Sanctions Implementation and Enforcement

Lord Purvis of Tweed Excerpts

Thursday 15th May 2025 Lords Chamber

[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.

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Purvis—yes, this Government like to deliver promptly. I similarly did not anticipate being back here discussing this Statement quite so soon, not least because I had it down at 6 pm in my diary, so I ran very fast in heels from the department.

I welcome the fact that noble Lords have encouraged us to go further, and I note the comments that were made on different sanctions, including on China and others. Obviously, we do not comment on future designations—we have rehearsed that line many times in this Chamber—but we do listen when noble Lords make these kinds of observations and encourage the Government. We take these things on board and listen to what is said, but we obviously do not comment ahead of time.

I take the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, on verbiage; that is entirely fair. We try our best with these things. I believe that what the report is saying is clear, but we should be open to improving specific language where we can.

I understand the point on early settlement. All I will say is that it is just an additional tool: sometimes it is appropriate, sometimes it is not. It is important that we use it only when it is the right thing to do, when it has the effect that we want and it is not a less impactful option. I understand the concern—it is legitimate to raise it—but it is important to have that as another way of tackling this issue.

We continue to look at the Syrian and Russian frozen assets. There is an issue around frozen assets, as we have explained many times. There are legal concerns as well as potential consequences for British assets in other parts of the world. We hear the argument, and we will continue to look at this.

On the point about enablers, we have regular and detailed engagement with partner countries, where appropriate. This is an important point, and the Government are mindful of making sure that we use our levers to address it.

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, for his welcome of this report, and I completely agree with every word he said about Putin, Ukraine and Russia. I am happy to acknowledge the work that the previous Government did on this. We are building on that, as he would want us to do.

I do not have anything new to say on the Chelsea Football Club issue; I wish I did. I wish we could get this resolved and get the money where it needs to be. We are continuing to work on this at every level, and I hope that we will be able to come back to the House with a different answer very soon.

The noble Lord, Lord Callanan, was absolutely right about communication with business and making sure that the rules and updates are as widely known as possible. Measures are suggested in the report that we will implement, including email alerts, and we will continue to work through the DBT and take other opportunities to make sure that that happens.

The noble Lord asked whether we will leverage our influence. The answer to that is absolutely yes. Generally, this work is ongoing. This is not something where you ever complete the task and say, “We’ve done all the work we’re ever going to do on sanctions, and we’ve got it completely right”. We are in competition with criminal gangs and with different ways of working, so we need to keep this evolving. We need to keep it under review, keep challenging ourselves and keep changing and innovating. I am grateful to the parties opposite for their support for that work.

Syria (Sanctions) (EU Exit) (Amendment) Regulations 2025

Lord Purvis of Tweed Excerpts

Monday 12th May 2025 Grand Committee

[The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Baroness Chapman of Darlington) (Lab)]

My Lords, these regulations amend the Syria (Sanctions) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019.

Five months after the fall of the brutal Assad regime, Syria stands at a crossroads. The country and its economy have been decimated by more than 13 years of conflict. Vital infrastructure has been destroyed. Some 90% of Syrians live below the poverty line. They desperately need support to recover and to rebuild their country.

On 24 April, this statutory instrument was laid, amending the Syria sanctions regulations, to promote and support Syria’s economic recovery. That instrument revoked specific UK sanctions measures on some sectors of the Syrian economy, including transport, trade, energy and finance. We have taken this action to help open up the Syrian financial system and to support the flow of essential investment in energy infrastructure—above all, in the electricity generation sector, which is vital for Syria’s recovery and reconstruction.

This is the latest step in a series of gradual actions designed to aid Syria’s recovery. On 12 February, the Treasury’s Office of Financial Sanctions Implementation issued a general licence allowing for payments to be made to support humanitarian delivery. The Statement made by the Minister for Europe in the other place on 13 February indicated the direction of travel for our Syria sanctions regulations. Following this, on 6 March, we announced the delisting of 24 Syrian entities that were previously used by the Assad regime to fund the oppression of the Syrian people, including the Central Bank of Syria, Syrian Arab Airlines and several energy companies.

Reflecting the momentous changes that have taken place in Syria since December, these amendments, as well as supporting the Syrian people in rebuilding their country and economy, bring the regulations up to date. In light of the fall of the Assad Government, the purposes of the regulations now prioritise the promotion of peace, stability and security in Syria, while encouraging respect for democracy and human rights. At the same time, they provide accountability for gross violations of human rights carried out by or on behalf of the Assad regime.

Alongside laying this instrument, we delisted a further 12 government and media entities that were previously sanctioned due to their links to Assad, and which we judge to no longer have an association with the former regime. These include the Syrian Ministry of Defence and Ministry of Interior. The Government remain determined to hold Bashar al-Assad and his associates accountable for their atrocious actions against the people of Syria. As such, we will ensure that sanctions imposed on 348 individuals and entities linked to the former regime remain in place.

A number of members have rightly raised deep concerns in the past about the horrific violence that erupted in coastal areas of Syria in early March, on which the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Middle East updated the other place in his Statement on 10 March. We have also seen violence in southern Syria at the end of April. Members may ask why we are lifting sanctions at this time. I reassure noble Lords that we will keep all our sanctions regimes under close review to ensure that they are used as a responsive tool, targeting those who bear responsibility for repression and human rights abuses. The revised regulations give the UK scope to deploy future sanctions should that become necessary.

The violence we have seen has given us an image of Syria’s future if the new leadership chooses the wrong path. They must protect the rights of all Syrians, to ensure that they are included in the political transition taking place. Without meaningful representation of Syria’s diverse communities, there can be no lasting peace and ultimately no better future for the country. This is a message we consistently emphasise in all the UK’s engagement with interim President al-Sharaa and Foreign Minister al-Shaibani. But there have also been some positive developments that suggest Syria could choose the right path towards peace and stability. The president’s actions in the aftermath of the violence in March, announcing the formation of a fact-finding committee to investigate those found responsible for crimes committed during the violence, are welcome.

We also welcome the formation of a new Syrian Government on 29 March and the commitment of the president to hold free and fair elections. We expect those appointed to the new Government to demonstrate a commitment to the protection of human rights, unfettered access for humanitarian aid, safe destruction of chemical weapons stockpiles and combating terrorism and extremism.

Further, we welcome the provisions made in the constitutional declaration on 13 March on freedom of expression, freedom of belief and women’s rights. It will be vital to ensure that Syria’s diverse communities are consulted as future iterations of the draft constitution are developed, so we will continue to call on the Syrian Government to prioritise inclusivity and representation in the building of state institutions and in further appointments, including to the legislative committee, and to set out a clear timeline for the next phase of the transition.

We are encouraged too by the positive and constructive engagement Syria has demonstrated with the UN Human Rights Council’s new resolution on Syria, which the UK co-tabled, and which renewed the mandate of the commission of inquiry for a further 12 months. The UK will continue our commitment to supporting accountability and human rights in Syria, including the right to freedom of religion or belief, and to advocate for their foundational place at the centre of the transitional process in Syria.

The appearance of the Foreign Minister at the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons’ executive council on 5 March was an historic moment, and we welcome commitments by the Syrian Government that they will protect chemical weapons sites and will not use chemical weapons under any circumstances. The OPCW’s two visits to Syria are also important steps forward. The OPCW reported that the Syrian Government extended all possible support and co-operation, including access to sites and people. We call on Syria to now move quickly towards declaration.

The agreement made by the president with the Syrian Democratic Forces on north-east Syria on 10 March was also a welcome development. We will continue to engage with all parties in support of an inclusive process as implementation of the agreement progresses.

Beyond our action on sanctions, we remain committed to helping meet Syria’s humanitarian needs. We have pledged up to £160 million of UK support in 2025, providing life-saving assistance to millions of Syrians inside Syria and across the region, as well as agriculture, livelihoods and education programmes to help Syrians to rebuild their lives.

To conclude, Syria’s transition remains delicately balanced. A step in the wrong direction could lead to instability and ultimately a collapse that would benefit Iran and Russia. It would have wider ramifications for our efforts to counter Daesh—we remain a member of the Global Coalition—and illegal migration, and risk destabilising the wider region. Promoting stability and prosperity in Syria through economic recovery is firmly in the UK’s national interest. It will bolster regional and UK security in line with the Government’s plan for change. The UK remains committed to the people of Syria and will continue to stand with them in building a more stable, free and prosperous future.

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

I thank the Minister for her balanced and nuanced tone on these measures. These measures, unlike the previous measures, give me a bit more concern. I agree with the Minister that we want to see a Syria at peace within its borders and beyond. There should be restraint from neighbouring countries in acting within its sovereign borders. The Minister was absolutely right that there are positive signals, signs and actions. But there are also those which have provided some worry in recent weeks.

When we previously debated measures that allowed humanitarian licences to be issued, my party supported them. That is fully justified; the humanitarian situation within Syria remains grave. The Government are to be commended for the humanitarian support that they are providing with our partners. That is especially the case when we are working with local civil society groups, which are working extremely hard. It is the best means by which we can avoid facilitating those who do not share the overall ambitions of the Government for civil rights, human rights and humanitarian needs.

This is one area where the structure of doing this through statutory instruments prevents, for example, probing amendments on areas we would like some further clarity on. The Minister referred to the recent attacks on the Druze and the concerns about the restrictions of rights for minorities. The Government were right to condemn these, and the Minister is right to do so. As she alluded to, this is the second set of incidents; it could highlight that these are not isolated incidents. There needs to be action as a result of the fact-finding inquiries to ensure that they are prevented from happening again.

The Minister will recall that I separately raised concerns in the Chamber about the work being done on the national curriculum. It seems to be reflecting sectarianism, continuing antisemitism, extremist language and violent content, and erasing women and minorities. This is in clear contradiction to the last bullet point in the Government’s ambitions for Syria, for

“the enjoyment of rights and freedoms in Syria without discrimination, including on the basis of a person’s sex, race, colour, language, religion, political or other opinion”.

The probing amendment I would seek to bring would ask for a report on the implementation of some of the policies and how they interact with the new liberties that the UK is providing, especially for financial services, financial markets and the operation of the private sector at the direction of those who, while they may not be part of the proscribed terrorist organisation, are working with them. The proscription in UK law is not only for the organisation itself, but those that facilitate, finance and support it. The catch-all is quite broad. I would hope that we would also have a report on what the ongoing assessment is on proscription. When will it be the time that there is a view that that proscription should be lifted overall?

Russia (Sanctions) (EU Exit) (Amendment) Regulations 2025

Lord Purvis of Tweed Excerpts

Monday 12th May 2025 Grand Committee

[The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Baroness Chapman of Darlington) (Lab)]

My Lords, these regulations amend the Russia (Sanctions) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019. This instrument was laid on 23 April under powers in the Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Act 2018. The measures in this instrument, subject to the “made affirmative” parliamentary procedure, entered into force on 24 April.

Sanctions are a powerful tool in our armoury. They play an important part in promoting peace and security abroad, upholding international rules and norms, and protecting our citizens at home. Since coming to power, this Government have ramped up action with our partners. This includes leading the way on targeting Russia’s revenues, bearing down on its military-industrial complex, and deterring and disrupting Iran’s support to Russia. Just last Friday, the Prime Minister announced a major package of sanctions to target the decrepit and dangerous shadow fleet carrying Russian oil. This is the largest package of sanctions against the shadow fleet, with 110 targets. According to some estimates, sanctions have crippled 200 ships—almost half of Putin’s dedicated fleet.

The Government’s support to Ukraine remains steadfast. Our total support for Ukraine now stands at £18 billion, including £3 billion a year of military aid, as well as our £2.26 billion contribution to the G7 extraordinary revenue acceleration loans scheme. Two-thirds of our extraordinary revenue acceleration scheme funding has now been disbursed and will support Ukraine to obtain vital military equipment. We are absolutely committed to securing a just and lasting peace in Ukraine, and maximising economic pressure on Russia is key to securing this. That is why we are continuing to introduce sanctions.

The UK has now sanctioned over 2,400 entities and individuals under our Russia regime, and international sanctions have deprived Putin of $450 billion since the invasion began. UK sanctions have also frustrated Russian trade. Russian imports into the UK have fallen by more than 98% compared to pre-invasion levels, and UK exports to Russia are down by more than 80%. We will maintain this relentless pressure on Putin, alongside our allies, to force him to the table and ensure that he engages seriously in negotiations.

We reiterate our call on Russia to accept a full, unconditional ceasefire in Ukraine to create space for talks on a just and lasting peace. We commend President Zelensky’s commitment to peace by expressing his openness to direct talks with Putin. That is why the Foreign Secretary is hosting the Weimar+ meeting in London with partners from across Europe at what is a key moment for Ukraine and the collective security of our continent. The time is now for Putin to come to the table and for Russia to show that it is serious about ending this war or face the consequences.

The UK stands ready to ratchet up the pressure on Russia so that it ends its brutal war of aggression. This instrument allows us to go even further in our efforts to target Russia’s revenue streams and prevent the Kremlin from building its military and industrial capabilities. It introduces a package of over 150 new trade sanctions. This includes new, innovative measures that will prevent UK expertise being used in Russia’s defence and energy sectors. It will deny Russia sophisticated UK technology and software, and it will expand our prohibitions with the aim of further constraining Russia’s economic growth.

I now turn to each measure in this instrument. First, the instrument introduces new export prohibitions on a wide range of goods, including chemicals, plastics, metals, machinery and electronics. These prohibitions will deny Russia the means to procure products that have military and industrial uses. Secondly, we are extending our prohibitions on the transfer of technology, applying the prohibitions to a broader set of technology related to goods that are important for Russia’s military-industrial sectors and for its economic development. Through these measures, we are removing UK expertise, whether that is contained in intellectual property, blueprints or industrial know-how, from critical supply chains.

Thirdly, the instrument will ban the transfer of software relating to business enterprise, industrial design and oil and gas exploration and production. Putin relies on energy production and exports to fuel his war economy. Therefore, the aim of these sanctions is to make key sectors of the Russian economy less productive.

Fourthly, we are banning the import of Russian synthetic diamonds that have been processed in third countries, and helium. These target future funding sources that Russia is developing, as well as potential circumvention routes.

Finally, this instrument clarifies the enforcement responsibilities for a small number of trade sanctions on Russia. This will enable DBT’s Office of Trade Sanctions Implementation to enforce certain trade sanctions offences and refer serious offences to HMRC for criminal enforcement consideration.

To conclude, the Government remain committed to European security, and committed to standing up for the values of democracy and the rule of law, values which continue to be attacked by Russia. Sanctions, including this trade package, are a key part of our efforts. I beg to move.

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for outlining in clear turns what the Government are doing. We support these measures. The Government are rightly continuously moving to ensure that any previous omissions are corrected, as these instruments do, that new and emerging technologies are covered, as these instruments do, and to ensure that there is a watching brief on the circumvention and operation of third countries, as these instruments also do. I will ask the Minister a couple of questions, but I think we all hope that the diplomatic work being done at the moment will bring about a ceasefire on terms that benefit Ukraine, its integrity and sovereignty.

Bosnia and Herzegovina

Lord Purvis of Tweed Excerpts

Thursday 3rd April 2025 Lords Chamber

[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.

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

My Lords, this issue is central to our national security interests, whether on immigration, organised crime or resisting Russian interference. I pay tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Helic, whose work has been bringing these concerns to the British public, which is extremely important.

My question to the Development Minister is a development question; she will not be surprised that I ask it. The western Balkans freedom and resilience programme is now in its final year. It is a £31 million programme involving 20 local organisations all focused on supporting civil society, governance and resilience against interference, as well as building up social cohesion. Previously, I have asked the Minister for ODA programmes scored under official development assistance that are linked to our national security interests to be protected. Can the Minister state that there will be a future western Balkans freedom and resilience programme? If anything is critical to our wider security interests, it could be official development assistance in that area.

Myanmar Earthquake

Lord Purvis of Tweed Excerpts

Thursday 3rd April 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

I am very happy to provide that assurance to the House today and I will take the opportunity to thank the noble Baroness, Lady Curran, as well as very many other Members of this House, for their commitment and work, and the focus they have placed on Myanmar over the years. As the noble Baroness says, it is vital that, when the media attention perhaps moves on, our focus as political leaders in this country and as the Government remains in place.

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Crisp, and the noble Baroness, Lady Curran, for years of work supporting civil society, and especially those in the medical field in Myanmar, and I welcome the Government’s immediate response with regard to the support that they are providing and the DEC appeal—I wish that appeal had acted on Sudan also. Can the Minister say, further, with regard to the reactions of the Myanmar military regime, what actions we can take with our near neighbours to ensure that there is no impunity for the military regime, which, at this time of immense suffering of its own people, is perpetrating the restricting of rights, especially of minorities within Myanmar? It is acting in the most barbaric way in the midst of a humanitarian crisis.

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

The noble Lord is completely right; we do not regard the military regime in Myanmar as a legitimate Government. We will take any steps that we are able to with our friends and allies, including sanctions and other measures, in order to bring about the peace, stability and change that the people of Myanmar deserve.

Chagos Islands

Lord Purvis of Tweed Excerpts

Wednesday 2nd April 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

We went through quite a few Prime Ministers and Foreign Secretaries. My recollection is that there were 12 or 13 rounds of negotiation under the previous Government.

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

My Lords, I am sure that the House will sympathise with the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, that his investment in Donald Trump is not getting many returns on this issue. However, perhaps it will allow us to move on to the real issue rather than the politicking of it. The Chagossians have had their rights denied over generations and many periods of government. I am aware that the Minister has not put a timetable on this, but can she indicate when we will get the draft text of the treaty?

Also, will this Government honour the Grimstone rule of the previous Administration that if a committee of this House, in looking at a draft treaty, asks for a debate in government time on a Motion that can be amended then the Government will commit to that? I would be grateful if the Minister could say that that rule will continue to apply.

G7

Lord Purvis of Tweed Excerpts

Thursday 20th March 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

My Lords, the turbulence of the global situation that we face was reflected in the breadth of the subjects covered in the joint statement of the G7 Foreign Ministers’ meeting: Ukraine, Gaza, China, Sudan, the DRC, Latin America and Iran were all covered. We are faced with a world of growing uncertainty and instability, and we welcome the commitment shown at the G7 to face those global challenges together.

The importance of co-operation and alliance with those countries that share our values in facing these threats is, in my view, crucial. Over the weekend, and in the other place this week, we have heard that the proposed peacekeeping initiative for Ukraine is now moving into an operational phase, which we welcome. However, the Foreign Secretary did not expand on what that means in practical terms, or what our European and Atlantic allies have committed to in supporting it. Can the Minister provide the House with an update on these issues?

Across both Houses of Parliament, there is overwhelming support, I am delighted to say, for our Ukrainian allies, and we on these Benches continue to support Ukraine in its fight to defend its freedom, democracy and the rule of law. The Government have taken admirable steps to co-ordinate our allies, which we welcome, although the House would welcome an update on what this means for us and our country in practice. What are the effects of this initiative on our Armed Forces? What planning is currently under way as part of this operational shift? Which allies in the so-called coalition of the willing have expressed interest in this initiative, and what are they willing to offer? What discussions have the Government held with the United States to advance clarity on this plan? Facing Putin and ensuring the security and sovereignty of Ukraine can be achieved only alongside our allies, and I think that the House would welcome further clarity from the Government to explain what they are doing to shift this coalition of the willing to a coalition of the committed.

The G7’s joint statement also made clear the growing and very serious concerns among allies about China’s activities aimed at

“undermining the security and safety of our communities and the integrity of our democratic institutions”.

This comes alongside many other concerns raised at the G7, including China’s non-market policies and practices that are leading to harmful overcapacity and market distortions; China’s military build-up, and the continued, rapid increase in China’s nuclear weapons arsenal; and increasing efforts to restrict freedom of navigation and overflight through militarisation and coercion in countries bordering the South China Sea, in clear violation of international law.

Given these clear and blatant risks to our domestic security, and the threat that China poses to the rule of international law, will the Government now take steps to place China on the enhanced tiers list of the foreign influence registration scheme? In my view, this would further strengthen the resilience of the UK political system against covert influence and provide greater assurance around the activities of China that are deemed a national security risk.

Proceeding from the concerns expressed at the G7, the country now needs to see further concrete responses from the Government to address the threat posed by China. I therefore close by asking the Minister: what other measures are being considered by the Government to compel China to engage in strategic risk reduction discussions, and what steps are the Government taking to deter China’s non-market policies and practices?

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

My Lords, the seriousness of the issues addressed by the G7 are such that, from the welcome Statement that the House of Commons received on Monday, events have changed between then and when it has come to this Chamber with regards to the likely slow movement of President Putin in his talks with President Trump over a ceasefire for Ukraine, the increased concern with regard to the Red Sea, and the strikes from the United States and the repercussions of that—I remind the House that, on Sunday, President Trump’s national security adviser called the previous attacks, which very brave RAF personnel took part in, as “feckless”. The war has restarted in Gaza with more humanitarian concern and more violence on the West Bank, just within three days of that Statement coming to this Chamber.

We are now close to the second round of tariffs from the principal economy within the G7, as part of what the Wall Street Journal—not a liberal newspaper—in America has described as the

“dumbest trade war in history”.

Regardless of its dumbness, there will be effects across the whole of the G7, including the UK. From these Benches, we reiterate our desire to have ever-closer relations with the European Union and Canada in particular, so that there is a co-ordinated response. It is regrettable that there should need be that within the G7, but this is the world which we have to address.

On the Statement itself, I welcome the Foreign Secretary stating that they discussed using frozen Russian assets. The Minister will know that these Benches have asked for accelerated work on the seizure of the assets. Can the Minister update us on that, and tell us what the prospect of an announcement is from the G7 Heads of Government meetings? At the very least, we think there is a justified case for draft UK legislation to be released, so that we can understand what we would be required to do to move fast on that. I would be grateful if the Minister could outline where we are on the seizing of assets.

The Minister knows that we have supported the increase in defence expenditure across the UK, as the Foreign Secretary referred to in the Statement. Can the Minister give a bit more clarity as to what proportion of the increased defence expenditure is likely to be spent within the UK and what proportion is likely to be spent within the US? What is the Government’s position on the reports that we have seen about the UK’s difficulty in taking a full role within the common defence procurement approach in the European Union? Are we seeking to move quickly on a defence and security treaty which should facilitate this? There are a number of Members in this House who called for that under the last Government and continue to do so. It is now urgent, and I hope the Minister can update us on it.

The Minister will not be surprised to hear me say that we disagree with the method of the increased funds. We believe that the companies that avoid paying tax in the UK—tech companies—and are operating on underpaid taxes for their profits should contribute more. That is under the Basel 3.1 mechanism. There is agreement within the EU and, as I understand it, the G7. Only one country has argued against it and pulled out of it: the United States. A second G7 country has delayed our implementation because of that first country. We do not believe that that is appropriate; we should move quickly on using the resource from an increase from 2% to 10% on undertaxed profits. That is a better way of funding increased defence expenditure, rather than cutting the ODA budget.

Earlier, the Minister reiterated the Government’s position, which is an ambition to honour the 0.7% legislation. I remind the House that the legislation does not require the Government to have an ambition to meet 0.7%; it requires them to meet it. It is not a “We would like to do it” Act; it is a “We must do it” Act. If the Government are not committed to this then they should state it clearly, with regards to the means by which they would meet the legislative target.

On the fiscal circumstances of meeting the legislative requirement, it seems that the Government’s policy choice is to cut ODA to fund defence expenditure—that is a policy choice, not a fiscal one. What are the fiscal rules now when it comes to the policy choice of funding in an alternative way? There is no mechanism under the 0.7% legislation for alternative policy choices to be used, other than fiscal circumstances, so what is the status?

Finally, I reflected on the Government’s Statement 10 years ago, when we passed this legislation, on the 2015 G7. Granted, that was not a meeting of Foreign Ministers but of Prime Ministers, and the Prime Minister said this to the House of Commons:

“For the first time in a number of G7s and G8s, we actually got the 0.7% commitment back into the text, so it is clear and there for all to see. I would argue that it is not just right for Britain from a moral standpoint, but that it actually increases our standing in the world that we can point out that we have kept our promises and were able to use that money to enhance not only the economic standing of those countries, but our own security as well.”—[Official Report, Commons, 10/6/15; col.1203.]


I agree with the then Prime Minister.

HIV/AIDS: US Withdrawal from WHO

Lord Purvis of Tweed Excerpts

Thursday 20th March 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

We are concerned about HIV/AIDS and tuberculosis, malaria and other diseases. The theme of these exchanges today is going to be one of heightened concern about our ability to make the progress that we have an ambition and a responsibility to make. There is no doubt that it has now been made more difficult. The noble Lord asked about the decisions we are making here in the UK. We are not responsible for the decisions that other countries make, but we are responsible for the choices that we take. Although those decisions are currently being made, I find it difficult to envisage a situation where the United Kingdom does not play a leading role in the fight against these diseases.

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

My Lords, with regard to our approach, this week marks the 10th anniversary of the 0.7% legislation passing this House. I mourn that, because I was naive; I felt that subsequent Governments would honour it. However, we now have the position where the Government will be paying more to private sector landlords in the UK than the entirety of all our support for children with malaria or those born with AIDS. In two years’ time, we will be spending the same level on official development assistance as Viktor Orbán’s Hungary. With all great seriousness, given how far away we will be from that legislation—and the more incredulous government statements saying that when fiscal circumstances arise we will get to it—as the people now in charge of that legislation, will the Government now do the decent thing and repeal it?

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

Absolutely not. Why would we do that? It is our ambition to regain the 0.7% spend on official development assistance. We have been very clear about that. Why would we repeal that legislation? I find it very difficult that we are spending so much money on housing asylum seekers and migrants in the UK out of our ODA budget. I do not think that is what we should be doing. The previous Government completely lost control of the borders of this country and we have inherited this situation. The Home Office is working hard to get the numbers down and to reduce the spend so that money can be spent where it is needed most. We did make the decision—and it was a difficult one for this Government—to prioritise spending on defence. I do not think I need to explain to noble Lords why we did that. It is a decision I support, and I will be working incredibly hard, with allies and partners, to make sure that the money that we do have is spent wisely, and that we get the best value for money for British taxpayers and the most impact that we can for our partners overseas.

United Kingdom: Global Position

Lord Purvis of Tweed Excerpts

Thursday 13th March 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the very thoughtful contribution of the noble Lord. I join others in thanking the noble Lord, Lord Howell, for bringing us this debate. It gave us an opportunity to hear the excellent maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Pitkeathley, made under what I observed to be the studious eye of the occupant of the Woolsack at the time. The noble Lord said that dreams alone are not enough. That is something we on these Benches have reflected on for many years, but he is very welcome and will make an excellent contribution to this House.

The noble Lord, Lord Howell, asked us to set aside some of the orthodoxies and consider the fast pace of change. The noble Baroness, Lady Prashar, said that there was a kind of reckoning, which I agree with. My noble friend Lord Taylor said in response that there is a very high degree of consensus in this Chamber. For us, on a cross-party and non-party basis, the norms and rules are even more important in a modern technological world, especially if those who control the technology have personal, political and financial ambitions and see nation states as vessels. Just this week, the Polish Foreign Minister called for European satellite and security resilience, and Elon Musk replied on X:

“Be quiet, small man … there is no substitute for Starlink”.


We have benefited, until recently, when navigating these uncertainties and complexities of the 21st century, from being a joint partner both within and then with the European Union, and working closely with the United States. We know, however, that we cannot entirely rely on the Trump Administration. The noble Lord, Lord Howard, said that Administration was unreliable. Thomas Friedman, in the New York Times this week, wrote:

“I would call Trump’s foreign policy philosophy not ‘containment’ or ‘engagement,’ but ‘smash and grab.’ Trump aspires to be a geopolitical shoplifter”.


I think that has a great deal of sense to it.

This new reality is posing us major challenges, and it is fair to say—I think, very fair—that our Prime Minister is conducting himself, on behalf of us all, with professionalism and a seriousness befitting the office and, importantly, the moment, and we thank him for it. This recognition will, of course, not inhibit us from highlighting areas of either difference or concern; we are functioning democracy and a Parliament. My noble friend Lord Bruce eloquently referred, as many others have, to choices on development assistance and also soft power. We remain a significant force in that, and that is to be welcomed. As the noble Baroness, Lady Prashar, highlighted, recent complacency is leading us to fall behind China and putting us in a deteriorating position in our relationship with developing economies.

I have often questioned the term “soft power”; what it means is quality, innovation, standards, reliability and predictability. These should all be part of our position in the world and are all elements that are in deep need, given that our key partner is showing very little of those qualities. It is why, when we look at our BBC World Service, cherished around the world, and when there is concern about its future funding, we on these Benches will challenge the Minister—we will seek to add pressure. When it comes to other areas of ODA, linked with national security, I will continue to ask and challenge the Minister, in temperate ways, on choices where we think the Government have taken the wrong direction. Earlier, the Minister suggested I might not have done well in the House of Commons if I think the tone is intemperate here. Her noble friend Lady Curran, behind her, will know I have a saddle-leather thick skin from my time in the Scottish Parliament. We will have this cut and thrust, because we can in our Parliament, and that is to be cherished.

On that aspect, I agree very strongly with the noble Lord, Lord Browne. He highlighted one of the consequences of cutting ODA in areas where countries are on the front line against not only terrorism but the encroachment of Russia. For example, there was a high degree of consensus when we proscribed the Wagner Group, so in areas where its successor, the Africa Corps, is active, it makes little sense for our national security to pull ODA development funding when it comes to resilience against autocracies.

On 26 March 10 years ago, there was consensus when we passed the 0.7% legislation in this House. Part of that consensus was not just about the 0.7% level, that our ability to be a development partner should be on that scale. It was also that defence spending and development investment were complementary, and that one should not be cut to fund the other. I hope we can restore that consensus, because it is of great significance to our standing in the world. It is interesting to me, looking at the fiscal tests, that they were not being met in 2014 or 2015 when we established 0.7%. These are policy choices, not fiscal choices, and that is why, when it comes to policy choices about our position in the world, the faster we can return to 0.7% the better.

The noble Lord, Lord Kerr, said there was some shift in American policy. It perhaps could be argued by some in America—apologists for Trump, not the noble Lord—that the main adversary is Beijing and therefore we have to settle ourselves to the rescheduling of our relationship with Moscow. That does not even make sense for those who support the Trump Administration, because of decisions they have made such as reversing the decision on TikTok, Elon Musk wanting contracts from Beijing and raising concerns about Taiwan.

I want to raise Taiwan and some others, and I hope the House will allow me to be partisan for a second. Taiwan, Ukraine and now Canada all have Governments that are our sister parties. There are Liberals on the front line of the challenges of this new, unsettling world order. Fascinating discussions I have had with my parliamentary colleagues in all three of those governing parties have inspired me, and this is where I want to close.

In listening to the noble Baroness, Lady Prashar, some others and my noble friend, there are potential opportunities in this global landscape. I agree with the point that the noble Lord, Lord Howard, made that there are more people living in a democracy. There are more people living in economic security than ever before in civilisation, however messy, uneven or unequal that is. For my party, often perhaps with bitter experience—or maybe because of the Scottish perspective—when you have exhausted pessimism, there is only optimism left.

So what are the opportunities? We are seeing now Parliaments, whether in Lebanon or Ukraine, resisting the interference of cyberattacks on a daily basis, or interference in democratic elections. There is civil society. Young women in Sudan are still doing remarkable things to keep their communities safe in unbelievably difficult circumstances. There are brave and principled political leaders, and we should be signalling our support for them. There are innovative young people, especially in African nations, who present an enormous economic and social opportunity for the UK. Of course, there are the networks, whether it is the Commonwealth or the European Union.

Nancy Pelosi always used to say that diversity is our strength but unity is our power. We can relay that to our friendship networks around the world. There are also standards, including the sustainable development goals, which, interestingly, have received not one mention in the debate so far. We can work with our allies. Let me close on this. We need to have the 2.5% and growing defence, not funded from cuts in ODA but by, perhaps, as we have suggested, the tech companies contributing not 2% but 10% of their unearned profits. There should be a distinct development department again, not a replacement of the 1997 DfID but a department for global transition, so countries know that, in this uncertain world when they are transitioning to zero poverty and zero emissions, the UK is a reliable, dependable and predictable partner at a time of great flux.

Syria

Lord Purvis of Tweed Excerpts

Thursday 13th March 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the Government for this important Statement on the situation in Syria. As my right honourable friend the Shadow Foreign Secretary said in the other place:

“This is the first statement on Syria offered by the Government this year, and frankly, it could not have come soon enough”.—[Official Report, Commons, 10/3/25; col. 664.]


We have witnessed some of the deadliest violence in Syria in recent days, since the beginning of this dreadful conflict.

The reports that hundreds of civilians have been killed in clashes, including many Alawite civilians, is, of course, deeply troubling. I am sure we have all seen the horrific videos of that violence that have been circulated. The Syrian people have now suffered 14 years of conflict and, of course, decades of oppression. The situation will need to be monitored closely to prevent backsliding into further conflict on ethnic and religious lines.

The Government have decided to establish contact with Hay’at Tahrir al-Sham and the interim Administration in Syria, so can the Minister confirm whether the Foreign Office has raised this escalation in violence with the interlocutors in the current Syrian Government, and if so, whether our Government have clearly conveyed a set of expectations of how the temperature should be taken down and how stability can be restored? Are there plans for Ministers to visit Damascus any time soon, for instance?

We note, of course, that the Government have announced that they are lifting 24 sanctions on entities linked to the deposed Assad regime. Does the terrible violence of recent days change the Government’s assessment of the merits of lifting such sanctions? Before the Government lifted them, did they consult US and European allies or partners in the region? Were the sanctions lifted at the request of HTS, and are there plans to lift further sanctions? Can the Minister also be clear with the House about precisely what conditions, criteria and evidence are being used to drive their various decisions?

On the vital subject of HTS’s progress in countering drug trafficking, does the Minister know whether Syrian Captagon, an extremely harmful pharmaceutical drug, is still in production, or has HTS managed to prevent Captagon being produced in Syria and distributed to the wider region?

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the Government for the Statement. Obviously, we have national security, regional and humanitarian interests in respect of Syria, and I wish to ask the Minister questions on all three areas. It very welcome that the noble Lord, Lord Hanson, from the Home Office, is also present. First, on national security, it is worth noting that there seems to be positive news on Syrian internal security, in the form of the agreement with the Kurdish groups, but it is too early to say what the consequences will be. Part of the UK interests has been working with our American allies to ensure that detainees who were recruited by Daesh and were active members are not presenting any future threat to the United Kingdom. What reassurance have we received from the US Administration that troops will still be in place? What contingency arrangements will the UK have for our national security if the Americans pull out?

On the loosening of sanctions, is there a public statement on our assessment of the groups that form the functioning, de facto Government of Syria, which we had previously considered to be terrorist organisations? How will we ensure that the loosening of economic sanctions does not result in profiteering by those considered to be terrorist groups? What mechanisms will be in place to ensure that, as I called for previously, we support local civil society groups that are helping the local communities, rather than channelling through to what until very recently had been—and in many respects still are—terrorist organisations that want economic support for their own groups, rather than for the benefit of the people of Syria?

A critical part of ensuring that we are safe is reducing the prospects of recruitment for terrorist organisations within Syria, so what support are we providing for transitional justice mechanisms as a result of responding to the crimes of the previous Assad regime? Are we supporting an enhanced UN transitional assistance mission? It is welcome that the UK will be participating in the pledging meeting that Minister Falconer has referred to. It is worth noting that UK support for the Syrian crisis had been at scale. As recently as 2019-2020, the UK had committed £380 million. This year, it is £103 million. According to HMG’s Development Tracker website, that is likely to go down to £55 million in 2028. Therefore, are we proposing new additional funding at the donor conference, or are we simply going to reassert our committed funds as part of the £103 million?

With regard to regional interests, the territorial integrity of Syria is of significance to the UK. What reassurance have we received from the Israeli and Turkish Governments that they believe in the territorial integrity of Syria, especially when it comes to Lebanon? Are we supporting the reconstruction of Lebanon? I would be grateful if the Minister considered meeting with me and a number of Lebanese MPs with whom I am in contact, especially female MPs, who are seeking ways of reconstructing Lebanon—especially the border areas—that avoid enhancing confessional divisions. We have a potential opportunity to look at Syrian and Lebanese reconstruction, and I hope the Minister will respond positively to that.

I hope the Minister does not mind me raising an issue of concern. Last week, I asked a question about the ODA commitment to vulnerable countries where UK interests could be at risk. I raised concerns about countries such as Lebanon, where UK support is likely to reduce dramatically as a result of the Government’s decision. The Minister said —I can quote from Hansard—that I was talking “complete nonsense” and my supposition was “frankly, ridiculous”. I looked at the support for Lebanon. In 2019-2020, it was £188 million; last year, it was £6.75 million; this year, thankfully, it is £47 million; but next year and the year after, it will be zero. So when I ask questions to Ministers in this House using government information that is available today on Development Tracker, I hope they will respond in a temperate manner.

Finally, when it comes to humanitarian support, I strongly welcome the stated position of the Government that seeks an inclusive, non-sectarian and representative Government, but I know that the Minister will recognise that that is some way away. So, with regard to the support that we are providing to the Syrian people for education, can we find ways of benchmarking UK engagement, both diplomatic and for education and humanitarian assistance, so that education reform can include independent oversight of curriculum reform, the removal of content inciting hatred or violence, and fair representation of women and minorities? There is an opportunity for our support to be linked with development assistance that can benefit all parts of Syrian society and move away from the hatred and violence which have afflicted the country so badly in recent years.

[The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Baroness Chapman of Darlington) (Lab)]

I am grateful to both noble Lords for their words. I think we all agree that the situation in Syria is incredibly fragile, to say the least, and that we all want a stable elected Government to be in charge in Syria. We are some way from that at the moment, and everything this Government are doing is aimed at bringing about that situation, which we all want to see.

The noble Lord, Lord Callanan, asked why this is our first Statement on Syria. I kindly and gently point out that there are mechanisms within the procedures of this House for him to raise whichever issues he wishes, and I would be very happy to arrange some training for him, should that be welcome.

There is clearly deep concern about the events of recent days, and we are working closely with our allies and partners in the region and beyond. Noble Lords asked whether we have spoken to the interim Government in Syria. We have and, as the noble Lord encouraged us to do, we have raised our concerns about these events and have sought to bring about the peace and stability that we all wish to see. On his question about ministerial travel, I will not comment on our intentions about ministerial travel to this part of the world. There are obvious reasons why we do not always announce ministerial travel ahead of time.

On sanctions, of course we keep our sanctions designations under review. The decisions that we made following the fall of the Assad regime were to remove the designation from some entities, such as the Central Bank of Syria, because we want to enable the reconstruction and economic development of Syria, which has been so badly harmed for reasons that we all know. It is important that the new regime in Syria and the Government we hope will follow will be able to invest in their country to grow and prosper in future. We took that decision, but, clearly, we keep all these things under review.

On chemical weapons, we are working with the OPCW on that. We are very concerned that chemicals do not fall into the hands of people that none of us would wish them to, so we are working with others on that.

On the comments from the Liberal Democrat spokesman, we agree and welcome the statements from the PKK about downing weapons, but, as I said, the situation remains incredibly fragile. On troops, it is for the future Syrian Government to determine which nations, in what capacity and where they may have a presence in Syria. Since December, we have spent more than £62 million in additional humanitarian assistance, which will include support for justice measures so that evidence can be obtained and secured for use in future proceedings.

The noble Lord is correct when he makes points about national security. I do not think I have ever been intemperate in this Chamber, but I am entitled to call nonsense nonsense when I hear it. That is not intemperate. That is in the spirit of frank exchange, which I think we all wish to engage in. I felt that in his question last week the noble Lord was asserting that we were not putting national security front and centre in our decision-making. I was pointing out to him that our decision to reduce the overseas aid budget was done to support our defence budget, which I argue is in the interest of national security. If he found that intemperate, I am glad that he was never in the other place, where I think he would have had a very difficult time.

This is a critical, fragile moment for Syria. The country faces significant challenges as it transitions after almost 14 years of conflict. Stability in Syria is firmly in our interests. The UK remains committed to the people of Syria and will continue to stand with them in building a more stable, free and prosperous future.