Taiwan

Lord Collins of Highbury Excerpts

Thursday 17th October 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Alton of Liverpool]

To ask His Majesty’s Government whether the Foreign Secretary plans to raise directly with the government of China the recent military activity against Taiwan during his visit.

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

My Lords, in our Statement of 14 October, we stated our concern about China’s military exercises around Taiwan and reaffirmed our interest in peace and stability in the Taiwan Strait. The United Kingdom considers the Taiwan issue one to be settled peacefully by people on both sides of the strait through constructive dialogue, without the threat or use of force or coercion. We will continue to raise issues of concern with China.

[Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)]

I am grateful to the Minister for that reply. During the Foreign Secretary’s visit to Beijing this week, will he be raising the escalation in the military intimidation of Taiwan and its 23 million people directly with the Chinese authorities? With Bloomberg estimating that a blockade of the Taiwan Strait could cost the world economy around $10 trillion—equal to 10% of global GDP—can the Minister explain why the Foreign Secretary has confusingly decided to no longer describe the PRC as a threat, and spell out exactly what is the Government’s policy on Taiwan, which has never been a part of the People’s Republic of China?

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

There are two questions there. The first is: what is our relationship with the People’s Republic of China? It is one of co-operation, particularly when we need to address those global issues, but we will confront China, when we need to, particularly on human rights issues, which the noble Lord has raised on repeated occasions. On Taiwan, we are quite clear about the need for peaceful dialogue to resolve these issues. The Taiwan Strait is of interest globally, but particularly to the United Kingdom in terms of our trade routes. Dialogue is what we will try to seek to ensure that we have a peaceful approach to these issues.

[Lord Stirrup (CB)]

My Lords, the Chinese are placing great emphasis on, and putting great effort into, what is known as cognitive warfare, which seeks to undermine the structures, processes and will of the West—not least through AI. This is a serious threat to our society; we are playing catch-up, and we are playing it too slowly. With that in mind, will the Minister remind the Foreign Secretary, before he goes to Beijing, of Virgil’s famous line:

“Timeo danaos et dona ferentes”,


although, in this case, it is the Chinese, rather than Greeks, bearing gifts whom he should fear?

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

Well, I think I understand the point of the noble and gallant Lord’s question. The fact is that Taiwan’s biggest trading partner is the People’s Republic. Trading across the globe with China is huge; it is its second biggest economy. It is also vital in terms of addressing those challenges that we face on climate. We therefore need to ensure that we have dialogue and co-operation. But we understand the other issues that the noble and gallant Lord has raised, which is why we committed to in opposition—and will deliver in government—a complete audit of our relationship with China as a bilateral and global actor to improve our ability to understand and respond to not only the opportunities but the challenges that China poses.

[The Earl of Courtown (Con)]

My Lords, the Minister mentioned the importance of dialogue in this relationship. Does he also recognise that supporting Taiwan’s democratic self-governance is essential for peace and security in the region? Following on from the increased Chinese military war-games in the Taiwan Strait, can His Majesty’s Government confirm whether they have further plans for freedom of navigation exercises in the South China Sea?

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

I think I have addressed these issues. The increased tensions are concerning and we are increasingly concerned about the consequences should peace and stability fail the in Taiwan Straits, including, as I mentioned, for global supply chains. It is incredibly important that we focus on ensuring that there is dialogue and not aggression, and these things need to be resolved by the two parties in proper dialogue and consultation. That has been the position of this Government and the Opposition as well as the previous Government, and we will maintain that position as we move forward.

[Lord Rogan (UUP)]

My Lords, I declare an interest, having visited Taiwan recently as a guest of the World League for Freedom and Democracy. The Chinese President’s decision to authorise military drills around Taiwan in the week that our Foreign Secretary is due to arrive in China underlines his contempt not only for the Taiwanese population but for the British people. The Prime Minister visited Taiwan as an Opposition Front Bench spokesman in 2016 and 2018 and will certainly have a deep understanding of the issues challenging Taiwan. I ask the Minister whether and when the Prime Minister or indeed the Foreign Secretary intend to visit Taiwan in their new roles to have dialogue.

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

As the noble Lord knows, I have also visited Taiwan. The United Kingdom has no diplomatic relations with Taiwan but a strong unofficial relationship based on deep and growing ties in a wide range of areas, underpinned, as the noble Lord said, by democratic values. We will continue to engage with Taiwan on economic, trade, educational and cultural ties. This relationship delivers significant benefits to both the United Kingdom and Taiwan and has featured a wide range of exchanges and visits; for example, on environmental, judicial and educational issues. We will continue to establish our relationship on that basis.

[Lord Sahota (Lab)]

My Lords, it is a well-known geopolitical fact that India and China do not see eye to eye over many issues in Asia. Are our Government regularly in touch with the Indian Government over this issue?

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

One of the vital aspects of the recent United Nations General Assembly and the Security Council, certainly in my engagement with both, is that we establish strong dialogue with both India and China on how we address the tensions that are developing. When I was addressing the Security Council on enlargement, we discussed with both the P5 and the 10 members of the Security Council that are there on an elected basis how dialogue and consensus is an important way of moving forward. I assure the noble Lord that we will continue dialogue on that basis.

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

My Lords, UK trade with Taiwan is of strategic importance to the United Kingdom, so tension in that area is of concern to our economy, especially in light of the fact that the UK has a trade deficit of £26 billion with China. That means that we are vulnerable to China with regard to trade, so I support the Government in carrying out a strategic audit. Will the Minister commit that that will be published and debated in Parliament in advance of the defence review and the Government’s industrial strategy, so that it can inform those, not be responsive to them?

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

I must admit that I was reflecting this morning, at an APPG meeting, on what we can do in the first 100 days. I was reflecting on the fact that I have been a Minister for only three months and I have actually been able to do quite a lot, but there is a lot to do and I do not think we should overstretch ourselves. We are committed to this audit; it will cover a broad range of deepening that relationship, because it is not just Government to Government or just in terms of the private sector. There is the local government sector, the public sector—a huge range, not least in the National Health Service, where we have had a lot of concerns about the nature of those imports. I am not going to give any timeframes or say whether or not it can be public; the important thing is that we are focused on delivering it and on better understanding our relationships so that we face up to the challenges that the noble and gallant Lord raised.

[Lord Sterling of Plaistow (Con)]

My Lords, taking account of what the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, just said, China has a huge influence on North Korea. As we know, there has recently been talk about the degree to which North Korea is having a major influence in Ukraine. Will the Minister comment on that?

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

As the noble Lord, Lord Alton, said, North Korea is one of the worst regimes in history in terms of the way that it treats its people, and certainly it is in a crisis situation. Russia, in trying to maintain its aggression against Ukraine, is seeking all kinds of supply streams, not least from places such as North Korea. We are assessing the impact of that, but our relationship with North Korea is very clear. We have expressed concerns at the UN and the Human Rights Council and will continue to do so.

Gaza and Lebanon

Lord Collins of Highbury Excerpts

Wednesday 16th October 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

My Lords, on Monday this week, my noble friend Lord Howard of Lympne asked the noble Lord about an answer given on 3 September by his ministerial colleague, the noble Baroness, Lady Chapman, regarding the partial arms embargo on Israel. The Minister avoided directly answering that question, so let me try again. Was the noble Baroness, Lady Chapman, correct when she told the House that the Government were

“required to suspend certain export licences”?—[Official Report, 3/9/24; col. 1065.]

A simple yes or no will suffice.

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

When I reread Hansard after the noble Lord’s intervention on Monday, I found that what the noble Baroness, Lady Chapman, said was exactly what I said on the F35 situation: it is very difficult to determine where the supply will go and its impact.

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

That was not the question.

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

That is the question. It is the question that the noble Baroness, Lady Chapman, answered, and it was a correct one. I do not think she has anything to apologise for.

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

My Lords, after more than a year of the conflict, many of the hostages have still not been released and the suffering of Palestinian civilians is unbearable. But the excess of violence in the West Bank is often underreported. In March I asked the then Government to designate the politicians, Ministers Ben-Gvir and Smotrich, who have been actively facilitating some of the excessive violence in the West Bank and speaking for it. I asked the then Foreign Secretary, and he has now endorsed this. I do not expect the Minister to comment on potential designations under sanctions, but can he confirm that it is the policy of the Government not to exempt serving politicians from designations?

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

I heard the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, on the radio. I am always willing to take his advice; I have done so on many occasions in the House. It is pity that he did not take mine. The reality of the situation in the West Bank is that violence is increasing. I would certainly go on record condemning the totally unacceptable language of Smotrich and Ben-Gvir. It is appalling. As the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, knows, I would not speculate on future sanctions, but let me tell noble Lords that yesterday, under the global human rights regime, the United Kingdom sanctioned three outposts and four entities linked to the violence in the West Bank. So we are acting and will be prepared to act. We are certainly not going to tolerate the sort of violence that I have personally witnessed in the West Bank.

[Viscount Hailsham (Con)]

My Lords, when I was working in the Foreign Office some 30 years ago, I met Mr Netanyahu on a number of occasions. I formed a very clear view of him: the creation of a permanent homeland for the Palestinians was not on his agenda. Does the Minister share my concern that there are now many people making policy in Israel who, by their acts and omissions—both on the West Bank and in Gaza—are creating facts on the ground that will make it impossible for the Palestinians to live in either of those two territories? Thereby, an enlarged and largely Palestinian-free Israel will have been created.

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

I am not going to speculate on the motives—I am certainly not going to speculate on what is going on in the mind of Premier Netanyahu—but what I do know is that our allies and the United Kingdom have a long-standing commitment to ensure that the integrity of the State of Israel is upheld, and that this should go alongside an independent Palestinian state, with two states living side by side. The road map to that two-state solution is not an easy one but I am absolutely determined that this Government, the United States and our allies in the European Union are all committed to it. I hope that we can influence those in Israel who might not have the same sort of view.

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)]

My Lords, this morning some of us attended a shocking briefing on the state of healthcare in Gaza, including the restrictions on doctors entering the country and the sick and injured being able to leave—in particular for hospital care in east Jerusalem. Is this something on which the Government could bring pressure to bear?

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

Absolutely. One of the concerns of all of us is the absolute humanitarian catastrophe that is occurring in Gaza. Almost 42,000 people have died and more than 50% of the identified bodies are those of women and children. The impact on health, education and other public services is absolutely deplorable.

In Prime Minister’s Questions today, the Prime Minister said that he agrees with the letter from the US to Netanyahu about the situation of humanitarian aid going into Gaza. We have taken action on arms, as we have discussed. We need to put even more pressure on the Israelis to ensure open access to humanitarian aid. It is a determination that we are going to ensure that access—and we are going to continue to work with our allies to get it.

[The Lord Bishop of Norwich]

My Lords, just over a year ago I was in Gaza, three days before Hamas’s evil attacks, visiting the Anglican-run al-Ahli hospital. Today that hospital is the only functioning hospital in northern Gaza, but it is weeks since it has been supplied. What are His Majesty’s Government doing to ensure that healthcare supplies are getting into Gaza and in particular that al-Ahli hospital, which is doing the incredible work of healing, is supplied?

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

I repeat what I have said: it is absolutely the number one priority. Humanitarian access is what the United States is demanding of Israel and what we have demanded. We want those access routes opened properly and protected, not attacked. It has to be a priority of this Government and all our allies.

[Lord McDonald of Salford (CB)]

My Lords, it is now less than three weeks until the US presidential election. Hamas and Hezbollah have a history of timing their attacks to generate maximum international attention as well as local disruption. Have His Majesty’s Government considered the possibility that there might be a spike in violence before America votes?

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

We are taking all possible action to defend, protect and not take anything for granted. We are in an incredibly volatile situation, with other actors intervening. We are determined to work with our allies to properly de-escalate the situation. We are prepared for the worst, but we are trying to ensure that it does not happen.

[Baroness Blower (Lab)]

My Lords, at the briefing I attended with my noble friend Lady Lister, we heard that for surgeons who wish to go to Gaza to assist in the terrible situation, to provide surgery and so on, it is now impossible for them to go for less than a month. Often it is six weeks, because they have to take a week to get in and a week to get out. Is my noble friend the Minister prepared to meet with some of these organisations, with me and my noble friend Lady Lister, to hear at first hand what they have been telling us, in order to try to get at least some medical care into Gaza—and to press the case for a humanitarian corridor so that those needing medical evacuation can go to the West Bank?

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

I assure the noble Baroness that I have been meeting organisations. I am fully aware of the situation. I have an open-door policy when I am here. The reality is that the Prime Minister, and the Foreign Secretary when he visited the region on 14 July, have announced additional funding—£5.5 million to UK-Med for operating its field hospitals in Gaza, extending the medical facilities. During her visit on 7 August, Minister Dodds announced a further £6 million to UNICEF, which is supporting families in Gaza. No one should underestimate the desperate situation. We can all see it; the evidence is quite clear. The only way we can do this is by working with our allies to ensure that the Israeli Government respond to our calls to open the routes in, to ensure that we get proper humanitarian and medical aid into Gaza.

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)]

My Lords, what assessment have His Majesty’s Government made of the important role that British troops have over many years continued to play in training the Lebanese army in light of the current challenges in the south of Lebanon, the UNIFIL mission and the continuing support required by the Lebanese armed forces, particularly in the north of the country? Are British troops continuing in that vital role?

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

They are, and there was a question in the other place on our support for UNIFIL and how we can act. We are keeping all this under review, but I assure the noble Lord that we will maintain that presence and that training.

Syria (Sanctions) (EU Exit) (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations 2024

Lord Collins of Highbury Excerpts

Tuesday 15th October 2024 Grand Committee

Moved by

[Lord Collins of Highbury]

That the Grand Committee do consider the Syria (Sanctions) (EU Exit) (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations 2024.

Relevant document: Not yet reported by the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments

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

My Lords, this instrument amends the Syria (Sanctions) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019. It was laid on 30 July using powers provided by the Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Act 2018. It entered into force on 31 July. For clarity, this instrument was first laid on 24 May under the previous Government. This Government support the aims of the instrument, so we revoked and relaid it to provide additional time, post election, for the required parliamentary scrutiny. There are no amendments to the policy, and the substance of this instrument remains the same.

With the conflict in Syria now in its 14th year, the humanitarian situation remains dire, and a record 16.7 million people are estimated to be in humanitarian need. Nine in 10 people in Syria are living in poverty, and nearly 13 million lack sufficient food. Many more have been forced to flee their homes and are living in settlements and camps.

Our support for the Syrian people is unwavering. The United Kingdom has spent over £4 billion to date, our largest ever response to a single humanitarian crisis, and we continue to provide life-saving support to those in need. It is imperative that aid reaches the most vulnerable and that United Nations agencies, international organisations and NGOs have the support necessary for their work. The United Kingdom has engaged with financial institutions and humanitarian actors to fully understand how they use the humanitarian provisions in our sanctions legislation. Last year the Government issued general licences following the earthquakes.

The United Kingdom has acted to ensure that aid continues to reach those most in need in Syria. These amendments to the regulations will allow trusted organisations to focus on delivering aid, support efficient and effective humanitarian delivery, and provide assurances for these organisations and their service providers. They will ensure that we continue to meet our humanitarian objectives while ensuring that our sanctions regime is robust.

United Kingdom sanctions are designed to encourage the Assad regime to refrain from actions, policies or activities that repress the civilian population in Syria. They also serve to encourage the regime to participate in good faith in negotiations for a political settlement in line with United Nations Security Council Resolution 2254, and to bring about a peaceful solution to the conflict in Syria.

The instrument amends the humanitarian exception to the petroleum measures contained in the 2019 regulations, with the aim of improving the delivery of humanitarian aid in Syria. The amendments will expand the eligibility for the humanitarian exception from solely UK-funded persons to all organisations covered by United Nations Security Council Resolution 2664, to the extent that those are captured by UK sanctions. The extension will enable more organisations to benefit from the humanitarian exemption.

The instrument extends the 2019 regulations to ensure that they apply to those involved in the humanitarian delivery chain. This will ensure that the delivery chains of relevant persons as outlined in the regulations will benefit from being able to use the humanitarian exception. That provides assurances to relevant delivery partners on the ground and to financial service providers when approving payments.

The instrument also amends the 2019 regulations to authorise financial service providers of relevant persons to use the humanitarian exception, removing the requirement for those providers to apply for individual licences to facilitate activities authorised by the exception. This change will also provide greater assurances to both humanitarian organisations and their financial providers, reducing delays in payments.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

My Lords, I, too, thank the Minister for his speech and his words on this matter. As this Committee, and the House, knows, the people of Syria have suffered a great deal since 2011. Over 90% of Syrians live in poverty and in fear of Bashar al-Assad’s brutality, or the threats now posed by Daesh, the Iranian-backed militias and the Wagner Group. It is truly a lamentable state, and in many respects a humanitarian catastrophe, only compounded by the terrible earthquakes in 2023.

It is absolutely right that we continue to sanction the Syrian Government, and we welcome the Minister’s action on this. It is important that Ministers keep sanctions under constant review to ensure that we are not penalising those who deliver much-needed humanitarian aid, and I am sure the Government are doing that.

This instrument was, of course, originally laid by the previous Conservative Government and, therefore, the Minister will be unsurprised to know that we fully support it. As it widens the exemptions for humanitarian groups to access fuel under strict management systems, we hope that it will support those who are working to alleviate some of the terrible suffering of the Syrian people.

On the issue of the sanctions regime, have the Government looked at the proliferation of Syrian Captagon? Captagon is a highly addictive amphetamine, which is now produced in large quantities in Syria and, sadly, distributed worldwide. The MP for Rutland and Stamford in the other place has said that Syria is now effectively

“a narco-state, producing 80% of the world’s Captagon”.—[Official Report, Commons, 9/9/24; col. 626.]

A number of seizures have already cropped up in the UK, and I would be interested to know whether the Government are looking at this for a future sanctions regime or have developed a strategy on this.

I am delighted that this country has always stood up for the people of Syria in their time of need. We have given £4 billion of humanitarian aid to the people of Syria. I hope that the Government will continue to clamp down further on Russia, as we heard in the previous debate, and on the Syrian Government, who are one of Russia’s principal backers. As I said, these sanctions were tabled by the previous Government, and we wholeheartedly support them.

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank both noble Lords for their contributions; they certainly have staying power, and I welcome that. I say again that it is important that there is cross-party consensus on these regulations, particularly because of the huge number of human rights abuses.

The noble Lord, Lord Purvis, talked about risk mitigation and the potential abuse of this exemption. The humanitarian exemption authorises a limited set of activities when they are conducted by certain trusted humanitarian organisations with strong risk-management systems. It is not like a blank cheque: systems must be in place to ensure compliance with the exceptions. Other organisations must continue to apply for individual licences. That risk management is absolutely an essential part of the licences. The amendment also contains reporting requirements to assist with monitoring and enforcement. I hope that that gives the noble Lord the assurances he seeks.

I turn to the specific point that the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, raised in relation to Captagon in Syria. We are closely monitoring the regime’s links to this trade. As he said, the regime bears responsibility for, and is profiting from, the production and trading of this narcotic. We are deeply concerned by the growth of the Captagon industry, which, as well as enriching the regime, is fuelling regional instability and generating vast revenues for criminal gangs and armed groups in Syria and across the region. The United Kingdom is sharpening global awareness of the risks posed by Captagon. In March 2024, the UK hosted an event with Jordan that brought together the international community, alongside expert researchers, to discuss the impact of this trade on the region. In March 2023, in co-ordination with the United States, the UK imposed sanctions on 11 individuals who facilitate the Captagon industry in Syria, including politicians and businesspeople alike.

The other point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, was in relation to the displacement of refugees into Syria from Lebanon. Was that what the noble Lord asked about?

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

I am sorry, Minister, I may not have been too clear. It was the displacement of Syrians into Lebanon.

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

Okay. The simple fact is that the movement of refugees across those borders is a consequence of conflict. We are trying to work closely with the UN and other partners to assess need and provide on-the-ground assistance where possible. How we get assistance in is key. If the noble Lord requires further information, I am certainly happy to discuss it with him outside the Room.

I therefore thank the two noble Lords for their contributions. As I have said throughout this debate, we remain firmly committed to ensuring that the United Kingdom’s sanctions work in tandem with humanitarian efforts, and that the Assad regime, its allies and supporters bear responsibility for the dire plight of the Syrian people. I hope and trust the Grand Committee will support the regulations.

Motion agreed.

Russia (Sanctions) (EU Exit) (Amendment) (No. 3) Regulations 2024

Lord Collins of Highbury Excerpts

Tuesday 15th October 2024 Grand Committee

Moved by

[Lord Collins of Highbury]

That the Grand Committee do consider the Russia (Sanctions) (EU Exit) (Amendment) (No. 3) Regulations 2024.

Relevant document: Not yet reported by the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments

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

My Lords, this instrument amends the Russia (Sanctions) (EU Exit) (Amendment) Regulations 2019. It was laid on 30 July using powers provided by the Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Act 2018. It entered into force on 31 July. For clarity, this instrument was first laid on 24 May under the previous Government. This Government support the aims of this instrument so we revoked and relaid it to provide additional time, post-election, for the required parliamentary scrutiny. There are no amendments to the policy in relation to Russian sanctions and the substance of this instrument is the same.

The United Kingdom’s commitment to Ukraine is ironclad. In July, the UK contributed £40 million to NATO’s comprehensive assistance package for Ukraine, which ensures that Ukraine will have access to vital assistance for counter-drone technology, demining of reclaimed land and the medical rehabilitation of injured Ukrainian personnel. Ukraine has placed new orders for ammunition worth £300 million through the International Fund for Ukraine, which is administered by the UK.

Sanctions, too, are a crucial tool to weaken Russia’s ability to attack Ukraine. In July, the UK hosted the European Political Community at Blenheim Palace, where over 40 countries signed a “call to action” to tackle Russia’s so-called shadow fleet, a fleet of ageing oil tankers which use deceptive shipping practices and substandard insurance to attempt to undermine sanctions on Russian oil. At the event, the UK spearheaded action against the shadow fleet when we sanctioned 11 oil tankers. We have since built upon this with a further 10 such sanctions in September. Through this action, we continue to demonstrate the UK’s steadfast commitment to Ukraine and to underline our leading role in eroding Russian oil revenues.

Targeted sanctions against oil tankers have had a material impact. The majority of UK-sanctioned tankers have been heavily disrupted and have struggled to re-enter the Russian oil trade. A good number of these tankers have even been left idling or at anchor since sanctions were imposed. This instrument provides the basis for those sanctions and has enhanced the UK’s ability to respond to Russia’s increasingly desperate and reckless attempts to undermine our and our partners’ sanctions. This instrument broadens the designation criteria under the Russia regime. It expands our powers to target those who provide financial or material support to Russia’s war machine. This could include, for example, foreign financial institutions that facilitate significant transactions on behalf of or in support of Russia’s military-industrial base. This is in line with steps taken by partners and the G7’s commitment to curtail Russia’s use of the international financial system to further its war in Ukraine.

I will now consider each measure in the instrument in a bit more detail. On ship specification, the instrument adds new relevant activities to the existing powers in the Russia sanctions regime under Regulation 57, which provides the criteria to sanction individual ships, called ship specification. The amendment provides that a ship may be specified by the Secretary of State where there are reasonable grounds to suspect that the ship is, has been or is likely to be

“used for any activity whose object or effect is … to destabilise Ukraine or undermine or threaten the territorial integrity, sovereignty or independence of Ukraine”

or

“to obtain a benefit from or support the Government of Russia”,

That includes where a ship is involved in carrying dual-use or military goods, oil or oil products that originated in Russia, or any other goods or technology that could contribute to destabilising Ukraine or undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty or independence of Ukraine.

Where a ship is specified under Regulation 57F, it will be subject to measures in Regulations 57A to 57E called shipping sanctions. Where shipping sanctions apply, a specified ship is prohibited from entering a port in the United Kingdom, may be given a movement or port entry direction, can be detained, and will be refused permission to register on the UK Ship Register or have its existing registration terminated.

Additionally, United Kingdom persons and persons in the United Kingdom cannot provide funds and financial services, including maritime insurance or brokering services, in relation to specified ships that are transporting oil and certain oil products, and cannot use specified ships to supply or deliver Russian oil and oil products, regardless of the price of the oil on board. Once again, the United Kingdom has already specified ships using this enhanced power. The previous Government specified six vessels on 13 June to coincide with the G7 summit in Italy, and recently this Government have specified five tankers operating in the Russian LNG industry, as well as 11 vessels in July and a further 10 in September that were operating as part of Russia’s shadow fleet of oil tankers. This fleet attempts to undercut our sanctions, undermines the maritime rules-based order and presents an environmental and maritime security threat to coastal states.

The SI amends Regulation 6 in the Russia sanctions regime, which is the criteria for the designation of individuals or entities under the Russia regulations for the purposes of asset freezing and other relevant measures. Specifically, the instrument adds additional activities for which a person may be designated, including individuals or entities

“providing financial services, or making available funds, economic resources, goods or technology”

to persons involved in obtaining a benefit from or supporting the Government of Russia within the meaning of the regulations. In practice, that widens the set of actors and enablers who can be targeted for providing financial or material support to Russia and its war machine as Putin continues to prosecute his illegal war in Ukraine,

The instrument consolidates powers under the Russia regulations to designate individuals or entities involved in the destabilisation of Ukraine. Specifically, the additional activities that the instrument adds to the designation criteria make possible the designation of persons who own or control entities involved in destabilising Ukraine, as well as individuals who work as directors or managers of such entities.

European security is a key focus of this Government. Supporting Ukraine remains vital to that end, and the United Kingdom is committed to doing so. We will work with our international partners to ensure that the values of democracy, human rights and international law are maintained. This legislation and the subsequent sanctions made under it show our commitment to Ukraine as it defends its freedom in the face of Russian aggression. British support remains ironclad. I commend the regulations to the Grand Committee and beg to move.

[Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)]

My Lords, the Minister introduced these regulations with great clarity. I doubt that there will be any hostility to the principles that he has outlined this afternoon. I wonder whether I could ask him a number of questions, though, about the way in which the regulations were made—that is, the procedures that were used—as well as clarification on some of the points he just made to the Committee.

For most of us, as parliamentarians, when we look at regulations that were made on 29 July, were laid before Parliament on 30 July and came into force on 31 July, that kind of pell-mell rush and retrospective approval is not normally something that we would want to countenance; the Minister would agree with that, I think. However, I accept that, in these circumstances, there is an inevitability about it. I am not being argumentative in raising this but, in future, if it is possible for us to know more about regulations such as these in advance, that would be well received.

I wish to ask the Minister about the general matter of sanctions. Given that we now have 2,000 entities and individuals from Russia who are sanctioned in the UK and, as I understand it, we hold five times as much money as we have given in total to Ukraine since the beginning of the war, it is not unreasonable for us to ask some questions about how that money is being used. Is it being released? How can we get it back into the system to support the Ukrainians in the way the Minister outlined to us in his remarks? My first point, then, is about retrospectivity and process.

My second point is about how we can have better oversight. For instance, could the Minister look at something such as regular reporting back to Parliament on the effectiveness of the sanctions and how they are being used? Could that be done through reports on a six-monthly basis, perhaps, or opportunities for us to ask questions in situations such as this, which do not arise very often?

His Majesty’s Government have taken important steps to address Russia’s war on Ukraine, including by way of imposing sanctions and freezing assets. I agree with what the Minister said about this being a crucial tool, but that raises some questions about how the sanctions can be used to provide compensation to victims and survivors and to rebuild Ukraine. So, my third point is about knowing more about how we are going to repurpose these sanctions.

Noble Lords may recall that, last year, I laid an amendment to the legislation on how we dealt with sanctions and criminal offences. It received cross-party support in the House and the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe of Epsom, who dealt with amendments at that time, was extremely helpful. Eventually, an agreement was reached with the Government that there would be secondary legislation to give effect to some of the ideas in my amendment. What progress has been made on that?

Again, that touches on how effective the sanctions have been. One good example of this, for instance, is an issue that both the noble Lord, Lord Collins, and I raised when we were in opposition: the sale of Chelsea Football Club. We are not talking small sums of money here; we are talking about £2.5 billion. That money could—indeed, should—be channelled back towards those who have suffered at the hands of Putin’s army. The destruction of Ukraine has been truly appalling; I think we are all agreed about that, so anything that we can do to get support to victims and for reconstruction, we should do.

In addition to the targeted approach of repurposing assets that are, after all, a product of criminal activity—namely, sanctions evasion—what is the Government’s assessment of other ways in which frozen assets could be repurposed? This could include, for instance, following the much more transparent and open approaches of the United States and Canada. I am told that, because their approach is open, it has a much stronger effect on people who are likely to be sanctioned; it might, therefore, be in our interest to emulate that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

I start by thanking all noble Lords for their contributions. I totally accept that we are at one on ensuring that we are able to defeat the illegal efforts of the Putin regime, and that we show complete solidarity on support for Ukraine, so I welcome noble Lords’ comments.

The scope of this instrument strongly reflects the work we are doing on sanctions by consolidating and ensuring that we can react. Picking up on a couple of reflections from noble Lords, in particular the noble Lord, Lord Alton, before this debate, I thought that I had better see what I said as an Opposition spokesperson so that I remain consistent. I have just realised that, in March 2019, we debated this question in this very Room. In fact, it was a repeat of a question picked up from Anne-Marie Trevelyan, whom I was quoting, particularly on the challenges around shadow and dark fleets of oil that we were seeing move around the world. That was in 2019, so we know exactly what has been going on.

One of the things that we have to do is to be constantly fleet of foot. Wherever there are sanctions, people try to avoid them. Those who do so tend to be the most innovative people, so we have to be pretty sharp and quick in our response. Strengthening our enforcement capacity and making it harder for entities to circumvent these sanctions is absolutely key to implementing them; indeed, keeping our regimes under review and lifting them when they no longer serve the purpose that was intended when they were originally introduced is also key.

Let me respond to some of the specific points made. To pick up on a point raised by the noble Lords, Lord Alton and Lord Purvis, we have acted speedily and need to do so but there is a requirement under the Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Act 2018, which we took through together in the Chamber. We keep all aspects of that sanctions regime’s legislative framework, established under that Act, under review in order to ensure that it remains fit for purpose. Under that Act, there are a number of routes for parliamentary scrutiny and designation so that, at any time, a designated person can request a reassessment of their own.

Picking up on the legal representation point, we need to make sure that our regime is watertight and legally test-proofed. We will certainly continue to do that, but I hear what the noble Lord, Lord Alton, says. We will continue to ensure that we have a dialogue—not necessarily fully in the Chamber, but we all share the same objectives. We need to ensure that the regime is effective, so I welcome the comments from the noble Lord and will continue to engage.

We have raised the seizure of assets repeatedly. There is no doubt that Russia must be held responsible for its illegal war. This includes its obligations under international law to pay for the damages that it has caused in Ukraine. We will work with our allies to pursue all lawful ways to ensure that Russia is made to meet those obligations. Together with our G7 partners, we have agreed to make approximately £50 billion available to Ukraine by the end of the year by advancing the extraordinary profits generated by immobilised Russian sovereign assets in the EU and in other relevant jurisdictions. Our focus now is on working with our partners to implement the G7 leaders’ commitment as quickly as possible. It is an absolutely vital step to ensure that we continue to hold Russia to account and to make it pay.

All noble Lords have raised the sanctions’ effectiveness and impacts. They have deprived Russia of more than £400 billion since February 2022; that is equivalent to four more years of funding for the invasion. There is no doubt that we are having an impact. The impact of sanctions, alongside Russia’s military spending, has forced the Russian Government to undertake the first major tax hike in more than 20 years, with Russia having increased its profit tax from 20% to 25%. Putin thought that he could take Kyiv in three days but, two and a half years on, his military is turning to North Korea and Iran for supplies. Russia is no longer a major arms supplier. Its military exports have fallen to levels not seen since the collapse of the Soviet Union. So we are definitely having an impact.

[Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)]

I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. He will have seen that President Zelensky’s spokesman said earlier this week that 60% of the components in the weaponry and missiles that are being so brutally used against Ukraine were made in the People’s Republic of China. He referred also to the presence of North Korean soldiers and munitions in Ukraine. What can we do to apply greater sanctions on those nations that, certainly in the case of China, still have many economic and financial links with the United Kingdom? Is there a way in which we can apply leverage through sanctions on them?

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

The first point of call is to ensure that all our allies who support our efforts to try to defeat Putin’s aggression deliver on those sanctions. Along with all the other nations, we are working through the multilateral system—particularly at the United Nations; I did so last month—to ensure that our concerns are fully recognised and that we uphold international law. I hear what the noble Lord says but that is the effective route we have to address.

The noble Lord, Lord Alton, raised the question of Chelsea. I thought that he must be back-reading Hansard because he knew that I had focused on that issue when I was the shadow Minister. Let me be clear: this Government are working hard to ensure that the proceeds from the sale of Chelsea Football Club reach humanitarian causes in Ukraine as quickly as possible. The proceeds are currently frozen in a United Kingdom bank account while a new independent foundation is established to manage and distribute the money.

The United Kingdom’s unilateral declaration makes it clear that we will only issue a licence which ensures that the money from the sale is used for exclusively humanitarian purposes in Ukraine. This Government are fully committed to that position as part of our iron-clad support for Ukraine. UK officials continue to hold discussions with Abramovich’s representatives, experts and international partners, and we will double down on our efforts to reach a resolution. The fact that we want to ensure and guarantee where that money goes is key to delivering on that.

The noble Lord, Lord Purvis, and others asked how we are immobilising Russian sovereign assets, particularly regarding the actions of others such as the US and Canada. The fact is that the impact of that has not actually happened. The real impact is what we have been able to agree within the G7; it is working with G7 partners that guarantees that the amount of money we are determined to give to Ukraine will be delivered.

The noble Lord raised the question of insurers. Here, I have to repeat the script: with regard to insurance providers, we cannot comment on plans for future sanctions, not least because, as we know and as the noble Lord, Lord Ahmad, used to say, if we announce them, the people who want to evade them will have adequate notice, so I cannot comment. However, we have sanctioned Russian insurers such as Ingosstrakh. We believe that tackling tankers through insurance has been impactful, so we will continue to monitor that, but I have no doubt that we will have to keep it under effective review.

I will obviously follow up with a letter on the India trade agreement, having consulted with my colleagues in the Department for Business and Trade. I will also write on the broader issue of legal services, another point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Purvis.

I think it was the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, who raised the impact on the shadow fleet and Russian oil supply. Ship specifications, together with US and EU action, have disrupted Russia’s shadow fleet, which it spent over £8 billion on purchasing. We are determined that it will have and has had an impact. UK and partner sanctions have forced many of the sanctioned tankers to cease their irresponsible trade in Russian oil. We will closely monitor how sanctions impact specified ships and the wider impacts on Russian oil trade and oil markets. I do not want to keep repeating myself, but we have proved that this is a sharp tool that is exacting a price. Each specification must be robust and proportionate to our objectives.

The key element is enforcement, as I have raised. It is one thing to introduce regulations to say that we will sanction, and good to have a regime of laws and regulations, but those regulations are meaningful only if we are able to properly enforce them. We are committed to significantly strengthening our sanctions enforcement tools. For example, we have introduced new civil monetary penalties for transport and certain trade sanction breaches.

The new Office of Trade Sanctions Implementation, which was launched on 10 October—another issue that I raised with the previous Government was about the speed of that—is now in place, with enhanced civil enforcement powers to maximise the impact of our trade sanctions. Those new powers will include civil monetary penalties to make the details of breaches public. The Government are committed to doing whatever is necessary to clamp down on sanctions offenders. The introduction of additional capacity, which is a key element, and the powers are starting to pay off. We are seeing an increase in the reporting of suspected breaches, which we expect to result in further fines and referrals for prosecutions.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

I am grateful, because the Minister is addressing a point of my ignorance. Might he feel able to write to us to outline what may then be necessary under UK law to allow us to have secondary sanctions—that is, can he tell us where the gaps are in extraterritorial jurisdiction over some of our sanctions? I think our debates may be heading towards that; it is a point that the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, mentioned. While I am on my feet, I do not expect the Minister to answer at the moment, but could he write to us regarding whether the overseas territories are within scope here? I would be happy if he wanted to write to us rather than address that today.

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

I was going to come to that point. I am more than happy to sit down and write on the question of secondary sanctions, because this is not simply about how we extend our regime; it is a point of principle as well. As I and the noble Lord, Lord Ahmad, have said repeatedly, sanctions are effective only if we act as a collective with our allies, not by working in isolation. If we want sanctions to be more effective, we have to convince our allies and others to support those objectives. Anyway, I would be happy to try to pick up on those points in writing.

My next point, which I was going to come to, is precisely on the overseas territories. The noble Lord, Lord Purvis, has asked questions about them before; I have done so myself. At the time, the noble Lord, Lord Ahmad, answered that

“all UK sanctions regimes apply in all the UK Crown dependencies and overseas territories, either by Orders in Council or through each jurisdiction’s own legislation”.—[Official Report, 20/7/22; col. 2021.]

The UK, the Crown dependencies and the overseas territories all stand united in condemning Russia’s aggression and have been working in lockstep to enforce UK sanctions, including freezing £9 billion worth of assets. Each territory’s Government are responsible for the implementation and enforcement of sanctions within their territory. We and the OFSI already provide technical support, including through targeted use of programme funds, to build capacity and strengthen sanctions enforcements within those Governments’ jurisdictions. This Government will explore with the overseas territories’ Governments what more we can do to further strengthen their enforcement capability.

I think the question about India, separate from the trade agreement, is: is India undermining our sanctions by selling to Russia? We regularly raise Russia’s actions in Ukraine with India. The Foreign Secretary did so most recently during his opening conversation with the Indian Foreign Minister. The Foreign Secretary highlighted the importance of tackling Russia’s shadow fleet and the need for continued dialogue on this issue. India is a key partner for the United Kingdom and we are committed to working together across a range of issues, including on our commitment to tackle all forms of sanctions circumvention.

The final point was made by the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, about Eversheds Sutherland.

[Lord Vaux of Harrowden (CB)]

Before the Minister moves on to that, on India and, actually, the wider Turkey and China issue, he has not answered the question about how many Russian-originated oil products we are bringing into this country indirectly through India, China, Turkey and others, and what we are doing to try to prevent that. We are indirectly pushing money to Russia because of that process. There is also the unintended consequence of the sanctions on the shadow fleet: the ship-to-ship transfers, which are happening in various places. What environmental impact could that have and what can we do about it?

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

We are working on that latter point and, obviously, taking safeguards. The point is that when people conduct illegal activity, you need to be able to police it. Again, that is something that we will work with our allies on.

I am happy to write to the noble Lord on the specific point about quantity, but it is extremely difficult to quantify how much processing is done. We talk about it being simply a refining process, but the refining is more complicated for the products that might be imported into the UK. There might be other products that are coming in.

[Lord Vaux of Harrowden (CB)]

It seems to be particularly aviation that is a problem.

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

Yes, I know. I will write to the noble Lord and see what we are able to estimate.

I come to the final point, on the law firm Eversheds Sutherland. I am afraid I will have to write to the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, on that as well.

I have spoken for some considerable time on this, but it has been an extremely useful debate. I thought we would broaden out the discussion to the more general question about how our regime can be strengthened. I reassure noble Lords that we have transformed the use of sanctions. The measures in the regulations show our commitment to continuing to strengthen our sanctions regimes and their implementation and enforcement, and, more importantly, to review their ongoing appropriateness and changing foreign policy contexts.

Once again, I thank all noble Lords for their insightful contributions and continued cross-party support and co-operation, which are vital in sending a strong message to Putin and his regime. I hope the Grand Committee will support the regulations.

Motion agreed.

Gibraltar-Spain Border Checks

Lord Collins of Highbury Excerpts

Tuesday 15th October 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

My Lords, Gibraltar is our gem in the Mediterranean, our strategic asset and, most importantly, a proud member of the British family of nations. Last Friday’s reports that the Spanish police were insisting on stamping passports and border checks are concerning. Let me be clear: whether this was due to a local Spanish border official and not the central Government, as the Minister for Development said in the other place, there should not be checks at the Gibraltar-Spain border. Can the Minister outline what steps His Majesty’s Government are taking to ensure that this does not happen again? Crucially, what discussions has the Foreign Secretary had with his Spanish counterparts on this matter?

The Gibraltar Broadcasting Corporation has reported a statement from the Spanish Foreign Minister that, for the UK-EU relationship to strengthen, it is important that the British Government say yes to Spain’s proposals on Gibraltar. This is concerning, as it seems to be a thinly veiled threat: “Accept our terms over Gibraltar or lose out”. Can the Minister assure this House that he will not abandon the people of Gibraltar and their desire to remain British? This incident at the Gibraltar-Spain border comes only a week after the decision to hand over our sovereignty of the Chagos Islands. Some might say that this is a coincidence, but it is easy to see the links. I ask the Minister to reassure this House in no uncertain terms that Gibraltar’s sovereignty is for the people of Gibraltar to decide and no one else.

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

I have no problem at all in reiterating the double lock that this Government are committed to in relation to Gibraltar. We will never enter into arrangements under which the people of Gibraltar would pass under the sovereignty of another state against their freely and democratically expressed wishes. We will never enter into a process of sovereignty negotiations with which Gibraltar is not content. Absolutely—there are firm commitments there.

I have a long association with Gibraltar. I have represented the workers in Gibraltar for many years, so I know what their wishes are. The current negotiations with the EU are making very good progress. The Foreign Secretary has had regular meetings with the Spanish Foreign Secretary. Those negotiations are at a point where we hope to make rapid progress. The idea that this negotiation has anything to do with BIOT is absolute nonsense, as the noble Lord well knows. It is a completely different arrangement. I will not go into details because other noble Lords might have questions in relation to that, and I will leave it to them.

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

My Lords, these Benches support the right of self-determination of the people of Gibraltar, and nothing should be done to diminish that. The Government of Gibraltar should be congratulated on putting pragmatic proposals forward as part of the negotiations. I have two specific points to ask the Minister. First, have the Government sought assurances from the Government of Spain that they will provide clear instructions for all junior staff on the proper conduct at the border? Secondly, have the Government sought and secured from the Spanish Government a commitment that they will not act precipitously concerning the delays for the EES mechanisms, which are now beyond November? In advance of full treaty agreements, nothing should be put in place that could put at risk the sustainability of the border with Gibraltar.

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

I completely agree with the Minister—sorry, the noble Lord; I was going back to the coalition days. The simple fact is that these checks have happened in the past—it is not unusual—and are often subject to local initiatives. I give the House a categorical reassurance that Minister Doughty spoke to his counterpart immediately, and the Foreign Secretary has spoken to his counterpart. We are assured that this will not be repeated.

We have encouraged and spoken to the Gibraltar Government. It is important that there is that free movement across this border, not only for the sake of the Gibraltar economy but for the economy of La Línea and Spanish people who work in Gibraltar. Noble Lords can be reassured of that.

We are absolutely committed to these negotiations with the EU and are satisfied that we have made extremely good progress. There are just a few minor points left; I spoke to Gibraltar government officials yesterday at lunchtime, and I am pretty confident we will make progress.

[Noble Lords]

My Lords—

[Lord Reid of Cardowan (Lab)]

I thank my noble friend. I am sure the whole House will be reassured by the Statement that the Minister has made, particularly as regards the double lock, which as I understand it means that not only will the status of Gibraltar never be changed without the consent of the people of Gibraltar but the British Government will not enter negotiations where sovereignty is a negotiable product. In view of the willingness to confer and consult with and accept the views of the Government of Gibraltar, can the Minister tell me if his colleague the Foreign Secretary has discussed this issue with the Chief Minister of Gibraltar in recent days?

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

I assure my noble friend that Minister Doughty has, because I have been with him and the government officials. There was an event last night, and yesterday lunchtime. We are in close contact with the Government of Gibraltar, and I certainly can give my noble friend assurances that we are pushing hard to speed up negotiations because a settlement on this, which is a consequence of Brexit, will be vital, not just for the economy and the people of Gibraltar, but for the locality around it as well.

[Noble Lords]

My Lords—

[Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)]

Will the Minister take the trouble to read the speech made by the Chief Minister of Gibraltar after the problems that arose recently on the border, and will he endorse the firmly calm and determined note that Mr Fabian Picardo took about the continuing possibility of getting an agreement that would benefit both sides? Will he also recognise that every time the false analogy between Chagos and Gibraltar is raised, it plays straight into the hands of the Spanish?

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

I agree. There is no comparison. This is not an issue where there can be any link. As the Chief Minister of Gibraltar has said, the important thing is that it is in the interests of Gibraltar and the local economy to ensure that we have an agreement with the EU. We are determined to achieve that.

[Lord Waldegrave of North Hill (Con)]

While I warmly welcome the noble Lord’s reassurances, can I ask him to say whether his ministerial friends have sought assurances from their opposite numbers that this kind of behaviour—allegedly rogue behaviour; it has happened before—has been followed up by disciplinary action; and that if a treaty, which we all hope is achieved, should place such officers in the airport of Gibraltar, there would be no repetition of this behaviour?

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

I think that is what the Government of Gibraltar desire, and it is certainly what the United Kingdom Government desire. I first visited Gibraltar when the border was closed. I visited on the basis that 6,000 Moroccan workers were being based in Georgian barracks. There was progress: when we entered the European Union and an agreement was made about Spain’s entry, there were absolutely no border issues. That is why we now need that agreement with the EU, so we can return to a sense of normality.

[Lord Hain (Lab)]

My Lords, I too support my noble friend the Minister in seeking an agreement, which seems near. I point out that it does not help to help to have this tub-thumping jingoism from the Conservative Front Bench, when they created this problem. There is an external European frontier between Gibraltar and the Spanish mainland as a result of Brexit, and that has to be resolved by very careful negotiation. I wish my noble friend the best.

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

It will be good for the people of Gibraltar to get an agreement with the European Union, and we are determined to do that. We are very close to achieving it. I agree with the sentiments of my noble friend: jingoistic language does not help the process of negotiation. I have realised, as a trade union negotiator, that you should never push people into corners. You allow them to come to an agreement and come together. I am pretty certain that is what we will do with Gibraltar and the EU.

Gaza Crisis

Lord Collins of Highbury Excerpts

Monday 14th October 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hain]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of whether current negotiations will end the Gaza crisis.

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

My Lords, resolving this conflict has been this Government’s priority since day one. It is now in PM Netanyahu’s and Hamas leader Sinwar’s hands to accept the deal on the table and agree urgently to a ceasefire in the long-term interests of Israelis and Palestinians. We are working alongside allies and partners to push for an immediate ceasefire, the release of all hostages, the upholding of international law, the protection of civilians—including the rapid increase of aid into Gaza—and a pathway to a two-state solution.

[Lord Hain (Lab)]

My Lords, I agree with my noble friend the Minister, but does he also agree that this terrible crisis will not be resolved militarily? Netanyahu will not succeed in destroying Hamas as he has promised, not even by destroying Gaza, nor will he destroy Hezbollah, not even by damaging and destabilising Lebanon, and neither they nor Iran will succeed in destroying Israel. Unless Israel is to remain for ever under a state of permanent warfare siege, it is vital there is a negotiated settlement to end the horror. My fear is that that will not happen until this conflict escalates—as recent events seemingly make inevitable —to an all-out regional, maybe even global, war.

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

My Lords, we condemn Iran’s attacks against Israel and recognise Israel’s right to defend itself against Iranian aggression. At this moment, when tensions are at their peak, we call on Iran to step back from the brink. A regional war is in absolutely no one’s interest. We are deeply concerned about the escalation of conflict in the region that threatens to destroy many innocent lives. That is why we are working tirelessly with partners, including allies in the region, to establish immediate ceasefires, both in Gaza and along the blue line. In Gaza, a ceasefire must be the first step on the path to long-term peace and stability, with a two-state solution—a safe and secure Israel alongside a viable and sovereign Palestinian state—at its heart.

[Lord Howard of Lympne (Con)]

My Lords, I ask the Minister now to take the opportunity to correct the misleading Answer given to your Lordships’ House on 3 September by his noble friend the noble Baroness, Lady Chapman, when she told your Lordships’ House that the Government were

“required to suspend certain export licences”—[Official Report, 3/9/24; col. 1065.]

to Israel. Is it not clear that what she said was in complete contradiction to what the Foreign Secretary told the other place on 2 September, when, in justifying the decision not to impose a ban on equipment for the F35, he made it plain that the Government had discretion on whether to ban or not?

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

The simple fact of the matter is that we have responded to the arms embargo based on an assessment of Israel’s compliance with international humanitarian law. In that assessment, we have made decisions on suspending export licences that we assess do not risk facilitating military operations. They include 60 military items—for example, trainer aircraft and other naval equipment—and other non-military items, such as food-testing chemicals, and telecoms and data equipment. On exports, the F35 programme covered in principle by this suspension is for parts that can be identified as going directly to Israel. However, this is an international programme where we cannot be absolutely certain where those parts are going. That is why we have covered it in relation to the F35. The noble Lord can be assured that we will be determined to comply with international humanitarian law and will take the necessary steps where appropriate.

[Lord Singh of Wimbledon (CB)]

My Lords, recorded history states that Palestinians were forcibly removed from the homes that they had lived in for centuries, by the Stern Gang, Irgun Zvai Leumi and others whom we then called terrorists, to create the State of Israel in 1948. Does the Minister agree that it is shameful and beyond belief that, in the 70 years that have passed, instead of helping displaced Palestinians to build a new life, the West has been selling arms to Israel to bomb schools, hospitals and even UN refugee centres in Gaza and the West Bank, killing tens of thousands of innocent men, women and children in atrocities condemned by the UN and all human rights organisations?

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

My Lords, the noble Lord mentioned 1948. The State of Israel exists and was approved of legally under international law. There is a duty on us all to defend its right to exist. However, that is no excuse for any breaches by any party to international humanitarian law. I reassure the noble Lord that we as a Government will be determined to uphold international law and condemn whichever side commits offences against it. What we obviously need to do, as we have done since 1948, is to defend Israel’s right to exist and promote a two-state solution, whereby a Palestinian state can live in harmony with its neighbours. That is the vital next step, and I am sure that it will achieve peace and security for all.

[Lord West of Spithead (Lab)]

My Lords, the IRGC controls and co-ordinates Hezbollah, Hamas and the Houthis in fighting Israel. Will we proscribe this organisation that causes such damage?

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

The noble Lord has participated in many debates where I have called for something similar when I was in opposition. This is a matter for the Home Office, and my Foreign Office colleagues are in consultation with it. What we must do is ensure that all actions that are terrorist in nature—and certainly those that attack British citizens on British soil—are properly addressed. I assure the noble Lord that we take these issues very seriously.

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

My Lords, the evacuation orders by the IDF in north Gaza for 400,000 people are the equivalent of relocating the city of Manchester to an area where there is no shelter, no security, scarce food supplies and no medicine. In particular, three-quarters of all water and sanitary health facilities have been destroyed. If the UK has no active role in bringing about an overall peace agreement, can it use its good offices to ensure that there is some kind of agreement that water and sanitary health provision, which directly affects girls and young women more than anybody else, cannot be a victim of this conflict?

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

The noble Lord knows of my concern about this issue and our absolute determination. The Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary have made it clear that we want the fullest access for humanitarian aid into Gaza. That is vital. We remain concerned that over 85% of the Gaza Strip is now under evacuation orders, including new orders in the north that are causing serious distress to civilians and impacting on those humanitarian operations. We will make sure that all sides know of our concern and that we have the access to deliver the sort of support that the noble Lord has highlighted.

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

My Lords, in July, the new Government resumed funding for the United Nations Relief and Works Agency, which had been suspended by the last Conservative Government. In August, the UN then admitted that some of its staff may have been involved in the 7 October Hamas massacre and fired nine of them. What is the Minister doing to ensure that UNRWA properly vets its staff? Does he agree that it is completely unacceptable that UK taxpayers’ cash may have been used to finance those Hamas atrocities?

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

I think the noble Lord knows that this Government, and the last Government, recognise the essential role of UNRWA in distributing aid into Gaza. However, that does not take away the concern about those who may have participated in the horrific events of 7 October. We have supported the Colonna review and will be ensuring that UNRWA and the United Nations take actions to ensure that that report is fully implemented. We are working with the Secretary-General and have resumed funding based on those assurances. It is appalling that nine members of UNRWA were involved in those atrocities, and we welcome UNRWA’s decisive action and support its decision to terminate the contracts of those individuals. This Government are absolutely committed, as were the previous Government, to ensuring that we can get aid into Gaza where it is most needed, and UNRWA is the vehicle to do that.

Sudan

Lord Collins of Highbury Excerpts

Friday 13th September 2024 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Collins of Highbury]

That this House takes note of the situation in Sudan.

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

My Lords, I welcome the opportunity to have an in-depth debate about the crisis in Sudan, one of the most pressing humanitarian emergencies of our time. It is clear from their presence here today that noble Lords share my concerns over the gravity of the situation. The world is not paying enough attention, and we must keep it in the spotlight in order to galvanise further international action and support.

This brutal conflict, primarily between the Sudanese Armed Forces and the Rapid Support Forces, has had devastating consequences for civilians. What began as a power struggle between military factions has escalated into a protracted war and a humanitarian catastrophe. This conflict is not merely a continuation of the country’s troubled history; it is a profound crisis with implications for the entire region. The immediate cause can be traced back to the breakdown of a fragile power-sharing agreement between the military and civilian leaders. The failure of that agreement plunged the country into chaos, undoing much of the progress made since the revolution.

The scale of this crisis is staggering. Sudan is facing a manmade famine and one of the worst humanitarian crises in the world. More than 10 million people have been forced to leave their homes, and recent widespread flooding has pushed the country to the brink, devastating an extremely fragile ecosystem. The UN estimates that more than 24 million people—about half the Sudanese population—need humanitarian assistance, sadly a figure that continues to grow as the conflict drags on.

But the impact is not limited to the displaced population. The conflict has severely disrupted agricultural production and supply chains, leading to soaring food prices and widespread hunger. More than 9 million people face emergency or famine levels of food insecurity. The destruction of healthcare facilities and the shortage of medical supplies have left the population vulnerable to disease outbreaks, with little or no access to treatment.

My right honourable friend the Minister for Development visited South Sudan recently. It was one of her first visits since being appointed, and her first Africa visit. There, she met people who had fled Sudan only to arrive in a country facing its own humanitarian emergency. She witnessed the most appalling scenes of suffering and devastation. The stories she heard of families torn apart, children on the brink of starvation and communities destroyed by violence demonstrate the terrible human cost of this conflict.

In response to this crisis, the UK has significantly increased its humanitarian support to Sudan. This year we have almost doubled UK official development assistance for Sudan to £97 million, the majority of which is vital humanitarian assistance. This is funding critical services including nutritious food, safe drinking water, medical care and shelter, offering a lifeline to millions of Sudanese in desperate circumstances. The UK has also been proactive in supporting refugees who have fled to neighbouring countries. In August we announced an additional £15 million in funding to address the devasting impact of this regional crisis across Sudan, South Sudan and Chad.

The UK humanitarian response is complemented by extensive diplomatic engagement. In my first month I spoke with Ramtane Lamamra, the UN Secretary-General’s personal envoy for Sudan, and former Sudanese PM Abdalla Hamdok. The message was clear: Sudan must move towards a peaceful and prosperous future, and the UK is committed to using all diplomatic levers to support this. A co-ordinated international response is critical to resolving the conflict. To this end, the United Kingdom welcomes the creation of the Aligned for Advancing Lifesaving and Peace in Sudan—ALPS—Group in Geneva and its efforts to strengthen humanitarian access, protect civilians and de-escalate immediately in Sudan. The United Kingdom stands ready to support all these efforts.

During my visit last month to New York for the United Nations Security Council, I discussed efforts to secure peace in Sudan, in particular with the Ugandan Foreign Minister and the US Permanent Representative to the UN. The United Kingdom continues to use its role as penholder on Sudan in the UN Security Council to call on all states to refrain from actions that will prolong the conflict. We will continue to call on those who have influence on the warring parties to use it to bring them to the negotiating table.

Of course, peace cannot just be imposed from the outside; it must be built from within. That is why we are working with civil society groups, including women’s organisations, to ensure that any political settlement reflects the aspirations of the Sudanese people. In addition to direct assistance, the United Kingdom has mobilised international support for Sudan, bringing attention to the crisis at the highest levels, including at the United Nations. When famine was declared in Sudan at the end of August, we immediately called a UN Security Council session to call on the warring parties to stop blocking humanitarian assistance. As our intervention noted during that session, more than 100 Sudanese civilians are dying from starvation every day. An announcement on the UK special representative for Sudan is imminent.

I stress that we are clear that this is an entirely manmade famine, and this appalling loss of life will continue until the warring factions put the Sudanese people before power. Put quite simply, using starvation as a weapon of war is a war crime. We condemn in the strongest terms the targeting of humanitarian workers and the destruction of their facilities. We welcome the decision to reopen the Adre crossing for humanitarian assistance at long last. We call on the Sudanese Armed Forces to remove the restrictions on convoys entering Sudan and urge the Rapid Support Forces to facilitate access across lines of conflict. We are continuing to push for humanitarian corridors to be stabilised, for civilians to be protected and for international humanitarian law to be fully implemented.

The UK has also sanctioned individuals and entities fuelling the conflict, including key figures linked to both the Sudanese Armed Forces and the Rapid Support Forces. These sanctions are not merely symbolic; they are a clear message that those responsible for the violence will be held accountable. External arms supplies are perpetuating this violence, and the United Kingdom has made clear that they must stop if we are to have any hope of achieving peace.

Turning to peacebuilding, the United Kingdom supports the establishment of a civilian-led Government in Sudan. This country’s future must not include those who have led it into turmoil. Our support extends to the Taqaddum coalition, where we are providing technical and diplomatic assistance to promote inclusive dialogue among all Sudanese stakeholders.

The international community must not turn a blind eye to human rights abuses in Sudan. The United Kingdom condemns in the strongest possible terms the atrocities being committed, particularly in Darfur, where mass killings and systematic rape are reported. Some attacks by the RSF and its allied militia appear to have been ethnically motivated, and these bear all the hallmarks of ethnic cleansing. Meanwhile, the SAF have launched indiscriminate air strikes in heavily populated areas, with no regard for civilian casualties. These atrocities have drawn comparisons to the darkest chapters in Sudan’s history, and we must act to prevent history repeating itself.

These crimes cannot go unpunished, and we are working closely with the International Criminal Court and the UN Human Rights Council to hold the perpetrators accountable and ensure that justice is served. This includes leading efforts in the HRC last year to establish the independent and international fact-finding mission for Sudan. We are also funding initiatives such as the Sudan Witness project through the Centre for Information Resilience. Such initiatives are crucial in documenting abuses, providing evidence for prosecutions and ensuring that victims are heard.

To conclude, it will require a concerted international effort to end this crisis, and the United Kingdom’s efforts to do so will continue as long as they are needed. We will continue working with our partners to provide humanitarian assistance, bring the warring parties to the negotiating table and hold those responsible for atrocities to account. Sudanese people deserve the dividends of peace. Sudan can and must move towards a peaceful and prosperous future—and, with sustained international support, I believe it will. I beg to move.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

My Lords, this has been an excellent and well-informed debate, and it is an honour to close it. I have recommended to many of my colleagues in the other place to read this debate in Hansard, because I think it will inform future actions.

I have always held the noble Lord, Lord Ahmad, in high regard, but my estimation of him has gone up since realising that it is much harder to answer questions than to ask them.

I say to the right reverend Prelate and other noble Lords that there is no doubt that we are dealing with a fast-changing situation, as was illustrated by the noble Lord, Lord Purvis. I told him earlier than an announcement on the Special Envoy for Sudan was imminent, and his phone was operating quicker than mine. I am pleased that the announcement has been made and that Richard Crowder is our representative and Special Envoy for Sudan.

In these changed and changing circumstances, it is my responsibility—I met the Africa APPG this week and have also met the Sudan and South Sudan APPG—to continue the dialogue, and I will ensure that I report back to the House on developments. It is our hope that circumstances will change, because they are pretty dire at the moment. With that caveat, I hope to respond to all the points made and to satisfy noble Lords.

The most reverend Primate was absolutely right when he described the priority that we must place on peacebuilding and building a sustainable system. My noble friend Lord Robertson told me that he had responded to the most reverend Primate on the strategic defence review, and I know that my noble friend will ensure that those elements are considered—they are vital. I would go further. The previous Government’s integrated review laid down some clear groundwork for this. If we do not bring together the three Ds—defence, diplomacy and development—we will never find a solution. It is critical that we work across government to deliver on these issues.

I want to make the point that we often look at the continent of Africa through the eyes of these crises, but Africa is a continent of huge diversity and dynamism. Its young generation is full of aspiration, as I have seen in recent visits. We need to recognise that, by 2050, a quarter of the world’s population will be in Africa. It will be the biggest market. In every conversation that I have had with any African leader, I have said that our intention as a new Government is to develop partnership for economic growth. We will be using economic growth and trade as the tools to do the very things that the most reverend Primate mentioned. Human rights are not in isolation, neither are food and agriculture. Issues such as economic growth are vital to achieving that. When I attended the Africa Food Systems Forum last week, exactly those points were made. Those people are also looking at the huge opportunities for their own industry to feed their continent and build intra-Africa trade. That sort of relationship will be the biggest ingredient to ending future conflicts.

I did not want to start this debate simply on a note of pessimism, because there is optimism in this continent. The United Kingdom—this applied under the previous Government, as the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, said— has been at the forefront of international efforts to bring peace to Sudan, leveraging its position as a permanent member of the Security Council and penholder on Sudan. We have convened multiple meetings to address the conflict, pushing for a ceasefire and highlighting the grave humanitarian and human rights crisis unfolding on the ground. However, external support to the warring parties, particularly through the supply of arms, risks prolonging the violence. We urgently call on all states to refrain from strengthening either side’s military capabilities, emphasising the need for neutrality and a unified approach toward achieving a ceasefire and civilian political transition. Failure to do so risks exacerbating regional instability, as many noble Lords have mentioned, especially with the involvement of external actors, which could further complicate efforts for peace in the region.

We have heard some horrific descriptions of what has been going on in the country and I appreciate the work of the noble Baronesses, Lady Helic and Lady Anelay, my noble friend Lady Goudie and the noble Lord, Lord Ahmad, on the prevention of sexual violence. The number of reports of conflict-related sexual violence are incredibly distressing. The United Kingdom’s Preventing Sexual Violence in Conflict Initiative is playing a crucial role in addressing these atrocities. That is why I reassure the noble Baroness, Lady Helic, that through this initiative we are working to provide support to survivors of sexual violence, document these crimes and hold the perpetrators accountable. The stories of the Sudanese people must not go unheard. We cannot allow such crimes to go unpunished, and we will continue to support initiatives that seek justice for survivors.

Women and children are bearing the brunt of suffering in Sudan, and we are determined to support them. This includes, in answer to my noble friend Lady Blower, through education. It is also through healthcare initiatives that are essential for the long-term recovery and stability of the country as a whole. As I said in my opening remarks, the humanitarian situation has reached a critical point. In response, as I said, we have almost doubled UK ODA to £97 million this year. This funding will support key UN agencies providing emergency and life-saving food assistance. Our support to the Sudan Humanitarian Fund will also provide flexible funding to NGOs and grass-roots organisations operating at the forefront of the response.

I reassure the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, and the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, that as a consequence of my honourable friend’s visit, we will see an additional £15 million in funding specifically to address the regional crisis across Sudan, South Sudan and Chad. That will include food parcels for 145,000 people in Sudan and around 60,000 vulnerable refugees in Chad, while supporting critical nutrition services for children under five in South Sudan.

I think all noble Lords are right: we need to build support for greater assistance, and certainly our activity is focused on increasing that with our allies and persuading others to put their contributions in too—that broad alliance I mentioned in the beginning. We are not turning our back on the region. As I said, we will continue to press our partners to increase their support.

Many noble Lords and the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, in particular, raised how we have been at the forefront of action in diplomatic initiatives to secure humanitarian access. Last month, we called an urgent meeting of the United Nations Security Council to discuss the IPC Famine Review Committee’s confirmation of famine. My noble friend Lady Amos raised the code of conduct, how things are implemented, how words are translated into deeds and how we monitor those actions. I stress to all parties that, while we can welcome the access given by the opening of Adre, it cannot be on a limited basis. We are absolutely arguing that there should be no conditionality or limit on it at all.

The noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, is absolutely right. He quoted Trotsky, but I rarely do that, so I am certainly not going to do it on this occasion. The simple fact, however, is that the impact of the conflict is affecting all our security; there is no doubt about that.

The figures in The Economist are true and are something we need to respond to. That is why we need to address these issues at source and back up the humanitarian support to reinforce the point about defence, diplomacy and development going together. That is absolutely the case with the funding I have mentioned in the region with Sudan, South Sudan and Chad. As noble Lords have mentioned, we are providing £2 million for up to 150,000 Sudanese refugees in Libya. I also confirm that FCDO officials continue to work with the Home Office to understand the ongoing impact of the conflict on migration numbers. We are absolutely determined to address that issue.

In response to the noble Lord, Lord Oates, we are committed to ensuring that aid is allowed to reach those in need. Starvation must not be allowed as a method of warfare; we have made that clear. The parties involved in that must be held to account and we will be pursuing that point. Our message remains absolutely clear: the obstruction of aid by the warring parties must stop in order to save countless innocent lives.

To respond to the noble Lord, Lord Verdirame, the United Kingdom acknowledges the decision to reopen the Chad-Sudan Adre border crossing for humanitarian assistance. We called on the Sudanese Armed Forces to extend the three-month limit as we are not satisfied that it meets their obligations. We have also, just to repeat myself, said to the Rapid Support Forces that they must urgently secure access across all the lines of conflict so that life-saving aid can get in.

My noble friend Lord Anderson and the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, raised sanctions. We have taken a leading role, and this Government, like the previous Government, are committed to advocating targeted sanctions against individuals and entities perpetuating the violence in Sudan. As I said, the sanctions are not only punitive but a necessary measure to deter further atrocities and to signal that the international community will not stand by. We have seen some progress. The sanctions imposed on key figures linked to both the Sudanese Armed Forces and the Rapid Support Forces have sent a clear message to those who commit atrocities, and they will be held accountable. The UK will continue to work closely with the UN and other international bodies to ensure that sanctions are effectively enforced and that they contribute to the broader strategy of peacebuilding and conflict resolution.

Many noble Lords raised the vital issue of accountability. I knew that many noble Lords would look at Hansard to see what I have previously said, and I have not changed my mind. These issues are absolutely vital. We need to ensure that people who commit these crimes know that they will be held accountable. The reports that warring parties are deliberately targeting civilians, using sexual violence as a weapon of war and obstructing the provision of humanitarian relief are absolutely abhorrent. International humanitarian law is the cornerstone of our efforts to protect civilians during armed conflicts, and its principles must be rigorously upheld and enforced in Sudan. The UK will continue to press all parties on this.

We are actively supporting the efforts to document human rights abuses and gather evidence that can be used in international courts—noble Lords know I have raised this in previous debates. We led the efforts in the United Nations Human Rights Council last year to establish the independent fact-finding mission for Sudan, and allegations of human rights violations and abuses will be investigated impartially. The findings of the fact-finding mission this week are absolutely awful and reprehensible. There are reports of widespread attacks against civilians, the use of sexual violence as a tactic of war, and the killing and maiming of children. These are truly shocking. I reassure the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, and others that we will seek an extension of that body’s mandate and are absolutely committed to it.

Generally, we are bolstering the capacity within Sudan to monitor atrocities taking place. The evidence will be shared with the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights and other accountability partners. I reassure the noble Lord, Lord Bellingham, that this includes funding for the Centre for Information Resilience, a research body that is gathering open-source evidence about the ongoing fighting in Sudan. As I said, we will continue to provide support for all those relevant bodies.

I reassure noble Lords that we strongly support the ICC and its prosecutors’ continuing investigation into allegations of atrocity crimes committed in Darfur since July 2002. This encompasses the current conflict, where there are credible reports of further atrocities being committed. We are absolutely committed to that due process, and we will ensure that people are held to account.

Recently I visited Slovakia and spoke at the Holocaust memorial service, representing the United Kingdom. I also visited the genocide museum in Rwanda. The message I always understood, particularly with the Holocaust, was that it did not start with the gas chambers. It started with words, and a process of dehumanisation, where people were no longer considered human beings. When you visit the genocide museum in Kigali, you realise that those actions started under colonial rule, which is something we need to acknowledge in terms of the future.

My noble friend Lady Amos, the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, and others, raised the critical issue of the right to protect, which is vital in the UN’s policy. We have used our position as the penholder at the Security Council to call for a ceasefire and for all warring parties to protect civilians. On 13 June, the Security Council adopted at UK-led resolution demanding a halt to the RSF’s siege of Al-Fashir and requesting the Secretary-General to provide recommendations on the protection of civilians. These will be released in due course, but I reassure noble Lords that during our presidency of the Security Council in November we will ensure that those options are translated into action. We cannot let this be just a matter of resolutions and words.

The noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, and others raised the question of arms embargoes. We have a long-standing commitment on arms embargoes, which are in place for the whole of Sudan as far as the United Kingdom is concerned, as well as the UN arms embargo on Darfur. The Sudan (Sanctions) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020 put in place measures to ensure that the United Kingdom continues to meet its obligations under UN sanction regimes relating to Sudan to encourage the resolution of armed conflicts and the stabilisation of Sudan. We are determined to ensure that that process continues. However, as noble Lords, particularly my noble friend Lady Ashton, have said, the real effort has to be focused on diplomacy to bring about a peaceful resolution to the conflict. It is our firm belief that the future of Sudan must be determined by its people, free from the influence of those who have led the country into its current turmoil.

To respond to the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, we are actively supporting the Tuqaddum coalition—I mentioned it in my introduction—providing both technical and diplomatic assistance to promote dialogue among all Sudanese stakeholders. This includes working with 200 women within the coalition to find inclusive political solutions. This week, as noble Lords know, officials met the women’s shuttle diplomacy mission. The United Kingdom is committed to ensuring women’s equal and meaningful participation so that peace efforts can be fully effective.

Again, as my noble friend Lady Ashton and the noble Lords, Lord Ahmad and Lord Verdirame, have emphasised, our diplomatic effort by its very nature often has to be discreet. Diplomacy has to be in terms of building confidence and building that dialogue. We will continue to support international partners seeking to bring the warring parties to a ceasefire and to a sustained, meaningful and inclusive peace process.

I do not think this Government will rule out any option, particularly as penholder. We will be determined to ensure that we support any effort that could lead to all parties being brought round the table. Regardless of where mediation takes place, it is essential that African and Arab voices are represented and that all ceasefire initiatives are co-ordinated.

I very much welcome the ongoing advocacy and tireless efforts of the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury. Of course, the United Kingdom recognises the important role of local Sudanese faith-based actors in advocating for an end to this senseless violence and for a peaceful future for the Sudanese people.

I conclude by reassuring all noble Lords that we will continue to strive for a better future for the people of Sudan through our diplomatic and development work. We will push for accountability, humanitarian relief and human rights to be respected, while promoting efforts to build a lasting peace. The road ahead will not be an easy one, but with sustained international support, I believe that Sudan can and will emerge from this dark chapter.

Motion agreed.

Commonwealth Parliamentary Association and International Committee of the Red Cross (Status) Bill [HL]

Lord Collins of Highbury Excerpts

Order of Commitment discharged
Wednesday 11th September 2024 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Collins of Highbury]

That the order of commitment be discharged.

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

My Lords, I understand that no amendments have been set down to this Bill and that no noble Lord has indicated a wish to move a manuscript amendment or to speak in Committee. Unless, therefore, any noble Lord objects, I beg to move that the order of commitment be discharged.

Motion agreed.

Antimicrobial Resistance

Lord Collins of Highbury Excerpts

Tuesday 23rd July 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to secure multilateral consensus in advance of a political declaration at the United Nations General Assembly high-level meeting on antimicrobial resistance in September.

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

My Lords, the United Kingdom is actively engaged in the political declaration on antimicrobial resistance. We recognise that we must tackle the human and animal environment aspects of AMR to be successful, embodying a One Health approach, and recognising the needs of developing countries, including supporting them to have access to the essential drugs they need to treat infections. Of course, finally, we want to see the establishment of a new independent science panel to provide evidence-based guidance to national Governments.

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his Answer, I welcome him to the Dispatch Box and I look forward to working with him on these issues. As research that I shared with him indicates, elevated levels of AMR genes have been identified as a new stand-alone factor in global change. Can he tell me what resources the Government plan to devote to this meeting but also whether they have a long-term plan? The meeting is only one moment of what needs to be a long-term process to engage with this through both aid and diplomacy.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

The noble Baroness is absolutely right. Our first step is to ensure that we give maximum publicity to this high-level meeting and engage all Governments in the declaration. We want a strong acknowledgement of the need to reduce the discharge of AMR, which drives chemicals into the environment. We also want proper surveillance and proper research. We are totally committed to a strong political declaration, and our hope is that we will be able to achieve that. We will follow through with much more effective support for research.

[Baroness Sugg (Con)]

My Lords, I welcome the Minister to his role. He has been a great champion for development and nutrition in particular, and I look forward to that continuing. In response to the needs of low-income countries, the previous Foreign Secretary announced £85 million of funding to tackle AMR back in May. The UK’s work on AMR has strong cross-party support. I hope the current Foreign Secretary will continue to show political leadership and prioritise attendance at the high-level meeting. We must raise our ambition here, and more resource is needed. Can the Minister say what the Government will do to encourage international financial institutions and multilateral development banks to help low-income countries access more funding for tackling AMR?

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

The noble Baroness is absolutely right: we want to ensure that the political declaration is followed through in our work. Obviously, as we come through to the round of multilateral negotiations, we can ensure that that political declaration is taken into account when those multilateral funds start thinking about disbursement. The high-level panel meeting of the United Nations General Assembly is a very important event, but it is not the only one, so we will ensure the fullest attendance, to maximise the political implications and effect of our participation.

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

My Lords, I also welcome the Minister to his brief; he brings a huge amount of experience to this, and I wish him well in his role going forward. He will be aware that the previous Government were rightly commended for their 20-year ambition on AMR, and also the five-year action plans, but there was concern that, given the fact that a lot of the UK research has been carried out through official development assistance, the considerable cuts to that—moving away from 0.7%—have had an impact on UK research. What reassurance can the Minister give that the new Government will set us back on the trend to having 0.7% of GNI for ODA, so we can return to being a global leader on AMR research?

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

I do not think the things are necessarily linked; the noble Lord knows our commitment to 0.7%, and we want to return to it as soon as the fiscal situation allows. In the meantime, we want to focus on the impact of our ODA, and that is why this political declaration is so important, because we can achieve a lot. One of the things we will be doing is looking at the plans and commitments that the previous Government made, and ensure that we work in partnership with African countries to deliver the biggest impact.

[Lord Patel (CB)]

My Lords, while accepting that we need to do everything possible to control the increasing incidence of antibiotic resistance, would the Minister agree that we should also pursue research that would find other forms of treatment to control bacterial infections? For instance, there are new antibiotics such as the one developed in Harvard University that changes the way it works on bacterial infections or, secondly, the one developed in Imperial College London, which has been developed to disrupt the microbiology of bacteria. Thirdly and importantly is developing viruses that act as bacteriophages to destroy the bacterial infections, but that requires a manufacturing facility; in January, the Science, Innovation and Technology Select Committee recommended that we should develop one in the old Rosalind Franklin Laboratory in the north. Would the Minister comment?

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

I was extremely grateful for the noble Lord catching me in the corridor just before, warning me about this. The noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, emphasised the importance of research, and it is constantly developing. We must look at it not only in terms of the problems we face in this country but also the issues faced in low to middle-income countries. The noble Lord is absolutely right, and our first commitment out of the high-level panel meeting is to focus on the need for greater research. But I accept what the noble Lord says: we are a centre of excellent research in this country, and we need to make sure that the benefits of that research are reflected in our ability to turn research into those manufacturing capabilities. I am very pleased that my honourable friend in DSIT will be absolutely focused on ensuring that is the case.

[Lord Kamall (Con)]

My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord on his appointment as a Minister and, indeed, the whole Labour Front Bench on their election victory and their appointments as Ministers. Following up on the last question, will the Minister tell the House which other government departments the FCDO is working with across government to ensure that there is a real joined-up government approach in tackling this issue?

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

I welcome the noble Lord to his position on the Front Bench, and I am pleased to see him back—well, back in the Opposition. We made clear when we entered the election that we will be a mission-based Government, and that involves cross-departmental working. Let us not ignore the fact that this is a fundamental part of economic development, not only for this country but to ensure that we spread the mission to our partnerships in Africa. On the Fleming funding and the other issues that I have already addressed, we are working on a cross-departmental basis with Defra and are ensuring that the good practice we have in this country is replicated and followed through in other countries, so the noble Lord is right that we will be committing to that.

[Baroness Northover (LD)]

My Lords, I welcome the Minister to his position. It was wonderful to work with him when we were in opposition; it is his turn now, and we expect a lot from him. What percentage of ODA goes into research? It was vital in terms of support for, say, the Jenner Institute and the preparations that we made for the pandemic. Could he tell us what support for UK research is ODA money?

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

I may have to follow through in writing. By the way, when we first worked together the noble Baroness was in government and I was in opposition, but despite that we worked collaboratively then. ODA is spent on AMR. I mentioned the Fleming Fund, and I think the previous Government spent £400 million on that support. But broadening it out to other aspects of research—they are not exclusive, as other research can benefit the fight against AMR— I will write to the noble Baroness with more detailed information.

[Lord Turnberg (Lab)]

My Lords, one area where we should focus our research efforts is on veterinary practice, where much of the resistance arises. Can my noble friend give some indication of what efforts are being made in that regard?

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

That is why I said at the beginning that we want to take a holistic approach to this issue, because it is not just medical overprescription; these chemicals are also able to get into the environment through animals, and we have been focused on ensuring that our strategy and the high-level panel meetings address that issue. It is not just veterinary and the issue is not just about our practices in this country; it is about spreading the word across the world, because it is amazing how these things can get into the food system far more widely spread than you could ever imagine, so it is a high priority.