Middle East

Lord Collins of Highbury Excerpts

Tuesday 29th October 2024 Lords Chamber

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

My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat a Statement given in the other place by my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary. The Statement is as follows:

“After over a year of horrifying violence, civilian suffering has increased, the conflict has widened, and the risks of a yet wider regional war have risen. Today, I want to address three elements of this crisis and outline the urgent steps that the Government are taking in response.

I will first consider events over the weekend. Targeted Israeli strikes hit military sites inside Iran, including a missile manufacturer and an air defence base. This was in response to Iran’s escalatory ballistic missile attacks on Israel, which have been condemned across the House. These attacks were the latest in a long history of malign Iranian activity, including its nuclear programme, with its total enriched uranium stockpile now reported by the International Atomic Energy Agency to be 30 times the joint comprehensive plan of action limit, and political, financial and military support for militias, including Hezbollah and Hamas.

Let me be clear: the Government unequivocally condemn Iranian attacks on Israel. This Government have imposed three rounds of sanctions on Iranian individuals and organisations responsible for malign activity, most recently on 14 October, and we have consistently supported Israel’s right to defend itself against Iranian attacks and attacks by Iranian-backed terrorists, whose goal is the complete eradication of the Israeli state. We do not mourn the deaths of the heads of proscribed terrorist organisations.

The priority now is immediate de-escalation. Iran should not respond. All sides must exercise restraint. We do not wish to see the cycle of violence intensifying, dragging the whole region into a war with severe consequences. Escalation is in no one’s interest, as it risks spreading the regional conflict further. We and our partners have been passing this message clearly and consistently. Yesterday, I spoke to Iranian Foreign Minister Araghchi and Israeli Foreign Minister Katz and urged both countries to show restraint and avoid further regional escalation.

Let me turn to the devastating situation in northern Gaza, where the United Nations estimates that over 400,000 Palestinian civilians remain. Access to essential services worsens by the day, yet still very little aid is being allowed in. Israel’s evacuation order in the north has displaced tens of thousands of Palestinian civilians, driven from destruction, disease and despair to destruction, disease and despair. Nine in 10 Gazans have been displaced since the war began. Some have had to flee more than 10 times in the past year. What must parents say to their children? How can they explain this living nightmare? How can they reassure that it will end?

There is no excuse for the Israeli Government’s ongoing restrictions on humanitarian assistance; they must let more aid in now. Aid is backed up at Gaza’s borders, in many cases funded by the UK and our partners but now stuck out of reach of those who need it so desperately. These restrictions fly in the face of Israel’s public commitments. They risk violating international humanitarian law. They are a rebuke to every friend of Israel, who month after month have demanded action to address the catastrophic conditions facing Palestinian civilians. So let me be clear once again: this Government condemn these restrictions in the strongest terms.

Since our first day in office, the Government have led efforts to bring this nightmare to an end. We have announced funding for UK-Med’s efforts to provide medical treatment in Gaza, for UNICEF’s work to support vulnerable families in Gaza, and for Egyptian health facilities treating medically evacuated Palestinians from Gaza. We are matching donations to the Disasters Emergency Committee’s Middle East humanitarian appeal. Together with France and Algeria, we called an emergency UN Security Council meeting to address the dire situation. We have sanctioned extremist settlers, making it clear that their actions do not serve the real interests of either Israel or the region.

We have moved quickly to restore funding to the United Nations Relief and Works Agency, overturning the position of the last Government. We did that to support UNRWA’s indispensable role in assisting Palestinians, and to enable it to implement the recommendations of the independent Colonna report. All over the world, in every war zone, in every refugee camp, the United Nations is a beacon of hope, so it is a matter of profound regret that the Israeli Parliament is considering shutting down UNRWA’s operations. The allegations against UNRWA staff earlier this year were fully investigated and offer no jurisdiction for cutting off ties with UNRWA. This weekend, we therefore joined partners in expressing concern at the Knesset’s legislation and urging Israel to ensure that UNRWA’s life-saving work continues. We call on UNRWA to continue its path to reform, demonstrating its commitment to the principle of neutrality.

Finally, I will cover the conflict in Lebanon, a country that has endured so much in my lifetime and now sees fighting escalate once again, killing many civilians and forcing hundreds of thousands from their homes, while in northern Israel, communities live in fear of Hezbollah attacks and are unable to return home. Here, too, the Government have led efforts to respond. Our swift call for an immediate ceasefire was taken up by our partners in the United Nations Security Council. The Defence Secretary and I have visited Lebanon, where Britain’s ongoing support for the Lebanese armed forces is widely recognised as an investment in a sovereign and effective Lebanese state. At the start of October, I announced £10 million for the humanitarian crisis in Lebanon. Last week, the Minister for Development, my right honourable friend the Member for Oxford East, Anneliese Dodds, announced further funding for the most vulnerable among those fleeing from Lebanon into Syria, while the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs, my honourable friend the Member for Lincoln, Hamish Falconer, joined the Lebanon support conference in Paris. Today, my right honourable friend the Prime Minister will meet Prime Minister Mikati to reassure him of our support.

Across the region, our priorities are clear: de-escalation, humanitarian assistance, immediate ceasefires, upholding international law and political solutions. This is how we save lives, how we liberate hostages, such as British national Emily Damari, and how we pull the region back from the brink. The Government have stepped up our diplomatic engagement to that end. The Prime Minister has spoken directly to Prime Minister Netanyahu and to President Pezeshkian, while I have made five visits to the region in just four months and held around 50 calls and meetings with Ministers and leaders in the region. I spoke this weekend to US Secretary Blinken, just back from the region.

It is a source of deep frustration that those efforts have not yet succeeded. We have no illusions about the deep-seated divisions in this region—a region scarred by fighting and false dawns in the past—but it is never too late for peace, and never too late for hope. This Government will not give up on the people of the region. We will keep playing our part in achieving a lasting solution, so that one day they might all live side by side in peace and security. I commend this Statement to the House”.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

My Lords, we welcome this Statement, but the hostages have still not been released. I associate myself with the Minister’s remarks and an element of those from the noble Lord, Lord Callanan.

Only a day ago, 90 people were killed in northern Gaza, in an area by the border where I was in the spring, having been told that the IDF planned to have completed military operations by this February. What is the UK’s estimate of the balance between civilians and combatants who have been killed in Gaza to date? Does the Minister agree with me that, if the IDF are responsible for bulldozing civilian areas to make them uninhabitable in some form of buffer zone, it is a war crime? Will the UK Government be clear in stating that to the Israeli Government?

Will the Minister also advise his counterparts in the Israeli Government that it continues to be unacceptable to impede aid? According to the United Nations, a paltry 448 UN co-ordinated humanitarian movements have taken place in the three weeks in October. Of those 448, 268 were denied access or impeded by the Israeli Government, so will the Minister be clear that further obstructions of aid are contrary to both international humanitarian law and the mandate on the Israeli Government to secure aid within Gaza?

According to the IOM, we have seen 834,000 displaced Lebanese. This is now more than the 815,000 Syrian refugees resulting from that terrible conflict, and more than 400,000 Lebanese have now gone into Syria. It is perfectly clear that this is a security risk not only to the region but to the people of Israel. Will the Government take action on the evacuation orders? What is the Government’s legal assessment of their compatibility with international humanitarian law? The Minister was right that many people have been actively displaced up to 10 times, but what is the Government’s legal view on evacuation orders, which continue to be used?

Do the Government endorse the position of the International Court of Justice, which has stated that areas within both Gaza and Lebanon that are education facilities must be protected? Some 90% of all education facilities in Gaza have been destroyed by the IDF. That is why on 7 June the UN notified the Israeli Government that Israel is now on the blacklist of countries that harm children in conflict. Does the Minister agree that there should be no impunity for these actions, including the West Bank violence?

The Minister said that the Government were taking steps. May I suggest two steps that are practical and will send very clear signals? The first is that there should be no impunity for those facilitating violence in the West Bank or contravening international humanitarian law, and, if they are part of the administration of the Israeli Government, they should be open to sanctions too. The Minister has heard these Benches call for the sanctioning of two extremist Ministers in the Israeli Government. I do not expect the Minister to state whether sanctions will be imposed, but can the Government confirm that there is no immunity from British sanctions for those in a government role? Secondly, I hope the Minister will state categorically that the UK should not be trading in any goods that are from illegal West Bank settlements. Will the Government now put in place the legislative measures to ensure that those who are committing human rights abuses in the West Bank are also not profiting from trade with the UK?

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

I welcome the contributions from both noble Lords. Let me say from the outset to the noble Lord opposite that Israel has an inherent right to self-defence, and Israel’s strikes on Iran were in response to Iran’s reckless ballistic missile attack on Israel on 1 October. The response was measured and restrained and focused on military targets that we understand were responsible for the production of those ballistic missiles, but the priority now must be immediate de-escalation, and we urge all sides to exercise restraint. Iran should not respond. As the Foreign Secretary told the Iranian Foreign Minister yesterday, we must avoid this conflict spiralling out of control into a wider regional war. It is absolutely essential that we do that.

To address the humanitarian situation, I think the Statement made clear our concern about that. Certainly, the Prime Minister raised this with Prime Minister Netanyahu on 19 October, and the Foreign Secretary reiterated concerns, particularly about access to humanitarian assistance; I think the Statement made that absolutely clear. We are concerned that the continued breach is affecting international humanitarian law, which is why we took steps on the position on the sale of arms. I do not know why the noble Lord opposite keeps repeating the same questions, but we did take clear advice under the facilities we have on the supply of arms, and it was a decision taken properly and in accordance with the policies of the United Kingdom Government. The exceptions that we took were precisely those I have repeated before in this House.

On our position on the so-called settlements in the West Bank and the attacks on Palestinian villages, we have made it clear that those settlements are illegal under international law, an obstacle to peace and threaten the physical viability of a two-state solution. We are concerned by ongoing IDF military operations in the occupied West Bank, as well as attacks on Palestinian militants. We have taken sanctions under our global human rights regime against those who have been committing these breaches, and we will take further action if necessary. We certainly condemn the unacceptable language by Israeli Ministers Smotrich and Ben-Gvir. Israel should clamp down on the actions of those who seek to inflame tensions, but, as the noble Lord knows, we will not comment on any future sanctions.

I want to stress that we are absolutely committed to ensuring an immediate ceasefire, the return of hostages and the immediate proper restoration of humanitarian aid. We will take all possible steps to ensure that our message is clear to all parties—the people of Gaza and particularly of Israel—that it is the people who need protection.

[Lord Clarke of Nottingham (Con)]

My Lords, I am proud to say that I have been a member of Conservative Friends of Israel for many years and I still am. I strongly support the attacks on military targets in Iran, but I cannot possibly defend—I totally condemn—the decision the Israelis now seem to have taken to ban UNRWA and its activities in Gaza. Will the Government consider, with the Americans and our western allies, more attempts to intervene directly in the delivery of aid to the citizens of Gaza? We tried this, unsuccessfully, once before when the Americans tried to establish a place to unload cargoes on the coast of Gaza. The Netanyahu Government plainly take not the slightest notice of representations or arguments about international law. It is only direct action by the western powers that can avert the very real risk of widespread famine among the civilian population that now seems to be imminent.

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

I hear what the noble Lord has said. We of course condemned outright the passing of this legislation, but we have not seen it implemented yet. That is why we are taking all steps to ensure that the Israeli Government know not only the United Kingdom’s position but that of all our allies. That is why the Foreign Secretary joined with others including Canada, Australia, France, Germany, Japan and the Republic of Korea to make a joint statement making this position absolutely clear. We are calling on the Israeli Government not to implement this legislation and to ensure that UNRWA can continue to fulfil its responsibilities under its UN mandate to support humanitarian assistance. We will make that known as strongly as possible.

[Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)]

My Lords, a number of noble Lords went on a parliamentary trip to Kerem Shalom, and we saw for ourselves the much-needed and vital aid that was not able to be delivered. The lorries were piled up on the Gaza side. Much of that aid has been stolen under the nose of UNRWA by Hamas, to be sold on the black market thereafter. Does the Minister agree with me that UNRWA is responsible for less than 13% of all aid in Gaza? As the noble Lord, Lord Clarke, has indicated, there are other routes for delivery. UNRWA is not fit for purpose. The Hamas leaders Fatah Sharif Abu Al-Amin, who was killed in Lebanon, and Mohammad Abu Itiwi, who was also killed, were both members of UNRWA, which UNRWA recognised.

On a positive note, I agree with the Minister’s last statement about our mutual desire for peace in the region. In that respect, what are the Government doing to facilitate a new civil government in Gaza? That is the only way forward for the area.

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

This Government, like the previous Government, are taking a consistent approach to UNRWA. It is an essential body that can deliver aid into Gaza, and we have released £21 million to do just that. Failure to ensure that UNRWA can continue its work will lead only to greater harm and damage to civilians, so we are absolutely committed.

In terms of the future, the important thing to remember, which we have all stressed, is that the future of the Palestinians and of the Occupied Territories is a matter for the Palestinians to sort out. We will, of course, give every possible support to the authorities, particularly the Palestinian Authority, to ensure that there is a sustainable future for the eventual Palestinian state under a two-state solution.

[Baroness Morris of Bolton (Con)]

My Lords, I declare my interest as president of Medical Aid for Palestinians. Carrying on the theme, if, as UNICEF says, you are a child in Gaza lacking access to education, that impacts on your mental health, safety, development and future prospects. What does it say to those children that their one lifeline, UNRWA—which does far more than just provide aid; it provides health and education—is to be banned? What contingency plans might be put in place to start education as quickly as possible should the Israeli Government go ahead with their ban on UNRWA activities?

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

As I said, our immediate steps are to ensure that the law passed by the Knesset a few days ago, which we condemned, is not implemented and to continue to ensure that there is proper support through UNRWA. The Secretary-General of the United Nations has made it clear that there is a mandate to support the Palestinians. We will go back to the United Nations to ensure that there are the means to deliver the necessary support.

[Baroness Blower (Lab)]

My Lords, for the avoidance of doubt and to be clear, there is support for UNRWA from all Benches around this House. I was delighted to hear the Government say that UNRWA has an indispensable role in assisting the Palestinians. My question would have been that asked by the noble Baroness opposite. I have seen the extraordinary work that UNRWA does, in very difficult circumstances, in providing education for children who are themselves in very difficult circumstances. It is more than a matter of profound regret that the Israeli Parliament is considering shutting down UNRWA’s operations. Is the Minister able to say anything further about UNRWA’s range of activities, which I am sure the British Government would want to support?

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

I hear my noble friend. I have visited many UNRWA facilities; I have seen schools and health centres and how they deliver. I believe that it is an essential mechanism for delivering support. During the last Government’s suspension of financial support for UNRWA, we were channelling funds to other NGOs to try to mitigate that. It was clear from the statements of the last Government that that would never be sufficient to provide the necessary support that UNRWA gives. It is the responsibility of the United Nations. We will raise it again and support the Secretary-General’s call.

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)]

My Lords, as the Minister will be aware, the previous Government, when faced with challenges on land crossings, made sure that we worked with other partners on land, of course, and on sea and air. I implore the Government to look at innovative solutions to the situation in north Gaza, including with Jordan. My question is specific to the peace process and picks up the point made by my noble friend that peace is inevitable—indeed, it was Menachem Begin who coined that phrase—and war is not. To bring an end to this, what is the update —I have asked this before—on the latest peace negotiations between Qatar, the United States and Egypt to bring this awful conflict to a close? A plan is currently being put forward by former Prime Minister Olmert and former Foreign Minister of the PA Nasser al-Kidwa. What consideration has been given to it? In the absence of anything else, it is worth looking at.

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

I agree. In the discussions in Doha, there is a process that we are giving support to that we hope will result in the return of hostages, which is the mechanism to opening broader peace talks. I think the noble Lord is absolutely right. On access, when I asked him a similar question about other routes, including sea and air, I recall him saying that they can never make up for the huge amount that is required and the border crossings required. He and I have worked well together in the past, and I will certainly continue to take his advice. He is absolutely right.

[Baroness Janke (LD)]

My Lords, I welcome the Minister’s Statement and his support for UNRWA. The United Nations has described what is happening in north Gaza as showing a blatant disregard for humanity and the rule of war. Given that Gaza and the West Bank are illegally occupied territories, I welcome the Government’s view that UNRWA should be allowed to continue. However, should the Israelis seek to implement their ban on UNRWA—which would be a further catastrophe for the Palestinians, on top of many already—what action will the UK Government take to make sure that this does not happen and that the rules of war prevail?

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

I repeat what I have said before. UNRWA is operating on a UN mandate, agreed by the Security Council. If the Israelis insist on implementing that ban, the appropriate action will be to work with our allies back at the Security Council.

[Lord Craig of Radley (CB)]

The Minister mentioned sanctions. Would those sanctions be imposed entirely nationally or in co-ordination with allies? More generally, do His Majesty’s Government make any assessment of the effectiveness of the sanctions that have been imposed, and do they report on those assessments?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

The noble Lord, Lord Ahmad, used to say repeatedly that sanctions are effective only if they are actioned in conjunction with our allies. The United States has imposed sanctions on those people—I hesitate to use the term “settlers”—in the West Bank who are determined to undermine and commit violent acts against Palestinian villages, and we have done the same. I agree that we need to work in concert with our allies. These sanctions under the global human rights regime are aimed at individuals, to show that their behaviour is totally unacceptable and that they would not be able to travel or do certain other things globally. We do look at their effectiveness, working with our allies, but they are not designed in quite the same way as sanctions against a state; they are against individuals.

[Lord Bellingham (Con)]

My Lords, will the Minister find time today to look at the Red Sea crisis? He will be aware that, this month, after a lull, a couple more vessels have been attacked by the Houthis: the tanker “Olympic Spirit” and the container ship “Megalopolis”. So far, 80 ships have been attacked. This has caused huge disruption to international trade, and many shipping companies have now diverted vessels from the Suez Canal, at great expense. Can the Minister say something about the role of the Royal Navy and what has been done to speed up the time it takes to service and refit destroyers and frigates?

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

That is the sort of question that I would expect from my noble friend Lord West. The noble Lord raises an important point about the Red Sea. I have initiated government debates in this House on important subjects, because it is important that we hear views from across the House. That is why I initiated a debate on Sudan, which has a huge impact regionally. This afternoon, we have a debate on the Horn of Africa and exactly the issues that the noble Lord raises. I hope that he will have an opportunity to stay and participate in that debate. We need to hear views about how we can respond. The important thing in the whole region is to ensure stability, stop escalation and ensure that the free routes through are maintained. This is not just about the impact on the United Kingdom; it impacts on global trade. It is an essential route.

[Lord Dobbs (Con)]

My Lords, the Minister just mentioned the term “stability”. The inevitable result of war is destruction, and we have seen massive destruction, particularly focused on Gaza. Whatever the rights or wrongs of that, much of Gaza is now a wasteland filled with millions of tonnes of toxic rubble. In order for a ceasefire, whenever that happens, to be converted to peace—they of course are very different concepts—ordinary Palestinians have to be given something to fight for, to live for and to live in. Although it is not the direct responsibility of the British Government, would it not be a sensible idea for our Government to do everything they can to come up with an internationally agreed programme of reconstruction of Gaza at the first possible opportunity to prevent it becoming an incessant breeding ground of terrorism?

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

I agree with the noble Lord. We want to ensure that there is a clear pathway to peace. The eventual objective of a two-state solution, with two states living side by side, requires those two states to be secure and viable. It is important to lead the international community in the cause of ensuring that an eventual Palestinian state is viable, that we are able to restore dignity to the Palestinian people and that they have homes, schools and hospitals that will enable them to live in peace with their neighbour.

[Baroness Hussein-Ece (LD)]

My Lords, this morning there was what was described as a massacre of around 115 people—I am sure the Minister will have read the dispatches on this—in a residential block of flats with over 100 people sheltering in it. There are people still trapped there because the Israeli Government have disbanded the civil defence volunteers who were digging people out with their bare hands. So there were still people buried there this morning when we were getting up and having our breakfast. People were being bombed in their homes.

These scenes are shocking. I hear loud and clear this Government, the Prime Minister and others across Europe saying that Israel has a right to defend itself. Of course it has, but what about the Palestinians? Who is defending the civilians in Palestine? In Gaza right now, they have no one. They are bombed in tents in camps and being starved. I want to ask about the hospitals and all the health facilities that have been systematically destroyed. Just this week, it was reported that in the remaining hospital in the north the staff have been arrested and cleared out, so it is not functioning. What action is going to be taken to ensure that health facilities are going to be made available to these people?

Israel has kept out journalists and we see only the footage that appears on social media, so we wonder what it is hiding. What steps can this Government, along with our allies and partners, do to ensure that health facilities are available to those who are horrendously wounded and to all the children and amputees who are suffering terribly as we talk about Israel defending itself? Is it defending itself against these children? I do not think so. I think the general public in this country and beyond want to see some action.

[Baroness Hussein-Ece (LD)]

You can heckle me all you want. You know I am right.

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

I say to the noble Baroness that I think everyone across this House is concerned about the situation in Gaza. Even friends of Israel have expressed extreme concern about those conditions. I have been a strong defender of the right of Israel to exist. There are a number of people in the region, including organisations such as Hezbollah and Hamas, that do not want Israel to even exist, and that is a major problem. However, the people of Gaza, the Palestinian people themselves, are not the perpetrators of this and cannot be held to be responsible. Therefore, we have a responsibility to defend them and to ensure that the disastrous attacks are properly addressed.

The noble Baroness raised the issue of medical support. As the Foreign Secretary’s Statement said, we have given additional funding for UK-Med to run field hospitals in Gaza, so we are putting those field hospitals in. We are funding UNICEF to provide life-saving aid to vulnerable families and, earlier this month, we announced £1 million for the Egyptian ministry of health to support medically evacuated Palestinians from Gaza. On 17 October, we agreed to match up to £10 million of public donations to the Disasters Emergency Committee’s Middle East humanitarian appeal to provide life-saving aid, including medical supplies, shelter and clean water.

The plight of sick and injured people in Gaza is deeply distressing. Israel should engage with its partners to urgently establish sustained, safe and timely passage for patients who need medical or surgical interventions not available in Gaza. We are negotiating to ensure that people have that access to medical treatment.

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

Lord Collins of Highbury Excerpts

Thursday 17th October 2024 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Collins of Highbury]

That the Regulations laid before the House on 30 July be approved.

Considered in Grand Committee on 15 October.

Motions agreed.

Ethiopia Famine: 40th Anniversary

Lord Collins of Highbury Excerpts

Thursday 17th October 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)]

My Lords, the whole House is indebted to the noble Baroness, Lady Featherstone, for initiating today’s important debate. During her remarks, she referred to the consequences of indebtedness on development—a point taken up by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Sheffield. Forty years ago, on 22 November 1984, in the House of Commons, I challenged the then Government on their policy on Ethiopia, stressing that Ethiopia was still paying back more in debt than it was receiving in aid.

As the noble Baroness rightly remarked, in comments that were echoed very movingly by her friend the noble Lord, Lord Oates, the catastrophe in Ethiopia was brought into our homes by the extraordinary journalism of the BBC’s Michael Buerk. His devastating first hand accounts roused our consciences and indignation —a point to which I will return in my comments.

I will follow what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Browne of Ladyton, and roll the clock forward from the two years of war in Tigray between 2020 and 2022 to the situation there now. Professor Jan Nyssen of Ghent University, a leading European authority on the war, put the number of war fatalities at between 300,000 and 500,000 people, including 50,000 to 100,000 from fighting, 150,000 to 200,000 due to famine and 100,000 from a lack of medical attention. To be clear, this was manmade, but no men have been brought to justice.

Professor Alex de Waal, the executive director of World Peace Foundation, draws parallels with the catastrophic situation in 1984. He says:

“In 1984, the Ethiopian government wanted the world to believe that its revolution heralded a bright new era of prosperity, and foreign donors refused to believe warnings of starvation until they saw pictures of dying children on the BBC news”.


On Tuesday evening, while speaking here at a meeting held in the Palace, I was struck by the intervention of a Tigrayan who believed that a complete denial of media access to the region from 2020 to 2022 enabled the regime to repeat these unspeakable acts of horror—these atrocities. That meeting was held to discuss a report of the New Lines Institute, undertaken over two years and comprising some 100,000 words. It concludes that the crime of genocide has occurred in Tigray. I have a copy for the Minister, which I will give to him during the debate.

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

I have one.

[Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)]

The Minister will know then, having seen the report, that that the situation has echoes of 1984. Ethiopia, as we heard from the noble Lord, Lord Oates, was then ruled by the Marxist-Leninist, pro-Soviet Derg. That ended in 1991, when its leader, Mengistu, fled to Zimbabwe. The House should note that an Ethiopian court found him guilty of genocide in absentia. His regime was estimated to be responsible for the deaths of 0.5 million to 2 million Ethiopians, mostly during the famine. Of course, he has never been brought to justice, becoming a role model for others who commit atrocities with impunity.

In September 2023 I chaired a cross-party inquiry, which published a report entitled The Three Horsemen of the War in Tigray: Mass Killings, Sexual Violence and Starvation. It called on the UK Government and other actors to provide a response commensurate with the gravity and scale of what had occurred. It made clear that starvation in Tigray is not an unintended consequence of the conflict but, as we heard from the noble Baroness, Lady Helic, a method of war. That finding is underlined in the New Lines inquiry, which concludes that there was an

“intent to destroy Tigrayans as an ethnic group, in whole or in part”.

That is one of the criteria for the crime of genocide, fuelled by torture, rape, mutilation and sexual violence. Another criterion—one of those factors taken into account when declaring a genocide—is the prevention of birth, illustrated by the slogan:

“A Tigrayan womb should never give birth”.


In October 2021, Mark Lowcock, the United Nations Emergency Relief Coordinator, commented on the situation in Tigray, including the attempt to block aid from going into the region. These are his words:

“There’s not just an attempt to starve six million people but an attempt to cover up what’s going on. What we’re seeing play out, I think, is potentially the worst famine the world has seen in the 21st century … What’s happening is that Ethiopian authorities are running a sophisticated campaign to stop aid from getting in by, for example, making it impossible for truck drivers to operate by setting up checkpoints with officials and militia people, by preventing fuel from getting in … And what they are trying to do is starve the population of Tigray into subjugation or out of existence, but to avoid the opprobrium that would still be associated with a deliberate, successful attempt to create a famine taking the lives of millions of people”.


In 2021 Pekka Haavisto, Finland’s Foreign Minister and a European Union special envoy to Ethiopia, said that, following his talks with Prime Minister Abiy and other Ministers, he believed that they were

“going to wipe out the Tigrayans for 100 years”.

In response to our cross-party inquiry, the Tigrayan Advocacy and Development Association told us:

“The Ethiopian, Eritrean, and Amhara forces left a trail of scorched earth … in which they deliberately burned houses, forests, and field crops ready for harvest; cut mango orchards, papaya trees, and plant nurseries; mixed grains with soil; looted and slaughtered livestock; and killed hundreds of protected wild animals. To ensure no harvest for the next season, ENDF, EDF, ASF, and Fano militia worked in tandem to block vital agricultural supplies, including seeds, destroyed and looted farm tools and prevented farmers from tilling their land during the most crucial period”.


Martin Griffiths, the UN Under-Secretary-General for Humanitarian Affairs reported that, at the height of the crisis, 100 trucks a day of aid needed to get to Tigray but only 10% had gained access in the previous three months. New Lines highlights the shooting of truck drivers and the arrest and detention of drivers before they reached Tigray as another way of preventing food getting through.

The restrictions of aid continued after the ceasefire and during the informal truce. Although WFP and OCHA reported a resumption of aid deliveries at the beginning of April 2022, in reality, while they estimated that 115 food trucks would be needed every day throughout May, convoys were able to bring supplies into Tigray on only six occasions.

That brings us to today. In February 2024, Tigray officials warned of an unfolding famine that could equal or eclipse the 1984 famine. Ethiopia’s ombudsman said it confirmed the starvation deaths of at least 351 people in Tigray and another 21 in the neighbouring Amhara region as a result of drought and instability. Once again, the scale of this tragedy—like that in Sudan, as we have heard—has been massively under- reported.

In February the Guardian reported that

“humanitarians have mostly kept quiet, fearful of losing their operating licences”.

It went on to say:

“In private, however, their language is stark. A recent memo circulated among aid agencies warns that ‘starvation and death are inevitable … in considerable numbers’ from March onwards in some areas of Tigray if aid does not reach them soon. Another says child malnutrition rates”—


the role that malnutrition can play in long-term development was emphasised earlier in the debate by the noble Baroness, Lady Featherstone, and others—

“are as high as 47% in parts of Oromia, Ethiopia’s biggest region”.

On 30 July, I asked the Minister to comment on reports that more than 2 million were reported to be at risk of starvation in Tigray. He responded:

“The humanitarian community is targeting 3.8 million people … with food assistance”.


I was pleased to hear that the UK is leading a pledging conference. I echo the question asked by the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, as to how much of the $610 million has been raised and deployed.

I ask once more: what is being done to bring those responsible to justice? I hope, like the noble Lords, Lord Oates and Lord Browne, that in another 40 years there will not be a similar parliamentary debate asking why those with political power in 2024 did no better than those who went before them.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Featherstone, for opening the debate with such insight and care on issues that are incredibly important. I share in what the noble Lord opposite quite rightly said: many of the interventions that we have made are not short-term but long-term. They require continuity to ensure that we deliver proper support, so I welcome his comments. Let me reassure him that we will continue, where appropriate, the good work of the previous Government.

Having visited Ethiopia just last week, I was struck by just how pertinent the issues from the famine of 1984 are. The scale of human suffering in 1984 affected our collective conscience and taught us some vital lessons about how we can prevent such disasters happening again. We can all be incredibly proud of the way the British public rallied round in what remains the biggest humanitarian fundraising effort in history. The BBC’s expert reporting was a contributory factor in bringing that famine to global attention, and we should pay tribute to that.

The celebrity-endorsed Live Aid event united 1.9 billion people and raised £110 million, or $333 million. Live Aid asked some tough questions of western governments and relief agencies around the world, and rightly so. It helped people become more aware of global inequality and exposed them to the politics of international development and assistance, particularly in Africa. However, the horrific images also contributed to the perception of Ethiopians needing to be saved by West, and the idea that famine is a natural disaster rather than a manmade one, as we have heard in this debate.

Over the last 40 years, I think our views have changed and our perspectives have widened, as the noble Baroness, Lady Helic, highlighted. Other events have brought to our attention the need for a changed attitude. I am pleased to say that this Government are bringing a modern approach to development and our relationship with the people and Government of Ethiopia. We want to learn the lessons from the last four decades and tailor our approach to both humanitarian response and bilateral relationships. That means working hand in hand with our development partners, making sure that it is just that—an equal partnership. That requires leadership and responsibility from both sides, not just to respond to the crises but to prevent them in the first place. That is why I visited Ethiopia, including the affected Tigray region, within months of becoming a Minister.

Today, not only do we have better monitoring systems for assessing levels of need, but better global co-ordination and preparatory measures. That means we are much more capable than before of preventing such crises. At the same time—I want to stress this point—it is the responsibility of the Ethiopian Government to find political solutions to the internal conflicts, which, as we have heard in this debate, worsen humanitarian needs. Let me reassure the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, that I did make these points when I met Premier Abiy. He certainly gave me a history lesson, but we also focused very much on the future and what steps he needs to take to ensure that political effort is put into resolving potential conflicts in the future.

We are increasingly aware of the compounding impacts of climate change on the humanitarian crises. As I heard on my visit last week, it affects conflict, education, healthcare, the economy and our very ability to co-ordinate action globally. The UK’s engagement with Ethiopia has focused on tackling these issues, and adopting a multifaceted approach is key. That is why we have increased our focus on food, health, water and sanitation, and on the most vulnerable populations. We are also investing in improving data and evidence to enable informed decisions—a point that was made well in today’s earlier debate. We do this bilaterally through established routes and monitoring systems, via the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs.

Of course, our approach must continue to evolve and we must focus more on preventive measures. It is hugely encouraging that we are one of the biggest contributors to the UN Central Emergency Response Fund, because equity is a key part of our approach. It provides a tailored response to vulnerable people, including internally displaced people and women and girls. As all noble Lords here are aware, women and girls bear the brunt of major crises. I pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Alton, for his and the APPG’s work on this. I certainly have read the New Lines report— I will keep his copy as an additional copy.

When I was in Tigray, I met women and girls in the Sabacare IDP camp there. Such shocks worsen existing inequalities and education prospects, undoing the progress achieved in empowering women and girls. For example, the incidence of child marriage and gender-based violence significantly increases in the areas of drought. These facts show why we are adopting a more tailored approach.

This year, we are helping over 435,000 children and pregnant and breastfeeding women with nutritious food—the previous Government also contributed to this. I saw examples of our collaboration with the World Food Programme in Tigray, as it delivers holistic support to women and children in the health centre. It was a continuous programme, doing excellent work.

In 2023-24, we reached 36,879 women and girls suffering gender-based violence, and child protection services supported 52,000 wasted pregnant and breast- feeding women with critical nutrition. We provided regular cash transfers to 2,871 households with pregnant women and young children, and we placed 500,000 girls in school over the last year.

We have consistently called for the end of the wide- spread gender-related sexual violence in Ethiopia. We have deployed preventing sexual violence team experts in Ethiopia, as the noble Baroness, Lady Helic, mentioned. We will continue to focus on that work. We will protect more than 23,000 women and girls through those services, with regular cash transfers, as I said.

We obviously also need to focus on how to have future growth in Ethiopia. We have rallied international support for a multibillion dollar financial package from the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank. But no country’s economy can flourish in the midst of conflict, which remains a persistent contributing factor to the humanitarian crisis—another point I absolutely stressed to Premier Abiy. We know that the conflict in Tigray claimed the lives of up to 600,000 people.

The noble Lord, Lord Alton, has constantly pushed on the issue of genocide, and he knows the long-standing government position on how you make such a determination. But I reassure him that I am absolutely committed to ensuring that we hold those responsible to account and that we have proper policies to end impunity. That means ensuring that we not only support the evidence-gathering process but help survivors—who are left with a legacy of widespread human rights atrocities perpetrated by all sides—to get justice. We are committed to supporting them, which is why we support Ethiopia’s transitional justice policy and why, in my visit, I announced £16 million to help 75,000 Tigrayan military personnel return to civilian life.

As my noble friend Lord Browne mentioned, since August last year the Amhara region has been plunged into instability, with a full-scale insurgency. In other regions, violence is coming on. I assure my noble friend and others that the Government are absolutely focused on bringing international attention to this. We want to ensure that we join those affected by this conflict to call on the Ethiopian Government to find a peaceful resolution. I raised that not only with Premier Abiy but with all leaders in Tigray; I spoke to the Acting Premier and President in the region.

I want to underline the importance that we place on these issues. The noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, spoke about the pledging conference in Geneva. Certainly, we will continue that work—$610 million has been raised. The pledges made were intended for 2024-25, but we will host a follow-up meeting in November to ensure not only that we deliver those pledges, which have been met, but that we increase them from April. We are working on that. In the post-conflict situation in Tigray, I visited a manufacturing factory in the war zone. We will pledge further support, just under £7 million, for Ethiopia’s textiles and garments sector. Jobs are vital to changing people’s lives, and I have seen how this can work.

On malnutrition, I think noble Lords know exactly where my heart lies on that—for 10 years, I supported the Nutrition for Growth summits for the APPG. As noble Lords have highlighted, malnutrition has long-term consequences such as stunting, which excludes affected people from the economy and harms development prospects for populations far into the future. In tackling the risks of famine, we are also safeguarding Ethiopia’s future economic prospects. This is in all our interests.

The noble Baroness, Lady Featherstone, and others raised the issue of ODA spending. Certainly, the Prime Minister and this Government are committed to restoring 0.7% of GNI once the fiscal situation allows. However, as I said in the earlier debate and will repeat now, we are focused on impact and on delivering what we can. Nutrition is vital. Our support for the pledges of the Nutrition for Growth summit remains. It has the biggest multiplying effect in investment and development, and we will continue to support it. In 2021, the UK pledged £1.5 billion to improve nutrition of women, girls and children. It also pledged to integrate nutrition across the ODA portfolio and to use the OECD/DAC nutrition policy marker to report on nutrition integration in our programme. We will publish annual nutrition accountability reports on progress against our pledges—the previous one was published in August. We will continue that work, and I hope that I will be in a position to report on it in the future.

We know we are operating in a difficult environment in Ethiopia, with active conflicts, hard-to-reach areas and tough regulations, and many humanitarian agencies struggle to help those who most need it. As a result of the Geneva pledging conference, the Government of Ethiopia made commitments to reform humanitarian practices. I reassure the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, that that includes facilitating unimpeded and sustained access to all areas and affected people, collaborating on an analysis framework that draws on global best practice—again, another issue raised with Premier Abiy. While food insecurity and malnutrition remain a cause for concern in Ethiopia, we hope that these steps will reduce prevalence over time.

In conclusion, this has been an excellent debate. Looking to the future, prevention has to be our primary goal. Our objectives must be to ensure that the events that stunned us 40 years ago are never repeated. We will do that by promoting sustainable economic growth, creating climate-resilient humanitarian systems and prioritising human rights alongside empowering women and girls. We will do this working in genuine partnership with the Government of Ethiopia. With conflicts currently raging across the country, reports of human rights abuses and violations, serious economic challenges and food insecurity crises throughout Tigray and Afar, there is much work to be done. As partners, our Governments must work towards the benefit of both our peoples. Resolving this is the collective responsibility of the Ethiopian Government and the international community, because only by working together can we discover lasting solutions to poverty and inequality.

UN Sustainable Development Goals

Lord Collins of Highbury Excerpts

Thursday 17th October 2024 Lords Chamber

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

Well, up until that point, I thought it was quite a consensual debate. Anyway, it has been a very interesting debate and could not be more timely, and I thank my noble friend for initiating it.

Sometimes it is quite important to remind ourselves exactly what the SDGs are. They are universal. They apply to everyone and all countries; it is not the north telling the south or vice versa. If we start this debate on that basis, we can see a lot more progress.

I know that the noble Baroness, Lady Sugg, will forgive me because I am not being partisan, but I thought that the first attempt at the voluntary national review, which my noble friend referred to, was disappointing in the sense that it did not focus on the cross-governmental attitude. It did not look at how we are responding in education, health and other areas; it looked at what we are doing to others. I thought that was a missed opportunity and a big mistake. It could have been an opportunity to give the political leadership we needed.

By the way—my noble friend mentioned this, and it is important to restate it—this country has a proud record in promoting global development, certainly with Gordon Brown and how he pursued the millennium development goals, and of course the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, in pushing that SDG agenda. We have a proud record as a country and on a cross-party basis. It is important that we remind ourselves of that and that, as we move forward in trying to deliver on the SDGs as a new Government, we work across government and not just in the FCDO. I will come on to some of those other issues to do with departments.

I think that Anneliese Dodds, the Minister for Development, would have been delighted to be here in person to listen to this debate, but she is at Chatham House giving her keynote speech on the Government’s approach to development, which will cover many of the topics discussed by noble Lords today. I hope there will be an opportunity for us to circulate that and perhaps even have a further discussion about the future.

The other thing I would like to say at the beginning— I will return to some of these points—is that we have initiated a review under the noble Baroness, Lady Shafik, who was a Permanent Secretary at the Department for International Development. That review will be concluded fairly speedily, but I do not want to pre-empt some of the things it might include.

The Foreign Secretary and the Prime Minister have set out some clear priorities for the FCDO, tackling the issues that all noble Lords have raised today. The focus is on delivering the Government’s five missions: delivering growth, enhancing security, tackling the climate and nature crises, rebuilding our relationship with Europe and, as we are discussing today, modernising our approach to international development. This Government’s mission is to help to create a world free from poverty on a liveable planet. Inevitably, this requires holding on to the hope that we can get the SDGs back on track through clear, effective and modern development policy, placing climate and nature at the heart of everything we do. There is no pathway to development without increasing climate resilience, tackling the nature crisis and improving access to green energy, and no pathway to a sustainable future without development that leaves no one behind.

My noble friend is absolutely right about the importance of businesses and the private sector. The SDGs cannot be delivered by Governments alone and cannot be delivered even with the private sector alone. It is a joint enterprise. As my noble friend Lady Armstrong has also highlighted, this is about how we generate civil society to support the SDGs. I pick up the point by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Leicester that mobilising civil society includes faith groups and other organisations. Even though I am a committed humanist, I have seen incredible work by faith groups in this country to deliver support for people—and I have seen that in other countries too. Mobilising that is incredibly important.

We had the Secretary-General’s pact for the future at the UN General Assembly, which will be important in mobilising for future generations. It is a key element. I hear what my noble friend says about that. There are always lots of kind words at these events, and we need to translate those words into action. However, the fact that we achieved a consensus at the General Assembly, across all countries, is a sign of hope and positive news.

Over the last three months—and it is only three months —this Government have focused on some key areas to tackle the issues that noble Lords have raised today. Economic growth is a top priority for this Government, at home and abroad. We are focusing on sustainable, inclusive economic development and growth that delivers opportunity and unlocks human potential. This approach is the one that will help to lift millions out of extreme poverty, as has been evidenced in the last 30 years. Giving local working people access to better and more productive jobs is the only way to sustainably reduce poverty and build resilience to climate change. As noble Lords are aware, by 2030, countries in the global South will make up the top 30 economies. I have been reminded in every visit that I have made to African countries in the last three months that, by 2050, a quarter of the world’s population will be African. It will be the biggest market, so we have to refocus our attention to these in terms of partnership and economic development. It is essential that there are quality jobs and infrastructure improvements, and that exports grow.

The noble Lord, Lord Cameron of—

[Lord Cameron of Dillington (CB)]

Dillington—or just Lord Cameron.

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

Dillington—sorry; there are too many Lord Camerons in my mind. The noble Lord, Lord Cameron, is absolutely right. I visited the food security conference in Kigali and I came away from that event feeling incredibly positive about the potential for agriculture in Africa. There is huge potential, but it needs to be addressed in terms of connectivity. The fact is that, from harvest to market, Africa loses 40% of its products simply because it does not have the cold storage or a way to manage the logistics. Those issues can be addressed with appropriate investment, and certainly with innovation.

We also have the FCDO’s new land facility programme, launched in 2024. It will build on previous work, and support partner countries in Africa, south-east Asia and Latin America to develop robust land administration systems to protect land rights and facilitate sustainable land investment, which is key. I have seen co-operation between local farmers and British farmers who have gone into countries to develop exports. The other thing that was stressed in Kigali is that most agricultural producers need support and help to focus on markets first—it is about understanding your market and increasing that investment.

In response to the noble Baroness, Lady Lane-Fox, it is true that there are lots of targets with the SDG 2030 agenda but, at the General Assembly in New York, we were focused on the global digital compact. It was adopted at the summit of the future and focuses on inclusive adoption of digital technologies to accelerate SDG delivery, closing the divide in digital support through international multi-stakeholder collaboration, and recognising the role that AI can play. The Government have launched an AI for development programme, which aims to create safe, inclusive and responsible ecosystems. I add that we focus, as the noble Baroness, Lady Sugg, did, on SDG 5, but I also focus on SDG 8, because that is about training a productive, inclusive workforce. We need to ensure that we see the SDGs in a more cohesive, comprehensive way.

On the point from the noble Baroness, Lady Sugg, all our development partnerships will focus on championing equal rights and empowering women and girls. That is absolutely essential. Investing in their progress and breaking down the barriers they face is essential to development. We will partner with others to confront the rollback of rights, tackle discrimination and scale up proven, locally led approaches to ending the gender-based violence she described. Next year will see the 30th anniversary of the Beijing declaration. We will work really hard to renew that, and the whole question of women, peace and security. Through these efforts, we will ensure that women, girls and marginalised groups have access to essential, quality education and, most importantly, sexual and reproductive health and rights. We will also focus on how we deliver that.

The other big issue we heard in this debate was reform of the global financial system for climate, nature and development. We understand everyone’s concerns about the unfairness of the current system, but I also want to address the whole question of ODA. The noble Lord, Lord Bruce, was absolutely right: we need to return to building a cross-party consensus. I do not think we need to be partisan on this issue, because what we are able to deliver on the SDGs benefits us all as a country. It improves our security too, and that cross-party support is something we have to try to return to.

I accept what the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, also said—that the problem with the cut from 0.7% to 0.5% was not just the cut but the way it was done and the speed with which it was done. I know the noble Baroness, Lady Sugg, will agree with me on that. It caused huge damage to our credibility, and that is what we have to try to restore. I know the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, will say that I am just repeating what the previous Government said, and I will repeat it, since he expects me to do so: the Government are committed to restoring ODA spending to 0.7% of GNI—the Prime Minister has made that clear—as soon as fiscal circumstances allow. But that does not stop us focusing on what we do and how we deliver it. We will focus on impact, and I will certainly be determined to ensure that for every bit of our activity. I think that is what the development review will do. Let us focus on impact and how we can achieve more.

One thing I have been focusing on is a commitment to a partnership of equality and respect to deliver economic growth. We are working towards a general partnership to deliver reforms on a greater scale, in terms of the financial support globally. This includes championing reform of multilateral development banks, which are the largest source of development finance. There is a significant opportunity to increase the volume of finance they can offer. There is so much we can do beyond ODA; I think that is really important. We can see them go further and faster in stretching their balance sheets so that they can lend more, but donors also need to step up. We seek an ambitious replenishment of the World Bank’s IDA21, the largest source of low-cost loans for the poorest and most vulnerable. We are playing our part in increasing its pledge and urging all partners to contribute to the fund. Together, we can make sure that we deliver the largest replenishment in history.

Yet, despite this progress, the number of countries spending more on debt interest repayments on health and education remains too high. We will continue to push for improvements to the common framework for quicker debt treatments for countries experiencing debt distress. We are finding creative ways to give partners that sort of hope.

We have also rolled out and championed climate-resilient debt clauses, which allow developing countries to pause debt and repayments when disaster strikes. We know that the global financing gap cannot be filled through public finance alone. As I said at the beginning, the finance needed will be delivered through the private sector, and we are playing an important part in that.

I point out to the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, that we pledged up to £60 million for loss and damage, including £40 million for the new fund responding to loss and damage, and up to £20 million for wider funding arrangements. We are working closely with our partners to operationalise this fund.

How do we mobilise the private sector? Of course, we have to recognise that the City of London is the biggest global hub for mobilising capital, and we will be doing even more on that. We are also going to do more in working with BII to unlock that sort of investment. In my visits to Africa, I have seen how we can ensure greater access. We do not tell this story enough. I visited Angola and saw the Lobito Corridor, and I visited an extractive mine that was focused on delivering greater processing, bringing employment into the local labour market. It then supported investment in agriculture, using that connectivity, so there was a perfect, positive story to tell about development. I certainly want to focus on that.

Sadly, I am running out of time—now I know the difficulty the noble Lord, Lord Ahmad, used to have. Security, which was raised by every noble Lord, and in particular by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Leicester and my noble friend Lord McConnell, is an important area. Prevention of conflict and peacebuilding is essential. The review of the noble Lord, Lord Robertson, looking at that peacebuilding element, will of course be part of that. It is about a resource.

There is no sustainable development without peace, and there is no peace without sustainable development. I focused on that last week at the UN, and I met all the people concerned, who were absolutely committed to ensuring that we can deliver more. In the current climate, it is even more essential that we focus on that. I caught the point of the noble Baroness, Lady Sugg, about women’s participation, which we are absolutely committed to.

I have an answer on the integrated security fund for my noble friend, and I also had a lot to say on illicit finance, but I have run out of time. I will write on those points, because I have visited places, particularly in the context of illicit finance and what we are doing to combat corruption, which is one of the biggest elements holding back development.

In conclusion, the SDGs will get back on track; we are determined to do so. We will focus on working together with our allies to face up to those shared challenges. This debate will be an important contribution to the way we refocus our efforts, so I thank noble Lords.

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.