1-20 of 351 results for house:"House of Lords"
Librarians' tools
- Search time
- 0.595 seconds
- Solr query time
- 0.044 seconds
- Search query
- house:"House of Lords"
- We searched for
- legislature_ses:25277
Type
House
Session
Year
Department
Member
Primary member
More
Answering member
Legislative stage
Legislation
Subject
More
Publisher
My Lords, in the skies above El Obeid as we speak are reconnaissance drones identifying women civilians as potential targets. There is the technology to ensure that there are no-drone zones to prevent humanitarian atrocities. This is authorised under a United Nations Security Council resolution. The UK, as the penholder for Sudan, is operating under that resolution. Why is there not prevention of drones targeting civilians in these areas?
My Lords, in the skies above El Obeid as we speak are reconnaissance drones identifying women civilians as potential targets. There is the technology to ensure that there are no-drone zones to prevent humanitarian atrocities. This is authorised under a United Nations Security Council resolution. The UK, as the penholder for Sudan, is operating under that resolution. Why is there not prevention of drones targeting civilians in these areas?
The last time I answered a Question on this, I indicated that I would ask for advice on our duty to protect. I have had that advice and have asked for further advice specifically on that responsibility. I understand completely what the noble Lord is saying. I receive regular updates on the number of drones and attacks and the amassing of troops. All I can say for now is please be assured that there is a very strong desire from me, the Foreign Secretary and the Prime Minister to make sure that the United Kingdom does everything it can to protect people in Sudan.
My Lords, in March, the Commons International Development Committee reported on its inquiry into women, peace and security. It said that
“our report finds that the Government has failed to deliver on policy commitments relating to the inclusion of women, girls and marginalised groups in meaningful participation and conflict prevention”.
Paragraph 4 states:
“We find that the Government continues to reduce funding and resourcing towards WPS … despite the devastating impacts this has on women and girls”.
The Minister was right: the need is greater. So, why are a Labour Government cutting the very thing that is needed for women, girls, peace and security?
My Lords, in March, the Commons International Development Committee reported on its inquiry into women, peace and security. It said that
“our report finds that the Government has failed to deliver on policy commitments relating to the inclusion of women, girls and marginalised groups in meaningful participation and conflict prevention”.
Paragraph 4 states:
“We find that the Government continues to reduce funding and resourcing towards WPS … despite the devastating impacts this has on women and girls”.
The Minister was right: the need is greater. So, why are a Labour Government cutting the very thing that is needed for women, girls, peace and security?
We have protected the £7 million that we spend centrally on women, peace and security. That is just a fact. I do not know what time period the report was referring to. It was published in March, but obviously it is retrospective. There is less money to spend as part of our aid budget, that is true. We have had to make some hard decisions. But even though we have had to make trade-offs and difficult choices, without a doubt, we have protected our central spending on this issue, for good reason.
My Lords, these Benches support this legislation and, when it comes to us in the next few weeks, we will ensure that there is a very constructive process. The IRGC and similar groups operate under proxies, as we have heard, but there is also enormous state capture of commercial organisations both within their countries and in the wider areas—especially in the Gulf. Can the Minister assure us that under the powers this legislation will allow, any organisation with a commercial link through complex legal, financial and trade routes that ends up in any part of the United Kingdom economy will be captured? Can he assure us that we will not only proscribe this organisation but starve it of funds if they are from the UK?
My Lords, these Benches support this legislation and, when it comes to us in the next few weeks, we will ensure that there is a very constructive process. The IRGC and similar groups operate under proxies, as we have heard, but there is also enormous state capture of commercial organisations both within their countries and in the wider areas—especially in the Gulf. Can the Minister assure us that under the powers this legislation will allow, any organisation with a commercial link through complex legal, financial and trade routes that ends up in any part of the United Kingdom economy will be captured? Can he assure us that we will not only proscribe this organisation but starve it of funds if they are from the UK?
I am grateful for the noble Lord’s support for the legislation and for its fast track. We are getting ahead of ourselves. I am in the hands of the House of Commons and the House of Lords to end up with a legislation product that may or may not be amended. I hope that it will be passed speedily. I assure the noble Lord that the Government take this matter seriously and will make all the assessments that he has mentioned in relation to any power that the Government are given by the legislation that is passed. If this legislation can be fast-tracked, we will be able to make any assessments that we wish to make as soon as practicable after it is passed. As I say, I am grateful for the noble Lord’s support.
Does the Minister know how many Ministers were communicating with Peter Mandelson using disappearing messages on official government devices?
Does the Minister know how many Ministers were communicating with Peter Mandelson using disappearing messages on official government devices?
I have no way to access that information.
Why are the Government opposed to a full creative industries mobility scheme with the EU?
Why are the Government opposed to a full creative industries mobility scheme with the EU?
We are working through negotiations. I am not going to give a running commentary on negotiations from the Dispatch Box, not least as
they are not ones that I am leading myself. We are continuing to engage constructively with EU member states. We are not looking, as I think we made clear in our manifesto, to re-enter a situation where we would have free movement. We committed to that in the manifesto. I am quite clear that in our manifesto we stood on clear red lines in relation to Europe, and those are ones that remain this Government’s policy.
My Lords, in recent years, a key part of UK support for the type of capacity building of civil and community organisations referenced by the noble and gallant Lord and my noble friend has been through the Western Balkans Democracy Initiative, which has been funded by development assistance. Can the Minister assure the House that this support will continue?
My Lords, in recent years, a key part of UK support for the type of capacity building of civil and community organisations referenced by the noble and gallant Lord and my noble friend has been through the Western Balkans Democracy Initiative, which has been funded by development assistance. Can the Minister assure the House that this support will continue?
We have recently published our allocations for development assistance. Off the top of my head, I cannot remember what decision was made on that specific programme, but I am sure that that information is publicly available. If it is not, I will make sure that the noble Lord gets it.
My Lords, further to my noble friend’s question, we know what positive impact UK official development assistance has in crises such as these. Will the Minister rule out any further cuts to UK ODA in this Parliament?
My Lords, further to my noble friend’s question, we know what positive impact UK official development assistance has in crises such as these. Will the Minister rule out any further cuts to UK ODA in this Parliament?
If it were for me to rule it out, I would do so right now, but the noble Lord is right about the impact of UK official development assistance. That is what it is for, which is why we have responded quite so quickly. We were the first donors to get in there and make these very fast decisions, as soon as the outbreak was identified. We are good at working with these agencies. Health is a priority for us and this is exactly what our development assistance ought to be used for.
My Lords, it is a stain on the international community that this war is now entering its fourth year. Of course, the UK is the penholder at the United Nations and therefore there should be an even greater moral duty that we do more to ensure that there are practical steps to protect civilians and that there is access to basic humanitarian aid, as the Minister said. Does she agree that there is inspiration in the very diverse and decentralised community groups that are doing amazing work to save lives and provide some form of assistance? I have been in touch regularly with many of these groups and they are calling for the UK to take the lead in a political process that can start now to ensure that civilians are part of the future and that there is transitional justice to ensure that those who have committed these horrific crimes are held to account for them.
My Lords, it is a stain on the international community that this war is now entering its fourth year. Of course, the UK is the penholder at the United Nations and therefore there should be an even greater moral duty that we do more to ensure that there are practical steps to protect civilians and that there is access to basic humanitarian aid, as the Minister said. Does she agree that there is inspiration in the very diverse and decentralised community groups that are doing amazing work to save lives and provide some form of assistance? I have been in touch regularly with many of these groups and they are calling for the UK to take the lead in a political process that can start now to ensure that civilians are part of the future and that there is transitional justice to ensure that those who have committed these horrific crimes are held to account for them.
I could not agree more. I have met with the local responders too, and they are an incredibly impressive group of people. They are very well organised and are using technology and developing apps to make sure that their limited resources are allocated in a way that is most efficient and responsive to local need. It is something that I do not think many of the larger agencies could possibly achieve anywhere, never mind in Sudan. They are essential to our effort, which is why we have doubled the funding to them.
The noble Lord is also right to say that the UK has a leadership role to play here, on a civilian track. We are prepared to do that and we are doing that. I do not think that this is a time for getting too far ahead of others, because that kind of leadership does not seem to have been very effective in this circumstance, and it is important that we work closely with Sudanese voices and work in a way that is led by them and centred on their needs. It was good to see, at the conference last week, that strand of work having such focus. That is important, and he makes a very good point.
My Lords, I pay tribute to my noble friend for campaigning on this issue. Yesterday, with her, I had the privilege of meeting victims of the Windrush scandal at a round table. Notwithstanding the Minister’s comments about improvements to the compensation scheme, we heard that families are still struggling with an overly bureaucratic system and a lack of available legal support. If the Minister, with Home Office colleagues, will meet my noble friend, can we ensure that one of the ways of
recognising the anniversary will be to ensure that, at that point, there are no longer any outstanding claimants to receive the justice that they deserve?
My Lords, I pay tribute to my noble friend for campaigning on this issue. Yesterday, with her, I had the privilege of meeting victims of the Windrush scandal at a round table. Notwithstanding the Minister’s comments about improvements to the compensation scheme, we heard that families are still struggling with an overly bureaucratic system and a lack of available legal support. If the Minister, with Home Office colleagues, will meet my noble friend, can we ensure that one of the ways of
recognising the anniversary will be to ensure that, at that point, there are no longer any outstanding claimants to receive the justice that they deserve?
I think what we all want to see is that the claimants’ claims are processed quickly and in the most straightforward way possible. I am very happy to meet the group that the noble Lord met yesterday. It is clear that compensation cannot undo the harm that was caused, but the Government remain committed to improving the Windrush compensation scheme to ensure that it reflects the lived experiences of communities and that it can be accessed simply and in a straightforward manner. The fact that 94% of claims have been dealt with now shows some progress in this area.
My Lords, the excellent question the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Chipping Norton, just asked the Minister was one that I asked him two years ago; regrettably, it is still a question that needs to be asked, however. The Government have now frozen upwards of £25 billion of Russian assets. Does the Minister agree that it would be inconceivable for the Putin regime to be rewarded by getting their assets back after all the horrors they have inflicted on the Ukrainian people? Should we not seize these funds and allow Ukraine to fight for its own sovereignty and repair the damage that has been inflicted on it?
My Lords, the excellent question the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Chipping Norton, just asked the Minister was one that I asked him two years ago; regrettably, it is still a question that needs to be asked, however. The Government have now frozen upwards of £25 billion of Russian assets. Does the Minister agree that it would be inconceivable for the Putin regime to be rewarded by getting their assets back after all the horrors they have inflicted on the Ukrainian people? Should we not seize these funds and allow Ukraine to fight for its own sovereignty and repair the damage that has been inflicted on it?
I think that is pretty much impossible to conceive of. I know the noble Lord and my noble friend are aware of the current sanctions regime, under which we can freeze assets but not seize them. However, we need to make sure that, however it is done, Russia will pay the price for its illegal aggression in Ukraine.
My Lords, on 15 January, I made the case that the BBC Persian Radio service needed to be sustained, and recent events have shown that to be necessary. I welcomed the Government issuing emergency funding so that the BBC Persian Radio service could be sustained. Does the Minister not agree that that illustrates one of the problems—namely, if we have critical World Service services funded by emergency funding then we cannot plan on a sustainable future? The delay in the allocations being made is regrettable. Can the Minister assure the House that, when those allocations are made soon, they will be over a three-year period, so that the BBC World Service can plan and make sure that we sustain these vital services for our country?
My Lords, on 15 January, I made the case that the BBC Persian Radio service needed to be sustained, and recent events have shown that to be necessary. I welcomed the Government issuing emergency funding so that the BBC Persian Radio service could be sustained. Does the Minister not agree that that illustrates one of the problems—namely, if we have critical World Service services funded by emergency funding then we cannot plan on a sustainable future? The delay in the allocations being made is regrettable. Can the Minister assure the House that, when those allocations are made soon, they will be over a three-year period, so that the BBC World Service can plan and make sure that we sustain these vital services for our country?
Multi-year allocations are incredibly important. That is why, in all the allocations that we are making as part of this process—not just for the World Service but for our teams in countries and for our partner organisations—we are seeking to do just that, because it means you get better value for every £1 you spend. We work closely with the World Service on issues around language. I am incredibly impressed and in awe of the way that the BBC has responded to the situation in Iran. Even with services having been banned, the latest figures I saw were that 28 million people are accessing that service. It is a real and good example of what can be achieved.
Looked-after children have the richest parents in the country—the state—but they have been let down over many successive Governments. One of the best sources of information to make improvements to the services is the life experience of looked-after children themselves. Can the Minister tell the House how young people who have gone through the system will be able to inform the decision-making process to enable improvements to the system?
Looked-after children have the richest parents in the country—the state—but they have been let down over many successive Governments. One of the best sources of information to make improvements to the services is the life experience of looked-after children themselves. Can the Minister tell the House how young people who have gone through the system will be able to inform the decision-making process to enable improvements to the system?
It is not just about young people who have come out of care, but young people who are in care at the time. Most local authorities have very supportive groups through which young people come together and meet. We must not underestimate the power of peer groups sharing their concerns. The voice of the child and of young people is fundamental, critical, to taking this journey forward. For too long the state has taken an attitude of, “We know best; we will instruct what has to happen”. This cannot go on. I am delighted that children and young people are now being given the opportunity to be really involved in their futures.
My Lords, the source of much of this activity is the Iranian Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps. Why have our Government not proscribed it to try and prevent this activity at source? Secondly, the growth of the rampant misinformation and disinformation, which is causing Islamophobia and antisemitism—some, indeed, from far-right evangelical groups in the United States—is now becoming pervasive. What work are the Government doing with Ofcom to prevent that at source?
My Lords, the source of much of this activity is the Iranian Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps. Why have our Government not proscribed it to try and prevent this activity at source? Secondly, the growth of the rampant misinformation and disinformation, which is causing Islamophobia and antisemitism—some, indeed, from far-right evangelical groups in the United States—is now becoming pervasive. What work are the Government doing with Ofcom to prevent that at source?
The noble Lord will be aware of my own voting record on the IRGC’s proscription—
Given the Minister’s reply to the noble Baroness and to my noble friend regarding the Government’s assessment of the posture of China, and given the need for Parliament to be fully aware of what the Government believe is the posture of China, why did the Government not publish the China audit?
Given the Minister’s reply to the noble Baroness and to my noble friend regarding the Government’s assessment of the posture of China, and given the need for Parliament to be fully aware of what the Government believe is the posture of China, why did the Government not publish the China audit?
The noble Lord has raised that question before. I reiterate what I have already said and what has been said before: the China audit was completed and its findings included in the national security strategy in the way I set out earlier.
My Lords, in addition to the health concerns of Imran Khan, the Pakistan Government also prosecuted and sentenced many opposition figures who demonstrated against the Government, and there is significant worry about the extent of the state capture of the Pakistan economy by the military. In the UK-Pakistan trade dialogue that was announced in July last year, there was, regrettably,
no reference to human rights. Can the Minister reassure the House that we are recognising human rights as a critical part of our trading relationship, and that we are not offering preferential market access to the very military enterprises that are committing human rights abuses?
My Lords, in addition to the health concerns of Imran Khan, the Pakistan Government also prosecuted and sentenced many opposition figures who demonstrated against the Government, and there is significant worry about the extent of the state capture of the Pakistan economy by the military. In the UK-Pakistan trade dialogue that was announced in July last year, there was, regrettably,
no reference to human rights. Can the Minister reassure the House that we are recognising human rights as a critical part of our trading relationship, and that we are not offering preferential market access to the very military enterprises that are committing human rights abuses?
We have very real concerns about the inappropriate use of military courts and the lack of transparency in the way they operate. We discuss this, as the noble Lord would want us to do, with Government of Pakistan. Having a flourishing trading relationship is helpful when it comes to being able to raise these matters effectively. I take on board completely his point about our need to make sure that human rights are integral when we make these decisions.
Lords tributes to Lord Wallace of Tankerness on his death.
Lords tributes to Lord Wallace of Tankerness on his death.
I am sure people would agree with the Minister that, when it comes to diplomacy, we do not get everything we want. However, we need
to be clear in this House that the Prime Minister specifically asked for the release of Jimmy Lai, and that if that release is not very soon forthcoming that it should not be business as usual in the relationship between the UK and China and that there should be conditions. In the reporting of the Prime Minister’s visit, it has been hard to see what we have secured for our relationship with China, other than the welcome release of those in this House who have been sanctioned, or when it comes to Jimmy Lai. Did the Prime Minister explain to President Xi that, unless Jimmy Lai is released, there will be no business as usual between us and China?
I am sure people would agree with the Minister that, when it comes to diplomacy, we do not get everything we want. However, we need
to be clear in this House that the Prime Minister specifically asked for the release of Jimmy Lai, and that if that release is not very soon forthcoming that it should not be business as usual in the relationship between the UK and China and that there should be conditions. In the reporting of the Prime Minister’s visit, it has been hard to see what we have secured for our relationship with China, other than the welcome release of those in this House who have been sanctioned, or when it comes to Jimmy Lai. Did the Prime Minister explain to President Xi that, unless Jimmy Lai is released, there will be no business as usual between us and China?
It is for the Prime Minister to state, this afternoon, the detail of the conversations he had with President Xi. It is not for me to say that now, just an hour or so before the Prime Minister is going to make his own Statement on this. The visit took place because it is the Government’s belief that to engage in this way is absolutely in the interest of the United Kingdom. Trade benefits were secured, as well as the opportunity to raise issues that I know mean so much to Members across this House.
If the reporting is correct, the leader of His Majesty’s loyal Opposition asked the House Speaker Johnson to ask President Trump to change his position on the treaty—I heard a “Good for her!” to my right. Does the Minister agree that it is the British Parliament that should hold the British Government to account, not a foreign state? Furthermore, does the Minister agree that, in this House, we must focus on Chagossian rights, which have been denied them for a generation, and value for money for the British taxpayer—and not pander to President Trump and ask him to intervene in British politics?
If the reporting is correct, the leader of His Majesty’s loyal Opposition asked the House Speaker Johnson to ask President Trump to change his position on the treaty—I heard a “Good for her!” to my right. Does the Minister agree that it is the British Parliament that should hold the British Government to account, not a foreign state? Furthermore, does the Minister agree that, in this House, we must focus on Chagossian rights, which have been denied them for a generation, and value for money for the British taxpayer—and not pander to President Trump and ask him to intervene in British politics?
I know the noble Lord does not always want me to be nice to him on the Floor of the House, but I must say that the Liberal Democrats, much as they have had their issues with this agreement, have always been focused on the rights of the Chagossian communities and have put that case clearly and consistently. I respect the way that they have gone about this. What we have not seen is any attempt to undermine the position regarding the sovereignty of Greenland or to leverage other issues that fundamentally undermine NATO and the security of the Arctic region. Sadly, that is what we are seeing from others. I agree with the noble Lord about the sovereignty of this Parliament and commend him for the consistency with which he has approached this issue.
My Lords, the Minister has repeated today that we have been the only Five Eyes country to have a diplomatic presence in Caracas. The Minister told me last night in the House that the British Government were not informed prior to the US bombing Caracas, where our diplomatic presence is very close to where those bombs landed. Have we complained diplomatically to our ally, the United States, about this?
My Lords, the Minister has repeated today that we have been the only Five Eyes country to have a diplomatic presence in Caracas. The Minister told me last night in the House that the British Government were not informed prior to the US bombing Caracas, where our diplomatic presence is very close to where those bombs landed. Have we complained diplomatically to our ally, the United States, about this?
Our team in Caracas is now out of crisis mode. They are back working; I have received updates from them today and I will continue to do so. They are safe and well and doing their jobs ably, as they have been able to do for the last few years.
My Lords, the Security Council resolution for the protection of civilians was passed in June 2024. On its anniversary, I asked the noble Baroness, Lady Chapman, what enforcement measures—which it is the duty of us as penholder to put forward—there were to enforce the Security Council resolution. Her answer to me on 17 July was:
“I often find myself asking what the point is of many of these declarations and resolutions in these situations
”.—[Official Report, 17/07/25; col. 2000.]
Further to my noble friend’s question, what is the point of being a penholder in the Security Council if we are not actually implementing measures to enforce resolutions for the protection of civilians that the Security Council itself has passed?
My Lords, the Security Council resolution for the protection of civilians was passed in June 2024. On its anniversary, I asked the noble Baroness, Lady Chapman, what enforcement measures—which it is the duty of us as penholder to put forward—there were to enforce the Security Council resolution. Her answer to me on 17 July was:
“I often find myself asking what the point is of many of these declarations and resolutions in these situations
”.—[Official Report, 17/07/25; col. 2000.]
Further to my noble friend’s question, what is the point of being a penholder in the Security Council if we are not actually implementing measures to enforce resolutions for the protection of civilians that the Security Council itself has passed?
I thank the noble Lord for that question. I have already said that there is a meeting of the UN Security Council today to discuss this further. I understand the frustration that he expresses. The biggest problem now is humanitarian access. Until we make progress on that, with the help of the warring militias, we will make very little progress on the wider ceasefire.