UK-Ukraine 100-year Partnership

Lord Callanan Excerpts

Wednesday 22nd January 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

My Lords, for nearly three years now, we have been steadfast and united in our unwavering support for the brave people of Ukraine. Their extraordinary determination, unparalleled courage and steadfast bravery in the face of unimaginable horror, terror and brutality have inspired nations across the globe. It is impossible not to feel profound sorrow for the pain, loss and suffering inflicted on the Ukrainian people by Putin’s illegal and barbaric war. This unprovoked invasion of a sovereign nation is not just an attack on Ukraine but an assault on the principles of sovereignty and human rights that underpin global peace and security.

I am delighted to say that, from the very beginning of this crisis, we in the UK have stood shoulder to shoulder with President Zelensky and the Ukrainian people in their valiant fight for freedom. We recognised early on the grave threats posed by Russian hostility, which began with the illegal annexation of Crimea in 2014 and continued with ongoing incursions in Ukraine’s eastern territories. The previous Government took decisive and swift action, providing vital military equipment, financial aid and humanitarian support—and I am delighted to see that the current Government have continued that policy. We established bespoke pathways to safety for Ukrainians seeking refuge in the United Kingdom, and I am proud to note the extraordinary response of the British people. Across the country, households opened their doors and their hearts, welcoming those fleeing violence and oppression. This collective effort has been a testament to the strength of our shared humanity and values.

Through the leadership of Boris Johnson, Liz Truss, Rishi Sunak, Ben Wallace and others, the UK spearheaded diplomatic efforts to galvanise international support for Ukraine and helped to isolate Russia on the global stage. Those efforts included imposing one of the most comprehensive sanctions regimes ever implemented, targeting not only the Russian state but its ruling elites, businesses and entities complicit in supporting the Russian war machine. The commitment to Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity was unshakeable. Over three years, we provided £12.8 billion-worth of support, including an unprecedented £7.8 billion in military assistance. This support encompassed advanced weaponry, vital training and intelligence-sharing to enable Ukraine to defend itself against Russian aggression. Equally crucial was our promise to provide at least £3 billion annually in military aid for as long as is required—a pledge that I hope that the Government will be able to continue with, without hesitation.

As we reflect on these achievements, it is imperative that we remain steadfast in our support for Ukraine and its people. The road ahead will not be easy, given Trump’s election, and the sacrifices that will be required are considerable. However, the cost of inaction—of failing to defend freedom and democracy—would be immeasurably greater. I want therefore to pose the following questions to the Minister.

Can the Government provide an update on the current levels of military and humanitarian aid being delivered to Ukraine and how they see this support continuing in future? What steps are being taken to ensure that sanctions against Russia remain robust, effective and tightly enforced, including measures to address any potential evasion? How are the Government working with international partners to ensure that Ukraine continues to receive the long-term economic and political support that it needs to rebuild and secure its future? What plans are in place to enhance the UK’s refugee resettlement schemes for Ukrainians, and how can we further support host families who have welcomed those fleeing this terrible conflict? Finally, in the context of ongoing geopolitical instability, how do the Government intend to strengthen and deepen the UK-Ukraine partnership to promote shared values and mutual security in the years ahead?

We owe it to the people of Ukraine, and to the principles of freedom and justice that unite us, to stand resolute and united in their hour of need.

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

My Lords, I am very happy to align myself and these Benches with everything that the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, has said. If we think back over this three-year period in British politics, we see that consensus has been hard to reach—but this is an area where there has been no division between any of the Benches within the two Houses of our Parliament. Indeed, in respect of the position of the previous Administration and this one, this agreement brings together both government-to-government relations, or the nine pillars within the agreement, and people-to-people relations, which, as the noble Lord said, are becoming ever deeper.

I also agree with the noble Lord’s observations on the coming period, when there will be an area of uncertainty, especially since the new President was elected in the United States, in the context of our main ally being the United States. But I am happy that UK policy is set by the UK and that the consensus in Parliament is therefore rock solid.

A 100-year agreement is unique. I looked at what Ukraine was like in 1925—and when you search for that, Ukrainisation comes up as the top element. There were attempts to ensure that the identity, language, culture and literature of Ukraine were protected. That was diminished under later Soviet rule—but to my mind that suggests that, whether it is with Stalin or Putin, there is an identity for an independent and autonomous people in Ukraine who wish to ensure that their own destiny is in their hands. The UK will be a stalwart ally over this Government and their successor Governments. While this is unique for being a 100-year agreement, we support it.

We support in particular the areas where we would use what are to some extent our best global assets, on renewable technology, the National Health Service, education and culture. The partnership with Ukraine within those pillars is to be welcomed. Can the Minister say, when it comes particularly to energy, renewables and green steel, whether the Government will be open to ensuring that all parts of the UK, especially our devolved Administrations, are deeply involved in this 100-year agreement? I live in Scotland, and the people of Scotland have opened their hearts and homes to those who have fled Putin’s illegal war—but we also have strategic advantage, especially when it comes to renewable energy and technology.

Economic and technical support will be incredibly important. As we debated just last week, one consequence of the illegal war on Ukraine is that 40% of the Ukrainian economy is now dedicated to defending itself. Technical support and partnership with the UK for economic reconstruction will be to the advantage of both countries. The Minister will have been briefed on assets, because we debated them fairly recently. She will be aware that these Benches are making the case that assets should be seized and used for the immediate and medium-term reconstruction of Ukraine, as well as for Ukraine’s ability to defend itself. If she could outline a bit more the timetable of when Ukraine will, we hope, be able to use some of the assets that we approved in legislation last week, that would be helpful.

I end with an appeal and an observation. The appeal is that one of the elements that I have found very important in Ukraine’s defence is the Verkhovna Rada—the Ukrainian Parliament. I had the privilege of visiting it before the war on three occasions and met many MPs and staff. It was telling that one of the first military objectives of the Russian assault on Ukraine was, within the first 48 hours, to seize the Verkhovna Rada, to cease its functioning, to ensure that MPs could not carry out their constitutional role in representing the people and to stop all legislation. It has carried on and shown incredible resilience. As a Parliament, it is a model around the world for being able to carry on its legislative and representative functions in incredibly difficult circumstances.

I hope the long-term relationship will be not just Government to Government but Parliament to Parliament. I know Mr Speaker and the Lord Speaker have extremely close relations with their counterparts in Kyiv, but I hope the Minister might be able to say that in those areas that the Government fund, whether the Westminster Foundation for Democracy or other technical assistance, we can support the Verkhovna Rada in carrying out its functions and the critical role it will play to ensure that any reconstruction is open, transparent and representative.

I close by repeating the words of my honourable friend Calum Miller. He said to the Foreign Secretary:

“We must stand with Ukraine for the long haul. The Ukrainian people must be in charge of their own destiny. If the UK’s new pledge is to be real, it must address the uncertainty generated by President Trump. The Prime Minister’s 100-year commitment must outlast the President’s desire for a quick deal in his first 100 days”.—[Official Report, Commons, 20/1/25; col. 738.]


I am certain that the Government’s intent is one we can support wholeheartedly. I would be grateful if the Minister would outline certain areas where we can use this as not just a statement of intent but a practical relationship that can help Ukraine be both resilient in war and successful in peace.

Gaza: Healthcare System Support

Lord Callanan Excerpts

Thursday 16th January 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

My Lords, I join others in hoping—the latest news seems to be positive—that the ceasefire is back on and that it will hold, although I fear it may be only temporary if Hamas is allowed to continue playing any kind of role in Gaza, dedicated as it is to the destruction of the state of Israel.

There is substantial evidence that Hamas has fought from within hospitals throughout the war, periodically hiding some of the hostages it has held since 7 October 2023 inside them and using the people of Gaza as human shields. There is video evidence to demonstrate that.

We must also acknowledge the measures taken by Israel to facilitate the flow of aid into Gaza. Despite the security challenges, Israel has worked to establish humanitarian corridors and to co-ordinate with international actors to allow the delivery of vital supplies. It is crucial in this debate to recognise these efforts, as in my view they demonstrate Israel’s willingness to balance its legitimate security concerns with its obligations under international humanitarian law.

It is essential to differentiate between the legitimate self-defence actions of a democratic state, Israel, and the actions of what is essentially a terrorist group that seeks to undermine peace and stability in the region. Hamas bears total responsibility for the suffering in Gaza, not only through its attacks on Israel but through its previous governance failures and misappropriation of the considerable resources delivered over many years by the international community that were meant to help civilians.

This Government took the decision to help resume funding to UNRWA after the previous Government had suspended it. UNRWA had to fire nine staff after investigations into their involvement in the appalling attack on Israel in October 2023. We are clear that all links to the Hamas terrorist group must be severed if there is to be a sustainable peace in Gaza.

Rules-based International Order

Lord Callanan Excerpts

Thursday 16th January 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

My Lords, this has been yet another fascinating, wide-ranging debate in your Lordships’ House, and I join others in thanking the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, for securing it. I thought she introduced the topic very well, although I have to say that I did not agree with her on her list of authoritarian leaders, including President Trump alongside Presidents Putin and Xi. Of course, like many people, I do not agree with or support some of the wilder statements that President Trump comes out with, but there are many checks and balances in the US system that simply do not exist in Russia and China: Congress, 52 independently minded states, independent courts, et cetera. As my noble friend Lord Gascoigne reminded us, Trump won a fair, democratic election, and, of course, we know that he can serve only a four-year term. By all means, criticise some of his statements—I suspect that we will spend a lot of time in the next few months and years ruminating on the various utterances of President Trump—but I think the noble Baroness made a flawed analogy in comparing the US, which, in my view, is still the world’s greatest democracy, with Russia and China, so I hope she will reflect on that.

The rules-based international order has enabled nations large and small to co-operate under shared principles, ensuring that the rule of law prevails over the rule of might. Today, however, as many have pointed out in this debate, this order is under threat as never before, and it is incumbent upon us, as defenders of freedom, sovereignty and stability, to address many of those challenges head on.

As many have pointed out, the first and most visible challenges come from the authoritarian states that I just mentioned, particularly Russia and China, whose actions flagrantly undermine international norms. Russia’s illegal annexation of Crimea and brutal war in Ukraine represent a blatant rejection of the sovereignty and territorial integrity of nations, a core tenet of the UN charter. I listened with interest to the comment from the noble Lord, Lord Liddell: possibly like Tony Blair at the time, I was optimistic about the direction Russia could go in following the collapse of the Soviet Union. I think all of us wanted to see Russia admitted into the family of western democratic states, and there was a possibility that that would happen, but we all now see the direction that Russia has taken, and we have to recognise it for what it is now: a threat to the international order and to European security. Similarly, across the South China Sea, we see China’s militarisation, economic coercion of smaller states, and flagrant disregard for any international rulings on territories or the famous lines that they impose on the maps, seemingly making up and deciding what is Chinese sovereign territory. This really offers a systemic challenge to the global order.

These actions are not just mere aberrations. They are, in my view, deliberate attempts to reshape the international order into one that privileges power over principles. Such behaviour destabilises regions, weakens alliances and creates a permissive environment for other rogue actors to flout international law—we can see how Russia is now cosying up to those paragons of democracy in North Korea and Iran to further its aims.

The second challenge lies in the erosion of trust within the system itself. Many multilateral institutions that were indeed put in place initially to safeguard global stability are increasingly seen as ineffective or politicised. The failure of some organisations to act decisively against aggression or hold nations accountable risks undermining their very legitimacy. We believe in strong, accountable institutions, but this requires reform to ensure that they are fit for purpose and responsive to the challenges of the 21st century.

Furthermore, the rise of economic protectionism and deglobalisation poses a subtler but equally significant threat. Free trade and open markets have lifted millions out of poverty and fostered interdependence, which discourages conflict. Yet, we will have to return to the battles many of us thought were won in the 1980s and 1990s in favour of multilateralism, free trade and globalisation, and refight those ideological battles, because retreat into economic nationalism risks dividing the world into competing blocs, undermining both prosperity and stability.

Those challenges are compounded by the growing influence of the non-state actors that a number of noble Lords referred to—from cybercriminals to extremist groups—that exploit the gaps in governance and the vulnerabilities of our interconnected world. Their actions transcend borders, creating a fragmented and volatile global landscape.

We must, first, reaffirm our commitment to the principles that underpin the rules-based order: sovereignty, democracy and the rule of law. This requires a robust defence of our values on the global stage, supported by credible deterrence. NATO’s unified response to Russian aggression is a great model of how alliances can serve as bulwarks against authoritarian threats. I would be grateful if the Minister could outline how we are continuing to build alliances around the world that help ensure that the rule of law is upheld while protecting our sovereignty.

Secondly, we have to champion reform of many international institutions to ensure they remain relevant and effective. This is not about abandoning multilateralism but about strengthening it to reflect modern realities. Can the Minister update the House on the Government’s view on reform of institutions such as the ICC, the ICJ and the European Court of Human Rights? Does she agree with the ICC arrest warrants that have been debated? The ones issued for Netanyahu and Gallant were, in my view, ridiculous and demonstrate how that institution needs serious reform.

Thirdly, we have to prioritise economic resilience—investing in secure supply chains, fostering innovation and supporting free trade agreements with like-minded partners. Finally, we have to harness the power of our values—freedom, enterprise and the dignity of the individual—to rally allies and inspire those in many parts of the world who yearn for a better future.

The challenges to the rules-based international order are real, but so too is our ability to overcome them. By standing firm to our principles and working with others who share them, we can ensure that this order continues to deliver peace, stability and opportunity for many generations to come.

Gaza: Peace Talks

Lord Callanan Excerpts

Wednesday 15th January 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

I thank my noble friend and acknowledge the work that he did as Minister for the Middle East and North Africa. He is absolutely right that a permanent peace is what we need to seek. A ceasefire would only ever be the first step. The hostages must be released and be home with their families. We also agree on the importance of UNRWA being able to continue its work. My noble friend asked about reconstruction. We are thinking very much about the next phase of planning in Gaza and building up its governance and security institutions. This must be predicated on tangible progress towards a Palestinian state.

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

My Lords, I am sure that the whole House is united in wishing to see peace in this terrible conflict. The key to a sustainable end to the fighting in Gaza remains, first, the elimination of Hamas and, secondly, the release of the hostages, whose suffering is truly intolerable. It should be intolerable for anyone who cares about human dignity and human rights. Does the Minister have any information on the well-being of the British national hostage, Emily Damari?

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

The noble Lord is completely right in everything he said about the hostages. My honourable friend Hamish Falconer the Minister for the Middle East, the Foreign Secretary and the Prime Minister have met on several occasions Emily’s family and others with British links who are wrongly held in Gaza. We are doing everything we can, using all levers to secure their immediate release.

Sudan: US Determination of Genocide

Lord Callanan Excerpts

Tuesday 14th January 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

My Lords, the news that our close allies in the US have assessed the situation in Sudan as genocide is, of course, deeply worrying. It underscores the terrible humanitarian situation going on there, something that we have debated extensively in this Chamber. Does the Minister agree that what is going on in Sudan is genocide? Does she agree with the Americans or with her ministerial colleague in the other place who said that this was a matter

“for the courts to decide”?”.—[Official Report, Commons, 13/1/25; col. 36.]

What assessment have the Government made of the potential security and geopolitical implications of this ongoing—I will call it what it is—genocide in Sudan for the UK and its allies?

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

My Lords, what is happening in Sudan is abhorrent, and we should all condemn it in the strongest possible terms. When it comes to genocide, the noble Lord opposite will be aware that we take a different approach to making these determinations from that of our close allies and friends in the United States.

I am surprised at the way in which the noble Lord put his point to me. Much as we agree on the substance of what is happening in Sudan and wish to see it end, I am surprised at what he said because it contradicts what his noble friend the shadow Foreign Secretary, Priti Patel, said in the House of Commons just yesterday. She said that she understood very well that we take a different approach to the determination of genocide from that of our colleagues in the United States, and that is an approach that she supported in government and still supports in opposition.

I hope that, much as we can perhaps differ—and the noble Lord can take this up with his noble friend in the Commons should he wish—the important thing is that we use every tool we can, diplomatically and using our multilateral and bilateral connections and our humanitarian work on the ground, to make sure that we do everything possible to bring an end to this unbearable suffering being endured by the people of Sudan.

China: Human Rights and Security

Lord Callanan Excerpts

Thursday 19th December 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

My Lords, this has indeed been an excellent debate. I pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Alton, for securing it in the first place, for his excellent sense of timing and for his tireless and—to quote the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Guildford —“indefatigable” campaigning against the Chinese Communist Party, with all the troubles that it has caused him. He should have all our support and respect in the work that he does.

As Members will know, I do not often agree with the Lords spiritual, but I agree with my noble friend Lord Blencathra about the outstanding contribution of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Winchester, with his explanation of the, frankly, truly evil nature of the current Chinese leadership. That was a particularly good contribution in a sea of very good speeches that we have heard this evening.

I completely agree with the concerns—I would put it no more highly than that—of the noble Lord, Lord Alton, and other noble Lords about the current Government’s policy towards China, particularly in light of some of the grave human rights abuses and security challenges that emanate from Beijing’s increasingly assertive actions. The news this week that dominated the headlines that Yang Tenbo had access to public officials while being an alleged spy is deeply worrying—though I cast no aspersions on the Members who were in contact with him; it could all have been done deeply innocently. Can the Minister explain how she squares the Foreign Secretary’s increasing friendliness with his Chinese counterparts with the threat that they are proven to pose to our national security?

Let me start with Hong Kong. Many Members have mentioned that the Sino-British joint declaration—an international treaty, I remind noble Lords, that was lodged with the United Nations—has been, and there is no other way of putting this, flagrantly violated by China. The complete destruction of the “one country, two systems” principle has been swift and brutal. The imposition of the national security law has led to the silencing of dissent, the imprisonment of pro-democracy activists and, frankly, the suppression of free speech and the free press.

As many noble Lords have observed, this month marks four years since 77 year-old Jimmy Lai was placed behind bars in Hong Kong. He is a British citizen who founded Apple Daily, the largest pro-democracy newspaper in Hong Kong. We cannot allow Beijing to continue to trample on its international commitments with impunity. I hope—and I am sure they are—the Government are using every opportunity to continue to raise his case and to help him in being freed to join his family.

I turn to Taiwan, where the spectre of military aggression looms large. The People’s Republic of China continues to engage in provocative military manoeuvres, with economic coercion and with the attempted diplomatic isolation of Taiwan. I was delighted to join the noble Baroness, Lady D’Souza, the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, and a number of other noble Lords in proudly celebrating Taiwan’s national day in October; it is important that we do that. The people of Taiwan have proudly built a thriving democracy and a dynamic economy in the face of these constant threats, and it is imperative that we all stand with them, not only because it is right but because the security of the Indo-Pacific is inextricably linked to our own.

On Tibet, the Chinese Communist Party’s decades-long campaign to erase Tibetan culture, religion and identity is a stain on the conscience of the international community. Let us not forget that, not that long ago, Tibet was an independent country, but nobody now refers to it as that; it has in effect been absorbed into China, and the Tibetan people have been slowly eradicated. I had the honour a few years ago of meeting the Dalai Lama in his exile home in Dharamsala. I do not share his religion, but he is an inspirational character, continuing to preach non-violence in the face of all the threats and indeed genocides that the Tibetan people have faced.

In Xinjiang, as mentioned by a number of other noble Lords, the situation is nothing short of a human rights disaster. The evidence of atrocities against the Uighurs is overwhelming, with reports of mass detentions, forced labour, systematic surveillance and a form of cultural genocide. These paint a harrowing picture.

In the South China Sea, China’s aggressive militarisation and territorial expansion violates international law. They threaten the free passage of goods that underpins global trade. The UK has a vested interest in upholding freedom of navigation; the Royal Navy’s presence in the Indo-Pacific is a vital demonstration of that commitment to a free and open maritime order. I hope that the Government will continue to do that.

Of course, I recognise that our relationship with China is complex. There are areas where engagement is, unfortunately, necessary but engagement must not come at the expense of our values or of our security. We cannot allow ourselves to become overly dependent on a regime that routinely undermines the principles that we hold dear, and I agree with the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Fox, on that.

In conclusion, I ask the Government the following questions. On Hong Kong, what further steps will the Government take to hold China accountable for its breaches of the Sino-British joint declaration and how will we continue to support those brave souls fighting for democracy in Hong Kong? On Taiwan, what is the Government’s strategy to support it in the face of the aggression that I just mentioned, and how are we working with allies to safeguard stability in the Indo-Pacific? On Xinjiang, will the Government expand the Magnitsky sanctions to target more Chinese officials involved in the persecution of Uighurs, and what efforts are being made to ensure that UK supply chains are free of forced labour from Xinjiang?

On trade and investment, how do the Government intend to balance economic engagement with China with helping to reduce our strategic vulnerabilities in many of the key sectors that noble Lords have mentioned, such as energy, technology and infrastructure? Finally, on security, what measures are being taken to counter Chinese espionage and interference in the UK, particularly in our university sector, research institutions and telecommunications networks?

These are all pressing questions that demand clear and decisive answers. I hope that the Government will bear them in mind when pursuing their new reset of China policies. The stakes are too high for ambiguity, and I urge the Government to lead with the resolve and moral clarity that the people of this nation expect and deserve.

British Indian Ocean Territory: Sovereignty

Lord Callanan Excerpts

Thursday 19th December 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

My Lords, if this deal is not yet legally deceased then it certainly seems to be on end-of-life support. Can the Minister explain why the Government were in such a hurry to give away strategically important British sovereign territory to a country 1,500 miles away within weeks of taking office, just before important elections in both Mauritius and the US and without even having the courtesy of consulting the Chagossian community who in fact used to live there? We have had no detail on what is in the agreement or how much we are paying to lease back something that we already own. It has had the effect of destabilising the entire region and it is concerning some of our closest allies. Is it not time to scrap the entire thing and start again?

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

My Lords, the negotiations with Mauritius are not destabilising the entire region, and we were not in a hurry to conclude them. As we have said before, these negotiations commenced two years ago and had gone through many rounds of negotiation under the previous Government. On the issue of scrutiny, I say that the treaty will be subject to the usual process in this House. There will also be primary legislation that will go before both Houses and be amendable in the usual way; I do not think we have explored that in our exchanges previously.

Ukraine

Lord Callanan Excerpts

Thursday 5th December 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

My Lords, the noble Baroness will be pleased to know that she will have an easier time on this Question because we remain fully supportive of the Government’s position on supporting our Ukrainian allies in the face of Russian aggression. I have two questions for her. It was reported yesterday that a Russian ship shot at a German military helicopter over the Baltic Sea using signal munitions, according to the German Foreign Minister. Is she aware of this news and has she had any conversations with Germany and our other NATO allies about this concerning development? Secondly, can she update the House on the progress of the discussions with the US and others on the release of the seized and sanctioned Russian assets that are to be given to Ukraine to aid the rebuilding of that country?

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

My Lords, my colleague, Minister Stephen Doughty, will be taking forward any conversations that may be necessary as a consequence of recent events. On the assets, we are looking at every means possible to ensure that the funds are there for Ukraine when it needs them.

Georgia: Political Situation

Lord Callanan Excerpts

Wednesday 4th December 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

That is a question on many of our minds. However, I do not think we are trying to involve ourselves in any other country’s decisions relating to accession or otherwise. The principle that we seek to stick to is that this must be a choice made by the people of Georgia freely and democratically, and free of interference from other states.

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

My Lords, it is clear from the experiences of my noble friend Lord Blencathra and other observers that the recent parliamentary elections in Georgia were indeed seriously flawed. There were many credible reports of Russian interference—something that, sadly, seems to be happening with increasing frequency in various other countries as well; there were similar allegations in Moldova, Romania and other countries. Is the Minister working with international partners to counter this malign influence in the democratic systems of so many of our partner countries?

International Aid Workers: Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories

Lord Callanan Excerpts

Tuesday 26th November 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

The right reverend Prelate is right to raise this question. We work using every channel we can and every lever available to us, and in a way that we hope maximises the chance of all this engagement having an impact. We have always said that Israel needs to act within international humanitarian law. As much as it has every right to defend itself, we are increasingly concerned, as the days and weeks progress, about what is happening, particularly in Gaza but also in Lebanon. As the UK Government, we will continue to work to bring about the access we need so that aid can get to the people who really need it.

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

My Lords, the Israeli Government have banned UNRWA from operating in Israel due to the number of its staff involved in the 7 October attack. Considering this information, can the Minister tell us why this Government chose to resume funding to UNRWA?

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

As the noble Lord should know—perhaps his noble friend might like to remind him—UNRWA is the only viable way to get aid into Gaza at the scale that is needed now. We understand the concerns of the Israeli Government, which were investigated. We resumed funding because we have an approaching crisis; many thousands of people are about to lose their lives unless aid gets into Gaza.