Lord Purvis of Tweed
Main Page: Lord Purvis of Tweed (Liberal Democrat - Life peer)(1 day, 9 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate
The Earl of Courtown (Con)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for giving the House the opportunity to respond to the Government’s Statement in the other place on two of the most serious conflicts in the world today. Given that these are two distinct issues, I will address the situation in Gaza first and then move on to the conflict in Sudan.
The Government have been right to praise President Trump for his success in securing peace in Gaza. When the announcement that a peace deal had been reached was made, many were surprised. After two years of conflict, peace seemed a long way off. President Trump’s determination to secure peace was game-changing, and he deserves credit for this huge achievement.
We also welcome the UN Security Council’s decision to pass a US resolution in support of President Trump’s 20-point peace plan for Gaza. As the US ambassador, Mike Waltz, said, this is
“another significant step towards a stable Gaza”.
It is a step in the right direction, but there is still much work to do. The UN resolution included a mandate for the International Stabilization Force. On the UK’s role with the International Stabilization Force, the Foreign Secretary said in the other place:
“We do not expect the UK to contribute troops”.—[Official Report, Commons, 18/11/25; col. 636.]
Can the Minister please explain why the Foreign Secretary was not able to rule that out completely? What are the circumstances in which we would provide troops to play a role in the force?
The Foreign Secretary also confirmed that the UK is providing military and civilian deployment into the Civil-Military Coordination Center, which is US-led. This is an important contribution, and it is right that we play a full role in securing the peace. Can the Minister confirm what steps her department is taking to ensure that all Britons involved in these efforts are provided with the right advice to keep them safe? What contingencies has the Foreign Office put in place to support Britons working in the region, should the ceasefire fail?
Finally, we have been concerned for many months by the imbalance in the Government’s approach to Israel and Gaza respectively. Hamas must fully disarm: that is essential to the peace. What steps are the Government taking to ensure that Hamas will have no role in running Palestine?
Ministers will be aware that Germany has lifted its partial arms embargo on Israel in light of the ceasefire. Can the Minister update the House on the UK’s decision to suspend certain arms export licences? Have the Government commissioned new legal advice in light of the ceasefire? If not, when will Ministers do so? Can the Minister confirm what discussions Ministers have had with our allies to ensure that we remain focused on the return of the final three deceased hostages, so their families may grieve properly? I know I speak for the whole House when I say: may their memory be a blessing.
I turn to Sudan. The appalling atrocities that are being perpetrated in that conflict must be brought to an end. We have consistently called for the United Kingdom to spearhead efforts to secure a ceasefire, and the United Kingdom should play a strong role in sanctioning all those who are responsible for those atrocities. I understand that officials have been instructed to bring forward potential sanctions relating to human rights violations and abuses in Sudan. Can the Minister confirm when these sanctions will be implemented? As she is only too aware, we must move really quickly on all these items relating to Sudan.
On aid, given the extent of the physical obstacles to aid and the impassable routes, we know that His Majesty’s Government are looking into aid delivered by air. Time, once again, is the essential factor here. When will aid start being delivered directly to those who need it via air routes?
There have been concerning reports about British-made military equipment being used by forces involved in the conflict. Can the Minister please confirm what steps her department has taken to investigate these reports? When will those investigations be concluded and what action are the Government considering in light of these concerning reports? I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
I agree with the noble Earl: we thank the Government for bringing the Statement to Parliament and for this opportunity to ask questions of the Minister. Having asked for a Statement at every single opportunity since I became leader of the Liberal Democrats in the Lords, I note that this is the first one on Sudan since July—but it is welcome.
With regard to Gaza, we now have Resolution 2803 and, while it is positive that it is supported by the Palestinian Authority and the Arab states, it is worth noting that Palestinian statehood is not recognised as a right within it but is conditional. There is also a lack of reference to the continuing occupation.
The task ahead will be to move at pace with implementation and to begin peacebuilding. Peace remains an ambition, but the cessation of violence is an essential component. A credible pathway to Palestinian self-determination and statehood is now the agreed focus, and this is welcome. The most recent statements of Prime Minister Netanyahu and the right-wing elements of his Government, however, could not have been more clear: they believe that there should never be a two-state solution. How are His Majesty’s Government responding to this contradictory situation?
The UK can, as I have called for previously, provide an essential and practical service in the way forward, built on our expertise and experience in re-establishing education services, health services, law and order, and trusted judicial processes. Unless Hamas is disarmed, there will continue to be gangsterism and the threat will remain for Israeli civilians. The victims will also be Palestinian civilians. On the West Bank, I note even the Israeli President signalling his view this week of settler violence as “shocking” and crossing a “red line”. But a red line having been crossed, we would expect to see action, not impunity. I hope that the Government will continue their work on adding pressure to try to reduce the violence in the West Bank, which is now at unprecedented levels.
I have said previously that the task of reducing violence in the West Bank, the commencement of state building, and the work to clear rubble are a monumental task. It is 20 times the scale of the destruction of the Blitz in London in a quarter of the geographical footprint. But even this barely comprehensible destruction does not get close to matching the continuing horror in Sudan, a country that the House knows I have visited very frequently and that I love. In my ongoing work to support civilians, their bravery and resistance are a constant inspiration to me, but the urgency and scale of the atrocities need a comparable urgent and direct set of actions now.
In El Fasher in North Darfur, the latest credible estimates are that the total death toll in Gaza has happened in three weeks. It was signalled but not prevented, even though protection of civilian tools had been authorised by the Security Council and were available. The Minister will recall that before the Summer Recess I asked specifically what preventive actions were being taken. In the House, we discussed and even questioned the value of resolutions if they cannot be implemented. But this is the worst ethnic and genocidal atrocity since the mid-1990s, when the world was stained with Rwanda and vowed, “Never again”. It is happening now and it is about to get worse imminently unless action is taken.
It is now apparent that, as a result of a failure to prevent and the continuation of the supply of equipment and munitions to the RSF, it feels emboldened to commit further atrocities in El Obeid and Tawila. I say, with respect to our Government and other Governments around the world, that condemnation without action is not acceptable. As United Nations Security Council penholder, we have a global responsibility to secure co-ordination and then implementation of the protection of civilians.
The Independent Commission for Aid Impact report on Sudan made depressing reading—I know that the Minister will have studied it closely. From my experience, it is accurate. It is depressing to read that policy decisions have been made as a result of budget reductions, not through policy choices themselves. It is not only depressing but an outrage. The Foreign Secretary said in the House of Commons that there needed to be action, and I agree with her. But she did not say what, so can the Minister for Africa state what actions are now being proposed by the UK to prevent the atrocities that could be happening in weeks?
The Minister stated that funds were raised in the London conference last year, and the new additional funds from the UK are welcome, but that London conference raised only a third of what was needed for the humanitarian emergency last year. We know the consequences of the lack of a Sudan-wide UN arms embargo, no designated safe places for education and health, no kinetic action to prevent intelligence gathering and drone attacks on civilians, and no no-fly zones—all these are emboldening the RSF, and the SAF and its NCP backers are preventing humanitarian aid from going into the areas.
I hope the UK can now steer a regional co-ordination mechanism for humanitarian assistance. I hope the Minister can appeal to the Prime Minister so that he makes it a priority for this country on the global stage to ensure that there is a cessation of violence, that there is a prevention of atrocities, and that we can signal the work on the future of Sudan being for the civilians of Sudan, not the warring parties, which currently feel as if they have impunity.
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Baroness Chapman of Darlington) (Lab)
I thank both noble Lords for their thoughtful contributions, and I agree with much of what has been said. The noble Earl started by talking about the ceasefire in Gaza. We very much welcome this and will do everything we can to support the path to peace. As both noble Lords said, this is an early stage in the process and there is a very long way to go. It is unlikely to be smooth and without disruption along the way, and we need to be ready for that and to have the determination to do whatever it takes to see this through.
I was asked about the ISF and UK troops. It is not our intention that there should be UK troops. The Foreign Secretary said very clearly that that is not what we expect to happen, and there are many reasons for that. I was also asked about Hamas, which is an important question. It has long been the position of this Government and our predecessor Governments—and it will continue to be the position—that we consider Hamas to be a terrorist organisation. We therefore think that Hamas should have no role in the future of leadership in Palestine in any guise at all.
I am going to Brussels tomorrow to meet Mr Mustafa to talk about how the Palestinian Authority takes that role in the future, and to make sure that it is properly equipped and has the capability to do that. We are not ready today, but it is important that the international community, as appropriate, comes together and provides that support. We have been doing that and we need to increase those efforts at the moment. Accepting the board of peace and all the other structures within the 20-point plan that we still need to work through, it is difficult to see how, in the longer term, you can have a Government of Palestine without the Palestinian Authority.
Clearly, we keep the issue of arms sales under review. We are mindful of the decisions that our partners and allies make. We are at an early stage in the process and I would not rule out a change, but, at the moment, we need to monitor things and see how they progress. The return of hostages is absolutely vital. Those families have been through far too much and, tragic though it is, the bodies of their loved ones must be returned; we will continue to make the case for that to happen as soon as possible.
The noble Lord, Lord Purvis, asked about the plan as well, and our position is that this is the best chance we have of achieving peace at the moment. I know that there is some scepticism, and it is not difficult to find things that are missing and elements that it would be good to see, but we are in a position where this is the plan that we have. It is the plan that we must all work as hard as we possibly can to make work. Where there are things that we can add to it, and things that would help and ways in which we can support it, that is what we must do.
The noble Lord asks what we will do when the Government of Israel does not want, perhaps, to do some of the things that we would like them to do in relation to the plan. We need to have dialogue and discussion and take those issues as they come. We need to start from a position that, before this plan was agreed—very close to the moment when this plan was agreed—many of us were starting to lose most of our hope in relation to this. Yet the plan happened and the ceasefire happened. So we must proceed with a clear eye, but with the best intentions.
What are we doing to support the Palestinian Authority? We are doing a great deal, including the work with Michael Barber, who many noble Lords will be familiar with. We continue to work with those in the Palestinian Authority and we have a very good relationship with them. I have met them many times, as has Minister Falconer and many others, and we will continue to do that.
It has been a dreadful season for settler violence. It is the olive harvest season, and it has been some of the worst periods in terms of the volume and nature of violence that we have seen. I have met families in Palestine who have been forced to move many times, and their stories are devastating. We have used our sanctions regime to address this and we will continue to use that and other mechanisms, as the noble Lord would expect, to try to improve the situation of those living in Palestine.
The noble Lord asked me about sanctions on Sudan. Yes, we use some sanctions in relation to Sudan. Noble Lords have heard me say many times that we do not comment on future designations. But that does not mean it is a waste of time to raise it in this House. It is important that, where noble Lords feel that they would like to see more action, they use these opportunities to encourage the Government and make that clear, because that affects our calculation and our thinking. It is important that we know that that is the view of parliamentarians.
The issue of aid to Sudan was raised. There is an issue with the amount of aid, but really it is an issue of access. That is the problem. The restrictions that are placed on agencies, the registration requirements, the payments that are needed, the safety and the blocking of access are incredibly frustrating. I was asked about air drops. There are real problems with air drops and they are an absolute last resort. We do not know who the aid is going to. People have died when we dropped aid in this way in the past, and it is an incredibly expensive way of getting aid to a population we could reach easily over land, if only the warring parties would allow that to happen. We continue to argue, alongside Tom Fletcher and others—Tom Fletcher has been in Darfur this week and I am sure that this is one of the cases he will have been making—for the necessity of both sides, whatever else they cannot agree on, and there is plenty, to come to a position where they can allow access for humanitarian workers to operate safely.
We have looked into the issue of British-made equipment, and we are incredibly concerned about any evidence of anything happening of that nature. As the noble Lord will know, we take pride in the robustness of our systems, and we take incredibly seriously any issues there may be with diversion. These have been investigated. The items included in the reports were items that were sold many years ago. They were not bullets or guns or anything like that; it was something to do with a car engine. Nevertheless, those things should not end up in Sudan. We continue to monitor this very closely, because we do not want anything that has come out of this country to be used to perpetrate the kinds of atrocities that we are seeing in Sudan. We will keep that closely monitored and we will, of course, investigate any evidence immediately.
The noble Lord, Lord Purvis of Tweed, asked about the ICAI report. It was a very good report. I read it; it was a thoughtful, well-rounded piece of work. The policy choices on Sudan referred to in the report are not things that have happened recently, or even under this Government. The policy choices that we are making in relation to Sudan have not been related to budget, because we have not reduced our budget for Sudan. We have protected it, for reasons that noble Lords do not need me to explain. We will also make sure that we consider the money that is used to support the fast-growing numbers of people living on the borders of Sudan, in Chad, Egypt and South Sudan, who are being displaced as a result of this hideous conflict.
The noble Lord asked what we were doing. He made a point about Statements only taking us so far and not having an impact on the ground; I have a lot of time for that opinion. We held a session of the Human Rights Council last week. The position on Sudan was agreed unanimously, which was encouraging. It is good. I was talking to a Minister from Chad to thank the Government of Chad for what they are doing. His view is very clear: the war is political, it needs to stop, and we can do all we want with refugees and aid but, until those warring parties stop and put down their arms, we will continue to face this hideous situation.
The fact that we were able to pass something unanimously in Geneva serves to bring attention and focus to this conflict, because we will need all our partners and allies to bring their attention to Sudan, in the way that they did, in the end, with Gaza. We will need international pressure and an international response to make progress on bringing about peace in Sudan—so they do serve a purpose.
I was also asked about impunity. We have the fact-finding mission that we support. We are supporting the ICC and local agencies to make sure that we have evidence and that we can seek those prosecutions which will be necessary very soon, I hope, to bring those responsible to justice.
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
I have been to those warehouses, so I know exactly what the noble Lord is talking about. It is very frustrating when we see aid and equipment that is desperately needed being unable to get to the people who need it. But access is improving; it could still get better. We have conversations about dual-use items and all those issues regularly, but things are slowly getting better. The noble Lord asked whether we treat violations of international humanitarian law differently in different places. No, these things are universal, and that is the approach that this Government will always take. On what we are doing about the atrocities and accountability in Sudan, that is an important question. We are working urgently to press the parties to agree an immediate three-month truce, as a beginning, to enable that aid to get in, but also to enable people’s accounts of what has happened, because it is important, as he says—and I think it is what he wants—that the individuals responsible find themselves in the International Criminal Court, which is where they belong.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
My Lords, I know that it is unusual to contribute a second time, but I have raised El Obeid and Tawila, as has my noble friend. I would be grateful for some specific reference to actions on what may be imminent atrocities carried out there. We know that the RSF has declared a truce and is using that, cynically and politically, to gather data and intelligence on its next victims. We also know that the NCP has said that anything that Burhan or SAF are saying will also not be implemented. What actions are we now taking to prevent what could well be imminent atrocities?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
The noble Lord is correct to remind us of this. I think everybody watched what happened in El Fasher, could see it starting and could tell what was going to happen. We have the same fear in the pit of our stomachs now about Tawila and other places too. We have to work alongside the Quad process that the US is leading, and there are other processes too. The UK supports all of them and is working as closely as it can. We have organisations that are speaking to both sides, including with armed groups on the ground. It is a case of using every possible lever to make the case that people will be held to account. The world is now watching in horror at what has been happening, and we must choose every method that we can to try to prevent any further atrocities occurring. We are all sickened to our core at what is happening and what we fear may be about to take place.