Deep Sea Mining in International Waters

Lord Hannay of Chiswick Excerpts

Monday 30th June 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

In my meeting with the civil servants this morning, I spoke about our participation in next week’s meeting of the council of the ISA. We will ensure that we take into account all the expert advice, not restricted just to that from this country but in working with our allies in the council of the ISA to ensure that all available information is in place so that we can develop strong, proper regulations.

[Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)]

My Lords, does the Minister agree that, since we joined the Convention on the Law of the Sea in 1994, this has never been a party-political issue in this country? It has been supported by all parties, and that should remain the case in future.

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lord for his question. I do think that we are working on a cross-party basis. These are long-term issues about the protection of the environment and of ecosystems that we know very little about and on which we might rely. The noble Lord is absolutely right, and I am confident that the noble Lords opposite agree.

UK-Mauritius Agreement on the Chagos Archipelago

Lord Hannay of Chiswick Excerpts

Monday 30th June 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)]

My Lords, today’s debate is odd for two reasons, and that is the one point on which I think I agree with the introductory remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Callanan. First, had the outcome of last July’s general election been different, it is highly possible that the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, or one of his colleagues would have been standing at the Dispatch Box defending an agreement similar to the one we are debating now. How else can one construe the 11 rounds of negotiations that the Government of which he was a member conducted with the Government of Mauritius before that election following the ruling of the International Court of Justice and the overwhelming vote in the UN General Assembly that the UK should negotiate in this sense?

Secondly, the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, put down the wrecking Motion he has introduced calling for the agreement not to be ratified even though neither of the two committees examining the agreement—the International Agreements Committee, of which I have the honour to be a member, and the International Relations and Defence Committee—had even begun to take evidence on the text of the agreement, let alone put such evidence in the public domain. The reports of these two committees are now available to the House and they provide no—I repeat, no—justification for the Motion that the noble Lord has put before us. That surely demonstrates a contempt for the two committees, which is deplorable. Some will say, “Well, that’s just politics”, but it should not be so if the work of our committees is to be taken seriously by the House.

Now, that lacuna has been filled and our report and the evidence on which it is based have been published and are available to the House, as is the extremely valuable letter from the International Relations Committee. That it should have become available so late in the day is a matter for profound apology, but given the 21 working days we had to conduct our inquiry of quite a complex agreement, it was inevitable once the Government had already, at an earlier stage, turned down our request for an extension.

The committees heard the evidence of three distinguished international lawyers. While this evidence was not unanimous, two out of the three—Philippe Sands and Sir Christopher Greenwood—were very clear that the agreement reached was necessary if the UK was to avoid a legally binding finding at some point in the future in addition to the advisory opinion already rendered by the ICJ.

It was also particularly striking that Sir Christopher was so clear that it would be incompatible—I repeat, incompatible—with the policy expressed so frequently at the Dispatch Box by both the outgoing Government and the incoming one that the UK supports the rules-based international order, if the UK should then find it inconvenient to do so on this occasion. For what it is worth, that is my own opinion too. At a time when the rules-based order is under such severe attack, it would be especially damaging if one of its principal supporters were to choose opportunism over principle.

None of the evidence we received supported the view that has been expressed that this agreement is in any way analogous with, or undermines the legal basis for, the UK’s sovereignty over Gibraltar, the Falkland Islands and the sovereign base areas of Cyprus.

In conclusion, I would urge Members to vote against the Motion tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, and to take note of the report from the International Relations Committee, which clears the way for ratification of the agreement reported on. That is the course consistent with our national security interests and with our respect for international law.

Before concluding, I want to say how sorry I am to be speaking before the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Prentis, as I would have wished to congratulate her on her maiden speech. I am sorry also to be speaking before the noble Lord, Lord Boswell of Aynho. He was my boss on the European Union Committee for many years and a completely outstanding chairman of that committee, for whose work we should all express great gratitude today.

[Noble Lords]

Hear, hear.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)]

I am going to deal with the legal issues affecting this because the Government are saying to us, “We have no choice: we have to sign this because we have legal risk”. There is no point the noble Lord muttering from a sedentary position.

[Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)]

My Lords—

[Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)]

I will finish the point and give way. This Government are trying to dress up a political decision as a legal decision. Now, of course, I am happy to give way.

[Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)]

I just wanted to ask the noble Lord to address the testimony given to the committee by Sir Christopher Greenwood, rather than having a lot of fun at the expense of Mr Philippe Sands.

[Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)]

I have. Sir Christopher Greenwood made the point that we have legal risk. He is absolutely right: there is legal risk. But I am suggesting that we need to analyse that legal risk carefully.

There has been very little reference in the debate so far to the other evidence taken by the committee from Professor Ekins. Indeed, it is a shame that we have not been able to hear from the noble Lord, Professor Lord Verdirame, this afternoon because I would be very interested to hear his view on this issue. Ultimately, the committee heard from three lawyers. There is a difference of legal opinion on this issue, and that is because, ultimately, this is a political and not a legal decision.

Let me turn now to Article 4 of the treaty, which has not yet been raised. The premise of the agreement rests on the proposition that our interests will align with those of Mauritius for the next 99 years to the extent that there is no appreciable risk that Mauritius—and it has, of course, retained lawyers of the highest calibre—will seek to leverage the terms of the treaty for its own benefit. Merely to state that assumption is to show how unsafe it is.

I say 99 years; I was very surprised that the noble Lord, Lord McDonald, referred to 140 years. The ability in the treaty to extend it for 40 years is really not worth the paper it is not written on. There is simply no legal right to extend. There is an ability to negotiate, and the idea that there will be an extension, absent perhaps another huge payment of money, really is for the birds.

Article 4 provides:

“Each Party agrees to ensure that in the implementation and application of this Agreement, including activities in relation to the Base, there shall be compliance with international law”.


No court or body is appointed to deal with that issue. If Mauritius, advised by its eminent lawyers, took the view that UK or US operations out of Diego Garcia are not in accordance with international law, then it could allege the UK was in breach. That would not entitle Mauritius to terminate the treaty—the rights of termination are limited in Article 15—but it would entitle it to take countermeasures which would otherwise be prohibited under the treaty, such as allowing the presence of armed forces of other countries or constructing installations elsewhere on the islands that might adversely affect the security of Diego Gracia. Let us be clear: if Mauritius took that action, there would be nothing that we could do and we would not be entitled to stop paying the sums that we have promised to pay under the treaty.

There is a similar legal risk under Annexe 1. It was mentioned earlier that we have to inform Mauritius about the use of force originating from the base at Diego Garcia “expeditiously”. I have three questions for the Minister in this regard. First, my understanding is that the UK’s position is that this provision requires notice only after an operation is launched. Is that correct? Secondly, assuming that it is only after an operation is launched, what do we consider “expeditiously” means? Does it mean that we have to inform Mauritius as soon as the planes take off, or can we deliberately decide to delay informing it, even though we could inform it, until the operation has been completed? Thirdly, whatever our interpretation of that word might be, have we agreed that interpretation with Mauritius? If we have not, I can give the Minister some free legal advice: all of this is very ripe for a further dispute, which would likely result in Mauritius not abiding by its obligations under the treaty.

Conflict in the Middle East

Lord Hannay of Chiswick Excerpts

Monday 16th June 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

We are doing whatever is possible. As I said, our embassy, and the consulate in Jerusalem, are working around the clock and can be contacted 24/7 by any British national in need of consular assistance. As I said, we have deployed a rapid deployment team to either side of the Israeli-Jordan border to assist those who choose to travel out of the country via land. The situation is fast-moving. British nationals should read the FCDO’s advice and also follow, wherever appropriate, local government advice. I reassure my noble friend that we are monitoring the situation closely and keeping all plans under constant review.

[Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for the Government’s Statement, which struck exactly the right note. I have two questions I would like to put to him. The first relates to the provisions of the United Nations charter on the use of force. Does he agree that the only possible cover, under the UN charter, for the unilateral military action that was taken last Friday by Israel is indeed Article 51 of the charter, and that for that to be operated, there has to be an imminent threat—I say “imminent”, a word which is being used in courts very frequently—of an Iranian attack on Israel? Do the Government have any information of any kind that indicated that such an attack was in fact imminent at the time Israel took its action?

My second question to the Minister is, does he not think that the E3 possibly has a role to play in supporting the efforts of President Trump to get back to a negotiating, diplomatic discussion of Iran’s nuclear programme? If that is so, are we going to co-operate actively as a member of the E3 in canvassing that with all those concerned?

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

I will address the last question first, which is absolutely right. We are working with the E3, but we are also working in Ottawa to make sure that we can build a strong alliance to support these diplomatic efforts of President Trump to ensure a dialogue, and a deal—as he puts it—that will ensure safety and security in this incredibly dangerous moment.

I am not going to speculate on what information Israel may or may not have had. All I would say is that at this moment in time, we are urging the most important thing, which is to step back, not escalate the situation and not engage with others. As I said earlier, the Prime Minister has had direct calls with Benjamin Netanyahu, President Trump, the leaders of France and Germany and of course other allies in the region, particularly the United Arab Emirates. We have been conveying one simple message: we have urged restraint, to step back and de-escalate. That is the way to ensure a future deal, as President Trump put it.

Middle East Update

Lord Hannay of Chiswick Excerpts

Wednesday 7th May 2025 Lords Chamber

[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.

Ukraine: UK-USA Discussions

Lord Hannay of Chiswick Excerpts

Wednesday 26th March 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

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

[Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)]

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

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

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

Sudan and Eastern DRC

Lord Hannay of Chiswick Excerpts

Monday 3rd February 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

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

[Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)]

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

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

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

UK Strategy Towards the Arctic (International Relations and Defence Committee Report)

Lord Hannay of Chiswick Excerpts

Thursday 9th January 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)]

My Lords, this is the second time in recent years that this House has reported on and debated Britain’s overall Arctic policy, this second debate having been excellently introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Ashton of Hyde. That is to this House’s credit, because that dimension of our external policies, often overlooked, presents plenty of challenges, and even threats. The comparison between the reports produced demonstrates how quickly those challenges are changing, while some, such as those from the climate, have become more intense. Britain may not be an Arctic state itself but it is a close neighbour to the Arctic, and a friend and ally in NATO of several states which are, and an adversary to one, Russia, which is waging an illegal war of aggression in Europe against Ukraine. The scale of these changes is not altogether surprising. However, it requires policy responses from us, not just words.

What has not changed is the rapid melting of the Greenland ice cap and the other Arctic ice caps in Russia, Finland, Norway, Canada and the US, and the consequent rise worldwide of sea levels. This demonstrates beyond peradventure that global climate change policies are not yet sufficient, all the more so as the Arctic ice melt is occurring more rapidly than elsewhere for a number of technical and scientifically demonstrated reasons.

It is all the more shocking, therefore, that in 10 days’ time the incoming President of the US may decide to withdraw again from global efforts to brake and reverse climate change. What will our response be to that? Is the incoming President aware of our regret at any such move if it were to be made? Surely we will not be tempted to throw in the towel and simply accept that the sea rise, which will damage not only us but many developing countries around the world, should continue unchecked.

A second development, which has not changed, is the enlargement of the high seas areas in the Arctic potentially now available to fishing and the depletion of already threatened fish stocks, on which most countries, including ourselves, are for good and justified reasons supporting a moratorium, although we are no longer a legal part of it. If there is to be fishing in the future in these waters, it must surely be effectively regulated internationally and enforced. What is our policy in that respect?

When we first debated the Arctic, the opening up of the northern trade route from the Far East to Europe and elsewhere was more a matter of speculation than reality. We were inclined to treat that, and the competitive threats to routes using the Suez Canal, with what has turned out to be an excessive degree of complacency. The illegal actions of the Houthis in Yemen and the consequent damage to the Suez Canal route mean that such complacency can no longer be sustained or defended—the northern route, one should add, being vulnerable to Russian interference, perhaps supported by China. What is the Government’s medium and long-term response beyond the so far relatively unavailing action against Houthi attacks? This is a major threat to freedom of navigation under the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, which affects all nations.

The biggest change since the report by the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, arises in the field of security and defence, which the scope of the Arctic Council does not cover—a council that in any case is in suspension since Russia’s aggression against Ukraine. What is the UK and the NATO response to that sharply increased threat? Will this aspect be fully covered in the strategic defence review of the noble Lord, Lord Robertson, due to be presented in a few months’ time?

In the report by the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, the case was made for the appointment of a UK special representative for the Arctic. That proposal has received considerable further support during this debate. The case was summarily rejected by the then Government, but, as has been seen, much has changed since then, in particular the threat in the Arctic from defence and security issues and the multipolar nature of the challenges facing us in the Arctic—quite different from the essential and valuable work being done in the Antarctic by the FCDO’s polar regions unit. I welcome the present report’s reiteration of the need for strengthened UK diplomatic input in the Arctic. Is it not now time to look again at the case for a UK special representative for the Arctic, perhaps in the light of the increased prominence there of security issues? Such a post could be based jointly in the Ministry of Defence and the FCDO. Can the Minister respond to that suggestion when he replies to this debate?

Finally, a word about the sovereignty of Greenland. It is surely the height of irresponsibility to have raised that issue again, one which belongs more to the 19th century than the 21st century. In this way it has complicated and distorted the work that needs to be done to face the global challenges that are posed for us and others in the Arctic and which we need to face up to. I hope we will have nothing to do with the raising of that issue in recent days.

G20 and COP 29 Summits

Lord Hannay of Chiswick Excerpts

Monday 25th November 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

From a sedentary position, the noble Lord, Lord Harris, suggests that was an application to be ambassador—I think not.

On all these things, the food safety agency will be involved to ensure that all products must be safe. The issue of chlorinated washed chicken previously caused enormous concern to the public, and that is why labelling is important. But I am sure these issues will be discussed as part of a new trade deal.

[Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)]

My Lords, does the noble Baroness accept that this is an appropriate moment to mention Lord Prescott’s involvement in the Kyoto Protocol? I think it was one of his outstanding achievements.

Can the noble Baroness the Leader of the House say a little bit about the forward look for next year’s COP meeting in Belém in Brazil? With a good Brazilian Minister of the Environment who is genuinely committed to stopping the destruction of the Amazon rainforest, there are surely major opportunities now to have a somewhat less contentious approach than we had to this year’s COP. Can she also say a little bit about what we are going to do on food security, because Brazil is very relevant there. Brazil has enormous capacity for agriculture and food production but not a very active programme of development in developing countries; we have a development policy. Can we not make them work a bit better together?

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lord for his comments about John Prescott and Kyoto. It was one of the things of which he was most proud, and in many ways he was a man ahead of his time—many derided him on that issue but he was proved to be absolutely right. It remained an abiding passion of his right until the very end.

The noble Lord is right that the Brazil COP presents a major opportunity. Discussions are difficult when so many countries are trying to reach an agreement, so how these discussions are managed and how the countries work together is really important. The noble Lord has made the point about how the climate emergency affects every part of our lives in terms of food security and migration; they are interconnected, and that is why the role on the world stage is important. Food security is an issue that will be discussed at the next COP, because it is part and parcel of what is happening to the world with the climate emergency. The noble Lord is also right that the relationship between our country and Brazil has grown in the last few years. Certainly, at this COP, both Brazil and the UK were asked for advice on many occasions. After a very difficult COP this time, we must try to be as optimistic as we can to see what progress can be made in Brazil.

UN Sustainable Development Goals

Lord Hannay of Chiswick Excerpts

Thursday 17th October 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)]

My Lords, the debate we are having today on the UN sustainable development goals is, if anything, overdue, so the initiative by the noble Lord, Lord McConnell, is doubly welcome. The hard fact is that the mid-term review of progress towards the 2030 sustainable development goals showed as much regress as progress. We in this country bear some responsibility for that, as we squeezed our overseas aid budget, cut back on our contributions to multilateral development programmes and diverted huge sums of development aid to financing Ukrainian refugees in this country. This lamentable performance was not without its cost to us in terms of waning influence in the global South. If we ignore its priorities, why should it pay much attention to ours?

Where does remedial action begin? Clearly it begins, if it does not end, with finding more overall resources for overseas aid to developing countries. Getting back to our legal obligation of 0.7% of gross national income will not be easy or quick, but it needs to start now. The Budget at the end of this month surely needs to contain some modest first steps in that direction. Let us hope it will, otherwise our credibility will be hard to sustain.

A key priority among the sustainable development goals must surely be climate change, both what we do in this country and what we do overseas through our aid programme. It would surely be better to move away from the annual wrangles at COP meetings over the global figures for developing countries to more practical and precise programmes which will help developing countries face up to a range of challenges for whose origins, as other speakers have said, they were not responsible. There should be more resources for those developing countries such as Indonesia, South Africa, Brazil and others whose action to check climate change could make a real difference; some linkage between relief for the heavily indebted countries and their action against climate change; and better ways of judging right across the board how well every country in the UN is carrying out the obligations it has freely entered into.

Then there is world health. This is now risking neglect as Covid fades into the rearview mirror, but do not doubt that there will be another global pandemic soon enough. We need to be able to spot it and take remedial action quicker than we did with Covid, and to find more equitable ways to distribute vaccines than we did on that occasion. Much will be riding on next year’s negotiations for a pandemic convention. What are the Government’s plans for that event?

Trade policy too is returning to the development agenda, after a period when freer and fairer trade worldwide was the order of the day and brought much benefit. Now, protectionism is on the rise, and we should have no illusions: if the sort of tariffs being touted by Donald Trump come into being and are replicated by other major trading nations—as was, lamentably, the case in the 1930s—then the damage to the prospects of developing countries will be real and profound. That disastrous precedent needs to be avoided if the SDGs are not to take another heavy hit.

The issues I have identified already make up a daunting agenda. Others in this debate will be added and will be every bit as important. Ducking that agenda would be a futile course, the consequences of which we would all suffer. The UK, working with other like-minded countries, has a modest capacity to make a real, positive difference, and it is in our interest so to do.

Gibraltar-Spain Border Checks

Lord Hannay of Chiswick Excerpts

Tuesday 15th October 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)]

Can we hear from the Cross Benches now, please?

[Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)]

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

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

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