Gibraltar-Spain Border Checks

Lord Collins of Highbury Excerpts

Tuesday 15th October 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

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

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

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

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

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

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

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

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

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

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

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

[Noble Lords]

My Lords—

[Lord Reid of Cardowan (Lab)]

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

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

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

[Noble Lords]

My Lords—

[Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)]

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

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

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

[Lord Waldegrave of North Hill (Con)]

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

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

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

[Lord Hain (Lab)]

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

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

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

Gaza Crisis

Lord Collins of Highbury Excerpts

Monday 14th October 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hain]

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

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

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

[Lord Hain (Lab)]

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

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

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

[Lord Howard of Lympne (Con)]

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

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

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

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

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

[Lord Singh of Wimbledon (CB)]

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

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

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

[Lord West of Spithead (Lab)]

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

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

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

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

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

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

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

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

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

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

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

Sudan

Lord Collins of Highbury Excerpts

Friday 13th September 2024 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Collins of Highbury]

That this House takes note of the situation in Sudan.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Motion agreed.

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

Lord Collins of Highbury Excerpts

Order of Commitment discharged
Wednesday 11th September 2024 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Collins of Highbury]

That the order of commitment be discharged.

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

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

Motion agreed.

Antimicrobial Resistance

Lord Collins of Highbury Excerpts

Tuesday 23rd July 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle]

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

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

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

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

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

[Baroness Sugg (Con)]

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

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

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

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

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

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

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

[Lord Patel (CB)]

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

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

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

[Lord Kamall (Con)]

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

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

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

[Baroness Northover (LD)]

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

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

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

[Lord Turnberg (Lab)]

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

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

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

Infected Blood Inquiry: Compensation Scheme

Lord Collins of Highbury Excerpts

Wednesday 22nd May 2024 Lords Chamber

[Earl Howe (Con)]

My Lords, I do not think it is for me as a Minister to opine on potential criminal liability. All I can say at this early stage is that the Government will make all relevant information available to those conducting any future criminal investigation.

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

My Lords, I echo my noble friend’s comments about the awful circumstances and the apology. Yesterday, after the repeat of the Statement, I reassured the Minister that what was required to implement all the recommendations of the report was cross-party working, and that we will continue to do that whatever the circumstances. He gave a commitment about the other 11 recommendations of the report; the Commons were due to debate it on returning from the Recess. I hope that we can keep that firmly on the agenda so that we properly address all the issues that the report raises.

[Earl Howe (Con)]

I am very grateful to the noble Lord. I am personally keen that we should have that opportunity. I am aware that discussions are ongoing with the usual channels to enable us to have a debate not too far from when we come back from the Recess. Clearly, it is important that these findings be given the most thorough consideration by government. They are very grave indeed. As I said yesterday, the wrongs that have been done are devastating and, in many cases, life altering. A comprehensive response will be given in due course, but that should not prevent us debating the report in the meanwhile.

Infected Blood

Lord Collins of Highbury Excerpts

Tuesday 21st May 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Earl, Lord Howe, for repeating both Statements. The infected blood scandal is, of course, one of the gravest injustices in our history and a profound moment of shame for the British state. Yesterday, Keir Starmer, leader of the Opposition, apologised on behalf of the Labour Governments of the past. The Prime Minister did the same on behalf of all Governments and the country.

The scale of the horror uncovered by Sir Brian Langstaff’s report almost defies belief. As well as the apology, I repeat Keir Starmer’s commitment

“to shine a harsh light upon the lessons that must be learned to make sure that nothing like this ever happens again”.—[Official Report, Commons, 20/5/24; col. 668.]

The institutional defensiveness identified by Sir Brian is a pattern of behaviour that we must address. We must restore the sense that this country is a country that can rectify injustice, particularly when carried out by institutions of the state.

I am sure that all noble Lords join me in paying tribute to the victims and campaigners who have fought so hard on this issue, including Dame Diana Johnson and Peter Bottomley, and to Sir Brian Langstaff and his team for all the work that they have done on the independent inquiry into this scandal. The publication of Sir Brian’s final report is an incredibly important moment for the victims of this injustice. Keir Starmer said yesterday that his

“experience of running a public service has made”

him

“less interested in political partisanship and more focused on getting things done”.

My right honourable friend Nick Thomas-Symonds said earlier in the other place:

“One of the most powerful conclusions in this report is that an apology is meaningful only if it is accompanied by action”,


as the noble Earl said. I repeat my right honourable friend’s commitment for us

“to work on a cross-party basis”

to

“help deliver the compensation scheme and get the … money to victims as soon as possible”.

We welcome the further details in Minister John Glen’s Statement, and the appointment of an interim chair, Sir Robert Francis. The Minister’s response, that Sir Robert and the expert panel will also focus on hearing the voice of victims going forward, is crucial. We welcome the payment under the five heads of loss to infected and affected persons, and the Minister’s confirmation that there is no budget restriction. Time is of the essence, with one victim dying every four days. I therefore welcome the Minister’s comments that there will be work throughout June on tracing additional claimants.

The Minister confirmed that the Commons will have the opportunity to debate and consider progress on Sir Brian Langstaff’s other 11 recommendations beyond compensation, including, as the noble Earl said, consideration of appropriate and fitting memorials, which—I add—we strongly support.

On potential criminal charges, I hope the Minister will be able to confirm that all relevant evidence will be available for consideration by the prosecuting authorities and that any other necessary support will be provided.

As I said in my opening remarks, the institutional defensiveness identified by Sir Brian is a pattern of behaviour we must address. We must deliver a duty of candour and the political leadership to replace that culture of defensiveness with openness and transparency. I hope the Minister will be able to confirm that this House will be given the same opportunity to debate these issues as was given to the other place.

[Baroness Brinton (LD)]

My Lords, from these Benches, we echo the apologies made by both the Government and the Labour Benches. We are truly sorry for what has happened. We pay tribute to everyone in the infected blood community. I particularly want to thank those watching us, whether in the Public Gallery here or online. Talking to people at Central Hall yesterday, I discovered that a number of people have watched every single time this House has debated infected blood. We may not see them, but they see us.

From these Benches, we also pay tribute to Sir Brian and his team for a truly remarkable seven-volume report which speaks truth to power for the infected blood community, and we pay tribute to the parliamentarians in both Houses who have fought for justice over the decades, including Dame Diana Johnson, who currently leads them. We also pay tribute to the many charities and organisations who have worked with the IB community, be they infected or affected.

From these Benches, we will continue to hold government to account until everything is resolved. Having said that, we certainly welcome both Statements. We echo the points made from the Labour Front Bench: we believe that there are issues relating to criminal charges for corporate manslaughter and other possible crimes, so can the Minister say whether Sir Brian’s report is being forwarded to the police and the DPP for consideration?

There is one person who is not in her place today, the noble Baroness, Lady Campbell of Surbiton. She was exhausted by yesterday. She is one of the affected people in this House—but not the only one. She told me that she welcomes the government apology; her sorrow is that it took decades of personal hardship and relentless campaigning to arrive. She is delighted by the appointment of Sir Robert Francis KC, as are we; he is someone in whom the IB community has considerable trust. Finally, she said that she wants to listen hard to the community responses over the coming weeks to the events of yesterday and today in respect of the compensation intentions. Everyone will need time to process the inquiry’s findings. She and many others are completely exhausted, and that is why she is unable to be with us tonight.

Today’s compensation Statement sets out much welcome detail. As the Minister knows, from these Benches we welcome the establishment of the arm’s-length IB compensation authority, the announcement that Sir Robert Francis is the interim chair and the clarity about who is eligible, especially the inclusion of those affected, not just infected. We also welcome the different categories of tariff. Ministers have heard repeatedly in both Houses that it is vital to recognise how people’s lives have been affected in so many ways.

However, the Statement also raises some questions that are not quite so clear. First, have the Government understood that people with lived experience of infected blood must be represented at all levels on the IBCA, including the board? Both Statements were silent on that, so I wonder what guidance Ministers will give Sir Robert on involving people with lived experience.

Secondly, the Statement confirms that anyone already registered with one of the existing support schemes will automatically be considered for compensation under the new scheme. But what about those we have discussed repeatedly in debates on the Victims and Prisoners Bill: those who are known about but whose claims have not yet been recognised and therefore are not registered? The Statement yesterday talked about documents going missing and even being destroyed. I have heard today from a victim who says that her claims, made over five years ago, are stuck because the NHS has lost two or three key pages from her records, so she cannot move forward. Can the Minister say what will happen to cases such as hers? She asked, “How can we fight a machine that is still protecting itself?”

There is a second group of people who are harder to reach, as they have not yet been identified; they may have only just become aware that they are infected with hepatitis. What arrangements will there be for them? Not only are they outside the timetable for the main compensation scheme, given what the Minister said, but they appear not to be referred to under the interim scheme arrangements as announced. What is the timescale for each of those two groups? The Minister knows about them, because we have talked about them before, so it is no surprise to him that they remain concerned about their position.

It is also good to see that those receiving compensation will be disregarded from means-tested benefits assessments, but I return to my old question: can the Minister confirm that there will be no clawing back of past benefits as new compensation payments are made? That was not at all clear in the Statement.

The Statement outlines support schemes especially for widows and how they will fit into the new scheme. I thank the Minister for making sure that they will not lose out. We look forward to seeing the details of the scheme.

Finally, the increase in the interim scheme payments of a further £200,000 is welcome. As with the main scheme, what are the proposals and timescales for ensuring that those not yet registered will get speedy support, registration and payments? That is not mentioned, either, in the timetable.

Sir Brian’s report is a wake-up call to government, including the Civil Service, the NHS and the Department of Health and Social Care, and to Parliament. We must give thanks to all who have relentlessly spoken up from the community, the press and the media and in Parliament; but for them, we would not be here today. Only through fulfilling Sir Brian’s recommendations —all of them—will there be vindication for the victims and corporate and state changes in culture in the future. We must all ensure that we never have to face a scandal like this again.

Long-Term Strategic Challenges Posed by China

Lord Collins of Highbury Excerpts

Thursday 19th October 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Earl, Lord Howe, for his introduction. There is a recognition that we are in very dangerous and difficult times, but I understand that it is important to focus on this relationship in particular. In his introduction, he outlined the policy towards China through three interrelated strands—or pillars, as he called them: protect, align and engage. That means to protect by strengthening national security protections, to align by deepening co-operation and alignment with key allies, and to engage through bilateral channels with China and international forums.

But has that policy been translated into action? I think we will hear in this debate some of the challenges to the assertions made by the noble Earl. For example, Bronwen Maddox of Chatham House has suggested that positions taken by the United Kingdom on China have sometimes differed from those of the Biden Administration. How are we working and aligning ourselves with our key allies in the Atlantic treaty and the European Union?

The belt and road initiative has seen China actively financing infrastructure in developing countries, with investment in more than 150 countries since 2013. In 2021, reports stated that the Prime Minister was working with democratic allies to design an alternative. Is that progressing? Where is the evidence? What have we seen in recent times?

The noble Earl mentioned artificial intelligence. We have seen interference in our democratic processes and the use of AI in fake news, particularly in the attacks on the leader of the Opposition. These are real threats to our democracy. All telecom operators have been told to strip Huawei from 5G by the end of 2027. What progress has been made on that? What measures do the Government have in place to combat potential threats through telecoms until our systems are free of that equipment?

The recent ISC report on China warned that:

“The UK’s academic institutions provide a rich feeding ground for China”


to gain political and economic influence in the United Kingdom. The noble Earl mentioned the review on protecting the academic sector that was outlined in the integrated review. When will we see the results of that? MI5 has estimated this week that 10,000 UK businesses, particularly those involved in key technologies and sciences, are at risk of Chinese espionage. Where is the evidence that we are acting on that? The ISC has warned that:

“China’s size, ambition and capability have enabled it to successfully penetrate every sector of the UK’s economy”.


Will the Government therefore back Labour’s plan for a joint Treasury-Home Office task force to drive forward work on keeping the UK safe from these economic threats to our security?

In government, Labour will take a strong, clear-eyed and consistent approach to China, standing firm in defence of our national security, international law and human rights while seeking to engage where it is in our interests to do so, particularly on the global challenges the noble Earl mentioned, such as climate change and global health. Our strategy is to compete where we need to, co-operate where we can and challenge China where we must.

China is the world’s most populous country and its second-largest economy. As the noble Earl said, our relationship is complex. China is one of the UK’s largest trading partners, with bilateral trade worth more than £100 billion and 140,000 Chinese students studying here. However, its rising economic and political power has seen a growing pattern of repression domestically and more assertive action abroad, as well as unfair trade practices. We are also very concerned about hostile Chinese action on UK soil—for example, in its efforts to silence and intimidate critics. It is essential that we work with our allies and partners to address these challenges, strengthening the international rule of law and the multilateral institutions that support it.

China remains crucial to addressing many global issues and is deeply integrated into the world economy. We will engage with it on the basis of our national interest, based on clear principles, but not be afraid to speak out on human rights. We have consistently condemned the dismantling of democracy in Hong Kong and the plight of the Uighur people, which the United Nations has said may constitute crimes against humanity.

We too welcome and support the BNOs who have arrived in this country and are a very important part of our community. We show support also for those BNOs and nationals who are still in Hong Kong, particularly those who, like Jimmy Lai, have been imprisoned for standing up for democracy. I hope the Minister will respond in terms of what we are doing to support him and other British nationals who have been imprisoned for standing up for democracy.

The problem is that we have had an approach to China that has been inadequate and does not focus sufficiently on managing future security risks. In government, Labour will carry out a complete audit of UK-China relations to ensure that the relationship reflects our interest and values so we can set a consistent strategy for the long term—something that this Government have refused to do or adopt. A Labour Government will increase our independence in critical national infrastructure and not repeat some of the mistakes this Government made over Huawei and nuclear power. We will work with our allies to provide real alternatives to China’s finance and investment in the developing world, focused on addressing poverty, strengthening global health and accelerating climate action and adaptation. We want to see a dialogue and peaceful moves to address the issues across the Taiwan Strait. We have been clear in our serious concern about China’s increasingly aggressive actions towards Taiwan and the attempts to intimidate its democratic leaders.

It is important to avoid accidents and miscalculations that raise tension or risk escalation. As the noble Earl mentioned, these actions are part of a wider pattern by China, which is becoming more assertive, as we have seen in the South China Sea. We have been very clear in challenging repression in Hong Kong, Xinjiang and Tibet. It is also absolutely wrong that China has brought sanctions against UK parliamentarians for raising these concerns, particularly Members of this House—I mention the noble Lord, Lord Alton.

The Government are divided on how to approach China and have no clear strategy, leading to U-turns and inconsistent rhetoric. Despite the noble Earl’s assertion, there is a lack of guidance for business on trade with China, and the Government’s so-called “tilt” to the Indo-Pacific has been underresourced. The Labour Government would take a strong, clear-eyed and consistent approach, and we will maintain the consistent position of successive British Governments around the recognition of Taiwan. However, we support Taiwan being an observer at organisations such as the WHO. If we are to really challenge global health pandemics and address global health issues, we need to ensure that Taiwan’s expertise is heard in forums such as the WHO.

The noble Earl mentioned AUKUS, which has Labour’s full backing. We welcome increased defence co-operation with key allies. The US and Australia are two of our closest partners. We need to ensure that that continues and my noble friend will address this in more detail in his contribution. We are confident that AUKUS adheres to all nuclear non-proliferation treaties and International Atomic Energy Agency safeguards.

In conclusion, this debate is not about tilting one way or the other. Maintaining serious, long-term strategic approaches to the Indo-Pacific, through arrangements such as AUKUS, is an essential response to the shifting centre of gravity in world affairs. This will not come at the cost of our security commitments in Europe, nor mean that we can safely ignore our own neighbourhood.

NATO Summit

Lord Collins of Highbury Excerpts

Tuesday 18th July 2023 Lords Chamber

[The Lord Privy Seal (Lord True) (Con)]

My Lord, with the leave of the House, I will repeat a Statement made by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister in the other place.

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

Does the Minister need to read it?

[Lord True (Con)]

Well, I was asked to read it, but I am in the hands of the House.

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

I do not think it is necessary.

[Lord True (Con)]

If the House does not wish me to repeat it, I will not.

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lord very much. It was taken a few days ago, and we have all had the opportunity to read it. I do not wish to show any disrespect, but I hope we can focus on the questions on the Statement.

The summit in Vilnius was a display of NATO’s unity, and an extension of the principles which Ernest Bevin, of course, signed up to in 1949. He was one of the finest Foreign Secretaries the UK has had and, of course, one of the greatest trade union officials, which I know the Leader will be impressed by. Noble Lords on these Benches, and indeed across the House, will always remain committed to those unshakeable values of the North Atlantic Treaty.

I welcome the progress made in strengthening the alliance. The country which President Biden referred to as the “light of Lithuania” provided a symbolic backdrop for the meeting, and a reminder that Europe’s freedom can never be taken as a given. As the Prime Minister said, the world has been made a more dangerous place by authoritarian aggression. It is only right that we respond by building NATO’s readiness. I therefore very much welcome the agreements made last week.

In particular, I draw attention to Finland’s accession, and the hope that others will soon follow. These are historic decisions, which will bring strong and valuable additions to the group. NATO chief Jens Stoltenberg described President Erdoğan’s agreement to Sweden’s accession as a “historic step”, but stressed that a clear date could not be given for when it would join the military alliance, as this relied on the Turkish Parliament. I hope the Lord Privy Seal will be able to give us an update on Turkey’s position, and what timeframes the Government anticipate for accession to take place.

By welcoming allies into the NATO fold, we are strengthening the collective defence of our European neighbourhood and sending a signal that Russian aggression will be confronted. But the House will know that membership of the alliance brings responsibilities, and that includes a commitment to spending 2% of GDP on defence. Seeing our NATO allies all commit to this was heartening, but it shines a light on how our own contribution to defence spending has fallen in the past years. The Prime Minister’s Statement referred to the renewal of this commitment in Vilnius, but the Lord Privy Seal will know that there is unease on these Benches at the cuts to our Army, and our troops lacking the equipment they need to fight and fulfil our NATO obligations. Given that there are now 25,000 fewer full-time troops since 2010—leaving our Army at the smallest size since the time of Napoleon—I use this opportunity to ask the Lord Privy Seal to encourage his Cabinet colleagues to halt these cuts and keep Britain safe.

Today’s refreshed Defence Command Paper was an opportunity, but as my right honourable friend John Healey said:

“Labour wanted this to be the nation’s defence plan, not the plan of current Conservative Defence Ministers”.


He offered

“to work with the Government on a plan to make Britain secure at home and strong abroad”.

This is no such plan.

Similarly, the Lord Privy Seal will know that our military is only as strong as the stockpiles behind it. On the plans announced to scale up defence production, I ask him to commit to updating Parliament on progress towards stockpile targets, so that the House can support the monitoring of this new agreement.

As part of the world’s most powerful military alliance, we must also ask questions about our collective readiness. The Statement referred to regional war-fighting plans. Can he assure the House that the plans will adapt to changing security threats in eastern Europe?

I also welcome the commitment to pursue Putin for his crimes. In addition to our membership of NATO, the Lord Privy Seal will be aware that the United Kingdom is currently serving as president of the UN Security Council. Given the Foreign Secretary’s commitment to using this role to hold the Russian Government to account, can the Lord Privy Seal provide an update on yesterday’s high-level briefing?

For over 500 days, Ukraine has fought for its freedom, and for ours. I want to finish by welcoming the declaration which backs its accession to NATO. In the short period between this Statement being made in the other place and its repeat today, the people of Ukraine have suffered Russian drone attacks in many cities, missile strikes in Kharkiv and shelling in Kherson and many other places. Between the time that this House rises next week and when it returns in September, we can all hope that the Ukrainian counteroffensive will have progressed, but we all know that there will be further civilian deaths at the hands of Putin’s regime. Despite the lack of timetable for Ukraine’s accession, I hope the Lord Privy Seal will agree that it should be a matter of when, not if, and that we will welcome Ukraine as a full member to NATO.

[Lord Newby (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord the Leader for responding to the Statement—and, indeed, for not repeating it.

The Vilnius summit took place at a potentially pivotal point in the Ukrainian struggle against its Russian occupiers and clearly demonstrated why NATO plays such a pivotal role in the security of Europe. The Prime Minister in his Statement set out three ways in which the alliance was being strengthened to deal with the challenges of Ukraine and more broadly.

The first was an increased defence readiness. The Prime Minister cited the fact that the UK was scaling up defence production to boost our stockpiles. There have been newspaper reports in recent days about how this is happening in respect of shells and other ordnance, but could the noble Lord reassure the House that stockpiles of other equipment are being replenished with equal urgency? Strengthening of the alliance also includes its expansion to admit Finland as a member, with Sweden closely to follow. These are extremely welcome developments.

The second development which the Prime Minister highlighted was the increase of support for Ukraine. We can understand why Ukraine is so keen to join NATO at the earliest opportunity but equally understand why that is not possible with the war still under way. The establishment of the NATO-Ukraine Council in these circumstances is a sensible interim structure under which dialogue can be conducted, but as far as the UK is concerned, could the noble Lord the Leader say whether the increase in support which the Prime Minister mentions involves any specific increase in military hardware support from the UK? Does he accept that it is hardly surprising, and certainly not a reason for censure, that the President of Ukraine is persistent in asking for more military hardware, without which success—in what we all accept is a must-win struggle —cannot be achieved?

The third issue stressed by the Prime Minister is that, in his words,

“The UK remains a driving force behind this alliance”.


To support this argument, he points again to the proportion of GDP which the UK devotes to defence. While this is clearly greater than some of our allies, there is widespread and growing concern about the effectiveness of this expenditure. For example, the recent House of Commons Select Committee report on military procurement, It is Broke—and it’s Time to Fix It, sets out a catalogue of specific and generic failings within MoD procurement. It says that the system suffers from “misplaced optimism”, a shortage of legal and commercial expertise, a lack of key skills, a habit of overspecifying, not

“sufficient emphasis on the value of time”

and

“a lack of a fixed long-term budget”.

Given that half of the defence budget is spent on the purchase of equipment, these are fundamental problems. What are the Government doing to reduce the waste and inefficiency in the MoD procurement process, which could ensure that the very many calls on the defence budget—not least the sensible calls to reverse the manpower cuts to the Army—can be more effectively met?

The Prime Minister also boasts of our role in keeping NATO at the cutting edge of technological developments. One way in which we could do so is by working with European partners via the Horizon programme. It was reported that the Prime Minister was to sign a deal at the summit for the UK to rejoin Horizon. This did not happen. Can the Leader say when it will happen, so that vital scientific collaboration can resume? If, in the Government’s view, there are arguments for not doing so, can he set out what they are, given the unanimity of scientific support for the UK to rejoin without further delay?

Finally, the summit communiqué discusses the partnership between the EU and NATO. It says that this partnership also needs the participation of non-EU allies—that is, the UK. It looks forward

“to mutual steps, representing tangible progress”.

Do the Government agree that working with the EU on military issues is of fundamental importance? If so, what kind of tangible steps do they have in mind to bring this about?

Business of the House

Lord Collins of Highbury Excerpts

Tuesday 9th May 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab Co-op)]

My Lords, it always the case that when there is a difficulty for the Government, the noble Earl, Lord Howe, is put forward to deal with it, because we all love him so much. The Government think they can get away with anything when they put the noble Earl up. However, I associate myself with the remarks that he made in relation to all the staff; I am sure everyone in the House would do that. It is one of the reasons I am concerned that we are going to meet at an early hour tomorrow, with this whole helter-skelter of activity during Wednesday.

Ideally, if the Government had not got their legislative programme into a total mess—we all know it is a total mess, with Bills being brought in, taken out again and amended, so we do not know where we are—and if we were dealing with this properly, as we ought to be, the obvious thing would be to have two days for Second Reading. Many Members want to speak in the debate—87, I think the noble Earl said—but then we could deal with it properly. After all, the Illegal Migration Bill is a very important Bill. As one of my colleagues said, they are not sure whether “illegal” refers to migration or to the Bill. I think it is the Bill.

The noble Earl, Lord Howe, has been put forward. The noble Lord, Lord True, would make a good case but he is not as persuasive—not as gentle and kind—as the noble Earl. This is going to happen again and again unless we take a firm stand now. I hope we get an assurance from the noble Earl that it is not going to happen again and again, disrupting our Wednesdays, and maybe even having us meeting early on days when those of us who do not live in or near London have difficulties. I hope we will have a guarantee that we will not have this again and again. The only reason we are having is it that the Government’s legislative programme is in absolute disarray, and we should not be made to suffer for it.

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

My Lords, I want briefly to add my comments to those of the noble Earl regarding the staff on Saturday. Not only did they carry out their duties well and properly but they were friendly and courteous and took extra steps to make the whole day enjoyable. I join with the noble Earl in his remarks.

Turning to my noble friend’s contribution, unfortunately my noble friend Lord Kennedy, our Chief Whip, cannot be here, so I am the friendly face. I accept the comments of my noble friend Lord Foulkes but we have agreed on tomorrow. In terms of a precedent, I hope the noble Earl will take my noble friend’s comments on board for future occasions.

[Earl Howe (Con)]

My Lords, I certainly take the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, on board. There is always a judgment to be made, when the list of speakers is as long as it is tomorrow, as to whether one should seek to divide a Second Reading up into more than one day and thereby have a breakage by way of an adjournment, which in itself is never very satisfactory, or to do as we have done, which is to attempt to make a single debate fit into a single day. It was the general feeling in the usual channels that this is the right outcome in this instance, particularly as it will allow a reasonable speaking time for noble Lords and a reasonable rising time as well.