Cuba: Humanitarian Situation

Lord Alton of Liverpool Excerpts

Tuesday 9th June 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

I hear what the noble Lord says, but what the United Kingdom Government have been doing is engaging with both the United States and Cuba. We welcome the dialogue taking place between those countries. Certainly, we are incredibly concerned about the current humanitarian situation. Our first concern is obviously also with United Kingdom citizens who may be involved, but our priority is to ensure, working through United Nations agencies, that humanitarian aid is delivered to the people of Cuba—who, as the noble Lord points out, have suffered tremendously, and that needs to be addressed.

[Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)]

My Lords, in that one-party state which systematically suppresses dissent, freedom of expression and peaceful assembly, which routinely uses sham trials and which imposes arbitrary detention in harsh prison conditions, targeting journalists, labour activists and pro-democracy activists, can the Minister explore ways in which we can provide practical support and encouragement to groups such as Cuba’s Ladies in White, composed of women relatives of political dissidents and recipient of the Sakharov Prize for Freedom of Thought? Can he also say when we last raised with the Cuban authorities the denial of access to the International Committee of the Red Cross to Cuba’s horrific prisons?

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

On the latter point, my honourable friend the Minister in the other place, Chris Elmore, has been in touch with the Cuban authorities. He has also spoken to the Cuban ambassador about these issues. We have been clear in our long-standing bilateral relationship, which has provided the opportunity for frank and constructive dialogue and allows us to continuously raise these human rights issues. The noble Lord is absolutely right, but we continue to press for the release of political prisoners by directly engaging, as I say, with the ambassador. We welcome also the release last year of prisoners under a Vatican-mediated agreement, so we are absolutely clear that these things must be properly raised with the Cuban authorities.

Combating Atrocity Crimes, Crimes Against Humanity and Genocide

Lord Alton of Liverpool Excerpts

Thursday 4th June 2026 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Alton of Liverpool]

That this House takes note of the role of government policy in combating atrocity crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide.

[Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords participating in today’s debate, along with the International Bar Association’s Human Rights Institute, Protection Approaches, and the Coalition for Genocide Response—of which I am a patron—Dr Ewelina Ochab, and the House of Lords Library for its invaluable background papers.

My thanks also to the noble Lord, Lord Collins of Highbury, who in 2021, from the Opposition Front Bench, was such an outstanding supporter of the genocide amendments to the Trade Bill—about which I shall say a little more at the conclusion and a lot more on 17 July, when my new Genocide Determination Bill, introduced earlier today, receives its Second Reading.

It is particularly apposite that we are debating this topic today, as we mark the 37th anniversary of the horrific Tiananmen Square massacre in Beijing—and indeed across China—on 4 June 1989, graphically symbolised by the heroism of “Tank Man”, who stood against the dictatorship’s might. It was moving from me to attend earlier today the unveiling of a new statue to “Tank Man” and to hear Kate Adie describe the horrors that unfolded in the square that day, where she was as a young journalist. We recall the many brave advocates for democracy and human rights incarcerated today by the Chinese Communist Party, including Hong Kong’s Jimmy Lai. All over the world, it is patently obvious that we need more of the steely resolve of “Tank Man” in demanding justice for victims and an end to impunity.

Let me give the House some examples of our wholly inadequate, inconsistent and sometimes craven approach. In 2015, I raised the plight of the Yazidis and other minorities, which the House of Commons declared to be a genocide. In response, the Foreign Office said that Parliament had no right to declare a genocide. In the case of the Yazidis, seven years elapsed until a German court used universal jurisdiction to convict an IS insurgent of Yazidi genocide. Perversely, two years later, in 2023, having blocked attempts to enable our own High Court to make a genocide declaration, the FCDO said that the German court’s findings would enable it to formally recognise a genocide.

In a report by the Joint Committee on Human Rights, which I have the honour to chair, looking at the Yazidi genocide committed by British members of ISIS, we highlighted the more than 400 returnees to the UK, not one of whom has been prosecuted for the crime of genocide or crimes against humanity. Is that still the case? When will we act on the JCHR’s recommendation to extend universal jurisdiction? Let us contrast that decision to finally recognise the Yazidi genocide with the FCDO’s almost simultaneous removal of its recognition of what the ICC had declared to be a genocide in Darfur—this, despite speeches from Ministers, still extant online, describing atrocities in Darfur as genocide.

While the FCDO airbrushed Darfur out of its list of genocides, several organisations were ringing the alarm of an impending new genocide. In April 2023, I chaired an inquiry by the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Sudan and published a report entitled Genocide: All Over Again in Darfur? It warned of systematic atrocities against non-Arab ethnic groups and urged immediate international intervention to prevent another genocide. Removing the previous determination inevitably affected our response to the events that were unfolding. By 2026, a UN mechanism confirmed that at El Fasher all the hallmarks of genocide were indeed present. This was predictable—it was preventable. In what is the world’s worst humanitarian catastrophe, tens of thousands have died, including at Darfur’s El-Daein Teaching Hospital, where 70 people were killed, including 13 children and three medical workers.

Why is it important to call out atrocities such as this for what they are? Under the 1948 convention on the crime of genocide, such determinations require us to take decisive steps; our obligations are to prevent, protect and punish, and they are crucial in understanding early warning signs of future atrocities. What of our duty to hold perpetrators to account? Why is Omar al-Bashir, charged by the International Criminal Court with the 2003-08 genocide in Darfur—a systematic campaign of mass killings, rape and forced displacement, which I saw myself at first hand—still at large? Will his early arrest be part of the Foreign Secretary’s welcome decision to create the international coalition to prevent further atrocities in Sudan?

Staying with Africa for a moment, which I know is close to the Minister’s heart and where he did great work as the Africa Minister, can he update us on action to bring the perpetrators of wicked crimes in Tigray—especially the targeting of women—to justice? Are we acting on the admirable proposal of the noble Baroness, Lady Helic, for a permanent mechanism focused on conflict-related sexual violence? In Nigeria, what assessment has been made of the recent statement of Caleb Mutfwang, governor of Plateau state, that over 60 entire villages have been eradicated by jihadist militias? He said:

“I cannot find any explanation other than genocide sponsored by terrorists”.


Is the FCDO at least conducting a joint analysis of conflict and stability assessment in Nigeria?

In the DRC, the Ebola crisis is happening against the perfect storm of endless atrocities by jihadists and terror groups which include massacres, beheadings and abductions across the eastern provinces of North Kivu and Ituri. On 12 May 2025, when I raised the execution of Christians by jihadists, the Minister wrote telling me that:

“We are alarmed and saddened by the attacks by IS-affiliated Allied Democratic Forces … all those who have committed human rights violations and abuses must be held accountable”.


A year has passed. Has anyone been held to account? With gross impunity in so many situations, is it any wonder that genocide happens over and over again?

What of that other theatre of war, in Ukraine? As we recall appalling atrocities committed in Mariupol, Bucha, Izyum, Olenivka and elsewhere, what progress are we making in holding Vladimir Putin’s regime to account for his atrocity crimes, including abduction of children and recent reports of forced recruitment and trafficking of foreigners to fight in the Russian armed forces in Ukraine? This has been documented by Fortify Rights, on whose leadership council I serve, and Truth Hounds, which later this month will be publishing a ground-breaking report on the use of sexual violence by Russian military against Ukrainian men. What are we doing to support the efforts to ensure justice and accountability for such crimes?

Where war crimes occur, whether they are committed by our foes or our friends, we must uphold the conventions, especially the Geneva convention. As is clear in Gaza, even wars must be governed by laws. I refer to my Question answered on 29 April concerning reports of the deaths of more than 38,000 women and children in Gaza. The conventions set the standards for international humanitarian law, and we ignore or abandon them at our peril.

Elsewhere, in Burma such war crimes occur daily. During several visits, both legally and illegally, I have walked through the smouldering villages of Karen state and interviewed survivors of the military’s attacks. I visited a burned-out village near the capital, Naypyidaw, in the aftermath of attacks on the Muslim community. Will the Minister examine the reports by Fortify Rights about airstrikes and related atrocity crimes across Myanmar, and its call to bring the military, the Arakan Army and Ata Ullah—the leader of the Arakan Rohingya Salvation Army—to justice for their atrocities?

Can the Minister update us on progress in the case brought by the Gambia at the International Court of Justice—supported, I was glad to see, by the United Kingdom—on charges of genocide against the Rohingya? What progress is being made in achieving the request by the ICC prosecutor for an arrest warrant for Myanmar’s dictator, Min Aung Hlaing?

With Sir Iain Duncan Smith MP, I co-chair the APPG on North Korea, where human rights violations have been described in a UN commission of inquiry report, chaired by the Australian Justice Michael Kirby, as

“a state without parallel”.

I have been in North Korea on four occasions, met many escapees and chaired numerous hearings here in Parliament—including one just two weeks ago with Thae Yong-ho, former North Korean deputy ambassador to the UK and one of the highest-level defectors. Thae told us that, when the commission of inquiry reported, senior figures in the North Korean regime were initially very nervous reading the commission’s call for the leadership to be tried by the ICC for crimes against humanity. However, he said that, when it became clear that the international community were not going to act upon the call by the ICC, the regime in Pyongyang regained its confidence.

What does this say about the international community’s effectiveness in addressing atrocity crimes? Do we have any intention of ever following through on the recommendations of the commission of inquiry, and what stops us as a country from leading those efforts? North Korea, like Iran, routinely imprisons, tortures and executes people, even for listening to banned music or watching banned movies, and 300,000 people are incarcerated in its gulags and prison camps.

North Korea, Iran, Russia and China are part of what the noble Lord, Lord Robertson, calls “a deadly quartet”. In noting that all four have sanctioned me, the House will not be surprised that I am deeply disappointed by the response we have made to the CCP’s atrocities in China. What practical actions have we taken in response to the two independent tribunals chaired by the eminent lawyer, Sir Geoffrey Nice KC, who prosecuted Milosevic, and which found evidence of genocide against Uyghur Muslims in Xinjiang, a view again endorsed as such by the House of Commons, and forced organ harvesting from prisoners of conscience in China?

On China, what practical response are the Government making to two other inquiries by the Joint Committee on Human Rights? Last year, we heard evidence of CCP transnational repression in the UK, including the imposition of a bounty on the head of a young woman, Chloe Cheung. The committee unanimously identified the CCP regime as the worst TNR offender and said it should be placed in the top tier of the foreign influence registration scheme—when will that happen?

In a second unanimous report, the JCHR also found that state-imposed, coercive, forced labour in Xinjiang is widespread and deeply entrenched in global supply chains of everything from cotton to solar panels. Is it reasonable to simply do business as usual with the CCP regime, which Sir Geoffrey says is

“interacting with a criminal state”.

Are we simply turning a blind eye or, rather, ravenously eyeing up the next trade deal?

The duty to prevent genocide in Article 1 of the convention is triggered the moment a state learns or should have learned that there is a serious risk of genocide. In 2021, the all-party genocide determination amendments to the then Trade Bill were passed here in this House with substantial majorities, including with eloquent support from the noble Lord, Lord Collins, who moved amendments linking trade to human rights violations and called for Magnitsky sanctions on perpetrators; some of those things are still waiting to happen. Crafted with the wise assistance of the former Supreme Court judge, my noble and learned friend Lord Hope of Craighead, and supported by two former Lord Chancellors, the genocide amendment was opposed by the Foreign Office and Trade Ministers and ultimately was wrecked by an amendment—now Section 3 of the Trade Act 2021—that is not worth the paper on which it was printed and which does nothing for victims survivors of genocide.

Successive Governments were lamely repeating the Foreign Office mantra that “only a court” can decide whether grievous criminality constitutes genocide while disingenuously blocking every attempt to empower our own UK courts to do so. The failure to provide judicial architecture has a further undesirable effect. It allows the word genocide to be misappropriated and turned into a slogan. Preventing the High Court from making a determination plays into that sloganeering.

The noble Lord may have been encouraged to repeat the FCDO’s contention that failure to formally recognise a genocide does not hamper our ability to act. However, as I explained in the case of Darfur, this is far from empirical reality. There is also recommendation 7 of the Truro review on genocide and atrocity prevention and the future of the mass atrocity prevention hub, on which I hope we will hear more when the Minister comes to reply.

Atrocity crimes come at great cost. They are linked to identity-based persecution, collective punishment, sexual violence, a culture of impunity, endless repetition and a deficit of accountability, playing into security and humanitarian challenges, including the mass displacement of over 120 million people. Instead of obfuscation about the future of the hub, we need clarity and transparency, and we must have JACS assessments that are not kept secret but published, so that we know why and what action is being taken.

What is not acceptable is a continuation of the illusion that we have a clear and effective strategy for combating atrocity crimes. In so many respects, today’s debate puts atrocity crimes back on to the House of Lords’ agenda, and I am incredibly grateful to all noble Lords who are ensuring that that will happen. I thank all noble Lords who are going to speak. I beg to move.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)]

My Lords, I am greatly encouraged to have heard our House speak so powerfully, so eloquently, and with such a united voice about our determination to tackle atrocity crimes in whatever vestige they may come, whether it is outright genocide, crimes against humanity, or war crimes. I was obviously disappointed to hear the final remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Collins of Highbury. As he said, he and I want to see the same ends, so I was disappointed to hear him say that he is unable at the present moment to support the Genocide Determination Bill. He has heard the Opposition Front Benches, and I was extremely grateful to my noble friend Lady Smith of Newnham and to the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, for what they had to say and for the support the Bill has been given, particularly by people like the noble Baronesses, Lady Helic and Lady Sugg, in their remarks today.

There will be a debate about the Bill on 15 July. We are in continued discussion. The noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy of the Shaws, and I met with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hermer, the Attorney-General. We have questions for the Lord Chancellor, David Lammy, around this and universal jurisdiction. I hope that the conversation will remain open, because we cannot have it both ways. We cannot say, as the Minister did in his last remarks, that we will abide by the determination of a court if we then rule out the opportunity of the High Court of England and Wales and the Court of Session in Scotland being able to do that, which is why my noble and learned friend Lord Hope of Craighead, helped to devise the terms of the Bill.

I hope that, given that the vetoes that we heard referred to by my noble friend Lord Hannay, will always be used by Russia or China when you seek to refer to a case, such as that of the Uyghur Muslims, or even the United Nations’ own commission of inquiry into North Korea, which called for a referral to the ICC, it has not gone forward because of the threat of the use of veto. My noble friend was right that the United Kingdom should revisit this question, even if it is only to call out the countries that would block such referrals. The French floated this idea some time ago. We should work with them to try and make sure that it is placed before the Security Council—something, I know, that would be close to the heart of the Minister.

The noble Baroness, Lady Sugg, said that we needed clarity, resources and urgency. The point about resources was underlined by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Leicester. It takes me back to my student union days, when I argued for Resolution 2626—the United Nations resolution calling for 0.7% of our gross national product to be provided in development aid. The noble Baroness, Lady Sugg, has an incredibly honourable record on this. Not many people leave government over a matter of principle. I enormously admire her for putting her beliefs into action in that way. She is right: we must understand what impact this is having on things such as the atrocity prevention strategy. I hope, therefore, that when the letter comes from the Minister that something more can be said about whether this impact of resources will affect capacity and the size of the hub.

Many Peers echoed the call for a cross-departmental and cross-government strategy, a point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Goudie, and others. We were told that it is a core question. Many lamented the absence of a national strategy. The scale of the challenge was underlined by the noble Baronesses, Lady Helic and Lady Nye, my noble friend Lady D’Souza, the noble Lord, Lord Griffiths of Burry Port, and others. The re-vivification of the conventions was a point that the noble Lord, Lord Griffiths, made, and it was echoed by the noble Baroness, Lady Smith.

Hersch Lauterpacht and Raphael Lemkin were called in aid. I had the privilege of visiting Simele in northern Iraq, which is where Lemkin went in the early 1930s to understand what had happened to the Assyrians and Armenians. It was on that basis that he started to think about crafting something to try and deal with atrocity crimes. More than 40 of his own family members were murdered in the Holocaust. Churchill said that there is no word sufficient in our language to capture the scale, the monstrosity of the crimes that have been committed. Lemkin gave us that word: genocide—the cutting of the human family. In every generation, we owe it to the founding fathers and mothers of that period—from Eleanor Roosevelt and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights to Winston Churchill and the many senior figures in the Conservative Party and the Labour Party at that time who promoted the European Convention on Human Rights, on which the noble Lord, Lord Rook, spoke when I had a debate on that subject. It is a great pleasure for me to be able to pass the baton on to the noble Lord, who has more than grown into his own shoes. I am particularly pleased that he has joined us on the Joint Committee on Human Rights, where he is already making quite a mark.

In the 1930s, we saw, as the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, said, the growth of crimes that nobody responded to in any adequate way. There was insufficient justice or accountability. People were not listening to the survivors and victims. The noble Lord, Lord Wigley, gave us a particular case, that of Ryan Evans, who paid the ultimate price in Ukraine for shining a light on the atrocities there.

I mentioned in my opening remarks that I heard Kate Adie earlier today at the unveiling of the statue of “Tank Man”, where she said that the protesters in the square in Tiananmen said to her, “Please go and tell the world”. That is what so many of our brave journalists have done down the years. They have gone and told the world, at great risk to their own lives. We surely have to underline, as my friend the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy of The Shaws, told us, that atrocities flourish in darkness, and we have to shine a light on those things.

The noble Lord, Lord Hussain, said that early warning is useless without early action. The noble Lord, Lord Rook, said that the true test is in implementation. The noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy, said that we needed something like the Elie Wiesel Act in our own country. This is the beginning of a conversation. We can continue it, I think, on 17 July, on my Private Member’s Bill. But it is also a conversation to have within your Lordships’ House, perhaps with the special envoy David Smith, the Member of Parliament who has been referred to, with whom I travelled once to India. I have a very high regard for him, but it would be good too to have officials from the FCDO present at a meeting with those who have taken part in this debate, where we can discuss more candidly, and perhaps with one another, some of the issues that I know unite us.

I will end by saying that I was particularly pleased that the noble Lord, Lord Collins, was given the task of replying to today’s debate. We have missed his voice often in this House on these issues. No one cares more deeply about them than he does. I am grateful to him and to all the Members of your Lordships’ House who have taken part in today’s debate.

Motion agreed.

China and Japan

Lord Alton of Liverpool Excerpts

Wednesday 4th February 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lord for his interest and his role in this. Japan has been a valued partner and it has been a very deep relationship, for instance with £33 billion in annual trade and 150,000 jobs created. Japan is our closest security partner in Asia. On the noble Lord’s particular point about the Hiroshima Accord, I will look into that and come back to him. On a number of issues where we are in agreement, I would highlight the support Japan has given to Ukraine. Japan has been the fifth-largest provider of non-military assistance and it has been a key member of the coalition of the willing. I think that shows the strength. I would also say that most of us regard the Japanese ambassador, Ambassador Suzuki, with a great deal of affection. He has really taken the UK to his heart and the UK has taken him to our hearts.

[Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)]

My Lords, following the issue of sanctions, in my case it is one down and three to go. I welcome the intervention that the Prime Minister made on behalf of those parliamentarians who have been sanctioned—not by China but by the Chinese Communist Party. Many of us are careful to make that distinction. Jo Smith Finley, the Uyghur scholar based at Newcastle University, is still sanctioned; Sir Geoffrey Nice, KC, one of our most celebrated human rights lawyers, who chaired the Uyghur Tribunal, is still sanctioned. Tim Loughton, former Member of the House of Commons, is still sanctioned. We have had nothing in writing about the sanctions on our own families, as well. I do hope that we can expedite that as soon as possible.

I want to drill down deeper on the points raised by the noble Lords, Lord True and Lord Purvis, on dependence and resilience. With a trade deficit of more than £40 billion, should we not do all we possibly can to remove our dependency on the People’s Republic of China? That is not to say that we should disengage, but making ourselves dependent in crucial sectors surely cannot be right. Following what I heard yesterday at a round table I chaired here in Parliament for the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Uyghurs, what have we done to ensure that goods that have been made by slave labour in Xinjiang are removed from our supply chains, not least solar panels and many of the things we buy into the National Health Service?

I will also ask about transnational repression; the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, raised this point. Many of us have met Chloe Cheung, a brave young woman, just in her 20s, who has a bounty of 1 million Hong Kong dollars on her head. Carmen Lau, who was a Hong Kong district councillor, has a similar bounty on her head, and a further 10 residents in the UK have those kinds of bounties. That cannot be right. Did we raise that question with President Xi? What progress can we make on that?

On 26 February, this House will debate the report from the Joint Committee on Human Rights on transnational repression. Will we be able to answer the question about the foreign influence registration scheme and our failure to put the People’s Republic of China into it, even though we have put Russia and Iran into it?

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

I am grateful to the noble Lord. He is absolutely right: in every circumstance, sanctions are wrong. I am myself sanctioned —not by the Chinese Communist Party but by Russia—as are a number of Members of this House.

The noble Lord raised Hong Kong as well. The Prime Minister was candid and robust in raising these issues. We will get clarity for the noble Lord—discussions are ongoing—but the principle has been established, and we want to take that on as we can.

The noble Lord asked about supply chains, and about dependence and resilience. We do not rely on one country. The trade deals that this country has done are significant; look at the work we are doing with the EU, and our trade deals with India and the USA. All those play a part, and the noble Lord is right to raise that issue. I hope that we can get back to him fairly soon with further clarity, but he is absolutely right. All those issues were raised, and we are not prepared to accept sanctions on British citizens.

National Security Strategy

Lord Alton of Liverpool Excerpts

Thursday 26th June 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)]

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Robertson of Port Ellen, describes Iran, North Korea, China and Russia as “a deadly quartet”, all of which have sanctioned Members of the British Parliament, including Members of your Lordships’ House. China, as we have just heard, continues to intimidate Taiwan, to commit genocide against Uyghurs, to incarcerate pro-democracy advocates in Hong Kong, and to use slave labour and transnational repression, both of which subjects are currently under investigation by the Joint Committee on Human Rights of this Parliament. We should not use the deepening of trade as an excuse for diminishing our awareness and response to the threat China poses, which is why Parliament should have been able to see the findings of the China audit and why China should be in the enhanced tier of the foreign influence registration scheme.

I have two brief questions for the Leader. First, is the planned £600 million investment in the intelligence and security services a direct result of the findings of the audit? If it is, surely that underlines the reasons for serious concern. Secondly, regarding the mega-embassy, the Prime Minister said in his meeting with Xi Jinping during the G20 last year:

“You raised the Chinese embassy building in London when we spoke on the telephone and we have since taken action by calling in that application”.


Will the Leader confirm that the call-in was as a result of the phone call with Xi Jinping?

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

The noble Lord has great respect in this House for his commitment to these issues. I cannot confirm his final point at all. However, I think that the heart of his question is how seriously we take the threat from China, which is absolutely clear from the document. Indeed, this was raised in the House of Commons this week by David Lammy, the Foreign Secretary, when he spoke on the China audit and referred to a quote, which I will quote as well, on page 28 of the strategic defence review. I do not think that we can see this review alone: as I said, it is an overarching review. It states:

“China: a sophisticated and persistent challenge. China is increasingly leveraging its economic, technological, and military capabilities, seeking to establish dominance in the Indo-Pacific, erode US influence, and put pressure on the rules-based international order”.


I endorse and agree with that statement.

The noble Lord asks if our economic relationship undermines our commitment to security. I give him a categoric assurance that that is not the case. We have to manage both relationships, but security is first and foremost: it is of enormous concern, as he will know. We recognise, and I think it is highlighted in the strategy, that China is increasingly eroding the rules that have governed the international system. I do not think we have had a China audit before, but if we look at the history of our relationship with China, under a previous Government—I think it was in the Cameron era—it was a very close relationship. We then moved to not engaging at all. That is not a satisfactory way to proceed. It comes back to the Ernie Bevin quote: we have to deal with the world as it is and the threats that exist now. I give the noble Lord the assurance that we stand by what is in the strategic defence review and we stand by what is in the national security strategy to protect Taiwan.

United Nations International Day of Peace

Lord Alton of Liverpool Excerpts

Monday 9th June 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

Maybe the noble Lord has more information than me, but I reassure him that we are absolutely focused on using all the tools in our toolkit to promote peacebuilding, and that is certainly not limited to ODA. To reassure him, we are using this year’s peacebuilding architecture review to champion the women, peace and security agenda, ensuring that gender inequality and women’s participation is embedded at all levels of the United Nations. We continue to support the UN Peacebuilding Fund and have committed over £175 million since its inception in 2006. We continue to support the UN’s Complex Risk Analytics Fund, with £1.4 million last year and this year, which plays an important role in financing data and analysis to strengthen global risk foresight capabilities. I do not accept what the noble Lord is suggesting. There are more ways that we can focus on peacebuilding, and certainly we will continue to do so.

[Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)]

My Lords, has the Minister had a chance to look at the reports I sent him over the weekend from Sudan, where over 100 mass graves were discovered in Khartoum and the surrounding area and where genocide continues in Darfur? Does he agree that there is an absolute link between peace and justice, and that if those who are responsible for atrocities, whether it is in Ukraine, the Middle East or Sudan, are not held to account, inevitably we see these things happen over and over again?

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

I have to confess that I did not have time over the weekend—sadly, I was not in the country—but I accept what the noble Lord says. It is absolutely vital that accountability is part of the mechanisms that we have to use here. He is right that it is about how we prevent these atrocities, and one sure way of preventing it is to make it clear to people who are thinking about committing such atrocities that they will be held to account. I agree with the noble Lord, but, as he focused on genocide determination, I repeat that our differences over that do not prevent us as a Government taking action to call out and seek to address atrocities, and to work to build resilience in places where there are risks of instability and violence. Sudan is a priority for this Government, as the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary have made clear. We will certainly pursue whatever we can in holding people to account to prevent such atrocities occurring or to stop those that are going on at the moment.

Jimmy Lai

Lord Alton of Liverpool Excerpts

Thursday 22nd May 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

I am grateful to the right reverend Prelate. We are, as he has pointed out, absolutely committed to strengthening support for British nationals abroad, including by introducing a right to consular assistance in cases of human rights violations. The department is considering a package of measures, which we will announce in due course, alongside options for stakeholder consultations. The FCDO is committed to strengthening support for British nationals overseas, including through the appointment of an envoy for complex detention cases. We will announce further details in due course.

[Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)]

My Lords, I join the Minister in conveying my own gratitude to the right reverend Prelate for the outstanding contribution he has made on this and on so many issues over his time in your Lordships’ House. I declare my interests as one of the Members of Parliament sanctioned by the People’s Republic of China, and as a patron of Hong Kong Watch.

Why, on this apparent normalising of relations with the People’s Republic of China, have we not made conditional action to release Jimmy Lai from the Hong Kong prison in which he and over 1,000 political prisoners are still incarcerated? Secondly, given that it is two years and four months since a request by Sebastien Lai—whom I met this morning with his family’s lawyer, Caoilfhionn Gallagher KC—to meet the Prime Minister, who was then the leader of the Opposition, why has the Prime Minister still not acceded to that request to meet with him and the family? Will the Minister agree to take that request back to No.10 Downing Street to ensure it is actioned expeditiously?

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

I said in my opening comments that this Government are absolutely committed to pursuing this case and we will do so at all levels. Certainly, the Foreign Secretary has done so, but so has the Prime Minister in his meeting with President Xi. I know that Minister West has also met with Jimmy Lai’s son—I think he is present here—and we will continue to do so. It is really important that we highlight this case at every single opportunity.

The noble Lord mentioned normalisation of relationships. Of course, China is a big economic player globally, but we are absolutely taking a consistent, long-term strategic approach in managing our relationships, rooted in those interests. We will co-operate where we can and compete where we need to but, most importantly, challenge when we need to.

Journalists and Media Workers: Safety and Security

Lord Alton of Liverpool Excerpts

Thursday 24th April 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)]

My Lords, Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights guarantees the right to freedom of opinion and expression, including the freedom to hold opinions without interference, and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media, regardless of frontiers.

In exercising Article 19, too many journalists face harassment, prosecution, asset freezing, disinformation, kidnapping and even death—UNESCO suggest that, in 2024, at least 68 journalists were killed—all at a time when media outlets are being closed through hostility or funding cuts. Does the Minister agree that, when crimes against journalists are left unpunished, the lack of accountability and impunity merely emboldens the perpetrators?

Some of these crimes involve transnational repression, the subject of a current inquiry by the Joint Committee on Human Rights. We have received 1,244 pages of written submissions and oral testimonies, including evidence of systematic targeting of BBC staff and their families in countries such as Russia and Iran. Over 300 BBC World Service journalists, around 15%, now operate in exile.

We heard from Jimmy Lai’s lawyers about his imprisonment in Hong Kong: jailed by the Chinese Communist Party for the crime of journalism and for promoting free media. We heard of the shocking attempted murder in London of an Iranian journalist, left bleeding on the pavement outside his studio as three assailants headed for Heathrow and out of the country.

The JCHR has been told, “There has been a serious escalation of harassment and security threats directed at journalists reporting on Iran from abroad”, including credible death and kidnap threats. The committee will this week publish some of this evidence. Will the Minister urgently look at the evidence, engage with the JCHR, respond to the BBC’s call for “better co-ordination across government departments” in providing support for journalists and their families, and tell us how we intend to use international fora to make more effectively the case for Article 19 and to challenge impunity?

Cuba: Political Dialogue and Cooperation Agreement

Lord Alton of Liverpool Excerpts

Tuesday 25th March 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

I did not expect to have to explain this to the noble Lord, but the previous Government’s rationale for implementation was to promote economic and political development. Certainly, I will not defend the attacks on human rights—I am the Minister for Human Rights—but I welcome the fact that, on 14 January, 553 prisoners, including political prisoners, were liberated. We remain concerned about those continuing to serve time, and we have made representations about that. We certainly urge Cuba to ensure that all those prisoners have the right to a fair trial, without condition. But I repeat that the engagement that we have undertaken, and what the previous Government did, had a purpose: to see economic and political development. That is the way to make progress.

[Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)]

My Lords, in welcoming what the Minister—in his capacity as the Minister for Human Rights, a task he carries out with great diligence —has just said about human rights violations in Cuba, I ask him: can he share with the House the current numbers of people who are imprisoned in Cuba because of their political views? Can he share the violations that have been carried out under Article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights—the right to believe, not to believe or to change belief—and the massive numbers of violations and imprisonments that occur in Cuba under that clause?

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

I shall not repeat the figures from the announcement about the recent release, but I reassure the noble Lord that the United Kingdom Government, as did the previous Government, have called for the immediate release of all political prisoners, without condition, and that will remain our position. We are absolutely determined to advance political development in Cuba, and we will focus on ensuring that human rights are respected.

Sudan: Sexual Violence Against Women and Girls

Lord Alton of Liverpool Excerpts

Monday 10th March 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

I thank the noble Baroness. The Prime Minister has made it absolutely clear that Sudan is a priority and will remain a priority through the spending review that we are currently undertaking.

I should reassure the noble Baroness that we have taken consistent action; on 4 and 5 March, Harriet Matthews, director-general for Africa, visited Port Sudan; on 24 February, I hosted a round-table in Geneva with the head of the fact-finding mission to talk about these issues; and of course on 31 January, a UK-sponsored UN Security Council press statement condemned the recent violence in al-Fashir and Sudan.

So we are continuing to focus on this, and that is what the April conference that the Foreign Secretary is convening will be all about—not only making sure that the international community acts on humanitarian support but looking forward to developing a civilian-led coalition that can lead Sudan out of conflict.

[Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)]

My Lord, notwithstanding the undoubtedly sincere efforts that the Minister makes, what assessment has he made of the statement made today by the UN Resident and Humanitarian Coordinator in Sudan, Clementine Nkweta-Salami, that the sudden funding cuts by top government donors, which have cut off significant support to humanitarian organisations working to reach some 21 million people, will be a “catastrophic blow”, not least to women and children?

Reinforcing the point made by the noble Baroness who spoke earlier, what is being done to end the culture of impunity, where someone such as Omar al-Bashir can still be on the loose when he was indicted 20 years ago for the crime of genocide in Darfur?

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

My Lords, the US is the largest humanitarian donor in Sudan, providing just under half of the UN’s response, and we are pressing all partners to ensure that aid continues to be committed to Sudan. Far too much of the aid already committed is unable to reach those who need it, and the April conference will focus on that. We remain committed to working with a number of partners, including the US, to ensure safe and unimpeded humanitarian access.

I will also repeat that we continue to support the ICC investigation in Darfur, including allegations of crimes. We are absolutely committed, which is why, in October, we also managed to get wholehearted support at the human rights committee for the fact-finding mission’s mandate to be extended.

War in Sudan

Lord Alton of Liverpool Excerpts

Monday 3rd March 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

The noble Lord is absolutely right. One of the things we have been concerned about—which we have raised with both parties—is access to humanitarian aid. While one side says you can have that access, it does not cross the warring parties, so we cannot get to the people who desperately need it. He is absolutely right that we have to look at all means to ensure that we get help in. In terms of the April conference, we are engaging with civil society and the Taqaddum leadership—now called Somoud, where there has been a slight breakaway—and we are concerned to ensure that we have an inclusive dialogue. I met the chargé d’affaires for Sudan last week, and I made clear that we demand humanitarian access. We have committed additional funds, but we want proper access to all parts of Sudan so that nobody suffers.

[Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)]

My Lords, with 24 million people in Sudan, half the population in acute need of food, including 1.5 million on the edge of famine, how does the Minister respond to Annaliese Dodds’s statement that it would be “impossible” to deliver the proposed further cuts to aid without hitting programmes in Sudan, with women and children being principal victims? Can he also say where he believes the Sudanese Armed Forces are obtaining their weaponry, particularly in regard to the repositioning of Russian assets from Syria to Sudan via Libya?

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

The noble Lord had two questions; I will answer the latter first. We are totally aware of a number of parties supplying arms, including Russian elements, which end up supporting not only the SAF but the other party too—they seem to have a continued interest in ensuring that the war carries on. To come back on his other question, as the Prime Minister made very clear, we are in unique circumstances at the moment with a generational change, and it is absolutely vital that this country is able to defend itself fully and to defend all the values that we hold so dear. He is absolutely committed, and he made that very clear at the weekend. But he also made clear that we are determined to support—as the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, said—humanitarian aid in Sudan. As a consequence of the reduction, we will make a detailed analysis of how that spending will be allocated through the spending review process that has already started, so I am not going to predetermine that. But I believe that the Prime Minister is absolutely committed to ensuring that humanitarian aid gets into this worst humanitarian situation in Sudan.