Ukraine: UK-USA Discussions

Lord Bellingham Excerpts

Wednesday 26th March 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

My Lords, I only wish we were in a post-ceasefire situation. We have been absolutely clear that this process must lead to a just and lasting peace for Ukraine. We will stand with Ukraine for as long as it takes to ensure that Russia can never launch an illegal invasion again. Under President Zelensky’s leadership, Ukraine has shown that it is the party of peace, sincere in its efforts to pursue a just and lasting end to this appalling war. For any peace deal to last, Ukraine will need robust security arrangements to ensure that Russia is never able to invade again. Europe must shoulder more of the burden of ensuring the security of our continent and the UK will play its full part but, as the PM said, US involvement in future security arrangements is the only way to effectively deter Russia.

[Lord Bellingham (Con)]

My Lords, does the Minister agree that it is vital that there is no weakening of the sanctions regime, particularly the sanctions on Rosselkhozbank and the restrictions on Russia’s use of the SWIFT regime, until there is a full ceasefire?

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

I agree with the noble Lord absolutely. We need to maintain pressure on Russia to ensure that the ceasefire leads to a secure and lasting peace.

House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill

Lord Bellingham Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 25th March 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Garnier (Con)]

Exactly; and we are all the better off for that. However, I think it very important to recognise that, although our constitution is odd, strange and, in many ways, not very neat, it does function all the better by having people from a variety of backgrounds in this place.

The fact that we do not any more regularly have the presence of what used to be called Law Lords, and now are justices of the Supreme Court, is a disbenefit to us. Also, I suspect that there was a time when the Law Lords gained advantage by, if not speaking and voting in the Chamber, at least being here and listening to or discerning the political mood of the moment. This is particularly so when they are dealing with cases involving public policy. I suspect that we have missed a trick by informing the Supreme Court and our being informed by it in our respective deliberations.

[Lord Bellingham (Con)]

I am very grateful to the noble and learned Lord for giving way. He will recall that, when we both became MPs a while back, we attended APPGs regularly. It was customary at those to see a number of sitting Law Lords in attendance—obviously, never making controversial points but adding a great deal of wisdom and knowledge to the work of the APPGs.

[Lord Garnier (Con)]

My noble friend was obviously a keener member of APPGs than I was, but I am sure he is entirely right.

None the less, I think it important that we in this House, and the Supreme Court, for its part, should mutually benefit from each other’s membership. I hope the Government will accede to my noble friend Lord Banner’s amendment, even if it does not go as far as my noble friend Lord Wolfson asked for in his.

I heard two particularly hurtful and outrageous suggestions this afternoon. One was from my noble friend Lord Wolfson: that he was not in the least bit bothered by the submissions from Members of his own Back Benches when he was a Minister.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Laing of Elderslie (Con)]

My Lords, the amendment in my name on the Marshalled List, Amendment 67, regards the potential appointment of temporary ministerial Members of your Lordships’ House. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Rennard, for his support of this amendment and for having added his name to it.

In the very few months during which I have been a Member of your Lordships’ House, I have seen from the inside what outside observers cannot appreciate fully: that this is an institution that works. It is a House that does its duty efficiently and effectively. I hope that discussing Amendment 67 will give the House, and indeed the Government, an opportunity to consider how the House could work even more effectively.

It is vital that a significant number of Government Ministers should be Members of this House, and equally vital that a significant number of Members of this House should be Government Ministers. Our duty to hold the Government to account is accomplished in a variety of ways, as your Lordships are well aware, the most obvious of which is asking questions of a Minister at the Dispatch Box.

In recent years, 36 Ministers have been directly appointed to this House as Ministers. They have come in and made their maiden speeches at the Dispatch Box as Ministers of the Crown. I am not for a moment suggesting that there is anything wrong with that.

A Prime Minister is entitled to appoint the person he or she considers best for the job. It is in all our interests—indeed, in the interests of the country as a whole—to have Ministers carrying out the business of government who know their subject and know how to put policies into action.

It has long been an accepted practice that a Prime Minister can appoint a person who has not been elected to Parliament to become part of the Government. But surely we all accept—some of us more than others—that the ability to win votes at a general election is not the only attribute that makes a good Minister. A successful government department needs a mixture of talents. The aim of Amendment 67 is not to restrict the ability of a Prime Minister to appoint the right person to do a particular job. On the contrary, the effect of this amendment would be to make it easier for a Minister to be appointed.

At present, the only possible appointment to this House is as a Peer for life. I put it to the House that there should be an alternative: the Prime Minister should be able to appoint a person to be a Government Minister and they should be a Member of this House during their tenure of the ministerial appointment and only for that time. Of course I will give way to my noble friend.

[Lord Bellingham (Con)]

I thank my noble friend for giving way. I just seek some clarification. She is making a very strong, cogent argument. When they leave their appointment as Ministers, will they keep their title or not?

[Baroness Laing of Elderslie (Con)]

I thank my noble friend for that very pertinent question. I think the answer is yes. A title is an honour—we have discussed this in various aspects of the Bill and in the changes that we are considering. There is no harm in a title. It is the presence of being in this House and having the ability to vote, et cetera, that is really the point at question. So, indeed, a title, once conferred, would be kept for ever. It is a great honour to be appointed to this House, but I ask noble Lords to consider that an appointment for life means something rather different to a person aged 30 and a person aged 60. None of us can predict what “for life” will mean, but if one is planning one’s career, it looks rather different from the point of view of having accomplished most of the things you are going to do, rather than from the point of view of having accomplished not very much yet.

There might be bright young things out there who could serve a few years as very effective members of a Government but who do not wish to undertake the duty of being a Member of this illustrious House for the rest of their lives. All recent Prime Ministers have vowed that they want to reduce the size of your Lordships’ House. Let us try to help the current Prime Minister to do that, by giving him the option to appoint Ministers on a temporary basis. It would be a modest step towards a 21st-century House if the Government were to consider adopting Amendment 67. I beg to move.

House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill

Lord Bellingham Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 12th March 2025 Lords Chamber

I say to my dear friends and noble Lords that I respect everyone who has spoken, but I am afraid I cannot make sense at all of any of these amendments getting into this Bill. If they do, I will be the first to resign.

[Lord Bellingham (Con)]

My Lords, it is a huge privilege to follow the noble and right reverend Lord, who made some very compelling points. I want to pick up on three points and make a suggestion.

First, on this Chamber being overcrowded and everyone being completely under pressure wherever they go, I agree entirely with the noble Lord, Lord Hannan. I come from the other place, where—as the Leader of the House will know only too well—in a Division, there can be up to 600 MPs voting. Even on a really busy Division here, there are never more than about 450, 470 or so. Frankly, when I was an MP, I often had difficulty finding a place in the Library or in the tea room. We do not have that problem here. The idea that that this House is ridiculously overcrowded is a non-starter. It is not the case.

I absolutely agree with what the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, mentioned. When those Members turn up here from time to time—but make a huge impact—the House is captivated by what they say. It would be a great shame to lose them by some rule around 10% or 20%. Would it not be better if the House looked at Section 85 of the Local Government Act 1972, which states that if a councillor fails to attend for a period of six months without due cause they can be disqualified? Would that not cover some of our colleagues who never turn up? If that rule was in place, would that not make them turn up? That would be better way of going about it than looking at 10% or 20%.

One of the reasons why the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, tabled these amendments was to show—and he made it clear enough—that there are many life Peers who hardly ever turn up and may have a lot to offer but do not take their role very seriously; whereas I am told by the Library that if we applied the 20% rule to hereditary Peers, only two hereditaries would be covered by that. All the other hereditaries have an attendance of more than 20%. None has an attendance of less than 10%. Their attendance record is quite excellent and impressive. Could the Minister comment on that point?

As the noble Lord, Lord Dobbs, pointed out, we are going to be debating this in Committee for more than four days. We may progress, but, rightly, a lot of different subjects have been covered. We will then have a long time on Report and at Third Reading. Surely there is a compromise that can be found. The Government already know they are going to get rid of the elections. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Hannan, that it is very sad that the elections will mean that we will have no more hereditary Peers, but we have conceded that that will happen. If it is about numbers, then surely a deal can be done. Many of the hereditary Peers on our side—there are 40 or so left—have said that they are going to retire anyway. Some of the life Peers, well into their late 80s and early 90s, on our side have said that they would retire. Before you get too far, you find that figure of 40. Surely, we can have a compromise here. It would save everyone a huge amount of time, effort and money.

[Lord Bethell (Con)]

My Lords, it is a great privilege to speak after my noble friend Lord Bellingham, who makes very clear points very persuasively. Attendance in Parliament has been a long-standing issue throughout British history, and my noble friend Lord Hannan spoke extremely well about the motivations of parliamentarians. Previous monarchs have looked at this issue very closely, and both King James and Queen Elizabeth brought in roll-calls and fines because they struggled so much to get parliamentarians to attend.

Many parliaments around the world have attendance criteria. In Belgium, salaries are docked if you do not attend enough. In Oregon, you get only 10 spare days and if you miss your 10 days you are not allowed to stand for re-election. This is an issue that many parliaments face.

The first three Lord Bethells never spoke in Parliament at all. They regarded it simply as an honour. That is a shame and not at all tolerated in modern times. The British public expect parliamentarians to play an active role, and they are absolutely right. I will say two things on that. First, the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, made the point about “deep and infrequent”. I think that is right and I have enormously valued the participation of some Peers with enormous expertise but other commitments. Secondly, there is a collaboration element to being part of what is a collective House. Scrutinising legislation, our principal endeavour, requires an enormous amount of co-operation between Peers, and that requires a relationship that needs a little familiarity. If people do not turn up at all, you cannot build those bonds of trust and collaboration and cannot do your job properly.

For that reason, I strongly support the spirit of the amendments from my noble friends Lord Blencathra and Lord Lucas, and endorse the comments of the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull.

Gaza

Lord Bellingham Excerpts

Wednesday 5th March 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

I have assured the House all the way through that our purpose is to ensure that we get aid to those who need it. We have had undertakings from UNRWA about the accusations of Hamas involvement in its work. We supported the Colonna recommendations, and we have even financially supported that. There is no doubt that UNRWA remains key in terms of delivery, but that is not the sole purpose. We are working with all agencies and all allies to ensure that aid gets through to the people who need it most. It is a very complex and difficult situation, and that is why we are working incredibly hard with all allies to make sure that the peace process, the ceasefire and the agreement that was reached continue. I am not going to use the term “phases”; at the end of the day, we want a sustainable peace, security for Israel and a home for the Palestinians.

[Lord Bellingham (Con)]

My Lords, further to the question asked by my noble friend Lord Robathan, it is obviously good news that this Arab group has supported Egypt’s proposals for the $53 billion reconstruction. I notice that they ask specifically for EU and UK contributions to that fund for reconstruction. Can the Minister comment on whether that will be forthcoming and HMG’s view on it?

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

One thing we are absolutely clear about is that there should be international co-operation to ensure the full restoration of Gaza. That means, primarily, the leading regional players playing their part. We will work with all our allies to support that. I will not predict what that might mean in financial terms, but at this stage, it is about working hard politically.

Democratic Republic of the Congo: M23 Group

Lord Bellingham Excerpts

Tuesday 25th February 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

The noble Lord is right to draw that to our attention, but the reality is that we are trying to ensure that all crimes committed in the process of this advance are properly investigated so that we can hold people to account. When I met the Foreign Minister of Rwanda this morning in Geneva, he denied all these accusations and refuted the story in the Guardian. I reassured him that we would be absolutely determined not only to ensure that they comply with the communiqué but to hold people to account for crimes against humanity.

[Lord Bellingham (Con)]

My Lords, is the Minister aware that it is not just a question of regular Rwandan troops being embedded in M23? There are now special forces involved as well, and there is overwhelming evidence that war crimes have been committed on both sides. I congratulate the Minister on the very robust set of measures he announced; the Government deserve credit for this. He mentioned SADC, but can he say what he is doing with the AU? Its offices can also be very useful in trying to find a way forward.

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

The noble Lord is absolutely right. When we committed to the Luanda process, we were not sure exactly what steps we could achieve in the final outcome. President Lourenço assured me about what he was trying to achieve. We cannot restore trust, but we can build confidence at each stage. Unfortunately, the 15 December summit did not take place; things fell apart, and we saw the advances. Now, as I said, SADC and the EAC have come together in Dar es Salaam, overseen by the African Union. They are taking the lead. The African Union has also appointed three facilitators to ensure that the process is moved forward in a much more consistent and coherent way.

Sudan and Eastern DRC

Lord Bellingham Excerpts

Monday 3rd February 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lord for his comments. The Foreign Secretary’s Statement in the other place last week made it clear that we will be working with our allies, and this is the important thing; we want a collective, international response that shows how serious and concerned we are about Rwanda’s activities in the eastern DRC. The first point is the one made by the noble, Lord Purvis: we have been absolutely clear in our message that it is unacceptable and there should be an immediate ceasefire. I will not speculate on what actions the international community will take, but rest assured they will be serious and will have an impact.

On the extractive industries and the mining situation, it is important to say that, when I first met President Lourenço, we talked about the Lobito corridor; we talked about the potential that Africa, and particularly that part of Africa, has in terms of greening the global economy. It has huge potential, and the DRC has the biggest amount of potential. We have focused in all our talks on saying there is a dividend for peace here—let us look at the future and not focus on the past. Sadly, we were unable to deliver that vision at the 15 December summit, but I am confident that we can refocus efforts on that and ensure we focus on progress in Africa.

[Lord Bellingham (Con)]

My Lords, following on from the Minister’s point and what the noble Lord, Lord Alton, said, Rwanda is now exporting more gold and, in particular, more smart tech minerals than it is producing in country. So is there an argument for this Government to put pressure on the major tech companies to look at their global supply chains? Especially as, for example, the UN group of experts pointed out that there is now compelling evidence that minerals smuggled out of the DRC have been used by Apple in constructing its latest generation of iPhone.

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

As I have said, we have seen those reports from the mission and expressed serious concern about the exploitation of those minerals in the eastern DRC for the benefit of both M23 and Rwanda. We have expressed our concern. Again, I will not speculate on what action the international community takes, but the noble Lord can rest assured that we are determined to act on a collective basis that has the most impact.

Middle East

Lord Bellingham Excerpts

Wednesday 22nd January 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

Building confidence and trust is not an easy thing to do over the long period of conflict that we have seen, and that is true of every area of conflict. We need to ensure that we define what peace means and what are the benefits and dividends of it, because there are great opportunities in Palestine and in Israel to develop economic progress in a way we have not seen before, and that peace can deliver. That is what we need to focus on. Looking back to old definitions, particularly the terms of terrorism, can hold back the building confidence process. I have spoken to many Israeli organisations working for peace in Israel and they are focused on ensuring that they look to the future, that we do not look at the past, and that we certainly build trust among young people.

[Lord Bellingham (Con)]

My Lords, can the Minister clarify whether the Foreign Secretary has met US special envoy Steve Witkoff yet? Can he also clarify what he said about the two-state solution, because surely this is the only way forward in the future to find a realistic peace? Would he also agree that this will work only if the State of Israel does actually now desist from the settlement programme on the West Bank?

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

We have made our position clear, as has the noble Lord, Lord Ahmad. We have been consistent about settlements in the Occupied Territories, we have been consistent in terms of the duties on Israel and we have condemned any extension of settlements. We have made absolutely clear, as the noble Lord, Lord Ahmad, said, that the previous Government and this Government are committed to that process, and we have made clear to the Israelis the consequence of undermining the possibility of a secure Palestinian state.

The Foreign Secretary has visited Israel and the region on three occasions since taking office. Every time he has visited, he has visited the Occupied Territories. I am pretty certain he has met the envoy, but I cannot give the noble Lord that assurance—I am not absolutely certain—but he has been heavily engaged in this process. As I said at the beginning, we have been making very serious calls about the ceasefire, we now have it, it is fragile and we need to be committed to ensure it is sustainable.

G20 and COP 29 Summits

Lord Bellingham Excerpts

Monday 25th November 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

I thank the noble and right reverend Lord for his recollections. Many people have similar, personal recollections of John. One of his great strengths was his ability to negotiate. Many felt that he would play up to his gruff exterior at times, but anyone who had watched him in a room of people disagreeing find some way to get some kind of agreement would have understood the brilliance of the man in that regard. That plays into COPs, in that people go in with their own objectives and do not always get what they want, but the worst thing they can do is walk out of the room, leave and make no progress. The lesson I take from John’s life is never to give up.

[Lord Bellingham (Con)]

My Lords, the Ukraine war was a recurring theme at the G20, and it looks very much as though this appalling war of attrition will continue for the foreseeable future. Obviously, funding is a key matter, and I noted the point from the noble Lord, Lord Newby, about frozen Russian assets. Can the Minister elaborate on that and give the House some explanation of whether there will be a breakthrough there?

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My apologies: I did not address that point in the time I had. Yes, there are ongoing discussions with others to make further progress on that.

Middle East

Lord Bellingham Excerpts

Tuesday 29th October 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

The noble Lord, Lord Ahmad, used to say repeatedly that sanctions are effective only if they are actioned in conjunction with our allies. The United States has imposed sanctions on those people—I hesitate to use the term “settlers”—in the West Bank who are determined to undermine and commit violent acts against Palestinian villages, and we have done the same. I agree that we need to work in concert with our allies. These sanctions under the global human rights regime are aimed at individuals, to show that their behaviour is totally unacceptable and that they would not be able to travel or do certain other things globally. We do look at their effectiveness, working with our allies, but they are not designed in quite the same way as sanctions against a state; they are against individuals.

[Lord Bellingham (Con)]

My Lords, will the Minister find time today to look at the Red Sea crisis? He will be aware that, this month, after a lull, a couple more vessels have been attacked by the Houthis: the tanker “Olympic Spirit” and the container ship “Megalopolis”. So far, 80 ships have been attacked. This has caused huge disruption to international trade, and many shipping companies have now diverted vessels from the Suez Canal, at great expense. Can the Minister say something about the role of the Royal Navy and what has been done to speed up the time it takes to service and refit destroyers and frigates?

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

That is the sort of question that I would expect from my noble friend Lord West. The noble Lord raises an important point about the Red Sea. I have initiated government debates in this House on important subjects, because it is important that we hear views from across the House. That is why I initiated a debate on Sudan, which has a huge impact regionally. This afternoon, we have a debate on the Horn of Africa and exactly the issues that the noble Lord raises. I hope that he will have an opportunity to stay and participate in that debate. We need to hear views about how we can respond. The important thing in the whole region is to ensure stability, stop escalation and ensure that the free routes through are maintained. This is not just about the impact on the United Kingdom; it impacts on global trade. It is an essential route.

Sudan

Lord Bellingham Excerpts

Friday 13th September 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Bellingham (Con)]

My Lords, I too welcome the Minister to his new post and congratulate him on the effort that he has so far put into the Sudan agenda. He has gone to New York and has recently attended the APPG on Sudan and South Sudan—he has commitment. It is a pleasure, incidentally, to follow the noble Lord, Lord Browne; to see an emphasis on the whole defence aspect of this, from him and the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, was very valuable.

I was fortunate enough to be appointed Minister for Africa exactly 14 years ago. The second country I visited was Sudan. I remember going there with a sense of considerable optimism. Khartoum is a city that always leaves an extraordinary impression. It is not a beautiful city, but it is a compelling one. I think that anyone who has seen dawn break on the banks of the Nile, to the background of prayers blowing from hundreds of mosques, will agree that it is an unforgettable experience. It is a great city, and it is a tragedy to see that half of it has now been reduced to rubble.

I want to take your Lordships back to why that 2010 optimism was created. It was mainly through relentless international pressure and work on Sudan. First, there was the comprehensive peace agreement, which led to the creation of South Sudan. Along with the noble Baroness, Lady Ashton, I had the privilege of going to the celebrations in South Sudan and visited Juba on a number of occasions, and I saw a young country emerging from years of disaster and civil war with great hope. Unfortunately, that hope has also now been diminished, partly because of the strife between the different tribes, the Nuer and the Dinka, and the inability of Salva Kiir and Riek Machar to work together. However, one reason why there was optimism and hope at that juncture was because of the intervention by the UN and the UNMIS force, which is still in place but which at that time had 14,000 personnel.

I also underline the really good work done by UNAMID, the joint AU-UN mission to Darfur. When it was first launched, it had 26,000 personnel and enabled the World Food Programme to launch what was at the time the largest-ever aid operation. In fact, at that time Sudan was host to, I think, one-third of the world’s peacekeepers. Incidentally, between 2004 and 2014, there were 25 UN Security Council resolutions on Sudan. It really was the centre of a lot of world attention and influence. We were indeed making progress and, in spite of al-Bashir’s ruthless military rule, we started to build good relations with the Sudanese Government, so much so that I remember working with the noble Baroness, Lady Ashton, on trade delegations from the UK and the EU to both Sudans at that point.

However, since the outbreak of this truly ghastly civil war, all that optimism has been replaced by a degree of despair. That has been made worse because, as so many noble Lords have mentioned today, this is indeed the forgotten war. With so much attention on Ukraine and Gaza, and on what is happening in the Far East with China, Sudan has been neglected. One of the differences is that, 20 years ago, Sudan was not neglected.

The scale of the crisis is truly mind-blowing. I will not repeat the facts that a number of people have mentioned already, apart from one: half the population is facing food insecurity. As the noble Baroness, Lady Helic, pointed out, we had the first declaration of famine globally for more than eight years. A very large number of people are dying. I just underline one point: unlike 20 years ago, this conflict-driven hunger stalks the entire country.

People have talked about displacement and the refugee crisis. I do not really want to add anything to that apart from to underline the point made by the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury that it is our problem as well. As the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, pointed out just a moment ago, 60% of the refugees assembling in the villages and areas around Calais indeed come from Sudan. It is our problem, and it is one that we have every obligation to address, and urgently.

The noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, also mentioned young people, and how young children and women are particularly at risk. Is it not appalling that in 2024 there are hundreds of people dying every day and thousands every week from diseases such as cholera, dengue fever and malaria? All are completely avoidable with the right vaccines and immunisation. Although UNICEF is doing its best, more still must be done. When the Minister goes to New York at the end of this month, will he emphasise that point to UNICEF? The work it is doing is incredible but it is not enough.

We should look at some of the predictions of the scale of tragedy that could be before us if action is not taken. A very depressing report was done recently by the Dutch Clingendael Institute that put the figure of potential deaths in Sudan at 10 million over the next two years. We need action on multiple fronts and, in spite of all the other distractions, we absolutely need relentless pressure and consistent energy to try to find a way forward.

I just want to make a number of suggestions, many of which have been made already, but I will add a little to some of them. Obviously, we need full, consistent, safe and unimpeded humanitarian access—that goes without saying. The Tine crossing into North Darfur from Chad has been open for a while and, as the noble Baroness, Lady Helic, pointed out, the Adre border crossing has now been opened, but only for a limited period. Why cannot that crossing be kept open on a permanent basis?

Neither side should impede aid, and there is overwhelming evidence that both al-Burhan and Hemedti have used starvation as a weapon of war. As a number of noble Lords have pointed out, this is a war crime, and it should be investigated and those responsible held to account.

As the noble Lord, Lord Alton, and others have pointed out, we have seen rape used as a weapon of war and genocide taking place. There is overwhelming evidence that the RSF and its militia allies have committed genocidal slaughter of a Massalit tribe. This is ethnic cleansing in 2024, and it needs an urgent investigation. I ask the Minister whether our own war crimes unit can be given further powers of access and resources.

I will make one point, which the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, touched on. Without a UN presence on the ground in Darfur, I do not see how humanitarian access will be guaranteed or a way forward will be found. It is a tragedy that UNAMID, having done so much over so many years, was wound down. I ask the Minister, when he goes to New York, to put re-empanelling UNAMID back on the agenda, as the noble Baroness suggested. It will require a massive leap of faith and substantial resources, but it is an absolute key priority to get that UN force back on the ground in Darfur.

We need to see the sanctioning of key individuals. I have never been a huge supporter of general sanctions but, as noble Lords who have experience of Zimbabwe know, targeted sanctions can have an impact. There are people out there who need to be turned into world pariahs by having targeted sanctions directed at them, so I ask the Minister also to look at that seriously.

Of course, we need more funding. I praise the incoming Government for making a real effort on this front, but more needs to be done. If one looks at the figures one sees that the UN Sudan appeal is only 41% funded.

My final point is that this tragedy is cascading into the regions around. It is going to cause untold issues around the Red Sea, in the Suez Canal and across the Sahel. The one area where we can add value is through our unique relationship with the UAE. Will the Minister confirm to the House that he will use that special relationship to make representations to the UAE to ensure that it stops this meddling and stops this proxy war? The Sudanese people deserve better, and we must make sure that they have a brighter future.