Sudan

Lord Purvis of Tweed Excerpts

Wednesday 30th October 2024 Lords Chamber

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

I thank the noble Lord for his question; we obviously debated it last night in the general debate on the Horn of Africa, when I took the opportunity to go into some detail about our activities. In response, because we only have a short time for questions, on 21 October, the UN Secretary-General made recommendations about the protection of civilians, which we strongly support. He made reference to the commitments made in the Jeddah declaration to limit the conflict’s impact on civilians. Yet, as the noble Lord said, we have seen the RSF campaign, ethnic groups’ torture and rape, as well as bombardments by the Sudanese Armed Forces. We are ensuring that we continue to work with the United Nations. When we take the presidency next month, we will continue to focus on Sudan and ensure that we can build up towards that ceasefire. The most urgent thing is humanitarian access, which has of course also been inhibited by the warring parties.

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

My Lords, I agree with the Minister on that last remark. Will he agree with me that, given the scale of the humanitarian crises, not just within Sudan but within the Middle East and in Ukraine, this is the wrong time to cut official development assistance? Cutting it from 0.58% to 0.5%—a £2 billion cut from the outturn in 2023 to the 2024-25 levels announced in the Budget today—is the wrong thing to do at the wrong time. With regard specifically to the humanitarian crisis in Sudan, my party leader, Sir Ed Davey, asked the Prime Minister for the practical steps we will take as penholder and in the coming presidency of the Security Council, as the Minister said. Will the Government actively consider the wide calls for there to be an extension of the UK no-fly area across the whole of the country of Sudan, not just Darfur, for military aircraft and drones? Will they also work out what would be the active areas for safety and protection of civilians, especially those community areas that are providing health and education facilities?

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lord for the range of questions. There are very good reasons for the difficulties with the no-fly zone, in terms of security and escalation. However, I will give a strong commitment to raise the Secretary-General’s commitment on the protection of civilians in November at the Security Council. We want to ensure that all his statements are actively implemented by all parties. I reassure the noble Lord that, in terms of our commitment to supporting the humanitarian situation, we are spending £113.5 million this financial year. This includes our bilateral ODA, which now stands at £97 million. We are not cutting aid. In fact, I suspect that in the forthcoming year, because of the terrible situation in Sudan, we will be increasing our support.

Middle East

Lord Purvis of Tweed Excerpts

Tuesday 29th October 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

My Lords, Israel’s response to the missile attack launched by Iran earlier this month was proportionate, precise and targeted. On these Benches, we hope that this will now mark the end of these escalating exchanges between Israel and Iran, and I reiterate the sentiment of my right honourable friend the shadow Foreign Secretary in urging restraint.

I understand that the Foreign Secretary has been in contact with regional counterparts, encouraging restraint in the face of escalation. Does the Minister know what discussions are being had with our partners regarding a co-ordinated approach to achieving a peaceful resolution?

However, we should not underestimate the malign influence of Iran in all this. It has made it very clear that it intends to destroy Israel’s right to exist, and its funding of Hezbollah shows that that intent has not changed.

There have been continuous rocket attacks in northern Israel by Hezbollah. No country in the world would allow this action to go unchecked. Hezbollah is not only violating international law by launching rockets and missiles at Israeli towns and displacing tens of thousands of Israeli citizens but doing so in flagrant breach of UN Security Council Resolution 1701, which clearly calls for the withdrawal of Hezbollah and other forces from Lebanon south of the Litani, and the disarmament of Hezbollah and other armed groups. Does the Minister agree that Hezbollah must comply with that UN Security Council resolution as a precondition to ending this conflict? Additionally, have His Majesty’s Government had any discussions with the UN regarding the implementation of that resolution?

On Gaza, as the Foreign Secretary said, some 100 hostages remain in captivity, including Emily Damari, a British national. This is utterly unacceptable and I am sure that the entire House joins me in calling on Hamas to immediately release all remaining hostages, especially Emily, of whom we are all thinking at this time.

In light of these most recent developments, can the Minister confirm whether the Government will look again at their disgraceful decision to suspend some of the licences for the sale of arms to Israel? I take this opportunity to again ask the Minister whether the advice of the Attorney-General required Ministers to suspend these licences. I would be grateful for an answer this time.

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

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

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

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

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

Horn of Africa

Lord Purvis of Tweed Excerpts

Tuesday 29th October 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

My Lords, this is a part of Africa in which the United Kingdom has interests in terms of the global combating of terrorism. There are strong diaspora communities across many parts of the United Kingdom, and UK access to key Red Sea trading routes is fundamental to our economy.

It is also an area where the UK has values. A thread throughout this debate has been the humanitarian crisis, which we discussed last week in the debate of my noble friend Lady Featherstone; in the debate of the noble Lord, Lord McConnell, on the sustainable development goals; and previously in the debate on Sudan, as the Minister said. I therefore thank the Minister for bringing this debate to the Chamber—a causal effect of the Question from the noble Lord, Lord Browne, which called for it. Now that I have learned how these things happen, I will not forget that lesson.

For at least a little part of this debate, we had packed Government Benches taking an interest in the Horn of Africa. That might be because of the outstanding contribution from the new Member, the noble Baroness, Lady Harman. As the noble Lord, Lord Browne, indicated, our having in this debate the two longest-serving female MPs in British history is a great credit to this House. I also hope that her choosing this debate to send her powerful message on FGM, along with her campaigning, means that we will see a reversal of the previous Administration’s cuts to global FGM support, in which case her contributions will have proved extremely powerful. Noble Lords can count me as a supporter of her work—even though I am having to adjust to being in a post-ambition part of my political career.

The MoU between Ethiopia and Somaliland is of importance, and I was glad that the Minister gave precedence to that. This is not some form of debate about a race for recognition or a glib idea that, because it had been part of a British colonial past, it deserves our recognition now. Sensitive diplomatic talks, brokered by Türkiye, are going on between Somalia and Ethiopia, which are of significance. There is no clear diplomatic breakthrough, and, as the noble Lord, Lord Browne, and my noble friend Lord Bruce indicated, the alternative to diplomatic work is fearful. Therefore, we have to guard against language such as “there could be a backlash”.

This is an area where, as we heard, there has been the worst famine and the greatest number of displaced people in a generation, and very sensitive geopolitical talks are happening that could lead in certain areas to tribal conflict. We should bear those aspects in mind, but we should not shy away from debating the issue.

The Ethiopia MoU potentially recognises Somaliland in return for Red Sea access, possibly both naval and commercial—it is not yet clear which is the most significant priority for Ethiopia. However, it is not just about the MoU; in August, Egypt and Somalia signed a military, security and defence pact, so the two should be considered together in terms of sensitivity.

That is why it is important to recognise that the neighbouring countries and Somalia as part of the African Union peacekeeping mission should be relevant for consideration as well. There are Ethiopian troops in Somalia as part of ATMIS. It is not just that these are neighbouring countries; there are troops in country. The mandate for ATMIS is up for renewal at the end of the year. Ethiopia has said that it may not want to be part of it but may seek to have Egypt fill a gap as far as potentially having troops as part of the AU force. What is the Government’s assessment on the continuation of ATMIS or an AU-sponsored force? Will it be likely to have a replenishment of the force capability? Are there other countries that could be troop-contributing countries?

I previously raised in the Chamber that the UK was the lead contributing donor country to ATMIS, with its primary mission supporting our combat against Al-Shabaab. I jotted down what the Minister said because I quite liked the slight bit of officialdom—that the UK was seeking a sustainable and broader-based source of funding. That may be true, but the reality is that this is to infill from the cuts from donor countries that have pulled away from it. Are we confident that the force will have a replenishment of its funding? As far as I understand, that is not clear yet. I hope that the UK will be a contributing factor to the successor of ATMIS. Will we seek the continuation of Resolution 2719 as far as any successor organisation is concerned? I am very clear that if there are any uncertainties, any divisions, any complexities, the potential victor will be Al-Shabaab.

I want to raise two wider aspects before closing, because this is an opportunity to talk about some elements of economic development too; it should not all be seen just through the lens of conflict. I want to touch on some elements of debt, because Somalia is a case study of how, on paper, debt restructuring and moving away from debt servicing costs can look good, but the net impact is not necessarily as beneficial as we would want it to be. Somalia has had a successful debt restructuring: a $4.5 billion debt relief from the IMF and the World Bank that reduced the debt ratio from 64% of GDP to 6% of GDP. On paper, that is outstanding, but health spending in Somalia has almost halved over this period.

I know that this is one of the Government’s priorities, but when we are validly debating ways of tackling debt servicing costs, how are we ensuring that, if that is happening, there is ultimately better investment in education and in health services? We have seen that, if we move purely towards private sector reissuing of bonds, if it is not through concessional rates then there is likely to be higher rates. We have seen it in neighbouring Kenya, where there was a reissuing of bonds and 11% interest rates, which have now fed through the entire economy, and we saw the tension recently within Kenya. I am going to copy the noble Lord, Lord Browne, in asking for a debate, so I hope that at some stage we may have an opportunity of discussing the wider aspect of debt and debt servicing, because I think that all parties are now seeking to be seized of this and it is a valid issue to discuss.

Finally, the Minister referred to Sudan. He was very generous with his time yesterday in meeting Abdalla Hamdok, the former civilian Prime Minister of Sudan and leader of Taqaddum, the civilian front, with me, for a discussion. Abdalla Hamdok is in London to take part in the FT summit. I hope that the debates that we are having in Parliament on Sudan will have increased focus and interest, which will spill out to the public.

I have been pursuing the Disasters Emergency Committee, which has three criteria for triggering an appeal. This is the world’s worst humanitarian crisis. It has told me that the third triggering element is not being met—that there is sufficient awareness among the public. That to me is a self-fulfilling prophecy, but if we can do anything in Parliament to say that we are aware and want to raise it, I think the great British public will be generous if there is an appeal for it. Therefore, I repeat publicly my appeal that we can trigger this. The priorities are perfectly clear: protection of civilians, for there to be a ceasefire, and a political process. The UK, as not only penholder but with the presidency of the Security Council come up is in the prime position.

I close by recalling that in 2012, when we debated Somalia in Parliament, there was a London summit on Somalia. I give credit to William Hague as Foreign Secretary, because we knew then that, if Somalia was going to fall foul of terrorism, weak neighbours, displaced people and hunger, that would have an impact on Britain. We used our convening power and we put effort into it, including diplomatic effort; we did it on focus and scale, we led up to it and delivered, and we had funding. Perhaps for the protection of civilians in Sudan, a London summit during the UK presidency of the Security Council might be the appropriate thing that we can do. I look forward to the Minister’s response.

Taiwan

Lord Purvis of Tweed Excerpts

Thursday 17th October 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

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

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

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

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

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

UN Sustainable Development Goals

Lord Purvis of Tweed Excerpts

Thursday 17th October 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

My Lords, I declare that I voluntarily chair the UK board of Search for Common Ground, which is a global peacebuilding charity delivering programmes supported by the UK Government. I am also an associate of Global Partners Governance, which focuses on strengthening representative institutions linked with sustainable development goal 17.

As others have, I commend the noble Lord, Lord McConnell, for securing this very important debate and for his tireless work in the all-party parliamentary group. Most recently, very early yesterday morning we had a session with Minister Dodds, who spoke with great passion about the Government’s commitment to the SDGs. This is an important debate. The SDGs were not in the Labour manifesto, so it is a good opportunity, early in the new Government’s term, for the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Collins, to outline the Government’s thinking on how they will be going forward, and to report back on the very valuable work he did at the United Nations in recent weeks.

My noble friend Lord Bruce commented on the number of speakers in this debate. I note that the next debate on VAT for private schools has more speakers than a debate on global poverty, but “quality rather than quantity” could perhaps be said of this debate. That debate is sandwiched by another very important debate this afternoon, regarding Ethiopia. So this is a good day for us to consider not only the global challenges, which have been discussed, but what the UK’s response should be.

My noble friend Lord Bruce also explained why it is important. It is in the strategic interests of the United Kingdom to restore our scale and reputation of partnership programming. The very essence of a liberal, rules-based international order, compared with a multi- polar world based around Beijing or Moscow, is in our defence, security, diplomatic and development priorities. The SDGs should be at the heart of that.

My noble friend Lady Northover, in her extremely powerful contribution, outlined the consequences of the approach of the climate emergency—food insecurity and resource conflict potentially displacing 200 million people. We know that in the UK we are not immune from the consequences of that. It is in our domestic interests that we work abroad.

As the noble Baroness, Lady Sugg, and my noble friend indicated, the greatest impact is on women and girls. The sustainable livelihoods that would be denied, and the lack of economic development for women and girls, will mean fewer trading partners and less sustainability for the UK. Therefore, all this should be at the heart of what we believe should be a feminist UK development policy.

Conflict was, quite rightly, one of the themes of this debate. There is a need for a concerted effort on prevention, even as the number of conflict areas in the world has grown. But conflict today is different from what it was. I note what the noble Lord, Lord Sahota, said about the consequences of colonialism, and I share many of his views. But, unfortunately, some elements of conflict are different from in the past: civilians are more actively targeted and there is hybrid warfare and access to resource conflict. One more recent development is that conflict is not solely about nationality or territory; often, it is now about profiteering and the UK should take a lead on the dark links between global finance and conflict.

I am glad that the noble Baroness, Lady Armstrong, “banged on” about volunteering. I declare that, earlier this year, I took part in a VSO visit to Cox’s Bazar and Dhaka. She is absolutely right—volunteering is not just a nice thing to do that helps the volunteer; it allows there to be networks of young people at the hard edge of peace and reconciliation work. I saw the programmes on climate action, young women’s sexual health and women’s economic development. That was in Bangladesh, where VSO has had programmes for 50 years. This has been a sustainable part of the UK’s relationship, regardless of the political circumstances, which can be complex and destabilising. So I hope the Minister will respond on the Government’s plans for the volunteering programme. It was welcome that the previous Government’s White Paper said that citizenship and volunteering would be brought back—although not at the scale there was under the coalition Government. I would be grateful to hear from the Government what the timing of that might be.

The 0.7% has been a constant element in many of the contributions, because it is not just what the UK’s policies for supporting the SDGs are; it is that we do it at scale. Over the period of the SDGs, very few countries have been able to deploy the level of resource that can have a global impact on their development. As the UK has pulled back by cutting our ODA by a third, we see the SDGs falling back. In many of the SDG areas, the UK was the principal funder—not just a contributory funder—and it was impossible to infill from other countries.

We heard that one of the worst impacts of the UK reneging on its obligation was that it gave some licence for other countries to cut and pull back too. This means that the cumulative impact has been even worse. We did that not in a calm and benign global environment but in the centre of a global crisis, with the climate emergency and a pandemic. The signal this sent to our development partners was terrible, especially since so many programmes specifically linked with delivery of the SDGs were cancelled mid-programme. ICAI showed the impact of this.

The noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Dillington, was right: one of the worst elements of not only the cuts but also of removing DfID was that we hollowed out a network of policy staff, especially in agriculture. The UK was not only a deliverer of programmes but in many areas a thought leader, and it supported policy-making in many countries that lack the capacity themselves. The running down of the humanitarian response fund also meant that the UK response to humanitarian crises over recent years has been weaker than in the preceding decade.

I am disappointed that the Government have chosen not to restore an independent development department and I am also disappointed that they are using, word for word, the same language on the restoration of 0.7% as the previous Government—when the fiscal rules apply. Gordon Brown increased ODA after the 2008 global crash. David Cameron and Nick Clegg delivered 0.7% while other budgets were cut. Meeting 0.7% is not a fiscal choice but a policy one. Indeed, it should not be a choice at all; it is a legal obligation, not just to meet 0.7% but, under the 2002 legislation, for Ministers to have the ability to “provide assistance” for the reduction of poverty in countries “outside the United Kingdom”. If Governments choose to renege on legislation, they should be up front and repeal it; they should not ignore it. The consequences of that reneging are huge, especially since, as we heard, for the first time in our country’s history more official development assistance was spent in the United Kingdom than overseas.

In 2015 we had a window of opportunity of political consensus at home and the ability to bring political consensus abroad. Given the existing dysfunction in the United Nations and the higher number of conflict areas and vulnerable states than a decade ago, I fear that we would not be able to agree the goals today. Therefore, if we fail to deliver them, we will not have an opportunity again. The UK must restore its ability for global leadership and development and do it at scale—it is urgent.

Ethiopia Famine: 40th Anniversary

Lord Purvis of Tweed Excerpts

Thursday 17th October 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

My Lords, I join with others in congratulating my noble friend and commending her on securing this debate. We are very proud to have her on our Benches, with her record as a Minister. She is a perfect example of what Ministers can do, even in a short period, with passion, persistence and dedication. I am pleased that she initiated this debate, which has allowed us to reflect on failure. There is an element of success, of course, but fundamentally, 40 years on, we still have enormous challenges. The global community is not living up to the required response.

My noble friend highlighted the power of the BBC and broadcasters, of what good journalism can do, and of the ability to shock and then galvanise a response from the public. But with conflict and climate-induced hunger and starvation, famine is now back in the Horn of Africa and, as we have heard, on the worst scale in 30 years. The public appeals are less clear and there is little action. As we heard in the debate on neighbouring Sudan, the conflict has brought about a humanitarian crisis deeper and broader than Ethiopia 40 years ago, but it does not even warrant a Disasters Emergency Committee appeal. It does not even trigger the lowest level of what the DEC might seek to gain public support. What a contrast between that and 40 years ago.

Another contrast with 40 years ago is that when there was famine in 1984, global GDP was $40 trillion. At the end of last year, global GDP was $140 trillion, but now we have the worst malnutrition in that 40-year period. The IDA of the World Bank is now struggling to have a replenishment that might even just simply stay static, not grow. The World Bank has indicated that the majority of developing nations still have not recovered from pre-Covid levels, when the richest countries in the world operated out of self-interest rather than good interest.

I, like many colleagues taking part in this debate, have been to Addis Ababa on a number of occasions—most recently just three weeks ago. I know that many Ethiopians today do not like references to 1984 and the perception of a country in need. I can understand this and have seen for myself many areas where development has been raised. I congratulate policymakers for this, but with conflict, neighbouring tensions, lack of food security, drought and flood—a combination of natural and manmade impacts—there are too many still in grave need in the area. Some might consider the climate-induced impact to be natural, but this is a region that contributes just 0.6% of the world’s greenhouse gases yet is most afflicted by the consequences of our pollution.

In his excellent contribution, the noble Lord, Lord Browne, gave the scale of the crisis. My noble friend Lord Oates quoted Michael Buerk, who said that in the camp he was in a child was dying every 20 minutes. The nutrition and hunger crisis in the wider Horn of Africa continues today unabated. During the short time of this debate, 200 children will die hungry.

In response to this crisis in the Horn of Africa, the previous Government cut UK assistance by 80%. It was impossible to infill from other donors, so it was an actual cut to the global response. In 2017 the Government provided £800 million to a famine that was less than it was last year, when the Government provided £156 million. When it comes to the famine prevention initiative, working with the G7, the UK pulled back. I would be grateful if the Minister could confirm the current Government’s position with regard to the famine prevention initiative. It is needed even more; we need to build on it, not retreat from it.

The noble Baroness, Lady D’Souza, in her excellent contribution cogently said that much of the crisis is manmade, and she is absolutely right. In her opening remarks, my noble friend said that the response to 1984 showed the best of humanity, but today we see the worst excesses of what man can do to man. But as we have heard, it is the girl and the woman who are the principal victims.

As a consequence of conflict and tensions around Egypt, Sudan, Ethiopia, Eritrea, Somalia and Somaliland, an increased number of people are now being smuggled from Metema in Ethiopia to eastern Sudan and, ultimately, trafficked towards Europe. The current situation in the Amhara region sees traffickers exploiting the conflict and crisis there.

As I indicated, the world is nearly four times richer than in 1984. Why is it that its leaders are not rising to the moment? Why is it that our public seem to be bored of seeing conflict? Why is it that they switch off? Policymakers seem to be cynical: as long as the growth of wealth is in the hands of those with power, they need not have the kind of response necessary for the crisis today.

This debate and the excellent one obtained by the noble Lord, Lord McConnell, in which we debated 0.7% and sustainable development goals, sandwiched a debate in which more Members of this House spoke on the charitable status of private schools than those who have spoken on conflict, global hunger and malnutrition. In the wonderful memoir of my noble friend Lord Oates, telling his story as a precocious 15 year-old seeking single-handedly to solve the issue, there is a short chapter with which, with great coincidence, I want to close. One of the elements that motivated him as a youngster was seeing on the telly stories of the European Community stocking food that could not be resold. He said:

“In a desperate attempt to dispose of the grotesque mountains of excess, these stocks were handed out to charities, and—thanks to their charitable status—the most exclusive schools in the country were among the happy recipients. Subsidised butter fed to the richest people in the land while millions faced starvation. Don’t tell me there weren’t things to be angry about”.


In my mind, this debate means that we still need to be angry. The Minister and the new Government with an enormous mandate—a historic mandate on which I congratulate them—have a historic opportunity. I very much hope that they do not squander it, that we do not repeat the mistakes we have made in recent years and that we respond, as we should as one of the richest countries in the world, with a moral heart.

Gaza and Lebanon

Lord Purvis of Tweed Excerpts

Wednesday 16th October 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

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

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

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

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

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

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

Lord Purvis of Tweed Excerpts

Tuesday 15th October 2024 Grand Committee

[Lord Vaux of Harrowden (CB)]

My Lords, I too welcome this SI, as far as it goes—in particular, the expansion of the sanctions regime against ships that are used to facilitate Russian oil exports, the so-called shadow tankers to which the noble Lord referred.

Could the Minister perhaps explain in a bit more detail what actual real-world impact that this will have on the number of shadow tankers that Russia uses and the amount of oil that Russia is currently able to export? I am slightly dubious as to how much real difference this will make, so I would be interested to know how it will work in reality. In particular, will this have any impact on the very dangerous ship-to-ship transfers that seem to be taking place off the coast of Greece, which are obviously an environmental disaster waiting to happen? The size of the shadow fleet is continuing to grow. I gather it is 70% bigger this year than it was last year. What other actions are we taking to deal with this problem?

There would not actually be a problem with the shadow tankers, if there were not countries ready and willing to take the Russian oil. That brings me to another loophole that Russia is using to keep its oil exports running and under which this country is still importing oil products that originate in Russia. The loophole is that, if Russian oil is refined in another country, it is no longer considered to have originated in Russia. As a result, third countries—in particular, China, India and Turkey—are buying large quantities of Russian crude, processing it and selling it on. India is now importing 13 times as much crude from Russia as it was before the war started.

Since Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, direct imports of Russian oil into the UK have fallen from about £4.5 billion a year to pretty much zero, which is a good result. But UK imports of refined oil products from India, China and Turkey have all risen quite significantly, to around £2.2 billion in 2023. A significant proportion of those will have originated in Russia. There is an estimate of 5.2 million barrels of Russian-originated oil having been imported into the UK in 2023, mostly for the aviation industry. Apparently, about one in 20 UK flights has used Russian-originated oil.

This laundering of oil through China, India and Turkey means that the UK is continuing to contribute, albeit indirectly, to Russia’s war coffers. Does the Minister recognise those figures and this problem? If he does not recognise those figures, how many Russian-originated oil products does he believe the UK is currently importing? What plans do the Government have to close the loophole? Given that a very big chunk of this comes through India, is this matter being taken into account in the trade agreement discussions with India?

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

My Lords, following the very valid points made by noble Lords in this short but important debate, I offer the Government support for this. The Government were caught by a timetabling aspect, with the Summer Recess and then the conference break, so it is positive that they have ensured that there will be some parliamentary scrutiny and the ability for Members to ask questions on these matters. We have just seen the value of raising these pertinent points.

The Minister will not be surprised that I support these measures. He and I have been in many debates—in fact, all the debates on the Russian sanctions when the noble Lord, Lord Ahmad, was the Minister—and there was consensus across the Committee. I will ask a few further questions that have not been asked so far, and will perhaps emphasise some of the points that have been made.

First, I return to the issue of enforcement. Not for the first time, the noble Lord, Lord Alton, asked questions that I was going to ask. I would be grateful if the Minister could give an update on the securing of frozen assets that could be put to good use by Ukraine in this conflict. The Minister was a doughty campaigner on Chelsea when he and I were asking the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, about this in the Chamber. An update would be very useful. Is it still the case that we need to change any of the legislative or administrative processes in the UK so that we can carry out the repurposing of frozen assets into secured assets that can be put to use, around which consensus was sought in the G7? Or is it the Government’s position that we look purely at the EU proposals on the interest of assets—or, if assets are sold, that we use some of that? An update would be useful.

I periodically monitor the website of the Office of Financial Sanctions Implementation, which is tasked with ensuring that the sanctions regimes we put in place in the UK are properly enforced and policed. It is interesting that only one enforcement for circumventing UK sanctions has been carried out this year, to the tune of £15,000; since 2022 and the full invasion of Ukraine, there have been only four, totalling £60,000. Given the scale of the impact of the sanctions regime that the previous and current Governments have indicated, is it the Minister’s view that this is an accurate reflection of how the sanctions are being enforced?

We could look at it in two ways: either there is circumvention and the enforcement is not effective; or the UK is remarkably good at getting all our businesses to adhere to all of the sanctions. There may be an element of truth in both, but what is the Government’s assessment? That speaks to the valid point made by the noble Lord, Lord Alton, about the opportunity for a fundamental review not just of the overall impact of the sanctions—including an assessment of the impact of the sanctions, given the fact that they are in place until we rescind them—but of their enforcement.

The second aspect I wish to ask about is the services provided, either those in the shadow fleets or those that can now be determined under the sanctions regimes. I strongly support the Government with regard to not only persons who are directly or indirectly in the enterprises or linked with the fleets but those providing financial services to them. Why have the Government taken the view that legal services are not included in that? We all know that London in particular is the home of many legal services that have been part of the grey area of advice when it comes to these sanctions. I would be grateful to hear whether the Minister has any comments on that. We would certainly be supportive of ensuring that there is no loophole when it comes to financial services that can be masked as legal services; we need to ensure that there is no loophole for that.

I also wish to pick up on the point about our support for those in the fleets as far as the oil or dual-use goods on the shipping are concerned, as well as with regard to our position on the countries where they are landed. The point was made eloquently that many of those are our trading allies. I know that the Government have previously had frank—I hope—conversations, but surely we are now beyond the point of having frank conversations; we need to be considering actions.

In that regard, I would be grateful if the Minister could comment on the news from the end of August that the United States is moving towards secondary sanctions on those operating on financial services in jurisdictions where it believes that the sanctions regimes are being circumvented. I believe that secondary sanctions on financial institutions would be effective; I would be grateful if the UK were part of that. Indeed, what is the Government’s current position on considering secondary sanctions? This is obviously a sensitive diplomatic area, but I believe that it is important.

Can the Minister address a question that I asked his predecessor on jurisdiction? I acknowledge that these measures are UK-wide but I asked previously about the overseas territories when it comes to shipping and potential licences that are exemptions to them. We know that, when certain tankers land in overseas territories, they can operate under a different regime. I would be grateful for clarification that they are also covered by these sanctions.

I wish to ask a minor question regarding limited exemptions. Obviously, we know that there should be the capacity for some kind of exceptions in the regulations, but, to prevent an exception becoming a loophole, can the Minister confirm that the exceptions in these sanctions are defined across the G7 and our partners, so that there is no distinction between exceptions under these sanctions and those in the United States or the European Union? If the Minister could respond to these points, I would be grateful.

My final point is that the Government have our full support in ensuring that there is as much consequence for the Russian war economy as possible. No UK entities, whether in the City of London, finance, shipping or insurance, should have any part in supporting the Russian war regime. We continuously support the Government to ensure that there are no limits to what we can do to ensure Ukraine’s support.

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

My Lords, there is a great degree of unanimity on this subject because I, too, very much welcome these regulations. I particularly welcome the Minister’s assurance that the United Kingdom will continue to stand with Ukraine. These sanctions will clamp down on Russia’s so-called shadow fleet by targeting 17 Russian oil tankers. I very much welcome this action because, no matter how sly and cunning Russia may seek to be, I am pleased to see that the United Kingdom and its partners will continue to sanction Putin’s Government appropriately.

However, this is, of course, very much a game of legislative whack-a-mole: every time we clamp down in one area, another seems to pop up. I am particularly interested in hearing the Minister’s reply to the excellent questions from the noble Lord, Lord Vaux. It seems blindingly obvious that India and Turkey, in particular, are circumventing these sanctions by helping Russia to “launder” its oil into the rest of the world. I hope that His Majesty’s Government are raising these matters at the highest level with the Indian and Turkish Governments. I would certainly be supportive of any further action that the Government take because it is very important that the Russian war machine, as the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, correctly described it, is clamped down on. We should target any entities in the UK or the overseas territories that are helping it to do this, either in these regulations or in future ones.

Having said that, although we fully support these regulations, I want to ask the Minister a couple of questions in consequence. The regulations allow the Government to take a similar approach to that of the US Government and implement asset freezes against actors engaging in what is otherwise lawful activity. The law firm Eversheds Sutherland has claimed that the expansion of the designation criteria

“has the potential to create a considerable burden on entities from a due diligence perspective”.

That could just be special pleading, but I would be interested to hear the Minister’s response. Eversheds Sutherland also claims that it

“will not be enough to rely on sanctions screening”

to comply with these regulations, and that the UK Government have

“potentially created significant challenges for UK … businesses”.

Can the Minister inform the Committee as to what steps have been taken to help UK businesses comply with the regulations? What level of due diligence is required?

On this point, a briefing published on 28 August by Eversheds Sutherland stated that no persons have been designated under the regulations, as has been made clear. Can the Minister confirm whether that is still the case?

As I said, we fully support these regulations. I ask these questions purely in the nature of wanting to see their enforcement be as effective as possible. I will continue to support the Government and to hope that they will go further, if necessary, so that any UK entities, companies or businesses involved in helping the Russian war machine face the strongest possible action. We support the Government in this, but I would welcome the Minister’s assurances and answers to some of the questions that have been asked.

--- Later in debate ---

In practice, this means that UK persons cannot engage in economic or financial activity with them, and that such a foreign entity cannot enter the UK. The US, for example, is able to impose sanctions outside its territory, but our sanctions do not do that. I can give examples, as the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, looks a bit—

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

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

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Lord Purvis of Tweed Excerpts

Tuesday 15th October 2024 Grand Committee

To conclude, the UK’s sanctions on Syria continue to send a clear message to the regime and its supporters that we will not stand by while they commit serious human rights abuses. These regulations ensure that the sanctions do not hinder humanitarian aid efforts. We will continue to work closely with the United Nations, like-minded states, humanitarian organisations and the financial sector to ensure that sanctions work in tandem with humanitarian efforts, and that the Assad regime, its allies and supporters bear responsibility for the devastation endured by the Syrian people. I commend these regulations to the Grand Committee.

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

I thank the Minister for highlighting what are, in many respects, the neglected humanitarian needs of Syrians in an ongoing crisis. I believe that this debate will be shorter and I will contribute to that by reducing what I say, but I want to ask the Minister a couple of questions, if I may.

First, I acknowledge that the humanitarian exceptions are necessary in times of conflict and when there are problems, but there are consequential sensitivities, especially when they are operating in militarily controlled areas. Obviously, under international humanitarian law those providing humanitarian aid have access rights, and those should not be impeded, but in many times of ongoing conflict or where there are belligerents who occupy territory, they operate in very complex and often dangerous circumstances. I acknowledge that the previous Government considered that this was justified and that the current Government accept it, but is it necessary to have further monitoring mechanisms on the expansion of these exceptions, when it comes to ensuring that they will not be misused by those who control the territory, or is the Minister satisfied that the current reporting mechanisms are sufficient?

Secondly, when it comes to the extension to “relevant persons”, I note that non-UK-based organisations have been within the scope of UK sanctions. It is interesting to compare that to what we heard in the previous debate. Are the Government able to outline what the category of “relevant persons” would be as regards the delivery of certain services, and are those humanitarian services different from what had previously been provided?

Finally, as the Minister knows, there are many displaced Syrians who require humanitarian assistance. Part of my concern is the many Syrians who are just across the border in Lebanon at the moment, including across the whole stretch of the Bekaa valley and up to the area of Baalbek-Hermel. Is this measure linked to providing humanitarian support to Syrians, who may be displaced outside the country, or does it apply only to the provision of humanitarian assistance within Syria?

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

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

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

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

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

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

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

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

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

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

Gibraltar-Spain Border Checks

Lord Purvis of Tweed Excerpts

Tuesday 15th October 2024 Lords Chamber

[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.