Journalists and Media Workers: Safety and Security

Lord Collins of Highbury Excerpts

Thursday 24th April 2025 Lords Chamber

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

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Mobarik, for her excellent introduction to this debate and for securing it. I also thank all noble Lords for their contributions. I will try to respond to all the points and questions raised.

As the Prime Minister said, this Government are clear:

“Journalism is the lifeblood of democracy. Journalists are guardians of democratic values”.


Across the world, media freedom is in decline. Newsrooms all over the world are closing and fewer people have access to trusted public interest media. But journalists are still fearlessly holding the powerful to account. Take, for example, the conflict in Gaza, as the noble Baroness highlighted, which has become the deadliest conflict for journalists and media workers ever recorded. In Ukraine and Sudan, reporters are also taking significant risks to uncover the truth.

The Government have consistently advocated for the protection of journalists, along with other civilians, yet the number of threats journalists face today, from disinformation campaigns to the toxic online environment, especially for women, highlights the urgent need to protect our media. I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Bonham-Carter, for raising the Marie Colvin Journalists’ Network. It plays an excellent role in highlighting that risk.

I also thank the noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier, for again highlighting the case of Jimmy Lai. It is really important that we emphasise his case. The Prime Minister, the Chancellor, Minister West and the Foreign Secretary have all raised his case at the highest levels with their Chinese counterparts and we will continue to do so. We are monitoring his trial. Diplomats from our consulate-general in Hong Kong attend the court proceedings on a regular basis and we will continue to press for consular access.

This is why the Government are championing the protection and promotion of media freedom internationally; it is an important part of our values. As noble Lords have said, the UK co-founded the Media Freedom Coalition with Canada in 2019. To answer the noble Lord, Lord Ahmad, 51 countries are now members, and I am determined to ensure that number increases. We are in constant dialogue with allies about this. I am proud to build on the work of the noble Lord, Lord Ahmad, and of the previous Government in establishing the coalition. I attended its fifth anniversary event at the UNGA last September.

To answer the noble Baroness, Lady Mobarik, we are absolutely committed to using all diplomatic tools. The Government have supported six Media Freedom Coalition statements on individual cases, including those of José Zamora in Guatemala and Stand News in Hong Kong, as well as statements on specific countries, such as Georgia and Burkina Faso, and on issues such as journalists in conflict.

The High-level Panel of Legal Experts on Media Freedom, ably chaired by my noble friend Lady Kennedy, provides expert legal advice to coalition member states on legislative reforms. My noble friend asked specific questions about its reports, and we certainly welcome its contribution to the coalition. Its reports have covered sanctions, consular safe refuge and investigations. On sanctions, we are more than happy to follow up separately on individual reports. On the reports on investigations into attacks on journalists, we share the concern and value the work that went into this report and the evidence it provides—to answer the other question—on impunity for crimes against journalists. We will pursue this as a matter of urgency.

The UK is actively working through existing OSCE and UN mechanisms to call for greater media freedom. We support the Council of Europe’s Journalists Matter campaign, and for the past five years we have funded, as noble Lord, Lord Ahmad, raised, UNESCO’s global media defence fund, which works to bolster journalists. We will continue to consider how best we can do that. As noble Lords pointed out, we have been reviewing how to strengthen support to British nationals overseas through our consular service, including support for journalists and the right to consular assistance.

On safe places and visas, the Home Office has advised that the Home Secretary’s existing discretion to grant leave—for example, in exceptional humanitarian circumstances—is sufficient to cover the point that the noble Lord, Lord Black, raised.

On Afghanistan, at the UNGA coalition event, I and Minister Mélanie Joly presented the Canada-UK Media Freedom Award to Lotfullah Najafizada, who accepted the award on behalf of independent journalists in Afghanistan. It was amazing to hear the contribution from them and the work that they continue to do: their courageous reporting on human rights and women’s rights under the Taliban regime. We will continue to highlight that.

At a time when media freedom is under threat across the world, I am pleased that the BBC World Service provides impartial, accurate news to global audiences of 320 million. Its language services reach audiences living in authoritarian and conflict-affected states, where accurate information is restricted. In October, we launched a new global media development programme with BBC Media Action in Sierra Leone, Zambia, Ethiopia, Indonesia, Bangladesh and Peru. Again, to answer the noble Baroness, Lady Bonham-Carter, it is our Government’s policy to ensure a long-term sustainable funding future for the World Service, and we have committed to do this through the charter review. The media action programme also supports and strengthens local media in the countries I mentioned.

More broadly, we are committed to promoting and protecting human rights and the rule of law. It is important that we see media freedom through that prism—they are all interconnected. We will and do work with our allies to encourage all states to uphold their international human rights obligations and hold those who violate or abuse human rights to account.

As the noble Baroness, Lady Sugg, said, we do not just champion media freedom abroad; we advocate for media safety at home, too. The UK convenes the National Committee for the Safety of Journalists, which is responsible for the delivery of the national action plan for the safety of journalists. This year, we will work with members to draw up the next iteration of the plan. I hope I can reassure the noble Baroness, Lady Mobarik, that tackling abusive legal threats against journalists will also be a key domestic focus this year.

As the noble Lord, Lord Black, raised, we have seen how journalists and others are targeted through legal action in UK courts for their role in exposing economic crime, including corruption. We understand the need for legislation, but we cannot legislate in haste. We have to understand and be clear about the balance between access to justice and free speech, but we are committed to reviewing it.

I hope that today’s debate is only the start of our consideration of this important issue. I again reassure the noble Lord, Lord Ahmad, that this Government are committed to continuing the work that he started, which I am incredibly proud about, and that we will do so at all levels of our multilateral and bilateral relationships. I understand the points that the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, raised—I will not go through our spending plans point by point—but I reassure noble Lords that this Government are committed to ensuring that we use all tools available to us to defend media freedom, which includes all our diplomatic efforts.

To conclude, we are continuing to support and protect media freedom, both domestically and internationally, through the Media Freedom Coalition, which we are committed to building and extending, and other initiatives. We are taking big strides towards a safer and more transparent environment for all journalists, ensuring that independent media can thrive and hold power to account.

[Baroness Coussins (CB)]

Before the noble Lord sits down, can he comment on the question I asked about his willingness to speak to Home Office colleagues about being quicker off the mark in processing visa applications for the relatives of BBC Persian journalists? They need to come here to visit their family because the journalists, who are based in London, clearly cannot go there.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

I understand the noble Baroness’s point and I will undertake to do that.

Bosnia and Herzegovina: Rule of Law

Lord Collins of Highbury Excerpts

Wednesday 23rd April 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Browne of Ladyton]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the resilience of peace and the rule of law in Bosnia and Herzegovina.

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

My Lords, peace, stability and upholding the rule of law in Bosnia-Herzegovina remain a key focus of this Government and recent actions by Republika Srpska’s President Dodik have attempted to undermine the sovereignty and territorial integrity of the state. The Constitutional Court has suspended these unconstitutional laws. We support all citizens, communities and politicians who are focused on the reforms needed to make progress and not on engaging in divisive rhetoric.

[Lord Browne of Ladyton (Lab)]

My Lords, as my noble friend the Minister alluded to in his response, it is clear that tensions have risen markedly in Bosnia and Herzegovina after the recent issuing of an arrest warrant for Milorad Dodik. I understand the symbolic and practical significance of our bilateral contributions and the current presence of UK staff officers in the NATO HQ in Sarajevo, but, given Bosnia and Herzegovina’s strategic importance, which was testified to by the recent visit of Dodik to Moscow, what consideration has been, or is being, given to recommitting UK personnel to EUFOR and Operation Althea?

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

My Lords, the UK Government are clear that, despite no longer participating in EUFOR, we continue to see its role as vital to maintaining a safe and secure environment in Bosnia-Herzegovina. We are open to exploring enhanced co-operation with the EU, including its operations and missions, as we strengthen the UK-EU security and defence relationship. If we decide to co-operate with EU missions and operations more closely, including EUFOR, we will evaluate the potential for a UK contribution on a case-by-case basis and where it aligns with UK interests.

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his response. We welcome the Government’s commitment to the Dayton agreement and, in particular, their statement of willingness to support all efforts by domestic actors to de-escalate the situation in the light of Dodik’s actions over the past few weeks. What discussions have the Government had with NATO allies to co-ordinate support for our partners in Bosnia and Herzegovina?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

My Lords, we remain absolutely united with our Quint colleagues, with whom both officials and Ministers have maintained regular engagement on Bosnia-Herzegovina. The Foreign Secretary, Dame Karen and Minister Doughty continue to raise our concerns about the situation there in their engagement with regional partners, including Croatia and Serbia.

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

My Lords, the future of Bosnia-Herzegovina and the western Balkans is critical to the future of the United Kingdom’s interests for national security, especially in the context of Russian interference, organised crime and migration. The UK has supported the efforts against Russian interference through the £30-million western Balkans freedom and resilience programme, which is coming to an end next year. It involves 20 local civil society organisations and is on the front line of all this work. It is funded through official development assistance, so I make this appeal to the Minister. When decisions are being made to reduce ODA, which we on these Benches think is regrettable, can there be a specific carve-out for areas linked to the future interests of British national security?

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

The noble Lord is right: our review will be absolutely focused on the UK’s national interest, and the decision was made on the basis of the first duty of any Government to protect their population.

We have been engaged across a wide range of areas in the development and soft power space to contribute to peace and stability in the western Balkans—and Bosnia-Herzegovina specifically. Our development efforts have never been solely about aid. We mobilise a range of resources to achieve our development objectives in the western Balkans and we will continue to do that, influencing policy.

[Baroness Ludford (LD)]

My Lords, there is an arrest warrant issued in Bosnia-Herzegovina against Mr Dodik. Can the Minister update us on where that is at and what international co-operation there is on getting him arrested?

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

We have been very clear. Dodik has been spreading rumours that UK forces are somehow engaged in his arrest. These are baseless claims and part of a campaign of distortion and disinformation by Dodik that is clearly designed to distort and distract from his destructive actions. The charges against him are a matter for the authority of the High Representative.

One Hundred Year Partnership Agreement between the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and Ukraine

Lord Collins of Highbury Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd April 2025 Grand Committee

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

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Fox, for introducing this debate. I pay tribute to his work on the International Agreements Committee, and to the other committee members who have contributed to this afternoon’s debate—my noble friend Lord Anderson, the noble Baroness, Lady Lawlor, and the noble Lord, Lord Marland.

I absolutely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Callanan —not for the first time—that this is an example of all three major parties being absolutely committed to support for Ukraine. The noble Lord, Lord Kerr, and the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Houghton, summed it up: this is about our collective security. Our response has to be on that basis. This is not simply about defending a country that has been illegally invaded. It is fundamentally, as the Prime Minister made clear in his statement about defence spending, a generational change. The strategic defence review will address all the issues that the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Houghton, has raised. I will not go into the details of it, because I do not know them yet, but I am sure that when the report is finally published we will be able to have detailed scrutiny on how we will be able to respond to this threat. It is absolutely about our collective security.

The 100-year partnership agreement and political declaration signed by the Prime Minister and President Zelensky is a signal of long-term commitment to Ukraine. I hear my noble friend Lord Anderson and other members of the Committee on this timescale—but sending a clear signal to the world that we are in this for the long run and that our commitment is generational, far beyond the end of hostilities, is important. That is a clear, important signal.

The agreement focuses on shared interests and a common vision with three main aims: to enhance military and security capabilities in order to counter future attacks; to strengthen Ukraine’s economic development, reform, resilience and growth, benefiting both Ukraine and the United Kingdom; and to deepen UK support for Ukraine’s shift to the West through partnerships in education, health, justice and culture. I assure the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Houghton, and others that the agreement builds on existing co-operation in areas such as military and fiscal support, recovery, reform and humanitarian programmes. It reaffirms the UK’s ironclad support for Ukraine and respects Ukraine’s request to make the document legally binding.

Many noble Lords have expressed concern about the lack of a road map. Clearly, a road map for a 100-year agreement is difficult to predict. On the one hand, we want to show a clear signal of long-term commitment; on the other hand, we know that we must respond to shifting tides of technology, culture and economics. That is why there is greater emphasis on these issues in the political declaration supporting the treaty’s implementation, with commitments reflecting current realities, for example, to co-operate on demining, green steel production, stronger health systems and more. The whole of government is working to drive these initiatives forward and show early results. However, many objectives will be realised over a long timeframe, with Article 11—I do not say this as a criticism; it is a positive thing—providing flexibility for review as needed.

Noble Lords have raised the question of maritime. Black Sea security is, of course, crucial for Ukraine and the United Kingdom. Much Ukrainian trade, including 90% of its pre-war agricultural exports—the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, referred to this—went through this route. The war has disrupted these exports, causing food prices here and around the world to shoot up. As Minister for Africa, I know the impact that this has had on food security in that region.

We are taking forward the commitments under the maritime pillar of the agreement. The noble Lord, Lord Fox, referred to the letter from my honourable friend Minister Doughty of 25 March. I will not go through all the details in it because the committee has seen it and responded to it. The capability coalition, co-led by the United Kingdom and Norway, is delivering boats, landing craft, drones, outboard engines and short-range air defence to Ukraine. We will deepen co-operation with Ukraine’s maritime force to secure naval routes further.

Besides military support, the United Kingdom will work more closely with Ukraine on overall security. This includes fighting hybrid threats, such as foreign information manipulation and interference, through co-operation between institutions. We have regular discussions to track threats and responses, share research and deepen links between experts in order better to understand Russia’s malign activities. We are also supporting the Ukrainian Government to act against harmful networks.

I remind the noble Lords, Lord Marland and Lord Purvis, that the 100-year partnership agreement builds on the strategic partnership agreement of 2020 to enhance trade and investment in Ukraine. It focuses on sectors such as energy, defence and infrastructure—this was highlighted in my honourable friend Minister Doughty’s letter—by improving governance, financial systems and anti-corruption measures. These are vital components to delivering the growth that we expect. I assure the noble Baroness, Lady Lawlor, that this will attract global capital and create opportunities for UK businesses. As part of this, we are supporting public procurement reforms in Ukraine to improve market access for United Kingdom businesses and aid Ukraine’s reconstruction. Our trade mission programme is fostering international business relationships and opening new markets for United Kingdom companies.

Again, to reassure the noble Baroness, Lady Lawlor, and the noble Lord, Lord Marland—and to address the specific question of the noble Lord, Lord Callanan— I note that the partnership is already strengthening economic ties. For example, on 2 March, the Prime Minister announced a £1.6 billion order for a Thales missile factory in Belfast to supply 5,000 air defence missiles to Ukraine, supporting British jobs. The agreement will also enable UK businesses to support Ukraine’s reconstruction, estimated to cost £524 billion over the next decade. The Department for Business and Trade cochairs an infrastructure task force, with Ukrainian Ministers supporting UK industry involvement in Ukraine’s reconstruction, benefiting both Ukraine’s recovery and United Kingdom growth.

The noble Lord, Lord Purvis, mentioned something that I hold dear to my heart too: accountability. Ukraine wants those responsible for terrible atrocities in Ukraine to be held accountable. We are supporting Ukraine’s prosecutor-general and the International Criminal Court to ensure that this happens. Last month, we agreed on the legal details to set up a special tribunal on the crime of aggression against Ukraine. We are working closely with Ukraine and the Council of Europe to move this forward. We are also trying to create an international mechanism to secure compensation from Russia for the damage caused by the war.

The noble Lord, Lord Purvis, asked about ODA cuts. The Prime Minister made clear in his announcement his commitment to increase spending on defence to 2.5% from 27 April. This increase will be funded by reducing ODA from 0.5% to 0.3%. As I have repeated to the noble Lord before, the impact on specific programmes is being worked through, following this decision, but I have reassured noble Lords that Ukraine remains a priority.

I say to the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, and other noble Lords that we are absolutely committed to securing a just and lasting peace in Ukraine and engaging with key allies in support of this effort. The ball is now in Russia’s court: President Putin must prove that he is serious about peace and sign up to the ceasefire on equal terms.

I again reassure the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, that, on Wednesday, the Foreign Secretary is bringing together the United States, Ukrainian and European Foreign Ministers and national security advisers to discuss next steps, including what a ceasefire might look like and how we might make sure that any peace leaves Ukraine secure for the long term. The Kremlin’s dithering and delay over President Trump’s ceasefire proposal and Russia’s continued barbaric attacks on Ukraine run entirely counter to President Putin’s stated desire for peace.

The noble Lord, Lord Kerr, mentioned the 2008 NATO commitment to ensure that the NATO alliance has made a long-term commitment to Ukraine that is on an irreversible path to membership, and we stand by that. But I suspect that the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, is repeating advice I have often given: it is often better not to ask a question you do not know the answer to.

The important thing is to build a strong consensus among all our allies about how we can build a consensus, rather than focus on areas of potential disagreement. When, how and on what terms this war comes to an end can be decided only by negotiations with Ukraine at the heart of them. Our focus until then is on ensuring that Ukraine is in the strongest possible position. Certainly, President Putin must stop delaying and playing games, and he must agree to a full and immediate ceasefire without conditions, as Ukraine has done.

I conclude by reflecting that, for centuries, this House has witnessed passionate debates during pivotal moments in our nation’s history and, no doubt, 100 years from now, Peers will celebrate the enduring Ukraine-UK relationship, forged in the fight for liberty, sovereignty and democracy. As the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, said, it is about our values, and that is why it will endure. Our friendship is deep, and the United Kingdom will always stand with Ukraine—today, as we strive for peace, justice and accountability, and in the years to come, as our countries work together to build a much more secure and prosperous future. Slava Ukraini.

House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill

Lord Collins of Highbury Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 1st April 2025 Lords Chamber

I remain convinced that there is a way forward, and I hope very much, having listened to this impressive debate, that—informed by the spirit of kindness, compromise, understanding and, yes, respect that has informed this very debate—we may find a way in the period between Easter and Whitsun to reach a generous settlement that respects the interests of all, not least the interests of the whole House, which I think have been eloquently expressed by many in this debate. To such an enterprise, in search of such a settlement and in response to such a call, as we heard so eloquently from my noble friend Lady Mobarik and others today, my door is open and my commitment will be full.

[Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Collins of Highbury) (Lab)]

I say from the start that I know the noble Baroness, Lady Mobarik, and respect her. Certainly, I welcome her contributions to this House, and many times in debates we have been on the same side, which reflects how this House operates. I had to decide whether in responding I should respond to the amendment or to the debate. I have decided that I will follow the Companion and stick to the amendment.

The noble Baroness’s amendment seeks to compel the Prime Minister to recommend 87 new Peers. The noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, is absolutely right: is that really what we want to do in terms of where we are? I also point out that while the noble Baroness’s amendment says that she wants to mirror the political balance of the outgoing hereditary Peers, there is nothing in it that would guarantee any hereditary Peer remaining in this House, so I am not sure what the last hour has been all about.

Nevertheless, I want to focus. I think the noble Baroness, Lady Lawlor, summed it up—and I agree with her—when she said that we are a country that takes constitutional change gradually. I recall from the Labour manifesto in 1901—I do not recall it; I remember reading about it—that we were seeking then to abolish the House of Lords. We have changed our mind over time. We have reached a sort of view about it. The hereditary principle was addressed over 25 years ago, and the noble Lord opposite has said that it has gone. We do not support the hereditary principle when it comes to this legislative House.

I say to the noble Lord, Lord True, that the transitional arrangements that were made over 25 years ago are now going to come to an end. We have had 25 years to look at a sensible way of dealing with this issue. My noble friend Lord Grocott has offered many opportunities to do it on a gradual basis which have all been rejected, primarily by noble Lords opposite.

We have now reached the point where we have a manifesto commitment to deal with this issue. I understand why the noble Baroness has made her amendment and understand the nature of the debate, but, as my noble friend the Leader of the House has set out many times before, it is for the Prime Minister to make recommendations to the sovereign on new Peers. In doing so, the Prime Minister invites nominations from party leaders across the House, so, again, I say to the noble Lord, Lord True, that there is nothing stopping him making recommendations to his leader to include hereditary Peers in any new list. Why not do that? Why not offer that transitional arrangement? It is not for us to decide who stays in this House. It is not for us to decide whom the leader of the Conservative Party decides to recommend to the Prime Minister—

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)]

Will the noble Lord just explain how that works for the Cross Benches?

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

I was going to come to that point, but as the noble Lord gives me the opportunity, let me say that my noble friend the Leader has addressed that. She is working in consultation and wants to have further discussions about how we address that issue. Certainly, I am confident that we will be able to do so, because I think the Cross-Benchers play a very important role in this House, and the Convenor of the Cross Benches is a hereditary Peer.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)]

If the noble Lord is prepared to have those discussions with the Cross Benches, what is wrong with the Official Opposition? Why can he not have the same discussions with them?

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

I repeat: the Prime Minister of this country has made an offer. In terms of the new Peers that we have recently had introduced into this House, the Conservative Party was offered more than Labour was ever offered in previous nominations. It is a very important point: the simple fact is that, if the leader of the Conservative Party wanted to nominate hereditary Peers to life peerages, they can do so. This amendment—

[Noble Lords]

Oh!

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

I do not mind being interrupted, but what is the point?

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

The Deputy Leader of the House knows that that is not the case. The leader of the Opposition can make nominations when the Prime Minister graciously allows her to do so. It is entirely up to the Prime Minister when and how many.

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

Correct, and you have just had six; you could have nominated hereditary Peers as life Peers. There was nothing stopping you—nothing. The important point is that we have had opportunities to deal with this issue over the last 25 years and have not done so. As a consequence, Labour put in its manifesto a clear commitment to deal with the hereditary principle once and for all, which is what we have before us in this very short, simple Bill.

Let me just address this point. The Prime Minister also invites the House of Lords Appointments Commission to make nominations to the Cross Benches. In deciding the number of these nominations, the Prime Minister considers a range of factors, of course, including the political balance of the House. Certainly, retirements and other departures mean that new Peers will always be needed to ensure the House has appropriate expertise and, as has been said before, there is no reason why hereditary Peers cannot be nominated in future lists. Political parties have the opportunity to do that. My noble friend the Leader has recognised the special position of Cross-Benchers and committed to discuss it with the relevant parties. That is the commitment she has made.

If the noble Baroness, Lady Mobarik, is concerned with the party balance of the House, I remind your Lordships that even if this Bill is passed the Government Benches will make up 28% of this Chamber, compared to 31% for the party opposite. As my noble friend the Leader has said before to your Lordships, this House functions best when there are roughly equal numbers between the two main parties; I stand by that. As I have said to the noble Baroness, there are many occasions when we operate on a cross-party basis. I do not see that this Bill will change that one bit—far from it. It will bring about a more sensible balance in this House.

With respect to the noble Baroness, Lady Mobarik, this amendment is unnecessary. It is not appropriate for this Bill and I respectfully request that she withdraws it.

[Lord True (Con)]

The noble Lord has returned to the question of numbers, completely ignoring the points I made about other ways of addressing that. I set that to one side but, as I understood it, his concept was, “Well, you”—I do not think that he can have meant me—“can send some people here if you want to”. The Government are about to expel 44 of our people. Is the noble Lord saying that the leader of the Opposition can name 44 who will come straight back? That appeared to be the logic of his position. Will he answer the specific point on numbers? The Prime Minister decides the numbers; that is the fact.

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

Certainly I know that is the case, and we found that out the hard way in the past 14 years. But can I just say—and the noble Lord knows this—we are dealing with an imbalance at the moment? He keeps talking about how many Conservative Peers are hereditary, but that is not the question in this Bill. The question in this Bill is about the principle of hereditary Peers, not about whether they are Conservative. In fact, so much of the debate has been about how they are not political and not partisan, but then the noble Lord keeps repeating how many of them are Conservative.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Mobarik (Con)]

My Lords, first, I thank all those who have participated in this debate and shown their support for the intention behind my amendment. I am disappointed that the noble Lord, Lord Collins of Highbury, decided not to respond to the debate as such. I thought that that was the purpose of Committee stage.

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

I am hesitant to interrupt the noble Baroness, but there is one hereditary Peer whom I do miss greatly, and that is the Countess of Mar. She would have jumped up many times and said, “Please, your Lordships, speak to the amendment” —and that is what I was trying to do.

[Baroness Mobarik (Con)]

Thank you—I shall remember that on the next occasion.

There have been so many notable speeches today, but time does not permit me to mention all of them. I think that this debate has shown that we on these Benches, joined by others across this House, are not trying to hold on to the hereditary principle but want to hold on to our hereditary colleagues. I strongly believe that my amendment would provide a civilised, mannerly and appropriate way in which to manage ourselves, in keeping with the customs and courtesies of our great House.

There is clearly widespread support for some kind of transitional arrangement, and I sincerely hope from the bottom of my heart that the noble Baroness the Leader of the House will reflect on this very carefully and take my noble friend Lord True up on his very fair and reasonable offer before Report. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

My Lords, I must disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Newby. If there is a misconception here, it is about the continuing presence of our hereditary colleagues in your Lordships’ House. They were not kept here by some form of transition, as the Deputy Leader of the House put it in an earlier debate; they were kept here because, in the debates at the end of the last century, nobody could answer the fundamentally important question of what this House is for, how it ought to be constituted and whether there was a better route to come here than the route by which we have all come, in our different ways. We were kept here as surety to ensure that the reform process that the then Labour Government embarked on would continue. They had a further decade in power after 1999 and brought forward no further measures, which is why so many of us on this side are sceptical about the speed with which they will bring forward the further reforms that they proposed in their most recent manifesto. So this is a very important group of amendments because, as Amendment 95 puts it, it is about the impact of this Bill on the effectiveness of the House of Lords.

The Government, like the noble Lord, Lord Newby, have cast this Bill very narrowly and argued that this is a tightly focused Bill. In some ways it is too narrowly cast and too tightly focused. It ducks the questions of what this House is for and the questions that flow from it about how it should best be composed. But, although narrow, the Bill will have serious and sweeping impacts on this House of Parliament. As my noble friends Lord Hamilton of Epsom and Lord Swire put it, this Bill puts the cart before the horse. It avoids those questions and seeks to enact a very important change based on a misunderstanding of the position from the late 1990s.

Throughout this Committee, we have heard concerns raised from all corners of your Lordships’ House that this Bill will leave us a less effective legislative Chamber. Ministers have disagreed with the concerns that have been raised. Well, here is their chance to prove it. If those of us who have expressed our concerns are wrong, these reviews will be the opportunity to prove us wrong.

I believe that the fears we have heard in this Committee are well-founded. Our hereditary colleagues attend your Lordships’ House more frequently than life Peers. They play a more active role, not just in the Division Lobbies and in the Chamber but in our committees, on the Woolsack and in convening the Cross Benches. As my noble friend Lord Shinkwin put it in our debate on the first group, armed with the data that the Library has provided him, our hereditary colleagues play a valuable and active role in the functioning of your Lordships’ House. The noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, said in that debate, “Why are we thinking of removing those who work the hardest while leaving those who do not?”

I am sure the Deputy Leader will say that all these questions about participation and activity can be addressed later. Again, these amendments are an opportunity for him to do that. At no point in this Committee have we had any commitment from the Government about when they plan to turn to the next parts of the reforms that they proposed in their manifesto. Ministers have not even committed to do so by the end of this Parliament. So I share the concerns that my noble friend Lord Hailsham has raised: that we will be waiting another decade or longer to see the further reforms that noble Lords have called for throughout the course of these debates.

My noble friends’ amendments in these groups would give us the opportunity to review progress after 12 months, on the timetable proposed by my noble friend Lord Dundee, or two years, in the timeframe proposed by my noble friend Lord Lucas. It would also be an opportunity for us to review what we have lost. We have heard in the course of these debates how our hereditary colleagues bring valuable experience from their work in business and agriculture, two areas where on the Government’s record it is clear that they have something of a blind spot, and it is important to have those voices raised in this scrutinising House of Parliament.

I am sure the Deputy Leader will seek to persuade us that, once again, our fears are misplaced and that these amendments are unnecessary, but I urge him to look seriously at these amendments, which call for modest but important reviews. The Government listened to the concerns that were raised in your Lordships’ House in our debate on the Football Governance Bill and gave us a statutory review of that new regulator after five years. I know football is something that attracts a lot more attention than reform of the House of Lords, but I think the constitution of our second legislative Chamber is about as important as the beautiful game. I hope the Deputy Leader will look at this and consider giving us a review in this Bill as well.

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

I do not think the Arsenal kick-off is quite yet; I have another half an hour or so.

I am not going to repeat all the arguments from the first group. We had an extensive debate about that, so I am not going to go through it. But, in relation to the challenge that the noble Lord has just made, we have had a transition for over 25 years. As the noble Lord, Lord Newby, said, there were attempts to make fundamental changes, but they all hit the fundamental problem of “Don’t do anything until you do everything”. That is the problem here, and it is not going to be resolved by royal commissions and other bodies. I have seen those royal commissions, and they tend to mean long grass and do not build consensus.

The amendments in this group relate to types of formal review. In some cases, they would make commencement of the substantive provisions in the Bill conditional on such a review. I note that the Committee has discussed similar amendments in previous groups. Given that, I hope noble Lords will forgive me for repeating the words of my noble friend the Attorney-General: these amendments are unnecessary and disproportionate.

Amendments 95, 96, 98, 99 and 102 are concerned with the imposition of a duty to review the impact of the Bill following implementation. I stress again that the impact of the Bill is straightforward—no one can see it as complicated—and post-legislative scrutiny would likely not yield any more meaningful conclusions.

Amendment 95, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, would require the Secretary of State, within two years of this Act being passed and annually thereafter, to publish

“a report on the impact of this Act on the effectiveness of the House of Lords”

at discharging its functions. As my noble friend the Attorney-General pointed out last week on a similar amendment to this, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, placing a duty on the Government to undertake reviews until the end of time feels disproportionate in these circumstances. There is also an implication that our hereditary colleagues are intrinsically better able than life Peers to help the House to carry out its functions. As I said on a previous Committee day, who are we judging here? Are we judging life Peers as being inferior, not able or not committed?

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

It is empirical. The data show that our hereditary colleagues currently come here more often and participate more. That is not a slight on those of us who are here as life Peers, but does the Deputy Leader not accept that the data show the valuable contribution that they make to the work of this House?

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

I do not think the data show what the noble Lord is suggesting. It is a marginal change—1% or 2%. The simple fact is that, when you start implying that some noble Lords are better than others, I am afraid you are implying that life Peers somehow make less of a contribution. They do not, and that does not help us in terms of what we are trying to achieve here. The idea that our hereditary colleagues are intrinsically better does not help the House to carry out its functions. It does a disservice to the contribution made by life Peers on all sides of the Chamber, particularly our Cross-Bench Peers.

It is important to point out that there was no legislative scrutiny following the passage of the 1999 Act, despite that legislation removing a significantly higher number of Members from your Lordships’ House. This was because it was not necessary. The House continued—

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

The reason why a certain number of hereditary Peers were kept here in your Lordships’ House was to perform that post-legislative scrutiny. Again, the Deputy Leader has suggested that this is the ending of a transitional phase, removing those who were kept here to try to keep the last Labour Government on their toes about reform. If this is the end of a transition, can the Deputy Leader tell us what we are transitioning to?

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

As I said, the Leader of the House and others have acknowledged that what we did in 1999 was remove the hereditary principle. As my noble friend Lord Grocott has said on a number of occasions, that was not simply a mechanism to ensure transition; it was about saying to the Labour Government, “You won’t get your business through if you don’t keep these hereditaries here”. That was the reality, as my noble friend made clear in previous debates.

We have had over 25 years since the removal of the hereditary principle while maintaining 92. The Opposition had the opportunity on many occasions to support my noble friend so that those hereditary Peers could have stayed, but no: we ended up electing further hereditary Peers who were much younger and had no record of experience—as the noble Lord suggested—prior to their election by a very small number of people. The reality is that we are trying to defend the indefensible. We have a clear commitment in our manifesto.

By the way, there was no legislative scrutiny—I will come on to other commitments in our manifesto—but it is disingenuous of noble Lords to say that somehow they do not believe what we are saying. The proof of the pudding will be in the eating. I assure noble Lords that we will commit to that.

Amendment 96 from the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, would place a duty on the Government within 12 months of the Bill coming into force to produce a report dealing with its effects, including on devolved Governments, the Commonwealth, members of the Council of Europe and the rest of the world. As I have said, the impact of the Bill is very clear and I submit that, contrary to our propensity to talk about ourselves, the implications of the Bill are unlikely to be felt substantively throughout the international community.

I say to the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham—I have said this many times before—that the Government are committed to reforming the House of Lords, as set out in our manifesto. As my noble friend the Leader of the House has said in previous debates, the Government are keen to engage on how best to implement the other manifesto commitments by building consensus and understanding the needs of this House. She will come forward with proposals for doing this in a structured way.

Noble Lords are also aware of our longer-term commitment to consult the public on an alternative second Chamber. In light of this comment, I ask the noble Lord to withdraw the amendment.

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

My Lords—

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

I thought I had commented on it at the beginning. The simple fact is that the idea that you do not do anything until you do everything is not acceptable. It has not worked. We have introduced a staged process of reform. This is the first part of that reform—clearly stated in our manifesto—and we will move on to other aspects of our manifesto commitment in consultation with Members of this House. I ask that the Member withdraws the amendment.

[Lord Lucas (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to noble Lords who have spoken on their other amendments and to the noble Lord, Lord Collins, for his response. I was here for the previous Bill, of course, and can tell the noble Lord, Lord Collins, that his Front Bench was a great deal more convincing then about the inevitability of rapid progress to further change than his Front Bench is being now. We have heard nothing of ideas or substance from the Front Bench. It feels to me, just like it has on every previous occasion, that this will not happen.

Under those circumstances, something like Amendment 11 from the noble Lord, Lord Newby, is crucial. The noble Lords, Lord Cromwell and Lord Blencathra, have explored mechanisms that may be combined quite well with Amendment 11 to make it more effective. Something along those lines is what this House should send back to the other place so that the momentum for change is reinforced and, as far as possible, this House retains a degree of initiative in pushing that forward.

We need change, as the speakers to this group of amendments have said. We need that progress towards change to be public and believable, and we are not getting it at the moment. For the moment, I beg leave to withdraw this amendment.

Official Development Assistance

Lord Collins of Highbury Excerpts

Thursday 27th March 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Carey of Clifton]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the moral implications of their policy of reducing Official Development Assistance to 0.3 per cent of gross national income.

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

My Lords, protecting our national security is the first duty of any Government. This difficult choice reflects the evolving nature of the threats we face and the strategic shifts required to meet them. This Government remain fully committed to the United Kingdom playing a globally significant role on development. We will use all levers to support our development aims and we will work to mobilise finance beyond ODA to better meet the development needs of our partners.

[Lord Carey of Clifton (CB)]

My Lords, I am very grateful to the Minister for that very clear and helpful response. William Temple, in his famous book Christianity and Social Order, written in 1942, famously stated that

“the art of government in fact is the art of so ordering life that self-interest prompts what justice demands”.

I believe that that tension is with us today and was clearly expressed in the Labour manifesto last year, which promised that, on the international level, Britain would be a good neighbour and regain its global leadership on development. I want to put two questions. First, what strategies will the Government take forward to carry on UK aid’s crucial work, bearing in mind the straitened circumstances in which we live? Secondly, is this not now an opportunity to deepen the links between UK aid and the many organisations that do such fantastic work, such as Christian Aid, CAFOD, Tearfund, Islamic Relief and many other voluntary compassionate groups?

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

I thank the noble and right reverend Lord. On his first question, importantly, the Foreign Secretary will lead a cross-departmental process to consider all the aid allocations. We will work through how our ODA budget will be used as part of ongoing spending review and resource-allocation processes, based on various factors, including impact assessments.

To repeat the point I made before, it is important that our development efforts are seen not just through ODA. The United Kingdom uses expertise, policy influencing, global convening and other trade and economic levers. I have visited many African countries in the last six months; I know what leaders are telling me. Our new approach to developing partnerships is about leveraging greater investment, economic growth and empowerment through the creation of jobs. That is how we will deliver change, and that is what we will continue to do.

[Lord Browne of Ladyton (Lab)]

My Lords, I draw the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Interests. I also draw the attention of my noble friend the Minister to a question I asked last Thursday, in the debate on the G7 Statement, about the precarious nature of the FCDO’s global demining programme, which was threatened at that time because the money came from ODA. I do this because, in many contexts, an artificial dichotomy between aid and security spending is something of a false dichotomy. Consequently, I ask my noble friend: what are we doing with our allies to ensure that the ODA money, which we have to spend collectively, is targeted where it can do the most good and, importantly, yield tangible benefits for peace and security?

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

My noble friend makes a really good point. The demining projects are about increasing security, but they are also vital for economic growth and development. I have been to countries where we have supported those projects and where agriculture has increased as a consequence of being able to deal with that issue. So my noble friend is absolutely right: this is about economic growth but it is also about security. As he knows, we have secured the contract for HALO to ensure that we can continue this excellent work.

[Baroness Sugg (Con)]

My Lords, the Minister will know that, following the decision to cut aid to 0.3% of GNI by 2027, there have been calls to maintain spend until 2027 to protect vital programmes and to ensure that the cuts are done in a careful and considered way. The Minister referred to the process; may I press him on a timeline? When will the decisions be made and the impact assessments published, and when will Parliament have the opportunity to debate the details of these decisions?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

It is very difficult to give a direct answer; what I can say is that we are currently working through all programmes. We want to avoid a cliff-edge like that which, as the noble Baroness knows, happened in the past: programmes were stopped midway through, and damage was done to our credibility and confidence. We are not going to do that. We are looking at all programmes and making plans to reduce spending over time. Let me reassure her that we will come forward with details when the spending review is completed. We are going to avoid some of the mistakes of the past, and we will work with partners, multilaterally and bilaterally, to ensure there is not the sort of damage we saw in the past.

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

My Lords—

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

My Lords, yesterday the Government failed to implement the global tax avoidance scheme for businesses earning profits of more than €20 billion, and which would raise over half a billion pounds this year, because they are waiting for President Trump’s approval. Also yesterday, the Government announced in the Statement an immediate £0.5 billion cut to official development assistance, contradicting what the Minister has just said. What is the morality of allowing large companies like Elon Musk’s X to avoid paying tax in the UK, while implementing programme cuts that disproportionately affect the most vulnerable women and girls around the world? What morality is to be found there?

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

I come back to the point I made at the beginning, because I am absolutely passionate about this. When I visited African countries, they were concerned about ensuring that they have a proper tax base in their own country. That is why the HMRC—[Interruption.] The noble Lord does not need to shout at me. We have embedded people in a number of African countries to help them widen their tax base, and we are working collaboratively with partners to ensure that that happens. We want to see economic growth as the driver of change around the globe, and I am absolutely committed to that. I do not accept the hypocrisy argument that the noble Lord is making.

[Lord McConnell of Glenscorrodale (Lab)]

My Lords, one of the more disappointing aspects of the Government’s decision was to retain payments through ODA towards refugee and asylum costs in the UK. The Government have promised to reduce those costs. Will any savings from ODA spending on hotels and other asylum and refugee costs in the UK be retained within ODA and therefore be freed to again increase the resources available for overseas development?

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

My noble friend makes a very good point. The Home Office and the Government are absolutely committed to reducing those asylum and hotel costs in this country. Yesterday, it was also confirmed that the FCDO is no longer required to adjust budgets to hit a calendar year spending commitment. This is a positive change that means the FCDO will not automatically be exposed to the volatility of GNI or spending by other departments on, for example, asylum costs.

[The Earl of Effingham (Con)]

My Lords, to quote the Prime Minister when he was Leader of the Opposition in the other place:

“Cutting aid will increase costs and have a big impact on our economy. Development aid … reduces conflict, disease and people fleeing from their homes. It is a false economy to pretend that this is some sort of cut that does not have consequences”.—[Official Report, Commons, 13/7/21; col. 177.]


Does this remain His Majesty’s Government’s assessment of the impact of cutting foreign aid?

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

I am glad the noble Earl asked that question, because he needs to be reminded that we are in a different situation. We are in a generational change: the threat this country faces has never been faced before, and we know that we have to return to defence spending to ensure that the people of this country remain secure. I am not going to be lectured by noble Lords opposite about defence spending, when they reduced it so much over the years that we have to work so hard to return to it.

Ukraine: UK-USA Discussions

Lord Collins of Highbury Excerpts

Wednesday 26th March 2025 Lords Chamber

[The Senior Deputy Speaker (Lord Gardiner of Kimble)]

My Lords, the first Oral Question is from the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, who is participating virtually.

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

My Lords, we share President Trump’s desire to bring this barbaric war to an end and remain in close touch with the US at every level. The Prime Minister spoke to President Trump most recently on 17 March and the Foreign Secretary spoke to his US counterpart on 19 March. A just and lasting peace in Ukraine is vital to UK national interests. We are playing a leading role in driving progress towards this goal together with the US, Ukraine and our international partners.

[Lord Campbell-Savours (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, while I recognise the constructive role of the Prime Minister in seeking to influence the Trump Administration, with Trump’s initiatives on energy security, safe navigation, payment systems access and relaxed sanctions now proceeding, is there not a danger, post ceasefire, in remnants of the Azov brigades challenging these successes by engaging in sporadic potential ceasefire violations with military attacks on Russian forces in Russian-occupied zones? Why not propose in the interim a narrow security corridor separating the parties, policed not by coalition combat forces but by blue-helmet peacekeepers, with the later potential for full demilitarisation? We need to prevent rogue Ukraine operators undermining any agreements.

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

My Lords, I only wish we were in a post-ceasefire situation. We have been absolutely clear that this process must lead to a just and lasting peace for Ukraine. We will stand with Ukraine for as long as it takes to ensure that Russia can never launch an illegal invasion again. Under President Zelensky’s leadership, Ukraine has shown that it is the party of peace, sincere in its efforts to pursue a just and lasting end to this appalling war. For any peace deal to last, Ukraine will need robust security arrangements to ensure that Russia is never able to invade again. Europe must shoulder more of the burden of ensuring the security of our continent and the UK will play its full part but, as the PM said, US involvement in future security arrangements is the only way to effectively deter Russia.

[Lord Bellingham (Con)]

My Lords, does the Minister agree that it is vital that there is no weakening of the sanctions regime, particularly the sanctions on Rosselkhozbank and the restrictions on Russia’s use of the SWIFT regime, until there is a full ceasefire?

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

I agree with the noble Lord absolutely. We need to maintain pressure on Russia to ensure that the ceasefire leads to a secure and lasting peace.

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

My Lords, the Minister is aware that these Benches are part of the consensus in Parliament in support of the Government’s aims in this, but with Steve Witkoff, President Trump’s Ukraine envoy, calling our Prime Minister posturing and posing in his work, with Mike Waltz, President Trump’s National Security Advisor, calling the previous efforts of the RAF in Yemen “feckless”, and with the chat on Signal that we saw over the last couple of days, which in effect is extorting European allies for their practice, there comes a time when good friends and allies have to say that language such as that is not acceptable. I invite the Minister to do so now.

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

I am not going to accept the noble Lord’s invitation. The simple fact is that the UK shares President Trump’s desire to bring this barbaric war to an end. Russia could do this tomorrow by withdrawing its forces and ending its illegal invasion. We are absolutely committed to securing a just and lasting peace in Ukraine, and we will work with all our allies to secure that.

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

My Lords, I very much welcome what the Minister has said, and we are also fully supportive of the Government’s actions here. We note the news that Russia and Ukraine have reached a tentative agreement to cease fire in the Black Sea, something that I am sure we are all looking at with a degree of scepticism. Ensuring the long-term security and sovereignty of Ukraine, as the Minister said, is not only a strategic priority but a fundamental duty that we owe to our close ally, and I am delighted that the Prime Minister is due to continue discussions with President Macron and others on this tomorrow. Can the Minister update the House on the progress of talks with the so-called coalition of the willing, the militaries of the UK and its allies, and share some more information about the organisation that is taking shape?

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

I cannot report on a meeting that is going to take place tomorrow, but I understand what the noble Lord is saying. I think the Prime Minister has been absolutely consistent in building that alliance of the willing, which I think is essential. Also, on his visit to Kyiv on 16 January he signed an historic 100-year partnership agreement with President Zelensky, which will deepen defence-industrial base collaboration and lead to joint military training and exercises. We are absolutely working with all our European allies to deliver the same sort of thing, and I assure the noble Lord that we are going to continue that work.

[Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)]

My Lords, will the Minister give careful study to the report by the International Agreements Committee, which is issuing today, about the agreement between the UK and Ukraine and the prospects that have been discussed by earlier questioners? Does he recognise that our experience in Bosnia in the 1990s showed how absolutely futile a blue-helmeted force was when the people we were up against were prepared to cheat, lie and use aggression? If he does, I think he would also agree that what the Prime Minister is suggesting is something rather different and much more robust.

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

I clearly have not had the opportunity to read the report yet, but I will: I do read those reports consistently. The noble Lord is absolutely right. In my response to the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, I made it clear that the way to security is for Russia to honour the commitments it made to President Trump and actually adhere to a ceasefire, or start a ceasefire, but then focus on building a secure and lasting peace. That secure and lasting peace can be delivered only if Europe stays fully behind Ukraine and we work with the United States to ensure that there is longer-lasting security in that continent.

[Baroness Winterton of Doncaster (Lab)]

My Lords, at a recent meeting of the OSCE, there was widespread support, including from US Democrats and Republicans, for continued support for Ukraine. Does my noble friend the Minister agree that it is crucial for the UK Government to play a leadership role in the OSCE to ensure collective security for our country and the wider world and to back up the type of talks that he has mentioned previously?

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

My noble friend is absolutely right. The Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary have worked in all multilateral institutions to ensure that the position of the United Kingdom and its allies in support of Ukraine is heard loud and clear. I certainly welcome my noble friend’s report on the OSCE meeting.

[Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)]

My Lords—

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

As I have said, the United States is a vital component of European security. It has been since 1945. The United States is also one of the United Kingdom’s longest allies. The close friendship between our two countries is important to secure our security, so we will maintain very strong relationships. We welcome President Trump’s initiative in trying to ensure that we have a ceasefire. The only people who have not so far committed to that ceasefire are the Russians.

House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill

Lord Collins of Highbury Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 25th March 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friends Lady Laing of Elderslie and Lord Brady of Altrincham for their amendments. My noble friend Lord Brady seems to have pulled off the ingenious feat of engineering a debate on an amendment he did not want to move or speak about himself. So I will not say very much about his Amendment 90C, other than to note that the answers that noble Lords get to their questions would be far less satisfactory if the people responding had less authority to seek or determine the answers, and that our scrutiny of legislation would be diminished if the Ministers responding did not have the authority to make changes and compromises based on the arguments they have heard. We live in hope that we might be able to persuade Ministers of the need for some changes to and compromises on the Bill before the Committee.

I will focus on my noble friend Lady Laing’s Amendment 67, which has far more going for it. It is certainly valuable to be able to bring people into government who might not have had the inclination or the opportunity to stand for election. The present Government have made good use of that. Mention has already been made, rightly, of the noble Lord, Lord Timpson, who had a distinguished career in business but also helped those who had been in the penal system. More pertinent examples are people such as the noble Lords, Lord Vallance of Balham and Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill, who were distinguished public servants in their fields before they dipped their toes into more political waters. Similarly, the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General stepped away from a successful career at the Bar to provide counsel and public service in government. Governments of all colours have been able to persuade distinguished people from all sorts of walks of life to pause or sometimes abandon their careers in order to serve the country. What my noble friend says is right: they could perhaps persuade more if it were not accompanied by a life sentence in the legislature.

Although some noble Lords who have given service in government remain active members of your Lordships’ House, drawing on the expertise they have added in office, others do not. I was struck by the figures that the noble Lord, Lord Rennard, quoted on the rate of continuing participation of former Ministers. Indeed, when I look down the list of those who served in the Conservative-led Governments of the previous 14 years, I am struck by the number who have chosen no longer to sit on these Benches. I remember one difficult conversation with a noble Lord, who will remain nameless, who was anxious to step down as a Minister, having already served for longer than the late Lord Heywood of Whitehall had promised them they would have to in return for their life peerage.

So, although I am firmly of the view that Ministers of the Crown should be represented in both Houses of our bicameral system, my noble friend Lady Laing’s suggestion that temporary service in government should be separated from perpetual service here in the legislature is worthy of consideration. I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say.

[Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Collins of Highbury) (Lab)]

This has been a really interesting debate. I will not address the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Brady, because he has not moved it, which makes life a bit easier. However, he supported Amendment 67, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Laing, which seeks to allow individuals to be appointed as temporary Peers so that they can serve as Ministers, after which they would depart this House.

Although the Government see the reasoning behind this amendment, we do not think it is the best way of achieving our objective of a smaller, more active Chamber. Ministers are appointed to the Government because of the experience and expertise they bring to this House, and the House benefits hugely from that. Some Ministers appointed to this House who were Members of Parliament bring both an intrinsic understanding of the other place and valuable experience of particular government departments. I have said before that in my view, both Houses work most effectively when we understand each other’s day-to-day workings. That is a really important point.

Others have been appointed as Ministers in recognition of the value of their experience outside of government, in the private sector and in other areas of public service. As noble Lords have said, we are lucky enough to have a number of such experts on the Benches with us. My noble and learned friend Lord Hermer and my noble friend Lord Timpson were recently appointed to this House to serve as Ministers, as was the noble Lord, Lord Wolfson, in the last Parliament.

Whatever the precise reasons for their appointment, I think noble Lords would agree that these individuals proved valuable to the House long after they ceased to be Ministers. This amendment risks depriving the House of often considerable experience.

I understand the sentiment of this amendment. New Peers, whether appointed as Ministers or not, increase the size of this House, because appointments are for life, and the House has become too big. What the House has found frustrating is that, often, when Ministers are appointed and come into this House, they leave their ministerial posts quite quickly and make no further contribution. That is not the case for the noble Lord, Lord Wolfson, and certainly not for the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen, and the noble Lord, Lord Agnew. All three of them resigned from government on a matter of principle, but they have continued to participate.

We would not have had the benefit of the noble Lord in the debate today if he had been subject to the noble Baroness’s amendment. This is an important point to make. The noble Lord, Lord Agnew, has continued to contribute. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen, has been contributing to today’s debate. I hear what the noble Lord, Lord Vaizey, says, but I suspect that they do not have his unique skills in persuading the Prime Minister to keep them in.

The noble Baroness’s amendment is not the way to address the problem of the size of our House. Our objective is to create a smaller, more active Chamber that represents the country it serves. As we have said throughout Committee, the Government believe that a mandatory retirement age is the most effective way to do this. It is right that we take time, as a House, to continue the dialogue on how best we can implement these manifesto commitments, and this amendment would pre-empt that dialogue.

I have heard what the noble Baroness has to say, but the evidence is here before us. It is not for the first time that I have congratulated the noble Lord, Lord Wolfson, on his participation, and it would be terrible if we did not have him here in today’s debate. I ask the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.

[Lord Rennard (LD)]

My Lords, would the Minister consider raising with the Prime Minister the suggestion that I made of a statement along the lines I indicated in my speech, which would enable a Prime Minister to make Ministers by way of creating a peerage, but for such Peers to continue in the role only if they undertook regular participation in the House in future, and, if they did not, that they should therefore resign their membership of the House?

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

As the noble Lord knows, we are going to look at participation generally. That means that we have to engage in proper dialogue and consultation, so I do not accept the noble Lord’s point. I ask the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.

[Baroness Laing of Elderslie (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his assessment of the amendment that I have put before the Committee. It had not been my intention to have any argument ad hominem. I was not looking backwards in my tabling of this amendment in order to eject from the House any particular former Minister—and certainly not any sitting here.

House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill

Lord Collins of Highbury Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 25th March 2025 Lords Chamber

[The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Smith of Basildon) (Lab)]

My Lords, this was a short but interesting debate. I thank the noble Baroness for injecting some humour into it. It seemed that the female Members of the House found it funnier than—if I dare say it—the male Members of the House. Perhaps I will pass over that quite quickly and move on.

[Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Collins of Highbury) (Lab)]

You need a fig leaf.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

It continues.

There have been some interesting discussions. The noble Lord, Lord Burns, used his amendment to refer back to the Lord Speaker’s Committee, when he looked at the size of the House and how related issues might be addressed. His amendment focuses on the idea of two out, one in, although he spoke more widely on the report, which was very helpful. I will come to that in a moment.

The noble Lord, Lord Northbrook, wants to delay the commencement of the Bill, which is why he tabled his amendment. He seemed to think we should have a draft Bill first to implement the Burns committee’s report. I looked into his interest in the Burns committee, and I was surprised, given that he thought it so important to delay this Bill until there is a draft Bill on the Burns committee, that he did not speak on the Burns committee when it was debated in your Lordships’ House. I think he referred to it in debate on my noble friend Lord Grocott’s Bill. It is an interesting point but not one that we would be able to accept, because it would just delay this Bill.

The noble Lord, Lord Burns, raised some interesting issues. When we debated the Burns committee report there was widespread support around the House for it. Looking back, I was not sure during the debate that every Member was fully signed up to every part of the report, but there was a real view that something had to be done and that this was going in the right direction of how we might address the issue.

The noble Baroness made a point about size and how we are not a full-time House. We are very much a full-time House. We sit longer and later than the other place, but we do not expect every Member of your Lordships’ House to be full-time. Members have outside interests, and we do not expect everybody to be here all day, every day—and neither should we. It would be unhelpful to the House if every Member was always here and we were all full-time politicians. We bring different experiences and different issues to the House.

I think we agree that the size of the House should come down. This is a bit about perception. We regularly read about the size and the bloat of the House, and how we are the second-largest assembly in the world, but we are not. If we look at the active membership—Members who attend reasonably regularly—then the House is not that size; it is much smaller. The two measures we are looking at, on retirement and participation, go a long way towards addressing some of the criticisms that are made. That is why I am so keen—and I have said that I will come back to the House on this—to have a mechanism that Members can input into so that we can see if the House can reach agreement on what that might look like in practice. We have had some discussions about that already.

The noble Lord, Lord Newby, made some points about allocation. We discussed this before on the Bill from the noble Lord, Lord Norton, which suggested that 20% of the House should be Cross-Benchers. Although that is a pretty fair figure for the Cross-Benchers, having a mechanism within your Lordships’ House that, in effect, determines what the size of one group should be does nothing about the relative size of other groups. One of the things I have looked at with some dismay over the years is how the government party has grown and grown. The noble Lord said his party had had only three new Members, most of them very recently. To come back to an earlier debate, at one point I think more new Ministers were appointed—in some cases for very short terms in office—to this side of the House than we had appointments in the whole of that time in opposition. We therefore need to get a better balance between the two parties.

The noble Lord, Lord Burns, is absolutely right. The House does some of its best work when we do not play the numbers game and say, “We’ve got more than you, we can win a vote”. We got into bad habits during some of the coalition years, when there was an automatic majority. We saw large numbers come in under Boris Johnson in particular: when the Government lost votes, their answer was to appoint more Peers. That did not have the effect that the Government wanted it to have. The House does its best work when there are roughly equal numbers between the Government and opposition parties, and when we are more deliberative in our approach rather than thinking that everything has to be resolved by voting. The House was designed to take that sort of approach. But the House is larger than it needs to be and it does not reflect the work we do or how we operate.

The noble Lord, Lord Burns, did the House a great service with his report; he focused minds. These are issues that we will return to, but he established an important principle that the House should look at dealing with some of these issues. It is very important that we do, because our views on how we should operate matter. This goes back to earlier debates about the skills and experience required, and about the make-up of the House that we want to see. We will have that debate in a moment, I am sure, on the amendments from the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra. This has been an important debate and I am grateful to both noble Lords for their amendments, but I would respectfully urge them not to press them.

Cuba: Political Dialogue and Cooperation Agreement

Lord Collins of Highbury Excerpts

Tuesday 25th March 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Woodley]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to ratify the Political Dialogue and Cooperation Agreement with Cuba.

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

My Lords, the United Kingdom-Cuba Political Dialogue and Cooperation Agreement was signed in November 2023 under the previous Government. It is currently undergoing cross-government consultation and will be laid before Parliament for scrutiny in due course.

[Lord Woodley (Lab)]

My Lords, of course I warmly welcome that Answer from my noble friend the Minister, but as he will appreciate, every day is a terrible delay in terms of the suffering that it leaves the Cuban people in. Can I therefore press him further on when he anticipates that this agreement will be ratified, bearing in mind that, as he said, the previous Government travelled to Havana to sign it? I urge my noble friend to consider provisional implementation beforehand, in line with what the EU is doing, as a vital means of breaking the isolation of this very peaceful Caribbean island.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

I hear what my noble friend says, but we cannot commit to a specific timeline for ratification, as this is a matter for Parliament. However, initial steps to undertake the cross-government consultation are under way. We do not currently have plans for provisional implementation, but I point out to my noble friend that positive collaboration with Cuba is possible without it, as evidenced by the recent visit to Havana by United Kingdom climate experts.

[Lord Robathan (Con)]

My Lords, I went to Cuba a few years ago, and we got to know a taxi driver who drove us around—he was a charming man. When he relaxed, I said to him, “Would you like to go to America?” He said, “Are you mad? Everybody I know wants to go to America”. The reason is that they were being oppressed by the ghastly Government on that “peaceful island”.

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

I hear what the noble Lord says. The embargo does negatively affect the living standards of the Cuban people but, more importantly, it impedes the economic and political development of the country. That is why this country, including the previous Government, supports this move.

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

My Lords, unfortunately, I have not a chat with a Cuban taxi driver, but 18 months seems a little long for internal government consultation on an agreement signed by a Minister of the Crown. Part of the agreement, as Minister Rutley said when he signed it, was about the US embargo—and now we have seen the most recent restrictions by the Trump Administration. So, given that our Government want to be closer to both Beijing and Washington, will they actually bring into force the Cuban agreement that we have signed?

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

I think I have already answered the noble Lord: we will put ratification of this agreement before Parliament, but it is a matter of parliamentary time. Since the election, we have started the cross-Whitehall consultation to ensure that we can properly implement it. But I repeat that positive collaboration with Cuba is possible without partial implementation of the PDCA, and that is really important to understand. Climate change is just one aspect, but other aspects of collaboration can happen without the full implementation.

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

My Lords, the Human Rights Watch World Report 2024 paints a desperate picture of the rights situation on the “peaceful Caribbean island” of the noble Lord, Lord Woodley. It reports, among other things:

“Cubans who criticize the government risk criminal prosecution. They are not guaranteed due process”,


and:

“Authorities routinely block access to many news websites within Cuba”.


When I visited, I did not speak to any taxi drivers but getting access to the internet at all was incredibly difficult and expensive. Therefore, how are the Government utilising the provisions under the PDCA to promote progress on human rights in Cuba?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

I did not expect to have to explain this to the noble Lord, but the previous Government’s rationale for implementation was to promote economic and political development. Certainly, I will not defend the attacks on human rights—I am the Minister for Human Rights—but I welcome the fact that, on 14 January, 553 prisoners, including political prisoners, were liberated. We remain concerned about those continuing to serve time, and we have made representations about that. We certainly urge Cuba to ensure that all those prisoners have the right to a fair trial, without condition. But I repeat that the engagement that we have undertaken, and what the previous Government did, had a purpose: to see economic and political development. That is the way to make progress.

[Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)]

My Lords, in welcoming what the Minister—in his capacity as the Minister for Human Rights, a task he carries out with great diligence —has just said about human rights violations in Cuba, I ask him: can he share with the House the current numbers of people who are imprisoned in Cuba because of their political views? Can he share the violations that have been carried out under Article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights—the right to believe, not to believe or to change belief—and the massive numbers of violations and imprisonments that occur in Cuba under that clause?

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

I shall not repeat the figures from the announcement about the recent release, but I reassure the noble Lord that the United Kingdom Government, as did the previous Government, have called for the immediate release of all political prisoners, without condition, and that will remain our position. We are absolutely determined to advance political development in Cuba, and we will focus on ensuring that human rights are respected.

[Lord Sahota (Lab)]

My Lords, as our Government are on good terms with the President of America these days, will they ask the President of America for Americans to leave Guantanamo Bay, which is something that the Cuban Government have wanted them to do for the last 60 years—but they would not leave?

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

That is a base that was agreed and remains a sovereign base for the US. I am certainly not going to make any commitments in that regard. Our purpose as a Government remains to have good relationships with all Governments, because the way to a peaceful world is to ensure that we maintain good relationships with all Governments—particularly with our longest-standing ally, the United States. They remain important in terms of keeping global peace.

[Lord Balfe (Con)]

I draw attention to the fact that during the last 62 years this embargo has actually failed to remove the Government of Cuba, which it was meant to do. It has been a complete failure, but it has made it more difficult for British business to intervene and get orders there. What steps is the Minister going to take to mitigate the challenges of the embargo, with things as they stand at the moment, to enable UK businesses to engage more with Cuba and sell more products to Cuba?

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

I hear the noble Lord. The United Kingdom, under all Governments, has opposed the US embargo against Cuba, which negatively affects living standards, as I said, and impedes economic and political development. Since 1996, the United Kingdom has consistently voted in support of the annual United Nations General Assembly resolution calling for an end to the embargo. Most recently, we did so on 29 October 2024.

The noble Lord is right. Titles III and IV of the US Helms-Burton Act prevent and restrict British companies, among others, from conducting legitimate and lawful business in Cuba. We have made representations in that regard, and we are absolutely concerned about the ongoing impact on the economic development of British companies and companies within Cuba.

[Lord Sikka (Lab)]

My Lords, Cuba, a comparatively poor country, has 9.31 doctors per 1,000 people and exports medical professionals. The UK has 3.2 doctors per 1,000 people, well below the EU average, and struggles to produce doctors; it has imported 32% of its doctors. On the assumption that we can all learn from other countries, will the Government study Cuba’s health system and seek its help in addressing doctor shortages in the UK?

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

I reassure my noble friend that we are absolutely committed to learning from best practice. One thing I have learned as Minister for Africa is how we can learn from many African countries—because they have focused on primary healthcare and prevention. I think it is really important that we look at best practice everywhere and see how we can adopt it.

Conflict in Gaza

Lord Collins of Highbury Excerpts

Monday 24th March 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

My Lords, the ferocity of the return to war has shocked many. Even in the days since the Statement was made in the House of Commons, we have seen strikes within Lebanese territory as well. Can the Minister update us on the contact His Majesty’s Government have had with the Lebanese Government regarding to the situation in Lebanon? I have twice asked the Development Minister, the noble Baroness, Lady Chapman, whether she would be open to meeting with me and female Lebanese MPs who are at the heart of trying to design reconstruction that does not entrench the confessional system but offers new hope.

But, alas, with the strikes in Lebanon, that hope, as well as that with regard to the hostage families, must now be teetering. Indeed, reading, as I did—I quoted it in the Chamber—the statement from the hostage families of their shock and anger at the Netanyahu Government’s resumption of war was really depressing, because it dashes what many have had: finally, the prospect of hope. So can the Minister update us on the Government’s assessment of the process that was brokered by Qatar? Is it a process that the Government consider can still be retrieved or do the actions we are seeing within Gaza and Lebanon now require a separate process? What discussions have the Government had with our Qatari and Egyptian colleagues?

It should be noted that the restart of the war has seen an even higher proportion of victims being women and children than before the ceasefire. The availability of food and medicine is even less than it was then. Yet again, civilians are being treated disproportionately and are also being forcibly moved to new areas where there is no food, shelter, water or medicine. That qualifies as a war crime. I asked the Minister last week whether it was the Government’s view that there is a prima facie case of international human humanitarian law being breached. What actions are we taking beyond those taken last July with the limited suspension of certain export licences?

I turn to the Arab peace plan and the Government’s assessment of the overall prospects for reconstruction if there is some form of peace—even though not many people will be optimistic about that. What faith can we put in the judgment of the United States envoy, Steve Witkoff, who the Foreign Secretary said in his Statement we were speaking to but who in recent days has ridiculed our Prime Minister as a poseur and posturer over Ukraine, regards the war criminal Putin not as a war criminal or a bad guy but as a gracious and good guy, and has said that Ukraine is “a false country”? If that is the envoy’s judgment on Ukraine, what faith can we have in his judgment on the reconstruction of Gaza? What is our position on the Arab plan? Is it one that the United Kingdom is supporting directly or are we sympathetic to what the Trump Administration have been saying?

We have also, regrettably, seen certain extremist elements of Israeli politics rejoin the Netanyahu Administration. This is of concern not just to people in this Parliament but to civil society in Israel itself. We have seen the attacks on the judiciary, the statements for annexation of parts of the Occupied Palestinian Territories, the unprecedented sacking of the internal intelligence chief and the active encouragement of settler violence. Most surely, we cannot have a relationship with the Netanyahu Administration in the normal manner. So, what actions are the UK taking to prevent settler violence and annexation? What are our red lines for our diplomatic relations with the Netanyahu Administration?

Finally, one of the issues that must now be an imperative is recognition, because, even at a time of great humanitarian danger, there is one element we can provide: hope for statehood. We had a very good debate—and all Members were able to express their views, in favour and against—on the recognition Bill brought by my noble friend Lady Northover. I understand that it is the Government’s position that now is not the time for recognition and that they will make a judgment on when it is the appropriate time for recognition. What factors would need to be in place that are not in place now for us to consider that the time would be right? At the end of the day, with the danger that the civilians are seeing, one of the elements that can provide hope is recognition. These Benches believe in this, and I hope the Government can at least move and give more hope to the Palestinian people.

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

I thank both noble Lords for their contributions, comments and questions. We all share deep concern about the resumption of Israeli military action in Gaza, and the United Kingdom does not support a return to fighting. It is absolutely not in anybody’s interests and, certainly, the reported civilian casualties resulting from the renewed outbreak of hostilities are appalling. We are absolutely focused on ensuring that aid must immediately be allowed back into Gaza. We have urged all parties to return urgently to talks, implement the ceasefire agreement in full, release the hostages and work towards a permanent peace and security for Israelis and Palestinians. That is absolutely the key.

Picking up on the point from the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, about when the right time for recognition is, the right time is when we see a clear pathway to a negotiated settlement. That is what the former Foreign Secretary, the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, said. It is what we have repeatedly said. It should be an aid towards securing a proper process for achieving a longer-term settlement that sees security for Israel and nationhood for the Palestinians, and them working peacefully together.

I say to the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, that the Foreign Secretary has been absolutely embraced in terms of communicating our concerns and how we could reach, in particular, access for aid into Gaza. The Foreign Secretary has recently spoken to Secretary Rubio, EU High Representative Kallas and the UN emergency relief co-ordinator, Tom Fletcher. On 21 March, he also spoke to his Israeli counterpart, Gideon Sa’ar, and he plans to speak to Palestinian PM Mustafa shortly. The UK made statements in the UN Security Council on Tuesday 18 March and Friday 21 March. We joined the G7 Foreign Ministers’ statement the week before. An E3 Foreign Ministers’ statement issued on Friday 21 March called on all parties to re-engage with negotiations to ensure that the ceasefire is implemented in full and becomes permanent.

In his Statement last Thursday, the Foreign Secretary said that the block on supplies of basic goods and electricity was appalling and unacceptable. He went on to say that, while ultimately this is a matter for the courts, not Governments, to determine, it was difficult to see how denying humanitarian assistance to a civilian population could be compatible with international humanitarian law. The Government have been clear that we are not an international court and that we cannot make a judgment on whether Israel has breached IHL.

Our export licensing criteria, as the Foreign Secretary set out in the House of Commons back in September, require him to assess the risk that our exports could commit or facilitate serious violations of international humanitarian law. Our reviews concluded that there was a clear risk of Israel breaching IHL and we took decisive action on 2 September by suspending the relevant licences to the IDF for use in Gaza.

We have been absolutely clear that humanitarian aid should never be used as a political tool and that Israel must restart the flow of aid immediately. The Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary have made it clear that they are appalled by Israel blocking aid when it is needed at greater volume and speed than ever before. At the UN Security Council meeting on 18 March, we called for a rapid and unhindered resurgence of the flow of aid into Gaza and for the ceasefire to be re-established as soon as possible. The Foreign Secretary spoke to Tom Fletcher on 14 March regarding the humanitarian situation in Gaza and Hamish Falconer spoke to him on 17 March, so we have been in constant contact.

In relation to the UNOPS compound in Gaza, which was hit last week, our thoughts are very much with the victims and their families, including, as noble Lords have said, a British national. On 21 March, together with France and Germany, we called for an investigation into this incident. UN personnel and premises should be protected and never be a target. We are, of course, aware of the statement and we echo the UN Secretary-General’s call for an urgent ceasefire. As the Foreign Secretary said on Thursday, this was a shocking incident, with a British national being wounded. We share the outrage of Secretary-General Guterres at this incident. The Government call for a transparent investigation and for those responsible to be held to account.

As the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, reflected, the hostages have endured unimaginable suffering and the situation in Gaza has worsened. This ceasefire is the only way for the region to move forward. Securing an immediate ceasefire and the safe release of all hostages has been a priority for this Government since the start of the conflict and we will not stop until they are all home. Time is running out and we renew the call of all parties to return to dialogue.

I stress that there is no moral equivalence between Israel, a democracy, and Hamas, a proscribed terrorist organisation. We have been clear that there is no role for Hamas in the future governance of Gaza.

In relation to the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, we welcome the Arab initiative on the recovery and reconstruction plan for Gaza. In a statement on 8 March, we, with France, Germany and Italy, encouraged ongoing efforts on the initiative and encouraged all parties to build on the plan’s merits.

In relation to the hostages, on 20 March, the UK-linked former hostage Eli Sharabi addressed an open session of the Security Council, which was called for by the UK, along with the US and France. Following Eli’s harrowing testimony, the UK said that Hamas must be held accountable for its despicable actions. We have repeated our call for the immediate and unconditional release of all hostages, which has also been set out in all four of the UN Security Council’s resolutions on Gaza adopted since 7 October.

The important thing is how we can ensure that the focus continues to be on the ceasefire and the agreed process. As regards the comment from the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, we are committed to that. We do believe that it is our only hope for sustainable peace and we will work at all levels to ensure that it can be delivered.

In relation to Lebanon, escalation across the Israel-Lebanon blue line is deeply concerning. It is imperative that all sides return to a cessation of hostilities and work towards a secure and lasting peace. That is the only way to restore security and stability for people living on either side of the border.

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)]

My Lords, I draw attention to my entry in the register of interests, including chairing the ICO advisory panel on conflict resolution. I have interrelated questions. There is a conference scheduled for June by France and the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. I would appreciate the Minister’s insights as to the UK’s role. Linked to that, on the specific dates of meetings and engagement that have taken place with Steve Witkoff, the US envoy, clearly, the United States, together with Qatar, has the greatest leverage when it comes to dealing with Hamas. What specific role is the United Kingdom playing in engaging with these two key partners?

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

The Minister for the Middle East has been in regular contact with neighbouring countries and regional allies. We are absolutely focused on that. To repeat what I have said on numerous occasions, we welcome the United States’ action in securing the ceasefire agreement and the release of the hostages that we have seen so far. We remain committed to speaking with allies to look at all possibilities, so that we can remain focused on the ceasefire to ensure a much longer-lasting peace. The noble Lord is right: we must work with our allies to ensure that they understand the importance of this, and particularly all regional neighbours.

[Lord Polak (Con)]

My Lords, I refer the House to my registered interests. Last Thursday, in New York, I had a humbling experience at the UN Security Council, to which the Minister has just referred, where I heard the brave, eloquent and moving speech of the freed hostage Eli Sharabi, whose British wife, Lianne, and daughters, Noiya and Yahel, were brutally murdered. I urge all noble Lords to read his speech. Many noble Lords have already spoken about aid to Gaza. I will quote a short extract from Eli Sharabi’s speech:

“I saw Hamas … carrying boxes with UN and UNRWA emblems … into the tunnel. Dozens and dozens of boxes paid by your governments. Feeding terrorists who tortured me and murdered my family. They would eat many meals a day from UN aid in front of us and we never received any of it”.


In the light of Eli’s remarks, I want to ask the Minister a question that the shadow Foreign Secretary asked the Foreign Secretary last week. What is HMG’s assessment of reports of Hamas stockpiling aid?

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

I repeat that Eli Sharabi’s statement was incredibly moving and had a huge impact on all members of the Security Council. Our Statement afterwards was clear that Hamas must be held accountable for its despicable actions, and we certainly reflected that in all of the UN Security Council’s resolutions. The problem is that aid is not getting in at all at the moment. That has to be the focus of our attention. We are looking at all ways to ensure that aid gets in, not only through UNRWA, which is an important agency in the delivery of aid, but, as the noble Lord raised, through the ICRC. We are absolutely focused on ensuring that. The real problem at the moment is the fact that we cannot get aid across the border into Gaza. That is the shocking situation that we need to focus on.

[The Lord Bishop of Manchester]

I am very grateful for the Statement that was brought to this House today. From these Benches, I echo the comments that noble Lords have made about the fact that Hamas must have no part in any future government of the Palestinian territories or any future Palestinian state. Every time the situation in Gaza has become more warlike, under the fog of that war there have been atrocities committed in the West Bank. Some of the more extreme settler movements are trying to oust Palestinian farming families from territories that everybody accepts are theirs by right. What can His Majesty’s Government do to ensure that we do not lose sight of the West Bank at this time when, quite rightly, there is a proper focus on Gaza?

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

The right reverend Prelate is right to draw attention to that. We have been extremely concerned about the increased level of settler violence—I prefer to call it outpost violence. We have made it clear, and the previous Government made it clear, that Israeli settlements are illegal under international law and harm prospects for a two-state solution. The Foreign Secretary met Palestinian community members in the West Bank and heard how communities are affected. He has been clear with Israeli Ministers that the Israeli Government must clamp down on settler violence and end settler expansion. We also took action in relation to sanctions. We need to highlight this issue and not forget that the West Bank is an important part of ensuring long-term stability in the region.

[Lord Pickles (Con)]

My Lords, I draw attention to my entry in the register of interests. I recently returned from a visit to Israel. The Minister is quite right to say that aid should not be used for a political purpose, and he is quite right to concentrate on resuming aid going in. But the question my noble friend raised on the deliberate stealing of aid by Hamas and the use of that aid to buy ammunition, to sell it on the black market, and to ensure that Hamas continues to control a significant part of Gaza is important. We can have lasting peace only if one side is not dedicated to the utter destruction of the other. We know through the report issued by my noble friend Lord Roberts last week exactly what we are up against, so it is not unreasonable to say that when the aid goes back in, it cannot be business as normal.

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

The noble Lord is absolutely right. I have made it clear how the United Kingdom Government view the actions of Hamas. It is a terrorist organisation which has committed atrocious crimes that it must be held accountable for. I hear what the noble Lord says in relation to aid, but we are not getting aid in at all at the moment. We want to use all agencies. Certainly, the noble Lord, Lord Ahmad, when he was responding on these questions, understood the importance of ensuring that there were facilities to get aid to those people most in need. We will continue to take every measure possible to ensure that is the case. So, I hear the noble Lord, but our priority is to get support to the most vulnerable and those most in need.

[Lord Verdirame (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, as the Minister recalled, a few months ago the Government published an assessment where they concluded that there was a clear risk of breaches of IHL by Israel. The clear risk in the Government’s published assessment was in relation to the provision of humanitarian assistance. The Statement of last week says that the Government feel that this conclusion has been reinforced by the actions of the last three weeks, and that conclusion was obviously the basis for the decision to suspend the arms licences. Can the Government tell us a bit more about the nexus between the British weapons and the alleged or suspected breaches of IHL? In other words, which British weapons did the Government consider could be used to commit which breaches?

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

I tried to make that clear in response to the Front-Bench questions. Our export licensing criteria, as the Foreign Secretary set out to the House of Commons in September, require him to assess the risk that our exports could commit or facilitate serious violations of IHL. Our reviews concluded that there was a clear risk of Israel breaching IHL, hence the action we took on 2 September, suspending relevant licences to the IDF for use in Gaza. That was the position and it remains so.

[Baroness Foster of Oxton (Con)]

My Lords, I have two points I wish to seek clarification on. I understand there is a very difficult issue in terms of aid crossing through from the Egyptian border, notwithstanding that the drivers then refused to continue delivering aid because they were being attacked by Hamas operatives and gangs in Gaza. The second point is one I raised some weeks ago here, when the Government had decided to provide UNRWA with aid again to the tune of something like £48 million of British taxpayers’ money. My question at the time was: how are the Government going to provide oversight to ensure that the money being spent—not only from UK taxpayers, but it is the UK that we are concerned about here—is going in the right direction? I have not had a response about how the Government will provide that oversight, so I would be grateful if the Minister could share that information with us now in the House?

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

The important thing to consider is how we are working with all agencies, including the UN and NGOs such as the International Committee of the Red Cross, and what we achieve through clear monitoring and assessment of that aid.

The situation in Gaza is appalling and we know there is a desperate need for support. We have made a very clear ask: we said that Israel must work with the United Nations and all partners to ensure that the supply of humanitarian assistance to Gaza continues in all circumstances. The enhanced levels of relief supplies getting into Gaza prior to Israel’s current block on aid must be resumed. Aid must get to those who need it across all areas of Gaza, and that includes providing access to essential civilian services.

We are pleased to hear that the latest polio vaccination rollout reached 99% of children targeted, but we remain gravely concerned by the lack of adequate medical care in Gaza. More types of goods must be allowed in, such as tents, medical equipment and machinery, to support the resumption of basic services in Gaza. I do not think anyone in their right mind would believe that the situation is at all tolerable; it is intolerable, and we need to act.

[Baroness Goudie (Lab)]

My Lords, when the Foreign Secretary saw groups recently, did he see women’s peace groups? In terms of aid, what is being done for maternal health, which is desperate in Gaza, and to get help for children, who have been damaged so badly, and for babies who have been born without any support at all because there are no hospitals?

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

My noble friend is right. In previous Statements, I have made clear that we are focused on educational support and on women and girls. I took the opportunity in New York at the Commission on the Status of Women to focus on how, in all the peace processes, we can ensure that the women, peace and security strategy is fully adopted. It is vital that we recognise the urgent situation, particularly its impact on women and girls, and particularly on pregnant women, so my noble friend is absolutely right.

[Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)]

Could the Minister address the question raised by the noble Lord, Lord Purvis? Do we believe that the ceasefire is saveable? It looks dead; is it dead? Can it be resurrected? As I understand it, it was a three-stage ceasefire. The Government of Israel decided not to move to the second stage on the agreed timetable, Hamas having turned down their alternative suggestion of elongating stage 1. That looks to me like a battlefield for a diplomatic negotiation. What are we saying to the Qataris? Do they think the ceasefire can be saved? Do we think it can be saved? Are we suggesting to them ways of saving it?

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

The straight answer to the noble Lord is that we believe it can be saved because we believe it is there to be implemented, which is why we are making every effort to call on all parties to resume the negotiations. I am not going to be hung up on each stage and the timing of that. We have a clear commitment and undertakings that were given. Our effort and focus are on ensuring that they return to the negotiating table. We are absolutely committed to that.

[Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)]

My Lords, will the Minister clarify a point? My understanding is that the reason that the ceasefire has collapsed is that Hamas refused to release prisoners—hostages—as had been agreed. Because of the continued refusal to release hostages, Israel determined that she had no choice but to go into military action. There is a history, time and again, of people breaking or not honouring agreements that might be to mutual interest. Perhaps the Minister might reflect on the offer that was made by Ehud Olmert to the then Palestinian Authority of 96% of the land, including the West Bank and the whole of east Jerusalem, and for Jerusalem to be an international city—a proper land swap—which was rejected.

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

There are many reasons for breakdowns in any kind of process of negotiations. I am certainly not going to focus on who is to blame. Our focus is to ensure that people return to the negotiating table, because that is the only solution. I have heard the families of hostages making that call to get back to the negotiating table and implement the ceasefire agreement. Those are the voices in Israel that I hear.