Pro-democracy Campaigners: Arrests

Lord Purvis of Tweed Excerpts

Wednesday 8th January 2025 Lords Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Lord Collins of Highbury) (Lab)]

Our approach to China is not to pivot between a golden era and a deep denial of any contact. We are taking a consistent approach that is rooted in the United Kingdom’s interests and global interests. We will co-operate where we can, compete where we need to and challenge where we must. Let me reassure the noble Lord that, at every opportunity, the Prime Minister and other Ministers have made it absolutely clear to the Chinese Communist Party and its leadership that they should release Jimmy Lai. We have made representations on that and have strongly condemned the recent announcement of Hong Kong police targeting individuals who are exercising their right to freedom of expression. We have called on Beijing to repeal the national security law. We do not tolerate any attempts by foreign Governments to coerce, intimidate, harass or harm their critics overseas, especially in the United Kingdom.

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

My Lords, the wholly unacceptable issuing of bounties for the arrest of innocent British residents and citizens is contrary to the promotion of and respect for democracy, the rule of law and good governance in the United Kingdom. That is one of the criteria for Magnitsky sanctions. Will the Government act and ensure that those who issued those bounties will now be sanctioned by this Parliament as a statement and signal of that being completely unacceptable behaviour? In the light of these actions just before Christmas, will the Government now move with pace on the designation of China under national security legislation for the enhanced mechanisms, so that it cannot interfere in our democratic processes?

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

I think the noble Lord knows I am obliged to say that I am not going to respond by predicting future sanctions. To come back to his point about FIRS, we have not yet made any decisions on which foreign powers or foreign power-controlled entities will be specified on the enhanced tier. The Foreign Influence Registration Scheme will further strengthen our national security, while maintaining the UK as an international hub for business. Announcements will be made after due consideration. Certainly, we have been clear, and we believe that our approach of engaging directly and robustly with China where it is in the UK’s national interest is the right one. It is firmly in line with our G7 and Five Eyes partners.

Northern Gaza

Lord Purvis of Tweed Excerpts

Wednesday 8th January 2025 Lords Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Lord Collins of Highbury) (Lab)]

I think the noble Lord knows the answers to those questions because he has heard me speak repeatedly of the need for the immediate release of the hostages. Both sides need to show flexibility and do a deal now. We reiterate our call for the safe release of all hostages, including the British national, Emily Damari, and three hostages with strong UK links. Ensuring their release is a top priority for this Government. I also emphasise that we are facing a severe humanitarian crisis in Gaza and that our response has been to focus on that too and make it clear that some of the actions that the Israeli Government have taken need to cease, so we need flexibility on both sides. We have announced £112 million for the OPTs this financial year, including £41 million for UNRWA, which provides vital, life-saving services to civilians in Gaza and the West Bank and to Palestinians across the region. As the noble Lord said, what we need is an immediate ceasefire and proper access for humanitarian aid.

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

My Lords, it is an outrage that the innocent hostages are still being detained. Yesterday, Minister Falconer said in the House of Commons of the Israeli military:

“Air strikes within the designated humanitarian zone show there are no safe spaces left for civilians”.—[Official Report, Commons, 7/1/25; col. 733.]


The most pressing threat is to the 50,000 pregnant women and the 17,000 unaccompanied children. There is now hunger and no health facilities at all. Not only that, in December, we saw the lowest levels of aid getting into Gaza, and the Israeli Government, as an occupying power, was blocking its distribution within Gaza, contrary to international law, and contributing to the looting and criminal activities by gangs and Hamas. Notwithstanding the Minister’s concern and the number of times that Ministers have expressed their frustration with the Israeli Government, what consequences will there be for the relationship between the Israeli Government and His Majesty’s Government? There now need to be consequences; otherwise, nothing that Ministers say about their concerns will have any influence on the Israeli Government.

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

I think the noble Lord knows that when this Government were elected, we took specific action. We have not been complacent here. On the mounting civilian deaths, we are absolutely determined to ensure that Israel does much more to comply with international humanitarian law and provide protection for civilians.

The Foreign Secretary continues to raise issues of international humanitarian law compliance in Gaza with the Israeli Government and since 2 September there have been no extant UK export licences for items to Israel that we assess are for use in military operations in Gaza. We have also restored funding to UNRWA to ensure that humanitarian aid can get in. I repeat to the noble Lord that we have not been complacent. We have acted and continue to act and put pressure on the Israeli Government and work with all our allies, as we have shown in our votes at the United Nations and the Security Council. I refute the suggestion that we have not taken action.

Syria

Lord Purvis of Tweed Excerpts

Thursday 19th December 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

My Lords, I understand the Minister’s difficulty when the Statement was given so recently in the Commons. I used to have a similar problem repeating Statements during the Brexit years, particularly if the Secretary of State would ad lib on their feet. They often varied from the Written Statements we were given to read out, so he has my sympathy. I thank him for repeating the Statement to the House.

There can be no doubt that the Syrian conflict has left a tragic and enduring scar on the region, displacing millions, destabilising neighbouring countries and drawing in international actors with competing interests. While I am sure that the whole House welcomes the end of the Assad regime, this moment must not be seen as the conclusion of our responsibility. The question now becomes one of ensuring that what follows is a stable, inclusive and prosperous future for all the Syrian people.

I note with particular interest, as mentioned in the Statement, the reports that Ann Snow, the UK’s special representative for Syria, met the leader of HTS on 17 December. Given its somewhat controversial history, to say the least, and its designation as a proscribed terrorist organisation, this development raises significant questions about the scope and intent of these engagements. Can the Minister give the House a little further detail on the nature of these discussions? Specifically, what assurances, if any, were sought of or provided by HTS regarding its commitment to a peaceful and inclusive political transition in Syria? Furthermore, what safeguards have the Government put in place to ensure that this dialogue does not inadvertently confer legitimacy on an organisation whose past actions have been far from consistent with international norms and human rights?

In light of this engagement, I urge the Government to outline their overarching priorities when entering into diplomatic contact with HTS or any other non-state actors in Syria. Is the focus purely on counterterrorism and security concerns, or is there a broader strategy to integrate these groups into a framework that aligns with international law and the aspirations of the Syrian people? We also have to consider the implications of those talks on the UK’s relationships with many of our key allies, particularly those in the region. How do the Government intend to navigate the sensitivities of such engagements, especially given the differing stances of international partners on the role of HTS in Syria’s future?

Finally, I seek reassurances regarding the UK’s unwavering support for UN Security Council Resolution 2254—the noble Lord mentioned this—as the framework for a political solution in Syria. This resolution, as the House will know, provides a road map for an inclusive political process, including the drafting of a new constitution, free and fair elections and a comprehensive ceasefire. Will the Government continue to prioritise this resolution as the cornerstone of their policy in Syria, and how does engagement with HTS and other actors fit into this wider strategy? Without a co-ordinated international effort to uphold the principles of that resolution, there is a grave risk that the Syrian people will remain trapped in an endless cycle of conflict and instability. I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say.

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

My Lords, we normally thank the Minister for advance notice and sight of a Statement. I sympathise, as I do not think he had it himself today, but I am grateful for the text. I agree with its content and the Government’s position that the future of Syria should be for the Syrian people, that there should be territorial integrity and that there should be a political process.

The reporting on the prisons and mass graves draws attention, again, to the venal barbarity of the al-Assad regime. As he sits in his multimillion-dollar apartment in Moscow, he should know, as should other facilitators of grievous crimes against humanity, that there are many—including in this House on all Benches—who believe that there should be no impunity for his horrific crimes against humanity. However, the new appointment to replace the al-Assad regime appears to be from an extremist element in Syria. I would be grateful for His Majesty’s Government’s assessment of those taking positions in the potential new regime.

The terrible scenes of the mass graves reminded me of the situation that we saw in Mosul after ISIS’s occupation. Are the Government willing to provide technical assistance around data capture and evidence building for those who fell victim to the previous regime, including what the UK did so well for those victims in Iraq—using DNA sampling to identify loved ones so that there can be decent burials, as well as evidence building for the potential prosecution of crimes?

We hope that there will be a move away from the levels of corruption of the previous regime. However, the early signs are that al-Jolani’s brother, who has been appointed as Minister for Health, and his brother-in-law, who is now in charge of a major crossing with Turkey, will see these positions as a major source of personal income and from which they can siphon off potential humanitarian assistance. What measures are in place to ensure that the welcome additional humanitarian assistance will go to the people who need it most? Can the Minister indicate whether we are assessing what mechanisms there would be for the delivery of humanitarian assistance? One option that has been suggested is that aid is best provided to localities—to the municipal level directly and to NGO communities—rather than to some of the new regime factions in office.

On Syria’s territorial integrity, can the Minister restate that it is government policy that both Turkey and Israel should respect its boundaries? There is a possibility of ongoing tension between Israel and Turkey and their seeking great territorial advantage from the recent internal situation in Syria. What is the Government’s assessment of Russia’s aims for strategic economic relations? There is a concern in my mind that we, along with the United States, may offer to open up the Syrian economy but, if it is to be filled only by Russian interests, we will not be helping the Syrian people.

On our domestic situation, a couple of weeks ago I asked what the Government’s assessment of HTS was with regard to the 2017 proscription order and the 2020 Syria sanctions. Has our assessment of HTS changed? I acknowledge that, within our proscriptions, there are mechanisms for diplomatic contact. Will the Minister take on board the concern that, while contact is justified, it is important how it is done? With photographs and a degree of legitimisation to those who have not yet earned it—with regard to de facto control—and who are not progressive actors, we have to be very cautious that we are not legitimising those who will continue to be proscribed.

Finally, on the decision by the Government to pause asylum, I acknowledge that that has been done alongside our allies. But these Benches believe that asylum processes should be blind to the political situation on the ground. Those seeking refuge from persecution should find a home open in the United Kingdom. There is great uncertainty and a fear that automatic stability will not be guaranteed within Syria. We should maintain an open mind for those minorities who could still be vulnerable to persecution. While the persecution may not be on the scale of the al-Assad regime, the UK should not close all doors to those who potentially still need refuge. I hope the Minister can confirm that the pause is temporary and that there is ongoing work to ensure that we do not become closed to those who need security, safety and refuge.

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

I thank both noble Lords for their contributions and questions.

I reassure the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, that we are working very closely with all allies, not only the UN, US and EU but also all Arab Foreign Ministers, to ensure the stability and sovereignty of Syria. Of course, the situation remains incredibly fluid. We continue to monitor developments closely and we are co-ordinating that monitoring through our international partners. I reassure noble Lords about that. We remain, as the Statement said, committed to the people of Syria and to a Syrian-led, Syrian-owned political transition process based on UN Security Council Resolution 2254, leading to an inclusive, non-sectarian and representative Government. I reassure the noble Lord that that is what we will continue to do.

Both noble Lords addressed how we will judge that transition and the people involved in it. As the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, alluded to, the fact that HTS is a proscribed terrorist group does not prevent the UK engaging with it in our efforts to secure a political settlement; nor does it prevent engagement with any future transitional Government in Syria who include HTS. Its proscription will not inhibit the pursuit of our foreign policy objectives in Syria. We will be guided by a set of core principles in any diplomatic interaction with the interim Syrian authorities, with inclusion and protection of human rights being key considerations.

As I mentioned in the Statement, the information I have is that on 16 December senior officials travelled to Damascus to underline the UK’s support for the Syrian people and discuss pathways towards a more helpful and representative peaceful future for Syria, involving Syrian authorities and civil society. They discussed the importance of an inclusive transitional political process, protecting rights, and will continue to stand for the people. One of the things we have consistently underlined is the importance of protecting all civilians, including religious and ethnic minorities. We have done this publicly and in our engagement with regional and international partners.

On sanctions, and particularly on the accountability of the Assad regime, I remind noble Lords that, since December 2024, the United Kingdom has listed 310 individuals and 74 entities, including Bashar al-Assad, his associates, those complicit in committing the atrocities and individuals who have supported or benefited from the Assad regime’s behaviour. On 9 December, the Foreign Secretary said that he will do everything in his power to ensure that no one from the Assad family finds a place in the United Kingdom.

The noble Lord, Lord Purvis, raised the position particularly in the north-east of Syria and Turkey. We have been in close contact with both Turkey and the Syrian Democratic Forces since the start of the escalation and we urge all sides to refrain from activity that will lead to further loss of civilian life or damage civilian infrastructure, further destabilising the region. We are absolutely on top of that.

On our humanitarian support, as noble Lords reminded the House when we last discussed this, the United Kingdom—both the previous Government and this Government—has to date committed over £4.3 billion in aid, which is our largest ever response to a single humanitarian crisis. The support has reached millions of Syrians across Syria, Jordan, Lebanon, Turkey, Iraq and Egypt, helping them to meet the urgent needs of those suffering. On 15 December, we announced the further £50 million to support vulnerable Syrians across those countries, and this funding will enable an urgent scale-up of humanitarian assistance where needs are at their highest—in particular, support to Lebanon and Jordan—and will reduce the likelihood of Syrians having to make perilous journeys to leave Syria and the region.

Within the £30 million of humanitarian aid, up to £24 million will be provided to the UN, including to UN OCHA-led Syria pooled funds for multisector emergency needs, and UNICEF—for education, health, nutrition, water, sanitation and child protection—as well as through UNFPA, particularly for the prevention of sexual violence. The remaining funds—up to £6 million—will be provided to UK-supported emergency health NGOs for healthcare and mobile clinics. I am trying to show that we are supporting a multiplicity of delivery vehicles and agents, which will minimise the risk of the corruption and leaking that the noble Lord was talking about.

The noble Lord, Lord Purvis, raised refugees and asylum. We agree with the UNHCR’s recent assessment that large-scale forced returns are inappropriate at this time, due to the many challenges facing the Syrian population. Therefore, I repeat what I said last week: this is a temporary pause. The Home Office has temporarily paused decisions on Syrian asylum claims while we assess the current situation. That does not mean that claims cannot be made—they are and they are being processed—but decisions have been paused. So I repeat to the noble Lord that this is a temporary arrangement.

Can I just say, on a point that the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, made, that we are ensuring that we continue financing that critical work on ensuring accountability for the crimes? We have committed £1.15 million to accountability and documentation-related programmes this year alone, and we will continue that work, because it is important that we are able to show people that for such crimes they will not have impunity—so that will lead to more accountability work.

Georgia

Lord Purvis of Tweed Excerpts

Tuesday 17th December 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lord for his contribution. The important thing is that the United Kingdom supports the preliminary findings of the OSCE ODIHR’s report on parliamentary elections in Georgia on 26 October, for which we contributed 50 short-term observers in a monitoring mission. That report found “misuse of administrative resources”, a “highly polarized” campaign environment, as the noble Lord quite rightly pointed out, and widespread “intimidation” and coercion against voters. That, along with the impact on civil society of Georgia’s law on transparency of foreign influence, are not the actions of an open, democratic society and run contrary to international standards. More importantly, they run contrary to the constitution of Georgia itself.

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

My Lords—

[Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab Co-op)]

My Lords—

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)]

We will hear from the Lib Dem Benches next.

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

The Government were aware that the United States and the EU would be placing visa restrictions on these individuals. The UK now finds itself in the invidious position where these individuals would be able to travel here but not to the EU or the United States. Without prejudicing any decisions on future sanctions, surely the Minister can say that these individuals should not travel to the UK because that would not be conducive to our public good.

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

The noble Lord has made the point precisely—of course it would prejudice any future designations. I will not be tempted into doing that, because it would harm the impact. I repeat what my honourable friend said yesterday: we

“will consider all options to ensure those responsible are held accountable”.

I repeat that we are absolutely working in collaboration with the United States and the EU to ensure that whatever we decide in the future has maximum impact.

International Anti-corruption Court

Lord Purvis of Tweed Excerpts

Monday 16th December 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

The noble Lord makes a valid point. We are working collaboratively, as my noble friend said, with other countries to ensure that we can look at this in principle and then see how we can achieve it. My main point is that we should follow the money. We have actually been extremely successful: the unit I just talked about has been successful in ensuring that illicit funds are returned and that we sanction people. An important tool in our armour is that ability to ensure that people know that, when they try to get funds out of their country, we will follow it and return it.

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

My Lords, I welcome the Government’s recent announcements on anti-corruption, including the announcement that the noble Baroness, Lady Hodge, will be the Government’s anti-corruption champion. Is now not the opportunity for the UK to play a leading role in the drafting of a treaty, not simply to wait for it to be presented to us? If the UK is part of the drafting, we will have the best opportunity in a long time to address the very point that the noble Lord, Lord Swire, made: that never again will global corruption be channelled through London, the City of London, London lawyers or any part of the British establishment. That will be an opportunity if we help draft the treaty, rather than wait until it is presented to us.

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

There is a range of options here, and I have met Judge Wolf. A range of experts is looking into the draft treaty, and we have been talking to international countries. What we need to do, if we are to get this court off the ground, is ensure that all these countries are working together and supporting the treaty. I heard what the noble Lord said, but I come back to my fundamental point: I will not wait until an international court is established, which can take time and requires consensus. We are determined—and this is why the appointment of my noble friend Lady Hodge is so critical—to follow the money and make sure that people do not get away with corruption.

North-west Syria

Lord Purvis of Tweed Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd December 2024 Lords Chamber

[The Earl of Effingham (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for the opportunity to respond to this Statement. As I am sure many in this House will be aware, the developments in Syria are worrying on two fronts. We have seen an extremist rebel group take land in Aleppo and the first Russian airstrikes there since 2016. The threat to civilians is immense and these actors will only compound the region’s suffering. As the Minister says, there has been more than a decade of turmoil and tragedy for the innocent people of Syria, which is heartbreaking. As the shadow Foreign Secretary said in the other place:

“With the eyes of the world focused on other conflicts, we cannot forget the brutality, the loss of life and the destruction that has taken place in Syria, or its consequences. More than half a million people have already been killed, with millions injured or maimed, with some being victims of chemical weapons”.—[Official Report, Commons, 2/12/24; col. 62.]


As the situation escalates, can the Minister inform the House what conversations have taken place with regional and international partners on the threat that the actions of the extremist rebels and the existing brutal regime poses to our interests? Furthermore, as Syria is the world’s largest source of Captagon, a highly addictive and dangerous illicit substance which has recently been seen in hospitalisations in Europe, what effect does the Minister think these developments will have on its production? Will he also review the security and defence implications and the terrorism risks of these developments?

Your Lordships’ House will know that the UK has been in the vanguard of the humanitarian response, of which we are all extremely proud. The previous Government invested £4 billion in support that has reached millions of people, saving lives with food, shelter, water, medicines, vaccinations and improved sanitation. What plans does the Minister have to ensure aid reaches the right people? Does he know how that aid will be transmitted, allowing those who genuinely work in the voluntary sector access to travel to Syria without being halted by the latest round of sanctions in October?

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

My Lords, I commend the noble Earl for standing in on international affairs issues; he would be very welcome to continue to participate on these issues. I agree with him that the spectre of the conflict that took place a number of years ago is still with us. It was a frozen conflict in many respects, but there was no sustainable peace.

Obviously, the speed of Hay’at Tahrir al-Sham’s advance took the Assad regime off guard. That pernicious regime is economically and morally bankrupt, but perhaps there is less surprise that some groups are taking advantage of the duration of the conflict in Gaza. As much as the Israeli Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, has said that he is seeking to defeat Islamic terrorism, al-Qaeda in Syria has made a dramatic move for territory that may well have much wider ramifications across all Syria’s borders, including for Israel, Lebanon, Turkey, Jordan and Iraq. The latter two are still struggling to restore normality after the 2016 freezing of hostilities.

My colleague Calum Miller MP reminded the House of Commons after he spoke with the Jordanian ambassador that there are still 1.3 million Syrian refugees in Jordan. I saw fairly recently the Syrian refugees in Lebanon, who, on a humanitarian basis, have also been victims of the extension of the conflict against Hezbollah. What ministerial discussions are taking place with the Foreign Minister of Jordan on a shared security assessment between the UK and our friends in Amman? Do we plan to have high-level discussions with Turkish officials, given their key involvement with a number of the groups in this part of Syria, not least their contact with HTS?

If we continue to proscribe HTS, as we will, have the Government carried out an assessment of what it represents today? There has been considerable press reporting that HTS has sought to distance itself from our proscription on the grounds that it was simply a different name for al-Qaeda in Syria. Is our assessment of the presence of HTS the same?

It was noticeable that, after the visit by the Foreign Minister of Iran to Damascus to meet Assad, the very next leader to offer him full support was the leader of the UAE. In recent years we have supplied the UAE with over £400 million of arms exports. Given its support of the Assad regime, that it is hard to judge the extent of what may happen next, and the ease with which Russia, Iran and the UAE have offered support to Assad, can the Minister reassure the House that none of the arms we have sold to the UAE will be used in potential conflict in Syria? Given that in certain parts beyond the north-west there is already violence within the Kurdish groups and Turkish interests, there is a real potential that this will spread—which, as the noble Earl said, will compound the humanitarian situation.

Secondly, with regard to the UAE, the UK’s 2020 Syria sanctions regime is still in place. Have we had contact with UAE officials to ensure that they are fully aware that any support they provide to the Assad regime must, from the United Kingdom’s perspective, be consistent with our Syrian sanctions regime?

Finally, given that our principal interest is UK national security, have the Government had discussions with our allies in Washington? With a new Administration in Washington, there is a potential change of policy regarding the force posture of the 1,000 US troops in the region. US officials were at pains to say that they are watching the situation very closely and the US has no position on the recent incursions of HTS. However, the 1,000 troops are part of a combined operation which continues to incarcerate those the UK has considered a potential threat to the UK. At this time of great uncertainty and complexity, national security should be a priority for us all, as it is across all parts of this House. If the Minister could update us on our discussions with the United States regarding their essential force there, that would be extremely beneficial.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Lord Collins of Highbury) (Lab)]

I thank both noble Lords for their questions. Of course, my starting point is to say that the Assad regime has created the conditions for the current escalation through its ongoing refusal to engage in a political process, and its reliance on Russia and Iran. The regime and all actors in Syria’s conflict must support and engage with the negotiations, as called for by UN Security Council Resolution 2254.

I think both noble Lords share the UK Government’s concern about escalation. This new escalation, particularly the large-scale attacks by the regime, and Russia’s attacks against civilians, will undoubtedly cause new surges in displacement and increased human suffering if continued, as both noble Lords said.

Both noble Lords asked about our diplomatic engagement with regional neighbours. We issued a national statement on 1 December, as noble Lords will be aware, calling for the protection of civilians and civilian infrastructure, the need for talks and a return to the political process. On 1 December we also released a joint statement on the issue with the Governments of Germany, France and the United States, urging de-escalation by all parties and the protection of civilians and infrastructure.

As my honourable friend in the other place, Hamish Falconer, said, we are urgently talking to our regional counterparts to reiterate these messages and to follow through with direct discussions. The Minister met his Turkish counterparts on 2 December to reiterate this point—an issue the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, raised. The UK Special Representative for Syria spoke to UK-Syrian civil society about developments to ensure that the diaspora was fully aware of what we were doing. The UK Deputy Permanent Representative will participate in the UN Security Council session taking place today. I am not sure whether he has already spoken or not, but we will certainly be heavily engaged in that.

I welcome the noble Earl to his place on this matter. He also focused on the humanitarian situation, acknowledging—as I also acknowledge—the huge amount of support the United Kingdom has given: £4 billion over the period of the conflict. I also recognise what the previous Government did. We gave an additional £4 million to the United Nations in October to ensure that support is ongoing, particularly food, education, healthcare and other life-saving assistance for civilians in north-west Syria in particular.

The noble Earl asked how we ensure that this reaches the people it needs to reach. We are working through the United Nations and NGOs to ensure that that happens. Of course, as the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, knows, we had quite lengthy discussions on the Syrian sanctions in Grand Committee. There were calls for exemptions to ensure that NGOs and the people needed to supply, support and distribute that aid are not affected or impacted by those sanctions. I give that reassurance to the noble Earl.

On arms, as the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, knows, we have a rigorous arms export process, and that process will apply wherever it goes. So I reassure him that that will very much be in place.

We need to focus on working with our allies, but we also need to ensure that in Syria, as in Ukraine, there can be no impunity for violations of international humanitarian law and human rights law. We will continue to provide leadership in holding perpetrators to account. Russia must change tack on its destructive support for the regime’s military campaign and instead support de-escalation and a political settlement.

The noble Earl also raised the issue of Captagon production and distribution. Of course, that is an issue on which we have already had quite serious debates in this Chamber—how we can stop that and influence things, working with our allies. It is an extreme danger, and we will continue to enforce that.

When I was watching the debate in the other place, I saw Emily Thornberry, chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee, raise the serious issue of refugees, particularly in other countries but in Turkey as well, and ensuring that their safety is considered and that they are not returned to another situation. We are acutely aware that HTS is a proscribed terrorist organisation and an extreme danger, but this action, as was rightly pointed out, could lead others to come in and benefit from this situation.

The reason we made this Statement is to show Parliament that we are absolutely committed to keeping an eye on this, to engaging with regional neighbours and to ensuring that de-escalation is our No. 1 priority.

UK Leadership on Sudan

Lord Purvis of Tweed Excerpts

Monday 2nd December 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

My Lords, I welcome the Government’s Statement. As I am sure many noble Lords are aware, Sudan is a terrible humanitarian catastrophe that gets far too little media attention, given all the other wars going on in the world at the moment. It has resulted in the world’s worst hunger and displacement crisis, with 25 million people in urgent need of assistance. There are ongoing reports of sexual violence, torture and mass civilian casualties.

Against that background, I welcome the appointment of the noble Lord, Lord Collins of Highbury, as the Prime Minister’s special representative on preventing sexual violence in conflict, following the excellent work done by my noble friend Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon in this role. The noble Lord is certainly going to have his work cut out in Sudan.

As Wendy Morton, the MP for Aldridge-Brownhills, said in the other place:

“The situation in Sudan is unconscionable. Red lines are being crossed in the prosecution of this conflict that countries such as the UK—the penholder on Sudan at the UN Security Council—cannot allow to stand. It is also firmly in the region’s interest for the conflict to come to an end and the humanitarian crisis to be addressed. Further destabilisation in the region caused by this conflict must be avoided”.”.—[Official Report, Commons, 28/11/24; col. 943.]


The previous Government invested heavily in aid to Sudan. I would be grateful if the Minister outlined what steps he is taking to continue that work.

We understand that further aid measures have been announced, but could the noble Lord provide more information on how he envisages that aid reaching Sudan? The Minister will no doubt be fully seized of the massive problem of actually getting aid into Sudan in the first place, never mind the challenges of distribution across that vast nation.

I am sure the Minister would agree that the UK has a key leadership role to play in Sudan. We wish him all the best, and I am sure that he will wish to use that role to its fullest possible extent.

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

My Lords, I declare an interest, as I have done on previous occasions: I have made previous visits to Sudan, and I continue to support civilians in making the case that a future Sudan should be a civilian-led, rather than a military-led country. I know the Minister is supportive of that aim, and I thank him for the Statement and for the update to Parliament. He and colleagues have honoured a commitment to do that, and that is welcome.

I also welcome, as referenced by the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, the additional humanitarian support package. In particular, I welcome the more than £10 million of additional support for children, especially for education provision. This has been one of the most pernicious elements of the conflict in Sudan: according to UNICEF, up to 17 million children are not being schooled.

It is estimated that UK aid will provide vital education facilities for 200,000 children, many of whom are displaced. Can the Minister say how we can ramp up support among other donors, so that they too focus on this issue and the conflict does not have the terrible consequence of millions of children being permanently uneducated and unschooled? The UK’s leadership on this would be extremely welcome.

I also thank His Majesty’s Government and the Minister himself with regard to working with others, especially African nations, on putting forward a draft Security Council resolution. I noted that it was with Sierra Leone; unfortunately, the A3 Plus members of the African community on the Security Council were unable to reach consensus among themselves, but I thank the UK for taking the initiative. I hope the Minister might say a little as to why the A3 Plus group was not able to have consensus, which caused me great sadness.

However, as the Statement from Minister Dodds said, ultimately the work was met by a Russian veto. I read the entire remarks of the Russian representative in the Security Council, made with utter brazen hypocrisy laced with cynicism, as he sought to say that that was an argument. While the warped views of the Russian Government might suit their own venal foreign policy, the real victims of the veto are the Sudanese civilians in desperate need of protective measures now and the reassurance that there is no impunity for the illegal and horrific crimes being inflicted on them by SAF and the RSF.

The veto is a reality, though, and therefore what is the view of His Majesty’s Government on the measures that we can take alone and with a coalition of the willing for the protection of civilians in Sudan? How will we now take forward support for the ICC in ensuring that there is no impunity for those inflicting both war crimes and crimes against humanity, including the growing evidence of clear ethnic cleansing and the genocide now apparent again within Darfur, as the new head of OCHA Tom Fletcher will be seeing personally? I welcome his position as the head of OCHA. The UK leadership continues in that immensely important role, and I wish him well. I was very glad that he was in Darfur and the BBC was with him. This draws the attention of the United Nations and hopefully also of the British public with Lyse Doucet’s reporting.

Russia has refused any calls to enforce an arms embargo. It rejected the need to have humanitarian aid access. What can His Majesty’s Government do with regard to a potentially wider suite of sanctions and the option of secondary sanctions—I suspect the Minister will say that he keeps this continuously under review—on those who are failing to cease the supply of arms, now including drones, to the belligerents that are being used so venally on civilians? In these areas and others, the UK has acted—for example, on the prescription of the Wagner Group—on a cross-party consensus. There is more that can be done on the gold trade and other areas with regard to the supply of funds to the belligerents.

Finally, it is depressing news that I received this week that, possibly within days, the RSF may also declare that they are the Government of Sudan and effectively we could have a “Libyafication” of the country. Both sides, I am certain, will be seeking to have as much advantage as possible before President-elect Trump takes office in January next year. If there is to be a division of the country, one thing will be guaranteed, and that is that civilians will still be set aside and the humanitarian priorities will become secondary to the continuing military advantage of territory. Therefore, I hope the Minister can agree that only a civilian Government can guarantee one Sudan and the integrity of the country.

I hope that there will be others in the humanitarian community now taking UNICEF and the IRC’s lead in calling for public appeals of humanitarian support. The Minister has heard me, in this Chamber and separately, call for the Disasters Emergency Committee to open up a public appeal, and I hope that if there is a public appeal then the Government will match that funding. Having more publicity will address the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, that this is an ignored war, and I hope the Government stand ready for continued support.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Lord Collins of Highbury) (Lab)]

My Lords, I welcome the comments of both Front Benches on the Statement. What we face, as they have quite rightly said, is a huge humanitarian crisis which, sadly, does not attract the attention of the world that it deserves. I, too, like the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, was incredibly moved to hear the report on Radio 4 this morning from Tom Fletcher, who had got into Port Sudan and was able, with a BBC team, to report on the circumstances—not only to report on what he saw but to amplify the voices of the victims and the survivors of this terrible situation—so I certainly congratulate him.

As the noble Lords have quite rightly pointed out, we have used all diplomatic efforts as penholder, particularly at the United Nations, to bring about a ceasefire to ensure humanitarian access and the protection of civilians. That priority was reflected, as both noble Lords said, in terms of our UN Security Council resolution where we have used the presidency of the Security Council. The Foreign Secretary not only announced a doubling of aid in response to the conflict but led that resolution to ensure the protection of civilians, which, as the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, said, was so cynically vetoed by the Russians.

Despite that veto, we are not giving up on these efforts. Both warring parties made commitments at Jeddah to limit the conflict’s impact on civilians, yet we know from reports that widespread violence continues. We will continue to push for the United Nations Secretary-General’s recommendations on the protection of civilians, including compliance mechanisms, to ensure that the warring parties stick to the commitments they made at Jeddah and there are tangible results on the ground.

As the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, knows, we are absolutely committed to a civilian Government. We want to ensure a future for Sudan under proper civilian rule. That is why I have met regularly with the former Sudanese Prime Minister Abdalla Hamdok, whom I know the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, knows well, and we have given absolute support to the pro-democracy Taqaddum coalition and we will continue to do that. We have to see a future without the military activity that we see the consequences of.

The uplift that the Foreign Secretary announced is a further £113 million aid package, doubling our aid in response to the conflict to £226 million. This will support over a million people affected by violence. We are ensuring that we have a big impact on the ground, and we are also providing just under £70 million for neighbouring countries impacted by that violence, including Chad, as the noble Lord knows, South Sudan and Uganda. The Foreign Secretary chaired a Sudan session during the G7 with the Arab Quintet Foreign Ministers on 25 November to ensure that we can have collective action to improve humanitarian access but ensure greater financial support, and we are going to continue to do that.

The noble Lord mentioned the Disasters Emergency Committee appeal. We will do all we can to support the people of Sudan to ensure that there is far greater volume on the situation. Of course, DEC appeals are subject to broadcasters, but we do need to raise this up the agenda. I have tried to raise it since being appointed as the Prime Minister’s special representative on PSVI. I was in Colombia to talk to the International Alliance on Preventing Sexual Violence in Conflict last week and I focused on ensuring that the voices people heard were not mine but those of the survivors, the people who have experienced this terrible crime. I am absolutely determined. What we did at the General Assembly of the United Nations, but also at the special Security Council meeting that I chaired, was to ensure that the voices of survivors are heard. We must not simply sit back and quote statistics: we need to ensure that the population hears that first-hand evidence.

I think I have answered all the questions and I want to ensure that there is time for other noble Lords to ask questions, so I will leave it there for now.

G20 and COP 29 Summits

Lord Purvis of Tweed Excerpts

Monday 25th November 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

The noble and gallant Lord raises an important point. We are confident that the treaty does provide those assurances. That was part of the discussions which took place during the last Government prior to the treaty being signed.

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

My Lords, it is to be welcomed that the UK will join the Global Alliance Against Hunger and Poverty. However, in the next clause, the Prime Minister’s Statement said it was

“to bring an end to the lost decade in that fight”.

One of the reasons why that fight was being lost is that the richest countries in the world—including the UK, in breach of legislation—have reneged on the commitment they gave on previous development support of 0.7%. Can I read from the Statement that, during this Parliament, this Government will provide more development partnership assistance to such countries to alleviate action on hunger and poverty?

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, we would certainly wish to be in a position to do so. That has been the case in past Labour Government responses. We are disappointed by the financial situation that we inherited, with a—dare I say it?—£22 billion black hole, but the noble Lord will know from his experience that this is something to which the Government and the Prime Minister personally are committed. We will do all we can.

Women, Peace and Security Bill [HL]

Lord Purvis of Tweed Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 15th November 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

My Lords, I wholeheartedly agree with the noble Lord, who spoke so clearly on that issue. I declare that I am a volunteer chair of the UK board of the peacebuilding charity Search For Common Ground, which works in this area, and for two years I have supported a project that supports women peace activists and those seeking to be political actors in Lebanon. The project particularly supports the very brave women in the Bekaa Valley who have sought to throw off the yoke of Hezbollah authority and whose facilities in the area have now been bombed by the IDF, contrary to international humanitarian law.

This is a bittersweet debate, because I was introduced in this House on the same day as the noble Baroness, Lady Hodgson. She should not need to be campaigning so powerfully on this issue over 11 years, but we are very glad that she is still doing so and maintaining the pressure on the Government and on Parliament.

It is also bittersweet because I have a degree of sympathy with the comment by the noble Lord, Lord McConnell, about what we are legislating. I hold that view because of my experience of the legislation I played a small part in taking through in 2015, which has now been disregarded by two Governments. Not only has that 2015 legislation on official development assistance been disregarded by two successive Governments; the 2002 Act on official development assistance has now been reneged on. So I hope both that this Bill will go through and that it will be honoured.

Therefore, while not being defeatist, and although the advice provided to the Minister is doubtless as the noble Lord, Lord Ahmad, predicted, I believe that it is parliamentarians and Ministers who decide and are ultimately responsible, not the officials, who advise. I believe that this Bill should not only pass this House but have government time. The Minister can also commit not necessarily to supporting the Bill but to ensuring that there will be time for it to be debated in the House of Commons. That is the very least the Government can do.

This is also an opportunity for the Minister to clarify the Government’s structure, intent and funding for peace and security. As a result of the Budget and the appointment of Ministers, there has been a degree of uncertainty as to where peace and security, and peacebuilding funding against conflict, lie. Are they still with the Cabinet Office? Are they now fully within the FCDO? Where do they lie and what funding is being given to them? I hope the Minister will be able to provide that answer.

The Minister can also state, I believe categorically, that the Government will no longer carry out the previous Administration’s budget reductions for gender-based programmes without gender-focused impact assessments. I have not been able to determine whether the latest round of ODA cuts announced in the Budget were informed by an impact assessment with a gender lens and focus. I hope the Minister can confirm that that has indeed been carried out and will be published.

I also understand that this is the fifth iteration of the national action plan and that it is joint owned by the MoD. I could see no reference to women, peace and security in the terms of reference for the strategic defence review. If the Government are implementing what they clearly state is the commitment to the national action plan, then surely, if it is joint owned by the MoD, the fundamental review of the MoD now being carried out should include women, peace and security. It is not too late for that to be included. I trust the officials are listening to that too.

This is important now because seeking peace that can be sustained into a way of governance is even harder in the 21st century than it was in the 20th century. There is an increasing insidious level of male economic interest in conflict, either by belligerents themselves, by those who finance conflict, or by those in enabling and neighbouring countries who increasingly see state capture of technology and military industrial complexes in conflict economics. This is harder to extract, even after there has been a cessation of hostilities or a so-called peace settlement, which often simply freezes a conflict rather than resolving it. Indeed, such settlements do not remove the controlling interests of many of the belligerents, who swap quasi-military uniforms for sharp suits but still have their own interests at stake and still exclude women from future governance. There has been collective failure to ensure inclusive security sector reforms and transitional justice. Depressingly, we can add to the terrible statistic that 70% of peace settlements have excluded women, as given by the noble Baroness, Lady Hodgson; SSR reform processes and transitional justice processes have also systematically disregarded Security Council Resolution 1325.

Another reason why the Bill is necessary is that since the noble Baroness introduced the first version of it, we have seen the terrible situations in the illegally occupied Palestinian territories and, more recently, in Sudan. I wish to ask the Minister a couple of questions about those areas. I hope the national action plan, notwithstanding my noble friend Lady Miller’s comments regarding Colombia, will now actively include the Occupied Palestinian Territories and Sudan as priority countries. If it does not, there will be a substantial problem with an action plan that will run to 2027 and that cannot adapt to what is currently the world’s worst manmade humanitarian crisis, which disproportionately affects women and girls. I hope the Minister can respond to that.

The UK is the penholder for Sudan and it will have the presidency of the Security Council, but we have seen the failed attempts of the Jeddah process, the Manama process, the Geneva process and the UN ALPS process. We have also seen IGAD and the African Union actively exclude women from these processes. These processes are happening now and the UK is the penholder, so what leverage is the UK using to ensure that any processes do not actively exclude women?

The UK is supporting the civilians. The Minister has met and supports the Tagadum civilian network. I declare an interest, in that I too have been supporting the Tagadum process. It is welcome that the Government are doing that, but women are currently being excluded from the structured processes of seeking a ceasefire and an end to the fighting. That means there is now a danger, as the noble Baroness and others have said, that unless there is an inclusive process for Sudan—as we will need to see for Gaza—the male belligerents will simply hold the next process hostage and inclusive governance will not be possible. That is why political dialogue has to be a process alongside those looking for ceasefires.

Finally, I return to what the noble Lord, Lord Ahmad, and the noble Baroness said about quoting back to the Minister what he said in opposition. Perhaps we on these Benches can be observers of this slightly topsy-turvy process whereby only those in the Official Opposition, be they Labour or Conservative, support such a Bill. Let us turn that around and allow the Minister perhaps to say today that time will be given for this Bill, and that commitments will be given in principle to support it moving to the next stage. We can then engage in cross-party, all-party dialogue to ensure that there is at least a chance that time will be found in the House of Commons to allow the Bill to get on to the statute book, because, as we all know, it is desperately needed now.

International Engagements

Lord Purvis of Tweed Excerpts

Thursday 31st October 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

My Lords, we welcome the news that the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary, and indeed the noble Lord himself, attended the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting. CHOGM is an opportunity to reinvigorate the Commonwealth, which is well-equipped to continue its status as a leading forum for discussion. With a combined Commonwealth population of 2.7 billion, His Majesty the King as the new head of the Commonwealth, and a new secretary-general elect, the future looks bright. Samoa did a great job of hosting the meeting and demonstrating that a small Pacific island state has equity of membership with some of the bigger Commonwealth nations.

It seems that the Government were outmanoeuvred on the issue of reparations. While of course we must never forget history, we must move forward to a brighter future and focus on the pressing issues of today. British international investment alone has created employment for hundreds of thousands of people in Commonwealth nations. The UK provides expertise in financial services and pandemic research, as well as Commonwealth and Chevening scholarships. How does the Minister view our commitments to international investment following yesterday’s Budget, which seemed to actually reduce some of that funding?

In the CHOGM communique, the wording in paragraph 22 implies the UK’s openness to “reparatory justice” in relation to the abhorrent slave trade. It is perhaps not as off-limits as the Prime Minister had previously stated. What is His Majesty’s Government’s actual red line on reparations? Given the Foreign Secretary’s well-known views on the topic in the past, is this yet another example of saying one thing in opposition but then doing something entirely different in government? Can the Minister tell us whether he agrees with the Foreign Secretary’s frankly clumsy tweets on this issue? On paragraph 16, what is the Government’s position on UN Security Council reform? Will the Minister rule out giving away our permanent seat?

In conclusion, we welcome that His Majesty’s Government attended CHOGM. Let this be the start of a bold new age, with His Majesty the King at the helm. If the Minister could provide some clarity on yesterday’s Budget and the content of the communique, I am sure the House would be grateful.

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

My Lords, the Commonwealth is a greatly valued institution, in which the UK should be playing as full a part as possible. Therefore, the communique from CHOGM requires very careful study. These are the priorities of our Commonwealth partners, and the UK has a special obligation to support them in the delivery of them.

I want to ask a number of questions to the Minister regarding the Statement, primarily in regard to intra-Commonwealth trade. I declare an interest: in 2018 I co-chaired an inquiry into intra-Commonwealth trade with the then Nigerian Trade Minister. I welcome the technical support and the elements of supporting intra-Commonwealth trade, but what is the Government’s ambition? What is their estimate as to how much intra-Commonwealth trade can grow? Under the previous Government we had an aborted investment summit for African nations and within the Commonwealth. What is the Government’s intent when it comes to ensuring that the UK, with our trade partners, can be an investment priority and can migrate continuity trade agreements with our Commonwealth partners into full free trade agreements?

Primarily, I wish to ask about the part of the Statement that said:

“We will be confident about championing the power of international development so that we make progress wherever we can,”


and recognise that putting our best foot forward in all we do at home and around the world is

“in everyone’s best interests, not least the British people”.

Can the Minister explain how this Statement, given on Monday to the House of Commons, was then reflected in the Budget on Wednesday, in which development assistance was cut to the lowest level in 17 years? We have seen development assistance cut in a truly terrible way by the previous Conservative Government; very few people would have been expecting further cuts under a new Labour Government. The cuts now are stark, with £2 billion in reductions. This means that development assistance has gone from 0.58% to 0.5%. In addition, there are real-term reductions in the Foreign Office budget overall.

How will the ambitions in the Statement be met? Of the 45 least-developed countries in the world—the poorest nations on earth—14 are Commonwealth countries. It is one thing for the Government to say that they do not intend to provide funding for reparations, but it is starkly another thing for the Government to cut development partnership assistance to the very nations that need it most, especially those in the Commonwealth.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Lord Collins of Highbury) (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lords for their questions. I will start with the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, who referred to cuts. He and I expressed shock and horror when the previous Government cut ODA from 0.7% to 0.5%. This was not just about the principle of working within the economic circumstances then; it was the way those cuts were adopted and the speed of them. There was not a planned approach; bilateral programmes were simply stopped midway through, causing damage to our reputation. That is not what we are doing.

We are committed to creating a world free from poverty. To do this, we will take a new approach to international development, based on genuine partnership, trust and respect. We will once again restore our position as a leader in development, particularly with partners, and will reform international institutions. The FCDO’s ODA programme budget in 2025-26 will be £9.24 billion—the highest level in recent years. I do not accept the noble Lord’s characterisation of where we are. We are determined to ensure that we have effective spend on our ODA and we are looking at the priorities.

On the CHOGM element of the Statement, it is really important that we focus on what the Commonwealth can deliver for our partnership approach. The noble Lord, Lord Callanan, mentioned my own participation. I deliberately went to CHOGM at the start, when all the fora were taking place. I had seven bilateral meetings, five of which were with delegations from Africa, including from Gambia, Malawi, Zambia, Uganda and the Cayman Islands. I met with civil society, including the Commonwealth Trade Union Group and the Commonwealth Disabled People’s Forum. It was a busy CHOGM in those forums. I spoke at the Commonwealth Equality Network on LGBT equality. I also spoke at the high-level sports breakfast, profiling the launch of the Commonwealth Games in Glasgow. We had a very positive engagement. This was the first CHOGM in a Pacific island that a Prime Minister attended. We are absolutely committed to it and to strengthening our partnerships.

I turn to the final communique. We fully recognise the horrific impacts of the transatlantic slave trade and the understandable ongoing strength of feeling on the issue across communities in the United Kingdom and our Commonwealth family. Commonwealth heads agreed in Samoa that the time has come for a meaningful, truthful and respectful conversation on the issue. We remain committed to continuing that dialogue with our partners in the Caribbean and beyond as we work to tackle the issues of today, in particular strengthening our partnerships for the future. We are focused on making a real difference to the lives of people today, building partnerships to address challenges such as how to catalyse growth, tackling the climate and nature crisis, and empowering our youth. Minister Dodds in the other place made it absolutely clear that there is no contradiction and no change in our policy in relation to reparations. It has not changed, but having a positive dialogue with partners is the vital point that we make.

On Security Council reform, I point out to the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, that his party, when in power, and my Government today have had a long-standing policy about strengthening the Security Council by expanding its membership, reflecting the realities of today and not the realities of 1945. I spoke at the Security Council in August, supporting the African case for permanent representation from Africa. It is that policy that we are expanding and pointing out. There is no question about our permanent seat on the Security Council—I do not know why the noble Lord raised it. He should reflect on his own party’s policy to support the expansion of the Security Council, in particular to include Africa, which by 2025 will make up one-quarter of the world’s population. The idea that they should not be represented on the Security Council is absolute nonsense.