Sudan: Aerial Bombardment

Lord Wood of Anfield Excerpts

Thursday 29th October 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Alton of Liverpool]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of recent aerial bombardments in the war in Sudan.

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

The increasing use of aerial warfare, including drones, is inflicting devastating harm on civilians and civilian infrastructure in Sudan, killing over 1,000 civilians in the first half of this year and contributing to the growing risk of famine in the country. The UK, both publicly and in our diplomatic engagements, is urging the warring parties to protect civilians, comply with international humanitarian law and facilitate safe and unhindered humanitarian access. At the UN General Assembly, the Foreign Secretary and Minister for International Development convened international partners to co-ordinate action to protect civilians in Sudan and issued a communiqué on behalf of the UK-convened coalition for atrocity prevention on the impact of drone warfare on civilians.

[Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his reply. Can he tell us what response we have received from the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons about credible allegations concerning the use of chemical weapons in Sudan and the bringing to justice of those responsible, along with the quartermasters whose actions have led to an estimated 400,000 deaths in Sudan? That includes terrible atrocities in El Fasher in Darfur, the displacement of some 14 million people and 19 million people facing acute food insecurity and famine. As penholders in the Security Council, will the Minister take this opportunity to clarify reports that the UK intends to support a candidate to become Secretary-General of the United Nations who has dismissed the findings of the UN’s own panel of experts about the involvement of the UAE in arming RSF paramilitaries? What convoluted message would this send on seeking an end to the world’s most deadly and catastrophic war?

[Lord Wood of Anfield (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lord for that and pay tribute to him; no one inside or outside this House does more to keep the spotlight shining on what is the worst humanitarian crisis facing the world in the 21st century, and I thank him for that. On the chemical weapons issue, we take any alleged breach of the Chemical Weapons Convention very seriously. As Sudan is a state party to that convention, we expect all those in Sudan to abide by the prohibition on developing, producing, processing, transferring or using chemical weapons. We have consistently raised concerns about allegations of weapon use by the Sudanese Armed Forces, including at the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons. I hosted the director-general of the OPCW a couple of weeks ago in this very building and discussed exactly that, and we are using our national and Sudan-specific statements at the OPCW’s executive council to further this agenda. On the issue of the United Nations Secretary-General, I urge everyone in the House not to believe wild speculation in the newspapers on any UK preference for any candidate; we do not comment in public on that, and that is how we will continue to approach this issue.

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

The actions that the UK has taken on the credible information on the use of chlorine gas on civilians is that it has asked the alleged perpetrators to investigate their own actions. This is wholly insufficient. Under Articles IX and X of the Chemical Weapons Convention, the UK, as a state party, can take actions to demand independent investigations of this credible information on the use of gas. As the UN Security Council penholder for Sudan, why have we not taken this action?

[Lord Wood of Anfield (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lord for his question. We are engaging on a number of strands of this issue with the OPCW. He is absolutely right that part of that is urging Sudan to conclude the investigation that is under way. We have a range of discussions at the OPCW and at the UN in our role as penholder, across the community of nations, about ways to address the issue and take allegations seriously. As I think the noble Lord and everyone else in the House know, the OPCW has enjoyed strong support from the United Kingdom for a number of years, and we take it extremely seriously as the primary vehicle to investigate serious alleged breaches.

[Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Lab)]

My Lords, given the extent of the humanitarian crisis in Sudan over the past number of years, like the noble Lord, Lord Alton, I again ask my noble friend: will he, along with international counterparts, put some diplomatic pressure on President Trump to persuade him not to allow control of the UN to go to the UAE, as it funds the rebels in Sudan who have committed immeasurable atrocities in Darfur, including El Fasher?

[Lord Wood of Anfield (Lab)]

My noble friend is right to point to the role of external interference in this conflict and the way it fuels the conflict. We have been clear from the start that all external support for either side serves only to fuel the bloodshed and prolonged violence and must end. That is why we have imposed an arms embargo on Sudan. With reference to the United States, that is why we are not just continuing to call for compliance with the United Nations arms embargo on Darfur; we are also working with the US and others to support efforts to strengthen the scope of that UN embargo.

[Lord Bellingham (Con)]

Further to the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Alton, it was exactly a year ago that the RSF attacked El Fasher and 6,000 civilians were killed. A similar appalling atrocity was committed in El Geneina a few months later. These are vile, wicked and evil crimes committed by people who are beyond being reproached. What more can be done to bring them to justice?

[Lord Wood of Anfield (Lab)]

I agree with the noble Lord—as I think everyone will—on the vileness of the actions in El Fasher; the events were horrific. Earlier this week, the Minister for International Development and the All-Party Group on Sudan held a joint event in Parliament to remember the victims. On the first anniversary of the RFS assault on El Fasher, we announced a new round of sanctions on suspected perpetrators of sexual violence and other atrocities. The answer to what can be done is: a whole range of things. Frustrating as this is, I am pleased to say that the United Kingdom is leading on both humanitarian support—providing £146 million a year—and on justice and accountability, through leadership of the Coalition for Atrocity Prevention and Justice for Sudan. We are also using our penholder status at the United Nations for a variety of activities.

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

My Lords, I very much welcome what my noble friend the Minister had to say about our continuing support, and particularly the humanitarian response. Can he update the House on the processes that are being led by the US through the quad? In addition, because these quad processes and other statements and UN processes have so far been unsuccessful in preventing the grim atrocities that we continue to see, can he commit the UK to playing a leading role in the painstaking work of working with civil society and local political civilian leadership in order to bring about a lasting peace?

[Lord Wood of Anfield (Lab)]

My noble friend knows what she is talking about on this; she played a leading role in responding on it for a number of years, and I work with officials who are extremely grateful for all the leadership that she provided on it over a long time. She is absolutely right that the UK must play, and continues to play, a leading effort in not just formal multilateral fora but informal environments. Recently, my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary was in Istanbul for an—excuse the acronym—E3+R4 meeting, which engages countries with different kinds of access to involve parties in ways of trying to find ways through on the range of difficult issues that are involved in the Sudan conflict.

[The Lord Bishop of Winchester]

My Lords, churches have been widely used as shelters over the course of the conflict in Sudan, particularly in the Nuba mountains, from where the majority of Sudanese Christians originate. Attacks on places of worship and religious leaders have been widely documented, and both sides have used places of worship for military purposes. In the light of these developments, can the Minister say what assessment the Government have made on the situation of freedom of religion in Sudan and what steps particularly they are taking to ensure that the urgent humanitarian assistance that he has already referenced is also reaching vulnerable and historically marginalised religious communities, including in the Nuba mountains?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Wood of Anfield (Lab)]

The right reverend Prelate is right to point to issues to do with freedom of worship and the use of religious buildings, such as churches and other locations, by parties to the conflict. On the guiding principles of the humanitarian support provided—it is not just about the amount, £146 million a year, which we are pleased to say is reaching millions and millions of people—one of the developments, the evolution of which I think my noble friend was partly responsible for, is that we are providing help to local responders using NGOs and local organisations, including religious organisations, as partners and destinations for funding. That is an important principle in the humanitarian response that the right reverend Prelate asked about.

Mediation, Conflict Prevention and Peacebuilding

Lord Wood of Anfield Excerpts

Thursday 29th October 2026 Lords Chamber

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

My Lords, I am also very grateful to my noble friend Lord McConnell of Glenscorrodale for securing this debate and for the way he opened it with his experience, reflections and wisdom on this broad issue. I pay tribute to his work as co-chair of the All-Party Group on conflict and peacebuilding, and to his long personal commitment to peace in many parts of the world, particularly in Mindanao, which he spoke about.

I thank all noble Lords who have spoken. It is a debate that has brought not just experience of diplomacy, negotiation and the slow challenging work of building peace on the ground but a sense that peacebuilding is not the work of Governments alone. In fact, sometimes Governments are not the best-placed partners to make progress. I will come back to some of those points in a minute and I will try to respond to as many of them as I can. Apologies if I do not get to everything, but I will come back to you if I do not.

In particular, I would like to start by endorsing the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Ahmad, that we should stop the revolving door of ministerial appointments. I could not agree more; we should start that right now.

We meet at a sobering moment. As many noble Lords have said, including my noble friend Lord McConnell and the noble Earl, Lord Courtown, there are more conflicts in the world today than at any time since the Second World War. The figure my noble friend mentioned was that a quarter of a million people died in violent conflicts across the world in 2025. Conflict is driving terrible humanitarian crises, forcing families from their homes and seeing the most appalling atrocities committed against innocent people. We talked about Sudan earlier. I will come back to that in a minute. It is perhaps the most egregious example but, sadly, they are all too common.

The noble Lord, Lord Redwood, mentioned Ukraine. Just last month I was in Ukraine, meeting veterans, families, civil society leaders and others enduring a brutal assault on their country. I went to the village of Yahidne, which some noble Lords may know about. Just after the invasion, some 400 people were held in a school basement there for 27 days. I was taken around that basement by people who were in there without food, lighting or any provisions, and by people whose family members had suffered, some of whom had died. Ten people died in that basement. In Kyiv, I visited a UK-funded centre that is doing the heartbreaking but extraordinary work of tracing children who have been stolen from occupied territories and deported to Russia, where they have been adopted by Russian families. In the short time in my job, the human cost of this one example and the incredible courage of ordinary Ukrainians in this war is something I will not forget.

A few days after that I went to Toronto, where I joined more than 80 countries at a conference to discuss how to respond collectively to the problems that Ukrainians under Russian control face. There, we committed to convene a core group with Ukraine in London on the identification, return and reintegration of civilians from the occupied territories detained by Russia. That is perhaps a small example, but it is one of an attempt at peacemaking: the patient, often unseen work of getting people home, working with NGOs in the community of nations, trying to secure a just and lasting peace at a time when prospects seem pretty bleak, and using international law to do so.

I take seriously the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Redwood, on the need to have a heard-headed strategy to go along with that. In a nutshell, our strategy is to raise the costs of conflict for Russia so that it is forced—reluctantly, perhaps—to come to negotiation and discussion. This is at a time when Ukraine has made it clear, even at some cost to itself, that it is prepared to engage in those discussions. I am pleased to say that we are doing a variety to things, from sanctions to incessant diplomatic work, to try to achieve that outcome.

On prevention, beyond tragedies overseas, we have all seen how the effects of conflict reach our own shores—through irregular migration, organised crime, and higher costs for families here at home. For those who do not look abroad perhaps as much as noble Lords in this debate do, with their expertise and interests, prevention is in the national interest. My noble friend Lord McConnell is right that prioritising prevention is crucial. It is a hard-headed choice. It is not a soft option. Acting early saves lives and saves money. Mediation—helping those who are fighting to find a way to stop—is one of the most practical tools we have.

This theme has recurred in this debate: prioritising prevention is not the job of a single small group of people sitting in the Foreign Office; it runs through the activities across the Foreign Office and across government departments. Money is crucial, of course, and I will come back to that, but it is not reflected in a single pot of money allocated to something called “prevention”. It is much broader than that. The noble Lord, Lord Ahmad, who has extensive knowledge of this across six Foreign Secretaries and five Prime Ministers, rightly talked about the interconnection of different activities, such as peacebuilding, prevention, peacekeeping and mediation.

However, we have to acknowledge that the world of peacemaking in particular has changed—although the noble Lord, Lord Redwood, is right that we need more imagination in thinking about pre-emptive action and the way that the UK Government should act in the future. On the one hand, the group of states playing significant mediation roles has expanded, as my noble friend Lord McConnell mentioned at the start. However, as my noble friend Lady Chapman pointed out, some deals are short-term and transactional, do not stick, and leave the causes and drivers of conflict untouched. Some deals between states have that characteristic, as well as deals between non-state actors. The United Nations has also found it much harder to play the role it once did, which is a point many noble Lords have made. That must shape how we think about our role.

So what is our role? The noble Earl, Lord Courtown, rightly challenged me to spell it out. I will put it in three sets of categories or clusters of activities. Before I say that, it is striking that there was universal agreement that the UK, for all our faults, has pedigree in this area and a strong reputation. Despite some parts of the world thinking we are perhaps historically tainted in some ways, we are a country full of organisations, diplomats and experts that has a positive role to play. We should be proud of that and it continues to be true, for all the challenges we face. I will put the UK strategy in three parts: the first is to bring expertise, the second is on partnerships, and the third is to strengthen and protect the institutions of peace.

I will start on bringing expertise. We rarely lead mediation processes ourselves, often because others—NGOs, other countries or faith groups, to come back to my noble friend Lord Rook’s point—are better placed and more trusted by the parties concerned. Instead, we tend to back mediators, regional organisations and parties themselves, drawing on our diplomatic relationships, our influence, our expertise, back channels and ceasefires. We have experience: the noble Lord, Lord Hastings, referred to the sad, painful experience in Northern Ireland, which gives us a mixture of pain, experience, credibility and wisdom, and enables us to have some perspective and authority.

My noble friend Lord McConnell knows this from Mindanao: in 2009, at the request of the parties, the UK led the formation of the international contact group, alongside others such as Japan and Saudi Arabia, and helped pave the way to a peace agreement that has significantly reduced violence. On Colombia, which the noble Lord, Lord Hastings, referred to—he is about to meet former President Santos, as he said—my noble friend Lady Chapman noted in quite moving detail the specific way in which UK engagement actually made a difference, particularly in the perceptions of the enemy at the point of demobilisation. Here, the UK used its role on the Security Council to keep international support behind the peace process.

Through our new conflict and violence community of expertise, we deploy specialists on mediation, atrocity prevention and conflict-related sexual violence where they are needed. Through our conflict resolution programme, we have funded expert partners to support dialogue in some of the hardest places to achieve that. Much of that work is very discreet and is not talked about, for good reason: as many noble Lords have mentioned, discretion is an important part of keeping people safe and keeping talks alive.

On this issue, I want to go back to my noble friend Lord Rook’s comments on the role of faith-based organisations and individuals. I always love listening to my noble friend; he is one of my favourite speakers. He raised two issues. Last year, when we announced our approach to freedom of religion or belief, the Government made a commitment that we would have a report, and I can confirm that the report, which outlines the progress we have made, will be presented to the Prime Minister before the end of this year. On contact between FCDO conflict experts and religious leaders, I am pleased to say that it not only is crucial but happens frequently. It is pivotal to informing the FCDO’s understanding on how to use its influence, where not to use its influence, where to delegate, where to use partnerships and other approaches.

The second theme is building partnerships. As my noble friend Lord McConnell mentioned, since 2025 we have formalised co-operation on conflict resolution with Qatar and Turkey, for example. I know from our ambassador in Qatar how much effort he and his team are putting into that partnership, particularly with the Iran conflict and other conflicts in mind. They are partners with growing roles as mediators whose expertise we value. We have also begun working with Japan’s new mediation unit, which I know my noble friend has championed, and we are deepening our co-operation with the European Union, as provided for by the security and defence partnership.

Again, our job is not to crowd an already crowded field; it is to help those with access and more legitimacy than we sometimes have to succeed. As I mentioned earlier in answer to a Question on Sudan, my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary was in Istanbul last week for an E3+R4 meeting looking at ways in which countries with other kinds of relationships in areas such as Sudan and Iran can play a more constructive role.

I come back to a very important point that my noble friend Lady Chapman raised. She is completely right about the framing of responses being overly dictated by the last response. With my academic hat on—I can never quite give up being an academic—there is a wonderful book by Yuen Foong Khong, Analogies at War, which is precisely about military engagement falling prey to exactly the same vice: fighting the current war based on the lessons from a previous war. Peacebuilding can suffer from some of those same vices as well. That is an incredibly important point.

The third set of activities to which I want to draw attention is strengthening the institutions of peace. I was in Vienna last month where I opened the UK’s chairpersonship of the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe, which is one of the few multilateral institutions where we sit around the table with Russia and which, in my view, is more valuable for that. In my speech—I am sure noble Lords have read it, but I will just summarise for those who may have missed it—I talked about how dialogue matters most when trust is at its lowest ebb and how Europe’s security institutions still have a role, despite it being unfashionable in many quarters, to manage risk and prevent escalation. We will keep investing in them. For example, we have contributed more than £200 million to the UN peacebuilding fund since 2006, which makes us a very long-standing and loyal donor.

The noble Lord, Lord Howell, gave us a chastening and correct challenge to try to recapture the spirit of 1945. Let us be honest: this is not a good time for multilateralism and the UN. It is therefore not a time for us to walk away from these multilateral institutions. To go back to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, it is a time to try to put some steel back in the multilateral architecture. I will respond to the challenge from the noble Lord, Lord Hastings, in a minute.

It is also a time to beware false choices, which have been presented in some noble Lords’ comments today, between hard and soft power. I completely agree with the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chelmsford’s point that if you want peace you have to invest in the institutions of multilateral co-operation that bring it about and not assume war. There is also the false choice of thinking that it is either defence or development. Of course, this has been a very difficult time because of the cuts that have been made to the development budget. But there is a more fundamental challenge than just zero-sum trade-offs of funding, which is to rethink the way we think about defence and to bring security, economic and military dimensions—pre-emptive downstream interventions—into our concept of what proper security and defence are about.

We helped shape last year’s review of the UN’s peacekeeping architecture. We fund the UN’s mediation experts, and as the UN prepares for a new Secretary-General, we want a United Nations that uses its good offices actively and early. Regional organisations matter too, particularly the African Union, for example. We will support these organisations to make that commitment real and will work with the World Bank and other international finance institutions so that money flows to prevention before violence breaks out.

Several noble Lords raised early warning, including the noble Lord, Lord Ahmad. The problem is rarely that we cannot see a crisis coming; we usually can. It is about turning warning into action. The FCDO has developed a variety of mechanisms and tools to support early warning and early action across the network. The importance of using technology to improve translation of that early warning into action was a point well made. The Foreign Office is bringing conflict, atrocity and humanitarian analysis together into a single view of risk, drawing on our embassies, open-source data and horizon scanning. We support local civil society organisations to strengthen their early-warning functions.

The noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, mentioned atrocity prevention. I welcome the challenge in the Peace Works report launched by my noble friend’s all-party group and in the Atrocity Crimes Review published earlier this month. We are considering their recommendations carefully. I am particularly considering their recommendations carefully because my old boss, Gordon Brown, spoke at the launch of the review, and I have learned over the years not to ignore Gordon Brown, especially on early-warning issues. Officials are meeting the authors, and I would be glad for our officials to meet my noble friend and the group’s officers as well.

I was going to talk about some particular cases. Given the time, I probably will not, but we talked about Sudan earlier and the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, challenged us on Sudan. There are definitely complexities with those involved in peacemaking also being parties that have interests. That is not just a complexity of Sudan, but clearly it is a complexity there. What are we doing? We had an UNGA event specifically on the drone attacks to try to make some progress on that. We are leaders of the coalition for atrocity prevention group, and there is constant engagement on this. I am sure there is more that can be done, but it is not a field in which we are silent.

I also want to mention the leadership of the noble Lord, Lord Ahmad, on the question of the International Alliance on Preventing Sexual Violence in Conflict, which I believe he was instrumental in starting. We are continuing to prioritise that. We work with Colombia, the DRC, which I think is chair this year, Ukraine and others. We are vice-chair this year, and it is an agenda that is being actively pursued with energy from the United Kingdom.

Inclusion is vital. Peace agreements are more likely to last when, for example and in particular, women participate in a meaningful way, and parties are more likely to come back to the table if talks falter. We need women’s leadership and meaningful participation in these spaces. We have protected funding for women, peace and security, and we are refreshing our national action plan on this. Inclusion also means hearing local peacebuilders, the people who raise the alarm first, stay the longest and have most at stake. We must do more to protect women peacebuilders and human rights defenders who face growing intimidation, reprisals and violence.

Many noble Lords asked about resources. I will not pretend that reducing aid to 0.3% was easy and has not had trade-offs—of course it has. It has had consequences, but we are concentrating on where we can do most good. I am pleased to say that more than 70% of our country and regional aid will go to fragile and conflict-affected states by 2028-29. As I said earlier, and I speak as someone who used to come up with pots of money as a Treasury special adviser for a previous Chancellor, this is an area where money is crucial, but the magnitude of commitment cannot be expressed simply by how many people work in a particular unit or how much money goes to a particular sub-activity inside the Foreign Office, crucial as that is.

The noble Earl, Lord Courtown, rightly challenged us on defence, although traditionally the spending review is when spending decisions are made. At least, that is my understanding. There will be more to say on that.

To conclude, the success of prevention is often invisible: the war that did not start, the ceasefire that held, the talks that kept going when everyone thought they would fail. These are non-events that are huge events in the world of peacekeeping and peacebuilding. It is one of the best investments that we can make in security for people living through conflict and for us here at home. Our role is to bring expertise, build partnerships and strengthen institutions.

I will make two quick last remarks even though I am hitting my time limit. The noble Lord, Lord Hastings, asked whether Britain was afraid to speak. Absolutely not—I say that with all due respect. Without being pious, I see myself as part of a team of Ministers at the Foreign Office who are putting ending suffering and violence at the forefront on Israel, even though many noble Lords will not agree with our position on Israel and in our Israel reset, on Sudan and on Ukraine. I am sure everyone will keep us challenged on that, but it is absolutely at the centre.

Lastly, are we afraid to talk to those with whom we disagree? This point was made by the noble Lords, Lord Bates—whom I congratulate on bringing Dan Burn’s name into a debate on conflict prevention—Lord Hastings, Lord Anderson, and others. The answer is yes, sometimes we are too afraid to speak to those with whom we disagree. That is probably true of our Government at times, so that is a good challenge, because lines of communication are more, not less, important when tensions and conflicts are at their greatest. That is a salutary lesson to take away.

International Criminal Court

Lord Wood of Anfield Excerpts

Tuesday 27th October 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Teverson]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the future of the International Criminal Court.

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

My Lords, support for international criminal justice and accountability is a fundamental element of the UK’s foreign policy. The International Criminal Court is the primary international institution for investigating and prosecuting the most serious crimes of international concern, holding perpetrators to account and achieving justice for victims. The ICC, as everyone knows, is going through a particularly challenging period, and the UK stands alongside our fellow ICC states parties in supporting and vending the independence, impartiality and integrity of the court.

[Lord Teverson (LD)]

My Lords, first, I welcome very much the prompt statement by the UK, together with seven other nations, in support of the ICC, following the assault by sanctions on not just the ICC itself but its staff. What are we doing practically to make sure that the court survives in the long term, despite those sanctions led by the United States? In particular, how can we help defend those individual members of staff who are so much in the firing line of President Trump himself?

[Lord Wood of Anfield (Lab)]

The noble Lord is right to point out the early statement. Within hours of the American announcement, we published a joint statement expressing our strong disagreement with the sanctions imposed upon the court, co-signed by the Foreign Ministers of Australia, Canada, Denmark, France, Germany, Italy, Japan and the Netherlands. The noble Lord is also right to point to the need for practical support of the ICC in this period. We are offering that practical support through various things, including witness protection, sentence enforcement and commitment to internal reform processes. On UK staff, something like 50 or so staff are employed at the ICC. We are in close contact with the court and with British nationals impacted by events and these sanctions.

[Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws (Lab)]

My Lords, if we want to speak about practical steps, I just mention to the House that, across Europe, efforts have been made to create a blocking statute. In fact, we already have our own blocking regulation: a domestic blocking regime which is capable of extension without requiring new legislation. I urge the Government to look closely at EU Council regulation 2271/96, which was modified and preserved after Brexit. It authorises the Secretary of State to amend its annex by statutory instrument to add foreign laws that have an extraterritorial application causing adverse effects. Has the Minister looked at that regulation and the way it can be used to absolutely counter what these sanctions are doing to many people who work with the court on trying to ensure accountability for those who commit international crimes?

[Lord Wood of Anfield (Lab)]

I pay tribute to my noble friend’s activity, commitment, passion and involvement over many years in this area. We are monitoring the impact of the sanctions and how they will be implemented and enforced. We remain in very close contact with partners, particularly European Union partners, where there are differences of view. Recently, the Vice-president of the European Commission said that we should use the next few weeks to open dialogue on how to respond to the US sanctions. Our approach is to sustain that dialogue and continue conversations with non-states parties and European allies.

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

My Lords, given that Russia withdrew its signature from the Rome statute in 2016, meaning that it is not a party to the International Criminal Court, what methods could be used to bring future prosecutions of war crimes and crimes against humanity committed by Russians in Ukraine?

[Lord Wood of Anfield (Lab)]

The noble Lord raises important issues on the lack of overlap between jurisdiction and the future necessity there will be to take action against individuals and organisations that commit crimes. As the noble Lord knows, we are already taking action to set up embryonic forms—which will take less embryonic forms in the future—of commissions that will do investigations. We are doing that in partnership with other countries. There will probably need to be special procedures in place for that, but we are in the lead in trying to think about the different structures that will be required.

[Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)]

My Lords, in the context of the emasculation of the International Criminal Court, will the Minister look at the Joint Committee on Human Rights’ unanimous reports, on two occasions, calling for the extension of universal jurisdiction to fill some of the gaps that might be left? Will he work with the International Criminal Court to bring to justice Omar al-Bashir, who was indicted by the court for genocide against the people of Darfur?

[Lord Wood of Anfield (Lab)]

The noble Lord raises a very important point and I will definitely look at the reports that he raised. We have a robust conversation on Sudan on a very regular basis. We support the active investigation into the situation in Darfur, and we raise that with the United States and other allies consistently.

[Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (LD)]

My Lords, last Thursday, less than a fortnight after the US announced its vindictive sanctions, when Marco Rubio called the ICC a “rogue court” and threatened to cripple its ability to function, the European Parliament awarded the ICC the prestigious Sakharov Prize for freedom of thought, named after Andrei Sakharov, the Nobel Prize-winning Soviet physicist and dissident. The prize is a major recognition of the court’s role in upholding international law, justice and human rights. Will the Government again publicly demonstrate the UK’s support for not just the ICC but the European Parliament’s position, alongside our displeasure at US sanctions?

[Lord Wood of Anfield (Lab)]

The noble Lord has captured the position of the Government quite well. We are a strong supporter of an effective International Criminal Court. I hope and expect that the House will recognise that from the statement we put out in conjunction with partners. We remain committed to the Rome statute and to promoting accountability internationally for the most serious international crimes, and we are insistent that the ICC must be permitted to continue its critical work, holding perpetrators of the most horrific crimes to account.

[Baroness Prentis of Banbury (Con)]

My Lords, does the Minister agree that the Ukrainians are to be very much commended on the work they are doing in the war crime space during an active conflict? Will he assure me that the British Government will do all they can to continue to support them? Some 317 people have been convicted already.

[Lord Wood of Anfield (Lab)]

I am glad that the noble Baroness brought this subject up. It is an issue that is very close to my heart. I have seen at first hand the bravery of Ukrainian officials, citizens, NGOs and others, who are collecting evidence of not just crimes but all sorts of things to do with traces of weapons use and other things for a future date, as yet unknown, when there will be some possibility of accessing justice. As she says, they are already collecting files and initiating cases at this stage. We absolutely support that work and will do our utmost to support it in the future.

[Lord Hain (Lab)]

Will my noble friend the Minister remind critics of the ICC that it brought to justice those in the Balkans who committed terrible crimes of genocide and that that should be commended? Does he agree that the remit of the ICC does not allow for the prosecution, charging and pursuance of kleptocrats responsible for terrible corruption across the world and that that is why there is a need for an international anti-corruption court?

[Lord Wood of Anfield (Lab)]

My noble friend raises not just one but two very important points. This is the time, as he says, to stand up for, rather than think about restricting, the jurisdiction of the ICC. At a time when the court is being challenged significantly, we should not just celebrate its past achievements but recognise that they would not have been accomplished without its presence, and redouble efforts of practical support, ensuring security for the future of the court. On the issue of anti-corruption, we absolutely want greater accountability for kleptocratic crimes and illicit finance—that is a huge priority. There are different ways that this can be addressed. I know that there is a draft treaty in circulation among legal experts; I do not believe there has yet been formal consultation with officials on it. The objective of holding to account kleptocrats, as my noble friend puts it, and pathways of illicit finance, is absolutely essential.

[Lord Grade of Yarmouth (Con)]

My Lords, the ICC prosecutor could have sought warrants for the Hamas leaders who were behind the 7 October massacre straight away, but he waited seven months and then announced them together with warrants for Israeli elected leaders, as if the two were equivalent. This timing served to draw attention away from the misconduct which ultimately cost him his job. Does the Minister agree that this delay served the prosecutor and did not serve justice?

[Lord Wood of Anfield (Lab)]

I am not sure I agree with the noble Lord’s framing of that question. Being a supporter of the ICC means supporting the procedures that are used and which are in conformity with the ICC statute. That applies to this case and to all other cases, as it does to the investigation and process to remove the lead prosecutor. We stand in full support of the ICC pursuing its functions with due process.

Russian Shadow Fleet Vessel Leruo

Lord Wood of Anfield Excerpts

Monday 26th October 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Goldie]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the Russian shadow fleet vessel LERUO not being intercepted; and the potential implications of this for Russia’s on-going invasion of Ukraine.

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

I thank the noble Baroness for this Question. I am not going to make specific comment on operational decisions or assessments, as I am sure she understands. To do so would only benefit Russia. Any UK action to intercept Russian shadow fleet vessels would be subject to strict legal procedures and comply with both domestic and international law. Potential targets are subject to assessment by law enforcement, military and energy specialists. Of course, we keep our policy under review.

[Baroness Goldie (Con)]

My Lords, this country can be proud of the unstinting support against the appalling illegal invasion by Putin that has been given to President Zelensky and Ukraine by successive Governments. Part of that support includes a robust framework of sanctions against Russia and Russian associates. Sanctions without enforcement is weakness, and Putin, like any bully, exploits weakness—but he is afraid of strength. How does it indicate strength to look hesitant in enforcing our sanctions regime, and will other potentially sanction-breaking vessels traversing our waters also be spared interdiction?

[Lord Wood of Anfield (Lab)]

The noble Baroness is absolutely right to point out that it is a consistent policy, and I am proud to say a world-leading policy, of support for Ukraine across different Governments—the last Conservative Government, the previous Labour Prime Minister and the current Labour Prime Minister. It is a consistent policy that we should both maintain and be proud of. The noble Baroness is also absolutely right that strength is important, and I am slightly surprised that she suggested the UK, in her view, has a reputation for weakness. Friend and foe alike acknowledge the UK to be world-leading in the breadth, strength and seriousness of the support it offers.

Since 2024 we have challenged more than 700 suspected shadow fleet vessels. The “Smyrtos” is currently detained by the Secretary of State for Transport under transport sanctions powers. It is easy to look at an individual case and ask why we do not repeat it. I can assure the noble Baroness and the House that serious legal, operational, diplomatic and other concerns go into the decision about interdiction and interception. But the idea that the UK is not leading with a broad-ranging, credible and strong policy on sanctions and not cracking down on shadow fleet vessels is not true.

[Lord Addington (LD)]

My Lords, when we are dealing with this situation, we are surely talking about making sure that we affect Russia’s capacity to keep waging this war. Can the Government give us some assurance that their attitude towards the shadow fleet, and possibly inspection and boarding, actually works? Can the Minister tell us exactly how he sees that happening now?

[Lord Wood of Anfield (Lab)]

The noble Lord is right that the real test of the serious action taken is whether it changes the calculus and makes an impact. Western sanctions have clearly denied Russia access to an estimated $500 billion since February 2022. Russia’s economy is stagnating: it slashed its economic growth forecast this year from 1.3% to 0.4%, it halved its forecast for 2027 and it is estimated to be paying something like a 40% to 60% premium for imports of sanctioned goods. Obviously, sanctions have been going on much longer than the regime for cracking down on the shadow fleet. But we are galvanising a group of countries that are taking this part of the sanctions action very seriously, and there is strong evidence, as I say, that it is actually having an impact on Russia’s capacity to wage war.

[Baroness Stuart of Edgbaston (CB)]

My Lords, no one country can deal with the Russian shadow fleet on its own. Are there any particular plans to work more closely with Germany on dealing with that problem?

[Lord Wood of Anfield (Lab)]

It is absolutely part of our approach to work in partnership, as it has been on the sanctions piece as a whole, as it has been on assembling a coalition of the willing for support for Ukraine and as it has been on assembling a coalition of countries to think ahead to what will be required to sustain the peace. It is an issue that came up in the Prime Minister’s visit to Berlin recently. I had the pleasure of meeting the German Chancellor at the Berlin process event in Montenegro where this issue was also discussed. There absolutely is partnership not just with Germany but with most of our European allies.

[Lord Ricketts (CB)]

My Lords, I can agree that the Government have an excellent track record on sanctions implementation, as did the previous Government. But while we are talking about Russian shipping, we have today’s news that the Black Sea is becoming more murderous than even the Strait of Hormuz for Ukrainian ships and others transiting to Ukraine. Are we in discussion with the Ukrainian Government about whether there is anything we can do to help tackle this latest manifestation of the Russians constantly changing their tactics to pile further pressure on Ukraine?

[Lord Wood of Anfield (Lab)]

The noble Lord puts his finger on a very important issue: the response of the United Kingdom and other allies to the Russian challenge in Ukraine has to change with the methods and tactics that vary on the part of the Russians. I discussed the Black Sea issue with my Bulgarian counterpart at the Berlin process meeting. It is of widespread concern. We are indeed in discussions with the Ukrainians. As noble Lords will know, this is an issue not just about security of maritime transport but about grain supply for the rest of the world, so it is a global humanitarian issue as well as a regional security issue. I can assure the noble Lord that we are absolutely focused on trying to get allies to provide the support that is relevant for this challenge.

[Viscount Stansgate (Lab)]

My Lords, speaking of Russia’s ongoing invasion of Ukraine, can my noble friend tell the House whether the Government have reached a view about who was responsible for the decision effectively to deny to Ukraine the use of Starlink resources on which it depends so heavily for its defence?

[Lord Wood of Anfield (Lab)]

I thank my noble friend for that question. Let me quote what the Defence Secretary said on 15 October. He was

“reassured directly by Secretary Hegseth that the service has been restored. And that is a demonstration … of the importance of the US contribution on intelligence sharing”.

Our focus is now on ensuring that we, together with Washington, can provide support for Ukraine in future.

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

My Lords, the noble Lord will be aware that many of the shadow fleet vessels are potentially substandard. They sail very close to the Danish coast for onward journeys. How closely are the Government working with the Danish Government to avert a potential environmental tragedy as well as the fuelling of Russia’s forces?

[Lord Wood of Anfield (Lab)]

The noble Baroness is right that the concept of a shadow fleet is an organisation of shipping that does not have normal regulation, inspection and processes applied to it. The whole purpose of a shadow fleet is to try to evade international law. That means that issues such as standards and the possible environmental side-effects of substandard vessels are of concern to all the neighbouring countries where this maritime traffic goes through. We talk about it with our Baltic colleagues, in particular our north European and Scandinavian colleagues. It is a focus of our policy.

[Lord Robertson of Port Ellen (Lab)]

I support my noble friend the Minister in denying the accusation that in some way this country is being feeble in its exercise of sanctions against Russia to date. We have been in the forefront of the actions taken against Russia in this regard and in support of Ukraine. Anybody saying to the contrary is simply underestimating the effect that we are having in the Kremlin.

[Lord Wood of Anfield (Lab)]

My noble friend is right that, for those who dislike British policy and those who support British policy, there is usually no doubt that we are a leading figure in the strong opposition we provide. We think Putin has spent about $14 billion to establish the shadow fleet. We have now specified nearly 650 vessels under the sanctions regime, including more than 600 oil tankers. We have sanctioned more than 3,500 individuals, entities and ships under the regime, more than 3,300 of which have been sanctioned since Putin’s full-scale invasion. This country is proudly leading an aggressive but warranted response to Russia’s continuing brutal attack on Ukraine, and we should be proud of it.

[Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)]

My Lords, on the subject of feebleness, can the Minister say what the effect of the United States’ unilateral decision to lift sanctions on diesel exports has been so far? Is it having any effect on the market at all?

[Lord Wood of Anfield (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lord for that question. It is early days to look at any effect on the global price. The calculation made at the time, a couple of weeks ago, was that it would have a negligible impact on global prices. As I and my ministerial colleagues have said before, it is not a choice that we would have made. But our challenge now is to work with the United States, because without the United States there can be no long-run solution to a conflict that supports a peaceful, stable Ukraine.

[Lord Pannick (CB)]

Can the Minister assure the House that the decision not to intercept this vessel has nothing whatever to do with the policies of the President of the United States or, indeed, with representations made by the Government of the United States?

[Lord Wood of Anfield (Lab)]

Decisions about all interceptions are made using criteria that, sadly, I am reluctant to discuss for the reason I gave at the beginning: advertising them and discussing their complexities would aid only the Russians and the Russian war effort. All decisions are made using these criteria. They are hard and complicated decisions, but the criteria are used for all such cases.

[Earl Russell (LD)]

My Lords, as the NATO and British authorities have now found more than 500 instances of Russian fishing vessels having tracked our critical undersea energy and telecommunications infrastructure, what further thought and actions are the Government taking with our allies to provide further deterrence to these unwanted activities?

[Lord Wood of Anfield (Lab)]

The noble Earl raises a vital aspect of hybrid warfare. It is fair to say that anyone who is following European politics, British politics and national politics across the European continent will know that there has been not just a strong, galvanised effort in the last two or three months to focus on hybrid attacks, including the challenge of undersea cables and the particular dependence we have on certain undersea cables, but a strong attempt—which I am proud to say the UK is leading—on sharing information across countries. President von der Leyen recently talked about the need to develop a Europe-wide capacity on disinformation, but also on hybrid threats. We are working closely with our European allies on these things.

[Lord Redwood (Con)]

My Lords, will the Government speed up work on our naval vessels that are in home harbours, pending work on them, so that we have more naval vessels available to police our seas?

[Lord Wood of Anfield (Lab)]

We continue to do the maintenance, repair and support work that we need to do for our fleet.

[Lord Forbes of Newcastle (Lab)]

My Lords, the focus of this Question is on how we continue to build the international coalition around tackling the Russian shadow fleet. Have the Government made any assessment of where Russia might seek to replace the ships that are taken out of commission by these actions, so that we can try to prevent Russia acquiring further ships in future?

[Lord Wood of Anfield (Lab)]

My noble friend raises an important point about the supply of these often substandard vessels—as the noble Baroness said earlier—which will be tomorrow’s shadow fleet. We are doing a lot of work on that, and on co-operating with allies and third-party countries to try to assess that. Noble Lords will excuse me if I do not go into details about what that is, but my noble friend is exactly right that this is a forward-thinking way to act, rather than just responding to the day-to-day challenge of trying to tackle this long-term problem.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

My Lords, the Government have rejected my amendments to strengthen penalties for tampering with critical undersea cables, whether by Russian shadow boats or by other operators, so I was very pleased to see the announcement by Ian Murray last week promising such action. My question is: when will this actually happen?

[Lord Wood of Anfield (Lab)]

If I were in charge of parliamentary timetables, I would be able to give the noble Baroness an exact answer; whether I would is another question, but I could give her an exact answer. This is a priority, as Ian said in his Statement. It is a priority not just because the law needs updating but because of the nature of the threat, as the noble Lord raised earlier. I am happy to provide more details on timing, or my colleague will, when more details emerge.

Yuval Abraham and Rachel Szor: Citizenship

Lord Wood of Anfield Excerpts

Thursday 17th September 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Chakrabarti]

To ask His Majesty’s Government whether they have made representations to the government of Israel regarding the citizenship of documentary film directors Yuval Abraham and Rachel Szor.

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

My Lords, we support freedom of expression, including artistic freedom. We have not made representations to the Government of Israel, but we expect any action affecting an individual’s citizenship or civil rights to be conducted in accordance with the rule of law and with due process. Democracy and the rule of law are among Israel’s founding values. These are vital to a secure Israel alongside a viable and sovereign Palestinian state.

[Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)]

I am grateful to my noble friend the Minister, not least because I know of his long-term commitment to the arts in general and filmmaking, I think, in particular. I wonder how we remind ourselves, let alone persuade friends and allies, that in a democracy dissent is not disloyalty but the test of democratic values. Given the excellent debate on the first Question, on G20 priorities, can my noble friend say a little more on Foreign Office work and priorities around promoting rights and freedoms in general?

[Lord Wood of Anfield (Lab)]

I thank my noble friend for that question and pay tribute to her long-standing commitment to rights, freedoms and the rule of law for many years. She is absolutely right that dissent is the test of the health of democracy, and we remain concerned about reports of threats and intimidation directed at journalists, filmmakers and others. I am pleased to say that the Foreign Office takes media freedom extremely seriously. We chair a coalition on media freedom. My ministerial friend Chris Elmore talked about this issue to the Foreign Affairs Committee in recent months. It is going to continue to be a priority, not just in the Middle East but elsewhere.

[Lord Polak (Con)]

My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, should know better before submitting such Questions. Any revoking of Israeli citizenship requires the Interior Minister, the Attorney-General and a court to independently agree, and the noble Baroness knows that no such proceedings have been opened. Does the Minister agree, as the film itself received a 25-minute standing ovation in Venice, and the filmmakers were free to make and screen a film fiercely—and I say fiercely—criticising their own Government, that this episode shows the strength and well-being of press freedom and democratic debate in Israel and should be praised by all noble Lords and His Majesty’s Government?

[Lord Wood of Anfield (Lab)]

I start by wishing the noble Lord and all other Jewish Members of our Chamber a happy new year. He is right that Israel, for example, is a signatory to both the 1954 Convention Relating to the Status of Stateless Persons and the 1961 UN Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness, as we are. I note that the Israeli Prime Minister last night made remarks about possible future legislation, but we do not comment on that; we will see what transpires. The noble Lord is also completely right that there is a venerable and admirable tradition of robust free speech and exchange, and we hope that that tradition remains in place.

[Baroness Deech (CB)]

My Lords, I hope the Minister will agree that it is indeed inappropriate to focus on a state where there is a stringent judicial process—we do not want discrimination. On the international front, things are even worse. In a few days’ time, the United Nations Durban conference will be marking the 25th anniversary of the World Conference against Racism, which turned out to be an antisemitism and anti-Israel conference. Can the Minister confirm—because I have written to the Prime Minister and the Foreign Minister about this—that Britain will not participate in the upcoming Durban conference?

[Lord Wood of Anfield (Lab)]

I thank the noble Baroness for that. I will have to return on the question of participation in future conferences. On the broader question of government action on antisemitism, I explained in the House last week that over £300 million has been committed to attacking and addressing antisemitism at home. Antisemitism is unacceptable. It is a scourge of any society, especially democratic society. At UNGA, in our upcoming event hosted by the Foreign Secretary in New York, we are going to focus more on this, and there will be more to say from the Government in due course on antisemitism.

[Lord Bruce of Bennachie (LD)]

My Lords, the Israeli military initially responded to “NAZA” by saying that it categorically rejects the allegations, but, in a later statement, it said that

“the allegations required a detailed, evidence-based response rather than a blanket dismissal”,

which I think most people would agree was the correct response. But is there not a danger for Israel in having a Minister who has suggested that he is going to move to remove citizenship? If that happened and it was challenged in court, would there not be a real danger that the personnel in the movie, who are anonymised at the moment, would be identified, and that would discredit the process and, indeed, embarrass the Government of Israel?

[Lord Wood of Anfield (Lab)]

The noble Lord raises a number of complex hypothetical issues around this, and they may or may not transpire, but they are matters for Israeli courts, Israeli politics and Israel in general rather than for me.

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

My Lords, building on the question from my noble friend Lord Polak, as the noble Lord acknowledged, Israel is the only democracy in the Middle East. It has robust rule-of-law provisions. I wonder what steps the Government are taking to establish those exact provisions in the rest of the Middle East, including Iraq, Iran, Syria and all these other Arab countries.

[Lord Wood of Anfield (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lord for that. I am not sure whether he remembers the announcements made last week about taking extremely robust action: sanctions against the financing arm of Hezbollah, and further sanctions actions against Iran in the transport, energy and other sectors supporting its attempted nuclear programme, and on vessels that transport materials for it. In other states where there is terrorism and hostility to the UK and our allies, we are taking robust action in the hope that, in the future, democracy may take root.

[Baroness O’Grady of Upper Holloway (Lab)]

My Lords, last month, the union of Palestinian journalists documented 108 attacks by Israeli forces and settlers on journalists and media workers in the occupied West Bank. Those attacks included detention, beatings and seizure of media equipment. Will my noble friend the Minister support the Palestinian trade union of journalists in calling for all media workers to be able to work free from intimidation and violence and for those responsible to be held accountable?

[Lord Wood of Anfield (Lab)]

I thank my noble friend for that. She is absolutely right that attacks on all journalists are a matter of grave concern. We are very concerned by the high death toll of journalists in Gaza. Reporters covering conflicts should be and must be afforded protection under international humanitarian law. Access to conflict zones is vital for the media to carry out their role effectively—a role that we all depend on.

[Lord Pannick (CB)]

My Lords, the Minister rightly recognised that, in Israel, independent filmmakers can and do produce work that is highly critical of their own Government. Are the Government taking any steps to ensure that independent filmmakers can do precisely that in Gaza, the West Bank or any other state without suffering appalling consequences? Can I also recommend to the Minister and, indeed, to the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, the new fifth season of the award-winning Israeli drama “Fauda”, which deals with the appalling events of 7 October and their aftermath?

[Lord Wood of Anfield (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lord for that. I am a “Fauda” fan, and I have not got to the fifth season yet, but I will do; I appreciate the pointer. On establishing freedom for artistic expression and freedom of speech in the West Bank and Gaza, there is, unfortunately, limited ability for us to influence what is happening at the moment in Gaza, but in the West Bank we are working with the Palestinian Authority to help cement reforms and support the development of democracy and the rule of law.

[Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)]

My Lords—

[Lord Cashman (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I am non-affiliated, so it is my turn. Notwithstanding the due process referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Polak, does the Minister agree that, when a senior member of a Government threatens to withdraw citizenship, that can have a chilling effect on freedom of expression and, indeed, artistic expression? I would like to widen this slightly further: will he now take action against the Turkish Government for arresting LGBT activists and LGBT people merely for expressing their right to live and exist?

[Lord Wood of Anfield (Lab)]

I thank my noble friend. I have raised the issue on LGBT activists with my Turkish counterparts. On the general question, I do not think it is appropriate to respond to individual comments of politicians in other countries. At this stage, I will leave it at that.

Healthcare Development: International Partnerships

Lord Wood of Anfield Excerpts

Thursday 17th September 2026 Grand Committee

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

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Crisp, for securing this debate. I pay tribute to his work on strengthening global health partnerships and championing collaboration, as well as to his role as a patron of Global Health Partnerships; I will come back to his Myanmar example later. I echo his words on how our health sector is world-leading with extraordinary reach, as I think he said. That is the foundation of the development partnerships, which we and—to go back to the point from the noble Earl, Lord Courtown—the previous Government have pursued with such principle and vigour; I pay tribute to them as well.

I thank all noble Lords for their contributions. So many of your Lordships have such valuable experience in the area of health partnerships—experience that I have not had. I wish the son of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Leicester good luck, and I thank the right reverend Prelate for his story about his son’s experience.

Our approach to development is having to modernise, as noble Lords know, with the aim of having a greater impact abroad and achieving better value for money at home. That is not an easy combination. It is based on four shifts: from donor to investor; from service delivery to system strengthening, on which I very much take the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Uddin, about the sustainable development of new systems, rather than just transitory ones, being crucial; from grants to expertise; and from international intervention to local leadership.

In health, this means an approach that is increasingly rooted in partnership by listening to countries, responding to their priorities, combining UK expertise with local knowledge and building relationships based on mutual benefit—as we have heard about today from various noble Lords’ experiences—in order to strengthen health systems, build sustainable capability and support locally led approaches. I refer again to the point made by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Leicester about the gift relationship and cultural humility—I, too, am a Richard Titmuss fan—as well as the idea that knowledge transfer is not just one-way. The noble Lord, Lord Oates, spoke very movingly about how it changed his life; I will come back to the programme that he talked about in a minute.

Unless exceptional circumstances or a crisis require a different approach, we see our role as not to deliver services on behalf of others but to work alongside partners in order to strengthen their own institutions, capabilities, and systems. To support this, the Foreign Office has established a community of expertise for health, which brings together expertise from across the UK and around the world and makes it available to our international network. Its purpose is to help partner countries strengthen their health systems, improve health security and deliver better health outcomes, particularly for women and girls—another thing that the noble Baroness, Lady Uddin, rightly highlighted as an oft-neglected dimension of development work. A fundamental principle of this community is that it is demand-led and not donor-driven.

This brings me to today’s Question. Let me answer the noble Lord, Lord Crisp, directly on what we are doing. We support healthcare development by working with Governments, health ministries and local organisations. We focus on the priorities that countries have identified for themselves, rather than imposing our own. We focus on areas where the UK has expertise to offer, while drawing on local knowledge.

Of course, there are occasions where more direct support is required, and one such example is the current Ebola outbreak, which the noble Lord asked me to comment on. The outbreak on 15 May has been declared an Ebola outbreak—the 17th. We are allocating up to just under £80 million to support an Africa-led response, and we are helping the WHO, the United Nations and NGO partners to strengthen surveillance, support front-line workers, improve infection prevention and control, and support access to life-saving care. I thank all those who are taking part in the collective effort to respond to this crisis as we speak.

The UK was among the first international partners to commit funding to the Africa-led response and is providing up to £80 million through the WHO, Africa CDC and the United Nations. Together, we are helping to strengthen surveillance, support front-line workers, improve infection prevention and control, and accelerate access to vaccines, treatments and diagnostics.

In all our activities, we are working through a range of partnerships, including partnerships at home with the NHS, universities and professional bodies. We supported health system partnerships in countries including Ghana, Malawi, Nepal, the Philippines, Tanzania and Zimbabwe, which draw on UK expertise, including from NHS England, and create opportunities for health professionals to improve their quality of care and experiences. We have heard today many examples of successful partnerships supported by this and the previous Government.

The noble Lord, Lord Oates, discussed the Global Health Volunteer Fellowships programme and gave some quite moving examples. He responded to some of the challenges put forward by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Leicester of embedding training in specific contexts rather than expecting skills to be transferred without bespoke training. I want to thank the doctors who take part in that, who provide their valuable time and skills on a volunteer basis. As explained by the noble Lord, Lord Oates, the programme provides clinical support through placements for doctors in partner countries but also encourages mutual learning between practitioners from different countries.

I am not aware of DHSC financial plans for this programme but I will make it my business to try to find out for the noble Lord. The experience and evidence that it generates will clearly be valuable, whatever programme develops in the future. I will get back to the noble Lord, Lord Oates, on anything I can discover in advance of the spending review.

We also provide flexible technical assistance. We help partner Governments access the expertise they need to address their priorities and strengthen their health systems. Good examples include Bangladesh, also brought up by the noble Baroness, Lady Uddin, where we are supporting efforts to improve services for women and girls, and Somaliland, where we are helping the Ministry of Health strengthen health financing and planning. Alongside this, a recent £19 million DHSC programme has operated in several countries across Africa, linking NHS organisations, universities and royal colleges with counterparts overseas, helping to strengthen the health workforce through learning and collaboration.

The noble Lord, Lord Crisp, mentioned Myanmar and the fantastic work done by what I think became known as the UK Health Partnerships for Myanmar after the military coup five years ago. This involved a UK coalition, which the noble Lord mentioned in some detail, of more than 50 institutions, including royal colleges, NHS bodies, universities, parliamentarians and local clinicians, which developed teleconsultations, GP support, quality improvement, a nurses’ college and virtual clinical support—a real flagship example of what health partnerships can do.

I also want to draw attention, parochially, to my own department, the FCDO, whose principal health partnership programme since 2023 is the Health Systems Connect programme. The noble Baroness, Lady Prashar, rightly pointed to the importance of having multiyear programmes rather than single off-one grants or more fleeting forms of financial assistance. This is a four-year initiative, delivered through the NHS Consortium for Global Health, which connects partner Governments with expertise from NHS England, UKHSA and other bodies. The partnership work aims to accelerate progress toward improved healthcare systems and universal access.

The noble Baroness, Lady Prashar, asked an important question about the impact of recruitment in the UK on the supply of health professionals in low-income and middle-income countries. This is obviously a complicated question. As she pointed out when talking about the GHP report that she discussed, the Government’s health plan aims to reduce reliance on international recruitment by reducing it to under 10% by 2035. That said, a continuing reliance on overseas recruitment will still be there. It is important, therefore, that we approach this in an ethical and sustainable way that supports, rather than undermines, the UK’s wider development objectives. As the noble Baroness knows, our code of practice for the international recruitment of health and social care personnel is the foundation of these ethical standards, which prohibits active recruitment from red-list countries, as she mentioned. We will continue to invest in partnerships that strengthen national health workforces in countries facing the greatest health system challenges.

All these efforts sit alongside our major investments through multilateral institutions and global health initiatives. Through partnerships with organisations such as the World Health Organization, the World Bank, Gavi and the Global Fund, we are helping to strengthen health systems more broadly. The Government seek to ensure that their support for healthcare in partner countries starts by listening to partners and supporting their priorities. We work alongside the Governments, civil institutions, organisations and local workforces on which health outcomes truly depend.

Lastly, I again congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Crisp, on this debate and the work that he and the GHP have championed. I thank all noble Lords for the experiences that they have shared today.

Committee adjourned at 4.06 pm.

Israel and Palestine

Lord Wood of Anfield Excerpts

Wednesday 9th September 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

My Lords, the choice of who forms the Israeli Government is for the Israeli people and them alone. Our foreign policy is for our Government, and our legislation is for this Parliament. No British Jewish person should be held to account for the actions of another Government—an Israeli Government. Antisemitism, at too high a rate, is utterly repugnant and has no place in our communities. I reiterate what I have said on a number of occasions, and I hope that the Minister might take this forward: there should be the highest-level cross-party talks on increasing measures to tackle this scourge in our country.

That said, I agree with the Foreign Secretary’s comment in his Statement that the Labour Government have not done enough in response to the humanitarian crisis in Gaza and the West Bank. Therefore, these Benches welcome the actions taken by 12 countries, including the United Kingdom, to act on ensuring that there is no impunity for the comprehensive disregard for the rule of law in the West Bank.

The Foreign Secretary referred to the time of the Oslo accords and the number of those who resided in the illegal settlements. That number is very high. But I want to go a little bit further back and quote the first speech by Lord Carrington, as Foreign Secretary in the Thatcher Government in 1979, in this Chamber. In this speech, he said of the West Bank that:

“The objective here must be full and genuine autonomy for these areas as a step towards determining their final status. Nothing would do more to help these negotiations, to build trust in the area, and to win the consent of the Palestinians than for Israel to cease the expansion of its settlements in the occupied territories”.—[Official Report, 22/5/1979; col. 240.]


Then, there were not much more than 15,000 settlers in the illegally occupied areas. Today, there are more than 750,000. The challenges ahead are enormous, but Lord Carrington got the prescription of the problem exactly right.

I have seen the impunity both for those who are in the illegally occupied territory and for those in the outposts. In September 2024, I visited the area and saw part of the destruction and the intimidation by illegal settlers in outposts in the West Bank that are illegal under Israeli law. Our sanctions will not make any difference there. On my return to this House, I called for action and an end to the impunity, because settler violence was the worst on record in the year leading up to 7 October, and it has got worse since.

If the established view across all parties in this House is that outposts are illegal under both Israeli and international law, and that settlements are illegal under international law, surely it is a natural position that UK law should not facilitate trade and investment with those illegal outposts. I do not understand those who are saying that we should not have our law respecting Israeli law.

Further, it is surely a natural position that, for those who facilitate settlements and outposts that are illegal under Israeli law, our law should ensure that both finance and violence by intimidation should also be illegal. My first-hand sight of the intimidation was on a particular occasion where the settler was South African and had secured and formalised his Israeli citizenship on the flight from South Africa.

Unfortunately, actions to ensure that there is no peace in Gaza and the West Bank are happening through a systematic approach by some of those outpost communities. Lord Carrington was right that the outposts and settlements were a hindrance and block to peace.

I ask the Minister how we in the United Kingdom will ensure that Hamas gangsters are prevented from being part of governance. We called for the IRGC to be proscribed and were, on occasions, frustrated that the previous Government refused to do so. We welcome this Government’s proscription of it.

We have also been supportive of the recognition of the state of Palestine. But, on the balance of ensuring that Hamas is not part of the governance, we need to ensure that there is good governance for Palestine, and that is why we were critical of the Government cutting development partnership support for the very governance and transparency for Palestine that we will need in the future.

The previous Government perpetuated a cut of 80% to ODA for Palestine, which this Government are continuing. I hope that the Minister might review this, to ensure that the UK’s support for good governance increases and does not continue to fall. The travesty of the Trump Administration’s failed humanitarian agency shows the need for there to be clarity, law and order, and good governance.

Finally, I hope that the Minister will be able to confirm that the sanctions regime that will be put in place will ensure that all those involved in circumvention of the sanctions regime will be caught within it, so that there is no impunity for those within this country, under our law, to continue to support the expansion of outposts that are illegal under Israeli law.

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

I thank the noble Lords, Lord Callanan and Lord Purvis, for their comments. I will answer their questions in a minute, but I think it might be helpful to give a little bit of context that will help me provide some of the answers they are looking for.

This Government think that the situation in Palestine is a moral emergency. We all know—we can see with our eyes—what the Israeli Government have inflicted on the people of Gaza. It is an outrage. There is increasing evidence that war crimes appear to have been committed in Gaza, and we are witnessing unprecedented violence, including settler terrorism, in the West Bank.

What the Foreign Secretary announced yesterday was a decision not to stand by and let this happen. We are going to be stronger in standing up for what is right and bolder in the action we take.

What is striking is that all parties—the Liberal Democrats, Conservative and Labour, at the very least, but others as well—support the two-state solution, as the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, eloquently stated at the outset of his remarks: freedom, security and self-determination for both Palestinian and Israeli people.

This action is designed to defend this policy at a time when the already diminishing prospects for that solution are under serious threat. That is why we have concluded that Israel’s ongoing occupation of Palestinian territory is unlawful, in line with the International Court of Justice’s advisory opinion in 2024. That is why we have brought in the various sanctions regime measures that the Foreign Secretary talked about yesterday. I am happy to talk about those in more detail in a minute in response to some of these questions.

Turning to the questions from the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, it is striking that he started his remarks by supporting our policy but is unwilling to support the means by which we prosecute our policy at a time when it is needed most. He asked whether our actions would undermine influence. How Israel responds is a matter for Israel, just as our foreign policy is a matter for us. We have very strong and continuing security co-operation with Israel. That will continue. It is in the interests of our country, Israel, the wider region and the West in general.

The noble Lord also asked about support. We have support most notably from the Palestinian representatives of the people whom these measures affect most. We also have support directly from France and Canada, which aligned their policies yesterday, the day that the Foreign Secretary announced our new approach, and 12 other countries, as the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, said, which are going to support economic measures to pursue the same goal.

The noble Lord asked about legislation for sanctions. It is a good question. There is a series of separate things. We are taking immediate action under existing legislation to target individual settlers—an action that the Conservative Government also took against individual settlers a few years ago. We are going to extend the global human rights regime to include violations of humanitarian law. We expect that to be brought into force in the next few weeks. In the longer term, as the noble Lord said, it will take six months or more to develop a new, targeted approach to companies that assist or profit from the expansion of settlements. There are challenges in bringing that about. There is no doubt about it. There will be tough cases, particularly as we are committed to protecting the integrity of trade with green-line Israel. But we are confident that we have a sophisticated sanctions regime, with various institutions that have played a part in applying sanctions elsewhere. I have taken decisions in my short time in this job with regard to Russia, for example. We have sophisticated co-ordination between HMRC, OTSI, OFSI and other bodies that we are confident can deliver a manageable regime.

The noble Lord asked about timing in advance of the elections. The elections, as the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, said more eloquently than I could, are a matter for the Israeli people. Our responsibility is to our country and to advance a policy that defends the commitments that are shared not just across parties but, we believe, across the country.

On Hamas, let me be absolutely clear that there should be no place for Hamas in the future governance of Palestine. We have taken strong action on the proscription of Hamas. We will continue to take strong action against Hamas in funding and also against individuals. At the moment, the priority is to support the United States’ 20-point plan. That is a crucial plank for achieving the restoration of order and peace in the region. However, we will not hesitate to use the powers we have to target Hamas individually and collectively in the future.

The noble Lord asked about the Chief Rabbi’s comments. I have huge respect for the Chief Rabbi, but I disagree with his conclusion. Antisemitism is a scourge not just in our country but elsewhere. It is something that everyone should take hugely seriously and do the utmost to stamp out, but the Government have to be able to take decisions about the foreign policy of another Government. They have to have the freedom to do that. As the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, again eloquently said, we should all condemn eliding the distinction between British Jews and the responsibilities they have and the Israeli Government and the responsibilities they have. We should deny that connection.

I turn now to the questions from the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, who supported much of yesterday’s announcement, and I am very grateful for that. He is right to point to the number of countries that have co-ordinated in aligning themselves with the Foreign Secretary’s new approach yesterday—and he is also right to point to the cross-party routes of action against settlers. The quote from Lord Carrington shows that action against settlers is not a new part of Labour Government policy; it is a consistent theme that goes back to distinguished members of both parties, and other parties, for a very long time.

I, too, have visited areas where—let us be honest—settlers have wreaked havoc and caused misery and destruction. I went with the Foreign Secretary, when he was leader of the Labour Party, to the E1 area, where we met and dined with a Bedouin community who had been there for decades and were being forcibly expelled by settler violence. The noble Lord put his finger on the key rationale here: once you take a position on the legality of the occupation, as we have done, our trade policy aligning with that is not just an extra but a duty. That is the policy that was announced yesterday, and it is why we are targeting not only those who perpetrate settler violence but also, in future, individual companies that will seek to assist settlement expansion and profit from it. He is right also to point to the need to ensure Hamas is not involved in future Palestinian governance arrangements, and to say that the UK needs to play a strong part in supporting good governance in Palestine. My noble friend Lord Barber plays an important part as an envoy on Palestinian governance, and we have a range of support measures that we will continue to provide.

On the last point about sanction circumvention, the noble Lord is absolutely right that a regime that is not easily evaded needs to be devised. The regime will be based on postcode declarations, an established mechanism that is used elsewhere. There is a combination of activity by HMRC, the Office of Trade Sanctions Implementation and the Office of Financial Sanctions Implementation, which have worked together in many ways for a long time. They will continue to do so to ensure that this regime is as watertight as we can make it.

[Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Wilson of Sedgefield) (Lab)]

My Lords, before we go on to the next 20 minutes, which is for Back-Bench questions only, if we have short questions and not statements or speeches, we will be able to get in as many noble Lords as possible. Bearing that in mind, we will start with the Conservatives and work around the Chamber.

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his answers to the two Front Benches, and note the proud tradition of the Conservative Party —not just Lord Carrington, who called out the E1 settlement which was the trigger here, but successive Conservative Prime Ministers also. I declare my interests in working for organisations that have been resolving conflict in the Middle East. I have two practical questions to ask the Minister.

In response to British sanctions—and I agree with him that the Conservative Government initiated the sanctions regime to which he refers—what are the practical consequences of the closure of the consulate in Jerusalem in terms of Palestinian representation? Also importantly, what engagement do we directly have with the Israelis—because many in Israel wish to see a final agreement and settlement so there is security and peace for Palestinians and Israelis—to ensure that this vision, which has gone on for far too long, turns into a working, practical reality?

[Lord Wood of Anfield (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lord for that question. He is right that we were disappointed that the Israeli response was to close the UK consulate in East Jerusalem, with a 30-day notice period. We will continue to endeavour to provide in other ways the kind of activities that the consulate provided. There are other measures that Israel responded with, though none affecting security. It is, of course, its right to respond in the way it sees fit. The noble Lord is also right that there has to be dialogue with those forces in Israeli society who want peace and see cross-community co-operation as the future. That is something that this Government are going to support, and the Foreign Secretary is very keen to support it as well.

[Lord Palmer of Childs Hill (LD)]

My Lords, I declare an interest as the president of the Liberal Democrat Friends of Israel. In that context, we unequivocally oppose the expansion of Israeli settlements in the West Bank and condemn settler violence. Those responsible for the violence should face the full force of the law. However, the Government’s decision to ban trade with settlements is, in my view, the wrong response at the wrong time. Announced just before the Israeli elections, which are next month, this strengthens the far right of Ben-Gvir and Smotrich, who claim that Israel is under siege, pushing voters away from the less hard-line parties and weakening Israelis’ hope for change. Britain should refrain from acts that will influence Israeli elections, which, as I say, are next month. We would not like it if a foreign country were doing that during the course of the UK elections. We should be supporting moderates. The Minister mentioned—

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Wilson of Sedgefield (Lab)]

Would the noble Lord like to sit down, please? He has had ample time to make his point.

[Lord Wood of Anfield (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lord for those comments. He obviously speaks with great authority and passionate interest in this subject. I agree that we should be supporting moderates—not intervening politically to support them, but supporting moderate voices across Israeli society and within the Palestinian Authority. Serious reform needs to be done in the Palestinian area as well.

I want to be clear that, while obviously a new Prime Minister and a new Cabinet are in place, the reason for the timing of this announcement is a sharp rise in settler violence; an accelerating expansion of settlements; a new tender process in the E1 settlement area that was issued in August—which, by the way, completes a week before the Israeli election; and a consistent failure by many of those in power in Israel to hold those who perpetrate violence to account. That is the explanation for the timing.

Israel’s elections will proceed according to Israeli law, and we will not intervene in Israeli politics. We have to make decisions based on the facts that we see. The new Government have come in and made an assessment, and that is why we responded when we did.

[Lord Pannick (CB)]

Will the Minister recognise the wisdom of the statement yesterday by the much-respected president of the State of Israel, Isaac Herzog, who said that what is needed in this context is constructive dialogue, not gesture politics. Is it not therefore most unfortunate that, since the appointment of Prime Minister Burnham in July, he is yet even to speak to Prime Minister Netanyahu?

[Lord Wood of Anfield]

I thank the noble Lord for that question. Dialogue is, of course, fundamental to the way forward in this as in any comparable crisis, and in any complex situation like this. President Herzog urged dialogue. When it comes to the expansion of settlements, though, there seems to be precious little dialogue going on domestically to restrain an accelerating and deeply disturbing trend. I will give the House some statistics: as the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, said, there were about 250,000 settlers in 1993 at the time of Oslo, but in 2026 there are 750,000. There are six settler violence incidents per day, with 65 Palestinian communities expelled in their entirety since 2023. I absolutely agree with the need for dialogue, and I think dialogue should be the first port of call between Israel’s Government and the settler community.

I am sorry, I forget the second part of the noble Lord’s question. I do apologise.

[Baroness Elliott of Whitburn Bay (Lab)]

My Lords, I warmly welcome the Statement by the Foreign Secretary yesterday, particularly the tone in which he delivered it. I truly believe that the calling out of the illegal occupation, and the sanctions on the illegal settlements, is a game-changer in progressing towards peace in the region. While that is happening, and the implementation is key, can my noble friend the Minister say what actions the Government are taking to bring force to bear on some of the other actors in the region, such as Iran and its proxies?

[Lord Wood of Anfield (Lab)]

I thank my noble friend for that question. It is absolutely right that the action we took yesterday, in announcing a new policy on sanctions with regard to the West Bank, was accompanied by further strong action against Iran, in particular by taking action against the supply chain for its nuclear programme. The Labour Government have already—last year—reapplied the snapback mechanism, as some noble Lords know, for United Nations resolutions. We yesterday announced further actions targeting the financial trade, energy and transport sectors, and are targeting financial assistance and the banking of Iranian companies, for those companies connected to the nuclear programme. We are going to expand the sanctioning of vessels involved in activities supporting the nuclear programme. We also took action yesterday in proscribing al-Qard al-Hassan, the financing arm of Hezbollah in Lebanon. Taking strong action against Iran and its proxies, as my noble friend said, is a crucial part of ensuring that Israel remains secure.

[The Archbishop of York]

My Lords, like others in this House, I came face to face with settler militia and the impact on settlements while visiting the south Hebron hills last year. Therefore, with many on these Benches, I welcome this Statement. We have called for such principled action over many years. We believe that these measures are just, necessary and, frankly, overdue, although we also want to emphasise that, in acting against specific policies of the Israeli Government, we of course remain unreservedly opposed to the evils of antisemitism, here in the UK and everywhere. I have a specific question. Does the Minister accept, given the E1 tenders—E1 has already been mentioned, but I think tenders are coming up on 19 October and are about to be opened—that further measures are needed to deter Israeli banks from guaranteeing such bids?

[Lord Wood of Anfield (Lab)]

I thank the most reverend Primate for those comments. He is right that the E1 settlement tender process finishes on 19 October. Our announcement yesterday is a signal that any company which wants to take part in any of the construction-related processes in that tender should think twice, because we are bringing forward steps that, although not a blanket services ban at all, are targeted measures to focus on any company that assists or profits from the expansion of settlements. I appreciate also his comments at the beginning about broad support for this policy. I should also point out that it is not just Muslim Palestinians who are the victims of settlement expansion. Palestinian Christians have seen terrible suffering, including arson attacks and attacks on churches. In Taybeh, I believe the fifth-century St Peter’s Church was attacked. They have seen their land taken away, so this is action in support of Palestinians of all descriptions who have experienced those horrors in the face of settler violence.

[Lord Shinkwin (Con)]

My Lords—

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Wood of Anfield (Lab)]

Absolutely not. There is and must be no connection between the actions of the Israeli Government and any attribution of responsibility to British Jews. That is a connection that we totally deny. The new Prime Minister has shown his commitment. The reason why this investment needs to be provided is because there has been, over time, a shocking rise in antisemitic incidents. Everyone can see it. Just last week we commemorated the upcoming anniversary of the appalling Heaton Park attack. That was followed by antisemitic attacks in Golders Green, including on the Hatzola ambulances. Antisemitic incidents are, shockingly, on the rise, not just here but across countries. That is why we will provide over £300 million, in fact, over three years to protect Jewish communities and tackle antisemitism. That is why the Foreign Secretary is meeting the J7, the group of countries with the largest Jewish populations, in October. It is a priority for the new Prime Minister; he has made that clear already. That commitment will remain absolute, and I hope it enjoys cross-party support.

[Lord Mohammed of Tinsley (LD)]

My Lords, I welcome the Foreign Secretary’s Statement. Ever since Mr Rabin’s tragic death in the mid-1990s, the Palestinians have been strung along with the hope of an independent state, and people such as Mr Netanyahu have done everything possible to hinder it. This E1 is the final straw that will break the camel’s back. I also welcome the Foreign Secretary’s comments around our extension of the global human rights sanctions regime, which has enabled us to target those responsible for violations of international humanitarian law, whether in Gaza or elsewhere. Will that be extended to Mr Netanyahu or Mr Gallant, for whom there are already arrest warrants, or to those individual soldiers seen on various videos committing crimes against humanity, whether in the Gaza Strip or in the West Bank, where settlers and the police are colluding to target and shoot dead innocent Palestinians?

[Lord Wood of Anfield (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lord for those questions. He is absolutely right that the cause of the overwhelming majority of decent Palestinians has been neglected for too long. I hope this starts to correct some of that. On global human rights reforms, we are beefing up the existing regime—by the way, this is a universal regime rather than targeted on specific countries—to include not just those who abuse human rights but those who violate international humanitarian law in Palestine and throughout the world. That does not stop us using existing global human rights regimes to target individual settlers. That is why five individuals were targeted yesterday.

[Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)]

My Lords, do the Government consider that the Government of Israel have the right to order us to close the consulate in east Jerusalem, given that it is situated in east Jerusalem, which is recognised by the United Nations and practically all its members as being occupied Palestinian territory over which Israel does not have sovereignty? Can he say whether we are going to contest the attempt to order us to close the consulate, which is both disproportionate and ultra vires?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Wood of Anfield (Lab)]

The noble Lord, Lord Hannay, knows much more about this than I do; I feel like I am in my introductory day at the Foreign Office, trying to work out difficult questions. He may have a point; it is an interesting point on the legality. De facto, Israel can prevent the operation of that consulate, which is why we are endeavouring to ensure that the consulate’s functions will be provided in another way.

[Baroness Altmann (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, can the noble Lord give us some examples of where the Palestinians have accepted a two-state solution? Israel has accepted it. As a British Jew, I would welcome it. The Government must know—if they do not, they should, I hope, take note—that the Jews in this country have felt under attack and under pressure from the double standards that seem to be applied to the only Jewish state in the world, which is surrounded by enemies and trying to defend itself, while the Palestinian Authority is getting aid and still supports the “pay for slay” policy. Will the Minister please explain how these double standards can be acceptable?

[Lord Wood of Anfield (Lab)]

I thank the noble Baroness for her question; she has great interest and expertise in this issue. The two-state solution is expected on all parties—Palestinians and Israelis. It is something we expect the leaders of the Palestinian Authority and of Israel to support, and we want their actions to match their commitment. On both sides, symmetrically, where actions fall short, we will take action with our foreign policy.

[Baroness Blackstone (Lab)]

My Lords, I commend the Foreign Secretary on both the tone and content of his Statement on the West Bank and Gaza. Moreover, I regret the hypocrisy of those opposite who claim to support a two-state solution yet refuse to endorse actions against the Israeli Government, whose settlement policy is making such a solution impossible. I also wonder why they do not condemn their continual breaking of international law on occupation. As so often, the Israeli Government have over-reacted, including by deciding to close the British consulate. More than one speaker has raised this issue. Will particular care be taken to ensure that Palestinians wishing to get visas to come to the UK, who would normally do that through the consulate, will be able to do so? Finally, will the Government make it clear to the Israeli Government that the measures produced yesterday have the overwhelming support of the British population, as demonstrated by polling information? That should be taken into account in any constructive dialogue that takes place.

[Lord Wood of Anfield (Lab)]

I thank the noble Baroness for those questions; she has raised an important point. Down the line, I would be interested to find out whether the Conservative Party agrees with the advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice in 2024. We have made our decision; I would be interested to find out what the position of the Conservatives and other parties is. On the provision of consular services, including visa provision, as I said earlier, we will endeavour to provide functional replacements for what was provided by the consulate in East Jerusalem, once it is forced to close after 30 days. On the last point, about public support, I strongly believe that, while the position the Foreign Secretary outlined yesterday clearly does not express everyone’s view—this is an issue that sometimes divides in passionate ways—it expresses a broad majority support for taking action against some of the violence and turning of a blind eye by the Israeli Government, particularly in settler areas.

Saudi Arabia: Nuclear Power Programme

Lord Wood of Anfield Excerpts

Tuesday 1st September 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Lamont of Lerwick]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what representations they have made to the government of the United States of America about their proposal to help the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia develop a nuclear power programme.

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

My Lords, the UK Government regularly discuss civil nuclear matters with the United States Government, including through our representations to the International Atomic Energy Agency in Vienna. The proposed agreement is a matter for the Governments of the United States and Saudi Arabia. The United Kingdom supports the expansion of civil nuclear energy, both in the UK and internationally, alongside robust safeguards, safety, security and non-proliferation measures overseen by the International Atomic Energy Agency.

[Lord Lamont of Lerwick (Con)]

My Lords, may I be the first from this side of the House to congratulate the Minister on his appointment? Our Select Committee is left all the poorer by his elevation. Have the Government been able to see the full text of the agreement between Saudi Arabia and America, which is very profitable for American business but, if reports are to be believed, does not contain similar safeguards to those in other treaties applied in that area of the world? For example, press reports indicate that there are no safeguards for independent international inspection and no mention of uranium enrichment or the additional protocol of the non-proliferation treaty. Surely the safeguards applied in the past to countries such as the United Arab Emirates ought to apply equally to an agreement with Saudi Arabia.

[Lord Wood of Anfield (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lord for those kind comments. It is a real pleasure that the first Question I answer is from, if not my noble friend then my friend, the noble Lord, Lord Lamont. On his Question, as the deal has not been published, we cannot comment on the nature of the detail. However, it is reassuring that the United States and Saudi Arabia are parties to the nuclear non-proliferation treaty. Saudi Arabia has a comprehensive safeguards agreement with the International Atomic Energy Agency, so there is reason to have confidence that the process in place will provide the safeguards that the noble Lord looks for.

[Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)]

My Lords, I welcome the Minister to the Dispatch Box. Does he agree with the noble Lord, Lord Lamont, that this agreement would be greatly strengthened if it made it quite clear that it would not cover enrichment or reprocessing of spent fuel, both of which would be a serious risk to non-proliferation and likely to lead to even greater proliferation in the Gulf?

[Lord Wood of Anfield (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lord for that and share with him a concern in general, of course, that all parties to the non-proliferation treaty exercise their obligations. The UK has long supported strong and effective safeguards arrangements, including the IAEA additional protocol, which the noble Lord mentions. We do not know what the nature of this deal is because, as I said before, it has not been published and we cannot really comment on it, but in addition to the fact that both parties are states parties to the NPT, and that Saudi Arabia has a comprehensive safeguards agreement, we know that there are bilateral safeguards agreed as part of this deal.

[Lord Bruce of Bennachie (LD)]

My Lords, given that Russia is building nuclear power stations in Turkey and Egypt, is not the concern about proliferation real? Is not the noble Lord, Lord Lamont, right to say that the problem with this agreement is lack of transparency, compared with the UAE agreement, which has no processing and no nuclear enrichment? Is that not the model which should be followed? Should not the UK be using its influence to try to persuade the Americans to publish the agreement and abide by those safeguards, and not encourage another nuclear arms race?

[Lord Wood of Anfield (Lab)]

The noble Lord raises an important point about transparency. The UK works extremely closely with the United States across a wide range of issues, including civil nuclear co-operation. But to go back, this is an agreement that will be lodged with the IAEA. There are bilateral safeguards, as well as a general obligation that comes from the comprehensive safeguards agreement. Those are the due processes that should be in place when civil nuclear co-operation deals occur.

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

My Lords, I also extend my welcome to the noble Lord in his new role. I look forward to working with him and am sure that we will have lots of fruitful and mutually beneficial exchanges across this Dispatch Box. We have a long-standing and important relationship with Saudi Arabia. Our principal focus in the region at the moment should be re-establishing free and open navigation of the Strait of Hormuz. Can the Minister say what progress is being made towards that end?

[Lord Wood of Anfield (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lord for those welcoming remarks—stretching “fruitful” too much, perhaps, but I hope not. I look forward to engaging with and working with him. We continue to believe that a diplomatic settlement around the Strait of Hormuz is the only way of not only resolving the economic dislocation that has resulted from the conflict but preventing Iran obtaining a nuclear weapon. Iran must never be allowed to develop a nuclear weapon and our position on its nuclear programme remains unchanged. My right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary and others in the Government are playing their part in trying to ensure that a ceasefire holds and that a diplomatic resolution is the ultimate result of what happens in the Strait of Hormuz.

[Lord Spellar (Lab)]

My Lords, I also welcome my noble friend to his position. We might be in a better position to exercise influence in the nuclear sphere, in Saudi Arabia and elsewhere, if we had the capacity to be able to sell to them. Small modular reactors might give much better control, but we can do that only if the department of energy and others get a move on with the British model, particularly the Rolls-Royce, which has been pre-selected and preferred. If we get that going then we will have something to sell to them. That will also help us to enable a safer use of nuclear power for the future.

[Lord Wood of Anfield (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lord for that. In my first few days in my job, I had many discussions with my counterparts across countries talking about British leadership in SMRs—small modular reactors. I agree that it is an exciting area for the future. We support responsible expansion of civil nuclear power and work closely with the Saudis in nuclear co-operation and dialogue on this issue. There are opportunities for British companies, not just in Saudi but elsewhere, in particular in the areas that the noble Lord discussed.

[Lord Singh of Wimbledon (CB)]

My Lords, is it not a matter of concern that the United States is helping a country that was responsible for the 9/11 attacks—one that dismembered a dissenting journalist, carries out the death penalty on minors and discriminates against women—to develop this nuclear capacity, while threatening another equally odious regime, assassinating its leader and threatening to bomb its people into the Stone Age? Is this not a matter of concern?

[Lord Wood of Anfield (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lord for that question. We speak freely and honestly with the Saudis on human rights and a range of other issues, and we will continue to do so. However, the Saudis are, of course, commercial partners and important security allies. The key thing for reassurance on issues such as this is the international treaty framework within which such treaties will be conducted. The reassurance comes from the fact that both the US and Saudi Arabia are parties to the NPT; that the IAEA will be in receipt of the treaty, which includes bilateral safeguards; and that both countries have comprehensive safeguards agreements in place.

[Baroness Rawlings (Con)]

My Lords, have the Government had any conversations with the Sultanate of Oman?

[Lord Wood of Anfield (Lab)]

We have regular discussions with all our Gulf partners. I will leave it at that.

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)]

My Lords, with the Chief Whip’s permission, and drawing attention to my interests on the register, I welcome the noble Lord to his position and look forward to working with him. In the context of the responses he has given, what assessment have His Majesty’s Government made of the Mecca agreement—a further agreement between the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and Türkiye that was signed recently—in relation to the overall issue of stabilisation and security in the region?

[Lord Wood of Anfield (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lord. I am afraid that I am unsighted on that, for which I apologise. I am still getting my feet under the desk. I will get back to the noble Lord with feedback on that.

[Lord Kamall (Con)]

My Lords, I also welcome the Minister to his position. He said, quite rightly, that the United States has not yet shared the text of the treaty. However, since that treaty has been signed, what conversations has his right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary had with counterparts in the US Government to understand, in general terms, what is inside the treaty?

[Lord Wood of Anfield (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lord for that question. The Foreign Secretary has met with Secretary of State Rubio twice in the first four weeks of his job: once at the ASEAN summit and once when he flew to Washington. They discussed a range of issues and will continue to do so. The treaty itself has to go through a rather complicated congressional procedure, which will be conducted in secret. As I said, we do not have the text and it is difficult to comment on the details, but I hope noble Lords who have shared concerns are reassured by the process that is already in place.

Nepal: Flooding

Lord Wood of Anfield Excerpts

Tuesday 1st September 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Lancaster of Kimbolton (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I declare my interest as Deputy Colonel Commandant, Brigade of Gurkhas.

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

My Lords, I start by saying that I am sure that the thoughts of everyone in this House are with all those affected, including the families and loved ones of British nationals missing in this tragedy. The impacts of flooding in Nepal are devastating, as we all can see. The Question is about Nepal, but I remind noble Lords that China is also affected.

In response, the UK Government have provided £5 million in immediate humanitarian assistance. We are looking at how else we can help the response effort. In support of British nationals and their families, Foreign Office staff and our embassy teams are working round the clock. Rapid deployment teams have been sent to Nepal, which will bolster our ability to support British nationals and their families. We have also sent specialist humanitarian experts to support the response. We continue to be in very close contact with the Nepalese Government. The Foreign Secretary spoke to Nepali Foreign Minister Shisir Khanal on Thursday; he expressed Britain’s solidarity with Nepal and offered our deepest condolences. Our thoughts are with all those affected, and we will continue to support both the people and the Government of Nepal.

[Lord Lancaster of Kimbolton (Non-Afl)]

I thank the Minister for his reply and echo his comments: the thoughts of your Lordships’ House are with the friends and families of those affected and we thank all our staff at the embassy in Kathmandu, many of whom I know, who are doing a fantastic job. I have three quick questions. First, will the Minister pay particular attention to the National Disaster Risk Reduction and Management Authority? This fledgling unit in the Nepalese Government is co-ordinating all the international support. If it needs further assistance, I hope that we will give it.

Secondly, looking beyond the immediate crisis, Nepal’s biggest test is yet to come: how to build back differently and not replicate the vulnerabilities that this disaster has exposed. Drawing on UK strengths in science, risk modelling and climate finance, will the Minister commit long-term support to help Nepal become a global example of how countries understand, manage and finance climate risk while growing their economies?

Thirdly, I make a very personal plea, perhaps on behalf of the Brigade of Gurkhas. Its members would not forgive me if I did not express their desire, as they did after the earthquake in 2015, to deploy and support their fellow countrymen in the rebuilding of their country. I recognise that is down to a request from Nepal and to HMG.

[Lord Wood of Anfield (Lab)]

I start by paying tribute to the noble Lord, not just for his lifetime of service in military and government occupations and political roles but for his passion and commitment to Nepal, and the Gurkhas in particular. On his first point, he is absolutely right that Britain has supported Nepal on disaster risk, and we should definitely continue to support the authority that he mentioned. The £5 million package that I mentioned builds on about £100 million of UK support, which has developed Nepal’s climate resilience over the past 10 to 20 years with strengthening resilience funds, a climate smart development fund and a resilience adaptation fund. There is strong partnership in those dimensions, and it will continue.

On his second point, I very much like the way the noble Lord expressed the ideal of helping Nepal build back differently. As he said, we have the science, business and political capacity to provide the kind of support that would enable that.

Thirdly, I pay tribute to the Gurkhas and I appreciate the noble Lord’s reference to them. As he said, the support we are offering has to be led by the Nepalese Government and partners on the ground. I assure noble Lords that the support we are continuing to provide is changing as the needs change in the development of this crisis and as the kinds of challenges that the Nepalese are facing evolve.

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

My Lords, I welcome the Minister to his post and I wish him the very best in carrying out his role. I know that he has visited Nepal and that he will be acutely aware of the impact of this disaster. I associate these Benches with the words of the noble Lord, Lord Lancaster. We support the efforts of the Government and our embassy staff in offering support.

I will ask the Minister a broader question on the crisis reserve. In 2017, the OECD reported that the UK humanitarian crisis reserve stood at £500 million. In March this year, the noble Baroness, Lady Chapman, told the Commons International Development Committee that it currently stands at a fifth of that, at £100 million, as a result of UK development assistance cuts. Will the Minister, in his new role, work with colleagues to try to restore the party consensus that existed before the development cuts to ensure that at least one area that can be restored would be the humanitarian crisis reserve? We know, regrettably, that that will be needed in the future.

[Lord Wood of Anfield (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lord for the welcome, and I very much look forward to working with him. I also take the opportunity, based on the noble Lord’s remarks on our Foreign Office staff, to thank them personally for the amount of work that they are doing. They are working round the clock to support British nationals and their families in incredibly confusing and difficult conditions. I pay tribute to them and thank them for that.

On the crisis reserve, I would love to establish a cross-party consensus. It is a matter of public record that the Government have made tough decisions on ODA. I am pleased to say that the response of the UK Government in the past week on Nepal has been full and comprehensive. It is in partnership and observes all the principles that a good crisis response should. Yes, there are financial challenges, and I am sure that we will return to those. Of course, there are issues that arise from the budget decisions that have been made, but I am pleased to say that the UK Government’s crisis response has so far been exemplary and of huge help to the Nepalese Government.

[Lord Swire (Con)]

My Lords, we all welcome what the Government are doing in terms of responding to the tragedy that has unfolded over the last few weeks in Nepal. Could the Minister take back to his colleagues in the FCDO the question of Bhutan? It shares many of the same characteristics as Nepal, but we have no permanent diplomatic representation in Bhutan, and it sometimes gets overlooked. When they are undertaking these studies, particularly around preventing these things and the early warning equipment that Bhutan has very little of, could he please discuss these matters with his colleagues?

[Lord Wood of Anfield (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lord for that. It is an extremely important point. Sadly, this will not be the last incident of this sort, and there are lots of countries that share geographical, climate and economic features that we can learn from. Cross-referencing the successes and shortcomings of how the world has responded to this is an important issue across countries, including Bhutan.

[Lord Beamish (Lab)]

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Lancaster, mentioned the Gurkhas. Our thoughts are with all those who serve in British forces and with their families in Nepal. Could the Minister say what support is being given to the Gurkha Welfare Trust and other organisations that support Gurkha veterans in Nepal?

[Lord Wood of Anfield (Lab)]

I apologise to the noble Lord; I do not have details on that. I will definitely come back to him with more details on the kind of support that we are offering.

[Lord Bilimoria (CB)]

My Lords, I was brought up with the Gurkhas from birth, and my late father, General Bilimoria, was president of the Gurkha Brigade in India. To follow on from the previous question and what the major-general, the noble Lord, Lord Lancaster, said, what specific help are the Government giving to the Gurkhas in this country whose families have been affected by this awful tragedy, including the Gurkha Welfare Trust? Are the UK Government working with the Indian Government, because there are many pilgrims, including pilgrims from here, who have gone from India to Mount Kailash and have been tragically affected by this? Are we co-ordinating with India?

[Lord Wood of Anfield (Lab)]

Let me say a little bit more about the kind of support that we are offering. We have deployed consular staff to the region, who are providing 24/7 assistance and advice to family and friends worried about loved ones in Nepal, China and the UK. UK policing is also supporting the response through the deployment of family liaison officers to the families of those affected. They are providing dedicated support to affected families in the UK.

[Lord Camoys (Con)]

My Lords, I too congratulate the Minister on his new appointment. I declare my interest as chair of the UK charity Nepal Nature Trust, and as a member of the governing board of Nepal’s National Trust for Nature Conservation. The UK Met Office previously helped Nepal develop flood early-warning systems. Will the Government now build on that work and help develop the Himalayan equivalent of a tsunami warning system that would work across borders and would be capable of detecting sudden glacial collapses such as that seen last week, which current systems were not able to deal with, giving downstream communities precious minutes to reach safety?

[Lord Wood of Anfield (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lord for that question. He points to an important element that I referred to in answer to an earlier question about lessons that need to be learned not just by consular, political and other bodies but by scientists. The Met Office will, I am sure, play a huge part in this because of the international collaborations that it already has and will continue to have.

[Lord Hussain (LD)]

My Lords, according to many international organisations, including the national development programme, India and Pakistan are among the nations at the highest risk of cloudbursts and glacier bursts. What are our Government doing to help those countries to put in early warning signs and other measures to deal with these catastrophes when they happen?

[Lord Wood of Anfield (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lord for that. Part of bilateral assistance includes climate support across the piece regularly, including to India and Pakistan. I think it is fair to say that as a result of this catastrophe, which is what it is, there will have to be a focus on updating the kind of support that will need to be provided, not just by the UK Government but by partners across the world, for countries that may face similar challenges, and I am sure that that is work that we will be leading and are looking forward to.

[Lord Popat (Con)]

My Lords, we have a very special relationship with Nepal, especially the Gurkha soldiers serving the British Army for the last six decades. What happened was tragic and I welcome the financial support that the Government are giving, but I think we need to give more. They need food and medical supplies, they need emergency shelter and, particularly while a lot of bodies are still under mud, rescue, logistics, temporary reconstruction of housing and, of course, infrastructure restoration. I am sure that we can do more than we have done so far. Can the Minister please take it to his office and discuss and debate this to see what more we can do to help Nepal in this difficult time?

[Lord Wood of Anfield (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lord. I think this is a good opportunity for me to say a little bit about the kind of support we are providing. We are providing up to £750,000 through the Red Cross movement for emergency humanitarian assistance—for clean water, shelter, first aid and supplies—up to £1 million through Start Fund Nepal for local organisations that are delivering life-saving assistance, and up to £250,000 to deploy UK humanitarian experts and strengthen co-ordination efforts.

On top of that, of course, there are the contributions of the World Bank and the Asian Development Bank, to which we are contributors, so there is a lot of support. I want to reassure the noble Lord, who is completely right to say that a bewildering variety of needs will have to be served, that we are in close contact with the Nepalese Government and authorities about the kind of support that we can offer: where it is complementary to what they are providing, where it is being provided anyway, and where there are gaps that in future will need to be filled. Those are exactly the conversations that are ongoing, with a view to exactly the priorities he discussed.

[Baroness Stuart of Edgbaston (CB)]

My Lords, will the Minister join me in paying tribute to Rajendra Dawadi, the head teacher who saved 900 schoolchildren from the floods, and hundreds more by alerting the bus drivers so they did not deliver them to the school? It is an example of individual heroism that I think we should acknowledge.

[Lord Wood of Anfield (Lab)]

I thank the noble Baroness for that example; I do join her in that. Like other noble Lords, I have been struck by the extraordinary human stories over the past week. I think it is worth saying again that we can only imagine the horror and terror of family members who have no idea where their family members are at this moment. It is a tragedy that is full of extraordinary heroism, but also deep horror and confusion, and I am glad that the UK Government are playing their part in supporting as much as possible.

[The Earl of Courtown (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his contributions and his update on this devastating event that happened in Nepal. I also join other noble Lords in sending our condolences to the families of the victims and our support for those responding, whether as part of our diplomatic service or from other countries, and the Nepalese people. However, we have heard a lot about what has been happening in Nepal, but I wonder whether the Minister can contribute a little more about what is actually happening in Tibet and under the Chinese authorities. Are there any British nationals who are facing difficulties there, and have we any idea of the number of British nationals in that part of the world?

[Lord Wood of Anfield (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lord for that statement, which I agree with, and for raising the issue of China. This has been discussed as a Nepalese issue but, as we know, partly because of the pilgrimage that a lot of people were on, this is a passage that goes across the Nepalese and Chinese border. To give an update on numbers, we have 36 British people currently unaccounted for. We are working with the Chinese authorities as well as the Nepalese authorities. It would be unfair to say anything more about the individual cases of British nationals, but those are the cases that the British consular authorities and British support are catering to at the moment.