Ukraine: UK-USA Discussions

Debate between Lord Collins of Highbury and Lord Hannay of Chiswick

Wednesday 26th March 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

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

[Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)]

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

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

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

Sudan and Eastern DRC

Debate between Lord Collins of Highbury and Lord Hannay of Chiswick

Monday 3rd February 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

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

[Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)]

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

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

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

Gibraltar-Spain Border Checks

Debate between Lord Collins of Highbury and Lord Hannay of Chiswick

Tuesday 15th October 2024 Lords Chamber

[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.

European Union Referendum Bill

Debate between Lord Collins of Highbury and Lord Hannay of Chiswick

Wednesday 4th November 2015 Lords Chamber

[Lord Collins of Highbury]

I have a question for the noble Lord about the potential risk. My understanding is that the risk is not simply gaming on the part of one side to deprive the other of funding. We constantly talk about funding when, actually, it is access to broadcast, access to free mail and all the other things that go with being a designated organisation. In evaluating the risk, does the noble Lord recognise a difficulty? Say, for example, there is no consensus among the leave campaign, so we end up with three, two or four organisations. Is the Electoral Commission, in those circumstances, permitted to decide on the merits of two or three, or does it have to say there is no lead designation?

[Lord Hannay of Chiswick]

I am not knowledgeable enough to answer the noble Lord’s question. I shall come to the Minister’s last intervention, which was helpful, in a minute, but I think she underestimates the range of possibilities.

Of course, our own Constitution Committee has raised the issue of gaming and that must be one risk, but I think there are other risks. One concerns whatever attempt the Electoral Commission makes to come to a conclusion about the designated organisation on the leave side. I do not think there will be any problem on the remain side—I cannot be certain about that, but I do not think there will be; it does not look as though there will be—but on the other side there is obviously the potential for a really serious problem. There are already two organisations, a third is said to be going to enter the fray, and if these organisations go on slugging it out and the Electoral Commission tries to adjudicate, the matter could then go to judicial review. The decision of the Electoral Commission could be appealed on judicial review. That would mean, as the present law is drafted, that the remain campaign would be deprived of all the advantages that exist for a designated organisation. That is pretty serious, frankly. What I feel is unreasonable about this is that, were this amendment accepted, none of that would happen.

I accept the noble Baroness’s offer to take this away and reflect further; she is always extremely fair in her dealings with the House. She has said she will go away and consider this further and that there will be further contacts with various noble Lords who have tabled amendments. We have a little time before Report, but I honestly think that the risk, even if it is a 1% risk, should be dealt with here and now. The case for that is pretty strong. Having said that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.