Gaza

Lord Collins of Highbury Excerpts

Wednesday 5th March 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

My Lords, we need to acknowledge that the ceasefire is entirely contingent on the safe return of the remaining hostages. The Minister in the other place rightly referred to the British citizen Emily Damari and others. Emily has now shared the sad details of her dreadful ordeal in captivity at the hands of Hamas. I am sure that the whole House will join me in wishing her well and sending our deepest condolences to the families of those hostages who sadly died while in Hamas captivity.

I have two questions for the Minister. First, what conversations has he or the Government had with US and Israeli allies on helping to ensure that phase 2 of the ceasefire comes into effect? Secondly, can he give us an update on British aid in Gaza? Is it reaching its intended target, and will it be affected by the 0.2% of GNI reduction in ODA announced by the Government last week?

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

I thank the noble Lord for his questions. On the next stages of the process, we welcome the efforts by Arab leaders to put forward a plan for the next phase and the recovery and reconstruction in Gaza. The UK stands ready to work with partners to develop these ideas and to support all parties to get behind a single, viable plan for Gaza that meets the needs and aspirations of the civilian population and ensures a peaceful political framework for a negotiated two-state solution. As I have said to the House before, we are very clear that Hamas cannot govern Gaza and that any plan must ensure Israeli security and should support the unity of the West Bank and Gaza under the PA’s mandate.

On humanitarian aid, I reassure the noble Lord that we have committed a further £17 million, as the previous Minister for Development announced. We have also announced £129 million for the OPTs so far for this financial year, including £41 million for UNRWA. As the Prime Minister said in his Statement, we are absolutely committed to ensuring continued support for the Palestinian authorities.

The halt on goods and supplies entering Gaza is a serious matter, and Israel risks breaching its obligations under international humanitarian law. Today, we have issued with France and Germany a statement in which we express deep concern at Israel’s halt on aid to Gaza and urge it to lift all restrictions. It is vital that the ceasefire is sustained, all hostages are released, and aid is resumed.

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

My Lords, I have read the E3 statement, and I agree with every word of it. These Benches support the Government’s statement, including the fact that the withholding of aid access to the people who need it most is contrary to international humanitarian law, and I am grateful that the Government have been clear on that. Given that the United States and the Israeli Governments have rejected the Arab plan, which was agreed yesterday, the UK Government may be in a position where they will have to choose whether to support the Trump proposals or the Arab proposals. In that regard, perhaps I may ask a specific question.

The UK has been the lead country in supporting the training, professionalisation and funding for the Palestinian Authority police force. Any police force in the new arrangements for Gaza will be of fundamental importance. Can the Minister reassure me that our support will continue for the professionalisation and training of a civilian police force? It would probably be one of the strongest ways to prevent gangsterism and Hamas regaining footage in that area.

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

The noble Lord is absolutely right. We will continue to support the Palestinian Authority, not only with the training that he mentioned but in other ways, to enable it to take part positively in that plan. We have insisted that any dialogue should include Palestinians, and we will certainly continue with that. The Foreign Secretary and the Prime Minister have obviously been in dialogue with all partners on this, and we will continue to work with Israel, the Palestinian Authority, the US and regional partners to build a consensus on the governance of post-conflict Gaza and the security framework that supports the conditions for a permanent and sustainable peace.

[Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Lab)]

My Lords, as part of that building of a sustainable peace, can the Minister indicate what further action will be taken with international partners if there are further flagrant abuses in respect of blocking aid to the people of Gaza?

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

We made our position very clear to the Israeli authorities about their actions risking breaching their obligations under international humanitarian law. We have, however, gone further, as the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, has said. We issued a statement this afternoon, together with France and Germany—again, our strong allies in this—making it clear that blocking aid is unacceptable and should be stopped. We are monitoring the situation; we know that a substantial amount of aid is trying to get in, and we will continue to pressure the Israelis to remove that block.

[Lord Robathan (Con)]

My Lords, would it be possible for the Minister to explain whether there is any inter-relationship between the American plan—with the rather unusual large, golden statue of Mr Trump—and the Egyptian and Arab plan, because those two might, funnily enough, work a little bit together?

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

Obviously, the situation is incredibly complex, but if there is one thing that I think will be key to finding a solution, it is the normalisation of relations between Israel and Saudi Arabia. That is key, and there must be a Palestinian component in that. We will press to achieve that, and we will work alongside US President Trump and his team in the coming weeks to bring it about. Our long-standing position has been that we will recognise a Palestinian state at the time that is most conducive to that peace process, but we are certain that if we can ensure that that normalisation between the Saudis and Israel takes place, we can progress rapidly.

[Lord Pannick (CB)]

My Lords, will the Palestinian component, as the Minister describes it, exclude Hamas?

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

I think the noble Lord knows that I have made it clear, as I said in response to the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, that we are working with the Palestinian Authority; we are supporting the Palestinian Authority, and there is no place for Hamas in the governance of Gaza.

[Baroness Foster of Oxton (Con)]

My Lords, since the outset of this horrendous conflict, Israel has provided 25,000 trucks and 57,000 tonnes of aid that have gone into Gaza. It is quite clear that Hamas continues to renege on the agreement that it has made so far, which leaves phase 2 in an extremely difficult situation. There are 47 organisations that provide aid to Gaza—not only UNRWA—so can the Minister please respond to the question from my noble friend on the Front Bench as to what oversight is provided to ensure that the £41 million of British taxpayers’ money is going to the correct people?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

I have assured the House all the way through that our purpose is to ensure that we get aid to those who need it. We have had undertakings from UNRWA about the accusations of Hamas involvement in its work. We supported the Colonna recommendations, and we have even financially supported that. There is no doubt that UNRWA remains key in terms of delivery, but that is not the sole purpose. We are working with all agencies and all allies to ensure that aid gets through to the people who need it most. It is a very complex and difficult situation, and that is why we are working incredibly hard with all allies to make sure that the peace process, the ceasefire and the agreement that was reached continue. I am not going to use the term “phases”; at the end of the day, we want a sustainable peace, security for Israel and a home for the Palestinians.

[Lord Bellingham (Con)]

My Lords, further to the question asked by my noble friend Lord Robathan, it is obviously good news that this Arab group has supported Egypt’s proposals for the $53 billion reconstruction. I notice that they ask specifically for EU and UK contributions to that fund for reconstruction. Can the Minister comment on whether that will be forthcoming and HMG’s view on it?

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

One thing we are absolutely clear about is that there should be international co-operation to ensure the full restoration of Gaza. That means, primarily, the leading regional players playing their part. We will work with all our allies to support that. I will not predict what that might mean in financial terms, but at this stage, it is about working hard politically.

House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill

Lord Collins of Highbury Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 3rd March 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)]

Sorry, I was using “chosen” as a short form for “elected”. They were elected. My noble friend was here, and I was not, but when the elections took place, the electorate was keen to ensure that experience was not lost. That is exactly the point of this amendment—to retain those who have contributed, are contributing and will undoubtedly contribute more in the future.

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

My Lords, I am grateful for this debate and to the noble Lord, Lord Soames of Fletching, for raising these issues. One thing that concerns me is that, although I do not think that anyone in this Chamber would deny the valuable work of individuals, particularly of the hereditary Peers, the problem with this debate is that it is about selecting people for congratulations on their hard work. That diminishes the work of some of the others. The noble Lord, Lord Wolfson, talked about the period from 2019 to 2024, when 143 of the officeholders that the noble Lord, Lord Soames, talked about were life Peers and 23 were hereditaries, so a huge amount of the work that kept this House going was undertaken by life Peers.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Mancroft (Con)]

The manifesto commitment, as the noble Lord has just quoted, is to “remove the right” of hereditary Peers to sit and vote in this House. That right was removed in 1999. We are discussing removing not the right but hereditary Peers from this House. The noble Lord quite rightly said that there is not a lot of difference in working between one hereditary Peer and another, or one hereditary Peer and a life Peer, but there is one crucial difference: life Peers cannot just be thrown out. We are just about to be thrown out.

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

Of course, the principle was established in 1999, and we are now dealing with that remaining temporary arrangement that has gone on for 25 years or longer. That is the reality. No one can deny that that remaining element—that temporary arrangement—is specifically addressed in the Labour manifesto for the last general election. It specifically addressed it in the way that this Bill seeks to implement it, so there can be no doubt about that.

[Lord Strathclyde (Con)]

I am sorry to intervene on the noble Lord, but he is making much store about the manifesto, which also says that Peers who are over the age of 80 by the end of this Parliament should also be slung out. Does the noble Lord think that is really going to happen?

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

As my noble friend the Leader of the House has reminded me, she will be consulting on that and looking at ways for it to be implemented—she is already doing so, as she reminds me. The fact of the matter is that we have a clear commitment. The Government have a right to determine when and how they implement their commitments. The noble Lord knows that. I have heard speeches from him telling me that we should not push amendments because the democratic House has laid something down in the manifesto. He has made those points to me over the past 12 years, so this does not really wash with me.

The simple fact is that we established in 1999 that the hereditary principle would no longer apply. We put in temporary arrangements and we have now addressed that in our manifesto. Solutions were put forward in 1999. I say to the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, that his contribution is well known. Leaders know it. I certainly assume that the leader of his party knows the contribution that he has made, both outside and inside Parliament. Why would he not be considered worthy of a life peerage? I do not see why not. It is really important that we can establish a principle—

[Earl Attlee (Con)]

I am grateful for the kind things the noble Lord said to me, but the fact of the matter is that I do not know any of the leaders of my party. I do not know David Cameron—my noble friend Lord Cameron—or any of his successors. I simply will not be able to get a life peerage. They do not know me. I am not known. None of the special advisers know me. I am nowhere.

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

I do not accept that for one moment. The noble Earl is well known. His contributions are well known and valued—he must not undersell himself. The important thing is that there was an opportunity in 1999, when people left this House because they were hereditary Peers, for some to be made life Peers. That certainly is the case in relation to this last act, contained in our manifesto, to ensure that the temporary arrangements agreed 25 years ago no longer continue. I do not think that people would understand this amendment breaching that commitment in the outside world, but it is wrong to—

[Lord Howard of Rising (Con)]

The noble Lord keeps mentioning the manifesto. Would he agree that, if I had a pound for every promise that had been in a manifesto from the Labour Party and the Conservative Party, I would be a billionaire?

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

The noble Lord must be happy that at least one manifesto commitment is being kept, and it is this one. We will deliver on it.

I conclude by saying that it is wrong to single out Peers for their contribution. All Peers have made a tremendous contribution to the work of this House, and no one is undermining that. However, this is a commitment that we have made to the electorate, and it is one that we will keep and deliver on.

[Lord Soames of Fletching (Con)]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Wolfson and the noble Lord, Lord Collins, for their contributions. I particularly express my thanks for another wonderful speech from my noble friend Lady Finn, who, to my mind, absolutely nailed it. I thank my noble friend Lord Blencathra in particular for his encyclopaedic knowledge of the committees and the very important points that he made. I am delighted to be party to the support for my noble friend Lord Astor’s job application and will do what I can to help. I say to my noble friend Lord Attlee to make himself known to my noble friend Lord Hamilton, who acts as a marriage agency in these matters, and would be delighted to introduce him to all the former leaders of my party—it may take some time.

This is an important matter and there is no point in pretending that, manifesto or no manifesto, we are not cutting out a great reservoir of expertise, knowledge, steadiness and experience, and the guardians of the traditions and principles of this House. There is no question about the argument, which is dead and buried—it is gone; it is going to happen—but there is a way to make it happen in a less aggressive and disagreeable manner. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

War in Sudan

Lord Collins of Highbury Excerpts

Monday 3rd March 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Browne of Ladyton]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of recent advances by the Sudanese Armed Forces in Khartoum and elsewhere in Sudan.

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

My Lords, the conflict in Sudan has created the worst humanitarian situation in the world. Both sides are responsible for inflicting terrible suffering on civilians. The Foreign Secretary discussed the latest developments with colleagues at the G20 last week, and in April he will host a Foreign Ministers conference to establish international consensus on the next steps. The Sudanese people deserve a peaceful Sudan led by a fully representative civilian Government.

[Lord Browne of Ladyton (Lab)]

My Lords, only weeks ago Amnesty International came into possession of a list of civilian activists, human rights defenders, medics and humanitarian workers whom the Sudanese Armed Forces planned to target for reprisals once it gained sufficient ascendency over Khartoum. The RSF has also repeatedly targeted civilians who it believes have co-operated with the SAF. As it stands, whether the SAF or the RSF win a skirmish, the civilian population always loses. What can we do, in partnership with allies, to put pressure on both sides to stop this grim pattern of reprisal attacks against the very groups that will be essential in building a lasting peace once conflict has abated?

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

My noble friend is absolutely right to point out that both sides have committed horrendous atrocities, despite the commitments they made in the Jeddah declaration to limit the impact on civilians. UK leadership has been critical of that through its continued scrutiny of Sudan. In October at the Human Rights Council, a UK-led Sudan Core Group resolution was adopted to renew the mandate of the fact-finding mission to ensure that such atrocities are exposed and that we can properly scrutinise the credible allegations of human rights violations. Last week at the Human Rights Council in Geneva, I met Mona Rishmawi, who leads the fact-finding mission, and I assured her of our continued support to do proper scrutiny and to hold the people who commit such crimes to account.

[Baroness Coussins (CB)]

My Lords, what can the UK Government do to leverage their role as penholder at the Security Council for Sudan to help bring an end to the violence in that country?

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

As the noble Baroness knows, we have continued to raise the question at the Security Council. Last November, we tabled a resolution with Sierra Leone focusing on what the Secretary-General called for in relation to the protection of civilians. Sadly, that resolution was opposed by the Russians with their veto, but that did not stop us continuing to raise this question. The Foreign Secretary’s call for a conference event in April is intended to coalesce the international community to look at not only the humanitarian support that is so desperately needed but the longer-term solutions that will engage all civil society in a dialogue that will see a future for Sudan led by a civilian Government.

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

My Lords, as we approach the second anniversary of this terrible, brutal conflict, and with so many other matters occupying our attention, it is important that we do not lose our focus on it and that we continue to do all we can to end it. First, on sanctions, can the Minister say whether the Government intend to go further, perhaps following the lead of the recent spate of US sanctions? Secondly, beyond sanctions, are the Government working to identify any other hard-hitting ways to put pressure on the leadership of the RSF and the SAF and on the countries supporting their war machines?

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

As I think the noble Lord knows, I will not discuss future possible sanctions, but we have already made a number of sanctions against both sides and against individuals and companies involved. However, the future must be about how we build an international coalition for peace and humanitarian support. That is why the April conference is so important; it will bring together Foreign Ministers, including not just our international allies but all regional players, to ensure that they understand that there must be a better way forward. There is no military solution to this conflict, and the only people suffering are the civilians. The so-called representatives of the two warring factions have no interest in defending their civilian population, so we have to change that attitude and get the international community working together to ensure that we put people first.

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

My Lords, I declare significant interest in supporting the pro-democracy civilian groups in the dialogue within the conflict. Given the recent decisions by USAID, I welcome the fact that the Government will be protecting their support for the crisis. I welcome the ministerial conference that is coming up. One of the particular aspects which needs to be commended for the civilians is the provision of community kitchens and emergency rooms. In many areas—whether in RSF or SAF controlled areas—the only functioning services for providing food and medicine for civilians are through other civilians themselves. A lot of that has been funded through diaspora communities, and that has been drying up. Can the Minister update us as to what additional support there is—notwithstanding that there is no UN resolution for the protection of civilians—for the community kitchens and the emergency rooms, which are a lifeline for so many civilians, including women and children?

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

The noble Lord is absolutely right. One of the things we have been concerned about—which we have raised with both parties—is access to humanitarian aid. While one side says you can have that access, it does not cross the warring parties, so we cannot get to the people who desperately need it. He is absolutely right that we have to look at all means to ensure that we get help in. In terms of the April conference, we are engaging with civil society and the Taqaddum leadership—now called Somoud, where there has been a slight breakaway—and we are concerned to ensure that we have an inclusive dialogue. I met the chargé d’affaires for Sudan last week, and I made clear that we demand humanitarian access. We have committed additional funds, but we want proper access to all parts of Sudan so that nobody suffers.

[Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)]

My Lords, with 24 million people in Sudan, half the population in acute need of food, including 1.5 million on the edge of famine, how does the Minister respond to Annaliese Dodds’s statement that it would be “impossible” to deliver the proposed further cuts to aid without hitting programmes in Sudan, with women and children being principal victims? Can he also say where he believes the Sudanese Armed Forces are obtaining their weaponry, particularly in regard to the repositioning of Russian assets from Syria to Sudan via Libya?

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

The noble Lord had two questions; I will answer the latter first. We are totally aware of a number of parties supplying arms, including Russian elements, which end up supporting not only the SAF but the other party too—they seem to have a continued interest in ensuring that the war carries on. To come back on his other question, as the Prime Minister made very clear, we are in unique circumstances at the moment with a generational change, and it is absolutely vital that this country is able to defend itself fully and to defend all the values that we hold so dear. He is absolutely committed, and he made that very clear at the weekend. But he also made clear that we are determined to support—as the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, said—humanitarian aid in Sudan. As a consequence of the reduction, we will make a detailed analysis of how that spending will be allocated through the spending review process that has already started, so I am not going to predetermine that. But I believe that the Prime Minister is absolutely committed to ensuring that humanitarian aid gets into this worst humanitarian situation in Sudan.

[Lord Anderson of Swansea (Lab)]

My Lords, I think the whole House will wish to congratulate my noble friend the Minister on his personal commitment and outstanding leadership in this awful conflict. My question is simple: many resolutions have been passed and conferences are occurring; is there any evidence at all that the belligerents pay any attention to outside pressure?

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

I suppose the answer so far to my noble friend is that, sadly, no, they have not paid much attention. This comes back to the question that the noble Lord, Lord Alton, raised. People are funding and supplying arms to this conflict, and they have paid very little attention to the needs of the civilians, which is why the Foreign Secretary’s conference in April is so critical. We will be pulling all those regional players into that event to talk not just about how we get humanitarian aid in immediately but, in the longer term, how we establish that dialogue for peace and ensure that Sudan can be led by a civilian Government in the future.

Iranian Regime: British Citizens

Lord Collins of Highbury Excerpts

Thursday 27th February 2025 Lords Chamber

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

My Lords, I too am grateful to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chelmsford for securing this debate and for her personal reflections on her birthplace. I was also moved by her contribution on “Desert Island Discs”, which reflected on some of those issues and what a wonderful country Iran is. Sadly, it is being distorted by its current Government.

I am grateful for contributions from all noble Lords, many of whom have developed deep knowledge of this area, not least, as the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, said, in joint campaigns with Richard Ratcliffe, working together to ensure Nazanin’s release.

I will try to respond to all the points raised. As noble Lords are aware, Iran has a long history of seeking to exploit the detention of British and other foreign nationals. The regime’s actions sit within a wider set of malign behaviours—not least its continued repression of women and girls, human rights defenders and religious and ethnic minorities. Religious minorities, including Baha’is, Christians and Sunni Muslims, suffer discrimination in law and practice. This includes discrimination in access to education, employment, child adoption, political office and places of worship.

The Baha’i community continues to face arbitrary arrests, land expropriation and denial of burial rights, while Christians, as the right reverend Prelate said, face shocking sentencing and ongoing incarceration for the act of practising their faith. Iran must allow every individual their right to freedom of thought, conscience, religion or belief, in accordance with its obligations under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

Since October 2022, we have sanctioned 94 individuals and entities for their human rights violations, including—to reassure the noble Lord, Lord Purvis—decision-makers responsible for Iran’s oppressive hijab laws and political and security officials involved in the crackdown on protesters. The United Kingdom’s dedicated Special Envoy on Freedom of Religion or Belief, David Smith, leads our work to promote tolerance and mutual respect.

Noble Lords have raised the horrific, consistently high rate of executions, which is, of course, a deliberate attempt to instil fear and stifle dissent. The United Kingdom is opposed to the death penalty in all circumstances as a matter of principle, and we make very clear representations on that. The UK has 450 sanctions in place, including designations against the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps and those responsible for Iran’s attack on Israel in October.

I turn to our advice about travel to Iran. British travellers are at significant risk of arrest and detention in Iran. Since 2022, we have used our public travel advice to advise against any travel there. Having a British passport or connections to the United Kingdom can be reason enough for the Iranian authorities to detain someone. The Foreign Office actively promotes its free travel advice service to travellers and industry alike. I understand that travel pages are viewed more than 28 million times per year. Nevertheless, we will look at what more could be done to ensure that the advice is seen as widely as possible.

I pay tribute to the right reverend Prelate for the care with which she has approached the subject of detention cases. They are among the most difficult, complex and sensitive cases handled by our officials and are enormously distressing for the families of those detained. For reasons that will be obvious to those familiar with the Iranian regime’s behaviour, I cannot make detailed comments on individual cases, nor can I refer to the possible numbers. Many of the individuals involved do not want publicity, but if noble Lords wish to speak to me privately, I will try to reassure them of what we are trying to do. I reassure the right reverend Prelate that the British embassy in Tehran is in contact with the Iranian Ministry of Foreign Affairs about the recent case and we will continue to raise this directly with the Iranian authorities. A specialist team from the FCDO is in frequent contact with the family, providing regular updates and advice. This case will continue to be a priority for the Government.

As noble Lords referred to, including the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, and the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, the Government are committed to strengthening their support for British nationals abroad. We will, as they reminded me, introduce a new right to consular assistance in cases of human rights violations and will soon appoint an envoy for the most complex detention cases. To reassure noble Lords, work is under way on both, and we will come forward with details fairly soon.

I also reassure the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, that we work very closely with our international partners to tackle unfair detentions. As the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, mentioned, we signed the Canadian Declaration Against Arbitrary Detention in State-to-State Relations in 2021, helping protect citizens of all countries who live and work abroad. This is of course an issue of interest and importance to the House, and I welcome the creation in 2024 of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Arbitrary Detention and Hostage Affairs. I will work closely with it and keep it up to date on our progress.

I hear what the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, says about overseas development assistance. I reassure him that our first priority is security. For the security of this nation, we had to make some very difficult decisions this week, but they will not deflect from how we allocate and ensure that whatever assistance we give to those neighbouring countries is properly maintained. The Prime Minister made it clear that that will be a priority for the United Kingdom, particularly in relation to Sudan.

I conclude by assuring all noble Lords—

[The Lord Bishop of Chelmsford]

I am very grateful to the Minister for giving way. On the use of language, could he say a bit more about the reluctance to call this out for what it is and to refer to hostage taking, when other European countries are willing to do so?

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

I do not want to be drawn into using language that might be considered to refer to specific cases. I want to avoid that at this moment in time but, having signed the Canadian declaration, we are clear about the growth of this policy of state detention for those sorts of purposes.

In conclusion, supporting British nationals detained in Iran will remain an absolute priority for this Government, alongside advising against travel to Iran to prevent such incidents. We will continue to strengthen our consular support globally and, most importantly, we will work together with our international partners to build and sustain the international consensus against the use of detainees as leverage for other purposes.

Democratic Republic of the Congo: M23 Group

Lord Collins of Highbury Excerpts

Tuesday 25th February 2025 Lords Chamber

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

My Lords, the United Kingdom condemns the recent M23 and Rwandan Defence Force advances in the eastern Democratic Republic of Congo as an unacceptable breach of DRC’s sovereignty. On 22 February the Foreign Secretary met with President Kagame and was clear that there can be no military solution. The United Kingdom today announced several policy measures, which we will maintain until there is a withdrawal of all RDF from the Congolese territory.

[Lord Harries of Pentregarth (CB)]

I thank the Minister for his reply. It has recently been reported that 7,000 people were killed during January, and 450,000 people have been displaced from about 90 camps. According to reports, the M23 intends to advance right across to Kinshasa. Is it not totally unacceptable for one country to support a rebel group in a neighbouring country? What steps are the Government taking in relation to the United Nations and the African Union to bring this conflict under control before it gets totally out of hand and engulfs the whole of an already fragile DRC?

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

Noble Lords will appreciate what I have reported before. Right from day one, we have been engaged with President Lourenço of Angola to ensure that there is a process to achieve long-lasting peace in the region. That is long overdue, because the internally displaced people are numerous and suffering hugely. These recent advances create an even worse situation.

On Friday I was pleased to talk to the Ministers in Dar es Salaam who were hosting the EAC-SADC summit, which produced a communiqué towards peace in the region and set out a very clear road map to achieve the withdrawal. Our concern is that the Rwandans have not fully complied with that, which is why we have made the announcement today of the measures we are taking, along with our allies, to ensure that they respond to that African-led peace process.

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

My Lords, the Minister will be aware that the UK has given more than £1 billion in development aid to Rwanda in recent years. As has been said, evidence is mounting that Rwandan troops are heavily involved in the fighting in DRC. Is it not increasingly difficult to justify this funding when the Rwandan Government themselves are spending so much time, energy and money intervening militarily in a sovereign neighbouring state?

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

The noble Lord’s previous Government reached an agreement to give substantially more money to Rwanda.

The important point here is that our focus for development assistance is on those most in need. The measures that we announced today—I was able to convey these to the Foreign Minister of Rwanda in Geneva this morning at the Human Rights Council—are as follows: we will cease high-level attendance at events hosted by the Government of Rwanda; we are freezing trade promotion activity with Rwanda; we are reviewing our existing trade infrastructure in facilitation projects; and we are pausing direct bilateral financial aid to the Government of Rwanda. We are excluding from this our support for the poorest and most vulnerable, which is not direct support; we are committed to that. We are also co-ordinating with partners on potential sanctions designations and suspending future defence training assistance to Rwanda. Our position is absolutely clear. We want to ensure that these measures achieve what they set out to do: to ensure that Rwanda commits to the peace process led by the African Union.

[Lord Browne of Ladyton (Lab)]

My Lords—

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Browne of Ladyton (Lab)]

My Lords, my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary warned that the conflict in the DRC

“risks spiralling into a regional conflict”.

It is already a humanitarian crisis, with 40,000 refugees fleeing to Burundi alone—the largest influx that country has had in 25 years. Are we contributing to the UNHCR’s $40.4 million appeal to provide life-saving assistance to 275,000 internally displaced people in the DRC and to support refugees and returnees across Burundi, Rwanda, Tanzania, Uganda and Zambia?

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

My noble friend makes a very good point. The real risk was that this was going to create regional instability, which is why we not only supported the Luanda process but very much welcomed the convening of the SADC-EAC meeting in Dar es Salaam last week, which set out a very clear process. He is absolutely right to draw attention to the huge humanitarian cost of 2.7 million people displaced—IDPs in eastern DRC. The United Kingdom is the leading humanitarian partner in DRC and the second-largest donor in the country, allocating over £62 million for this financial year for humanitarian programmes in eastern DRC. I also take seriously my responsibility as the envoy for the prevention of sexual violence in conflict. That is a huge risk at the moment, and we are devoted to supporting survivors of sexual violence in that region. We are not going to rest until we ensure that all parties are focused on that agreement reached in Dar es Salaam at the end of last week.

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

My Lords, during the passage of the Illegal Migration Bill and the safety of Rwanda Bill, I asked the previous Government for details—but failed to get them—of the £240 million economic and integration fund that the previous Government gave to Paul Kagame’s Government. Can the Minister assure me that not a single penny of UK money has gone to non-humanitarian assistance in Rwanda, and especially the £20 million credit line provided to Paul Kagame’s Government for preparation of facilities that were not then needed? How much money are we getting back from his Government?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

The noble Lord knows that we stopped that agreement immediately when we came into office. We are absolutely clear that we have ceased all payments in respect to it and will not return to making any of those payments. But we are determined to support those most vulnerable and most in need, and we will continue to do that.

[Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)]

My Lords, can the Minister tell us what happened in Kasanga in Kivu on Thursday last, when 70 people were hacked to death with machetes and hammers by an organisation that is said to be linked to ISIS as they took refuge in a church? What are we doing to confirm those reports? Have we raised this with the International Criminal Court and the African Union to ensure that those responsible for this terrible atrocity are brought to justice?

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

The noble Lord is right to draw that to our attention, but the reality is that we are trying to ensure that all crimes committed in the process of this advance are properly investigated so that we can hold people to account. When I met the Foreign Minister of Rwanda this morning in Geneva, he denied all these accusations and refuted the story in the Guardian. I reassured him that we would be absolutely determined not only to ensure that they comply with the communiqué but to hold people to account for crimes against humanity.

[Lord Bellingham (Con)]

My Lords, is the Minister aware that it is not just a question of regular Rwandan troops being embedded in M23? There are now special forces involved as well, and there is overwhelming evidence that war crimes have been committed on both sides. I congratulate the Minister on the very robust set of measures he announced; the Government deserve credit for this. He mentioned SADC, but can he say what he is doing with the AU? Its offices can also be very useful in trying to find a way forward.

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

The noble Lord is absolutely right. When we committed to the Luanda process, we were not sure exactly what steps we could achieve in the final outcome. President Lourenço assured me about what he was trying to achieve. We cannot restore trust, but we can build confidence at each stage. Unfortunately, the 15 December summit did not take place; things fell apart, and we saw the advances. Now, as I said, SADC and the EAC have come together in Dar es Salaam, overseen by the African Union. They are taking the lead. The African Union has also appointed three facilitators to ensure that the process is moved forward in a much more consistent and coherent way.

[Lord Anderson of Swansea (Lab)]

My Lords, is there not a danger of contradictory policies? A country invades its neighbour. Its forces carry out human rights atrocities and take several cities. We rightly condemn what Russia is doing in Ukraine. Should we not be equally robust in respect of a Commonwealth country, Rwanda?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

My noble friend is absolutely right. We have been clear with all allies, including the United States, in condemning this absolute breach of DRC’s sovereignty. We are making it clear that it is unacceptable. We and our allies have taken co-ordinated action so that Rwanda commits to the process it has agreed to and delivers the long-lasting peace that the people of DRC so deserve.

International Criminal Court: US Sanctions

Lord Collins of Highbury Excerpts

Tuesday 11th February 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking in response to the sanctions imposed by the President of the United States of America on staff working for the International Criminal Court; and whether they will confirm their commitment to the Court and its work in pursuit of justice.

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

My Lords, the Government have repeatedly expressed their support for the independence of the International Criminal Court, including, most recently, last week, by joining a statement together with 70 other states parties. Imposing sanctions against ICC officials impedes the court’s ability to carry out its important work of investigating and prosecuting the most serious crimes of international concern. We are in contact with the US Administration and British nationals employed by the ICC to understand the possible implications of these measures.

[Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws (Lab)]

My Lords, let me immediately thank my noble friend for his reassurance that the UK is resolute in its support for the ICC. The world will never see peace if there is no entity that will pursue justice for victims of egregious crimes. There cannot be impunity for our allies. Even now, the court is working on files to bring yet more members of Hamas to trial for the atrocities that took place on 7 October. It is assisted in this painful work by Israeli lawyers for the families of the hostages and the families of the Israeli dead.

Work continues also on the investigation of potential war crimes in Gaza. Do the Government accept that this new executive order attacks the fundamentals of the court and its functioning? Will the Government inform the United States Administration in the contacts that they have that Article 70 of the Rome statute forbids the obstruction of justice? There can be no impeding of any officer of the court in carrying out their duties, and arrest warrants can follow. Will the Government advise the President of the risk he faces of an arrest warrant being issued for him?

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

My Lords, as my noble friend is very much aware, successive UK and US Administrations have taken a different view on the ICC. For example, the UK, as she rightly points out, is a signatory to the Rome statute; the US is not. The UK supports fully the independence of the ICC and we do not support sanctioning individual court officials. Our focus remains on ensuring that the ceasefire can be sustained, that a surge of vital aid can reach those most in need in Gaza and that all remaining hostages are released and reunited with their families. That is our goal, we are working with the US at all levels on it, and we will continue to do so.

[Lord Farmer (Con)]

My Lords, Israel’s judicial system is actively investigating cases of suspected misconduct by Israeli soldiers and petitions on humanitarian issues in Gaza. The ICC chief prosecutor recognised in December 2023 that the military receives independent legal advice on the legality of every air strike. The ICC complements, rather than replaces, national criminal systems, prosecuting cases only when states are unwilling or unable to do so. So, it had no authority to intervene here. Does the Minister agree with that?

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

Of course, I agree that where states fail to properly investigate, the ICC has a right to step in. In this case, as the noble Lord pointed out, Israel has undertaken a due and proper investigation, so I agree with the noble Lord in that particular case.

[Lord Thomas of Gresford (LD)]

Will the Government inform Donald Trump that the forcible transfer of the population of Gaza will be an Article 7(1)(d) crime against humanity, and that under Section 2 of our own domestic International Criminal Court Act 2001, our Attorney-General has no discretion but to endorse any warrant of arrest for the President issued by the ICC for execution in the United Kingdom? That will mean no more golf for the President at Balmedie and Turnberry, and, certainly, no more cups of tea and parades with our good King Charles.

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

My Lords, I am going to repeat what I said. The ceasefire and the return of the hostages were negotiated with the United States with the support of the United Kingdom, and the Presidents of the United States were heavily involved in that ceasefire. Our focus is absolutely to ensure the return of all hostages, and that peace can continue in Gaza so that we can get the humanitarian aid in. That is what we are focused on. I am sorry that I do not agree with the noble Lord at all.

[Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)]

My Lords, in welcoming what the Minister has just said, I ask: would he not agree that one of the outstanding legacies of the Jewish lawyer, Raphael Lemkin, who saw more than 40 members of his family murdered during the Holocaust, was the creation of the international architecture that led to the Rome statute and the creation of the International Criminal Court? Would it not be better for those countries that are not members of the ICC to join the United Kingdom in becoming members of the ICC and to uphold the principles that the noble Baroness outlined? Given what the Minister said about the conversations that he is having with colleagues in the United States, when a noble Baroness such as the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy—an outstanding human rights lawyer—is threatened herself with visa restrictions and even potential fines for dealing with clients who are part of the process of the International Criminal Court, must we not protest about that in the strongest possible terms?

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

The noble Lord is absolutely right. The ICC is the primary international institution for investigating and prosecuting the most serious crimes of international concern. We urge all countries to support it and we urge them to sign the Rome treaty. We know that the US, whether it has a Democrat or Republican President, has refused to do so, but that does not stop us focusing on how we deal with these crimes and how we can build alliances to ensure that they do not happen again. The noble Lord is absolutely right about the rabbi. We do need international law, we need international law to be upheld and we urge all countries to do so.

[Baroness Northover (LD)]

My Lords, on the question my noble friend asked just now, can the Minister clarify that he would agree, as his Ministerial colleagues have agreed, that the forcible transfer of the population of Gaza would be a crime against humanity and against international law? I know that he distanced himself from some other elements of what my noble friend said, but, on that, can he clarify the Government’s position?

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

As the noble Baroness will recall, I absolutely made clear the position of the Government in relation to forcible removal of Gazan citizens, or Palestinians, from Gaza. I made that very clear in the recent repeat of the Urgent Question and I reassure her that our position has not changed.

[Lord Sandhurst (Con)]

My Lords, the USA is not a party to the Rome statute, which created and governs the International Criminal Court. Does the Minister agree that the USA is entitled to do as it pleases with regard to that court? Secondly, in the light of the ceasefire, is there any change to His Majesty’s Government’s position on the arrest warrant for Mr Netanyahu?

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

Let me begin by repeating what I have said before: we believe in international law, we support the ICC and we support the Rome treaty. We are absolutely committed to these and we urge all others to do so. But there has always been a difference between the United States’ position and the United Kingdom’s. I repeat that what we want to do is ensure that peace returns to Gaza and that full humanitarian aid can get back in, and we absolutely urge the return of all the hostages. That is our position, that is our objective and that is our aim.

[Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)]

My Lords, in the light of what President Trump has said—that if all Israeli hostages are not returned by noon on Saturday, all hell should let loose—can I ask the Minister what the approach of the British Government is?

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

The United Kingdom Government are deeply concerned about reports that Hamas has delayed the next hostage release. We want to see the continuation of ceasefire negotiations and ensure the full flow of aid and ongoing release of hostages. We must build confidence on all sides that helps sustain the ceasefire and move it from phase one through to phase three: that is our commitment. The US has played an integral role in negotiating the ceasefire agreement between Israel and Hamas, along with Qatar and Egypt. We will continue to work with the United States Administration to ensure regional security and stability, including ensuring a lasting peace for Israelis and Palestinians.

Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories

Lord Collins of Highbury Excerpts

Monday 10th February 2025 Lords Chamber

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

I join the noble Earl in welcoming the release so far of 21 hostages, including British national Emily Damari and, of course, the UK-linked Eli Sharabi. The Prime Minister spoke to Emily on 31 January and was deeply moved by her personal story. We continue to call for the release of all hostages. The real solution is their release; that is what we want to see as soon as possible.

In relation to UNRWA, that is quite a serious matter, and I know that UNRWA has responded and is calling for an independent inquiry into it. UNRWA was, of course, excluded from those facilities but nevertheless it is important that there is a thorough independent inquiry. We look forward to seeing that when it happens.

[Baroness Northover (LD)]

My Lords, in the light of President Trump’s totally destabilising statements, do the Government share the view of the German Foreign Minister that Gaza is for the Palestinians, not for Israel, nor for the United States? What communications have the Government had with the leaderships of Egypt and Jordan to reassure them that the UK does not support the removal of Palestinians in Gaza to their countries? Does the Minister agree that the time has come to recognise Palestine as a state before it is too late?

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

I reassure the noble Baroness that we see the ceasefire as the first step in ensuring long-term peace and security for Israelis, Palestinians and the wider region, bringing much-needed stability. We thank Qatar, Egypt and the US for their tireless efforts over the past 15 months in getting us to this moment.

I reiterate our very clear policy: we would oppose any effort to move Palestinians in Gaza to neighbouring Arab states against their will. As we have repeatedly said, Palestinian civilians, including those evacuated from northern Gaza, must be permitted to return to their communities and rebuild. As the Prime Minister has said, we should be with them as they rebuild on the way to a two-state solution. That is the way to ensure peace and security for both Israel and the Palestinians.

In terms of recognition, the Foreign Secretary has made this clear on numerous occasions. We see that as one of the tools for seeking and establishing that two-state solution. We want to be able to use it as strong leverage to maintain that course for a two-state solution, so that when the time is right, we are committed to recognise.

[Lord Pannick (CB)]

My Lords, in the light of Hamas’s abhorrent policy of torturing hostages, what action is being taken by His Majesty’s Government, together with our allies, to prevent Hamas from continuing to occupy any position of power and authority in Gaza? Does the Minister accept that the two-state solution, which he mentioned and which I and many others support, is not going to happen until Hamas is removed from power and authority?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

I have made it absolutely clear on previous occasions, and I repeat, that there is no role for Hamas in the future governance of Gaza. We will continue to work with Israel, the Palestinian Authority, the US and regional partners to build a consensus for a post-conflict Gaza governance and security framework that supports the conditions for a permanent and sustainable peace. As part of that process, we have committed financial support of £5 million to support the PA in relation to this. We have also established two key roles in the Palestinian Authority to ensure that recovery and this new form of governance. We are absolutely committed that there is no role for Hamas in the future.

[Baroness Blackstone (Lab)]

My Lords, I congratulate the Government on their decision to spend an extra £17 million to support the needs of Gazans for food, housing and shelter. Will he tell the House how that £17 million is going to be spent, particularly in the absence of UNRWA, which has disgracefully been denied its continued operation in East Jerusalem? If there are no other agencies with the right experience to deliver that aid, it is hard to think how Gazans are going to get it.

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

As my noble friend said, on 28 January, the Minister for Development announced that further £17 million in funding to ensure that healthcare, food and shelter reach tens of thousands of civilians and support vital infrastructure across the Occupied Territories and in neighbouring countries. We have also delivered life-saving UK-funded medical supplies via Jordanian helicopters, an operation supported by the UK military.

On UNRWA, the United Kingdom continues to lead international action to press for a resolution to this issue. On 31 January, the Foreign Secretary joined his French and German counterparts to call on Israel to abide by its international obligations. We are in close contact with the United Nations on next steps. The Foreign Secretary spoke to the UN Secretary-General on 30 January, and the Minister for Development spoke to the emergency relief co-ordinator, Tom Fletcher, on 24 January. It is my hope that I shall be meeting him tomorrow to reiterate the message in terms of access for humanitarian aid into the Occupied Territories.

[The Lord Bishop of St Albans]

Reports coming out of the country show the desperate need to get not only aid but medical supplies there. I pay tribute to His Majesty’s Government for all that they have done so far, but the issue is how we get aid and medical supplies in. In particular, reports are coming out that the Anglican-run al-Ahli Hospital is in a desperate state. What else can His Majesty’s Government do to ensure that we get medicine and supplies in there and to other medical facilities?

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

The right reverend Prelate is right. The United Nations and other partners are continuing to monitor and update figures for the volumes and types of aid currently entering Gaza but, given that that is a key element of the ceasefire agreement, the UN can publicly share only overall truck figures for now. So we do not currently have the usual level of detailed information, but we will continue to work closely with trusted partners on the ground to understand how UK aid is being distributed. All UK delivery partners are required, as per our agreements with them, to collate this information, so we expect that in due course.

[Lord Swire (Con)]

My Lords, does the Minister agree that one way of instilling greater confidence in this three-stage process is to allow the international press into Gaza? What discussions has he had with the Government of Israel on allowing the international press in? Further to that, what discussions has he had with his UN counterparts and colleagues about the whole issue of allowing people in to see whether crimes have been committed by either side?

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

The noble Lord makes a valid point. One of the reasons given for no access was the conflict and the troops, but now that we have a ceasefire, we can ensure that there is proper access, which is why I am focusing on the humanitarian aid and support going in. The noble Lord makes the valid point that upholding international law, and ensuring that all sides are subject to it, is right. We will continue to support the ICC and other efforts to ensure that that is held to.

Government of Syria: Freedom of Expression, Religion and Belief

Lord Collins of Highbury Excerpts

Monday 10th February 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Carey of Clifton]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the new government of Syria’s commitment to freedom of expression, religion and belief.

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

My Lords, the interim Syrian President has stated that he will form a transitional Government who are representative of Syria’s diversity and has pledged to protect religious groups. We are monitoring how the interim authorities treat all civilians in areas they control. We will judge them by their actions. We will continue to advocate for the right of freedom of religion or belief in Syria and for a political transition leading to an inclusive, non-sectarian and representative Government.

[Lord Carey of Clifton (CB)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for that careful and helpful reply. While accepting that the new rulers in Damascus have taken steps to reassure some minorities of the desire to create an open society, how do our Government intend to monitor the actual situation? How do they intend to verify whether assurances are followed up, bearing in mind the intense disquiet felt in some groups, such as the Christian churches, about increasing Islamisation, particularly as it bears on women, and the creation of an environment unwelcoming to minorities?

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

I said last week that we have a special envoy who has visited Syria. We are in close contact with the interim authorities. We are working closely with our allies in the region and we are carefully monitoring the situation. As I said, we are judging them by their actions, not simply on their words. We are concerned by reports of attacks on minorities, including Christians, and attempts to stoke sectarian tensions. We are monitoring the situation extremely closely.

[Lord Anderson of Swansea (Lab)]

Does my noble friend agree that it is early days and that the point is currently in both directions? Would he agree that one potentially positive sign is that Turkey, our good ally, has close relations with the new regime? Should we not therefore be ready to encourage Turkey to play a positive role in influencing the new regime in these areas?

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

My noble friend makes a good point. We are concerned by increased tensions in northern Syria and the impact that this may have on civilians and stability in the region. Turkey has been playing a critical role there and we have been in regular contact with it, as well as with Syrian democratic forces. Our priority across the board is de-escalation.

[Baroness Northover (LD)]

My Lords, security and prosperity are vital in Syria. What action is being taken with others to try to halt the spread of revenge attacks? The EU has lifted some economic sanctions. We have always said—and the Minister has always said—that sanctions are more effective if we act together. Why have we not done likewise?

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

On the latter point, we are reviewing both actions and the Prime Minister has made that clear in the other place. As the noble Baroness knows, we do not comment on future designations or de-designations. The Prime Minister has been absolutely clear on that. I think she is right that there are forces within Syria that may stoke sectarian violence and instability. As my noble friend raised, we are trying to work with allies, across the board, to ensure that there is de-escalation, and to take the interim authority at its word and make sure that we monitor it on a regular basis. The noble Baroness is right to point this out.

[Lord Green of Deddington (CB)]

My Lords, as a former ambassador to Syria, I speak in support of the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Carey of Clifton. I spent three years as ambassador in Damascus, in the dying days of President Assad, and I saw that regime first hand. His son’s regime was no better. In answer to an Oral Question last Thursday, the Minister described the present time as a

“critical but fragile moment for Syria”.—[Official Report, 6/2/25; col. 803.]

Indeed so; Syria could fold up and the regime would be widely affected. Does the Minister accept that there is a real risk of a backlash against western involvement in Syria, and, accordingly, that we need to be firm but careful about what we say in public and how we say it?

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

I have been diplomatic in response to the Questions we have had last week and this week. We should not take immediate decisions but rather focus on the interim authorities and their words, which we should ensure they keep to. We are monitoring that situation closely. As I said, we have an envoy for Syria, who is doing excellent work—I think she is engaged with parliamentarians here. The noble Lord is right to suggest caution, but we have some reason to be optimistic for the future for Syria. We must not forget what Syria went through under the Assad regime, during which horrendous crimes were committed.

[Lord Hain (Lab)]

My Lords, I want to ask my noble friend about the consequences of the withdrawal of 2,000 US troops from Syria, who were working with Syrian Kurdish forces, in particular to contain some 9,000 ISIS—Islamic State—fighters in prison camps. There is a danger of those fighters breaking out and not just damaging religious tolerance but imposing their reign of terror on the whole region.

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

To reiterate what I said last week, the first duty of every Government is to protect its citizens, and we are certainly cognisant of that in relation to those camps. The United Kingdom notes the decision of the US to pause foreign aid funding for three months pending a review; that is a matter for the United States. As I say, we are working with our allies to ensure that there is stability in Syria and that Daesh’s territorial defeat endures and that it can never, ever resurge. We are working closely with US colleagues and humanitarian partners to understand and assess the impact of the pause, but we are fairly confident that there will be continued support for the IDP camps in the north.

[Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)]

My Lords, on Wednesday, will the Minister carefully follow the proceedings of the Joint Committee on Human Rights as it continues its inquiry into the failure to bring to justice members of ISIS who were responsible for genocidal crimes against Yazidis, Christians, gay people, and other minorities in Syria and Iraq? In Raqqa alone, the headquarters of ISIS, the number of Christians was reduced from 11,000 to 100, and throughout Syria 80% of that community has disappeared. Given what the noble Lord, Lord Hain, has just said about the thousands of people who are still in the camps, can the Minister say what is being done to bring to justice British nationals in those camps who are members of ISIS and responsible for many of these crimes?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

I follow the work of the committee and I congratulate the noble Lord on his chairmanship. One thing he knows we have been absolutely committed to is accountability, not just for ISIS but for the crimes committed by the former Assad regime. We have given practical support to NGOs and INGOs, to ensure that we can gather credible evidence and hold these people to account for the crimes that they committed. This year alone, we have committed £1.15 million to accountability and documentation-related programmes. We will continue to work with our international partners and civil society to advocate for the UN charter and support mechanisms to ensure full compliance with it.

[Baroness Hussein-Ece (LD)]

My Lords, does the Minister accept that the stability and future of Syria are in the interests of not just the Middle East but the entire region? Does he accept that we must avoid repeating mistakes made in earlier experiences in Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan and elsewhere, and learn the lessons? The most important lesson is that any process on the road to stability and a plural democracy should be led by Syrians and supported by the international community, and not the other way round, and especially not by those who supported the murderous Assad regime over the years.

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

Let me focus on the thrust of the noble Baroness’s question. She is absolutely right that this should be Syrian-led, Syrian democracy; that is what we are focused on. We are engaging with the interim authorities and international partners to do precisely that: to support the political process and civil society. I have often said that the most important ingredient of a healthy democracy is a vibrant civil society, and that is particularly true of Syria. The noble Baroness, Lady Hodgson, raised last week the involvement of women in this process. We have been absolutely committed to that and we will continue to be so.

Syria

Lord Collins of Highbury Excerpts

Thursday 6th February 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hodgson of Abinger]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what assistance they are providing to Syria to support a peaceful transition to inclusive and representative government.

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

My Lords, at this critical but fragile moment for Syria, the United Kingdom is supporting a Syrian-owned political transition process, leading to an inclusive, non-sectarian and representative Government. We are engaging intensively with the interim Syrian authorities and international partners, to whom we are underlining the importance of including key groups, including women and ethnic and religious minorities. We are consulting the interim authorities about what additional support they need to deliver a peaceful transition, including through our Syria envoy, who was in Damascus again last week.

[Baroness Hodgson of Abinger (Con)]

I thank the Minister for his response, and I am glad he agrees that it is important that Syria has a pluralistic and inclusive Government. There are indeed many strong women’s groups in Syria, but around the world we are seeing women’s rights rolling back. How will the UK help to ensure that women in Syria will have sufficient representation in the Government after the transition, and that they will be able to contribute on an equal footing to the men there?

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

The noble Baroness is absolutely right. Support to women and girls continues to be at the heart of UK’s policy and programmes in Syria. UK support is through INGOs, Syrian civil society—she mentioned the women’s groups—and the United Nations. Women’s empowerment and political participation are vital. We regularly engage with civil society, including on the position of the women’s groups that the noble Baroness mentioned. The United Kingdom’s special envoy for Syria met the head of the women’s affairs department in Damascus last week, and they discussed the ways to empower and support women in Syria and build their capacity to take on an active and influential role in society.

[Baroness Goudie (Lab)]

My Lords, it is not enough to talk to just one woman; we have to have a coalition of the women’s groups, like we had to do in Northern Ireland, as there will be no way that the women can be at the peace table with just one woman. It has to be a coalition of women. Also, I would like an undertaking that no aid will be stopped, because of pressure from the United States, for maternal and women’s health, women’s education, and children’s health. Can the Minister please give me an indication that this will be so?

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

My noble friend is absolutely right. I repeat that support for women and girls continues, and will continue, to be at the heart of our policy and programmes in Syria. But I emphasise that we have long supported Syrian civil society and will continue to do so. As the noble Baroness, Lady Hodgson, says, that means that we move towards a more pluralistic solution. My noble friend is absolutely right: we need to engage the broad range of women’s organisations.

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

My Lords, first, the self-declared President of Syria is also head of a proscribed terrorist organisation that restricts the rights of minorities and women. Has the Government’s assessment of proscription changed with regard to that organisation? Secondly, given the news from the United States yesterday that the Trump Administration are now preparing to withdraw from Syria 2,000 troops who are part of the anti-terrorism work with the UK, what are our contingency arrangements to reduce terrorism in that part of Syria if the US troops are withdrawn?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

The fact that HTS is a proscribed terrorist group does not prevent the United Kingdom engaging with the interim authorities in our efforts to help secure a political settlement. Of course, as the noble Lord knows, the Government do not routinely comment on whether a group is being considered for proscription or de-proscription. We are absolutely focusing on how we can consistently advocate for an inclusive political transition, underlying the importance of protecting the rights of religious and ethnic minorities. The US decision to pause foreign aid and funding for three months pending review is, of course, a matter for the US. The first duty of any Government is to keep the UK safe, working with allies to ensure stability in Syria and to ensure that Daesh’s territorial defeat continues and that it can never resurge. That is our absolute priority.

[The Earl of Courtown (Con)]

My Lords, it is great to see all the work being carried out and continued with civil society in Syria, but how are His Majesty’s Government working with regional partners to counter the influence of hostile state actors, such as Iran and Russia, in Syria?

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

The noble Earl is absolutely right. We are concerned about increased tensions, particularly in northern Syria, and the impact those may have on civilians and stability in the region. So we are in regular contact with Turkey and the Syrian Democratic Forces. Our priority is constantly to focus on de-escalation.

[Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)]

Would it not be easier to monitor and, one would hope, influence developments in Syria if we were to reopen the embassy now?

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

What we need to do is constantly evaluate the situation. As I have mentioned twice already, we have a special envoy there—she was in Damascus last week—and we will continue to evaluate the situation so that we can ensure that, when that transition into a more permanent solution or more permanent Government happens, we will consider what the noble Lord asks for.

[The Lord Bishop of Chichester]

My Lords, Syria is home to some of the oldest and most significant Christian churches in the world, although Christians now number only 2.5% of Syria’s population. Although small in number, they see themselves as an integral part of the people of Syria and its identity. In view of this, will the Minister ensure that policy and statements about Syria robustly identify its Christian communities and history as an important part of its identity and life and in need of special protection, rather than simply being assimilated as Syrians defined as citizens of the state?

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

The right reverend Prelate raises an important point. Of course, the FCDO has consistently advocated for an inclusive political transition and underlined the importance of protecting the rights of religious and ethnic minorities, both publicly and as part of our engagement with international partners and the interim Syrian authorities. We are of course concerned by reports of attacks on minorities and attempts to stoke sectarian tension, and we are monitoring the situation closely, but I reassure the noble Lord that we are absolutely focused on this. Certainly, that has been picked up by the Foreign Secretary and me.

[Baroness Blower (Lab)]

I thank my noble friend the Minister for his Answer to my Written Question last month on this very topic. I am glad to see the commitment of the British Government to this. Will he reinforce the notion, with which I am sure he agrees, that the high-quality education of girls is absolutely central to making sure that Syria functions well into the future and that we have educated women who can play an effective part in Syrian politics?

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

My noble friend is absolutely right, and I am grateful for her comment on my response to her Written Question. We continue to support those in need across Syria, where safe to do so, through NGOs and UN organisations. We are providing food, healthcare, protection and other life-saving assistance. We are absolutely focused, as my noble friend said, on supporting the education programmes that she referred to, in addition to agricultural livelihoods.

[Baroness Foster of Aghadrumsee (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, it is not just a good and nice thing to involve women in political processes: it has been shown that deals made that include women are more sustainable by the very fact that they are inclusive. What plans does the Minister have to equip women in Syria and give them the proper tools to be involved in any peace deals, since they cannot come in without that training?

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

The noble Baroness is absolutely right. As I said to the noble Baroness, Lady Hodgson, we are supporting, through INGOs, Syrian civil society organisations and the UN, programmes that provide for women’s empowerment and political participation. We are absolutely focused on giving those tools. The debate on this issue focuses on the vital point that women need to be included for a sustainable peace in Syria.

Sudan and Eastern DRC

Lord Collins of Highbury Excerpts

Monday 3rd February 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

My Lords, I am very happy to associate myself with the final remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Callanan.

The House is aware, as is the Minister, of my ongoing interest in supporting Sudanese civilians in exile. The humanitarian suffering continues on an enormous and heartbreaking scale, with what the US had previously categorised as genocide in Darfur, again, and atrocities committed by both sets of belligerents, civilians slaughtered by Chinese drones, reports of chemical weapons being used, and the systematic blocking of humanitarian aid to the communities that need it most, especially women and children.

There are still far too few safe zones, which should have been established many months ago. The Minister is aware that I have supported the Government’s work at the Security Council. It is worth reminding ourselves that, had it not been for the Russian veto, many of the diplomatic actions and work that we have been calling for would have been put in place as a result of the UK-drafted resolution.

The scale is enormous. That was brought home to me when I was in Nairobi last weekend, with civilians in exile, as part of dialogue. One of the former diplomats who is working tirelessly to try to bring about cohesion in the civilian voice told me that his brother had been killed the day before.

For those who are working to try to bring about an end to the war, who cannot return home and who have many family members at home in great peril, this is very real. In a country in which so many of its population face starvation—although Sudan is a country that could feed itself, and indeed export food elsewhere—there are still the basic needs of clean water, medicine and food.

Will the Minister reassert that there should be no impunity for those who are afflicting these terrible breaches of international humanitarian law and war crimes on the civilian population? There should be no hiding place for those who are committing the atrocities, or for those who are systematically blocking food, hydration and medicine. These are war crimes and need to called out as such. I commend the work that the UK is doing with others to ensure that there is the proper collation of evidence, so that there can be consequences to this.

It is not just about those who are afflicting the war crimes; it is about those who are profiting from it. I appeal to the Government to do more to reduce the illicit gold trade. I read a credible report that that part of the economy of Sudan is now more profitable as a result of nearly two years of war than it was prior to the war commencing. That means that near neighbours, including allies of the United Kingdom, are profiting from this humanitarian horror. What work are the Government doing to ensure that there is no profit from war for many of those within the Gulf or near neighbours who are seeking transactional relationships with the belligerents in the gold trade?

The same goes for possibly the most disgusting trade of all: that in human beings. There has been a proliferation of trafficking and smuggling. What actions are all parts of the UK Government taking to ensure that that element of the war economy is closed and there is no future for those who are profiting from war by securing advantage in any form of peace?

I welcome the Foreign Secretary’s visit to the Chad border, and what he has said and is doing, as well as the work of our envoy and diplomats. Indeed, we are lucky to have the Minister for Africa in our own House, and I commend the work that he is doing. However, given the reports that the RSF may be seeking to form an administrative authority of its own, which it will call a Government, can the Minister confirm that we will not recognise or provide legitimacy to the RSF? At the moment, there is too much consideration of what Sudan might be if it becomes like Libya: two Governments—two competing authorities. The RSF may seek to an end to the war but it will also seek to have permanent influence; however, it should have no right to govern Sudan.

Does the Minister agree that there is an urgency to this? We are just a matter of eight or nine weeks from the second anniversary of the war, but there should be no third year. All efforts should be focused on these short weeks ahead to ensure that there is diplomatic effort to bring the belligerents to the table and to create the space where civilians can have the opportunity to govern one civilian-led Sudan at the end of the process.

Can the Minister say what assessment the UK has made of the terrible decisions that the Trump Administration are making on USAID? Have waivers been provided for US humanitarian and food assistance in Sudan? What is the Government’s assessment of the likely impact of the USAID decisions?

Turning to the DRC, there is little surprise that there has been ongoing territorial violence in that region; many have warned about that for many months. I commend the UN forces and any UK personnel who have been contributing to the end of this. I also send condolences to the families of those who have paid with their life in attempting to have peace in this area.

The work of the Rwandan Government and M23 has been raised in this House repeatedly. I raised it in June 2023, when I asked the Minister’s predecessor what actions the UK Government were taking with the Rwandan Government to cease the latter’s funding and support of the M23 group. It was marked that the previous Administration refused to make any public statement, probably because of the partnership agreement that they had signed with the Rwandan Government. I hope that the Government will not be shy of the consequences for UK funding support for the Rwandan Government if the latter continue to support an organisation that has been repeatedly held up for multiple violations of international humanitarian law and human rights abuses. Can the Minister comment on whether the Nairobi and Luanda process has now completely ended?

I close with an appeal to the Minister. What we have seen, both in Sudan and the DRC and with the Trump Administration, is that the need for UK development assistance and presence is greater than ever before. If there was ever an opportunity for the Government to review, take stock and then change course on their cut to development assistance, it is now. As well as helping with conflict prevention and humanitarian assistance, we need to ensure that the UK’s global soft power can be a force for good, and so we should not follow the Trump Administration in reducing official development assistance.

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

My Lords, I thank both noble Lords for their comments.

I will focus first on the DRC, because the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, asked for an update. I decided that it would be better to discuss this Statement today so that I could afford the House an update on the situation. The United Kingdom remains firmly of the view that all parties should cease hostilities and return to diplomatic talks immediately. Their engagement in good faith in African-led processes is absolutely key. Of course, there can be no military solution.

Noble Lords will be aware that I have been engaged in following this conflict since day one. The very first country I visited was Angola, followed by the DRC and then Rwanda. Throughout those visits, I was focused on President Lourenço’s attempts at a new peace process to ensure that there was an inclusive process that could guarantee a future secure peace.

When I arrived in Angola, the Government there announced the ceasefire, and our attempts since that day have been to ensure that that ceasefire held. When we saw and heard the movement of M23 towards Goma, we made very clear our view that that should not happen and that Rwanda should cease supporting M23—and there was clear evidence that RDF forces were there also, supporting that move on Goma.

When I spoke to the Foreign Minister of Rwanda on 24 January, I made it clear that such a move would have consequences: the international community would respond on a collective basis—and the Foreign Secretary made the same call the next day to President Kagame and repeated that. Now, of course, Goma has fallen and it looks like M23 is determined to move further to Bukavu.

I have had conversations with the Angola Foreign Minister, as well as the DRC Foreign Minister, repeating the fact that we should keep Luanda as a process that is there and which can guarantee an inclusive dialogue if ceasefire is held and the combatants stop fighting immediately. I spoke to the Ugandan Foreign Minister just an hour ago to reiterate that collective view about the way forward in terms of the Luanda process and ensuring peace. The Foreign Secretary has had conversations with European allies, including the EU high representative, and I have also had conversations with European Foreign Ministers on the same subject. Yesterday we had the G7 statement, which very much reflected the United Kingdom’s position of ensuring that those combatants cease their conflict and cease moving towards the second largest city in eastern DRC. I know that the Foreign Secretary also had discussions with Secretary Rubio on this question, and the United States and the United Kingdom both remain concerned about the situation and want to ensure that there is de-escalation and a ceasefire as soon as possible.

We also should not underestimate the huge humanitarian impact of this conflict. Hundreds of thousands of people have been forced to flee since the beginning of the year. Currently, 7 million are displaced, and that has huge impact. We have also seen the terrible rise of sexual violence in conflict, which of course we are absolutely focused on. We also saw foreign embassies attacked in Kinshasa; fortunately, our staff were secure and safe. I have made it clear to the Foreign Minister, and I know the Foreign Secretary made it clear to President Tshisekedi, that the protection of diplomatic staff is essential.

We are going to take the matter forward. We are reflecting on our actions, but we think it is really important that we are sending a very clear message to Rwanda that it must cease this support and return to the negotiating table. We have made it clear that its presence in DRC is unacceptable. So we are not holding back in terms of communications, but we are absolutely determined to support the African-led peace processes, and SADC and the other regional organisations are very clearly coming to that view too. I will keep the House updated on what our attempts deliver, particularly as we move to a further meeting of the UN Security Council. We have already had two on the DRC, and we are absolutely committed to that collective action.

I appreciate the comments of noble Lords regarding the Foreign Secretary’s visit to Chad. I think it is the first visit of a Foreign Secretary to that situation. His visit to Adre, on the border, made absolutely clear our focus on the humanitarian situation and how to get aid in. This has created the worst humanitarian crisis, with half of Sudan’s population, 30 million people, in urgent need of aid, 12 million having been forced from their homes and 8.7 million on the brink of starvation. We need to move this up the global agenda and we are certainly determined to. We have worked with international partners, as a penholder at the United Nations Security Council. Noble Lords have mentioned the Russian veto on our last attempt, but that has not stopped us raising this question at the UN. We are focused on the Secretary-General’s call for the protection of civilians and in particular holding the combatants to their Jeddah commitments, to ensure that there is a mechanism to protect civilians.

We are absolutely convinced that more needs to be done. We are convening a meeting of foreign ministers, hopefully next month, in London, to galvanise efforts on Sudan, in particular on humanitarian support but also in terms of a political solution. The noble Lord knows very well how we have been seeking and supporting civilian actors in Sudan so that we can see a return to a civilian-led government. The integrity of Sudan is absolutely vital. We cannot afford to see it collapse and we are certainly not accepting that there should be any breakaway or any recognition of any force outside the move towards a democratically elected Sudan Government.

Of course, we have recognised the scale of this crisis with an unprecedented response. The Foreign Secretary has doubled UK aid to Sudan this year, as well as visiting the border in Chad to draw attention to the crisis. I am clear that we all must do more. Funding is just one part of the problem. Far too much of the aid already committed is unable to reach those who need it most. We are pressing all parties to ensure that there is safe and unimpeded access to humanitarian support.

[Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)]

My Lords, during the previous war in Congo, some six million people died. Can the Minister tell us what he believes is driving the conflict in the DRC, given that what are being called “blood minerals” are regularly sold through the markets in Rwanda? What have we said to our Commonwealth partner Rwanda about the exploitation of the DRC’s natural resources and how this is empowering groups of rebels to take the law into their own hands and to drive on the conflict?

In the case of Sudan, the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, referred to the bombing of the hospital in al-Fashir, with the deaths of some 50 people. A further 70 people died in the nearby market as well. What are we doing to collect evidence to ensure that those responsible will be brought to justice? Far too many people who were responsible for the earlier genocide in Darfur are still roaming the land with impunity and fuelling the present conflict. I think the House would like to know what is being done to hold those to account who have been responsible for those atrocities.

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

I think that the noble Lord appreciates that the issues surrounding this conflict are clearly complex in terms of the history of eastern DRC. We should not forget the genocide that occurred in Rwanda, which after all is only 30 years ago. However, the integrity of the Democratic Republic of the Congo is important, and international law is important. That is what we have been focused on. As I mentioned, we have been supporting inclusive talks so that, where there are concerns, they should be addressed in those negotiations. I felt confident that at the meeting on 15 December we would make progress, but sadly we did not.

I am deeply concerned by the reports from the UN group of experts about M23 and Rwanda illegally extracting critical minerals from the DRC, including coltan. We have made our concerns known and will continue to do so.

On Sudan, the UK condemns in the strongest terms the increasing reports of atrocities being committed across Sudan, particularly in Darfur and al-Fashir, as the noble Lord mentioned. The Foreign Secretary issued a tweet on this subject, particularly in relation to the hospital. We are committed to doing everything in our power to ensure that those responsible are held to account. That means ensuring that those parties remain committed to their Jeddah commitments. We also strongly support the ICC’s active investigation into the situation in Darfur, and we welcome prosecutor Khan’s report and briefing to the council. We are absolutely committed to hold these people to account.

[Lord Anderson of Swansea (Lab)]

My Lords, I commend my noble friend the Minister on his initiatives and his very strong personal commitment of long standing to peaceful solutions to conflicts in Africa. Clearly, both these conflicts depend in part on the lure of natural resources and on external intervention—Qatar and others in Sudan and Rwanda in the DRC.

Can my noble friend say what leverage we have, and are we prepared to use it in a clear form? For example, in 2012, the British Government froze our aid to Rwanda, which led fairly speedily to a solution to the M23 intervention in the DRC. Would we consider a similar intervention?

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lord for his comments. The Foreign Secretary’s Statement in the other place last week made it clear that we will be working with our allies, and this is the important thing; we want a collective, international response that shows how serious and concerned we are about Rwanda’s activities in the eastern DRC. The first point is the one made by the noble, Lord Purvis: we have been absolutely clear in our message that it is unacceptable and there should be an immediate ceasefire. I will not speculate on what actions the international community will take, but rest assured they will be serious and will have an impact.

On the extractive industries and the mining situation, it is important to say that, when I first met President Lourenço, we talked about the Lobito corridor; we talked about the potential that Africa, and particularly that part of Africa, has in terms of greening the global economy. It has huge potential, and the DRC has the biggest amount of potential. We have focused in all our talks on saying there is a dividend for peace here—let us look at the future and not focus on the past. Sadly, we were unable to deliver that vision at the 15 December summit, but I am confident that we can refocus efforts on that and ensure we focus on progress in Africa.

[Lord Bellingham (Con)]

My Lords, following on from the Minister’s point and what the noble Lord, Lord Alton, said, Rwanda is now exporting more gold and, in particular, more smart tech minerals than it is producing in country. So is there an argument for this Government to put pressure on the major tech companies to look at their global supply chains? Especially as, for example, the UN group of experts pointed out that there is now compelling evidence that minerals smuggled out of the DRC have been used by Apple in constructing its latest generation of iPhone.

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

As I have said, we have seen those reports from the mission and expressed serious concern about the exploitation of those minerals in the eastern DRC for the benefit of both M23 and Rwanda. We have expressed our concern. Again, I will not speculate on what action the international community takes, but the noble Lord can rest assured that we are determined to act on a collective basis that has the most impact.

[Baroness Blower (Lab)]

My Lords, I commend my noble friend the Minister on his comprehensive presentation. Clearly, it the most awful of situations, and I would like to say a word about the exploitation of children in the extractive industries, which I am sure the noble Lord agrees with. Very many children who should be in school are in mines in the DRC. As the Secretary of State noted in the other place, there has been a 16% increase in what he described as irregular migration from Sudan. On that basis, can the Minister say whether we are considering the possibility of safe and legal routes for people who may be in a position to leave Sudan, particularly those who may have family in the UK? I realise that that is very far from the answer to this problem, which should be African-led and should take place in Sudan.

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

My noble friend is absolutely right in her latter comments. Since the conflict began in Sudan, 3.6 million refugees have fled to neighbouring countries, including Chad, Egypt, South Sudan, Uganda and the Central African Republic. As the Foreign Secretary said, we have already seen an increase in people crossing into Europe, with the number of Sudanese people arriving irregularly to the UK increasing by 16% from the previous year to 2,882. Not only is UK aid vitally needed on humanitarian grounds but it will help people to stay within their immediate region. Having 3 million people trying to cross the Mediterranean is just not acceptable. We have to focus on those neighbours and on a solution for Sudan. We are committed not only to ensuring that we deliver the humanitarian aid that is so vitally needed now but to finding a political solution that ensures that we return to one Sudan, with a civilian-led Government who will put the interests of the Sudanese people first. That is what we need most.

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)]

My Lords, I draw attention to my entry on the register in working for organisations committed to conflict prevention and resolution. In commending the Minister and his efforts across the piece, I put on record our thanks—I know, having sat where he is, the focus that a Minister engaging at this level brings. Turning to the important responsibility he now carries on preventing sexual violence in conflict, as the Minister will know, the biggest tragedy of all the tragedies that unfold in conflict is that it is the most vulnerable, particularly women and girls, who are targeted in the most abhorrent way by crimes. Over many years, we have supported the Panzi Hospital in the DRC and the excellent work done by Dr Mukwege. Can the Minister please update the House on our continued support for these initiatives that are helping victims at a time when they are facing the worst kind of tragedies and violations of their being?

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

The noble Lord is right. I met Her Royal Highness the Duchess of Edinburgh last week and we talked about that hospital and the vital need to support it, and we continue to do so. As the noble Lord knows, the situation is extremely difficult. With fighting going on between combatants, it is extremely difficult to get in the support that is required, but we are committed to doing so and are supporting every effort to do so. He is right that we should focus on ensuring that the voices of those people suffering such abuse are heard. We have done that in Sudan—we raised it at the UN General Assembly, where we held a meeting so that survivors could speak—and we are determined to do that in the DRC. Many of those in internally displaced people camps have suffered from all kinds of sexual violence. We are focused on supporting them with aid and support, and giving them a voice so that the leaders of the DRC and Rwanda can hear the true consequences of their actions.

[Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)]

My Lords, the Minister referred to the genocide 30 years ago in Rwanda. I suppose nobody in your Lordships’ House can feel that more painfully than me, since I was the British ambassador to the United Nations at the time. I am all too well aware that, along with the rest of the international community, we did not come out covered with glory. But we really cannot allow that argument to justify the invasion of a neighbouring country, with the Rwandan military force operating in the DRC. Rwanda has used that argument again and again. Has not the time come to say very clearly—perhaps privately—to the Government of Rwanda that we are not prepared to justify or condone what they are doing in the DRC because of our failings in the 1990s?

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

I hope I made it absolutely clear that we have communicated to the Government of Rwanda that it is totally unacceptable to invade a neighbouring country and to have forces present there. We have made that absolutely clear. When I spoke to the Foreign Minister of Rwanda, I attempted to halt that advance, as did David Lammy when he spoke to President Kagame. In response to the noble Lord, Lord Alton, I acknowledged that there are complexities to this conflict and issues that need to be addressed in an inclusive peace process. We were nearly there on 15 December—agreement had been reached. Sadly, one of the parties decided, right at the last moment, that they would not participate. We then saw the sudden surge and advance of troops towards Goma. We tried to stop that; sadly, we could not. The noble Lord, Lord Hannay, is right that it is totally unacceptable to invade a neighbouring country in the way that Rwanda has.