Global Human Rights and International Humanitarian Law Sanctions Regulations 2026

Lord Callanan Excerpts

Wednesday 4th November 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

My Lords, when the Government announced these sanctions, the Government and the Official Opposition reasserted our commitment to the two-state solution and Israel’s right to defend itself. We all want to see sustainable, long-term peace in the region. I know there is a broad consensus in the House on that matter. Also, for the avoidance of doubt, we all condemn settler violence, and I hope that the Israeli authorities will clamp down on many of the abuses we have seen.

However, as I said in September, the test by which the Government’s sanctions will be judged is whether they bring us closer to a sustainable two-state solution. We on these Benches are far from satisfied that the Government’s approach is any closer to achieving that. We were particularly concerned by the Government’s decision to announce these sanctions, which will take months to be implemented, surprisingly close to the Holborn and St Pancras by-election, which, incidentally, meant creating a further political row during the lead-up to the elections in Israel. This was a serious misjudgment, leading many of us to suspect that domestic political considerations were at the forefront of the Government’s consideration.

I share many of the concerns raised by noble Lords across the House today, including on the government Benches. I hope the Minister will be able to give full answers to the many serious questions that have been put to him today. If he needs to write to noble Lords to provide detailed replies, I would be grateful if he would commit to sharing those detailed answers with all Peers for the information of the House and laying copies of his replies in the Library.

I hope the Minister will forgive me if I add some questions to his extensive list. On religious freedom, the Government have said that these regulations would not affect freedom of religion. What assessment have they made of the impact on Jewish religious observance, including acts of worship, religious visits, religious goods and related payments; and of compatibility with Article 9, on freedom of religion, and Article 14, on prohibition of discrimination, of the European Convention on Human Rights that the Government keep telling us they are committed to, as given effect by the Human Rights Act 1998? Will they publish objective criteria distinguishing support for worship and religious institutions from financing settlement expansion before charities, donors and banks are expected to apply them?

Will the Government report annually to Parliament on designations and decisions not to designate by country and build an annual review or sunset clause into the operation of the regulations, so that their efficacy, fairness and proportionality can be assessed every year by all of us? Will the regulations be applied in a manner proportionate to their stated aims and consistent with the UK’s obligations under international law? Can the Minister tell us whether the Treasury, BIST, DHSC and relevant financial regulators were consulted on the wider effects, and will the Government publish a summary of their assessments?

Finally, on the necessity of these regulations, what specific conduct could not be addressed adequately under the 2020 regime, and what evidence led Ministers to conclude that these additional 2026 designation grounds were necessary, beyond domestic political considerations? I look forward to the Minister’s response, but should my noble friend Lord Leigh put his amendment to the vote, I will certainly support him.

International Criminal Court

Lord Callanan Excerpts

Tuesday 27th October 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

My Lords, given that Russia withdrew its signature from the Rome statute in 2016, meaning that it is not a party to the International Criminal Court, what methods could be used to bring future prosecutions of war crimes and crimes against humanity committed by Russians in Ukraine?

[Lord Wood of Anfield (Lab)]

The noble Lord raises important issues on the lack of overlap between jurisdiction and the future necessity there will be to take action against individuals and organisations that commit crimes. As the noble Lord knows, we are already taking action to set up embryonic forms—which will take less embryonic forms in the future—of commissions that will do investigations. We are doing that in partnership with other countries. There will probably need to be special procedures in place for that, but we are in the lead in trying to think about the different structures that will be required.

British Sovereignty Protection (Chagos Islands) Bill [HL]

Lord Callanan Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 23rd October 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

My Lords, this has been a great, if somewhat one-sided, debate. It is quite sad that nobody from the Labour Benches or the Liberal Democrat Back Benches, not even their Front-Bench spokesmen, have bothered to turn up and give us their opinion on this Bill. Nevertheless, we have benefited from some great speeches from the noble Lord, Lord Weir, in introducing it, and from my own Benches and the non-aligned Members.

I pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Weir of Ballyholme, for introducing the Bill. He has a been a constant presence in our debates about the future of the BIOT. His work on the catastrophic Diego Garcia Military Base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill in the previous Session contributed in large part to the failure of the Government’s Chagos surrender. He is to be lauded for his commitment to our common cause, the continuation of British sovereignty over the Chagos Islands and the righting of historic wrongs perpetrated against the Chagossian people by the British state. It is a true pleasure to speak in support of his excellent Bill today.

As the noble Lord, Lord Weir, has explained, this Bill would protect British sovereignty over the British Indian Ocean Territory and give the Chagossian people the voice that they deserve. If this Bill were to become law, the UK would be prevented from transferring the sovereignty of the islands, or leasing them to another state, unless three tests have been met. These tests are that, first, the approval of any lawful BIOT Government has been signified; secondly, a referendum of the Chagossian people approving the transfer has been held; and, thirdly, an Act of Parliament has been passed. All those steps seem eminently sensible and would give future Governments pause for thought before proceeding to agree another surrender treaty like the one signed by Keir Starmer’s failed Government.

I have no doubt that the Minister will oppose this. It is, after all, a triple lock, and we know how the Prime Minister feels about triple locks. We on these Benches are much more open to the Weir triple lock for the Chagos Islands, in light of the persistent efforts by the Mauritian Government to undermine British sovereignty over the Chagos Islands. The noble Lord’s Bill also puts Parliament in the driving seat when it comes to any planned expenditure connected to the transfer of sovereignty. For months, we were in dispute over the Government’s previous plan to spend £35 billion on their hopelessly unpopular treaty with Mauritius. Ministers denied that figure until the Government’s own response to an FoI request in fact confirmed that that figure was correct.

Giving away islands that are British by right, and then paying for the privilege, was always an unacceptable position, and there was widespread opposition to it in this House during our debates on the Government’s Bill. It is clear that this Government cannot be trusted to negotiate a good deal for the British people, and it is no wonder that the EU is so keen to talk about closer ties when it sees such negotiating weakness from the United Kingdom. It is only right that Parliament should have the final say on any Chagos-related expenditure. Perhaps that way, we will prevent Ministers from signing off on treaties that are tantamount to total capitulation.

That brings me to the legal status of the islands. Ministers have constantly parroted the line that the islands are subject to legal uncertainty as a result of judgments in the international courts, but they have been strangely reluctant to tell us which judgments. My noble friends Lord Lilley, Lord Bellingham and Lord Murray and others have roundly discredited that position, and we will see when the Minister responds whether she can do better than her colleagues when we were considering the previous Bill. My noble friends are right that this Bill explicitly reaffirms Britain’s unquestionable sovereignty over the islands in Clause 1(2), and we support that. We are clear that the islands are British and see no problem with Parliament making that plain in primary legislation. Indeed, as many of my noble friends have pointed out, particularly the noble Lord, Lord Lilley, the United Kingdom is already subject to the obligation to maintain sovereignty over the Chagos Islands under the famous 1967 exchange of notes with the United States. This Bill merely confirms in domestic law something that is already set out in international law, which the Government keep telling us that they are so obedient to.

Finally, I want to say a word on the Chagossians, who have been so appallingly treated by successive Governments. As my noble friend Lord Hannan has pointed out many times, their quiet dignity in the light of the great injustice done to them is truly humbling, and I am delighted to see so many of them sitting in our Public Gallery today. It is high time that the Government put their mind to the views and the future of the Chagossians who were so cruelly removed from those islands.

Now that the Government have confirmed their review of the UK-Mauritius Chagos agreement, will the Minister commit to a proper consultation of Chagossian people before confirming any future policy in this area? The Government have plenty of time to do that now; their previous argument that there was not enough time falls apart. The Government previously resisted a formal consultation for fear that a judicial review might be brought, delaying their planned transfer of the islands to Mauritius. Now there is no such urgency, can we please put the Chagossian people back in the picture on the future of their own homeland?

I know the Minister will tell us that the Government have established the Chagossian Contact Group. That is a good thing, but she knows that we feel it is not enough. Since I imagine she will mention the group, will she at least tell the House when this contact group last met?

I wish the noble Lord, Lord Weir of Ballyholme, every success as he takes this Bill forward, and I hope the Government will listen to his heartfelt calls for us to draw a line under this sorry saga and say, once and for all: the Chagos Islands are British, and British they shall remain.

Special Envoy for Post-Holocaust Issues

Lord Callanan Excerpts

Tuesday 20th October 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Winterton of Doncaster (Lab)]

I thank the noble Baroness for her question and her long-standing campaigning on this issue. I know how deeply she feels about it. The special envoy has already been looking at some of the issues she has raised, but I will have further discussions with him about her point on the Council of Europe. Obviously, there are parliamentary delegations to that, so she may wish to raise it with representatives from this House who are on the Council of Europe too.

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

My Lords, building on the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, and my noble friend Lord Pickles, many Jewish families have not been reunited with their property looted by the Nazis and the special envoy, as has been said, has a responsibility to support restitution. Could the Minister say what estimate the Government have made of the number of British families who have not been reunited with property stolen by the Nazis and when the special envoy last met the independent Spoliation Advisory Panel?

[Baroness Winterton of Doncaster (Lab)]

I do not have the figure on the number of British families to hand, but I will certainly see what I can find out and write to the noble Lord. I did not quite hear the body that he named, but I will ensure that the special envoy is aware of the point he has raised and, if it would be helpful, arrange a briefing for him with regard to that international body.

Yuval Abraham and Rachel Szor: Citizenship

Lord Callanan Excerpts

Thursday 17th September 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Wood of Anfield (Lab)]

The noble Lord raises a number of complex hypothetical issues around this, and they may or may not transpire, but they are matters for Israeli courts, Israeli politics and Israel in general rather than for me.

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

My Lords, building on the question from my noble friend Lord Polak, as the noble Lord acknowledged, Israel is the only democracy in the Middle East. It has robust rule-of-law provisions. I wonder what steps the Government are taking to establish those exact provisions in the rest of the Middle East, including Iraq, Iran, Syria and all these other Arab countries.

[Lord Wood of Anfield (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lord for that. I am not sure whether he remembers the announcements made last week about taking extremely robust action: sanctions against the financing arm of Hezbollah, and further sanctions actions against Iran in the transport, energy and other sectors supporting its attempted nuclear programme, and on vessels that transport materials for it. In other states where there is terrorism and hostility to the UK and our allies, we are taking robust action in the hope that, in the future, democracy may take root.

Israel and Palestine

Lord Callanan Excerpts

Wednesday 9th September 2026 Lords Chamber

My parents came to this country as Jewish refugees and found sanctuary and a country that stood up for the rule of law, freedom and self-determination. Those are the values this Government are standing up for today, and I truly believe that the vast majority of the British people, including in our communities with ties to the region, are united in their desire to see humanitarian suffering end and all sides commit to a durable peace process. Just as we want Israelis and Palestinians to live side by side, we have to live out those values in Britain. Jews in Britain, Muslims in Britain, and people of all faiths and none have a right to live without prejudice or fear. We need a Britain that upholds its values at home and around the world, a Britain that fights against oppression and suffering wherever they occur, and a Britain that stands up for what is right. I commend this Statement to the House”.

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for granting us the opportunity to ask questions on this important Statement. These measures amount to a major change in the UK’s approach to the region, so it is right that we are scrutinising them in your Lordships’ House today.

In the other place, the Foreign Secretary and my right honourable friend the shadow Foreign Secretary rightly noted the consensus across both our parties on the need for a two-state solution to the Israel-Palestine conflict. We agree that the settlements are illegal. We are both firm in our resolve that Israel has a right to defend itself. I welcome the Foreign Secretary’s explicit statement that he is unwavering in his support for the State of Israel. We also agree that His Majesty’s Government were right to designate the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, although I remind the Minister that the Government consistently resisted our amendments to prescribe the IRGC and had to be dragged to this position by noble Lords on all sides of this House.

The question that we must ask ourselves today is whether the Government’s actions have moved us closer to a two-state solution or whether this is a backward step. The Foreign Secretary said a number of times that the UK must not be a bystander. Today we have learned that Israel has ordered the closure of the British consulate. Can the Minister say whether the news will undermine the UK’s ability to influence the future of the region? Have the Government now made the UK a bystander and a weaker influence on Israel as a result of these announcements? Can he also say what the FCDO advice was on the risk of the UK’s influence in the region being weakened as a result of yesterday’s announcement?

Then there is the matter of the timing. Only a matter of weeks ago, Ministers in the previous Government, some of whom now serve in this Government also, were saying in writing that any trade ban targeting settlements would be practically very difficult to enforce. Can the Minister confirm that this ban will in fact need primary legislation that will not be enacted for many months? The Foreign Secretary indicated nine months, but even seems optimistic to me. Can the Minister indicate when we can expect to see this draft legislation?

It has also been said by many that the Government have made a serious mistake by announcing this dramatic change in policy just weeks before an Israeli election. Bloomberg reported yesterday that British Foreign Office officials were quietly reassuring the Trump Administration that these trade sanctions were “largely symbolic”, which perhaps explains the somewhat muted US reaction.

It seems clearer by the day that this announcement has nothing to do with peace in the Middle East but everything to do with peace in the Labour Party. Can the Minister say whether Ministers even considered the risk that these measures would in fact strengthen the hand of extremist politicians in Israel who oppose the two-state solution? Yesterday, my honourable friend the Shadow Foreign Secretary asked him to say what instructions had been given to the Foreign Office on the accreditation of diplomats to the so-called Palestinian Embassy should Hamas win the elections in November and send their envoys here; he did not receive an answer. The Foreign Secretary also refused to answer the same question on Radio 4 this morning. Let me give the Minister another opportunity to do so now.

I have deliberately left the most important issue until last. Whatever His Majesty’s Government’s approach may be to issues across the world, their first duty should be to the British people. We must always stand up for British Jews. Antisemitism has no place in this country. The Chief Rabbi yesterday accused the Government of “mendacious anti-Israel rhetoric” that would put Jewish people in danger. Can the Minister please reassure the House that the Government will do everything in its power to keep British Jews safe? They are our fellow countrymen and women, and no conflict in another part of the world should be allowed to feed hate in this country. It is not just security measures for synagogues, schools and community centres that we need; although these measures are essential in this time of rising antisemitism, we need a much wider approach across our politics and in communities across the country to stamp out antisemitism. May I ask the Minister one final question before I sit down? What more are the Government going to do to end the scourge of antisemitism in the UK?

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

My Lords, the choice of who forms the Israeli Government is for the Israeli people and them alone. Our foreign policy is for our Government, and our legislation is for this Parliament. No British Jewish person should be held to account for the actions of another Government—an Israeli Government. Antisemitism, at too high a rate, is utterly repugnant and has no place in our communities. I reiterate what I have said on a number of occasions, and I hope that the Minister might take this forward: there should be the highest-level cross-party talks on increasing measures to tackle this scourge in our country.

That said, I agree with the Foreign Secretary’s comment in his Statement that the Labour Government have not done enough in response to the humanitarian crisis in Gaza and the West Bank. Therefore, these Benches welcome the actions taken by 12 countries, including the United Kingdom, to act on ensuring that there is no impunity for the comprehensive disregard for the rule of law in the West Bank.

The Foreign Secretary referred to the time of the Oslo accords and the number of those who resided in the illegal settlements. That number is very high. But I want to go a little bit further back and quote the first speech by Lord Carrington, as Foreign Secretary in the Thatcher Government in 1979, in this Chamber. In this speech, he said of the West Bank that:

“The objective here must be full and genuine autonomy for these areas as a step towards determining their final status. Nothing would do more to help these negotiations, to build trust in the area, and to win the consent of the Palestinians than for Israel to cease the expansion of its settlements in the occupied territories”.—[Official Report, 22/5/1979; col. 240.]


Then, there were not much more than 15,000 settlers in the illegally occupied areas. Today, there are more than 750,000. The challenges ahead are enormous, but Lord Carrington got the prescription of the problem exactly right.

I have seen the impunity both for those who are in the illegally occupied territory and for those in the outposts. In September 2024, I visited the area and saw part of the destruction and the intimidation by illegal settlers in outposts in the West Bank that are illegal under Israeli law. Our sanctions will not make any difference there. On my return to this House, I called for action and an end to the impunity, because settler violence was the worst on record in the year leading up to 7 October, and it has got worse since.

If the established view across all parties in this House is that outposts are illegal under both Israeli and international law, and that settlements are illegal under international law, surely it is a natural position that UK law should not facilitate trade and investment with those illegal outposts. I do not understand those who are saying that we should not have our law respecting Israeli law.

Further, it is surely a natural position that, for those who facilitate settlements and outposts that are illegal under Israeli law, our law should ensure that both finance and violence by intimidation should also be illegal. My first-hand sight of the intimidation was on a particular occasion where the settler was South African and had secured and formalised his Israeli citizenship on the flight from South Africa.

Unfortunately, actions to ensure that there is no peace in Gaza and the West Bank are happening through a systematic approach by some of those outpost communities. Lord Carrington was right that the outposts and settlements were a hindrance and block to peace.

I ask the Minister how we in the United Kingdom will ensure that Hamas gangsters are prevented from being part of governance. We called for the IRGC to be proscribed and were, on occasions, frustrated that the previous Government refused to do so. We welcome this Government’s proscription of it.

We have also been supportive of the recognition of the state of Palestine. But, on the balance of ensuring that Hamas is not part of the governance, we need to ensure that there is good governance for Palestine, and that is why we were critical of the Government cutting development partnership support for the very governance and transparency for Palestine that we will need in the future.

The previous Government perpetuated a cut of 80% to ODA for Palestine, which this Government are continuing. I hope that the Minister might review this, to ensure that the UK’s support for good governance increases and does not continue to fall. The travesty of the Trump Administration’s failed humanitarian agency shows the need for there to be clarity, law and order, and good governance.

Finally, I hope that the Minister will be able to confirm that the sanctions regime that will be put in place will ensure that all those involved in circumvention of the sanctions regime will be caught within it, so that there is no impunity for those within this country, under our law, to continue to support the expansion of outposts that are illegal under Israeli law.

Falkland Islands

Lord Callanan Excerpts

Monday 7th September 2026 Lords Chamber

Asked by

[Lord Callanan]

To ask His Majesty’s Government, what recent discussions they have had, if any, with (1) the Government of Argentina and (2) the Government of the United States pertaining to the future of the Falkland Islands; and what steps they are taking to ensure the security of those islands.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Baroness Winterton of Doncaster) (Lab)]

My Lords, the UK remains steadfast in its support for the Falkland Islanders’ right of self-determination. This is not the first time Argentina has made economic threats against the Falklands. These threats have not prevented the community’s remarkable economic development, and we have made clear to Argentina that the measures announced by President Milei will not change the UK’s unwavering commitment to the islands. The US is our closest ally. It can have no doubt about our unwavering support for the islanders.

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

I thank the noble Baroness for her reply and, indeed, welcome her to the Dispatch Box and her new job. I look forward to many happy exchanges with her in the future.

The Falkland Islands are British. We fought to defend them in 1982 and there should be no doubt of our national resolve. Argentina’s increasingly aggressive rhetoric in respect of the Falkland Islands has no doubt been emboldened by news that the United States is reviewing its position on British sovereignty and, of course, by this Government’s restated policy of handing over another UK overseas territory, the Chagos Islands, to Mauritius. They have been emboldened by our weakness.

Can the Minister reassure us that the Government are preparing for all eventualities, including military scenarios, and can she confirm that they could provide a real deterrent to Argentina by ditching their failed policy of handing over the Chagos Islands?

[Baroness Winterton of Doncaster (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lord for his kind welcome, and I remember our CPA trip to Singapore and Malaysia.

Saudi Arabia: Nuclear Power Programme

Lord Callanan Excerpts

Tuesday 1st September 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Wood of Anfield (Lab)]

The noble Lord raises an important point about transparency. The UK works extremely closely with the United States across a wide range of issues, including civil nuclear co-operation. But to go back, this is an agreement that will be lodged with the IAEA. There are bilateral safeguards, as well as a general obligation that comes from the comprehensive safeguards agreement. Those are the due processes that should be in place when civil nuclear co-operation deals occur.

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

My Lords, I also extend my welcome to the noble Lord in his new role. I look forward to working with him and am sure that we will have lots of fruitful and mutually beneficial exchanges across this Dispatch Box. We have a long-standing and important relationship with Saudi Arabia. Our principal focus in the region at the moment should be re-establishing free and open navigation of the Strait of Hormuz. Can the Minister say what progress is being made towards that end?

[Lord Wood of Anfield (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lord for those welcoming remarks—stretching “fruitful” too much, perhaps, but I hope not. I look forward to engaging with and working with him. We continue to believe that a diplomatic settlement around the Strait of Hormuz is the only way of not only resolving the economic dislocation that has resulted from the conflict but preventing Iran obtaining a nuclear weapon. Iran must never be allowed to develop a nuclear weapon and our position on its nuclear programme remains unchanged. My right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary and others in the Government are playing their part in trying to ensure that a ceasefire holds and that a diplomatic resolution is the ultimate result of what happens in the Strait of Hormuz.

Ukraine: UK Security Guarantee

Lord Callanan Excerpts

Thursday 5th June 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

My Lords, not for the first time do I profoundly disagree with the noble Lord. We have a long-standing commitment, which will remain for as long as it takes, to stand alongside Ukraine. Ukraine’s security is our security. We have a responsibility and a duty to the people of Ukraine, many of whom are living here with us still, and we are very pleased to welcome them.

I completely reject the noble Lord’s analysis of the events he referred to, as do my colleagues in the Ministry of Defence. We speak all the time to our friends and allies in the United States about this. President Trump wants to see peace, we want to see peace, and President Zelensky has agreed to a ceasefire. The person who could achieve that ceasefire, who could bring peace to Ukraine and who could see the children returned to their homes is President Putin.

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

My Lords, from these Benches, I completely agree with the Minister’s sentiments. I think the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, is absolutely wrong, and all of us who are strong supporters of Ukraine were greatly encouraged by the recent audacious attack on the Russian airfields—in which nobody was killed, by the way; it was just equipment that was damaged.

To secure Ukrainian sovereignty in the longer term, it is vital that Ukraine possesses armed forces which have a strong, strategic and tactical advantage in the region. So, I would be grateful if the Minister could update the House on the steps that the Government are taking to support the Ukrainian military to ensure that it has troops that are well trained and well equipped in the longer term, to a high standard, to help deter further Russian aggression.

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

We will continue to provide the £3 billion a year to Ukraine for as long as it is needed. Future defence and security co-operation is included in the 100-year partnership, and we have the coalition of the willing initiative as well, which is specifically designed to provide security assurance to Ukraine as we move forward, hopefully soon after the establishment of a ceasefire.

Gaza: Humanitarian Aid

Lord Callanan Excerpts

Wednesday 4th June 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

My Lords, we and others predicted that the scheme that Israel decided to implement to get aid into Gaza would fail—and the manner in which it would fail. We are deeply saddened by what we are seeing and to receive the information coming out of Gaza about the failure of that scheme. The only way to get aid in at scale that we can currently see is to allow the UN and partners to deliver the aid where it is needed, at the speed and scale needed to save lives.

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

My Lords, first, I condemn the demonstration taking place outside Parliament as we speak. Of course, people have a legitimate right to protest, but there are reports of Members being jostled, questioned and having cameras shoved in their faces. One Member reported having water thrown over them. Intimidating Members and obstructing access to the House are unacceptable, and I hope that the authorities will take note.

The Colonna report was commissioned by the UN in 2024 following the revelations that UNRWA staff members participated in the 7 October attacks. The report made 50 recommendations to UNRWA. The current Government lifted the suspension on funding for UNRWA that we had put in place, despite its involvement in those attacks. Can the Minister tell me how many of those 50 recommendations have been implemented?

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

My Lords, there was a problem with UNRWA. The Colonna report tells us that steps have been taken by UNRWA to deal with that. I am not standing here to have an argument with the noble Lord about UNRWA or any of the things that have happened in the past. What matters today is that we get aid into Gaza, where children are dying through lack of food—that is what is happening. If Israel, or anybody else, can find a better way to get that aid where it is needed without the guns and violence that we are seeing, and without people being killed when going to get aid, let us have a conversation about that. There is no other credible way to get that aid where it is needed at the speed needed, and that is the focus of this Government.