Taiwan
Lord Purvis of Tweed Excerpts(5 months, 2 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
One of the vital aspects of the recent United Nations General Assembly and the Security Council, certainly in my engagement with both, is that we establish strong dialogue with both India and China on how we address the tensions that are developing. When I was addressing the Security Council on enlargement, we discussed with both the P5 and the 10 members of the Security Council that are there on an elected basis how dialogue and consensus is an important way of moving forward. I assure the noble Lord that we will continue dialogue on that basis.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
My Lords, UK trade with Taiwan is of strategic importance to the United Kingdom, so tension in that area is of concern to our economy, especially in light of the fact that the UK has a trade deficit of £26 billion with China. That means that we are vulnerable to China with regard to trade, so I support the Government in carrying out a strategic audit. Will the Minister commit that that will be published and debated in Parliament in advance of the defence review and the Government’s industrial strategy, so that it can inform those, not be responsive to them?
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
I must admit that I was reflecting this morning, at an APPG meeting, on what we can do in the first 100 days. I was reflecting on the fact that I have been a Minister for only three months and I have actually been able to do quite a lot, but there is a lot to do and I do not think we should overstretch ourselves. We are committed to this audit; it will cover a broad range of deepening that relationship, because it is not just Government to Government or just in terms of the private sector. There is the local government sector, the public sector—a huge range, not least in the National Health Service, where we have had a lot of concerns about the nature of those imports. I am not going to give any timeframes or say whether or not it can be public; the important thing is that we are focused on delivering it and on better understanding our relationships so that we face up to the challenges that the noble and gallant Lord raised.
Gaza and Lebanon
Lord Purvis of Tweed Excerpts(5 months, 2 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
That is the question. It is the question that the noble Baroness, Lady Chapman, answered, and it was a correct one. I do not think she has anything to apologise for.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
My Lords, after more than a year of the conflict, many of the hostages have still not been released and the suffering of Palestinian civilians is unbearable. But the excess of violence in the West Bank is often underreported. In March I asked the then Government to designate the politicians, Ministers Ben-Gvir and Smotrich, who have been actively facilitating some of the excessive violence in the West Bank and speaking for it. I asked the then Foreign Secretary, and he has now endorsed this. I do not expect the Minister to comment on potential designations under sanctions, but can he confirm that it is the policy of the Government not to exempt serving politicians from designations?
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
I heard the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, on the radio. I am always willing to take his advice; I have done so on many occasions in the House. It is pity that he did not take mine. The reality of the situation in the West Bank is that violence is increasing. I would certainly go on record condemning the totally unacceptable language of Smotrich and Ben-Gvir. It is appalling. As the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, knows, I would not speculate on future sanctions, but let me tell noble Lords that yesterday, under the global human rights regime, the United Kingdom sanctioned three outposts and four entities linked to the violence in the West Bank. So we are acting and will be prepared to act. We are certainly not going to tolerate the sort of violence that I have personally witnessed in the West Bank.
Syria (Sanctions) (EU Exit) (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations 2024
Lord Purvis of Tweed Excerpts(5 months, 2 weeks ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
I thank the Minister for highlighting what are, in many respects, the neglected humanitarian needs of Syrians in an ongoing crisis. I believe that this debate will be shorter and I will contribute to that by reducing what I say, but I want to ask the Minister a couple of questions, if I may.
First, I acknowledge that the humanitarian exceptions are necessary in times of conflict and when there are problems, but there are consequential sensitivities, especially when they are operating in militarily controlled areas. Obviously, under international humanitarian law those providing humanitarian aid have access rights, and those should not be impeded, but in many times of ongoing conflict or where there are belligerents who occupy territory, they operate in very complex and often dangerous circumstances. I acknowledge that the previous Government considered that this was justified and that the current Government accept it, but is it necessary to have further monitoring mechanisms on the expansion of these exceptions, when it comes to ensuring that they will not be misused by those who control the territory, or is the Minister satisfied that the current reporting mechanisms are sufficient?
Secondly, when it comes to the extension to “relevant persons”, I note that non-UK-based organisations have been within the scope of UK sanctions. It is interesting to compare that to what we heard in the previous debate. Are the Government able to outline what the category of “relevant persons” would be as regards the delivery of certain services, and are those humanitarian services different from what had previously been provided?
Finally, as the Minister knows, there are many displaced Syrians who require humanitarian assistance. Part of my concern is the many Syrians who are just across the border in Lebanon at the moment, including across the whole stretch of the Bekaa valley and up to the area of Baalbek-Hermel. Is this measure linked to providing humanitarian support to Syrians, who may be displaced outside the country, or does it apply only to the provision of humanitarian assistance within Syria?
Lord Callanan (Con)
My Lords, I, too, thank the Minister for his speech and his words on this matter. As this Committee, and the House, knows, the people of Syria have suffered a great deal since 2011. Over 90% of Syrians live in poverty and in fear of Bashar al-Assad’s brutality, or the threats now posed by Daesh, the Iranian-backed militias and the Wagner Group. It is truly a lamentable state, and in many respects a humanitarian catastrophe, only compounded by the terrible earthquakes in 2023.
It is absolutely right that we continue to sanction the Syrian Government, and we welcome the Minister’s action on this. It is important that Ministers keep sanctions under constant review to ensure that we are not penalising those who deliver much-needed humanitarian aid, and I am sure the Government are doing that.
This instrument was, of course, originally laid by the previous Conservative Government and, therefore, the Minister will be unsurprised to know that we fully support it. As it widens the exemptions for humanitarian groups to access fuel under strict management systems, we hope that it will support those who are working to alleviate some of the terrible suffering of the Syrian people.
On the issue of the sanctions regime, have the Government looked at the proliferation of Syrian Captagon? Captagon is a highly addictive amphetamine, which is now produced in large quantities in Syria and, sadly, distributed worldwide. The MP for Rutland and Stamford in the other place has said that Syria is now effectively
“a narco-state, producing 80% of the world’s Captagon”.—[Official Report, Commons, 9/9/24; col. 626.]
A number of seizures have already cropped up in the UK, and I would be interested to know whether the Government are looking at this for a future sanctions regime or have developed a strategy on this.
I am delighted that this country has always stood up for the people of Syria in their time of need. We have given £4 billion of humanitarian aid to the people of Syria. I hope that the Government will continue to clamp down further on Russia, as we heard in the previous debate, and on the Syrian Government, who are one of Russia’s principal backers. As I said, these sanctions were tabled by the previous Government, and we wholeheartedly support them.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
My Lords, I thank both noble Lords for their contributions; they certainly have staying power, and I welcome that. I say again that it is important that there is cross-party consensus on these regulations, particularly because of the huge number of human rights abuses.
The noble Lord, Lord Purvis, talked about risk mitigation and the potential abuse of this exemption. The humanitarian exemption authorises a limited set of activities when they are conducted by certain trusted humanitarian organisations with strong risk-management systems. It is not like a blank cheque: systems must be in place to ensure compliance with the exceptions. Other organisations must continue to apply for individual licences. That risk management is absolutely an essential part of the licences. The amendment also contains reporting requirements to assist with monitoring and enforcement. I hope that that gives the noble Lord the assurances he seeks.
I turn to the specific point that the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, raised in relation to Captagon in Syria. We are closely monitoring the regime’s links to this trade. As he said, the regime bears responsibility for, and is profiting from, the production and trading of this narcotic. We are deeply concerned by the growth of the Captagon industry, which, as well as enriching the regime, is fuelling regional instability and generating vast revenues for criminal gangs and armed groups in Syria and across the region. The United Kingdom is sharpening global awareness of the risks posed by Captagon. In March 2024, the UK hosted an event with Jordan that brought together the international community, alongside expert researchers, to discuss the impact of this trade on the region. In March 2023, in co-ordination with the United States, the UK imposed sanctions on 11 individuals who facilitate the Captagon industry in Syria, including politicians and businesspeople alike.
The other point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, was in relation to the displacement of refugees into Syria from Lebanon. Was that what the noble Lord asked about?
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
I am sorry, Minister, I may not have been too clear. It was the displacement of Syrians into Lebanon.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
Okay. The simple fact is that the movement of refugees across those borders is a consequence of conflict. We are trying to work closely with the UN and other partners to assess need and provide on-the-ground assistance where possible. How we get assistance in is key. If the noble Lord requires further information, I am certainly happy to discuss it with him outside the Room.
I therefore thank the two noble Lords for their contributions. As I have said throughout this debate, we remain firmly committed to ensuring that the United Kingdom’s sanctions work in tandem with humanitarian efforts, and that the Assad regime, its allies and supporters bear responsibility for the dire plight of the Syrian people. I hope and trust the Grand Committee will support the regulations.
Russia (Sanctions) (EU Exit) (Amendment) (No. 3) Regulations 2024
Lord Purvis of Tweed Excerpts(5 months, 2 weeks ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Vaux of Harrowden (CB)
My Lords, I too welcome this SI, as far as it goes—in particular, the expansion of the sanctions regime against ships that are used to facilitate Russian oil exports, the so-called shadow tankers to which the noble Lord referred.
Could the Minister perhaps explain in a bit more detail what actual real-world impact that this will have on the number of shadow tankers that Russia uses and the amount of oil that Russia is currently able to export? I am slightly dubious as to how much real difference this will make, so I would be interested to know how it will work in reality. In particular, will this have any impact on the very dangerous ship-to-ship transfers that seem to be taking place off the coast of Greece, which are obviously an environmental disaster waiting to happen? The size of the shadow fleet is continuing to grow. I gather it is 70% bigger this year than it was last year. What other actions are we taking to deal with this problem?
There would not actually be a problem with the shadow tankers, if there were not countries ready and willing to take the Russian oil. That brings me to another loophole that Russia is using to keep its oil exports running and under which this country is still importing oil products that originate in Russia. The loophole is that, if Russian oil is refined in another country, it is no longer considered to have originated in Russia. As a result, third countries—in particular, China, India and Turkey—are buying large quantities of Russian crude, processing it and selling it on. India is now importing 13 times as much crude from Russia as it was before the war started.
Since Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, direct imports of Russian oil into the UK have fallen from about £4.5 billion a year to pretty much zero, which is a good result. But UK imports of refined oil products from India, China and Turkey have all risen quite significantly, to around £2.2 billion in 2023. A significant proportion of those will have originated in Russia. There is an estimate of 5.2 million barrels of Russian-originated oil having been imported into the UK in 2023, mostly for the aviation industry. Apparently, about one in 20 UK flights has used Russian-originated oil.
This laundering of oil through China, India and Turkey means that the UK is continuing to contribute, albeit indirectly, to Russia’s war coffers. Does the Minister recognise those figures and this problem? If he does not recognise those figures, how many Russian-originated oil products does he believe the UK is currently importing? What plans do the Government have to close the loophole? Given that a very big chunk of this comes through India, is this matter being taken into account in the trade agreement discussions with India?
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
My Lords, following the very valid points made by noble Lords in this short but important debate, I offer the Government support for this. The Government were caught by a timetabling aspect, with the Summer Recess and then the conference break, so it is positive that they have ensured that there will be some parliamentary scrutiny and the ability for Members to ask questions on these matters. We have just seen the value of raising these pertinent points.
The Minister will not be surprised that I support these measures. He and I have been in many debates—in fact, all the debates on the Russian sanctions when the noble Lord, Lord Ahmad, was the Minister—and there was consensus across the Committee. I will ask a few further questions that have not been asked so far, and will perhaps emphasise some of the points that have been made.
First, I return to the issue of enforcement. Not for the first time, the noble Lord, Lord Alton, asked questions that I was going to ask. I would be grateful if the Minister could give an update on the securing of frozen assets that could be put to good use by Ukraine in this conflict. The Minister was a doughty campaigner on Chelsea when he and I were asking the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, about this in the Chamber. An update would be very useful. Is it still the case that we need to change any of the legislative or administrative processes in the UK so that we can carry out the repurposing of frozen assets into secured assets that can be put to use, around which consensus was sought in the G7? Or is it the Government’s position that we look purely at the EU proposals on the interest of assets—or, if assets are sold, that we use some of that? An update would be useful.
I periodically monitor the website of the Office of Financial Sanctions Implementation, which is tasked with ensuring that the sanctions regimes we put in place in the UK are properly enforced and policed. It is interesting that only one enforcement for circumventing UK sanctions has been carried out this year, to the tune of £15,000; since 2022 and the full invasion of Ukraine, there have been only four, totalling £60,000. Given the scale of the impact of the sanctions regime that the previous and current Governments have indicated, is it the Minister’s view that this is an accurate reflection of how the sanctions are being enforced?
We could look at it in two ways: either there is circumvention and the enforcement is not effective; or the UK is remarkably good at getting all our businesses to adhere to all of the sanctions. There may be an element of truth in both, but what is the Government’s assessment? That speaks to the valid point made by the noble Lord, Lord Alton, about the opportunity for a fundamental review not just of the overall impact of the sanctions—including an assessment of the impact of the sanctions, given the fact that they are in place until we rescind them—but of their enforcement.
The second aspect I wish to ask about is the services provided, either those in the shadow fleets or those that can now be determined under the sanctions regimes. I strongly support the Government with regard to not only persons who are directly or indirectly in the enterprises or linked with the fleets but those providing financial services to them. Why have the Government taken the view that legal services are not included in that? We all know that London in particular is the home of many legal services that have been part of the grey area of advice when it comes to these sanctions. I would be grateful to hear whether the Minister has any comments on that. We would certainly be supportive of ensuring that there is no loophole when it comes to financial services that can be masked as legal services; we need to ensure that there is no loophole for that.
I also wish to pick up on the point about our support for those in the fleets as far as the oil or dual-use goods on the shipping are concerned, as well as with regard to our position on the countries where they are landed. The point was made eloquently that many of those are our trading allies. I know that the Government have previously had frank—I hope—conversations, but surely we are now beyond the point of having frank conversations; we need to be considering actions.
In that regard, I would be grateful if the Minister could comment on the news from the end of August that the United States is moving towards secondary sanctions on those operating on financial services in jurisdictions where it believes that the sanctions regimes are being circumvented. I believe that secondary sanctions on financial institutions would be effective; I would be grateful if the UK were part of that. Indeed, what is the Government’s current position on considering secondary sanctions? This is obviously a sensitive diplomatic area, but I believe that it is important.
Can the Minister address a question that I asked his predecessor on jurisdiction? I acknowledge that these measures are UK-wide but I asked previously about the overseas territories when it comes to shipping and potential licences that are exemptions to them. We know that, when certain tankers land in overseas territories, they can operate under a different regime. I would be grateful for clarification that they are also covered by these sanctions.
I wish to ask a minor question regarding limited exemptions. Obviously, we know that there should be the capacity for some kind of exceptions in the regulations, but, to prevent an exception becoming a loophole, can the Minister confirm that the exceptions in these sanctions are defined across the G7 and our partners, so that there is no distinction between exceptions under these sanctions and those in the United States or the European Union? If the Minister could respond to these points, I would be grateful.
My final point is that the Government have our full support in ensuring that there is as much consequence for the Russian war economy as possible. No UK entities, whether in the City of London, finance, shipping or insurance, should have any part in supporting the Russian war regime. We continuously support the Government to ensure that there are no limits to what we can do to ensure Ukraine’s support.
Lord Callanan (Con)
My Lords, there is a great degree of unanimity on this subject because I, too, very much welcome these regulations. I particularly welcome the Minister’s assurance that the United Kingdom will continue to stand with Ukraine. These sanctions will clamp down on Russia’s so-called shadow fleet by targeting 17 Russian oil tankers. I very much welcome this action because, no matter how sly and cunning Russia may seek to be, I am pleased to see that the United Kingdom and its partners will continue to sanction Putin’s Government appropriately.
However, this is, of course, very much a game of legislative whack-a-mole: every time we clamp down in one area, another seems to pop up. I am particularly interested in hearing the Minister’s reply to the excellent questions from the noble Lord, Lord Vaux. It seems blindingly obvious that India and Turkey, in particular, are circumventing these sanctions by helping Russia to “launder” its oil into the rest of the world. I hope that His Majesty’s Government are raising these matters at the highest level with the Indian and Turkish Governments. I would certainly be supportive of any further action that the Government take because it is very important that the Russian war machine, as the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, correctly described it, is clamped down on. We should target any entities in the UK or the overseas territories that are helping it to do this, either in these regulations or in future ones.
Having said that, although we fully support these regulations, I want to ask the Minister a couple of questions in consequence. The regulations allow the Government to take a similar approach to that of the US Government and implement asset freezes against actors engaging in what is otherwise lawful activity. The law firm Eversheds Sutherland has claimed that the expansion of the designation criteria
“has the potential to create a considerable burden on entities from a due diligence perspective”.
That could just be special pleading, but I would be interested to hear the Minister’s response. Eversheds Sutherland also claims that it
“will not be enough to rely on sanctions screening”
to comply with these regulations, and that the UK Government have
“potentially created significant challenges for UK … businesses”.
Can the Minister inform the Committee as to what steps have been taken to help UK businesses comply with the regulations? What level of due diligence is required?
On this point, a briefing published on 28 August by Eversheds Sutherland stated that no persons have been designated under the regulations, as has been made clear. Can the Minister confirm whether that is still the case?
As I said, we fully support these regulations. I ask these questions purely in the nature of wanting to see their enforcement be as effective as possible. I will continue to support the Government and to hope that they will go further, if necessary, so that any UK entities, companies or businesses involved in helping the Russian war machine face the strongest possible action. We support the Government in this, but I would welcome the Minister’s assurances and answers to some of the questions that have been asked.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
I am grateful, because the Minister is addressing a point of my ignorance. Might he feel able to write to us to outline what may then be necessary under UK law to allow us to have secondary sanctions—that is, can he tell us where the gaps are in extraterritorial jurisdiction over some of our sanctions? I think our debates may be heading towards that; it is a point that the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, mentioned. While I am on my feet, I do not expect the Minister to answer at the moment, but could he write to us regarding whether the overseas territories are within scope here? I would be happy if he wanted to write to us rather than address that today.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
I was going to come to that point. I am more than happy to sit down and write on the question of secondary sanctions, because this is not simply about how we extend our regime; it is a point of principle as well. As I and the noble Lord, Lord Ahmad, have said repeatedly, sanctions are effective only if we act as a collective with our allies, not by working in isolation. If we want sanctions to be more effective, we have to convince our allies and others to support those objectives. Anyway, I would be happy to try to pick up on those points in writing.
My next point, which I was going to come to, is precisely on the overseas territories. The noble Lord, Lord Purvis, has asked questions about them before; I have done so myself. At the time, the noble Lord, Lord Ahmad, answered that
“all UK sanctions regimes apply in all the UK Crown dependencies and overseas territories, either by Orders in Council or through each jurisdiction’s own legislation”.—[Official Report, 20/7/22; col. 2021.]
The UK, the Crown dependencies and the overseas territories all stand united in condemning Russia’s aggression and have been working in lockstep to enforce UK sanctions, including freezing £9 billion worth of assets. Each territory’s Government are responsible for the implementation and enforcement of sanctions within their territory. We and the OFSI already provide technical support, including through targeted use of programme funds, to build capacity and strengthen sanctions enforcements within those Governments’ jurisdictions. This Government will explore with the overseas territories’ Governments what more we can do to further strengthen their enforcement capability.
I think the question about India, separate from the trade agreement, is: is India undermining our sanctions by selling to Russia? We regularly raise Russia’s actions in Ukraine with India. The Foreign Secretary did so most recently during his opening conversation with the Indian Foreign Minister. The Foreign Secretary highlighted the importance of tackling Russia’s shadow fleet and the need for continued dialogue on this issue. India is a key partner for the United Kingdom and we are committed to working together across a range of issues, including on our commitment to tackle all forms of sanctions circumvention.
The final point was made by the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, about Eversheds Sutherland.
Gibraltar-Spain Border Checks
Lord Purvis of Tweed Excerpts(5 months, 2 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Lord Collins of Highbury) (Lab)
I have no problem at all in reiterating the double lock that this Government are committed to in relation to Gibraltar. We will never enter into arrangements under which the people of Gibraltar would pass under the sovereignty of another state against their freely and democratically expressed wishes. We will never enter into a process of sovereignty negotiations with which Gibraltar is not content. Absolutely—there are firm commitments there.
I have a long association with Gibraltar. I have represented the workers in Gibraltar for many years, so I know what their wishes are. The current negotiations with the EU are making very good progress. The Foreign Secretary has had regular meetings with the Spanish Foreign Secretary. Those negotiations are at a point where we hope to make rapid progress. The idea that this negotiation has anything to do with BIOT is absolute nonsense, as the noble Lord well knows. It is a completely different arrangement. I will not go into details because other noble Lords might have questions in relation to that, and I will leave it to them.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
My Lords, these Benches support the right of self-determination of the people of Gibraltar, and nothing should be done to diminish that. The Government of Gibraltar should be congratulated on putting pragmatic proposals forward as part of the negotiations. I have two specific points to ask the Minister. First, have the Government sought assurances from the Government of Spain that they will provide clear instructions for all junior staff on the proper conduct at the border? Secondly, have the Government sought and secured from the Spanish Government a commitment that they will not act precipitously concerning the delays for the EES mechanisms, which are now beyond November? In advance of full treaty agreements, nothing should be put in place that could put at risk the sustainability of the border with Gibraltar.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
I completely agree with the Minister—sorry, the noble Lord; I was going back to the coalition days. The simple fact is that these checks have happened in the past—it is not unusual—and are often subject to local initiatives. I give the House a categorical reassurance that Minister Doughty spoke to his counterpart immediately, and the Foreign Secretary has spoken to his counterpart. We are assured that this will not be repeated.
We have encouraged and spoken to the Gibraltar Government. It is important that there is that free movement across this border, not only for the sake of the Gibraltar economy but for the economy of La Línea and Spanish people who work in Gibraltar. Noble Lords can be reassured of that.
We are absolutely committed to these negotiations with the EU and are satisfied that we have made extremely good progress. There are just a few minor points left; I spoke to Gibraltar government officials yesterday at lunchtime, and I am pretty confident we will make progress.
Gaza Crisis
Lord Purvis of Tweed Excerpts(5 months, 3 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
The noble Lord has participated in many debates where I have called for something similar when I was in opposition. This is a matter for the Home Office, and my Foreign Office colleagues are in consultation with it. What we must do is ensure that all actions that are terrorist in nature—and certainly those that attack British citizens on British soil—are properly addressed. I assure the noble Lord that we take these issues very seriously.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
My Lords, the evacuation orders by the IDF in north Gaza for 400,000 people are the equivalent of relocating the city of Manchester to an area where there is no shelter, no security, scarce food supplies and no medicine. In particular, three-quarters of all water and sanitary health facilities have been destroyed. If the UK has no active role in bringing about an overall peace agreement, can it use its good offices to ensure that there is some kind of agreement that water and sanitary health provision, which directly affects girls and young women more than anybody else, cannot be a victim of this conflict?
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
The noble Lord knows of my concern about this issue and our absolute determination. The Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary have made it clear that we want the fullest access for humanitarian aid into Gaza. That is vital. We remain concerned that over 85% of the Gaza Strip is now under evacuation orders, including new orders in the north that are causing serious distress to civilians and impacting on those humanitarian operations. We will make sure that all sides know of our concern and that we have the access to deliver the sort of support that the noble Lord has highlighted.
Anniversary of 7 October Attacks: Middle East
Lord Purvis of Tweed Excerpts(5 months, 3 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord for his comments. I think the whole House, even those of us who were delighted by the election result, would pay tribute to him for his work over many years and for the way that he kept the House updated— I thank him for that. Engagement with Qatar, which he is absolutely right to highlight, is ongoing and we are very grateful for its support. It is a friend in the region and that work continues.
The noble Lord’s point about the Muslims who were killed in the October attacks is profound. It illustrates how those who were victims were bringing people together. That is the future: young people, at a music festival, working across faiths and enjoying each other’s company. They paid a price for hatred. To get rid of that hatred—the right reverend Prelate commented on this as well—we have to go beyond the boundaries of our own faiths, not just in the UK but throughout the world, to bring people together. The point is sometimes lost, and I am grateful to the noble Lord for making it, that Muslims were also killed in those attacks. For the whole region, whatever someone’s faith is is irrelevant; the suffering is beyond any faith.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
Does the Leader agree that, at this time, it is of the greatest importance that we have an independent, impartial media that can provide analysis? That is needed more than ever. Does she share my great surprise that, as I was informed by the head of the BBC World Service, the BBC Arabic radio service in Lebanon has now been closed as a result of funding restrictions? That spectrum has been taken up by Russian state media. This is a time to support the BBC World Service and to expand, not reduce, its provision. I hope that the Leader will take this away for discussion with her colleagues.
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
I am a great admirer and fan of the BBC World Service and the soft power that it has exercised across the world for many years has been great. It was a great shame that the World Service was rolled up into the last funding settlement that was undertaken for the BBC. We are concerned about that and looking at it. I do not make any commitments to the noble Lord, but we certainly share his concern. That the vacuum has been filled by a Russian player adds to the concern that I would have. I also agree with him that it is important to have independent voices who are respected in the region.
Sudan
Lord Purvis of Tweed Excerpts(6 months, 3 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
My Lords, this has been an exceptionally well-informed debate, and I thank the Minister for securing it in government time and for opening it in such a powerful way. I commend him and his work. I also welcome very warmly the appointment announced during this debate of Richard Crowder as the head of the British mission and the special representative. I have met with him and I wish him well in his work. This gives me an opportunity to put on record my thanks to his predecessor, Giles Lever, for his dedication and service.
Many civilians recoil sometimes from the conflict in Sudan being termed a “civil war”. Perhaps it meets a dictionary definition, but the impression it gives is that it is some form of popular-backed conflict between civilian-backed forces. This is a conflict inflicted on the civilian population from two forces seeking advantage over the other, with external vested interests in the resources they will then seek to control. In 2024, they seem to define “resource” as including children forced to bear arms.
The severity of the crisis over the last year and a half is matched only by the wilful ignorance of the western media and political class in highlighting the need for the man-made humanitarian horror to end. I politely disagree with those who have said it is a forgotten war. It is not a forgotten war yet, but it is a wilfully ignored war now.
Although the Ukraine conflict retains a permanent heading on the Disasters Emergency Committee webpage, as it should, the Sudan conflict, which is bigger in its impact on civilians and with a humanitarian crisis on a much higher scale, warrants no mention at all—not on the front page or on any page. I hope the Minister might feel it justified to convene all those NGOs and charities as part of the Disasters Emergency Committee so that there is an appeal, for which the Government will offer matched support. My noble friend Lord Oates was absolutely right when he said that the UN appeal is only one-third funded. The Paris conference appeal earlier this year was only half matched, with the UK Government offering no extra support then. I welcome the modest extra support that the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, referred to and I look forward to clarification on that in the Minister’s winding. It is a strategic error that this funding is not being provided, not just a moral outrage.
The debate has had three distinct elements: the need for urgent humanitarian assistance, as my noble friend Lady Suttie indicated; the need for those with vested interests to move from profiteering from conflict to being part of peace; and the need for long-term civilian government. I will touch on all three as well. I need not repeat the litany of statistics of the crisis; although they merit repeating constantly to shame us all, noble Lords have done so powerfully throughout the debate.
The Minister referred to the recent ALPS initiative in Geneva. Will he respond positively to the calls by civilian groups that the UK not only supports the process externally but participates in it? This was a call from the women’s shuttle diplomacy group, referenced in this debate, whom I met personally on Tuesday afternoon.
We heard about the exodus of those fleeing the savage conflict. More support can now be given to many of those who have fled the country: it is not necessarily being impeded. At Chatham House earlier this week, I heard that the diaspora community, which has worked so hard and committed so much support to communities back home, is now struggling to do so. What can His Majesty’s Government do to expand flexible cash support, as my noble friend Lord Oates said, not just for those within Sudan but potentially for the diaspora community, which has means by which support can go back to those communities?
The unforgivable blockage of aid inside Sudan by both belligerent forces, which is leading to wilful starvation of young mothers and children, is being carried out with too much impunity. This is most acute in the deliberate attacks on schools by the RSF or civilian medical centres by the Sudanese Armed Forces, with medicine being taken away from lactating mothers and from children, as fighters seem to be given priority, as the SAF says. Will His Majesty’s Government provide extra support to emergency response rooms, communal kitchens, education shelters and youth response committees, as all these are being provided by the civilian population within Sudan, who need extra support now? The need will be greater in the weeks ahead.
This leads me to the second theme. The UK’s status as pen holder has been referred to. The question is not the merit of the UK being the pen holder but what we are writing with it. The last Security Council resolution was as long ago as June, which related to the tragedy of Al-Fashir. There needs to be a new Security Council resolution, and I hope the UK high-level delegation to UNGA will start to propose it. We need clearer statements of UN fact on breaches of international humanitarian law. We need the triggering of measures under Security Council Resolution 2417 on starvation as a war crime, which has been referred to in the debate. We need to designate no-fly areas for aircraft and military drones, many now supplied by Iran and near neighbours. As we have heard, civilians have been attacked with weaponry from China, Iran, Russia, Serbia and the UAE. The UK must now make the case for widening the arms embargo beyond Darfur.
After months of campaigning and repeated calls in this House, I was pleased that the previous Administration proscribed the Wagner Group. I fear that some operatives have been transferred into Russian state entities, which, as we heard, are now advising elements of both the SAF and the RSF, not just in the protection of their gold trading interests but in the provision of misinformation, disinformation and false narratives given against civilians. This also supports elements of the previous al-Bashir regime seeking to obfuscate their intentions and to seek legitimacy, including suggesting that civilians should settle for an autocratic and non-civilian Government. No.
A UK-sponsored UN Security Council resolution should outline clear corridors for supply of medical aid and food, ensure that there is no impunity for deliberately targeting food production and, crucially, start now to outline the basis upon which civilian government services will be restarted, including civilian commercial airspace, money transfers, basic business lending again, an infrastructure reconstruction authority, internal free passage, profiteering-free telecommunications, reducing the state capture of any ceasefire arrangements, and take action on preparing consideration of a UN Security Council resolution potentially including UN security for Khartoum airport. Before the war, Khartoum was home to 60% of the population. There is no future to a Sudan without a functioning civilian airport in Khartoum. We also see the so-called mercenaries from the Central African Republic, Chad and South Sudan, and action needs to be taken to reduce those.
Actions of such a nature are not just for a humanitarian response; I agree 100% with the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, that actions in these areas are in the UK’s strategic interest. Sudan’s Red Sea location is close to the Suez Canal, a major conduit of world trade, where we have already deployed military force against Houthi attacks. I am sure the House is aware that even previously in the conflict in Yemen, Sudan was the origin of the highest number of child soldiers deployed by both sets of the war in Yemen.
That General Hemedti recently visited South Africa, and General al-Burhan met Xi last week, shortly followed by visits to Chinese arms companies, is surely a warning for strategic interest. Prior to the war, 8% of Sudan’s economy was through gold exports, but precious little was able to be used for public services, which were already at unnecessarily low levels. The previous technocratic Ministers attempted to put the economy on a stable footing, with global support, but after the coup and especially after the war, the resources of Sudan have been used and exploited not for the Sudanese but for military and personal advantage.
I also believe that the UK can take action, as we heard in the debate, on the renewal of the mandate of the independent international fact-finding mission for the Sudan. Given the critical role played by the FFM, I hope the Minister will respond to that when he sums up. Furthermore, I believe that the UK must be a leading power, establishing the practical basis upon which any future agreement is not just a cessation of hostilities to divide territory but to engage civilian government. I am grateful for the UK support for Taqaddum—the Minister is aware of my interest and involvement over recent months. The Minister and others referred to the former civilian Prime Minister Abdalla Hamdok. It is worth reminding the House that he is the only civilian Prime Minister in Sudan in 35 years, and that he is president of the civilian Taqaddum, as the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, indicated. I spoke to Abdalla Hamdok this morning before this debate—he is in Nairobi just before travelling to New York and Washington. He wanted me to relay a specific message to the House, that “the unity of Sudan can only be provided by civilians, for all regions and all ethnic groups” and “civilians are the backbone of a unified Sudan”. He also said of the crisis: “Do not entertain that there can be two edifices, there is no military solution to this”. I agree with him.
I wish to close on a personal note if the House will indulge me. I have visited the country on many occasions since 2018 and have come to admire greatly Sudanese friends during the recent horrors of war. Their bravery, persistence, tolerance and optimism are truly humbling. These traits belie how some may categorise the country —not in this debate but elsewhere. Some might put it in the “too difficult” box or into the “well, what can we expect?” category, or they will say, “Well, it’ll become like Somalia or a new Libya or Syria”. The women whom we have all met this week, or the young women in exile whom I have met over the past few months, reject this. They reject the war; they reject the human rape and rape of resources. They reject the military persecution of civilians; they reject those who seek legitimacy on the back of actively blocking aid and food to their own people, to the villages and the communities; they reject the cynicism of external forces that will seek actively to exclude civilians from running their own country.
The noble Baroness, Lady Amos, indicated that it did not have to be this way, and it did not. I had the great privilege of being with my noble friend Lady Suttie in Sudan before the war, working with civilians on the framework agreement, facilitating dialogue. Before the war, I met General Burhan and General Hemedti separately—what has happened since is profoundly disturbing—to make the case at a last ditch that war was not inevitable. However, I could not reflect just on that. As we started our general election campaign in this country, I happened to be in Addis for the launch of the Taqaddum conference with them. As I watched the Sudanese—from all parts of society and all parts of the country, from women to young people, from the professions, from rural communities and urban areas—who had left the country under great security risk themselves to be at a civilian conference, many of them not sure that they would be allowed home, I could do no other than reflect that I had the privilege to be with them as we were embarked on a remarkable democratic process here at home, where we were engaged in the right to choose who governs us and to hold them to account, and where, if we change our minds about them, we can have a peaceful transition of power. That is what they want. I hope that the Minister will make it his mission that they will have what we take for granted.
Antimicrobial Resistance
Lord Purvis of Tweed Excerpts(8 months, 1 week ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
The noble Baroness is absolutely right: we want to ensure that the political declaration is followed through in our work. Obviously, as we come through to the round of multilateral negotiations, we can ensure that that political declaration is taken into account when those multilateral funds start thinking about disbursement. The high-level panel meeting of the United Nations General Assembly is a very important event, but it is not the only one, so we will ensure the fullest attendance, to maximise the political implications and effect of our participation.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
My Lords, I also welcome the Minister to his brief; he brings a huge amount of experience to this, and I wish him well in his role going forward. He will be aware that the previous Government were rightly commended for their 20-year ambition on AMR, and also the five-year action plans, but there was concern that, given the fact that a lot of the UK research has been carried out through official development assistance, the considerable cuts to that—moving away from 0.7%—have had an impact on UK research. What reassurance can the Minister give that the new Government will set us back on the trend to having 0.7% of GNI for ODA, so we can return to being a global leader on AMR research?
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
I do not think the things are necessarily linked; the noble Lord knows our commitment to 0.7%, and we want to return to it as soon as the fiscal situation allows. In the meantime, we want to focus on the impact of our ODA, and that is why this political declaration is so important, because we can achieve a lot. One of the things we will be doing is looking at the plans and commitments that the previous Government made, and ensure that we work in partnership with African countries to deliver the biggest impact.
Military Interventions Overseas
Lord Purvis of Tweed Excerpts(1 year, 2 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
My Lords, notwithstanding the excellent question from the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, with which I associate myself, is it not the case that Operation Prosperity Guardian—under the umbrella of the Combined Maritime Forces and Combined Task Force 153—now has strategic aims rather than responsive ones, as we would categorise an emergency. On that basis, there is a strong likelihood that British forces will continue to be needed to deployed and to carry out actions. On that basis, given the experience in this House, and indeed, as the Leader said, given the ongoing review of the Cabinet Manual, is it not time that we had a full debate in this House in particular so that we can discuss the Red Sea and the need for British deployments as well as the Cabinet guidance?
Lord True (Con)
That matter was alluded to yesterday. I said we would reflect on these matters in the usual channels. There was a debate on the Red Sea situation in the other place. I pointed out yesterday that we have a debate tomorrow in your Lordships’ House on Ukraine, on which there has not been a debate recently in the other place. The Government will continue actively to consider the best ways of keeping both Houses informed and involved in these situations.