Gaza and Sudan
Debate between Baroness Chapman of Darlington and Lord Mohammed of Tinsley
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
We will continue to fund the World Food Programme, because it is often the agency that can best get supplies mobilised at speed and at scale in these situations. The situation in Sudan is very difficult, even for the UN, because of the restrictions that are put in place and the inability to move supplies around in the way that we need to. We work with other agencies as well—the International Rescue Committee and others—because we need to be able to work with a range of partners because of the very challenging and dangerous circumstances in which we find ourselves having to operate. Unlike some others, we are absolutely committed to working with the World Food Programme, UNICEF, UNHCR and all the UN agencies, and particularly closely through Tom Fletcher, the co-ordinator, because we recognise and respect the fact that the UN is often—not always, but often—the best partner in such circumstances.
Lord Mohammed of Tinsley (LD)
My Lords, I join my noble friend Lord Purvis in his frustration about how long it has taken to have a Statement on Sudan. In particular, I have concerns around the credible evidence of atrocities that are highly possible in El Obeid and Tawila. What specific actions are His Majesty’s Government taking to prevent this? I particularly welcome the final section of the Statement, which says that a resolution was passed
“securing international consensus for an urgent UN inquiry into alleged crimes in El Fasher, because impunity cannot be the outcome of these horrifying events”
in El Fasher and across Sudan, and further states:
“We need to ensure that teams can get in to investigate those atrocities and hold the perpetrators to account, and I have instructed my officials to bring forward potential sanctions relating to human rights violations and abuses in Sudan”.
We need to get those individuals in to investigate and collate that evidence, because with every day that passes, the likelihood increases that those people, whether they be civilians or people in regular or irregular armies, may well get away with it.
On the same issue, will His Majesty’s Government have the same determination to hold those people to account who have committed war crimes in Palestine, be it in Gaza or in the West Bank, particularly given the settler violence that we have had? What clear message will they send to those individuals who are going around burning dairies and other livelihoods?
Finally, we have seen pictures of aid stacked up in places such as Jordan and the flooding that has happened in Gaza. What actions will His Majesty’s Government take to ensure that those tents, which are needed right now, are provided, as well as access to baby food and other essentials? I have talked about sanitary products for women in the past. Can we please ensure that they reach the people in Gaza urgently?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
I have been to those warehouses, so I know exactly what the noble Lord is talking about. It is very frustrating when we see aid and equipment that is desperately needed being unable to get to the people who need it. But access is improving; it could still get better. We have conversations about dual-use items and all those issues regularly, but things are slowly getting better. The noble Lord asked whether we treat violations of international humanitarian law differently in different places. No, these things are universal, and that is the approach that this Government will always take. On what we are doing about the atrocities and accountability in Sudan, that is an important question. We are working urgently to press the parties to agree an immediate three-month truce, as a beginning, to enable that aid to get in, but also to enable people’s accounts of what has happened, because it is important, as he says—and I think it is what he wants—that the individuals responsible find themselves in the International Criminal Court, which is where they belong.
Official Development Assistance
Debate between Baroness Chapman of Darlington and Lord Mohammed of Tinsley
Lord Mohammed of Tinsley (LD)
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord McConnell, talked about supporting nations and communities in conflict. I hope that the Minister will also focus on challenging areas, such as access to education for women and girls, particularly in the most challenging parts of the world—for example, Afghanistan and Pakistan. We have to continue to support those women because the men who govern Afghanistan, in particular, do their best to stop girls getting access to education.
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
The noble Lord is right that in Afghanistan in particular—but not only Afghanistan—there are real problems in accessing education for girls. We will continue to support work on that in those places. More widely on education, especially for girls, the best thing we can do is support countries to strengthen their own education system so that they are able to educate their children and that girls get the protection that access to education provides. We look not only at access but at quality and standards so that, when a girl has completed her education, she has a good standard of literacy and is able to move on, support herself, and contribute to her community and country in the way that so many women want.
India: Minorities
Debate between Baroness Chapman of Darlington and Lord Mohammed of Tinsley
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
I do not think that there is anybody in this House who would not agree that we should—and do—believe in the equal treatment of all people of all faiths and beliefs. This is fundamental to who we are. We have laws that support this, and the vast majority of people in this country support that too. Where we fall short or where there are problems in our communities or at high-profile events, there are steps that could and should be taken, and this Government support that.
Lord Mohammed of Tinsley (LD)
My Lords, I too want to express disappointment, as did my noble friend Lord Purvis, at the lack of human rights chapters in the trade agreement with India. If we look at the Amnesty International report from 2024, we see that huge concerns were expressed about the detention of journalists, about the bulldozer justice that is meted out to minority faiths and about issues in the Punjab and Kashmir. If we cannot challenge the Indian Government but are just going to raise issues with them, what are we going to get back from them, other than just having words with them? Have the Government dropped the ball with this trade agreement, in which they should have included human rights chapters?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
I hear the challenge, and it is a judgment, is it not? You are trying to get a trade agreement with the Government of India. Is that best served by including measures on human rights? Would that jeopardise your trade agreement? Should that then happen? Or will you see the reaction that you would like in terms of human rights by standing firm? I just do not know which would be the right way to go, but at the moment we are dealing with a trade agreement and we are also having conversations about human rights. I think that, from where we are at the moment, that is the right thing to do. It is treating the Government of India with respect and allowing us to have those conversations, which I would say are often more fruitfully had in private than in other ways that we could go about this.