United Nations Security Council Debate
Full Debate: Read Full DebateDepartment: Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office
Baroness Anelay of St Johns
Main Page: Baroness Anelay of St Johns (Conservative - Life peer)Department Debates - View all Baroness Anelay of St Johns's debates with the Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office
United Nations Security Council
Baroness Anelay of St Johns Excerpts(1 year, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Anelay of St Johns
To ask His Majesty’s Government what plans they have to achieve reform of the membership and powers of the United Nations Security Council.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns (Con)
My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper and, in so doing, remind the House of my unpaid interest as chair of the United Nations Association of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon) (Con)
My Lords, the United Kingdom Government support UN Security Council reform. We support an expansion in the council membership, with new permanent seats for India, Germany, Japan and Brazil, and permanent African representation. We support the expansion of the non-permanent membership to take the total membership to the mid-20s. We also support responsible use of the veto. We participate in regular discussions on UN Security Council reform at the UN, including through the General Assembly-mandated intergovernmental negotiations on this very issue.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns (Con)
My Lords, on this very date 77 years ago, the United Nations Security Council met for the first time, here in London. There has been much talk of reform and I very much welcome my noble friend’s words today, but nothing much seems to happen on reform of the powers and the membership. It is a different world from 77 years ago. My noble friend referred to the intergovernmental negotiations. What text-based information have we already tabled, in the light of our ambassador to the UN having said in November that this would be the best way of moving forward, getting away from making promises and good statements, and getting the job done? When my noble friend was there in December, and when my honourable friend Minister Rutley was there just last week, what discussions did they have on this matter of a text-based way forward?