Ukraine: UK Security Guarantee
Lord Callanan Excerpts(1 week, 1 day ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
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(1 week, 2 days ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
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.
Sanctions Implementation and Enforcement
Lord Callanan Excerpts(4 weeks, 1 day ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Callanan (Con)
My Lords, let me first thank the noble Baroness for repeating the Statement and say that we on these Benches welcome measures to bear down on Putin’s regime and undermine his ability to wage this barbaric, illegal invasion of Ukraine. The refusal of Putin to attend today’s talks in Turkey is yet another sign that Russia really is not interested in peace. Putin could end the war today, but he has refused time and again to consider an end to the violence he has inflicted on the maligned people of Ukraine.
The toll we have exacted on Russia and its war-making capacity is something that I am proud of, and it stems directly from the sanctions regime that we formed when in government and that the current Government, to their credit, have continued. Working with allies, we imposed the largest and most severe set of sanctions that Russia had ever seen. We sanctioned around 2,000 individuals, companies and groups. None of us should be in doubt that the economic pressure that we and allies have been exerting means that Russia can no longer afford to sustain the cost of this illegal invasion. Russia’s interest rates are at levels not seen for decades; welfare payments are being cut; and, as the noble Baroness said, our collective sanctions have stripped Putin of $450 billion of benefits since February 2022—money that Russia could otherwise have spent on that war in Ukraine.
We on these Benches broadly welcome today’s Statement from the Government, which is part of an effort to better co-ordinate the sanctions regime in place against Russia. It is vital that the current Government do all they can to crack down on those who violate this regime, and we must remain firm in our resolve to stop the flow of resources into Russia and utilise assets in a way that supports the fight against Russia. However, some questions remain over the current sanctions regime and what more we can do with it to oppose Putin and this vile invasion. First, will the Minister confirm whether her department is currently looking into wider secondary sanctions against Russia? What kind of engagement are the Government having with countries whose economies are being used to cheat the international sanctions response, and what measures are the Government considering to stop this? Those countries include some with which we have just done trade deals.
Can the Minister update the House on the Government’s internal deadline for getting the proceeds from the sale of Chelsea Football Club? Can she update us on the Foreign Secretary’s engagement with trustees, the Government of Portugal and the European Commission on this issue? The sums we are talking about are in excess of £2 billion—a substantial amount of money, which we could unlock to support those in need in Ukraine. It is important that the Government do all they can to work at pace on this issue.
I hope that, in considering the outcome of this review, the Government will also give thought to how they communicate the purpose of the sanctions regime. Activity that violates the regime supports a murderous, brutal dictatorship. People should be left in no doubt that this regime is more than an expression of support for Ukraine; it is one of the primary weapons we have to oppose Putin and, as we have seen, it can exact substantial damage on the Russian war effort. What practical steps are the Government taking to keep UK-based businesses well informed of changes to sanctions legislation and its purpose?
There has been much coverage and discussion in recent weeks of initiatives to secure peace. That is welcome, but we must not be blinded by the headlines which hail “coalitions of the willing” and multilateral intent. For all these words, which are welcome in principle, we cannot forget that the reality of the situation for people in Ukraine remains unchanged. Ukrainians are still fighting on the front line, facing airstrikes on their towns, villages and cities and suffering death, horrendous loss and injury. We on these Benches continue to urge the Government in the strongest possible terms to leverage Britain’s influence in every way that they can to help ensure that peace is secured on terms acceptable to Ukraine. It is right that Ukraine must decide its own future. It is incumbent on us, as one of its closest allies, to support it in this desire.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
My Lords, I am impressed by the Minister’s efficiency. She replied positively to me on Monday when I asked for an opportunity to have a wider discussion on sanctions enforcement; I did not quite appreciate that she would deliver that three days later. It is very impressive indeed.
I have had the opportunity of debating every sanction that the previous Administration and this one have put in place since the establishment of the post-Brexit regime. These Benches have supported them at each step, but we have made the case that the sanctions tool should be used more impactfully, especially on occasions where we do not believe the sanctions go far enough, such as on the repressive actions of the Georgian regime, as referenced in the Statement, and individuals within it. On Israel and Gaza, we have repeatedly called for a widening of sanctions against those within the Netanyahu Administration, who are inflicting and facilitating the infliction of a great humanitarian crisis in Gaza and the West Bank.
I made it my mission to see the Wagner Group proscribed and was very grateful when the previous Government did it. However, our sanctions should be chasing after Russia and, for any organisation sanctioned or proscribed by the UK, there will have to be continued action.
Overall, we welcome the Statement and the review, which I had the opportunity to look at online. Fundamentally, I think it found that there was nothing wrong, but there were a number of areas where it wanted to go ahead. There was a curious line saying that the fundamental principle was
“to secure international agreement across all 193 UN Member States”
for sanctions. That is rather impossible when we are sanctioning quite a chunk of them. There was also a wee bit of Whitehall verbiage: we are to expect an invigorated toolkit of
“capabilities, capacity, powers, and actionable intelligence to take robust enforcement”
and
“user-friendly guidance to a new enforcement strategy”.
I look forward to them. No doubt we will debate what that means when we get them.
We are promised an early settlement scheme. This is an area that has raised a slight alarm signal with me. How will this interact with what the review has said about the need to increase deterrence? It is not necessary to have deterrence if we have an early settlement scheme for those who are breaching financial sanctions. If not today, perhaps the Minister might be able to say more at a later date.
The Minister referred to the £465,000 penalty for Herbert Smith Freehills for making funds available for the benefit of a designated person without a licence. This is welcome, but it is only one of five penalties since 2023, with a total amount of just £485,000. Without that £465,000, there have been only £20,000 of penalties. Is this a lack of enforcement or a stunning level of adherence to the UK sanctions regimes?
I had the opportunity to look at the excellent OFSI threat assessment report, which goes into a little more detail about some of the context. I have a couple of questions, one of them linked to the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Callanan.
We have a number of frozen assets within the UK. On Monday, we discussed new rounds of Syria sanctions. We have £157 million in frozen Syrian assets. Given what the Minister said on Monday and what President Trump has been saying about the new Syrian President, can the Minister write to me on the status of that amount, identifying the ultimate legal beneficial owner of the frozen assets? If it is the former Assad regime, or those linked to it, then presumably we should not be offering them back. Why have we not seized those assets, which can be used for the benefit of the Syrian people, who desperately need it?
On the Russian assets, we now have, as reported by OFSI, £25 billion. We on these Benches would like to see a draft Bill on what would be required under UK law to seize those assets. We do not need to wait on others, either in the G7 or elsewhere, or act at their slow pace. These assets have been frozen under UK legislation and the power to seize them will be under UK legislation, so if there need to be any changes to UK legislation, we should see what the context is, because obviously these Benches believe that Putin should not be rewarded by getting money back at the end of this process.
The threat assessment report also highlighted what it said was a growing number of enablers and enabling countries. It singled out some, including, at the highest level of growth, the UAE. What diplomatic tools are we using for those countries which we know are the source of enablers who circumvent UK financial sanctions? As OFSI said, that is growing.
The threat assessment report also says that there are almost certainly enablers using crypto assets to breach UK financial sanctions. Can the Minister write to me on the estimated scale of this? Have we the same approach to co-ordination with our allies to ensure that this is the case, given the very dubious means by which President Trump is using crypto assets, and the difficulty in understanding the source of the crypto assets?
On China, we believe our sanctions should go further with regard to those in the Chinese Government who restrict the rights of people in Hong Kong and, in particular, those here in the United Kingdom who are operating transnational repression. It is utterly unacceptable, and I will be pursuing this further in this Chamber.
Many of us had the great privilege today of meeting former President Tsai Ing-wen, when welcoming her to Parliament. She is the highest-level official of the Taiwanese Government—both current and previous Governments—who has ever visited the UK Parliament. I pay credit to the noble Baroness, Lady D’Souza, and others who have worked so hard and tirelessly over a number of years. The former President’s lecture to us was an inspiration, because it was about democrats fighting against repression, building up resilience and ensuring that they have support here in the United Kingdom. Our sanctions regime should help people such as her, with her great leadership, and it was a real privilege to have her in Parliament today.
Russia (Sanctions) (EU Exit) (Amendment) Regulations 2025
Lord Callanan Excerpts(1 month ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Callanan (Con)
My Lords, it will come as no surprise to the Minister to know that we on these Benches continue to support strong, targeted sanctions in response to Russia’s illegal and brutal invasion of Ukraine. Since 2022, the UK, alongside our allies, has imposed an unprecedented range of sanctions to weaken Russia’s war machine. There are clearly some concerns; we would like to see further action taken, with regard to enforcement and the shadow fleet, et cetera—I agree with the previous speaker.
Despite these efforts, Russia has continued its aggression, often working through third countries and illicit networks to bypass existing sanctions. The persistence of these efforts underlines the importance of closing loopholes, keeping sanctions up to date and aligning with our international partners.
As the Minister set out, these provisions aim to tighten and expand the existing sanctions framework. One key element is the expansion of export-related goods, including chemicals, plastics, metals, machinery and electronics. It is clear that these have potential military applications, and we support their inclusion. Notably, even items such as video game controllers are now being restricted, due to their reported use in piloting drones. I suspect Russia probably will not have difficulty in obtaining those from other sources, but nevertheless it is important to make the effort. Can the Minister clarify how these additions were identified? How often is the department reviewing product categories to ensure that sanctions keep pace with technological adaptation?
The instrument also brings in new restrictions on the transfer of software and technology, not only physically, but through intangible means such as downloads and cloud access. This is an important evolution of the regime, particularly as cloud-based platforms become more central to global business and infrastructure. However, it does again prompt the question of how we are going to enforce such sanctions when there is no physical movement of goods. Does the Minister have confidence that our enforcement bodies have the technical capacity to monitor compliance with these intangible software restrictions? Are businesses being given clear guidance on what is now prohibited?
On import bans, we note the Government’s decision to sanction synthetic diamonds processed in third countries, building on the ban already in place for natural stones. While I suspect that Russia is not a major producer of synthetic diamonds, this appears aimed at closing a circumvention route. What evidence does the Government have that synthetic diamonds are being used to sidestep the existing sanctions on natural stones? How are we working with allies to enforce traceability and verification?
We also note the inclusion of helium and helium-3 in the list of banned imports. This, too, is framed as a pre-emptive step, anticipating the growth of helium as a potential revenue stream for Russia in future. Will the Minister please confirm whether there is current evidence of Russia scaling up helium exports, or is this purely a precautionary measure?
There are also some important technical clarifications in the SI, including the correction of omitted offences and clearer enforcement responsibilities across government departments. Although these may seem fairly minor, such details are vital to effective enforcement. Will the Minister please confirm whether further regulatory gaps are under review, particularly given the pace at which circumvention technology is evolving?
With those few questions, we support the intent behind these measures. They reflect an ongoing commitment to tightening the UK’s sanctions regime and maintaining pressure on the Russian Government. But sanctions can be only as effective as the enforcement and adaptation measures. As Russia continues to develop complex workarounds—from third-country trade to its unregulated shadow fleet—we, the sanctioning countries, have to be equally agile. That includes reviewing measures regularly, ensuring that departments have the capacity to act and strengthening international co-operation. In that spirit, will the Minister please say more about how the Government are assessing the real-world impact of sanctions—not just in terms of goods restricted but in terms of their broader economic and strategic effect on Russia’s capacity to wage war? We believe that these regulations are a step in the right direction, but they must be part of a broader, joined-up and rigorously enforced sanctions strategy.
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
My Lords, I thank both noble Lords for their contributions and broad support for these measures. The measures introduced by this instrument show how the UK continues to use its powers to apply further pressure on Putin, to help secure an enduring peace and to show that we remain fully behind Ukraine.
This instrument is one part of a broader cross-government effort on sanctions. We are leading the way on sanctioning Russia’s shadow fleet and continue to target Russia’s military suppliers and kleptocrats. We are going after those who support Russia in circumventing UK and partner sanctions, using all the tools in our arsenal to stop the supply of critical military equipment to Russia. This has included designating bad actors re-exporting sanctioned Western goods to Russia and working with our allies to crack down on the illicit trade of advanced machine tools.
We will continue to engage with our financial institutions and businesses so that they have the information they need to comply with our sanctions. The Government are committed to ensuring robust sanctions enforcement. To this end, with the support of ministerial colleagues, we launched a cross-government review of sanctions at the first small ministerial group on enforcement in October. The review concluded in April and—I think this will be of interest to noble Lords opposite—Parliament will shortly be updated on the review conclusions, alongside publication. I think that will involve a Statement to Parliament; I am not completely sure but, if it does, perhaps we could get into those issues a bit more at that point.
On the issue of the OTSI and HMRC, and how that operates in practice, I am very happy to organise another briefing for any noble Lords who are interested; that is a really good suggestion. I expect that it will be quite in-depth and technical; I know the noble Lord would like nothing better than that, so we will make sure that it happens as soon as we can arrange it.
We work very closely with partners on the shadow fleet. The noble Lord alluded to diplomatic efforts. We raise these issues constantly; I myself have raised them with partners who have had vessels involved in this, and they have taken action as a consequence of that. Sanctions are an important tool that we have, but they are far from the only tool.
Both noble Lords were quite right to remind us how important enforcement is. Although we do not comment on future designations, clearly, we keep all of this under review. We are looking at any regulatory gaps that there may be, and we will continue to take further measures as and when we need to; I do not anticipate that this is the last time we will stand here introducing these sorts of measures. I thank both noble Lords for their consistent support on these issues. I agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, said on the issues of the ceasefire and the behaviour of Putin. I thought that his remarks about Zelensky were well made, and I agree with them.
The UK has transformed its use of sanctions. The Government are committed to continuing to strengthen the effectiveness of our sanctions regimes, their implementation and enforcement; and to reviewing their ongoing appropriateness in changing foreign policy contexts. We will continue to put pressure on Russia, as it is now time for Putin to come to the table and for Russia to show that it is serious about ending the war—or face the consequences. Once again, I thank noble Lords for their contributions and for the continued cross-party support for the sanctions regimes.
Syria (Sanctions) (EU Exit) (Amendment) Regulations 2025
Lord Callanan Excerpts(1 month ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Callanan (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for introducing this important statutory instrument. I share some of the concerns expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Purvis. The legislation before us amends the Syria (Sanctions) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 to reflect the developments following the fall of President Bashar al-Assad’s regime in December last year. The stated intention is to support Syria’s recovery while maintaining pressure on those responsible for past atrocities.
As the Minister outlined, the instrument revokes several key sanctions that were originally imposed to constrain the Assad regime. These include restrictions on aircraft operated by Syrian Arab Airlines, prohibitions on investment in Syria’s energy sector and bans on trade involving aviation fuel, crude oil and related technologies. The rationale is that lifting restrictions will facilitate economic recovery. Crucially, prohibitions remain in place on military goods, chemical weapons and surveillance equipment, signalling continued vigilance on matters of security.
These are indeed sensitive and consequential decisions. Although I think we all recognise the goal of supporting Syria’s reconstruction, the question must be asked: on what grounds have the Government determined that the time is now right to lift these specific sanctions? Syria remains an unstable, fractured state, and many individuals and networks once aligned with the regime retain significant power—as, of course, do several elements of al-Qaeda.
Accountability must also remain at the forefront. The UK has rightly condemned the human rights violations committed under the Assad regime, which was truly awful, but how does this instrument ensure that those responsible are prevented from benefiting from sanctions relief? What mechanisms are in place to pursue justice and guard against the erosion of international human rights standards?
We also seek clarity on the broader strategic approach. The US and the EU have taken carefully calibrated steps in adjusting their sanctions—some temporary, some conditional. Have the Government engaged in consultation with our international partners? Are these measures aligned with a co-ordinated international effort, or do they mark a unilateral shift in approach?
Given that the instrument follows earlier amendments that eased restrictions to facilitate humanitarian aid and adjust financial services, will the Minister clarify whether we are now entering a broader phase of graduated sanctions relief? If so, what specific benchmarks have been put in place to justify this latest easing of measures, and under what conditions do the Government foresee making further changes?
There is also the role of Iran to consider. The Assad regime did not fall in isolation. Iranian military and financial support helped sustain it, and Iran continues to exert influence across Syria’s political and security landscape. Does this statutory instrument reflect a broader diplomatic position towards Iran’s activities in the region? What role does the UK intend to play in countering destabilising external actors?
Finally, we must ask who will benefit from these changes. If the goal, which I share, is to support ordinary Syrians—those who have borne the brunt of over a decade of war—how will the Government ensure that economic relief does not simply entrench new elites or resurrect old networks under new names?
If the sanctions regime is to evolve, it must do so with clarity, caution and accountability, guided by the principle that peace cannot come at the expense of justice. I am sure the Minister will tell us that these matters are always kept under review. I have sat in her chair in the past and have been passed notes by officials which tell me that everything in government is always up for review and kept under review, and can always be changed. That is a truism, so I hope the Minister will not revert to telling us that again in response to these questions.
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
How can the noble Lord read from that distance?
I thank noble Lords for what they had to say; it is completely understandable, and both noble Lords are right to raise their questions and concerns. I accept that this is a judgment that we have made. Both noble Lords indicated that they understand that we made it because the best prospect for the people of Syria, and to deliver the stable peace and the inclusive and representative democracy that we wish to see, is through economic growth and stability. It is just not possible for the fledgling Government in Damascus to be able to deliver that while these sanctions remain in place.
Of course, we work closely with our international partners. I would not say that we co-ordinate as such, but we work very closely. As noble Lords said, the EU has eased some of its sanctions; we have gone one step further today. We think that this is the right approach. We have the flexibility to be able to keep this under review, as noble Lords knew I would say. It is perfectly right for the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, to say, “Yes, but these are different, so there needs to be a different exercise of that constant reviewing as far as these sanctions are concerned”. I think that is right and I commit that we will do that.
As regards future opportunities to discuss this in the House, I do not know if I can instigate that—my Whip is sitting here thinking, “Don’t you dare”—but I think it would be a good thing to have a debate on Syria generally in the near future. I know that noble Lords are wily enough to figure out how they could bring about such a thing.
Some of the sanctions that we had were specifically tied to Assad, so, given that he is no longer there, we needed to take a fresh look at this. Now that we have that in these regulations, we are able to make further designations—although obviously we do not comment on that or make any predictions. However, that capability is there.
As noble Lords said, it is true that there are other states who wish to exert influence and bring about instability in Syria. That is our strong view and that of regional partners who are hosting a large number of Syrian refugees at the moment. They have some support from the international community but nevertheless, it imposes a huge strain on them. In Jordan, I met Syrian refugees who desperately want to go home and they asked us about our sanctions regime. They know that the only way that they are going to be able to safely return is if there is a stable Government in Syria, and that requires the ability to grow a stable economy. They know that cannot happen quickly. They know that their children’s education, their healthcare and their ability to support themselves depend on it, and they want to see the international community stepping up and being active in its support for the new Cabinet and Government in Syria.
That is not without qualification, and noble Lords must hold this Government to account on that—I am glad that the noble Lord has indicated that they will do so. It is a precarious time for Syria, but I believe this is the best hope and may be the only chance we get to build the stable country that the Syrian people need and so deserve. If we do not do everything we can to support them at this moment, we may well find ourselves looking at a bigger disaster than we have seen in the region for a very long time, and wishing that we had been a bit more proactive at this point. That is why the Government are taking those decisions, while accepting what noble Lords have said and the legitimate questions that they put to me.
To conclude, I thank the noble Lords for their insightful contributions, and for the continued cross-party support for the sanctions regime more generally. The Government are committed to keeping our sanctions up to date and supporting Syria as it takes steps towards a more peaceful, more prosperous and more hopeful future. I know many noble Lords will agree that this is the future that the Syrian people deserve. I beg to move.
Ukraine War: London Talks
Lord Callanan Excerpts(1 month, 2 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Callanan (Con)
My Lords, I have said it before, but I will say it again: these Benches are supportive of the Government’s action, continuing the work that we started in government, in full support of and solidarity with the people of Ukraine. This morning has seen an announcement from Putin of another temporary ceasefire. Time will tell as to whether this is just another cynical Russian delaying tactic, but I will be interested in the Government’s views on this development. Also, will the noble Baroness update the House on the progress of the so-called coalition of the willing? It seems to have gone quiet recently. Is this initiative still progressing and what role does she see it playing in any eventual peace settlement?
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Baroness Chapman of Darlington) (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord for again stating his support for and solidarity with the Government on the issue of Ukraine. What do we think about Putin’s claims for a ceasefire? There is an option open to the Russian leadership which would lead to a ceasefire immediately. They do not have to promise one on a particular day or in a few days’ time; they could do it now. We could find no evidence of the ceasefire they said they were going to have at Easter, so we are sceptical. On the coalition of the willing, it is the right approach, and it continues. We do not do a running commentary on every piece of negotiation or diplomacy, and the noble Lord will understand why that is, but this Government—and, all credit to them, the Opposition—remain steadfast in our support for Ukraine.
London Sudan Conference
Lord Callanan Excerpts(1 month, 2 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Callanan (Con)
My Lords, the current situation in Sudan is truly appalling. Millions of Sudanese citizens have been internally displaced. Millions more have been forced to flee as refugees. Tens of thousands have been killed as a result of the awful violence in the region, which often seems designed to cause innocent people as much suffering as possible.
Can the Minister give us an update on how the conference went? Can she assure us that the UK will continue to work with the international community to ensure that the abhorrent atrocities that are being committed by both sides in Sudan are documented so that the perpetrators of those awful crimes can be held to account in the future?
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Baroness Chapman of Darlington) (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, for his agreement with us about the nature of the conflict in Sudan and, as he quite rightly said, the horrific impact it is having on civilians—not least on women and very young children, who have been subject to the most violent sexual attacks. I can assure him that we will continue to do everything we can to bring about a peaceful resolution to this conflict, difficult though that undoubtedly is.
The conference that we held in London during recess involved Egypt, Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Qatar, South Sudan, Chad, Kenya, Ethiopia and Uganda, as well as Norway, Canada, the USA, Switzerland, the UN and the League of Arab States. We hosted it alongside the African Union. This was a good step, and there was a co-chairs’ statement at the end. This is unlikely to be a situation that is resolved by one intervention such as a conference, but it is right for the Foreign Secretary to show leadership, bring people together and try to at least take the first steps towards improving the situation.
Bosnia and Herzegovina
Lord Callanan Excerpts(2 months, 1 week ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Callanan (Con)
My Lords, Britain has always been a steadfast supporter of the sovereignty of Bosnia and Herzegovina. I am pleased that the Government have continued that policy. Can the Minister update the House on the Government’s position on NATO membership for Bosnia and Herzegovina and whether we would support its application to join?
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Baroness Chapman of Darlington) (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord for acknowledging that we continue in the way that his previous Government acted on this issue. On NATO membership, there is a great deal of work to do for Bosnia and Herzegovina, but we support that track in principle. We have been clear in our public statements and in our discussions with regional partners, including Minister Doughty’s calls with the Bosnian Foreign Minister on 10 March and with the high representative on 27 March, that the UK remains committed to supporting the territorial integrity of Bosnia and Herzegovina.
Myanmar Earthquake
Lord Callanan Excerpts(2 months, 1 week ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
The noble Lord is quite right to remind us that this earthquake follows years of difficulty and tragedy for the people of Myanmar. We will continue to work with our international partners to bring about the change, peace and stability that people in Myanmar so deserve. The context is incredibly difficult, as he knows. We have seen military air strikes in earthquake-affected areas, which have further complicated our relief efforts. My focus at the moment is on trying to get aid to those who need it most immediately.
Lord Callanan (Con)
My Lords, all those who watched the pictures on the BBC last night will have been appalled at the scenes of utter devastation, particularly in Mandalay. We welcome the Government’s announcement of a £10 million humanitarian aid package. Could the Minister provide a bit more detail on the trusted partners that the Government referred to as a means of providing that aid? Can she provide some more information on how we can avoid any of that aid going to the military junta?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord for the support for the action that the Government have been able to take so far. Noble Lords will understand the reasons why we work through local partners on the ground: they are the best way to get the support to those who need it. I ask the noble Lord to also understand the reasons why we do not name or give details of those partners acting locally. It is for their protection and to make sure that they are able to continue to do their vital work.
Chagos Islands
Lord Callanan Excerpts(2 months, 1 week ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Callanan
To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the government of Mauritius reopening negotiations on the Chagos Islands.
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Baroness Chapman of Darlington) (Lab)
My Lords, as we and Mauritius have repeatedly said, including in joint statements on 20 December and 13 January, both sides remain committed to concluding a deal on the future of the Chagos archipelago which protects the long-term effective operation of the joint UK-US base on Diego Garcia. Although it is in everyone’s interest to progress the deal quickly, we have never put an exact date on it and we do not intend to. Following signature, the Government will bring forward a Bill to enable implementation of the treaty, and Parliament will have the opportunity to scrutinise the treaty before ratification.
Lord Callanan (Con)
I am grateful to the Minister for that Answer. It is disappointing that the Government seem determined to proceed with this dreadful surrender policy. It is worth remembering that this whole sorry saga originates from an advisory, non-legally binding ICJ opinion from a panel of judges—including those from Russia and China, who unsurprisingly were fully supportive of the UK giving up its sovereignty of a key strategic asset. Is the Minister not even a little embarrassed at having to find painful cuts in her new overseas aid budget to fund essential extra defence spending, only to then see £18 billion of that funding wasted on leasing back an asset that we already own?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
What I am embarrassed by is that we inherited such a mess in our overseas development spend, with asylum accommodation being paid for by our development spend, and an Army that had been neglected—the smallest Army since Napoleon. That is what we inherited. That is what he ought to be ashamed of.