peace, agreeing in principle to a full, unconditional and immediate ceasefire. His readiness for that peace is demonstrated by his being in Turkey. Meanwhile, Putin has dodged and delayed, all the while raining down terror on Ukraine. If Putin does not engage seriously on peace, the UK and our allies will have no choice but to ramp up this economic pressure even further, forcing him to the table.

Alongside taking measures against Russia, we are using designations to uphold human rights and promote democracy around the world. Just last month, we targeted pro-Kremlin operatives responsible for destabilising Moldova and we sanctioned corrupt officials in Georgia and Guatemala for undermining democracy and the rule of law. But we will not stop there. We will continue to expose malign activity wherever we find it, using the full range of sanctions tools at our disposal to shape the world for the better.

Sanctions play a crucial role in the Foreign Secretary’s mission to tackle corruption and dirty money, which is vital to protect the UK from criminals and safeguard our democracy. In January, the Foreign Secretary announced our new, world-first legislation to use sanctions to crack down on those fuelling irregular migration.

This Government are committed not only to using sanctions effectively but—this is the main focus of the Statement—to ensuring that they are enforced rigorously. This means punishing serious breaches with large fines or criminal prosecutions. In opposition, we recognised that there was a need for greater focus on sanctions enforcement. Since Labour came to office, we have been working across government on this, as well as liaising with law enforcement partners and industry. In October, we launched the Office of Trade Sanctions Implementation, with new civil enforcement powers to crack down on those seeking to soften the blow of our sanctions. At the same time, we introduced civil powers for the Department for Transport to enforce transport sanctions.

We have reinforced the Office of Financial Sanctions Implementation in His Majesty’s Treasury—known as OFSI for short—and the multi-agency Joint Maritime Security Centre, enabling them to better tackle evasion and develop new tools targeting the Russian shadow fleet, including in the English Channel. The investments and improvements we have made are already paying off. Last month, OFSI imposed a penalty of £465,000 on a major law firm’s subsidiary for breaches of sanctions linked to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. We also saw the UK’s first successful prosecution under the Russia financial sanctions regulations, thanks to the excellent work by the National Crime Agency. I commend it and its teams for the incredible work they have done. I expect to see more enforcement action in the coming year. I obviously cannot go into the details of that in the House, but we should be assured that our teams are working effectively in a range of agencies and across government.

Funding from the Economic Deterrence Initiative has been critical to strengthening our capabilities and maintaining the UK’s reputation among its allies. This initiative is bolstering sanctions work in the overseas territories and Crown dependencies; for example, in the British Virgin Islands, it has enabled the NCA to support enforcement and combat potential circumvention. Excellent work has been going on in that regard, and we hosted OTs and CDs at Lancaster House just a few months ago, to collaborate and ensure that we are improving capability across those territories.

I turn to the enforcement review. I am determined to go after those who try to evade our sanctions. In October, I launched a cross-ministerial review to look at how we can improve UK sanctions implementation and enforcement. A strong sanctions regime is crucial for achieving our foreign policy goals and, in turn, building a secure and prosperous UK. This forward-leaning review had three goals: first, to make it easier to comply with our sanctions, which will help businesses to support us in our shared goals; secondly, to increase the deterrent effect of enforcement and make it clear that avoiding sanctions does not pay; and, thirdly, to enhance our ability to take robust action against those seeking to evade our measures. We are publishing the report on the conclusions today, and I am glad of this opportunity to set out how we will ensure that the UK’s approach continues to set a gold standard.

We know that the vast majority of businesses agree with our sanctions and are keen to work with us to make sure that they are enforced. To simplify compliance, we have launched a new email alert system to keep UK businesses updated on designations, legislation, licences and other related topics. We are making our guidance clearer and easier to access, providing further clarity to UK industry on ownership and control and introducing a single sanctions list for all designated persons. We will also assess the benefits of creating a single reporting point for suspected breaches. To give our sanctions extra bite and deter evasion, we will publish a new enforcement strategy, making clear the consequences of non-compliance. We will look at new options to accelerate civil penalties for financial sanctions breaches, including via an early settlement scheme. We are dedicated to strengthening our enforcement tools and ensuring that we have the necessary powers, capabilities and intelligence.

We have already taken action. Last month, we introduced measures to prevent designated individuals from holding director roles in the UK, protecting our brilliant British businesses. The Department for Business and Trade is updating laws to protect workers who report breaches of financial, transport and certain trade sanctions, giving them crucial whistleblower protections. Those actions, taken together and at pace, will further improve our world-class sanctions regime, allowing the UK to project strength and promote the rule of law across the world.

But we are not satisfied with just those measures. We are committed to exploring other areas, so that we can go even further and deeper to improve enforcement. A number of those areas will take longer to scope, and I will be able to update the House on them in due course. We will explore options for more effective join-up on intelligence, including the merits of a new joint sanctions intelligence function. We will consider the introduction of sanctions end-use licensing controls for exports with a high risk of sanctions diversion.

We will continue to support the British Overseas Territories and Crown dependencies in enhancing their enforcement capabilities and will explore enhancing transport powers to target specific aircraft with sectoral sanctions. As appropriate, we will update Parliament when additional outcomes have been scoped, including those that require new or amended legislation. We have brought forward a number of pieces of sanctions legislation recently; in addition, we expanded our Russia regime this week into a range of areas and varied our Syria regime in the light of changed circumstances there.

Let me conclude by reiterating the Government’s commitment to strengthening the implementation and enforcement of UK sanctions. As we deliver the actions set out in the review, we will continue to engage across departments and with industry, wider stakeholders and international partners to maximise the effectiveness of our work. I commend this Statement to the House”.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

My Lords, I am impressed by the Minister’s efficiency. She replied positively to me on Monday when I asked for an opportunity to have a wider discussion on sanctions enforcement; I did not quite appreciate that she would deliver that three days later. It is very impressive indeed.

I have had the opportunity of debating every sanction that the previous Administration and this one have put in place since the establishment of the post-Brexit regime. These Benches have supported them at each step, but we have made the case that the sanctions tool should be used more impactfully, especially on occasions where we do not believe the sanctions go far enough, such as on the repressive actions of the Georgian regime, as referenced in the Statement, and individuals within it. On Israel and Gaza, we have repeatedly called for a widening of sanctions against those within the Netanyahu Administration, who are inflicting and facilitating the infliction of a great humanitarian crisis in Gaza and the West Bank.

I made it my mission to see the Wagner Group proscribed and was very grateful when the previous Government did it. However, our sanctions should be chasing after Russia and, for any organisation sanctioned or proscribed by the UK, there will have to be continued action.

Overall, we welcome the Statement and the review, which I had the opportunity to look at online. Fundamentally, I think it found that there was nothing wrong, but there were a number of areas where it wanted to go ahead. There was a curious line saying that the fundamental principle was

“to secure international agreement across all 193 UN Member States”

for sanctions. That is rather impossible when we are sanctioning quite a chunk of them. There was also a wee bit of Whitehall verbiage: we are to expect an invigorated toolkit of

“capabilities, capacity, powers, and actionable intelligence to take robust enforcement”

and

“user-friendly guidance to a new enforcement strategy”.

I look forward to them. No doubt we will debate what that means when we get them.

We are promised an early settlement scheme. This is an area that has raised a slight alarm signal with me. How will this interact with what the review has said about the need to increase deterrence? It is not necessary to have deterrence if we have an early settlement scheme for those who are breaching financial sanctions. If not today, perhaps the Minister might be able to say more at a later date.

The Minister referred to the £465,000 penalty for Herbert Smith Freehills for making funds available for the benefit of a designated person without a licence. This is welcome, but it is only one of five penalties since 2023, with a total amount of just £485,000. Without that £465,000, there have been only £20,000 of penalties. Is this a lack of enforcement or a stunning level of adherence to the UK sanctions regimes?

I had the opportunity to look at the excellent OFSI threat assessment report, which goes into a little more detail about some of the context. I have a couple of questions, one of them linked to the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Callanan.

We have a number of frozen assets within the UK. On Monday, we discussed new rounds of Syria sanctions. We have £157 million in frozen Syrian assets. Given what the Minister said on Monday and what President Trump has been saying about the new Syrian President, can the Minister write to me on the status of that amount, identifying the ultimate legal beneficial owner of the frozen assets? If it is the former Assad regime, or those linked to it, then presumably we should not be offering them back. Why have we not seized those assets, which can be used for the benefit of the Syrian people, who desperately need it?

On the Russian assets, we now have, as reported by OFSI, £25 billion. We on these Benches would like to see a draft Bill on what would be required under UK law to seize those assets. We do not need to wait on others, either in the G7 or elsewhere, or act at their slow pace. These assets have been frozen under UK legislation and the power to seize them will be under UK legislation, so if there need to be any changes to UK legislation, we should see what the context is, because obviously these Benches believe that Putin should not be rewarded by getting money back at the end of this process.

The threat assessment report also highlighted what it said was a growing number of enablers and enabling countries. It singled out some, including, at the highest level of growth, the UAE. What diplomatic tools are we using for those countries which we know are the source of enablers who circumvent UK financial sanctions? As OFSI said, that is growing.

The threat assessment report also says that there are almost certainly enablers using crypto assets to breach UK financial sanctions. Can the Minister write to me on the estimated scale of this? Have we the same approach to co-ordination with our allies to ensure that this is the case, given the very dubious means by which President Trump is using crypto assets, and the difficulty in understanding the source of the crypto assets?

On China, we believe our sanctions should go further with regard to those in the Chinese Government who restrict the rights of people in Hong Kong and, in particular, those here in the United Kingdom who are operating transnational repression. It is utterly unacceptable, and I will be pursuing this further in this Chamber.

Many of us had the great privilege today of meeting former President Tsai Ing-wen, when welcoming her to Parliament. She is the highest-level official of the Taiwanese Government—both current and previous Governments—who has ever visited the UK Parliament. I pay credit to the noble Baroness, Lady D’Souza, and others who have worked so hard and tirelessly over a number of years. The former President’s lecture to us was an inspiration, because it was about democrats fighting against repression, building up resilience and ensuring that they have support here in the United Kingdom. Our sanctions regime should help people such as her, with her great leadership, and it was a real privilege to have her in Parliament today.

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Purvis—yes, this Government like to deliver promptly. I similarly did not anticipate being back here discussing this Statement quite so soon, not least because I had it down at 6 pm in my diary, so I ran very fast in heels from the department.

I welcome the fact that noble Lords have encouraged us to go further, and I note the comments that were made on different sanctions, including on China and others. Obviously, we do not comment on future designations—we have rehearsed that line many times in this Chamber—but we do listen when noble Lords make these kinds of observations and encourage the Government. We take these things on board and listen to what is said, but we obviously do not comment ahead of time.

I take the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, on verbiage; that is entirely fair. We try our best with these things. I believe that what the report is saying is clear, but we should be open to improving specific language where we can.

I understand the point on early settlement. All I will say is that it is just an additional tool: sometimes it is appropriate, sometimes it is not. It is important that we use it only when it is the right thing to do, when it has the effect that we want and it is not a less impactful option. I understand the concern—it is legitimate to raise it—but it is important to have that as another way of tackling this issue.

We continue to look at the Syrian and Russian frozen assets. There is an issue around frozen assets, as we have explained many times. There are legal concerns as well as potential consequences for British assets in other parts of the world. We hear the argument, and we will continue to look at this.

On the point about enablers, we have regular and detailed engagement with partner countries, where appropriate. This is an important point, and the Government are mindful of making sure that we use our levers to address it.

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, for his welcome of this report, and I completely agree with every word he said about Putin, Ukraine and Russia. I am happy to acknowledge the work that the previous Government did on this. We are building on that, as he would want us to do.

I do not have anything new to say on the Chelsea Football Club issue; I wish I did. I wish we could get this resolved and get the money where it needs to be. We are continuing to work on this at every level, and I hope that we will be able to come back to the House with a different answer very soon.

The noble Lord, Lord Callanan, was absolutely right about communication with business and making sure that the rules and updates are as widely known as possible. Measures are suggested in the report that we will implement, including email alerts, and we will continue to work through the DBT and take other opportunities to make sure that that happens.

The noble Lord asked whether we will leverage our influence. The answer to that is absolutely yes. Generally, this work is ongoing. This is not something where you ever complete the task and say, “We’ve done all the work we’re ever going to do on sanctions, and we’ve got it completely right”. We are in competition with criminal gangs and with different ways of working, so we need to keep this evolving. We need to keep it under review, keep challenging ourselves and keep changing and innovating. I am grateful to the parties opposite for their support for that work.

[Lord Northbrook (Con)]

My Lords, I congratulate the Minister on the cross-government review and on adding a little bit extra to the Statement, which was most welcome. I have a couple of queries. I welcome both the Government’s and the Opposition’s actions on this. First, one problem with Russia is that it is able to evade sanctions by exporting oil through India and doing trade with China. I wonder if I could have the Minister’s comments on that. Secondly, I welcome the sanctions actions on the overseas territories, which, I hope, are generally well regulated. I wonder if the Minister could say a bit more about the BVI, which seem to be a slight exception to this?

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

Yes, we discuss our concerns with all partner countries—where we have them—on Russian oil. On the OTs and BVI, we are working very closely with them on trying to make sure they have what they need to enable them to do the job we want them to do. I think we are getting there, and we speak to them very regularly. We are hopeful. The Minister for the Overseas Territories meets with them very regularly. He is deeply concerned about this. We had long discussions with them earlier this year, and we will keep the House updated if we need to.

[Lord Deben (Con)]

I wonder whether I could refer to yesterday’s implementation of the additional sanction arrangements on letting agents and the like. This is very welcome, because there is no doubt that there has been a very considerable use of housing and the like as a means of establishing funds in this country by people who should not be doing that.

I am concerned about whether the Government can do more to help the letting agents and others explain this to the people who are not really affected, but who have to give all sorts of information which they would not have had to give before. It is very important to overcome the natural irritation which, for example, we have now when you want a bank account and difficulties arise. Because of this, I hope there can be discussions between the Government and the real estate industry across the board as to the form of words that could be used, so that when people are faced with this additional burden, they can say to themselves, “I am doing something useful. I am doing something because of what is happening in Ukraine”, and make it into a positive action. I have just read the documents that have gone out from letting agencies, and I fear that it just looks like another burden on people’s shoulders. I want to make this a success. Can we get the language right, and can we use it as a positive mechanism?

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

That is a really interesting question. I had not thought about that, but I will speak to colleagues at MHCLG to see if we can do something along the lines the noble Lord describes, because compliance is enhanced when people understand why they are being asked to do things. It is a really interesting comment, and we need to work very closely across government on this.

[The Earl of Effingham (Con)]

My Lords, I quote David Lammy, who correctly said that we have to act quickly, and that

“I believe we should move from freezing assets to seizing assets”.—[Official Report, Commons, 25/2/25; col. 626.]

That was in February of this year. The noble Lord, Lord Purvis of Tweed, correctly asked, “What are we doing to start using these assets”? We have £25 billion. The Minister said that we are continuing to look at this. I appreciate that, clearly, we have to respect the law, but that is a lot of assets and a considerable amount of time has already passed since David Lammy made those comments. Are the best legal minds—and we have many of those in this country—looking at this? What are the real barriers? Surely, that would help the Ukrainians, who need the funding.

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

I do not think the noble Earl will find any disagreement on this side of the House. I take his encouragement to move at a faster pace.

[Viscount Chandos (Lab)]

I add my thanks and support for the Statement that my noble friend the Minister made, and raise a specific issue about this prospective use of frozen assets, whether the assets themselves or the income derived from them. A massive reconstruction challenge faces us in Ukraine, but there is also the important issue of sustainable media. I declare my interest as chair of the Thomson Foundation. I was privileged to be at the launch of the FCDO media freedom exhibition presided over by my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary. I just put in a plea that some part of the assets and the income from them be added to the modest but invaluable budget that there is to support media freedom.

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

I hear my noble friend, who also wants us to move on frozen assets. It is something on which we all agree. Along with our partners, we have managed to release the $50 billion in the ERA, but I completely hear that noble Lords want us to do more.

[Lord Bruce of Bennachie (LD)]

My Lords, I very much welcome what the Minister said and I am glad that we have cross-party support for this. I wonder whether I could inject a question relating to some of the comments that have been made by the American Administration about the possibility of easing sanctions against Russia, which President Trump has said on more than one occasion. Can I seek clarification and assurance from the Minister that our sanctions regime is under our control and subject to Parliament’s approval or disapproval for any change?

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

Our sanctions regime is the UK’s and we make our decisions in accordance with our laws. Although we do not comment on future designations or lifting designations, I have no reason to think that it is the UK Government’s intention or that we have any plans, until there is peace between Ukraine and Russia, and Putin withdraws his troops—as he could today—and stops this illegal war, to change our general approach to the use of sanctions on Russia.

House adjourned at 5.42 pm.

Russia (Sanctions) (EU Exit) (Amendment) Regulations 2025

Baroness Chapman of Darlington Excerpts

Wednesday 14th May 2025 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington]

That the Regulations laid before the House on 23 and 24 April be approved.

Relevant document: 24th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee. Considered in Grand Committee on 12 May.

Motions agreed.

Syria (Sanctions) (EU Exit) (Amendment) Regulations 2025

Baroness Chapman of Darlington Excerpts

Monday 12th May 2025 Grand Committee

Moved by

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington]

That the Grand Committee do consider the Syria (Sanctions) (EU Exit) (Amendment) Regulations 2025.

Relevant document: 24th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee

[The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Baroness Chapman of Darlington) (Lab)]

My Lords, these regulations amend the Syria (Sanctions) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019.

Five months after the fall of the brutal Assad regime, Syria stands at a crossroads. The country and its economy have been decimated by more than 13 years of conflict. Vital infrastructure has been destroyed. Some 90% of Syrians live below the poverty line. They desperately need support to recover and to rebuild their country.

On 24 April, this statutory instrument was laid, amending the Syria sanctions regulations, to promote and support Syria’s economic recovery. That instrument revoked specific UK sanctions measures on some sectors of the Syrian economy, including transport, trade, energy and finance. We have taken this action to help open up the Syrian financial system and to support the flow of essential investment in energy infrastructure—above all, in the electricity generation sector, which is vital for Syria’s recovery and reconstruction.

This is the latest step in a series of gradual actions designed to aid Syria’s recovery. On 12 February, the Treasury’s Office of Financial Sanctions Implementation issued a general licence allowing for payments to be made to support humanitarian delivery. The Statement made by the Minister for Europe in the other place on 13 February indicated the direction of travel for our Syria sanctions regulations. Following this, on 6 March, we announced the delisting of 24 Syrian entities that were previously used by the Assad regime to fund the oppression of the Syrian people, including the Central Bank of Syria, Syrian Arab Airlines and several energy companies.

Reflecting the momentous changes that have taken place in Syria since December, these amendments, as well as supporting the Syrian people in rebuilding their country and economy, bring the regulations up to date. In light of the fall of the Assad Government, the purposes of the regulations now prioritise the promotion of peace, stability and security in Syria, while encouraging respect for democracy and human rights. At the same time, they provide accountability for gross violations of human rights carried out by or on behalf of the Assad regime.

Alongside laying this instrument, we delisted a further 12 government and media entities that were previously sanctioned due to their links to Assad, and which we judge to no longer have an association with the former regime. These include the Syrian Ministry of Defence and Ministry of Interior. The Government remain determined to hold Bashar al-Assad and his associates accountable for their atrocious actions against the people of Syria. As such, we will ensure that sanctions imposed on 348 individuals and entities linked to the former regime remain in place.

A number of members have rightly raised deep concerns in the past about the horrific violence that erupted in coastal areas of Syria in early March, on which the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Middle East updated the other place in his Statement on 10 March. We have also seen violence in southern Syria at the end of April. Members may ask why we are lifting sanctions at this time. I reassure noble Lords that we will keep all our sanctions regimes under close review to ensure that they are used as a responsive tool, targeting those who bear responsibility for repression and human rights abuses. The revised regulations give the UK scope to deploy future sanctions should that become necessary.

The violence we have seen has given us an image of Syria’s future if the new leadership chooses the wrong path. They must protect the rights of all Syrians, to ensure that they are included in the political transition taking place. Without meaningful representation of Syria’s diverse communities, there can be no lasting peace and ultimately no better future for the country. This is a message we consistently emphasise in all the UK’s engagement with interim President al-Sharaa and Foreign Minister al-Shaibani. But there have also been some positive developments that suggest Syria could choose the right path towards peace and stability. The president’s actions in the aftermath of the violence in March, announcing the formation of a fact-finding committee to investigate those found responsible for crimes committed during the violence, are welcome.

We also welcome the formation of a new Syrian Government on 29 March and the commitment of the president to hold free and fair elections. We expect those appointed to the new Government to demonstrate a commitment to the protection of human rights, unfettered access for humanitarian aid, safe destruction of chemical weapons stockpiles and combating terrorism and extremism.

Further, we welcome the provisions made in the constitutional declaration on 13 March on freedom of expression, freedom of belief and women’s rights. It will be vital to ensure that Syria’s diverse communities are consulted as future iterations of the draft constitution are developed, so we will continue to call on the Syrian Government to prioritise inclusivity and representation in the building of state institutions and in further appointments, including to the legislative committee, and to set out a clear timeline for the next phase of the transition.

We are encouraged too by the positive and constructive engagement Syria has demonstrated with the UN Human Rights Council’s new resolution on Syria, which the UK co-tabled, and which renewed the mandate of the commission of inquiry for a further 12 months. The UK will continue our commitment to supporting accountability and human rights in Syria, including the right to freedom of religion or belief, and to advocate for their foundational place at the centre of the transitional process in Syria.

The appearance of the Foreign Minister at the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons’ executive council on 5 March was an historic moment, and we welcome commitments by the Syrian Government that they will protect chemical weapons sites and will not use chemical weapons under any circumstances. The OPCW’s two visits to Syria are also important steps forward. The OPCW reported that the Syrian Government extended all possible support and co-operation, including access to sites and people. We call on Syria to now move quickly towards declaration.

The agreement made by the president with the Syrian Democratic Forces on north-east Syria on 10 March was also a welcome development. We will continue to engage with all parties in support of an inclusive process as implementation of the agreement progresses.

Beyond our action on sanctions, we remain committed to helping meet Syria’s humanitarian needs. We have pledged up to £160 million of UK support in 2025, providing life-saving assistance to millions of Syrians inside Syria and across the region, as well as agriculture, livelihoods and education programmes to help Syrians to rebuild their lives.

To conclude, Syria’s transition remains delicately balanced. A step in the wrong direction could lead to instability and ultimately a collapse that would benefit Iran and Russia. It would have wider ramifications for our efforts to counter Daesh—we remain a member of the Global Coalition—and illegal migration, and risk destabilising the wider region. Promoting stability and prosperity in Syria through economic recovery is firmly in the UK’s national interest. It will bolster regional and UK security in line with the Government’s plan for change. The UK remains committed to the people of Syria and will continue to stand with them in building a more stable, free and prosperous future.

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

I thank the Minister for her balanced and nuanced tone on these measures. These measures, unlike the previous measures, give me a bit more concern. I agree with the Minister that we want to see a Syria at peace within its borders and beyond. There should be restraint from neighbouring countries in acting within its sovereign borders. The Minister was absolutely right that there are positive signals, signs and actions. But there are also those which have provided some worry in recent weeks.

When we previously debated measures that allowed humanitarian licences to be issued, my party supported them. That is fully justified; the humanitarian situation within Syria remains grave. The Government are to be commended for the humanitarian support that they are providing with our partners. That is especially the case when we are working with local civil society groups, which are working extremely hard. It is the best means by which we can avoid facilitating those who do not share the overall ambitions of the Government for civil rights, human rights and humanitarian needs.

This is one area where the structure of doing this through statutory instruments prevents, for example, probing amendments on areas we would like some further clarity on. The Minister referred to the recent attacks on the Druze and the concerns about the restrictions of rights for minorities. The Government were right to condemn these, and the Minister is right to do so. As she alluded to, this is the second set of incidents; it could highlight that these are not isolated incidents. There needs to be action as a result of the fact-finding inquiries to ensure that they are prevented from happening again.

The Minister will recall that I separately raised concerns in the Chamber about the work being done on the national curriculum. It seems to be reflecting sectarianism, continuing antisemitism, extremist language and violent content, and erasing women and minorities. This is in clear contradiction to the last bullet point in the Government’s ambitions for Syria, for

“the enjoyment of rights and freedoms in Syria without discrimination, including on the basis of a person’s sex, race, colour, language, religion, political or other opinion”.

The probing amendment I would seek to bring would ask for a report on the implementation of some of the policies and how they interact with the new liberties that the UK is providing, especially for financial services, financial markets and the operation of the private sector at the direction of those who, while they may not be part of the proscribed terrorist organisation, are working with them. The proscription in UK law is not only for the organisation itself, but those that facilitate, finance and support it. The catch-all is quite broad. I would hope that we would also have a report on what the ongoing assessment is on proscription. When will it be the time that there is a view that that proscription should be lifted overall?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for introducing this important statutory instrument. I share some of the concerns expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Purvis. The legislation before us amends the Syria (Sanctions) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 to reflect the developments following the fall of President Bashar al-Assad’s regime in December last year. The stated intention is to support Syria’s recovery while maintaining pressure on those responsible for past atrocities.

As the Minister outlined, the instrument revokes several key sanctions that were originally imposed to constrain the Assad regime. These include restrictions on aircraft operated by Syrian Arab Airlines, prohibitions on investment in Syria’s energy sector and bans on trade involving aviation fuel, crude oil and related technologies. The rationale is that lifting restrictions will facilitate economic recovery. Crucially, prohibitions remain in place on military goods, chemical weapons and surveillance equipment, signalling continued vigilance on matters of security.

These are indeed sensitive and consequential decisions. Although I think we all recognise the goal of supporting Syria’s reconstruction, the question must be asked: on what grounds have the Government determined that the time is now right to lift these specific sanctions? Syria remains an unstable, fractured state, and many individuals and networks once aligned with the regime retain significant power—as, of course, do several elements of al-Qaeda.

Accountability must also remain at the forefront. The UK has rightly condemned the human rights violations committed under the Assad regime, which was truly awful, but how does this instrument ensure that those responsible are prevented from benefiting from sanctions relief? What mechanisms are in place to pursue justice and guard against the erosion of international human rights standards?

We also seek clarity on the broader strategic approach. The US and the EU have taken carefully calibrated steps in adjusting their sanctions—some temporary, some conditional. Have the Government engaged in consultation with our international partners? Are these measures aligned with a co-ordinated international effort, or do they mark a unilateral shift in approach?

Given that the instrument follows earlier amendments that eased restrictions to facilitate humanitarian aid and adjust financial services, will the Minister clarify whether we are now entering a broader phase of graduated sanctions relief? If so, what specific benchmarks have been put in place to justify this latest easing of measures, and under what conditions do the Government foresee making further changes?

There is also the role of Iran to consider. The Assad regime did not fall in isolation. Iranian military and financial support helped sustain it, and Iran continues to exert influence across Syria’s political and security landscape. Does this statutory instrument reflect a broader diplomatic position towards Iran’s activities in the region? What role does the UK intend to play in countering destabilising external actors?

Finally, we must ask who will benefit from these changes. If the goal, which I share, is to support ordinary Syrians—those who have borne the brunt of over a decade of war—how will the Government ensure that economic relief does not simply entrench new elites or resurrect old networks under new names?

If the sanctions regime is to evolve, it must do so with clarity, caution and accountability, guided by the principle that peace cannot come at the expense of justice. I am sure the Minister will tell us that these matters are always kept under review. I have sat in her chair in the past and have been passed notes by officials which tell me that everything in government is always up for review and kept under review, and can always be changed. That is a truism, so I hope the Minister will not revert to telling us that again in response to these questions.

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

How can the noble Lord read from that distance?

I thank noble Lords for what they had to say; it is completely understandable, and both noble Lords are right to raise their questions and concerns. I accept that this is a judgment that we have made. Both noble Lords indicated that they understand that we made it because the best prospect for the people of Syria, and to deliver the stable peace and the inclusive and representative democracy that we wish to see, is through economic growth and stability. It is just not possible for the fledgling Government in Damascus to be able to deliver that while these sanctions remain in place.

Of course, we work closely with our international partners. I would not say that we co-ordinate as such, but we work very closely. As noble Lords said, the EU has eased some of its sanctions; we have gone one step further today. We think that this is the right approach. We have the flexibility to be able to keep this under review, as noble Lords knew I would say. It is perfectly right for the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, to say, “Yes, but these are different, so there needs to be a different exercise of that constant reviewing as far as these sanctions are concerned”. I think that is right and I commit that we will do that.

As regards future opportunities to discuss this in the House, I do not know if I can instigate that—my Whip is sitting here thinking, “Don’t you dare”—but I think it would be a good thing to have a debate on Syria generally in the near future. I know that noble Lords are wily enough to figure out how they could bring about such a thing.

Some of the sanctions that we had were specifically tied to Assad, so, given that he is no longer there, we needed to take a fresh look at this. Now that we have that in these regulations, we are able to make further designations—although obviously we do not comment on that or make any predictions. However, that capability is there.

As noble Lords said, it is true that there are other states who wish to exert influence and bring about instability in Syria. That is our strong view and that of regional partners who are hosting a large number of Syrian refugees at the moment. They have some support from the international community but nevertheless, it imposes a huge strain on them. In Jordan, I met Syrian refugees who desperately want to go home and they asked us about our sanctions regime. They know that the only way that they are going to be able to safely return is if there is a stable Government in Syria, and that requires the ability to grow a stable economy. They know that cannot happen quickly. They know that their children’s education, their healthcare and their ability to support themselves depend on it, and they want to see the international community stepping up and being active in its support for the new Cabinet and Government in Syria.

That is not without qualification, and noble Lords must hold this Government to account on that—I am glad that the noble Lord has indicated that they will do so. It is a precarious time for Syria, but I believe this is the best hope and may be the only chance we get to build the stable country that the Syrian people need and so deserve. If we do not do everything we can to support them at this moment, we may well find ourselves looking at a bigger disaster than we have seen in the region for a very long time, and wishing that we had been a bit more proactive at this point. That is why the Government are taking those decisions, while accepting what noble Lords have said and the legitimate questions that they put to me.

To conclude, I thank the noble Lords for their insightful contributions, and for the continued cross-party support for the sanctions regime more generally. The Government are committed to keeping our sanctions up to date and supporting Syria as it takes steps towards a more peaceful, more prosperous and more hopeful future. I know many noble Lords will agree that this is the future that the Syrian people deserve. I beg to move.

Motion agreed.

Russia (Sanctions) (EU Exit) (Amendment) Regulations 2025

Baroness Chapman of Darlington Excerpts

Monday 12th May 2025 Grand Committee

Moved by

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington]

That the Grand Committee do consider the Russia (Sanctions) (EU Exit) (Amendment) Regulations 2025.

Relevant document: 24th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee

[The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Baroness Chapman of Darlington) (Lab)]

My Lords, these regulations amend the Russia (Sanctions) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019. This instrument was laid on 23 April under powers in the Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Act 2018. The measures in this instrument, subject to the “made affirmative” parliamentary procedure, entered into force on 24 April.

Sanctions are a powerful tool in our armoury. They play an important part in promoting peace and security abroad, upholding international rules and norms, and protecting our citizens at home. Since coming to power, this Government have ramped up action with our partners. This includes leading the way on targeting Russia’s revenues, bearing down on its military-industrial complex, and deterring and disrupting Iran’s support to Russia. Just last Friday, the Prime Minister announced a major package of sanctions to target the decrepit and dangerous shadow fleet carrying Russian oil. This is the largest package of sanctions against the shadow fleet, with 110 targets. According to some estimates, sanctions have crippled 200 ships—almost half of Putin’s dedicated fleet.

The Government’s support to Ukraine remains steadfast. Our total support for Ukraine now stands at £18 billion, including £3 billion a year of military aid, as well as our £2.26 billion contribution to the G7 extraordinary revenue acceleration loans scheme. Two-thirds of our extraordinary revenue acceleration scheme funding has now been disbursed and will support Ukraine to obtain vital military equipment. We are absolutely committed to securing a just and lasting peace in Ukraine, and maximising economic pressure on Russia is key to securing this. That is why we are continuing to introduce sanctions.

The UK has now sanctioned over 2,400 entities and individuals under our Russia regime, and international sanctions have deprived Putin of $450 billion since the invasion began. UK sanctions have also frustrated Russian trade. Russian imports into the UK have fallen by more than 98% compared to pre-invasion levels, and UK exports to Russia are down by more than 80%. We will maintain this relentless pressure on Putin, alongside our allies, to force him to the table and ensure that he engages seriously in negotiations.

We reiterate our call on Russia to accept a full, unconditional ceasefire in Ukraine to create space for talks on a just and lasting peace. We commend President Zelensky’s commitment to peace by expressing his openness to direct talks with Putin. That is why the Foreign Secretary is hosting the Weimar+ meeting in London with partners from across Europe at what is a key moment for Ukraine and the collective security of our continent. The time is now for Putin to come to the table and for Russia to show that it is serious about ending this war or face the consequences.

The UK stands ready to ratchet up the pressure on Russia so that it ends its brutal war of aggression. This instrument allows us to go even further in our efforts to target Russia’s revenue streams and prevent the Kremlin from building its military and industrial capabilities. It introduces a package of over 150 new trade sanctions. This includes new, innovative measures that will prevent UK expertise being used in Russia’s defence and energy sectors. It will deny Russia sophisticated UK technology and software, and it will expand our prohibitions with the aim of further constraining Russia’s economic growth.

I now turn to each measure in this instrument. First, the instrument introduces new export prohibitions on a wide range of goods, including chemicals, plastics, metals, machinery and electronics. These prohibitions will deny Russia the means to procure products that have military and industrial uses. Secondly, we are extending our prohibitions on the transfer of technology, applying the prohibitions to a broader set of technology related to goods that are important for Russia’s military-industrial sectors and for its economic development. Through these measures, we are removing UK expertise, whether that is contained in intellectual property, blueprints or industrial know-how, from critical supply chains.

Thirdly, the instrument will ban the transfer of software relating to business enterprise, industrial design and oil and gas exploration and production. Putin relies on energy production and exports to fuel his war economy. Therefore, the aim of these sanctions is to make key sectors of the Russian economy less productive.

Fourthly, we are banning the import of Russian synthetic diamonds that have been processed in third countries, and helium. These target future funding sources that Russia is developing, as well as potential circumvention routes.

Finally, this instrument clarifies the enforcement responsibilities for a small number of trade sanctions on Russia. This will enable DBT’s Office of Trade Sanctions Implementation to enforce certain trade sanctions offences and refer serious offences to HMRC for criminal enforcement consideration.

To conclude, the Government remain committed to European security, and committed to standing up for the values of democracy and the rule of law, values which continue to be attacked by Russia. Sanctions, including this trade package, are a key part of our efforts. I beg to move.

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for outlining in clear turns what the Government are doing. We support these measures. The Government are rightly continuously moving to ensure that any previous omissions are corrected, as these instruments do, that new and emerging technologies are covered, as these instruments do, and to ensure that there is a watching brief on the circumvention and operation of third countries, as these instruments also do. I will ask the Minister a couple of questions, but I think we all hope that the diplomatic work being done at the moment will bring about a ceasefire on terms that benefit Ukraine, its integrity and sovereignty.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

My Lords, it will come as no surprise to the Minister to know that we on these Benches continue to support strong, targeted sanctions in response to Russia’s illegal and brutal invasion of Ukraine. Since 2022, the UK, alongside our allies, has imposed an unprecedented range of sanctions to weaken Russia’s war machine. There are clearly some concerns; we would like to see further action taken, with regard to enforcement and the shadow fleet, et cetera—I agree with the previous speaker.

Despite these efforts, Russia has continued its aggression, often working through third countries and illicit networks to bypass existing sanctions. The persistence of these efforts underlines the importance of closing loopholes, keeping sanctions up to date and aligning with our international partners.

As the Minister set out, these provisions aim to tighten and expand the existing sanctions framework. One key element is the expansion of export-related goods, including chemicals, plastics, metals, machinery and electronics. It is clear that these have potential military applications, and we support their inclusion. Notably, even items such as video game controllers are now being restricted, due to their reported use in piloting drones. I suspect Russia probably will not have difficulty in obtaining those from other sources, but nevertheless it is important to make the effort. Can the Minister clarify how these additions were identified? How often is the department reviewing product categories to ensure that sanctions keep pace with technological adaptation?

The instrument also brings in new restrictions on the transfer of software and technology, not only physically, but through intangible means such as downloads and cloud access. This is an important evolution of the regime, particularly as cloud-based platforms become more central to global business and infrastructure. However, it does again prompt the question of how we are going to enforce such sanctions when there is no physical movement of goods. Does the Minister have confidence that our enforcement bodies have the technical capacity to monitor compliance with these intangible software restrictions? Are businesses being given clear guidance on what is now prohibited?

On import bans, we note the Government’s decision to sanction synthetic diamonds processed in third countries, building on the ban already in place for natural stones. While I suspect that Russia is not a major producer of synthetic diamonds, this appears aimed at closing a circumvention route. What evidence does the Government have that synthetic diamonds are being used to sidestep the existing sanctions on natural stones? How are we working with allies to enforce traceability and verification?

We also note the inclusion of helium and helium-3 in the list of banned imports. This, too, is framed as a pre-emptive step, anticipating the growth of helium as a potential revenue stream for Russia in future. Will the Minister please confirm whether there is current evidence of Russia scaling up helium exports, or is this purely a precautionary measure?

There are also some important technical clarifications in the SI, including the correction of omitted offences and clearer enforcement responsibilities across government departments. Although these may seem fairly minor, such details are vital to effective enforcement. Will the Minister please confirm whether further regulatory gaps are under review, particularly given the pace at which circumvention technology is evolving?

With those few questions, we support the intent behind these measures. They reflect an ongoing commitment to tightening the UK’s sanctions regime and maintaining pressure on the Russian Government. But sanctions can be only as effective as the enforcement and adaptation measures. As Russia continues to develop complex workarounds—from third-country trade to its unregulated shadow fleet—we, the sanctioning countries, have to be equally agile. That includes reviewing measures regularly, ensuring that departments have the capacity to act and strengthening international co-operation. In that spirit, will the Minister please say more about how the Government are assessing the real-world impact of sanctions—not just in terms of goods restricted but in terms of their broader economic and strategic effect on Russia’s capacity to wage war? We believe that these regulations are a step in the right direction, but they must be part of a broader, joined-up and rigorously enforced sanctions strategy.

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank both noble Lords for their contributions and broad support for these measures. The measures introduced by this instrument show how the UK continues to use its powers to apply further pressure on Putin, to help secure an enduring peace and to show that we remain fully behind Ukraine.

This instrument is one part of a broader cross-government effort on sanctions. We are leading the way on sanctioning Russia’s shadow fleet and continue to target Russia’s military suppliers and kleptocrats. We are going after those who support Russia in circumventing UK and partner sanctions, using all the tools in our arsenal to stop the supply of critical military equipment to Russia. This has included designating bad actors re-exporting sanctioned Western goods to Russia and working with our allies to crack down on the illicit trade of advanced machine tools.

We will continue to engage with our financial institutions and businesses so that they have the information they need to comply with our sanctions. The Government are committed to ensuring robust sanctions enforcement. To this end, with the support of ministerial colleagues, we launched a cross-government review of sanctions at the first small ministerial group on enforcement in October. The review concluded in April and—I think this will be of interest to noble Lords opposite—Parliament will shortly be updated on the review conclusions, alongside publication. I think that will involve a Statement to Parliament; I am not completely sure but, if it does, perhaps we could get into those issues a bit more at that point.

On the issue of the OTSI and HMRC, and how that operates in practice, I am very happy to organise another briefing for any noble Lords who are interested; that is a really good suggestion. I expect that it will be quite in-depth and technical; I know the noble Lord would like nothing better than that, so we will make sure that it happens as soon as we can arrange it.

We work very closely with partners on the shadow fleet. The noble Lord alluded to diplomatic efforts. We raise these issues constantly; I myself have raised them with partners who have had vessels involved in this, and they have taken action as a consequence of that. Sanctions are an important tool that we have, but they are far from the only tool.

Both noble Lords were quite right to remind us how important enforcement is. Although we do not comment on future designations, clearly, we keep all of this under review. We are looking at any regulatory gaps that there may be, and we will continue to take further measures as and when we need to; I do not anticipate that this is the last time we will stand here introducing these sorts of measures. I thank both noble Lords for their consistent support on these issues. I agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, said on the issues of the ceasefire and the behaviour of Putin. I thought that his remarks about Zelensky were well made, and I agree with them.

The UK has transformed its use of sanctions. The Government are committed to continuing to strengthen the effectiveness of our sanctions regimes, their implementation and enforcement; and to reviewing their ongoing appropriateness in changing foreign policy contexts. We will continue to put pressure on Russia, as it is now time for Putin to come to the table and for Russia to show that it is serious about ending the war—or face the consequences. Once again, I thank noble Lords for their contributions and for the continued cross-party support for the sanctions regimes.

Motion agreed.

Palestinian Authority Prime Minister Visit

Baroness Chapman of Darlington Excerpts

Tuesday 29th April 2025 Lords Chamber

[The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Baroness Chapman of Darlington) (Lab)]

My Lords, with the leave of the House, I will now repeat a Statement made in the other place earlier today by Minister Falconer. The Statement is as follows:

“Yesterday, at the invitation of the Government, the Palestinian Authority Prime Minister, Dr Mohammad Mustafa, visited the United Kingdom. Prime Minister Mustafa was accompanied by Minister of State for Foreign Affairs Varsen Aghabekian and Minister of Health Dr Maged Abu Ramadan. The Prime Minister and Foreign Secretary both held meetings with Prime Minister Mustafa yesterday and I was delighted to meet him again this morning. This visit reflects the UK’s steadfast support for the Palestinian Authority and the Palestinian people at this critical juncture in the Occupied Palestinian Territories.

During the visit, we reaffirmed our unwavering commitment to advancing a two-state solution as the only pathway to achieving a just and lasting peace in the Middle East, where Israelis and Palestinians can live side by side in peace, dignity and security. We are clear that the Palestinian people have an inalienable right of self-determination, including to independent statehood.

This Government are committed to strengthening our bilateral relations with the Palestinian Authority. The PA is the only legitimate governing entity in the Occupied Palestinian Territories, and it is important that Gaza and the West Bank are reunified under its authority. The UK is clear that the PA must have a central role in the next phase in Gaza. The UK is also clear that there can be no role for Hamas in the future of Gaza. We have been clear: Hamas must immediately release the hostages and relinquish control of Gaza. Israelis must be able to live in security next to their Palestinian neighbours, and 7 October must never be repeated.

The Foreign Secretary and Prime Minister Mustafa signed a landmark memorandum of understanding to enhance the bilateral partnership between our two Governments. The memorandum of understanding established a new framework to guide and enhance the strategic partnership and high-level dialogue across areas of mutual interest and benefit, including economic development and institutional reform.

As part of our meetings with Prime Minister Mustafa, we discussed the gravity of the situation in Gaza, the West Bank and east Jerusalem. We condemned the appalling suffering of civilians in Gaza and agreed on the urgent need for a return to a ceasefire in Gaza, with the release of hostages and unblocking of aid. Only diplomacy, not more bloodshed, will achieve long-term peace.

We also shared our alarm at the heightened tension in the West Bank. We reiterated our clear condemnation of Israeli settlements, which are illegal under international law and harm the prospect of a future Palestinian state. We called for an end to settlement expansion and settler violence. We are also clear that Israel must release frozen Palestinian Authority funds.

Prime Minister Mustafa outlined the essential reforms that the Palestinian Authority is currently undertaking. The UK fully supports the implementation of the much-needed reforms, including through providing technical assistance. These reforms will strengthen financial sustainability and economic development, enhance the transparency and efficiency of governance and service delivery and promote peaceful coexistence with neighbouring countries. As part of our MoU, the Palestinian Authority underlined its commitment to delivering its reform agenda in full as a matter of priority.

As part of this visit, we also announced a £101 million package of support for the Occupied Palestinian Territories. This will be directed at humanitarian relief, support for Palestinian economic development and strengthening Palestinian Authority governance and reform.

As the Foreign Secretary made clear, we will not give up on a two-state solution, with a Palestinian state and Israel living side by side in peace, dignity and security. This visit is a significant step in strengthening our relationship with the Palestinian Authority—a key partner for peace in the Middle East—at this critical moment.”

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Janke (LD)]

My Lords, we too welcome the meeting of the UK Government with the Palestinian Prime Minister Mustafa and his colleagues. We also welcome the memorandum of understanding, and the restatement of commitment to the two-state solution and the involvement of the Palestinian Authority in the future of Gaza, as well as the strategic partnership based on economic development and institutional reform. This is a forward-looking development. It does, however, raise some questions, particularly of commitment. What discussions have the UK Government had with the United States on the centrality of Palestinian involvement in the future of Gaza? In the light of the remarks made by President Trump, it does not look to be a very deliverable proposal.

The atrocities being committed in Gaza on civilians, many of them women and children, together with the systematic destruction of the health system, continue to shock the world. There is no fully functioning hospital in Gaza despite the indiscriminate bombing and shooting of Palestinians and the devastating injuries that result. Can the Minister say whether future progress on the memorandum of understanding may require the UK to stop arming Israel to carry out indiscriminate killing and destruction in Gaza?

What commitment did the UK Government make to Prime Minister Mustafa to do all in their power to end the blockade of humanitarian aid into Gaza, where, after 50 days of blockade, supplies have run out and civilians, including large numbers of children, are starving to death, even though supplies of crucial food and water are readily available over the border. [Interruption.] I hear that I am being heckled from a sedentary position. I believe that this is not in order in this House. We heard reports from the humanitarian agencies in Gaza that there is not even enough water to make formula food for babies, and that babies are dying as well. The noble Lord may shake his head; if he has evidence to the contrary, I would like to see it.

In the light of the deliberations of the ICJ, will the UK Government commit to abiding by the court’s judgment? Commitment to the two-state solution will be worth little if further action of the Israeli Government should be to annex the illegally occupied West Bank. In the light of statements made by Israeli Ministers Smotrich and Ben-Gvir and increasing violence supported by the IDF, what are the UK Government doing to ensure that this does not happen? In the light of the accelerating violence, will the UK sanction further violent settlers?

The Labour manifesto contained a commitment to recognise the Palestinian state, but the Government have so far failed to do so. In 2014, the House of Commons voted to recognise the Palestinian state, and the state of Palestine is recognised as a sovereign state by 148 of the 193 member states of the United Nations, or just over 75% of all UN members. The Government have said that they will recognise Palestine when this is most conducive to a peace process, but if not now, can the Minister say what factors must change for this to happen? We read that France is planning recognition at the June reconstruction conference, and international momentum is now growing. The UK risks missing a crucial moment to support a just resolution and recognise its own responsibility in the history of the current context.

The meeting and its outcome are to be welcomed, but a very significant sign of good faith would be for the UK to recognise the inalienable right of the Palestinians to have their own internationally recognised state and homeland. I hope that the Minister will restate the Government’s commitment on this fundamental principle, and that we will see action on it in the near future.

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

My Lords, I welcome the support that we have had from both Front Benches for the two-state solution, and the support for the meeting that was held.

I have to say that we agree with the Front Bench opposite on the issue of recognition. Our position has been consistent, in that we will recognise Palestine as part of a process at a moment when we judge that it is most conducive to peace. I do not think that is now. It may be, as I was asked, the culmination of a process, or it may come at some point within a process. As noble Lords have said, it would be a significant step. It is something you can do only once, so it is important that you pick the moment to do it, at a time when you will have the greatest impact.

On the blocking of aid, the denial of essential humanitarian assistance to the civilian population is appalling. Access to aid is an area where our international humanitarian law assessments continue to raise concerns about possible breaches. Blocking goods, supplies and power entering Gaza risks breaching international humanitarian law. It should not be happening, and we are doing everything we can to alleviate the situation. The Foreign Secretary continues to raise these issues with his counterparts, including most recently at a meeting with the Foreign Minister on 15 April. We continue to call publicly and privately on the Government of Israel to abide by their international obligations when it comes to humanitarian assistance to the population in Gaza.

I was asked about our ministerial engagement with the US. Since hostilities resumed, the Foreign Secretary has spoken to Secretary Rubio, special envoy Steve Witkoff, the Israeli Foreign Minister, the Israeli Minister for Strategic Affairs, the EU high representative and the UN emergency relief co-ordinator, Tom Fletcher. We are using every piece of influence that we can to try to get aid reinstated; we think the humanitarian situation is dire and getting more serious by the day, so we will continue to do that.

We are working on technical assistance with the Palestinian Authority. I met with the Finance Minister last week, and I know these are serious people trying to do the right thing in incredibly difficult circumstances. It is important that we continue to support people who want to see a peaceful resolution and a two-state solution, and I am glad that we are able to do what we can there. We have secured just over £100 million in aid to support that work but, as of today, the main concern that we all have is getting the remaining hostages released, reinstating the ceasefire and ensuring access for aid back into Gaza.

[Baroness Foster of Oxton (Con)]

My Lords, on 5 and 24 March I asked the Minister to clarify details of the oversight in place to monitor the £41 million of UK taxpayers’ money that we had donated for humanitarian aid to UNRWA. I am still none the wiser. I now note that after this meeting a further £101 million is being given to the Palestinian Authority, a corrupt organisation that supported the 7 October attacks on Israel, that has no control over Hamas or the several terrorist groups on the West Bank, and that has done nothing to call for the release of the 59 hostages—which is a war crime—or the laying down of weapons by Hamas. So when will the Minister provide the House with the information that I have twice requested? How can this Government justify donating a further £101 million to that terrorist-supporting organisation? Finally, where exactly would the proposed Palestinian state be located?

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

I genuinely do not think the tone of that is at all helpful to what we are all trying to achieve here, which is peace and a two-state solution. Perhaps the noble Baroness is not seeking a two-state solution, I do not know. We do not recognise her characterisation of the Palestinian Authority. I met with them myself last week, and I would encourage her to do that should she wish to educate herself about this.

[Baroness Foster of Oxton (Con)]

My Lords—

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

I am answering the question that the noble Baroness asked. The reason we are donating aid is that children are starving and people are being displaced. Around 90% of the population has been displaced and aid is needed. We encourage Israel to enable that aid to reach the people who need it, and to do that immediately.

[Baroness Levitt (Lab)]

My Lords, I welcome the Statement from the Minister and the action of the Government, particularly in signing the memorandum of understanding, which advances the issues that we face every night on our televisions. I associate myself with the comments made by the noble Baroness across the Chamber about the humanitarian issues that are happening as we speak. There is immense human suffering taking place. I welcome the emphasis that the Government have now placed on beginning to tackle that.

My noble friend the Minister has pre-empted a number of the questions I wanted to ask about what we are doing to work internationally to try to lift what is, in effect, a blockade on help and assistance going to the Palestinian people. Therefore, can she give us more information about the £101 million that has been shared with the Palestinian Authority? In stark contrast to the previous contribution, I think it will be welcomed broadly across the country as recognition of the suffering that we are witnessing and of the investment the Palestinian people properly deserve. Can the Minister share with the House in future the progress of that spend and communicate to the Palestinian Authority and Prime Minister Mustafa the support that they have in this Chamber? We recognise the plight of the Palestinian people and that the best way to solve these immense problems, as the Minister said, is shared understanding.

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

I thank my noble friend for her question, her long-standing interest in this topic and the thoughtful way she goes about raising these issues. We have announced funding recently, but this comes after the money that was announced for the OPTs in 2024-25. This included £41 million for UNRWA, providing vital services to civilians in Gaza.

In answer to the question about why we are providing this support now and to the Palestinian Authority, I invite noble Lords who are concerned about this to consider who it might be that would be leading this work in Gaza if it were not for the people who are currently doing it. They are mostly technocrats who had other roles, who have come back and want to do the right thing by their population. They are deserving of our support. The reason we have had to put additional aid in is, frankly, the absolutely desperate situation that civilians—who have had no role in any of the violence—find themselves in.

[Lord Bellingham (Con)]

My Lords, I welcome the Minister’s Statement and the Government’s announcement of the aid package. Would the Minister agree that most of the Israeli settlers in the West Bank have contributed significantly to the local economy, farming, small businesses and enterprise? However, if you believe in the two-state solution, as the Minister has mentioned on four occasions—my noble friend also mentioned it on four occasions, and I support it strongly—then surely the logic is that these settlers must accept that their future lies certainly as residents, and maybe as citizens, of a Palestinian sovereign state. What representations have HMG made to the Israeli Government on this point?

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

Our position is that the settlements are illegal under international law and harm prospects of a two-state solution. Settlements do not offer security to either Israel or Palestinians. The settlement expansion and violence that we see has reached record levels. The Israeli Government seized more of the West Bank in 2024 than in the past 20 years, and we think that is completely unacceptable.

[Lord Evans of Rainow (Con)]

Given that Israel’s peace agreements with the UAE, Bahrain, Egypt and Jordan have all been the product of direct negotiations between the relevant parties, does the Minister agree that this model has a proven track record of delivering peace and security in the region, and that unilateral declarations will not resolve the Israel-Palestinian conflict?

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

I am generally not in favour of diplomacy by declaration. I think that the right way to go about this is negotiation, and we encourage all parties who either involve themselves directly or may have influence over the parties who are involved to encourage the reinstatement of the ceasefire and peace and negotiations to proceed, as the noble Lord says.

[Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)]

My Lords, I declare an interest as chairman of Jerusalem Foundation in the UK, and, as such, that I was in Jerusalem earlier this month. To pre-empt an answer the Minister might give me: yes, I have been to Ramallah; yes, I have talked to the Palestinian Authority; and yes, I have talked most recently to east Jerusalemites. The east Jerusalemites I have talked to specifically state that they have no confidence in the Palestinian Authority, many of whom voiced support for Hamas’s actions. Was this raised with the Prime Minister at the meeting? Likewise, they have no confidence in a PA that have lost control over large parts of the West Bank—we now find that Jenin is, in effect, controlled by Iranian support. Was this raised with the Prime Minister, and what assessment have HMG made of its impact?

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

These issues are raised. I do not think anybody is trying to pretend that the Palestinian Authority are functioning as a normal Government would like to—how could they? We are not naive about this. The point is, if not the Palestinian Authority, then who? If you believe in a two-state solution, there will need to be some form of governance at some point—we hope in the near future. The assessment of this Government, His Majesty’s Opposition, the Liberal Democrats and many others in both Houses is that working to build a relationship with the Palestinian Authority—to increase their capacity and make them into the competent Government that we want them to be—is the best option that we have at this stage.

[Lord Goodman of Wycombe (Con)]

This visit took place against a background of considerable domestic tension over events in the Middle East, sometimes, though not invariably or even mostly, between British Jews and British Muslims. Can the Minister tell us what discussions she has had with her colleagues in the Communities Department about the means of easing those tensions? If I may add a rider, what discussions has she had with the department about tensions between our Indian-origin communities and Pakistan-origin communities over the very serious situation relating to Kashmir?

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

That is a really important question. I speak regularly about this issue to our Faith Minister in the Department for Housing, Communities and Local Government , my noble friend Lord Khan. It is a sad fact that we see international events played out on our streets, in our schools and in communities in this country. Whereas debate and free speech are completely legitimate, we are concerned about some of the more abusive behaviour and victimisation that has taken place, and the rise in Islamophobia and antisemitism. We work very closely across departments to make sure that we are doing what we need to do. It is not something that we used to see quite as much as we do today, and we see it played out in our politics, for reasons that we can all try our best to understand. It is very important that the noble Lord raised that and reminds us about it.

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement, in which I noticed the following sentence:

“Prime Minister Mustafa outlined the essential reforms that the Palestinian Authority are currently undertaking”.


Can the Minister help us by identifying what essential reforms he referred to?

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

There are many reforms, as noble Lords can imagine, that the Palestinian Authority know that they need to make. The conversations that I have had have centred on their need to develop their ability to manage money responsibly and how they raise money and accesses funds to be able to deliver the services that they are going to have to deliver in the future. That may feel like high-ambition work from where we are today, and I think they would accept that, but we have to start somewhere, and it is right that we are providing the assistance that we are.

[Baroness Foster of Oxton (Con)]

My Lords, on the Minister’s comments regarding my questions, we on this side of the House are here to scrutinise what the Government are doing, as was the case when we were in power as a Conservative Government. The Minister may not like what I said, but it is factual. To infer that I said what I said because I have no knowledge of the region or perhaps have never visited or met the Palestinian Authority—which I have; I have been visiting Israel over the last 50 years—I find rather offensive, frankly. She may not have the facts at hand to reply to the questions I asked on oversight of the amount of money that the taxpayer is putting into UNRWA, and now this latest £101 million, but it would nevertheless be a courtesy to say that she will write to me or at least inform the House of the details that I have asked for.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

My Lords, if I wanted to write to the noble Baroness, I would have said that I was going to write to her. It is up to her to challenge me—I am here for that; I enjoy it and that is what I want to do—but it is up to me to decide whether I like what she says or not.

[Lord Bellingham (Con)]

My Lords, I would like to take the question I asked a bit further. If we accept that the settlers have contributed a great deal and invested heavily, what is the ideal outcome? Is it that they are forced to move if we have a Palestinian state, or would it be better if they stayed and worked with a new Palestinian Authority at some stage in the future, maybe a long way off? It is our avowed mission and wish to see this two-state solution take place.

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

Yes, it absolutely is. I am careful not to make comments that might pre-empt or get ahead of negotiations. That would not be a good idea for me as a Minister. The issues that the noble Lord raises are incredibly important and he is right to raise them, but they are probably best dealt with through a process of negotiation, which I hope we can enter into sooner rather than later.

[Lord Austin of Dudley (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, the central problem in the progress we all want to see in the peace process and the two-state solution that the Government and the Opposition are committed to has been Palestinian terrorism, its attacks on Israel and Israel’s concerns about its security. As I understand it, section 4 of the MoU details security co-operation between the UK and the Palestinian Authority. Can the Minister tell us more about what confidence the Government have in the Palestinian Authority’s capacity to address the growing threat posed by Palestinian extremist groups and terrorists in the West Bank?

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

My noble friend asks about the capacity and capability of the Palestinian Authority. It is fair to say that it does not today have the capability that he describes, and I do not think it would claim to. That is why we have set about this work on long-term security in the region and the understanding that the Palestinian Authority needs reform. Our support is designed to help it address the very real challenges, which I think we all recognise, through concrete reforms. That includes democratic renewal, widening civic space, improving accountability and transparency and fighting corruption. He is right to make that point; that is why we are undertaking the work that we are.

[Lord Leigh of Hurley]

My Lords, within our mutual aspiration for a two-state solution at some time—and it will be a long time in the future—clearly a big key is education. One of the things that really vexes and troubles the Jewish community in the United Kingdom is evidence of Palestinian textbooks that incite violence and encourage antisemitism. There are schools in Jerusalem which are the reverse of this. For example, there is the Hand in Hand school, financed by British financiers, in which half the pupils are Arab and half are Jewish, and they work together. Was the issue of these textbooks discussed in the meeting with the Prime Minister and, if not, can it be raised, because it is so important?

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

I am familiar with this issue. I do not know if it was specifically mentioned at the meeting, but I do know that it is raised regularly by Ministers because we recognise the concern around it.

Ukraine War: London Talks

Baroness Chapman of Darlington Excerpts

Monday 28th April 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

My Lords, I have said it before, but I will say it again: these Benches are supportive of the Government’s action, continuing the work that we started in government, in full support of and solidarity with the people of Ukraine. This morning has seen an announcement from Putin of another temporary ceasefire. Time will tell as to whether this is just another cynical Russian delaying tactic, but I will be interested in the Government’s views on this development. Also, will the noble Baroness update the House on the progress of the so-called coalition of the willing? It seems to have gone quiet recently. Is this initiative still progressing and what role does she see it playing in any eventual peace settlement?

[The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Baroness Chapman of Darlington) (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lord for again stating his support for and solidarity with the Government on the issue of Ukraine. What do we think about Putin’s claims for a ceasefire? There is an option open to the Russian leadership which would lead to a ceasefire immediately. They do not have to promise one on a particular day or in a few days’ time; they could do it now. We could find no evidence of the ceasefire they said they were going to have at Easter, so we are sceptical. On the coalition of the willing, it is the right approach, and it continues. We do not do a running commentary on every piece of negotiation or diplomacy, and the noble Lord will understand why that is, but this Government—and, all credit to them, the Opposition—remain steadfast in our support for Ukraine.

[Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)]

The Easter truce seemed to be an opportunity for Vladimir Putin and his Government to trawl Hansard and work out which Members of the other place and your Lordships’ House needed to be sanctioned, so I start by declaring my interest as one of the people sanctioned by the Russian Government last week. I believe I have simply been doing my job as the Liberal Democrat defence spokesperson in your Lordships’ House, standing shoulder to shoulder with the Ukrainians, the official Opposition and the Government in saying that we must support Ukraine for as long as this war takes.

I certainly do not intend to change the rhetoric I have been using, but let me outline one of my concerns. When Russia invaded Georgia in 2008, initially there was international concern, but nobody now talks about the fact that Russia still occupies 20% of the territory. If some negotiated solution were to occur on the basis of the current Russian occupation of Ukraine, that, again, would involve about 20% of the territory. What signal does that send to Poland, the Baltic states and other Russian neighbours? Does it not say that we really need to keep standing up and supporting Ukraine, and stop Russia?

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

Our position on the territorial integrity of Ukraine is unchanged. On the issue of negotiated outcomes, we remain of the view that that is for Ukraine to decide and not for others to determine. As far as the sanctions against parliamentarians goes, I would wear that as a badge of honour if I were the noble Baroness. She does a very good job for her party and for the country when she stands up in this place and elsewhere in support of Ukraine, and although she does not need me to, I urge her to continue to do so.

[Lord Anderson of Swansea (Lab)]

My Lords, it is clear what advice President Trump is giving to President Zelensky in relation to the proposed plan. Does our advice to President Zelensky differ in any way from that of President Trump?

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

My noble friend is a wily operator in this House. We agree with the President of the United States in that we want to see peace and we want to see this conflict resolved. I would not characterise the nature of the conversations that Prime Minister Starmer has with President Zelensky as advice, and nor would I wish to comment on the similarities and differences—or anything else, really—in the nature of those private conversations.

[Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)]

My Lords, will the Minister confirm that the objective of President Putin in these matters is to bar Ukraine from ever being a member of NATO—in eternity—because were it to be encapsulated in an agreement under international law, Russia would have a veto on it? If that is the case, how does she consider that consistent with the Charter of the United Nations, which says that a member of the United Nations has the right to determine its own allies when it wishes?

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

As we have said in this Chamber many times, the intention of Russia is clearly to prevent Ukraine behaving as an independent sovereign state: it wants to choose Ukraine’s future for it, and that really is what this war is all about. We are firm in the view that Ukraine and the Ukrainians get to decide the future of their country, not Russia.

[Lord Howell of Guildford (Con)]

My Lords, we know that there is not the slightest chance of negotiation while Russia continues its systematic murder of Ukrainians. That is obvious, but does the Minister agree that, even if it came to some kind of initial negotiation, it will be bound to lay down only temporary arrangements of any kind because nobody can be trusted—and if it comes to the ceding of land, very temporary? These things will be under constant dispute for years ahead. But does she recall that two or three years ago, Moscow announced that it approved the idea of Luhansk and Donetsk as separate “independent” republics. Did that come into the negotiation, the discussion, at any point in recent days? It was not mentioned in the other place, yet I feel it is a piece of the jigsaw that may lead to possibilities.

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

I do not know, is the honest answer to that question. I do not think it would be helpful for us to pick over the details of what is said in these conversations, but we have a very clear position on the territorial integrity of Ukraine being sacrosanct and it being for the Ukrainians to determine the future geography of their country. That is a clear position and one we need to stick to and continue to restate.

[The Lord Bishop of Leeds]

My Lords, that position is very honourable, but the Minister said a moment ago that Russia should not determine the future of Ukraine. Should the United States?

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

It is for the people of Ukraine to determine their own future. That has been the bedrock of the position of this Government from the very beginning, and I do not see that changing.

[Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe (Lab)]

My Lords, while it is understandable that the Minister cannot say too much about the coalition of the willing, one thing is very clear: we will need feet on the ground in due course for peace in Ukraine. Might we start giving some thought to how we can raise the additional resources that will be needed there, and how we approach this? Maybe we should be talking about a peace corps and peace groups, rather than talking in old war terms; that might attract more people into the forces.

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

I remind noble Lords of the announcement that was made some weeks ago now about increasing defence spending—at the expense of my own overseas development budget. We are putting the additional resources into defence, and I think it right that we do that at this time, because we need to stand ready to do what we need to do to support Ukraine. Clearly, that is not just about people; it is about technology, cybersecurity, securing undersea cables and so on. A modern defence offer looks very different from how it may have looked in the past, but my noble friend is right to remind us that this is a long-standing commitment: we have just recently agreed a 100-year partnership with Ukraine.

[Lord Fox (LD)]

My Lords, last week in Grand Committee, we discussed in depth the 100-year partnership between Ukraine and the United Kingdom. Both during evidence and in that debate, the Government were very bullish about the opportunities, and the Minister herself has just talked about some of those. Which Government department will be co-ordinating the implementation of that partnership between our two countries, and when will we start to see the flesh on the bones of that? There is an awful lot of detail that still needs to be set out.

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

I think this is going to be done across departments. There are different chapters to the agreement and there will be different needs for different elements of it. The noble Lord is right: it needs to be fleshed out and more detail needs to be provided. However, we are committed to this: it is a 100-year arrangement, and we want to make progress on it. There are some things that are already happening, as the noble Lord knows. I look forward to coming back to the House with more information; I think there will be widespread support for it.

London Sudan Conference

Baroness Chapman of Darlington Excerpts

Monday 28th April 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

My Lords, the current situation in Sudan is truly appalling. Millions of Sudanese citizens have been internally displaced. Millions more have been forced to flee as refugees. Tens of thousands have been killed as a result of the awful violence in the region, which often seems designed to cause innocent people as much suffering as possible.

Can the Minister give us an update on how the conference went? Can she assure us that the UK will continue to work with the international community to ensure that the abhorrent atrocities that are being committed by both sides in Sudan are documented so that the perpetrators of those awful crimes can be held to account in the future?

[The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Baroness Chapman of Darlington) (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, for his agreement with us about the nature of the conflict in Sudan and, as he quite rightly said, the horrific impact it is having on civilians—not least on women and very young children, who have been subject to the most violent sexual attacks. I can assure him that we will continue to do everything we can to bring about a peaceful resolution to this conflict, difficult though that undoubtedly is.

The conference that we held in London during recess involved Egypt, Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Qatar, South Sudan, Chad, Kenya, Ethiopia and Uganda, as well as Norway, Canada, the USA, Switzerland, the UN and the League of Arab States. We hosted it alongside the African Union. This was a good step, and there was a co-chairs’ statement at the end. This is unlikely to be a situation that is resolved by one intervention such as a conference, but it is right for the Foreign Secretary to show leadership, bring people together and try to at least take the first steps towards improving the situation.

[Lord Oates (LD)]

My Lords, I declare my interest as chief executive of United Against Malnutrition & Hunger. I welcome the focus that the Government are giving to the Sudan crisis. However, the Minister will be aware of the critical need to scale up the humanitarian response before the rainy season starts in June, when humanitarian access will become even more difficult. In that context, could she expand on whether the conference concluded specific outcomes on humanitarian access, what the next steps are following the conference and how the Government will ensure that the additional —and welcome—humanitarian funding announced will get to the agencies on the ground as swiftly as possible?

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lord for raising the important issue of access for humanitarian support and aid. The conference was not designed as a pledging conference to raise money, but it did instigate the raising of £800 million towards supporting humanitarian work in Sudan for those who have been displaced. As he will know, there are many people who are now living in neighbouring countries in very difficult conditions. The safety of aid workers, access for aid and the protection of civilians were the three things that were agreed at the conference. We have committed to continuing to work to improve the situation on the ground, difficult though that is.

[Lord Browne of Ladyton (Lab)]

My Lords, last week I attended a meeting of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Women, Peace and Security, of which I am a member, on the subject of sexual and gender-based violence in Sudan. Panellists expressed their frustration at the absence of Sudanese civil society actors at the conference. Given the FCDO’s often expressed commitment to supporting civil society in such engagements, how will the Government incorporate their voices in future diplomatic initiatives?

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

That is a very good point. The conference is not our only effort; it was a one-day event that was focused on representatives from government, but I met a leading female civil society activist from Sudan very recently. The noble Lord is right that civil society organisations are often the very best with which to engage, because the context of getting support into Sudan is so difficult. We know that it is almost always women who bear the brunt in these situations, and it is vital that we continue to be reminded of that.

[The Lord Bishop of Leeds]

My Lords, there was much mention at the conference, given the statements that came out of it, of a rejection of external interference, but there were people there who are externally interfering, such as the United Arab Emirates and Egypt. Although the focus on humanitarian access is absolutely right, there is also the problem of gold, and that the conflict is being fuelled by the economic element of ownership and extraction of gold. Do the Government have any plans to approach the economic benefits to the warring parties as a way of stopping the conflict?

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

As many in this Chamber who have followed not just the events in Sudan but conflicts throughout recent history will appreciate, it is often a good thing to start conversations on areas where we can find agreement. That is why we focused on humanitarian aid and the protection of civilians. There are 30 million people in need of aid in the region, so that was the right thing to do. On the wider issues that the right reverend Prelate raises, our position is very clear that it is not right that third parties or other countries are involving themselves in this, and we urge them not to do so.

[Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)]

My Lords, following the killing on 12 April of nine international relief organisation workers at Zamzam displacement camp in northern Darfur, will the Minister look into reports today that a militia from the Rapid Support Forces has arrested 40 aid workers and 50 civilians during an evacuation at Zamzam? Building on what she has just said to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Leeds, how does she respond to Rosemary DiCarlo, the United Nations under-secretary for political and peacebuilding affairs, who said that

“if the parties have been able to sustain their confrontation, it is in no small part thanks to the material support they receive from outside the Sudan. These … flout the sanctions regime … thereby fueling the conflict. This is illegal, it is immoral and it must stop”?

What are we doing, therefore, to challenge the countries responsible for this trade in death and human misery, and to finally end it?

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

We are clear that the conflict needs to end and that anyone with any influence over any of the warring parties should use it to bring the conflict to a peaceful conclusion. I am happy to look into the reports—which I was not aware of—that the noble Lord just raised about recent events in Zamzam, and to get back to him about that.

[Lord Bellingham (Con)]

My Lords, is the Minister concerned that no contact group was set up for the conflict after the conference? Can she tell the House what assessment she has made of the withdrawal of USAID support?

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

Clearly, the withdrawal of USAID support is having an impact in many places around the world, and we are doing what we can. One of the outcomes from the conference, although not an aim of it, was that £800 million was raised, which is positive. But the noble Lord is right to raise the impact of the withdrawal of USAID as well. It is a mistake to impose a test of the success or failure of a conference such as the one we led that is about whether there was an agreed statement or a contact group. Clearly, ideally, you would have those things, but let us be realistic about where this is. If that became the test of a successful conference, I would venture to say that fewer leaders would take the steps that our Foreign Secretary did. This is protracted, long-standing and fiendishly difficult to resolve, but our Foreign Secretary cares deeply about it and wants to use his convening power to make progress. That is what he has done and will continue to do.

[Lord Boateng (Lab)]

My Lords, no one doubts for one moment the Minister’s sincerity and activity and those of her colleagues the Minister for Africa and the Foreign Secretary on this issue. But the reality is that, only yesterday, news came out of Omdurman that some 31 people, including women and children, were executed. It was not a question of being caught in crossfire; they were executed by the Rapid Support Forces. We know that the churches are actively engaged with the Islamic community in promoting conflict resolution and peacebuilding—the Holy Father gave ample evidence of this. So, if civil society was not represented adequately at the conference—and it was not—what practical steps of support will HMG give to faith-based groups to tackle this issue?

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

The reality is exactly as the noble Lord describes. This is the worst humanitarian situation on the planet at the moment. It gets too little attention, but this Government want to use their influence, multilaterally and with partners in the region, to improve it. He is right to say that we ought to work more closely with faith and civil society organisations. We are doing that and, where we can do more, we will.

Bosnia and Herzegovina

Baroness Chapman of Darlington Excerpts

Thursday 3rd April 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

My Lords, Britain has always been a steadfast supporter of the sovereignty of Bosnia and Herzegovina. I am pleased that the Government have continued that policy. Can the Minister update the House on the Government’s position on NATO membership for Bosnia and Herzegovina and whether we would support its application to join?

[The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Baroness Chapman of Darlington) (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lord for acknowledging that we continue in the way that his previous Government acted on this issue. On NATO membership, there is a great deal of work to do for Bosnia and Herzegovina, but we support that track in principle. We have been clear in our public statements and in our discussions with regional partners, including Minister Doughty’s calls with the Bosnian Foreign Minister on 10 March and with the high representative on 27 March, that the UK remains committed to supporting the territorial integrity of Bosnia and Herzegovina.

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

My Lords, this issue is central to our national security interests, whether on immigration, organised crime or resisting Russian interference. I pay tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Helic, whose work has been bringing these concerns to the British public, which is extremely important.

My question to the Development Minister is a development question; she will not be surprised that I ask it. The western Balkans freedom and resilience programme is now in its final year. It is a £31 million programme involving 20 local organisations all focused on supporting civil society, governance and resilience against interference, as well as building up social cohesion. Previously, I have asked the Minister for ODA programmes scored under official development assistance that are linked to our national security interests to be protected. Can the Minister state that there will be a future western Balkans freedom and resilience programme? If anything is critical to our wider security interests, it could be official development assistance in that area.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

I echo the noble Lord’s comments about the noble Baroness, Lady Helic. Her work has kept this House focused on the western Balkans over many years. On ODA and protecting various streams of work, I wrote to the International Development Committee in the other place last week or the week before, explaining the process that we are undertaking. Very briefly, for the benefit of Members of this House, we are protecting anything we are currently contracted to. We are also protecting everything for this financial year in our humanitarian work. Everything else we are looking at on a case-by-case basis.

I have been asked by the Prime Minister to look line by line at our spend. I am not in a position to protect any other streams of work or any particular programmes at this stage. Our desire is to create headroom to smooth out the spending reductions that will have to take place at the end of this financial year. That is the work we are currently undertaking. The noble Lord will understand that I am not in a position to make firm commitments today. That would be wrong. The work that he describes to do with security, particularly in the western Balkans, has proved to be effective and is incredibly important given the wider context in that region.

[Baroness Helic (Con)]

My Lords, I thank noble Lords for their kind words. I welcome the Foreign Secretary’s visit to the western Balkans, which concluded last night. He rightly stated that

“the Western Balkans is of critical importance to the UK and Europe’s collective security, and the UK remains committed to building resilience and stability in the region”.

With that in mind, Britain has now signed a deal with Serbia to disrupt people smuggling, an important step given the record number of channel crossings in the first three months of this year. These are fine words and fine agreements, but they will not be enough if secessionists with active support from Russia and Serbia succeed in breaking up Bosnia unchallenged, risking a new regional conflict. The Government have so far refused to move beyond rhetoric and support EUFOR, the only real deterrent on the ground.

Does the United Kingdom intend to negotiate a post-Brexit agreement with the EU of the kind that Norway and Chile have in place, to enable our participation in Operation Althea in line with standard procedures for third-country contribution to NATO’s EU-led missions?

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

Since Brexit we have tried to work more and more closely with our EU partners, particularly on defence and security, for the reasons the noble Baroness has outlined. We are working closely to determine quite what form that takes. I am not in a position to say exactly what that will be, but we are in the business of resetting our deeply damaged relationship with the European Union. No one can be in any doubt, given the nature of the conversations that we have been having on this issue and on Ukraine, about our closeness and our collective determination that we must work more closely together in the future.

[The Lord Bishop of St Albans]

My Lords, we are living in a very vulnerable time when false narratives are being spread and some are not being challenged. I understand that Voice of America is not broadcasting in the way it was. Meanwhile, Russia is spreading false information and using its allies. This is at a time when there is a huge economic readjustment across the whole world and people are not looking so much to the West. What are His Majesty’s Government doing to ensure that the BBC World Service is making sure that a positive but accurate historical narrative is being given so that other narratives do not take hold?

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

That is a very important question in many contexts around the world, but specifically this one. I was pleased that we were able to protect and enhance the funding that we provide for the World Service recently. As has been said, it is a vital tool for connecting with communities in very difficult circumstances and countering some of the misinformation and disinformation and the hybrid warfare that takes place in contexts such as these. We will continue to work closely with the World Service. It is about not just providing information today but making sure we have the longer-term narrative and accurate information to look back, to know what has happened and to tell the story properly as the historical record.

[Lord Lancaster of Kimbolton (Con)]

Having served as a NATO peacekeeper in Bosnia and Herzegovina, I have a particular interest. This year marks the 30th anniversary of the Dayton peace agreement. It was a complex agreement and has led to pretty poor political structures in Bosnia and not a strong state. This has been exploited by criminal gangs with people smuggling and other issues. High Representative Schmidt has made 11 interventions using the Bonn powers to amend the constitution, but fundamentally it remains unfit for purpose. Is it the British Government’s view that to enable EU accession, that constitution needs to be changed?

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

We support the role of the high representative and the use of his executive powers as the situation has required them. This role remains vital for Bosnia and Herzegovina’s future prosperity and stability. We are clear that the current political crisis was caused by Republika Srpska, President Dodik, his supporters and their secessionist actions. We will continue working to find the right way forward.

[Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)]

My Lords, will the Minister go a little further than she did in replying to the noble Baroness, Lady Helic, about peacekeeping in Bosnia and any role that the United Kingdom might play in that? Does she not agree that this ought to be on the table in discussion of the security pact currently being considered between the UK and the EU? A resumption of British involvement in that would be a very important signal.

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

We see EUFOR as vital for maintaining peace and security, and upholding the military aspects of the peace agreement. The UK regularly engages with the EU delegation to Bosnia and Herzegovina, and we are committed to supporting security through NATO and our bilateral defence co-operation. While the UK does not currently participate in any EU common security and defence policy missions, it is open to exploring future opportunities for co-operation.

Landmines and Cluster Munitions

Baroness Chapman of Darlington Excerpts

Thursday 3rd April 2025 Lords Chamber

[The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Baroness Chapman of Darlington) (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Verdirame, for securing this debate and to all noble Lords who have contributed. We could have done with longer, because this is such a complex issue and, as many noble Lords have said, incredibly timely. I was struck that my noble friend Lord Dubs reminded us, as I knew he would, of the dangers and of the reasons why we helped to lead the formulation of these treaties in the first place. His view was echoed by the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Southwark, among others.

As the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst, and the noble Baroness, Lady Stuart, said, this debate is more relevant now than it has been in the recent past. The words of the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, resonated with me when he said that risk must be proportionate to military advantage and asked us to imagine a threat on our borders—certitude, he advises, is not always possible. I understand his argument, and I think the best thing is for me to set out the Government’s position, including answering the questions, particularly those from the noble Earl, Lord Effingham, on interoperability.

This Government remain committed to the Ottawa treaty and to the Convention on Cluster Munitions. Each treaty plays an important role in the protection of civilians, and we continue to use our best efforts to promote the treaties and their norms. It is for good reason that the UK and a majority of countries have come together to ban the use of anti-personnel landmines and cluster munitions. The human and financial costs of their use are devastating. Long after conflicts cease, civilians—and it is civilians, frequently children, who comprise the majority of victims year on year—continue to be killed, maimed and left permanently disabled by anti-personnel landmines and cluster munitions.

As well as the terrible human cost, this creates a further toll on the long-term development and health systems in countries trying to recover from conflict. Anti-personnel and cluster munitions also deny access to land, further imperilling food security. The direct financial costs of this can be devastating. The World Bank estimates that, in Ukraine alone, fully demining affected territory will cost upwards of $37 billion.

The history of these treaties predates the end of the Cold War. The first efforts to exert legal constraints on landmines were through the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons, started in the early 1980s. While the CCW’s protocols set minimum standards in how landmines are used, their limitations led to the vast majority of states agreeing to and joining the Ottawa treaty in order to provide for an outright ban on landmines. Meanwhile, international proposals to prohibit cluster munitions date back to the Vietnam War era and were also first discussed in the CCW, which remains an important star chamber for future mechanisms. The UK played a major role in the negotiation of both treaties, and we continue to believe in their role and impact in protecting civilians and military personnel alike. As state parties have fulfilled their commitments, the risks to civilians from the remnants of anti-personnel landmines and cluster munitions have fallen in the vast majority of countries. It is no coincidence that, even among non-state parties, there were no officially confirmed transfers of anti-personnel landmines between 1999 and 2024, and fewer and fewer states produce either system.

However, the Government recognise that Russia’s illegal invasion of Ukraine has created significant challenges, upending the global security environment, raising tensions in the Euro-Atlantic space and undermining international law, including international humanitarian law. This is why the Chancellor announced last week a necessary increase in our defence budget to 2.5% of GDP and a plan to go further in the next Parliament. We will make the UK a defence industrial superpower and ensure that our Armed Forces have the equipment they need to defend our nation and our allies.

The Government’s support for Ukraine remains steadfast. We are absolutely committed to securing a just and lasting peace in Ukraine. This is vital for both Ukraine and wider Euro-Atlantic and international security and prosperity, but a just and lasting peace is possible only if we continue to show strength and provide Ukraine with the support it needs to defend itself against continued Russian aggression. This is why we recently signed a £2.6 billion loan agreement with Ukraine, earmarked for military spending, and a £1.6 billion export finance deal that will supply Ukraine with more than 5,000 air defence missiles.

Like the UK, our allies, particularly those with borders with Russia, have legitimate concerns about their security, and we recognise that they need to take difficult decisions about their own national defence. It is their sovereign right to do so, within the bounds of international law. As I noted in this Chamber in August, we regret that Lithuania took the decision to withdraw from the Convention on Cluster Munitions, a process that was completed last month. None the less, we recognise that Lithuania saw itself as an outlier in the region, and we do not anticipate further withdrawals from the CCM.

Last month, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and Poland stated their intention to withdraw from the Ottawa treaty. We have closely engaged with them, as our allies, on this subject for many months, and we are working to understand what these decisions will mean in practice. We will work with them in an effort to ensure that they keep as close to the principles underpinning these treaties as possible to mitigate impacts on both the treaties themselves and the vital humanitarian disarmament norms that they have established. As well as a shared interest in the security of our allies, the UK also has strong defence partnerships in the region through NATO and the JEF.

While we work through any implications of the withdrawals with our partners, we are confident that we will be able to work with partners that are non-state parties. The Convention on Cluster Munitions contains explicit provisions under Article 21 concerning interoperability with non-state parties. Similarly, consistent with our position in international law, the Landmines Act 1998 provides a defence for military operations wholly or mainly outside the United Kingdom where anti-personnel landmines have been or may be deployed by a partner who is a non-state party.

The Act is clear that while it is a criminal offence for British personnel to engage in the laying of anti-personnel landmines or related activities, such as assisting, encouraging or inducing others to do so, other conduct that takes place in the course of or for the purpose of a military operation or the planning of such an operation alongside a state party would be permitted.

To conclude, the Government continue to believe that we can advance both our own national security and that of our allies, and the vital humanitarian norms that protect civilians, which these treaties represent. None the less, we cannot ignore the fundamental change in the geopolitical context that has taken place, and I am grateful to all noble Lords for raising these questions. Just as the UK played a key role in the formation of these treaties, we are happy to take the lead and work with our allies and all interested partners to consider the best way to sustain the important norms these treaties have established in this new context, while at the same time continuing to prioritise our national security.

But simply walking away will not help to achieve this. The UK’s long-term security and that of our allies is served not just by our military strength but through the establishment of and commitment to international norms and rules. The UK’s role should be to respond to Russia’s flagrant disregard for long-established global humanitarian norms by working to protect them, rebuilding confidence in the rules-based order for the long term and demonstrating that Russia is on the wrong side of history.

Myanmar Earthquake

Baroness Chapman of Darlington Excerpts

Thursday 3rd April 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Crisp]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what action they are taking to ensure that their aid reaches those affected by the earthquake in Myanmar.

[The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Baroness Chapman of Darlington) (Lab)]

My Lords, our £10 million of humanitarian assistance will be directed to our existing local partners on the ground to ensure it reaches those most affected throughout Myanmar. No funding will be directed through the Myanmar military regime.

I am pleased to announce that the UK will also be aid matching the Disasters Emergency Committee, with every £1 donated by the British public being matched by the UK Government up to the value of £5 million. These funds will support DEC charities and their local partners, who are already responding on the ground.

[Lord Crisp (CB)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for her response. We are witnessing a natural tragedy of an earthquake affecting those already living in a war zone, coupled with what one can only say is an appalling human act of the junta apparently taking advantage of the situation to continue its bombardment and its air strikes.

I very much applaud the Government’s immediate offer of £10 million and this additional £5 million as well. I have two questions: first, how will the Government respond to the appeal from the National Unity Government—the Government in exile, as it were—for immediate aid and for rebuilding communities? As the penholder at the United Nations, how is the UK leading international efforts to bring additional pressure on the junta?

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

The noble Lord is quite right to remind us that this earthquake follows years of difficulty and tragedy for the people of Myanmar. We will continue to work with our international partners to bring about the change, peace and stability that people in Myanmar so deserve. The context is incredibly difficult, as he knows. We have seen military air strikes in earthquake-affected areas, which have further complicated our relief efforts. My focus at the moment is on trying to get aid to those who need it most immediately.

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

My Lords, all those who watched the pictures on the BBC last night will have been appalled at the scenes of utter devastation, particularly in Mandalay. We welcome the Government’s announcement of a £10 million humanitarian aid package. Could the Minister provide a bit more detail on the trusted partners that the Government referred to as a means of providing that aid? Can she provide some more information on how we can avoid any of that aid going to the military junta?

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lord for the support for the action that the Government have been able to take so far. Noble Lords will understand the reasons why we work through local partners on the ground: they are the best way to get the support to those who need it. I ask the noble Lord to also understand the reasons why we do not name or give details of those partners acting locally. It is for their protection and to make sure that they are able to continue to do their vital work.

[Baroness Curran (Lab)]

My Lords and Ladies, I thank my noble friend for her replies thus far and her commitment to this task. I have visited Myanmar many times, including the cities of Mandalay and Naypyidaw, and I am acutely aware of the suffering of the Myanmar people, which has been compounded so grievously in recent days and weeks. When the headlines move on, as they invariably will, will my noble friend keep focused on the struggles of the Myanmar people and use whatever channels she can consistently to call out the brutalities of the Myanmar junta that it has perpetrated on its own people?

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

I am very happy to provide that assurance to the House today and I will take the opportunity to thank the noble Baroness, Lady Curran, as well as very many other Members of this House, for their commitment and work, and the focus they have placed on Myanmar over the years. As the noble Baroness says, it is vital that, when the media attention perhaps moves on, our focus as political leaders in this country and as the Government remains in place.

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Crisp, and the noble Baroness, Lady Curran, for years of work supporting civil society, and especially those in the medical field in Myanmar, and I welcome the Government’s immediate response with regard to the support that they are providing and the DEC appeal—I wish that appeal had acted on Sudan also. Can the Minister say, further, with regard to the reactions of the Myanmar military regime, what actions we can take with our near neighbours to ensure that there is no impunity for the military regime, which, at this time of immense suffering of its own people, is perpetrating the restricting of rights, especially of minorities within Myanmar? It is acting in the most barbaric way in the midst of a humanitarian crisis.

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

The noble Lord is completely right; we do not regard the military regime in Myanmar as a legitimate Government. We will take any steps that we are able to with our friends and allies, including sanctions and other measures, in order to bring about the peace, stability and change that the people of Myanmar deserve.

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)]

My Lords, building on the question from the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, about minorities in Myanmar, the Rohingya community has suffered more than most, and we have also seen the prevailing sexual violence in Myanmar. Can the Minister assure us that, while we are dealing with this immediate crisis, the focus will also remain on the plight of the Rohingya, that the United Kingdom retains a pen on the issue and that the issue is brought forth at the UN Security Council?

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

Yes, that is right. I commend the noble Lord’s work, particularly on sexual violence in conflict, which he has led over many years. Fortunately, the epicentre of the earthquake did not hit Rakhine province as harshly as it did other areas, but the Rohingya people are still suffering enormously. The noble Lord is right to make sure that we do not lose focus on that, and I hope that he will continue to do so.

[Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)]

My Lords, the noble Baroness is absolutely right to say that, in addition to the humanitarian needs that now prevail inside Myanmar, the minorities referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Ahmad, are suffering—I think of the Karen people, whose state I visited in the past in Burma. There has been a total of 11 reported attacks on ethnic minorities and civilian communities since the earthquake. Is this not piling tragedy upon tragedy? Although I support what the noble Baroness has said about her call for global sanctions, what about an arms embargo as well? Will we also take to the Security Council a call to ban the sale of aviation fuel to the military to prevent it being able to carry on with these appalling attacks on civilian populations?

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

The Government are prepared to consider any measures that might bring about the peace, security and stability that we wish to see. We are aware of reports such as those the noble Lord suggested, and we are working to verify them. The sad truth is that the reports that we have had thus far may not be the full picture and, equally, the death toll of around 2,800 that we have so far is unlikely to be the final picture. So we are watching events very closely and we will consider carefully what the appropriate action from the Government will be.

[Baroness Sugg (Con)]

I welcome the emergency assistance announced by the Government. Health professionals are on the front line here; will any of this additional UK aid be allocated specifically to them?

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

The noble Baroness is right and, yes, we are working in particular to ensure that health assistance is available, as well as getting the food, the medicines, the water and the shelter in immediately. I am aware that the noble Lord, Lord Crisp, who asked this Question today, has been doing some important work on training nurses in Myanmar. So there is the immediate response that the noble Baroness refers to, but there is also the longer-term work that we must continue to do.

[Baroness Hayman (CB)]

My Lords, as a previous trustee of the DEC, I welcome very much the aid match that the noble Baroness has referred to today. I am sure that the British public will respond very generously, as they always do to DEC appeals. Can she ensure that the figure she has announced is kept under review—and I do not mean downwards?

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

I hear what the noble Baroness has said. At the moment, we have committed to match up to £5 million and I am sure, as she says, that the British public will rise to the challenge. It would be great to be in a situation where we are asked to increase that number because the response from the public has been so impressive.

[Lord Geddes (Con)]

My Lords, how can we ensure that the very welcome aid to which the noble Baroness has referred goes to those who need it most, when foreign correspondents are not permitted by the regime to enter Myanmar?

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

That is a very good question, and it is why we work with partners on the ground in a localised approach. We have trusted partners on the ground in Myanmar who we have worked with for many years now, so that is the best way to make sure that the aid does get to where it is needed most, and we have confidence that that is happening.