India-Pakistan: Escalation

Lord Collins of Highbury Excerpts

Wednesday 7th May 2025 Lords Chamber

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

My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat a Statement made in another place. The Statement is as follows:

“With permission, I will make a Statement on India and Pakistan. The whole House will have been closely following developments in recent weeks following the horrific terrorist attack in Pahalgam on 22 April that left 26 tourists dead. Last night, soon after 2100 British Summer Time, Indian forces launched missile strikes against nine sites in Pakistan and Pakistan-administered Kashmir. The Government of India have described their actions as

‘measured, non-escalatory, proportionate, and responsible’

and deliberately targeted at terrorist infrastructure. Following India’s actions last night, a military spokes- person for Pakistan has stated that 26 Pakistanis have died and 46 were injured, including civilians and children. At a meeting of their National Security Committee earlier today, the Pakistani Government have stated that they reserve the right to respond in a manner of their choosing.

This is an incredibly delicate moment in an evolving and fast-moving situation. As my right honourable friend the Prime Minister noted in Prime Minister’s Questions, rising tensions between India and Pakistan are a serious concern. The Government have been monitoring the situation closely and staying in close contact with all the key partners. Since the developments overnight, my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary has been in contact with Indian External Affairs Minister Jaishankar and Pakistani Deputy Prime Minister and Foreign Minister Dar. Our high commissioners in Delhi and Islamabad have also been in close contact with their hosts, and this morning I spoke to Pakistani Finance Minister Aurangzeb. The Foreign Secretary has also been co-ordinating closely with other partners, notably the United States and in the Gulf.

Our consistent message to both India and Pakistan has been to show restraint. The United Kingdom has a close and unique relationship with both countries. It is heartbreaking to see civilian lives being lost. If this escalates further, nobody wins. We clearly condemned the horrific terrorist attack last month—the worst such attack in Indian-administered Kashmir for many years, but now we need all sides to focus urgently on the steps needed to restore regional stability and ensure the protection of civilians. The United Kingdom will continue to work closely with our international partners in pursuit of short-term de-escalation and longer-term stability. The Foreign Secretary will have a chance to discuss the situation with EU Foreign Ministers in Warsaw today. He and the whole Government will stay in close touch with the Governments of India and Pakistan, as well as those with influence in the region.

De-escalation is of the utmost importance, not least given the large number of British nationals in the region. The safety of British nationals will always be our priority. Overnight, we issued factual updates to our travel advice for both India and Pakistan, updating British nationals on military activity and potential disruption to flights in the region. British nationals in India and Pakistan should stay up to date with our travel advice and follow the advice of local authorities.

I am acutely aware that for many communities across the United Kingdom, and Members across this House, this is a very personal and sensitive situation. The British-Pakistani and British-Indian communities make a huge contribution to this country. We recognise that this will be a very difficult time for many. We look to all community and faith leaders to spread a message that now is a time for coming together across religious and ethnic differences. We now need to see calm heads. Britain will continue to play our full part for de-escalation and diplomacy. I commend this Statement to the House”.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Northover (LD)]

My Lords, I also thank the Minister for repeating the Statement in the House. Reports of Indian military strikes against locations in Pakistan-administered Kashmir and Pakistan, as well as shelling by Pakistan, are indeed very alarming. Particularly as we have here two nuclear powers, it becomes even more vital that India and Pakistan de-escalate the current crisis and avoid engaging in further action. Maintaining open lines of communication is clearly vital. Can the Minister spell out what further engagement the UK Government plan with these Governments and with other partners, including the UN, to help maintain an open dialogue between them and to support international attempts at mediation? Once again, violence is not the answer.

The murder of 26 people was indeed horrific, and every effort must be made to bring the gunmen to justice. Terrorists have an interest in destabilising both sides, and that is why it is vital to engage with the leaders on both sides, so I would like to know more about how the Government are working to support that open dialogue between India and Pakistan. I know that it has been very difficult over the years, but, specifically, how are the Government working alongside international partners to encourage New Delhi to reverse its suspension of the Indus Waters Treaty, and how are the Government working with Islamabad to agree to reopen its airspace to Indian-owned airlines? What else can the international community do to help stabilise relations now? Can the Minister fill in more detail about what is being done to support British citizens in the area?

The Government also need to ensure that all those of Indian and Pakistani descent living in the United Kingdom are fully supported. For many, the latest escalations will be of grave concern to them and their families. How are the UK Government working to support these communities in the wake of recent escalation? As the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, just mentioned, there is a risk that social media disinformation may inflame matters here. How is that being monitored and addressed? Can the Minister spell out what the Government are doing?

We indeed face so many conflicts—Ukraine, the Middle East, which we have just discussed, and Sudan—so many global challenges; therefore, everything must be done to stop this escalating into yet another. I look forward to the Minister’s reply.

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

I thank the noble Baroness and the noble Lord for their contributions. Our message is very clear: regional stability is in the interests of both India and Pakistan. If this escalates further, nobody wins, as the noble Baroness said, and all are at risk. We encourage both countries to engage in effective dialogue and find a swift and lasting diplomatic route to maintain support.

The Prime Minister set out earlier today that rising tensions between India and Pakistan will be, as the noble Baroness acknowledged, a serious concern to many across the United Kingdom. We are engaging urgently with both countries and with other international partners, encouraging dialogue, de-escalation and the protection of civilians. The Prime Minister has been in touch with Prime Minister Modi, as the Deputy Prime Minister has with Prime Minister Sharif. The Foreign Secretary continues to be in touch with his counterparts in both countries, and with the US and France, to encourage dialogue, avoid further escalation on all sides and ensure the protection of civilians. We are taking that dialogue, including through the United Nations. Civilians must be protected. We urge India and Pakistan to respect international humanitarian law. The loss of civilian life is tragic. I am deeply saddened by the news of casualties and offer my condolences to the families who have lost loved ones.

The noble Baroness asked about efforts to support British nationals. Protecting our citizens is the first duty of any Government and the safety of British nationals in the region remains our priority. The FCDO continues to monitor developments closely and stands ready to support any British nationals 24/7. As the Foreign Secretary outlined at the International Relations and Defence Committee last week, British nationals in the region should follow the FCDO’s travel advice for the country that they are in, along with the advice of local authorities. We issued factual updates to the travel advice for India and Pakistan overnight. This included details of the disruption of flights to and from India and the Indian Government’s announcement of a civil defence mock drill on 7 May in several states. This drill may include temporary power cuts or blackouts and the suspension of mobile signals. For Pakistan, airspace restrictions may be announced or changed at short notice. British nationals should contact their airline for up-to-date information.

The noble Lord and the noble Baroness both raised the rising tensions between India and Pakistan, which, as the Prime Minister set out earlier today, will be of serious concern for many across Britain. My colleagues in the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government continue to liaise with the diaspora communities here. My noble friend Lord Khan has been committed to this. He is also arranging for parliamentary engagement meetings to ensure that MPs and Peers will be fully aware of what we are doing. Last week we emphasised, when the right reverend Prelate asked a question, that we are focusing on ensuring that all faith leaders are involved in this to address those tensions through building community cohesion.

The noble Lord raised security, which is of deep concern to India and Pakistan. Minister Falconer set out earlier today our concern about the deteriorating security situation in Pakistan. The United Kingdom and Pakistan have a shared interest in countering terrorism, which is impacting our neighbours. We are committed to working together to combat that terrorist threat. The noble Lord will appreciate that I will not go into details about that, but he can rest assured that we are very concerned and are doing everything that we can to address that issue.

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)]

My Lords, I declare an interest as someone who has heritage from India and Pakistan. I always joke on what is a serious issue that, with my wife’s heritage from Pakistan and mine predominantly from India, we have made it work, so I am sure that the two countries can as well.

In all seriousness, we are on the brink. We have seen not just an escalation but the amassing of troops. That is very evident on the Indian side in my mother’s home region of Rajasthan. My question is specific. I agree totally with the Government’s position. I heard Minister Falconer’s Statement about ratcheting down the tensions and de-escalation. However, this is a frozen conflict. We must ensure that we get to where we were before. We have been there with former Prime Minister Vajpayee and Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif, whose brother is currently Prime Minister in Pakistan. Peace is possible. A lasting peace can be on the horizon. However, once we have ratcheted down the current tensions, God willing, will the Government be committed and use every lever—diplomatic and through back channels—to ensure that the momentum from ratcheting down the current tension results in a lasting, sustainable and final peace in India, Pakistan and, importantly, in Kashmir?

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

The noble Lord and I have discussed these issues many times. His Government and this Government are at one on de-escalation and stable relationships being the priority. From those stable relationships come the opportunity to address a longer-term solution. As he rightly says, it is a solution that India and Pakistan must address themselves while taking into account the wishes of the Kashmiri people.

[Lord Mohammed of Tinsley (LD)]

My Lords, I welcome the Minister’s Statement and agree that it has been heartbreaking to see the loss of Kashmiri lives on both sides of the line of control. I declare an interest as I am from Kashmir and my brother-in- law is in Chakswari, a town which is just down the valley from one of the towns that was hit, Kotli, so it is personal for me. We as a family are praying for his safe return to the United Kingdom with his son.

I want to press the Minister on how we de-escalate. The Indus Waters Treaty, negotiated with the World Bank in the 1960s, gave Pakistan access to the water from the three northern rivers and India from the three southern rivers. Can the Government ask New Delhi to return to it? It is really important; water is essential for human life. I also want the Government to call on Pakistan to open up Pakistani airspace for Indian airlines. Those two actions jointly will help to calm the situation. We cannot have tension in the streets. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Ahmad, about community tensions. We cannot see what we saw in Leicester, where groups of young men from both communities were at each other’s throats. Any attack on any high commission in London should be condemned. I hope that the Minister can answer the questions about the Indus Water Treaty and the airspace for Indian airlines.

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lord for those questions. He is right. Last week, in addressing an Urgent Question, we covered the water treaty and appealed for it not to be disrupted. As he says, access to water is fundamental to human life. I understand his point about airspace. Any action by both Governments that can de-escalate and create that opportunity for a return to stable relationships is important.

All our diplomatic efforts are to ensure that de-escalation, which I know my honourable friend Minister Falconer stressed earlier today, and we are working through all possible channels to deliver that message. The noble Lord is also right to focus on community cohesion, and we will focus on that, too. It is not just the Government’s voice; we need to ensure that all community leaders and faith leaders can embrace that call. I welcome his comments very much.

[Lord Walney (CB)]

My Lords, the final report from my noble friend Lord Austin on the tensions and violence in Leicester in 2023 is obviously still awaited, but can the Minister reassure the House that officials across government and locally in those regions have been able to apply lessons from what happened in 2023 to ensure the greatest possible resilience and outreach between communities and no repeat of that violence?

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

I agree with the noble Lord. All government departments, particularly my colleagues in the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, are absolutely focused on learning the lessons of the past, and I think they will be very aware of his comments. The current situation is such that we need to do more: we need to call on all community leaders and faith leaders to stress the importance of de-escalation and working together as good neighbours in the United Kingdom, which I think can have a positive impact on the relationships between the two countries concerned.

[Lord Ranger (Con)]

My Lords, through the Minister, I request the Prime Minister to exercise his influence in bringing some sense into India and Pakistan. They are developing countries. They have very limited resources, which their people need. We cannot have wars. There are no winners. Lots of innocent lives are lost on both sides. I am also mindful of the effect that it will bring to the United Kingdom, where there are two large communities of Indian and Pakistani origin. They have one country and King and, as a result, they should be one. Therefore, the escalation of war will not do any good to us in this country or in many other countries where large diasporas from Pakistan or India are settled. Therefore, it is paramount for our own interest and our own community cohesion that we exercise pressure on those countries that, for the greater good of humanity, they should stop and work on the peace, because there are no winners in the war.

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

The noble Lord is absolutely right. As I said at the beginning, if the situation escalates further, nobody wins. I reassure him, as I think I said in my other responses, that the Prime Minister, the Deputy Prime Minister, the Foreign Secretary and the Minister are focused on one objective, which is to ensure dialogue and de-escalation. He is also right to focus on the fact that there is a dividend for peace, which is about economic growth and serving the peoples of both countries.

[Lord Camoys (Con)]

My Lords, I remember almost as if it were yesterday the deeply sobering briefing I received before I was posted by the Foreign Office to New Delhi at the beginning of 2004 about just how dangerous the conflict between India and Pakistan had become in the preceding year. Everyone’s efforts at that time were focused on urgently de-escalating both sides, and it is essential that cool heads prevail again now. The international community then played an essential role to make sure both sides realised just how serious the situation was getting and de-escalated. I am very grateful for the Minister’s Statement and everything that he is doing. Can he reassure us that we and our allies will be providing the same role again? This could so very easily get out of hand.

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

I agree absolutely with the noble Lord. I think Minister Falconer made clear in the other place our commitment to do just that and work with our allies. At all levels of government, and from the Prime Minister, Deputy Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary, we are committed to doing that, working with our allies through all channels possible. It is about trying to ensure that we maintain that situation where both sides start talking rather than taking other action.

[Lord Goodman of Wycombe (Con)]

My Lords, in respect of local leadership here in Britain, there is a very large number of local councillors of Indian origin, Pakistani origin and, indeed, Kashmiri origin, from all political parties. Can the Minister tell the House what conversations he has had with his colleagues in the communities department about employing them to help ease the tensions at this extremely difficult time?

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

I think it is the other way around: my noble friend Lord Khan spoke to me today about his efforts and his work. We had quite a detailed exchange last week following an Urgent Question where we talked about how we needed to focus on community cohesion and working together. My noble friend is working through local councils, liaising with them and faith leaders. I know that our special envoy is also working with local communities. It is important that we see it not just as a government responsibility; local councils, faith leaders and community leaders all have a responsibility to focus on this.

Middle East Update

Lord Collins of Highbury Excerpts

Wednesday 7th May 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Northover (LD)]

My Lords, I shall address the Statement that was made in the Commons and that has just been, in effect, repeated in the Lords. It addresses the announcement made by the Israeli Prime Minister that the

“Israeli Security Cabinet has approved a plan to expand and intensify Israel’s military operations in Gaza”.—[Official Report, Commons, 6/5/25; col. 578.]

That will be my focus, because it was the focus of the Statement.

The Government have pointed out that Hamas will not be defeated by military means and have expressed “outrage” at actions of the Israeli Government. Israel has violated the deal with Hamas by imposing a siege and refusing to start phase 2 of the deal. That siege has lasted 65 days. UNRWA says that nearly 3,000 aid trucks have been prevented from entering Gaza. The World Food Programme has announced that its food stocks in Gaza have been completely depleted, and the Statement refers to those points. Does the Minister agree that Israel imposing a siege on Gaza and preventing humanitarian aid coming in constitutes collective punishment of a civilian population, which is illegal under international law? Israel’s Finance Minister has now said that Gaza will be “totally destroyed”. Does the Minister condemn that statement?

The Government in their Statement say that 52,000 people have already been killed, and others have estimated that it is higher. Around 90% of the population of Gaza has been displaced at least once; many have been displaced multiple times. Israel says that it plans to take over the distribution of humanitarian aid to Gaza at hubs controlled by its military. The UN has criticised this as a violation of global humanitarian principles, and its agencies will not participate. What action will the Government take here?

One hundred and five hostages, taken in violation of international law and in appalling violence, were released in November 2023 and 33 during the latest deal period. That is why the Israeli hostage families argue that negotiations have had far greater success in securing the release of hostages than military action. It is welcome that the Government say that Hamas will not be defeated by military means. That is surely right.

Following President Trump’s repeated comments, will the Minister confirm that Gaza is for the Palestinians, and that it must be rebuilt and liberated for the Palestinians? What actions are the Government taking to ensure that Israel adheres to international humanitarian law in Gaza and immediately ceases indiscriminate attacks on civilians, protected workers such as aid workers and journalists, and protected infrastructure such as schools and hospitals?

It is essential that we ensure that no UK weapons can be used to perpetrate human rights abuses in Gaza. With the resumption of Israeli strikes on Gaza, does the Minister agree that the UK must now move urgently to suspend all arms sales to Israel?

Israel is continuing its military invasion of West Bank cities. This included tanks in the city of Jenin for the first time in 20 years. According to the UN, it has displaced 40,000 Palestinians who, according to the Israeli Defence Minister, will not be allowed to return for at least a year.

The US, UK and other European Governments have condemned the continued expansion of illegal settlements, but over 250 illegal settlements have been built across the West Bank, now with over 700,000 settlers. Given Israel’s refusal to withdraw its illegal settlements in line with the advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice, when will the Government take action to stop the continuation of these violations of international law? Can the Minister explain how massive Israeli settlement expansion is in any way aligned with the Government’s stated goal of a two-state solution?

The Minister will know that his colleague in the other place, although condemning what was happening, found that MPs were not satisfied with the level of action the Government were taking. Across the House, that concern was expressed. Therefore, does he not agree that the Government must now join almost 150 other states in recognising a Palestinian state? Surely some hope should be offered that they have rights that must be respected. We need to move forward: the two-state solution, living side by side in security for both states, and prosperity. I look forward to the Minister’s response.

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

I thank the noble Lord and the noble Baroness for their contributions and questions. I start with the points from the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, about Iran and Syria. Iran continues to destabilise the region through its political, financial and military support for partners and proxies, including Hezbollah and Hamas. We have been clear that it must cease this support. Long-term peace and security in the Middle East cannot be achieved without addressing Iran’s destabilising activities. President Pezeshkian has spoken about greater engagement with the West. For this to succeed, Iran needs to end that destabilising behaviour.

The collapse of the Assad regime has certainly weakened Iran and its so-called axis of resistance. A Syrian-led and owned political transition process, leading to an inclusive, non-sectarian and representative Government, is vital, and that is what we are aiming to support in terms of Syria. Our diplomatic efforts are to ensure that we judge the new Government by their actions and not simply their words.

Last week, at the UN Security Council, I had the opportunity to meet briefly the new permanent representative from Syria. I made these points very strongly: that we are committed to support a new Syria, focused particularly on economic growth, that can actually deliver for the people of Syria.

As the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, focused on, the main part of the Statement was in relation to the Israel-Gaza situation and the Occupied Territories. I will be absolutely clear, as my honourable friend in the other place was very clear: the United Kingdom opposes an expansion of Israel’s military operations in Gaza. Continued fighting is in nobody’s interests, and we urge all parties to return urgently to talks, implement the ceasefire agreement in full, release the hostages and work towards a permanent peace and security for Israelis and Palestinians. It is absolutely important that the remaining hostages are released and the way to return them safely is through a deal.

To reassure the noble Baroness, Palestinian territory must not be reduced in the conduct of this war. There must be no forced displacement of people from Gaza. A two-state solution remains the only path to a just and lasting peace.

I wish to reassure the noble Baroness on our Government’s actions. I hear what she said about the discussions in the other place, but, as a Government, we have been absolutely focused on this. The Foreign Secretary has spoken to the US Secretary of State Marco Rubio, the US Special Envoy Steve Witkoff, the Israeli Foreign Minister Gideon Sa’ar, the Israeli Minister of Strategic Affairs Ron Dermer, the EU High Representative Kaja Kallas and the UN Emergency Relief Coordinator Tom Fletcher. The Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary hosted the Palestinian Authority Prime Minister Mohammad Mustafa on 28 April in London and signed a landmark memorandum of understanding, underpinning our strategic partnership and reaffirming our absolute commitment to a two-state solution.

On 23 April, together with France and Germany, the Foreign Secretary issued a joint statement calling on Israel immediately to restart the flow of aid into Gaza, reiterating our outrage at recent strikes by Israeli forces on humanitarian personnel. I also gave a statement to the UN Security Council on 28 April in which I pressed for a ceasefire, the release of hostages, an end to the block on aid and a path to long-term peace. We are putting all our diplomatic efforts into that.

I say to the noble Baroness that our commitment to a two-state solution is unwavering. We are committed to recognising a Palestinian state, at a time that has the most impact in achieving this reality and is most conducive to long-term prospects for peace. We are clear that that does not need to be at the end of the process. In New York, I spoke to the French Foreign Minister and committed this Government’s full support to the two-state solution conference that will be held in June. These are the ingredients of the pathway to delivering the two-state solution, working with our allies. We should take the opportunity to build on the Arab plan for Gaza’s future and develop a credible security and governance plan that is acceptable to both Israel and the Palestinians. We must seize that opportunity. I make it clear to the noble Lord—I have repeated this on many occasions—that there is no role for Hamas in that future Gaza situation, or in a Palestinian state that is recognised by the international community.

We are appalled by Israel blocking aid when it is needed at greater volume and speed than ever before. Israel has now blocked aid for over 50 days, and it is obligated under international law to facilitate humanitarian assistance by all means at its disposal. We stand ready to work alongside Israel, the UN and our partners to assist. But as the UN said, it is hard to see how, if implemented, the new Israeli plan to deliver aid through private companies would be consistent with humanitarian principles and meet the scale of the need. We need urgent clarity from the Israeli Government on their intentions in this regard.

I have reported before on our announced package of support for the Occupied Palestinian Territories, including £101 million for humanitarian aid and support for Palestinian economic development. We have been absolutely clear that the extension of settlements is illegal under international law. I hope that my comments reassure both the noble Lord and the noble Baroness that we remain absolutely committed to seeking a solution that protects the interests of the State of Israel but also advances the cause of the Palestinian people.

[Baroness Morris of Bolton (Con)]

My Lords, I declare my interests as set out in the register. I very much thank the Minister for his comments and the Government for their support. The Government are absolutely right to oppose the expansion of Israel’s operation in Gaza and to question how the Israeli Government’s aid plan is consistent with humanitarian principles. According to OCHA, the design of the plan will leave the less mobile and most vulnerable without supplies. Can the Minister ensure that the UK Government put pressure on the Israeli Government not only to drop these proposals but to withdraw their parallel plans to ban humanitarian agencies, including those providing vital medical assistance, if they call for justice or accountability? Those agencies and their dedicated staff have years of experience treating Palestinians with compassion and respect, and the international community should insist that aid from them flows freely and without threat or impediment.

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

The noble Baroness is absolutely right. We have been focused on ensuring that agencies are allowed to deliver aid. When we last considered this matter, I made it clear that we were ready and willing—with all agencies, not just UNRWA—to ensure that we can get aid in when this block by Israel is lifted. We are ready to do that, but we are also working very hard diplomatically to ensure that Israel allows aid to get to the people who are most in need.

I did not address the question raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, on the export of arms and international humanitarian law. This Government have suspended relevant licences for the IDF that might be used to commit or facilitate serious violations of international law in Gaza. Of the remaining licences for Israel, the vast majority are not for the Israeli Defense Forces but for civilian purposes or re-export and are therefore not used in the war in Gaza. The only exception is the F35 programme, due to its strategic role in NATO and the wider implications for international peace and security. Any suggestion that the United Kingdom is licensing other weapons for use by Israel in the war in Gaza is misleading.

[Lord Turnberg (Lab)]

My Lords, the situation in Gaza is truly horrendous, but Hamas must bear some responsibility for that. Indeed, the Gazan population is rising up against Hamas saying just that. I will briefly address the situation regarding aid. In view of the suggestion that Hamas purloined much of the aid that used to go in and sold it off to the suffering citizens at a profit, what is the Government’s view of Israel’s proposal—which must be taken seriously—to deliver the aid through aid hubs, arranging for it to be delivered directly to the people who really need it? That, surely, must be a way forward and should be greeted positively rather than negatively, if it can be expanded.

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

I thank my noble friend for his question, which I tried to address in my opening comments to the Front Benches opposite. The scale of the problem is such that it requires all agencies and NGOs to get in and deliver the aid needed—it is huge. As I said, the United Nations itself has said that it is hard to see how, if implemented, the new Israeli plan to deliver aid through private companies would be consistent with humanitarian principles and, most importantly, meet the scale of need. By the way, I say to my noble friend that I am absolutely clear about Hamas’s responsibility and the criminal acts it has committed, and that is why we see no role for it in a future Gaza.

[Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)]

My Lords, does the Minister recognise that the June conference that the French seem to be planning to convene, along with the Saudis, offers an opportunity to move forward on the two-state solution? Does he agree that our position would be much more credible if it were that, should the two-state solution negotiations not end but begin again, everyone who goes to that conference, including the UK, Israel, Saudi Arabia and Palestine, should recognise each other and get rid of the recognition issue? That idea was put forward in the Private Member’s Bill of the noble Baroness, Lady Northover. The Foreign Office should have had time—quite a few weeks—to consider it by now, and I would like to hear what its response is. Then, the negotiations on a two-state solution should concentrate on the crucial issues such as Jerusalem, the boundaries, security and refugees. They might take a very long time to conclude, but we would at least have removed from the table the issue of recognition and we would be in a better place.

Can the Minister also share with the House anything that the Government have been able to glean about the two rounds of negotiations between the United States and Iran over its nuclear programme?

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

To answer the latter point, I am afraid that I am not able to give the noble Lord any further information in relation to those discussions. When the French Foreign Minister was chairing the Security Council and we had the discussion on Gaza, I made it absolutely clear that France’s leadership in preparing for the conference in June has been vital. We want to make our full contribution in moving forward towards a two-state solution. Of course, we have been in touch with all key partners in the run-up to the conference. We should take the opportunity to ensure that we build on the Arab plan for Gaza’s future.

I repeat that we have been absolutely clear that we will recognise a Palestinian state at a time when it is most conducive to delivering that two-state solution. I am not going to predict the outcome of the June conference or what our position will be, but our absolute commitment to it is about how we best achieve it on a sustainable footing.

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)]

My Lords, I draw attention to my interests in the register. Conferences themselves will not solve the issue. People are dying in Gaza and hostages continue to be held. The Government in which I served had direct engagement on the ground and the Minister knows that we used every lever, including through sanctions. It is important that aid is delivered not just through land routes but air routes, working with key neighbouring partners and people within the Israeli Government and institutions who understand what is going on. In the Talmud, the Jewish scripture, it says that saving a single life is like saving the whole world. There are many in Israel and that region who want to ensure that the suffering of the people of Gaza ends now and the hostages are brought home. Conferences have their place, but we need action right now.

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

I agree with the noble Lord. On one of the many occasions when I was challenging him as the Minister about ensuring access to aid, he said that airlifts and sea routes are all possible, but the main thing to deliver the scale of aid is opening those road routes with trucks. We are absolutely ready. We have got those trucks full, we are ready to deliver that aid, and we need the Israeli Government to ensure that they can have that access. We are putting every bit of diplomatic pressure, with our allies, to ensure that they do this. I accept that action is not about talking, it is about persuading.

[Baroness Blackstone (Lab)]

My Lords, I welcome much of the Minister’s response to what the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, said about the appalling, massive expansion of the war in Gaza, although I was a little disappointed by his response on recognising Palestine as a state, which is now urgent.

I raise a slightly different issue: the Knesset is now taking steps which will destroy Israeli NGOs’ work to hold their Government to account for their cruel and inhumane treatment of Palestinian civilians. The change in the law being proposed threatens to destroy these NGOs and in doing so will deny Israeli civil society their voices. Can the Minister say what steps the Government will take to try to stop this happening, so that independent monitoring and holding to account by NGOs can continue?

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

My noble friend makes a very good point, and she is well aware of both my personal and this Government’s commitment to supporting civil society in all contexts. We have been pressing diplomatically. A lot of legislation has gone through the Knesset which still is not being implemented. We are absolutely clear that there should be no impediment to NGOs and civil society delivering that support and aid that are so desperately needed in both Gaza and the occupied West Bank.

[Baroness Helic (Con)]

My Lords, according to OCHA, more than 13,000 children have been killed and an estimated 25,000 have been injured since the terror attack in October 2023. I welcome the Government’s decision to allow two children from Gaza to come to the United Kingdom for specialist treatment under Project Pure Hope. Can the Minister confirm whether the Government intend to accept more children needing urgent medical intervention or specialist care?

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

I am unable to confirm that, but I think the noble Baroness knows that we have been absolutely committed to trying to ensure that medical support and aid are delivered, either through the mobile units that we have been funding, through neighbouring countries or, in the case the noble Baroness mentioned, by bringing children here. The most important thing is how we can get immediate medical treatment for them, and that is what we are focused on.

[Baroness Goudie (Lab)]

My Lords, I accept the Minister’s Statement and thank him very much for all he has done, but at the same time we need to look at the local community. I have asked this before. We have seen no pictures of women on the television at any of the peace talks, whether in America, Saudi Arabia or anywhere. It has just been pictures of men and there have been no answers to the issues that affect women. There has been nothing about how the peace is going to be dealt with or about education, health and where people will go while their parts of the world are being rebuilt—if there is anywhere for them to go. At the moment it is all just about the peace, but nothing about how the peace is going to be, who are going to be the peacekeepers on the ground, and how we are going to deal with the question of America, which does not believe in sexual violence in conflict any more and is not willing to look at women at the peace table either. I would like an undertaking from the Government that they will ensure—as we have been promised before—that we will have women there, abide by what we have agreed before, and tell the Americans this.

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

I thank my noble friend. As she knows from previous debates, we are absolutely committed to women, peace and security. Our new Special Envoy for Women and Girls, the noble and learned Baroness—

[Noble Lords]

Harman!

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

—Lady Harman. I nearly said “Hayman”. She and I were both at the Commission on the Status of Women at the United Nations, and we focused on this agenda: how you ensure that when talking about peace you include and embrace women in those processes. Certainly, the support we have been giving to the Palestinian Authority is focused on that too. When the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary met Prime Minister Mustafa of the Palestinian Authority, we were focused on that delivery. But, of course, until we get that ceasefire agreement implemented and that necessary humanitarian aid in, it is very difficult to do much more.

[Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)]

My Lords, the Minister will be aware that over 1.7 million tonnes of aid have been delivered in Gaza and that under Article 23 of the Fourth Geneva Convention, aid can be restricted when it is known that it has been seized by enemy forces. Anyone who has been to Kerem Shalom crossing, as I have, will know that the aid is being stolen by Hamas for its own advantage. The Minister has quite rightly said there is no role for Hamas in the future of a potential state of Palestine, but at the same time, he is urging Israel to sit down and negotiate with, I assume, Hamas. What steps are the Government taking to find moderate groups of people, to reach out to them, to encourage them to try to create some civic society and get them to the negotiating table, because they are the only interlocutors who can reach an agreement that would be acceptable to all parties?

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

I suspect that there are people in the State of Israel who share some of those commitments. Of course, we very much welcomed President Trump’s and the US’s involvement in achieving that ceasefire agreement. Let us not forget that the Government of Israel signed a ceasefire agreement. It is a fact that Hamas has broken some of it, but I am not taking sides; I am saying that both sides have an agreement, so let us ensure that they both return to the table and stick to that agreement so we can get a ceasefire and get the aid in as necessary.

I hear what the noble Lord says about aid being stolen by Hamas and others, but the simple fact is— I mentioned this before—that the scale of the problem is so huge that we need to use every mechanism to get aid in. It has been very serious, and I think all noble Lords from all sides of the House recognise the humanitarian crisis that now exists in Gaza.

[Lord Dodds of Duncairn (DUP)]

My Lords, one of the single most important steps that could be taken immediately, which would help to end the suffering and bring an end to all the violence that we are seeing, would be the release of the hostages, so what are the Government doing, along with our partners, to put pressure on Hamas to release the hostages? Why do they think the hostages remain in captivity, both dead and alive?

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

I think I have made it clear to the House, and I repeat to the noble Lord, that we have been absolutely clear that the remaining hostages must be released, and the way to do that is through the deal that was agreed. That is really important. We have been speaking to all our allies and partners to ensure that they too are putting pressure on both parties to ensure a return to the negotiating table to stick to the ceasefire agreement so that we can get the hostages released. The noble Lord is absolutely right that that is the way forward; it is important that they are released, and they are a priority, but it is also a priority to ensure that we get that humanitarian aid in to support the people of Gaza as, after all, the women and children who have been killed are not responsible for holding the hostages.

[Baroness Berger (Lab)]

My Lords, the long-term path to peace in the Middle East and securing the two-state solution that my noble friend spoke so passionately about will come only from the bottom up in civil society by changing and supporting attitudes among Israelis and Palestinians towards coexistence. In this spirit, what update can my noble friend the Minister provide on UK support for the International Fund for Israeli-Palestinian Peace?

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

I am afraid I cannot give my noble friend an up-to-date report but, as she knows, I have worked with a number of noble friends and across the House to ensure that community-building efforts that have been incredibly successful, particularly in terms of developing youth employment and developing enterprises, all help contribute to building that peaceful coexistence. But unless we address that fundamental issue about the situation in Gaza, we will be unable to make the sort of progress that she and I both desire.

[Baroness Deech (CB)]

My Lords, it is a sad coincidence that this Statement is followed by one on India-Pakistan. Both situations are ones where this country was responsible for dividing land in a way that was unsuitable and crude, which has led to trouble ever since, and to migration and displacement.

As far as recognition of Palestine goes, I am afraid that India-Pakistan is a sad instance of how recognition does not solve a historic, millennia-old division between two peoples. I do not have a solution, but I will say this: over 100 other countries already recognise Palestine; it has made no difference whatever. I do not know why, but it does not make a difference because, as the noble Baroness, Lady Berger, said, it takes more than that. If there is to be recognition and peace, it has to start with education, of the Palestinian population in particular. UNRWA teaches children to hate. It teaches them that one day they will return and overrun Israel. Until the Palestinians accept history—that there is no going back and no right of return—no amount of recognition, especially coming from this country with its particular responsibility, will help. I call on the Minister to dial down the temperature by talking about peaceful education and by not always challenging Israel on everything it says, in particular in relation to the figures of casualties, where Hamas’s word is always taken and Israel’s is not.

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

I have written to the noble Baroness on a couple of occasions in response to the Written Questions she has asked on the casualty numbers. I hear what she says, but I think everyone in this Chamber understands that there have been huge casualties and there is certainly a humanitarian crisis. But I also agree with her. I think noble Lords will appreciate that I have been very committed to supporting the existence of the State of Israel for many years. I remain of that view, but for me, the State of Israel’s security is best supported through an arrangement where we see two states living side by side. We have divided communities now. My noble friend Lady Berger is also committed to a two-state solution; that is the way forward. She is also right that we need to ensure that we can take action to build that community cohesion and support, and education is certainly vital to that. Sadly, at the moment the people and children of Gaza are not getting any education at all.

IRA Terrorism: Compensation for Victims

Lord Collins of Highbury Excerpts

Thursday 1st May 2025 Grand Committee

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

My Lords, I am extremely grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, for asking this Question for Short Debate. I agree very much with the noble Lord, Lord Caine, that the terrorist actions of the IRA could never be justified. Therefore I begin by reflecting on some of his points and by reiterating that this Government have profound sympathy for UK victims of Gaddafi-sponsored IRA terrorism, as well as all victims of the Troubles. I know from personal experience as a union officer visiting Belfast throughout the 1980s and 1990s just what that terrorist action caused and the impact it had, but I cannot imagine the pain and suffering that the victims had to endure. I had the benefit of being able to get on a plane and leave but they could not, and that is a really important point.

I hope that the Government’s support and compensation, through the Northern Ireland Executive and the Troubles Permanent Disablement Scheme, is of at least some help. In answer to the noble Lord, Lord Caine, I shall ensure that officials write to update him on all the elements of the compensation schemes.

When it comes to getting compensation from Libya, I believe that it is important to distinguish between securing compensation for actions where Libya was a third party and the actions directly carried out by Libya. I do not think that we should ever forget who is responsible for the terrorist actions in Northern Ireland: they were carried out by the IRA. Victims of direct attacks such as Lockerbie and the killing of WPC Fletcher have received compensation—but I repeat that the primary responsibility for Gaddafi-sponsored IRA terrorism lies with the IRA itself. However, the extensive support by the Gaddafi regime, as the noble Lord, Lord Caine, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, made clear, through money, weapons, explosives and training, from the 1970s onwards, undoubtedly enhanced its capacity to carry out attacks in Northern Ireland and, of course, the rest of the United Kingdom.

Responsibility for compensating victims specifically for the actions of the Gaddafi regime rests, as the noble Lord said, with the Libyan state. That is why, in 2011, thanks to a UK initiative, the UN Security Council adopted resolutions 1970 and 1973, which froze Libyan assets to help end the brutality inflicted by the Gaddafi regime on the Libyan people. Nor should we forget that the Libyan people suffered hugely under the actions of that dictator. What those resolutions sought to do was to give the people of Libya the opportunity to determine their own future. These assets have remained frozen to prevent their misuse, with the aim of preserving them for the future benefit of the Libyan people.

Over time, as we have heard in this debate, there have been calls to use these assets to compensate victims of Gaddafi-sponsored IRA terrorism. But, as in the UN resolutions, those assets must be used in line with our UN obligations, which are specifically for the future benefit of the Libyan people. In fact—this is a point I want to stress—it helps the UK’s ability to support Libya’s transition to a democratic, independent and united country. I think we should stress that a united, independent, democratic country is about the future security of this country and of Europe. It is a vital component of our actions in relation to the future of Libya. A politically stable and unified Libya would be better positioned to address the legacy of the Gaddafi regime.

Additionally, seizing frozen assets would hinder international efforts led by the United Nations to achieve that objective of a united Libya, which can work with British victims to address compensation claims. That is why, regrettably, these frozen assets cannot be used to provide compensation for victims of Gaddafi-sponsored terrorism. There are also significant practical difficulties that exist in obtaining compensation from the Libyan state, due to the current political and economic fragmentation and instability. But I reassure the noble Lord, Lord Caine, that the United Kingdom will continue to urge the Libyan authorities to address the compensation claims of British victims. We will remain focused on supporting UN-led efforts to achieve stability and unity.

I would also like to address the proposal to use tax. People have mentioned the G7 efforts, and even that is quite complicated, as the noble Lord, Lord Caine, pointed out. For example, the UK tax collected on frozen assets goes into the Government’s consolidated fund, which is used for essential public services. The real issue is that diverting these vital public funds would not hold the Gaddafi regime accountable for supporting the IRA.

Let me also address concerns raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, and the noble Lord, Lord Bew, about the Shawcross report. Since its completion under the previous Government in 2021, there have been consistent calls for its publication from victims, their representatives and parliamentarians. This Government understand the public interest in this report and the previous concern regarding transparency on the issue.

We are actively considering whether elements of this report can be published. As the noble Lord, Lord Caine, pointed out, as this report was commissioned as an internal document to provide advice to Ministers and draws on private and confidential conversations, its release would have damaging implications for the UK’s national security and international relations. Therefore, this process is not straightforward. But I know that it is important, as the noble Lord, Lord Bew, indicated, that to be as transparent as possible with the public it is better to explain the difficulties and complexities behind the issues. This includes the challenges of obtaining compensation from a divided and fragmented Libya, and defining the parameters for identifying the British victims of Gaddafi-sponsored IRA terrorism and how this report adds to the wider debate on support for people who have lost loved ones during the Troubles. That is why I reiterate that this Government are committed to being as transparent as possible over this issue.

The noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, mentioned the letter written from representatives of victims of Gaddafi-sponsored IRA terrorism to the Prime Minister. It has been received, but it requires cross-Whitehall consideration. That is being given, and the Government will respond to it as soon as possible. Let me reassure her and other noble Lords that Hamish Falconer, the Minister for Middle East, North Africa, Afghanistan and Pakistan, wrote to some of the victims and their families earlier this week. He has extended an invitation to meet them to convey this Government’s position in greater detail and for him to better understand their perspectives, too. Also, let me reassure the noble Baroness that this engagement will not be a one-off occasion, as this Government are committed to a constructive and collaborative engagement with those affected.

The noble Lord, Lord Bew, also raised the question of Kneecap. I think my noble friend the Leader of the House responded very strongly to that yesterday, making very clear how abhorrent and dangerous the comments were. She also specifically mentioned that their so-called apology was totally inadequate, and I think that that is really important.

Despite this being a Question for Short Debate, I think we have covered as much as possible in the time permitted. I want to reassure noble Lords and repeat—I know that this is not a partisan issue and that we have been working collaboratively across the Room—that this Government are committed to supporting the victims of IRA terrorism. We will be open and transparent about our efforts, and continue to press the Libyan authorities to address their country’s historic responsibility for the Gaddafi regime’s support for the IRA.

[Lord Empey (UUP)]

I just want to say to the Minister that I do not think there is any fundamental disagreement in the Room about where we should be going, but we have been getting the answers that he gave on the status quo about the legalities and so on for 10 or 12 years. Whenever compensation has been mentioned, elements in Libya have attacked the group here in Parliament, attacked this country and said that it is their money and they want it back. They wanted to go to the United Nations to get the Security Council to release it. The United Kingdom has a veto. Will we use it?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

I have a very strong opinion about the use of veto. Of course, the last time it was used—and it has been used very frequently recently—was by Russia in stopping an incredibly important resolution on Sudan. The United Kingdom does not use its veto lightly, and we certainly will not do that. What we are trying to do on this question is to ensure that we have collaboration, co-operation and understanding to move forward.

I will say this: when we are talking about Libya, we are not talking about a state at the moment, or a state such as Russia that has committed a breach of the United Nations charter. We are talking about a fragmented, difficult country where the people have suffered over many years. What we want to do is speak to the authorities. When we try to achieve a united and more coherent country, then we can properly address those compensation claims which the Libyan country is responsible for.

[Baroness Hoey (Non-Afl)]

I am very pleased that the Minister said—I think—that they are still considering whether the elements of the Shawcross report can be published. On the legal issue, surely the best legal minds of His Majesty’s Government should be sitting down in a working party group with the victims’ best legal representatives—who are very good legal minds indeed, as I am sure the Minister knows—and working out the possibilities of what can actually be done without breaking international law.

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

I have no doubt that, when Hamish Falconer meets the representatives and others, he will give all consideration to the points made. But I repeat that this is a complex issue. I think there are big differences between the Russian Federation breaking the UN charter as a state and the current situation in Libya. It is very different. Nevertheless, we have been very clear about the need for Libya to take responsibility for the actions of its previous Government. As I said to the noble Lord, Lord Caine, we are continuing to urge Libya to do that.

Kashmir: Increasing Tension

Lord Collins of Highbury Excerpts

Wednesday 30th April 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

My Lords, I am sure that noble Lords on all sides of the House will want to express our deepest condolences to the families of those who were killed in last week’s terror attack near Pahalgam. It is important that we work with partners in India and Pakistan to make sure that the fallout from this atrocious attack does not lead to a violent escalation and further unnecessary suffering. Can the Minister update the House on what steps the Government are taking, alongside relevant parties in the region, to try to reach a resolution?

I am sure the Minister is aware of the extremely concerning video that shows a Pakistani diplomat making a throat-slitting gesture towards Indian demonstrators outside the high commission in London last week. Particularly given the previous Urgent Question, this sort of threatening action is completely unacceptable on the streets of London, particularly from what appears to be an accredited diplomat. What actions are the Government going to take against this individual?

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

I start by sharing the noble Lord’s comments in relation to this despicable act. We express our condolences to all those affected, loved ones and the people of India. The Prime Minister certainly expressed that when he called Prime Minister Modi on 24 April.

The noble Lord asked specific questions about what steps we are taking to ensure that the heightened tensions do not lead to the risk of escalation. We encourage all to commit to effective channels of engagement to safeguard stability in the region. Alongside international partners, the United Kingdom continues to engage in dialogue in pursuit of long-term regional stability. On Sunday, the Foreign Secretary spoke to both the Indian Foreign Minister and the Pakistani Deputy Prime Minister. We encourage all parties to take a measured approach. The Foreign Secretary has spoken to Secretary Rubio of the United States and will speak to the French Foreign Minister shortly to discuss the situation. The United Kingdom, of course, supported the UN Security Council press statement at the weekend, which condemned the attack and reaffirmed that acts of terrorism are criminal and unjustifiable.

On all actions that create or escalate the unsettling of communities in this country, we are working with all British-Pakistani and British-Indian communities to ensure that we stand with them at this difficult time on de-escalation and on building strong community cohesion. We condemn any instance of vandalism and call for any protesters to protest in a peaceful and law-abiding way. We look to all community and faith leaders to spread the message that now is a time for coming together across religious and ethnic differences.

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

My Lords, we on these Benches associate ourselves with the words of the Minister with regards to the condolences for those who were murdered. We believe there should be no impunity for those who carried out these crimes and there should be a transparent process of investigation to ensure there is justice.

On the news this afternoon, with concerns that there could well be wider escalation, I agree with the Minister and thank the Government for what Ministers have done in seeking a return to dialogue. India, Pakistan and the UK are all Commonwealth members and we have very integrated diaspora communities. Are there elements of the Commonwealth family that can be used to allow for dialogue?

The Minister will be fully aware of concerns that the potential closure of airspace and the Indus Water Treaty coming to an end could have wider humanitarian consequences, including impacts on the UK diaspora community. What efforts are we making within the Commonwealth with specific regard to the prevention of those wider humanitarian concerns?

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

I will answer the last question first. We are urging all international organisations to urge de-escalation and proper engagement to de-escalate the situation. As Minister Falconer said yesterday, we take this situation incredibly seriously, which is why the Foreign Secretary has spoken to Secretary Rubio. We are working, through the UN and all international bodies, to try to ensure that the means for dialogue are open and that we focus on de-escalation.

We are aware that India and Pakistan have said they will hold certain diplomatic treaties in abeyance. We continue to monitor the impact of that on the ground in both states. It is critical for all actors and international partners to work to ensure the long-term sustainability of the Indus river system, and we will continue to urge that.

[Baroness Verma (Con)]

My Lords, my noble friend on our Front Benches asked about the incident with the attaché in the Pakistani high commission. I do not think I heard a response to that. It would be useful for the UK to send a very clear signal that inciting violence by gestures is not acceptable. We would like to know what the UK Government will do.

I am sure that the Minister, who I treat as a good friend, will join me in condemning absolutely the incident that took place in Kashmir. In cities such as mine, people across all communities have come together to condemn the atrocities witnessed last week.

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

I very much welcome the noble Baroness’s final point that it is the responsibility of all of us to try to build community cohesion and respond to these terrible events. The purpose of these actions is of course to divide communities. That is why we have to respond in a positive way.

I did answer the noble Lord’s question because I said that we condemned any instances of vandalism and called for protesters to protest in a peaceful and law-abiding way. We urge all to de-escalate the situation. We will communicate that at all levels, diplomatically and with local community leaders. I really welcome what she has said.

[Lord Raval (Lab)]

My Lords, no words will assuage the terrible pain of the families who have lost loved ones in this atrocity, or the feelings of a country that is united in mourning, including people across creeds. What specifically was meant when the Foreign Secretary said that Britain stands shoulder to shoulder with India? Could the Minister expand on that, please?

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

The Foreign Secretary has made clear, as I hope I have today, that we absolutely deplore such acts of terrorism, which are designed to divide communities and cause tensions to rise not only between two Commonwealth countries but potentially within our own communities, which is why I very much welcome what noble Lords have said, in particular the noble Baroness, who has been urging greater community cohesion. That is what the Foreign Secretary is determined to do. We are going to work with all international and regional partners to ensure that we try to de-escalate and create the conditions where there can be dialogue, which is not taking place at the moment.

[The Lord Bishop of Manchester]

My Lords, I have had a number of distressed emails from Hindu leaders in my own diocese, and as faith leaders we are trying to see how we can respond to this incident. Will the Minister say a little more about how he expects civil society organisations and faith communities to play a part in helping to de-escalate tensions in the UK?

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

We know that the escalation is unsettling to communities within the United Kingdom. We value the contribution of British-Pakistani and British-Indian communities to this country, and we stand with them at this difficult time. We look to all community and faith leaders to spread a message that now is the time for coming together across religious and ethnic differences. My noble friend opposite made that very clear. Certainly, I think all leaders of all faiths can help to do this.

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)]

My Lords, in welcoming the statement from the Minister and the efforts made by the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary, what is needed? We are talking about two nuclear powers that are possibly on the brink of not just escalation—let us not mince words—but a real risk of war. I speak from my insight and experience as the Minister responsible for the region for several years when I say that what is needed is direct intervention. The UK has a unique role to play. I propose that a special emissary is appointed right now to go to the region to speak to both countries on behalf of our Prime Minister to ensure not just de-escalation but that vital, discreet dialogue is sustained, maintained and strengthened between the United Kingdom and both countries to ensure that escalation does not happen. What happens in that part of the world will not stay in that part of the world.

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

As the noble Lord knows, I respect his contribution when he was a Minister covering this geographical area. What I have tried to do in my responses today is point out how seriously we take this, which is why the Foreign Secretary and the Prime Minister have been engaged in dialogue and why we are working at the United Nations and with Secretary Rubio. The situation is incredibly dangerous, which is why it requires all allies to come together to ensure that we de-escalate and do not get to the situation that the noble Lord described.

Journalists and Media Workers: Safety and Security

Lord Collins of Highbury Excerpts

Thursday 24th April 2025 Lords Chamber

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

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Mobarik, for her excellent introduction to this debate and for securing it. I also thank all noble Lords for their contributions. I will try to respond to all the points and questions raised.

As the Prime Minister said, this Government are clear:

“Journalism is the lifeblood of democracy. Journalists are guardians of democratic values”.


Across the world, media freedom is in decline. Newsrooms all over the world are closing and fewer people have access to trusted public interest media. But journalists are still fearlessly holding the powerful to account. Take, for example, the conflict in Gaza, as the noble Baroness highlighted, which has become the deadliest conflict for journalists and media workers ever recorded. In Ukraine and Sudan, reporters are also taking significant risks to uncover the truth.

The Government have consistently advocated for the protection of journalists, along with other civilians, yet the number of threats journalists face today, from disinformation campaigns to the toxic online environment, especially for women, highlights the urgent need to protect our media. I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Bonham-Carter, for raising the Marie Colvin Journalists’ Network. It plays an excellent role in highlighting that risk.

I also thank the noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier, for again highlighting the case of Jimmy Lai. It is really important that we emphasise his case. The Prime Minister, the Chancellor, Minister West and the Foreign Secretary have all raised his case at the highest levels with their Chinese counterparts and we will continue to do so. We are monitoring his trial. Diplomats from our consulate-general in Hong Kong attend the court proceedings on a regular basis and we will continue to press for consular access.

This is why the Government are championing the protection and promotion of media freedom internationally; it is an important part of our values. As noble Lords have said, the UK co-founded the Media Freedom Coalition with Canada in 2019. To answer the noble Lord, Lord Ahmad, 51 countries are now members, and I am determined to ensure that number increases. We are in constant dialogue with allies about this. I am proud to build on the work of the noble Lord, Lord Ahmad, and of the previous Government in establishing the coalition. I attended its fifth anniversary event at the UNGA last September.

To answer the noble Baroness, Lady Mobarik, we are absolutely committed to using all diplomatic tools. The Government have supported six Media Freedom Coalition statements on individual cases, including those of José Zamora in Guatemala and Stand News in Hong Kong, as well as statements on specific countries, such as Georgia and Burkina Faso, and on issues such as journalists in conflict.

The High-level Panel of Legal Experts on Media Freedom, ably chaired by my noble friend Lady Kennedy, provides expert legal advice to coalition member states on legislative reforms. My noble friend asked specific questions about its reports, and we certainly welcome its contribution to the coalition. Its reports have covered sanctions, consular safe refuge and investigations. On sanctions, we are more than happy to follow up separately on individual reports. On the reports on investigations into attacks on journalists, we share the concern and value the work that went into this report and the evidence it provides—to answer the other question—on impunity for crimes against journalists. We will pursue this as a matter of urgency.

The UK is actively working through existing OSCE and UN mechanisms to call for greater media freedom. We support the Council of Europe’s Journalists Matter campaign, and for the past five years we have funded, as noble Lord, Lord Ahmad, raised, UNESCO’s global media defence fund, which works to bolster journalists. We will continue to consider how best we can do that. As noble Lords pointed out, we have been reviewing how to strengthen support to British nationals overseas through our consular service, including support for journalists and the right to consular assistance.

On safe places and visas, the Home Office has advised that the Home Secretary’s existing discretion to grant leave—for example, in exceptional humanitarian circumstances—is sufficient to cover the point that the noble Lord, Lord Black, raised.

On Afghanistan, at the UNGA coalition event, I and Minister Mélanie Joly presented the Canada-UK Media Freedom Award to Lotfullah Najafizada, who accepted the award on behalf of independent journalists in Afghanistan. It was amazing to hear the contribution from them and the work that they continue to do: their courageous reporting on human rights and women’s rights under the Taliban regime. We will continue to highlight that.

At a time when media freedom is under threat across the world, I am pleased that the BBC World Service provides impartial, accurate news to global audiences of 320 million. Its language services reach audiences living in authoritarian and conflict-affected states, where accurate information is restricted. In October, we launched a new global media development programme with BBC Media Action in Sierra Leone, Zambia, Ethiopia, Indonesia, Bangladesh and Peru. Again, to answer the noble Baroness, Lady Bonham-Carter, it is our Government’s policy to ensure a long-term sustainable funding future for the World Service, and we have committed to do this through the charter review. The media action programme also supports and strengthens local media in the countries I mentioned.

More broadly, we are committed to promoting and protecting human rights and the rule of law. It is important that we see media freedom through that prism—they are all interconnected. We will and do work with our allies to encourage all states to uphold their international human rights obligations and hold those who violate or abuse human rights to account.

As the noble Baroness, Lady Sugg, said, we do not just champion media freedom abroad; we advocate for media safety at home, too. The UK convenes the National Committee for the Safety of Journalists, which is responsible for the delivery of the national action plan for the safety of journalists. This year, we will work with members to draw up the next iteration of the plan. I hope I can reassure the noble Baroness, Lady Mobarik, that tackling abusive legal threats against journalists will also be a key domestic focus this year.

As the noble Lord, Lord Black, raised, we have seen how journalists and others are targeted through legal action in UK courts for their role in exposing economic crime, including corruption. We understand the need for legislation, but we cannot legislate in haste. We have to understand and be clear about the balance between access to justice and free speech, but we are committed to reviewing it.

I hope that today’s debate is only the start of our consideration of this important issue. I again reassure the noble Lord, Lord Ahmad, that this Government are committed to continuing the work that he started, which I am incredibly proud about, and that we will do so at all levels of our multilateral and bilateral relationships. I understand the points that the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, raised—I will not go through our spending plans point by point—but I reassure noble Lords that this Government are committed to ensuring that we use all tools available to us to defend media freedom, which includes all our diplomatic efforts.

To conclude, we are continuing to support and protect media freedom, both domestically and internationally, through the Media Freedom Coalition, which we are committed to building and extending, and other initiatives. We are taking big strides towards a safer and more transparent environment for all journalists, ensuring that independent media can thrive and hold power to account.

[Baroness Coussins (CB)]

Before the noble Lord sits down, can he comment on the question I asked about his willingness to speak to Home Office colleagues about being quicker off the mark in processing visa applications for the relatives of BBC Persian journalists? They need to come here to visit their family because the journalists, who are based in London, clearly cannot go there.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

I understand the noble Baroness’s point and I will undertake to do that.

Bosnia and Herzegovina: Rule of Law

Lord Collins of Highbury Excerpts

Wednesday 23rd April 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Browne of Ladyton]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the resilience of peace and the rule of law in Bosnia and Herzegovina.

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

My Lords, peace, stability and upholding the rule of law in Bosnia-Herzegovina remain a key focus of this Government and recent actions by Republika Srpska’s President Dodik have attempted to undermine the sovereignty and territorial integrity of the state. The Constitutional Court has suspended these unconstitutional laws. We support all citizens, communities and politicians who are focused on the reforms needed to make progress and not on engaging in divisive rhetoric.

[Lord Browne of Ladyton (Lab)]

My Lords, as my noble friend the Minister alluded to in his response, it is clear that tensions have risen markedly in Bosnia and Herzegovina after the recent issuing of an arrest warrant for Milorad Dodik. I understand the symbolic and practical significance of our bilateral contributions and the current presence of UK staff officers in the NATO HQ in Sarajevo, but, given Bosnia and Herzegovina’s strategic importance, which was testified to by the recent visit of Dodik to Moscow, what consideration has been, or is being, given to recommitting UK personnel to EUFOR and Operation Althea?

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

My Lords, the UK Government are clear that, despite no longer participating in EUFOR, we continue to see its role as vital to maintaining a safe and secure environment in Bosnia-Herzegovina. We are open to exploring enhanced co-operation with the EU, including its operations and missions, as we strengthen the UK-EU security and defence relationship. If we decide to co-operate with EU missions and operations more closely, including EUFOR, we will evaluate the potential for a UK contribution on a case-by-case basis and where it aligns with UK interests.

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his response. We welcome the Government’s commitment to the Dayton agreement and, in particular, their statement of willingness to support all efforts by domestic actors to de-escalate the situation in the light of Dodik’s actions over the past few weeks. What discussions have the Government had with NATO allies to co-ordinate support for our partners in Bosnia and Herzegovina?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

My Lords, we remain absolutely united with our Quint colleagues, with whom both officials and Ministers have maintained regular engagement on Bosnia-Herzegovina. The Foreign Secretary, Dame Karen and Minister Doughty continue to raise our concerns about the situation there in their engagement with regional partners, including Croatia and Serbia.

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

My Lords, the future of Bosnia-Herzegovina and the western Balkans is critical to the future of the United Kingdom’s interests for national security, especially in the context of Russian interference, organised crime and migration. The UK has supported the efforts against Russian interference through the £30-million western Balkans freedom and resilience programme, which is coming to an end next year. It involves 20 local civil society organisations and is on the front line of all this work. It is funded through official development assistance, so I make this appeal to the Minister. When decisions are being made to reduce ODA, which we on these Benches think is regrettable, can there be a specific carve-out for areas linked to the future interests of British national security?

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

The noble Lord is right: our review will be absolutely focused on the UK’s national interest, and the decision was made on the basis of the first duty of any Government to protect their population.

We have been engaged across a wide range of areas in the development and soft power space to contribute to peace and stability in the western Balkans—and Bosnia-Herzegovina specifically. Our development efforts have never been solely about aid. We mobilise a range of resources to achieve our development objectives in the western Balkans and we will continue to do that, influencing policy.

[Baroness Ludford (LD)]

My Lords, there is an arrest warrant issued in Bosnia-Herzegovina against Mr Dodik. Can the Minister update us on where that is at and what international co-operation there is on getting him arrested?

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

We have been very clear. Dodik has been spreading rumours that UK forces are somehow engaged in his arrest. These are baseless claims and part of a campaign of distortion and disinformation by Dodik that is clearly designed to distort and distract from his destructive actions. The charges against him are a matter for the authority of the High Representative.

One Hundred Year Partnership Agreement between the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and Ukraine

Lord Collins of Highbury Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd April 2025 Grand Committee

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

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Fox, for introducing this debate. I pay tribute to his work on the International Agreements Committee, and to the other committee members who have contributed to this afternoon’s debate—my noble friend Lord Anderson, the noble Baroness, Lady Lawlor, and the noble Lord, Lord Marland.

I absolutely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Callanan —not for the first time—that this is an example of all three major parties being absolutely committed to support for Ukraine. The noble Lord, Lord Kerr, and the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Houghton, summed it up: this is about our collective security. Our response has to be on that basis. This is not simply about defending a country that has been illegally invaded. It is fundamentally, as the Prime Minister made clear in his statement about defence spending, a generational change. The strategic defence review will address all the issues that the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Houghton, has raised. I will not go into the details of it, because I do not know them yet, but I am sure that when the report is finally published we will be able to have detailed scrutiny on how we will be able to respond to this threat. It is absolutely about our collective security.

The 100-year partnership agreement and political declaration signed by the Prime Minister and President Zelensky is a signal of long-term commitment to Ukraine. I hear my noble friend Lord Anderson and other members of the Committee on this timescale—but sending a clear signal to the world that we are in this for the long run and that our commitment is generational, far beyond the end of hostilities, is important. That is a clear, important signal.

The agreement focuses on shared interests and a common vision with three main aims: to enhance military and security capabilities in order to counter future attacks; to strengthen Ukraine’s economic development, reform, resilience and growth, benefiting both Ukraine and the United Kingdom; and to deepen UK support for Ukraine’s shift to the West through partnerships in education, health, justice and culture. I assure the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Houghton, and others that the agreement builds on existing co-operation in areas such as military and fiscal support, recovery, reform and humanitarian programmes. It reaffirms the UK’s ironclad support for Ukraine and respects Ukraine’s request to make the document legally binding.

Many noble Lords have expressed concern about the lack of a road map. Clearly, a road map for a 100-year agreement is difficult to predict. On the one hand, we want to show a clear signal of long-term commitment; on the other hand, we know that we must respond to shifting tides of technology, culture and economics. That is why there is greater emphasis on these issues in the political declaration supporting the treaty’s implementation, with commitments reflecting current realities, for example, to co-operate on demining, green steel production, stronger health systems and more. The whole of government is working to drive these initiatives forward and show early results. However, many objectives will be realised over a long timeframe, with Article 11—I do not say this as a criticism; it is a positive thing—providing flexibility for review as needed.

Noble Lords have raised the question of maritime. Black Sea security is, of course, crucial for Ukraine and the United Kingdom. Much Ukrainian trade, including 90% of its pre-war agricultural exports—the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, referred to this—went through this route. The war has disrupted these exports, causing food prices here and around the world to shoot up. As Minister for Africa, I know the impact that this has had on food security in that region.

We are taking forward the commitments under the maritime pillar of the agreement. The noble Lord, Lord Fox, referred to the letter from my honourable friend Minister Doughty of 25 March. I will not go through all the details in it because the committee has seen it and responded to it. The capability coalition, co-led by the United Kingdom and Norway, is delivering boats, landing craft, drones, outboard engines and short-range air defence to Ukraine. We will deepen co-operation with Ukraine’s maritime force to secure naval routes further.

Besides military support, the United Kingdom will work more closely with Ukraine on overall security. This includes fighting hybrid threats, such as foreign information manipulation and interference, through co-operation between institutions. We have regular discussions to track threats and responses, share research and deepen links between experts in order better to understand Russia’s malign activities. We are also supporting the Ukrainian Government to act against harmful networks.

I remind the noble Lords, Lord Marland and Lord Purvis, that the 100-year partnership agreement builds on the strategic partnership agreement of 2020 to enhance trade and investment in Ukraine. It focuses on sectors such as energy, defence and infrastructure—this was highlighted in my honourable friend Minister Doughty’s letter—by improving governance, financial systems and anti-corruption measures. These are vital components to delivering the growth that we expect. I assure the noble Baroness, Lady Lawlor, that this will attract global capital and create opportunities for UK businesses. As part of this, we are supporting public procurement reforms in Ukraine to improve market access for United Kingdom businesses and aid Ukraine’s reconstruction. Our trade mission programme is fostering international business relationships and opening new markets for United Kingdom companies.

Again, to reassure the noble Baroness, Lady Lawlor, and the noble Lord, Lord Marland—and to address the specific question of the noble Lord, Lord Callanan— I note that the partnership is already strengthening economic ties. For example, on 2 March, the Prime Minister announced a £1.6 billion order for a Thales missile factory in Belfast to supply 5,000 air defence missiles to Ukraine, supporting British jobs. The agreement will also enable UK businesses to support Ukraine’s reconstruction, estimated to cost £524 billion over the next decade. The Department for Business and Trade cochairs an infrastructure task force, with Ukrainian Ministers supporting UK industry involvement in Ukraine’s reconstruction, benefiting both Ukraine’s recovery and United Kingdom growth.

The noble Lord, Lord Purvis, mentioned something that I hold dear to my heart too: accountability. Ukraine wants those responsible for terrible atrocities in Ukraine to be held accountable. We are supporting Ukraine’s prosecutor-general and the International Criminal Court to ensure that this happens. Last month, we agreed on the legal details to set up a special tribunal on the crime of aggression against Ukraine. We are working closely with Ukraine and the Council of Europe to move this forward. We are also trying to create an international mechanism to secure compensation from Russia for the damage caused by the war.

The noble Lord, Lord Purvis, asked about ODA cuts. The Prime Minister made clear in his announcement his commitment to increase spending on defence to 2.5% from 27 April. This increase will be funded by reducing ODA from 0.5% to 0.3%. As I have repeated to the noble Lord before, the impact on specific programmes is being worked through, following this decision, but I have reassured noble Lords that Ukraine remains a priority.

I say to the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, and other noble Lords that we are absolutely committed to securing a just and lasting peace in Ukraine and engaging with key allies in support of this effort. The ball is now in Russia’s court: President Putin must prove that he is serious about peace and sign up to the ceasefire on equal terms.

I again reassure the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, that, on Wednesday, the Foreign Secretary is bringing together the United States, Ukrainian and European Foreign Ministers and national security advisers to discuss next steps, including what a ceasefire might look like and how we might make sure that any peace leaves Ukraine secure for the long term. The Kremlin’s dithering and delay over President Trump’s ceasefire proposal and Russia’s continued barbaric attacks on Ukraine run entirely counter to President Putin’s stated desire for peace.

The noble Lord, Lord Kerr, mentioned the 2008 NATO commitment to ensure that the NATO alliance has made a long-term commitment to Ukraine that is on an irreversible path to membership, and we stand by that. But I suspect that the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, is repeating advice I have often given: it is often better not to ask a question you do not know the answer to.

The important thing is to build a strong consensus among all our allies about how we can build a consensus, rather than focus on areas of potential disagreement. When, how and on what terms this war comes to an end can be decided only by negotiations with Ukraine at the heart of them. Our focus until then is on ensuring that Ukraine is in the strongest possible position. Certainly, President Putin must stop delaying and playing games, and he must agree to a full and immediate ceasefire without conditions, as Ukraine has done.

I conclude by reflecting that, for centuries, this House has witnessed passionate debates during pivotal moments in our nation’s history and, no doubt, 100 years from now, Peers will celebrate the enduring Ukraine-UK relationship, forged in the fight for liberty, sovereignty and democracy. As the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, said, it is about our values, and that is why it will endure. Our friendship is deep, and the United Kingdom will always stand with Ukraine—today, as we strive for peace, justice and accountability, and in the years to come, as our countries work together to build a much more secure and prosperous future. Slava Ukraini.

House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill

Lord Collins of Highbury Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 1st April 2025 Lords Chamber

I remain convinced that there is a way forward, and I hope very much, having listened to this impressive debate, that—informed by the spirit of kindness, compromise, understanding and, yes, respect that has informed this very debate—we may find a way in the period between Easter and Whitsun to reach a generous settlement that respects the interests of all, not least the interests of the whole House, which I think have been eloquently expressed by many in this debate. To such an enterprise, in search of such a settlement and in response to such a call, as we heard so eloquently from my noble friend Lady Mobarik and others today, my door is open and my commitment will be full.

[Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Collins of Highbury) (Lab)]

I say from the start that I know the noble Baroness, Lady Mobarik, and respect her. Certainly, I welcome her contributions to this House, and many times in debates we have been on the same side, which reflects how this House operates. I had to decide whether in responding I should respond to the amendment or to the debate. I have decided that I will follow the Companion and stick to the amendment.

The noble Baroness’s amendment seeks to compel the Prime Minister to recommend 87 new Peers. The noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, is absolutely right: is that really what we want to do in terms of where we are? I also point out that while the noble Baroness’s amendment says that she wants to mirror the political balance of the outgoing hereditary Peers, there is nothing in it that would guarantee any hereditary Peer remaining in this House, so I am not sure what the last hour has been all about.

Nevertheless, I want to focus. I think the noble Baroness, Lady Lawlor, summed it up—and I agree with her—when she said that we are a country that takes constitutional change gradually. I recall from the Labour manifesto in 1901—I do not recall it; I remember reading about it—that we were seeking then to abolish the House of Lords. We have changed our mind over time. We have reached a sort of view about it. The hereditary principle was addressed over 25 years ago, and the noble Lord opposite has said that it has gone. We do not support the hereditary principle when it comes to this legislative House.

I say to the noble Lord, Lord True, that the transitional arrangements that were made over 25 years ago are now going to come to an end. We have had 25 years to look at a sensible way of dealing with this issue. My noble friend Lord Grocott has offered many opportunities to do it on a gradual basis which have all been rejected, primarily by noble Lords opposite.

We have now reached the point where we have a manifesto commitment to deal with this issue. I understand why the noble Baroness has made her amendment and understand the nature of the debate, but, as my noble friend the Leader of the House has set out many times before, it is for the Prime Minister to make recommendations to the sovereign on new Peers. In doing so, the Prime Minister invites nominations from party leaders across the House, so, again, I say to the noble Lord, Lord True, that there is nothing stopping him making recommendations to his leader to include hereditary Peers in any new list. Why not do that? Why not offer that transitional arrangement? It is not for us to decide who stays in this House. It is not for us to decide whom the leader of the Conservative Party decides to recommend to the Prime Minister—

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)]

Will the noble Lord just explain how that works for the Cross Benches?

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

I was going to come to that point, but as the noble Lord gives me the opportunity, let me say that my noble friend the Leader has addressed that. She is working in consultation and wants to have further discussions about how we address that issue. Certainly, I am confident that we will be able to do so, because I think the Cross-Benchers play a very important role in this House, and the Convenor of the Cross Benches is a hereditary Peer.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)]

If the noble Lord is prepared to have those discussions with the Cross Benches, what is wrong with the Official Opposition? Why can he not have the same discussions with them?

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

I repeat: the Prime Minister of this country has made an offer. In terms of the new Peers that we have recently had introduced into this House, the Conservative Party was offered more than Labour was ever offered in previous nominations. It is a very important point: the simple fact is that, if the leader of the Conservative Party wanted to nominate hereditary Peers to life peerages, they can do so. This amendment—

[Noble Lords]

Oh!

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

I do not mind being interrupted, but what is the point?

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

The Deputy Leader of the House knows that that is not the case. The leader of the Opposition can make nominations when the Prime Minister graciously allows her to do so. It is entirely up to the Prime Minister when and how many.

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

Correct, and you have just had six; you could have nominated hereditary Peers as life Peers. There was nothing stopping you—nothing. The important point is that we have had opportunities to deal with this issue over the last 25 years and have not done so. As a consequence, Labour put in its manifesto a clear commitment to deal with the hereditary principle once and for all, which is what we have before us in this very short, simple Bill.

Let me just address this point. The Prime Minister also invites the House of Lords Appointments Commission to make nominations to the Cross Benches. In deciding the number of these nominations, the Prime Minister considers a range of factors, of course, including the political balance of the House. Certainly, retirements and other departures mean that new Peers will always be needed to ensure the House has appropriate expertise and, as has been said before, there is no reason why hereditary Peers cannot be nominated in future lists. Political parties have the opportunity to do that. My noble friend the Leader has recognised the special position of Cross-Benchers and committed to discuss it with the relevant parties. That is the commitment she has made.

If the noble Baroness, Lady Mobarik, is concerned with the party balance of the House, I remind your Lordships that even if this Bill is passed the Government Benches will make up 28% of this Chamber, compared to 31% for the party opposite. As my noble friend the Leader has said before to your Lordships, this House functions best when there are roughly equal numbers between the two main parties; I stand by that. As I have said to the noble Baroness, there are many occasions when we operate on a cross-party basis. I do not see that this Bill will change that one bit—far from it. It will bring about a more sensible balance in this House.

With respect to the noble Baroness, Lady Mobarik, this amendment is unnecessary. It is not appropriate for this Bill and I respectfully request that she withdraws it.

[Lord True (Con)]

The noble Lord has returned to the question of numbers, completely ignoring the points I made about other ways of addressing that. I set that to one side but, as I understood it, his concept was, “Well, you”—I do not think that he can have meant me—“can send some people here if you want to”. The Government are about to expel 44 of our people. Is the noble Lord saying that the leader of the Opposition can name 44 who will come straight back? That appeared to be the logic of his position. Will he answer the specific point on numbers? The Prime Minister decides the numbers; that is the fact.

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

Certainly I know that is the case, and we found that out the hard way in the past 14 years. But can I just say—and the noble Lord knows this—we are dealing with an imbalance at the moment? He keeps talking about how many Conservative Peers are hereditary, but that is not the question in this Bill. The question in this Bill is about the principle of hereditary Peers, not about whether they are Conservative. In fact, so much of the debate has been about how they are not political and not partisan, but then the noble Lord keeps repeating how many of them are Conservative.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Mobarik (Con)]

My Lords, first, I thank all those who have participated in this debate and shown their support for the intention behind my amendment. I am disappointed that the noble Lord, Lord Collins of Highbury, decided not to respond to the debate as such. I thought that that was the purpose of Committee stage.

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

I am hesitant to interrupt the noble Baroness, but there is one hereditary Peer whom I do miss greatly, and that is the Countess of Mar. She would have jumped up many times and said, “Please, your Lordships, speak to the amendment” —and that is what I was trying to do.

[Baroness Mobarik (Con)]

Thank you—I shall remember that on the next occasion.

There have been so many notable speeches today, but time does not permit me to mention all of them. I think that this debate has shown that we on these Benches, joined by others across this House, are not trying to hold on to the hereditary principle but want to hold on to our hereditary colleagues. I strongly believe that my amendment would provide a civilised, mannerly and appropriate way in which to manage ourselves, in keeping with the customs and courtesies of our great House.

There is clearly widespread support for some kind of transitional arrangement, and I sincerely hope from the bottom of my heart that the noble Baroness the Leader of the House will reflect on this very carefully and take my noble friend Lord True up on his very fair and reasonable offer before Report. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

My Lords, I must disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Newby. If there is a misconception here, it is about the continuing presence of our hereditary colleagues in your Lordships’ House. They were not kept here by some form of transition, as the Deputy Leader of the House put it in an earlier debate; they were kept here because, in the debates at the end of the last century, nobody could answer the fundamentally important question of what this House is for, how it ought to be constituted and whether there was a better route to come here than the route by which we have all come, in our different ways. We were kept here as surety to ensure that the reform process that the then Labour Government embarked on would continue. They had a further decade in power after 1999 and brought forward no further measures, which is why so many of us on this side are sceptical about the speed with which they will bring forward the further reforms that they proposed in their most recent manifesto. So this is a very important group of amendments because, as Amendment 95 puts it, it is about the impact of this Bill on the effectiveness of the House of Lords.

The Government, like the noble Lord, Lord Newby, have cast this Bill very narrowly and argued that this is a tightly focused Bill. In some ways it is too narrowly cast and too tightly focused. It ducks the questions of what this House is for and the questions that flow from it about how it should best be composed. But, although narrow, the Bill will have serious and sweeping impacts on this House of Parliament. As my noble friends Lord Hamilton of Epsom and Lord Swire put it, this Bill puts the cart before the horse. It avoids those questions and seeks to enact a very important change based on a misunderstanding of the position from the late 1990s.

Throughout this Committee, we have heard concerns raised from all corners of your Lordships’ House that this Bill will leave us a less effective legislative Chamber. Ministers have disagreed with the concerns that have been raised. Well, here is their chance to prove it. If those of us who have expressed our concerns are wrong, these reviews will be the opportunity to prove us wrong.

I believe that the fears we have heard in this Committee are well-founded. Our hereditary colleagues attend your Lordships’ House more frequently than life Peers. They play a more active role, not just in the Division Lobbies and in the Chamber but in our committees, on the Woolsack and in convening the Cross Benches. As my noble friend Lord Shinkwin put it in our debate on the first group, armed with the data that the Library has provided him, our hereditary colleagues play a valuable and active role in the functioning of your Lordships’ House. The noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, said in that debate, “Why are we thinking of removing those who work the hardest while leaving those who do not?”

I am sure the Deputy Leader will say that all these questions about participation and activity can be addressed later. Again, these amendments are an opportunity for him to do that. At no point in this Committee have we had any commitment from the Government about when they plan to turn to the next parts of the reforms that they proposed in their manifesto. Ministers have not even committed to do so by the end of this Parliament. So I share the concerns that my noble friend Lord Hailsham has raised: that we will be waiting another decade or longer to see the further reforms that noble Lords have called for throughout the course of these debates.

My noble friends’ amendments in these groups would give us the opportunity to review progress after 12 months, on the timetable proposed by my noble friend Lord Dundee, or two years, in the timeframe proposed by my noble friend Lord Lucas. It would also be an opportunity for us to review what we have lost. We have heard in the course of these debates how our hereditary colleagues bring valuable experience from their work in business and agriculture, two areas where on the Government’s record it is clear that they have something of a blind spot, and it is important to have those voices raised in this scrutinising House of Parliament.

I am sure the Deputy Leader will seek to persuade us that, once again, our fears are misplaced and that these amendments are unnecessary, but I urge him to look seriously at these amendments, which call for modest but important reviews. The Government listened to the concerns that were raised in your Lordships’ House in our debate on the Football Governance Bill and gave us a statutory review of that new regulator after five years. I know football is something that attracts a lot more attention than reform of the House of Lords, but I think the constitution of our second legislative Chamber is about as important as the beautiful game. I hope the Deputy Leader will look at this and consider giving us a review in this Bill as well.

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

I do not think the Arsenal kick-off is quite yet; I have another half an hour or so.

I am not going to repeat all the arguments from the first group. We had an extensive debate about that, so I am not going to go through it. But, in relation to the challenge that the noble Lord has just made, we have had a transition for over 25 years. As the noble Lord, Lord Newby, said, there were attempts to make fundamental changes, but they all hit the fundamental problem of “Don’t do anything until you do everything”. That is the problem here, and it is not going to be resolved by royal commissions and other bodies. I have seen those royal commissions, and they tend to mean long grass and do not build consensus.

The amendments in this group relate to types of formal review. In some cases, they would make commencement of the substantive provisions in the Bill conditional on such a review. I note that the Committee has discussed similar amendments in previous groups. Given that, I hope noble Lords will forgive me for repeating the words of my noble friend the Attorney-General: these amendments are unnecessary and disproportionate.

Amendments 95, 96, 98, 99 and 102 are concerned with the imposition of a duty to review the impact of the Bill following implementation. I stress again that the impact of the Bill is straightforward—no one can see it as complicated—and post-legislative scrutiny would likely not yield any more meaningful conclusions.

Amendment 95, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, would require the Secretary of State, within two years of this Act being passed and annually thereafter, to publish

“a report on the impact of this Act on the effectiveness of the House of Lords”

at discharging its functions. As my noble friend the Attorney-General pointed out last week on a similar amendment to this, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, placing a duty on the Government to undertake reviews until the end of time feels disproportionate in these circumstances. There is also an implication that our hereditary colleagues are intrinsically better able than life Peers to help the House to carry out its functions. As I said on a previous Committee day, who are we judging here? Are we judging life Peers as being inferior, not able or not committed?

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

It is empirical. The data show that our hereditary colleagues currently come here more often and participate more. That is not a slight on those of us who are here as life Peers, but does the Deputy Leader not accept that the data show the valuable contribution that they make to the work of this House?

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

I do not think the data show what the noble Lord is suggesting. It is a marginal change—1% or 2%. The simple fact is that, when you start implying that some noble Lords are better than others, I am afraid you are implying that life Peers somehow make less of a contribution. They do not, and that does not help us in terms of what we are trying to achieve here. The idea that our hereditary colleagues are intrinsically better does not help the House to carry out its functions. It does a disservice to the contribution made by life Peers on all sides of the Chamber, particularly our Cross-Bench Peers.

It is important to point out that there was no legislative scrutiny following the passage of the 1999 Act, despite that legislation removing a significantly higher number of Members from your Lordships’ House. This was because it was not necessary. The House continued—

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

The reason why a certain number of hereditary Peers were kept here in your Lordships’ House was to perform that post-legislative scrutiny. Again, the Deputy Leader has suggested that this is the ending of a transitional phase, removing those who were kept here to try to keep the last Labour Government on their toes about reform. If this is the end of a transition, can the Deputy Leader tell us what we are transitioning to?

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

As I said, the Leader of the House and others have acknowledged that what we did in 1999 was remove the hereditary principle. As my noble friend Lord Grocott has said on a number of occasions, that was not simply a mechanism to ensure transition; it was about saying to the Labour Government, “You won’t get your business through if you don’t keep these hereditaries here”. That was the reality, as my noble friend made clear in previous debates.

We have had over 25 years since the removal of the hereditary principle while maintaining 92. The Opposition had the opportunity on many occasions to support my noble friend so that those hereditary Peers could have stayed, but no: we ended up electing further hereditary Peers who were much younger and had no record of experience—as the noble Lord suggested—prior to their election by a very small number of people. The reality is that we are trying to defend the indefensible. We have a clear commitment in our manifesto.

By the way, there was no legislative scrutiny—I will come on to other commitments in our manifesto—but it is disingenuous of noble Lords to say that somehow they do not believe what we are saying. The proof of the pudding will be in the eating. I assure noble Lords that we will commit to that.

Amendment 96 from the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, would place a duty on the Government within 12 months of the Bill coming into force to produce a report dealing with its effects, including on devolved Governments, the Commonwealth, members of the Council of Europe and the rest of the world. As I have said, the impact of the Bill is very clear and I submit that, contrary to our propensity to talk about ourselves, the implications of the Bill are unlikely to be felt substantively throughout the international community.

I say to the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham—I have said this many times before—that the Government are committed to reforming the House of Lords, as set out in our manifesto. As my noble friend the Leader of the House has said in previous debates, the Government are keen to engage on how best to implement the other manifesto commitments by building consensus and understanding the needs of this House. She will come forward with proposals for doing this in a structured way.

Noble Lords are also aware of our longer-term commitment to consult the public on an alternative second Chamber. In light of this comment, I ask the noble Lord to withdraw the amendment.

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

My Lords—

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

I thought I had commented on it at the beginning. The simple fact is that the idea that you do not do anything until you do everything is not acceptable. It has not worked. We have introduced a staged process of reform. This is the first part of that reform—clearly stated in our manifesto—and we will move on to other aspects of our manifesto commitment in consultation with Members of this House. I ask that the Member withdraws the amendment.

[Lord Lucas (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to noble Lords who have spoken on their other amendments and to the noble Lord, Lord Collins, for his response. I was here for the previous Bill, of course, and can tell the noble Lord, Lord Collins, that his Front Bench was a great deal more convincing then about the inevitability of rapid progress to further change than his Front Bench is being now. We have heard nothing of ideas or substance from the Front Bench. It feels to me, just like it has on every previous occasion, that this will not happen.

Under those circumstances, something like Amendment 11 from the noble Lord, Lord Newby, is crucial. The noble Lords, Lord Cromwell and Lord Blencathra, have explored mechanisms that may be combined quite well with Amendment 11 to make it more effective. Something along those lines is what this House should send back to the other place so that the momentum for change is reinforced and, as far as possible, this House retains a degree of initiative in pushing that forward.

We need change, as the speakers to this group of amendments have said. We need that progress towards change to be public and believable, and we are not getting it at the moment. For the moment, I beg leave to withdraw this amendment.

Official Development Assistance

Lord Collins of Highbury Excerpts

Thursday 27th March 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Carey of Clifton]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the moral implications of their policy of reducing Official Development Assistance to 0.3 per cent of gross national income.

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

My Lords, protecting our national security is the first duty of any Government. This difficult choice reflects the evolving nature of the threats we face and the strategic shifts required to meet them. This Government remain fully committed to the United Kingdom playing a globally significant role on development. We will use all levers to support our development aims and we will work to mobilise finance beyond ODA to better meet the development needs of our partners.

[Lord Carey of Clifton (CB)]

My Lords, I am very grateful to the Minister for that very clear and helpful response. William Temple, in his famous book Christianity and Social Order, written in 1942, famously stated that

“the art of government in fact is the art of so ordering life that self-interest prompts what justice demands”.

I believe that that tension is with us today and was clearly expressed in the Labour manifesto last year, which promised that, on the international level, Britain would be a good neighbour and regain its global leadership on development. I want to put two questions. First, what strategies will the Government take forward to carry on UK aid’s crucial work, bearing in mind the straitened circumstances in which we live? Secondly, is this not now an opportunity to deepen the links between UK aid and the many organisations that do such fantastic work, such as Christian Aid, CAFOD, Tearfund, Islamic Relief and many other voluntary compassionate groups?

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

I thank the noble and right reverend Lord. On his first question, importantly, the Foreign Secretary will lead a cross-departmental process to consider all the aid allocations. We will work through how our ODA budget will be used as part of ongoing spending review and resource-allocation processes, based on various factors, including impact assessments.

To repeat the point I made before, it is important that our development efforts are seen not just through ODA. The United Kingdom uses expertise, policy influencing, global convening and other trade and economic levers. I have visited many African countries in the last six months; I know what leaders are telling me. Our new approach to developing partnerships is about leveraging greater investment, economic growth and empowerment through the creation of jobs. That is how we will deliver change, and that is what we will continue to do.

[Lord Browne of Ladyton (Lab)]

My Lords, I draw the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Interests. I also draw the attention of my noble friend the Minister to a question I asked last Thursday, in the debate on the G7 Statement, about the precarious nature of the FCDO’s global demining programme, which was threatened at that time because the money came from ODA. I do this because, in many contexts, an artificial dichotomy between aid and security spending is something of a false dichotomy. Consequently, I ask my noble friend: what are we doing with our allies to ensure that the ODA money, which we have to spend collectively, is targeted where it can do the most good and, importantly, yield tangible benefits for peace and security?

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

My noble friend makes a really good point. The demining projects are about increasing security, but they are also vital for economic growth and development. I have been to countries where we have supported those projects and where agriculture has increased as a consequence of being able to deal with that issue. So my noble friend is absolutely right: this is about economic growth but it is also about security. As he knows, we have secured the contract for HALO to ensure that we can continue this excellent work.

[Baroness Sugg (Con)]

My Lords, the Minister will know that, following the decision to cut aid to 0.3% of GNI by 2027, there have been calls to maintain spend until 2027 to protect vital programmes and to ensure that the cuts are done in a careful and considered way. The Minister referred to the process; may I press him on a timeline? When will the decisions be made and the impact assessments published, and when will Parliament have the opportunity to debate the details of these decisions?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

It is very difficult to give a direct answer; what I can say is that we are currently working through all programmes. We want to avoid a cliff-edge like that which, as the noble Baroness knows, happened in the past: programmes were stopped midway through, and damage was done to our credibility and confidence. We are not going to do that. We are looking at all programmes and making plans to reduce spending over time. Let me reassure her that we will come forward with details when the spending review is completed. We are going to avoid some of the mistakes of the past, and we will work with partners, multilaterally and bilaterally, to ensure there is not the sort of damage we saw in the past.

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

My Lords—

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

My Lords, yesterday the Government failed to implement the global tax avoidance scheme for businesses earning profits of more than €20 billion, and which would raise over half a billion pounds this year, because they are waiting for President Trump’s approval. Also yesterday, the Government announced in the Statement an immediate £0.5 billion cut to official development assistance, contradicting what the Minister has just said. What is the morality of allowing large companies like Elon Musk’s X to avoid paying tax in the UK, while implementing programme cuts that disproportionately affect the most vulnerable women and girls around the world? What morality is to be found there?

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

I come back to the point I made at the beginning, because I am absolutely passionate about this. When I visited African countries, they were concerned about ensuring that they have a proper tax base in their own country. That is why the HMRC—[Interruption.] The noble Lord does not need to shout at me. We have embedded people in a number of African countries to help them widen their tax base, and we are working collaboratively with partners to ensure that that happens. We want to see economic growth as the driver of change around the globe, and I am absolutely committed to that. I do not accept the hypocrisy argument that the noble Lord is making.

[Lord McConnell of Glenscorrodale (Lab)]

My Lords, one of the more disappointing aspects of the Government’s decision was to retain payments through ODA towards refugee and asylum costs in the UK. The Government have promised to reduce those costs. Will any savings from ODA spending on hotels and other asylum and refugee costs in the UK be retained within ODA and therefore be freed to again increase the resources available for overseas development?

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

My noble friend makes a very good point. The Home Office and the Government are absolutely committed to reducing those asylum and hotel costs in this country. Yesterday, it was also confirmed that the FCDO is no longer required to adjust budgets to hit a calendar year spending commitment. This is a positive change that means the FCDO will not automatically be exposed to the volatility of GNI or spending by other departments on, for example, asylum costs.

[The Earl of Effingham (Con)]

My Lords, to quote the Prime Minister when he was Leader of the Opposition in the other place:

“Cutting aid will increase costs and have a big impact on our economy. Development aid … reduces conflict, disease and people fleeing from their homes. It is a false economy to pretend that this is some sort of cut that does not have consequences”.—[Official Report, Commons, 13/7/21; col. 177.]


Does this remain His Majesty’s Government’s assessment of the impact of cutting foreign aid?

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

I am glad the noble Earl asked that question, because he needs to be reminded that we are in a different situation. We are in a generational change: the threat this country faces has never been faced before, and we know that we have to return to defence spending to ensure that the people of this country remain secure. I am not going to be lectured by noble Lords opposite about defence spending, when they reduced it so much over the years that we have to work so hard to return to it.

Ukraine: UK-USA Discussions

Lord Collins of Highbury Excerpts

Wednesday 26th March 2025 Lords Chamber

[The Senior Deputy Speaker (Lord Gardiner of Kimble)]

My Lords, the first Oral Question is from the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, who is participating virtually.

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

My Lords, we share President Trump’s desire to bring this barbaric war to an end and remain in close touch with the US at every level. The Prime Minister spoke to President Trump most recently on 17 March and the Foreign Secretary spoke to his US counterpart on 19 March. A just and lasting peace in Ukraine is vital to UK national interests. We are playing a leading role in driving progress towards this goal together with the US, Ukraine and our international partners.

[Lord Campbell-Savours (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, while I recognise the constructive role of the Prime Minister in seeking to influence the Trump Administration, with Trump’s initiatives on energy security, safe navigation, payment systems access and relaxed sanctions now proceeding, is there not a danger, post ceasefire, in remnants of the Azov brigades challenging these successes by engaging in sporadic potential ceasefire violations with military attacks on Russian forces in Russian-occupied zones? Why not propose in the interim a narrow security corridor separating the parties, policed not by coalition combat forces but by blue-helmet peacekeepers, with the later potential for full demilitarisation? We need to prevent rogue Ukraine operators undermining any agreements.

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

My Lords, I only wish we were in a post-ceasefire situation. We have been absolutely clear that this process must lead to a just and lasting peace for Ukraine. We will stand with Ukraine for as long as it takes to ensure that Russia can never launch an illegal invasion again. Under President Zelensky’s leadership, Ukraine has shown that it is the party of peace, sincere in its efforts to pursue a just and lasting end to this appalling war. For any peace deal to last, Ukraine will need robust security arrangements to ensure that Russia is never able to invade again. Europe must shoulder more of the burden of ensuring the security of our continent and the UK will play its full part but, as the PM said, US involvement in future security arrangements is the only way to effectively deter Russia.

[Lord Bellingham (Con)]

My Lords, does the Minister agree that it is vital that there is no weakening of the sanctions regime, particularly the sanctions on Rosselkhozbank and the restrictions on Russia’s use of the SWIFT regime, until there is a full ceasefire?

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

I agree with the noble Lord absolutely. We need to maintain pressure on Russia to ensure that the ceasefire leads to a secure and lasting peace.

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

My Lords, the Minister is aware that these Benches are part of the consensus in Parliament in support of the Government’s aims in this, but with Steve Witkoff, President Trump’s Ukraine envoy, calling our Prime Minister posturing and posing in his work, with Mike Waltz, President Trump’s National Security Advisor, calling the previous efforts of the RAF in Yemen “feckless”, and with the chat on Signal that we saw over the last couple of days, which in effect is extorting European allies for their practice, there comes a time when good friends and allies have to say that language such as that is not acceptable. I invite the Minister to do so now.

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

I am not going to accept the noble Lord’s invitation. The simple fact is that the UK shares President Trump’s desire to bring this barbaric war to an end. Russia could do this tomorrow by withdrawing its forces and ending its illegal invasion. We are absolutely committed to securing a just and lasting peace in Ukraine, and we will work with all our allies to secure that.

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

My Lords, I very much welcome what the Minister has said, and we are also fully supportive of the Government’s actions here. We note the news that Russia and Ukraine have reached a tentative agreement to cease fire in the Black Sea, something that I am sure we are all looking at with a degree of scepticism. Ensuring the long-term security and sovereignty of Ukraine, as the Minister said, is not only a strategic priority but a fundamental duty that we owe to our close ally, and I am delighted that the Prime Minister is due to continue discussions with President Macron and others on this tomorrow. Can the Minister update the House on the progress of talks with the so-called coalition of the willing, the militaries of the UK and its allies, and share some more information about the organisation that is taking shape?

[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.

[Baroness Winterton of Doncaster (Lab)]

My Lords, at a recent meeting of the OSCE, there was widespread support, including from US Democrats and Republicans, for continued support for Ukraine. Does my noble friend the Minister agree that it is crucial for the UK Government to play a leadership role in the OSCE to ensure collective security for our country and the wider world and to back up the type of talks that he has mentioned previously?

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

My noble friend is absolutely right. The Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary have worked in all multilateral institutions to ensure that the position of the United Kingdom and its allies in support of Ukraine is heard loud and clear. I certainly welcome my noble friend’s report on the OSCE meeting.

[Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)]

My Lords—

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

As I have said, the United States is a vital component of European security. It has been since 1945. The United States is also one of the United Kingdom’s longest allies. The close friendship between our two countries is important to secure our security, so we will maintain very strong relationships. We welcome President Trump’s initiative in trying to ensure that we have a ceasefire. The only people who have not so far committed to that ceasefire are the Russians.