G7
(2 days, 4 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Callanan (Con)
My Lords, the turbulence of the global situation that we face was reflected in the breadth of the subjects covered in the joint statement of the G7 Foreign Ministers’ meeting: Ukraine, Gaza, China, Sudan, the DRC, Latin America and Iran were all covered. We are faced with a world of growing uncertainty and instability, and we welcome the commitment shown at the G7 to face those global challenges together.
The importance of co-operation and alliance with those countries that share our values in facing these threats is, in my view, crucial. Over the weekend, and in the other place this week, we have heard that the proposed peacekeeping initiative for Ukraine is now moving into an operational phase, which we welcome. However, the Foreign Secretary did not expand on what that means in practical terms, or what our European and Atlantic allies have committed to in supporting it. Can the Minister provide the House with an update on these issues?
Across both Houses of Parliament, there is overwhelming support, I am delighted to say, for our Ukrainian allies, and we on these Benches continue to support Ukraine in its fight to defend its freedom, democracy and the rule of law. The Government have taken admirable steps to co-ordinate our allies, which we welcome, although the House would welcome an update on what this means for us and our country in practice. What are the effects of this initiative on our Armed Forces? What planning is currently under way as part of this operational shift? Which allies in the so-called coalition of the willing have expressed interest in this initiative, and what are they willing to offer? What discussions have the Government held with the United States to advance clarity on this plan? Facing Putin and ensuring the security and sovereignty of Ukraine can be achieved only alongside our allies, and I think that the House would welcome further clarity from the Government to explain what they are doing to shift this coalition of the willing to a coalition of the committed.
The G7’s joint statement also made clear the growing and very serious concerns among allies about China’s activities aimed at
“undermining the security and safety of our communities and the integrity of our democratic institutions”.
This comes alongside many other concerns raised at the G7, including China’s non-market policies and practices that are leading to harmful overcapacity and market distortions; China’s military build-up, and the continued, rapid increase in China’s nuclear weapons arsenal; and increasing efforts to restrict freedom of navigation and overflight through militarisation and coercion in countries bordering the South China Sea, in clear violation of international law.
Given these clear and blatant risks to our domestic security, and the threat that China poses to the rule of international law, will the Government now take steps to place China on the enhanced tiers list of the foreign influence registration scheme? In my view, this would further strengthen the resilience of the UK political system against covert influence and provide greater assurance around the activities of China that are deemed a national security risk.
Proceeding from the concerns expressed at the G7, the country now needs to see further concrete responses from the Government to address the threat posed by China. I therefore close by asking the Minister: what other measures are being considered by the Government to compel China to engage in strategic risk reduction discussions, and what steps are the Government taking to deter China’s non-market policies and practices?
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
My Lords, the seriousness of the issues addressed by the G7 are such that, from the welcome Statement that the House of Commons received on Monday, events have changed between then and when it has come to this Chamber with regards to the likely slow movement of President Putin in his talks with President Trump over a ceasefire for Ukraine, the increased concern with regard to the Red Sea, and the strikes from the United States and the repercussions of that—I remind the House that, on Sunday, President Trump’s national security adviser called the previous attacks, which very brave RAF personnel took part in, as “feckless”. The war has restarted in Gaza with more humanitarian concern and more violence on the West Bank, just within three days of that Statement coming to this Chamber.
We are now close to the second round of tariffs from the principal economy within the G7, as part of what the Wall Street Journal—not a liberal newspaper—in America has described as the
“dumbest trade war in history”.
Regardless of its dumbness, there will be effects across the whole of the G7, including the UK. From these Benches, we reiterate our desire to have ever-closer relations with the European Union and Canada in particular, so that there is a co-ordinated response. It is regrettable that there should need be that within the G7, but this is the world which we have to address.
On the Statement itself, I welcome the Foreign Secretary stating that they discussed using frozen Russian assets. The Minister will know that these Benches have asked for accelerated work on the seizure of the assets. Can the Minister update us on that, and tell us what the prospect of an announcement is from the G7 Heads of Government meetings? At the very least, we think there is a justified case for draft UK legislation to be released, so that we can understand what we would be required to do to move fast on that. I would be grateful if the Minister could outline where we are on the seizing of assets.
The Minister knows that we have supported the increase in defence expenditure across the UK, as the Foreign Secretary referred to in the Statement. Can the Minister give a bit more clarity as to what proportion of the increased defence expenditure is likely to be spent within the UK and what proportion is likely to be spent within the US? What is the Government’s position on the reports that we have seen about the UK’s difficulty in taking a full role within the common defence procurement approach in the European Union? Are we seeking to move quickly on a defence and security treaty which should facilitate this? There are a number of Members in this House who called for that under the last Government and continue to do so. It is now urgent, and I hope the Minister can update us on it.
The Minister will not be surprised to hear me say that we disagree with the method of the increased funds. We believe that the companies that avoid paying tax in the UK—tech companies—and are operating on underpaid taxes for their profits should contribute more. That is under the Basel 3.1 mechanism. There is agreement within the EU and, as I understand it, the G7. Only one country has argued against it and pulled out of it: the United States. A second G7 country has delayed our implementation because of that first country. We do not believe that that is appropriate; we should move quickly on using the resource from an increase from 2% to 10% on undertaxed profits. That is a better way of funding increased defence expenditure, rather than cutting the ODA budget.
Earlier, the Minister reiterated the Government’s position, which is an ambition to honour the 0.7% legislation. I remind the House that the legislation does not require the Government to have an ambition to meet 0.7%; it requires them to meet it. It is not a “We would like to do it” Act; it is a “We must do it” Act. If the Government are not committed to this then they should state it clearly, with regards to the means by which they would meet the legislative target.
On the fiscal circumstances of meeting the legislative requirement, it seems that the Government’s policy choice is to cut ODA to fund defence expenditure—that is a policy choice, not a fiscal one. What are the fiscal rules now when it comes to the policy choice of funding in an alternative way? There is no mechanism under the 0.7% legislation for alternative policy choices to be used, other than fiscal circumstances, so what is the status?
Finally, I reflected on the Government’s Statement 10 years ago, when we passed this legislation, on the 2015 G7. Granted, that was not a meeting of Foreign Ministers but of Prime Ministers, and the Prime Minister said this to the House of Commons:
“For the first time in a number of G7s and G8s, we actually got the 0.7% commitment back into the text, so it is clear and there for all to see. I would argue that it is not just right for Britain from a moral standpoint, but that it actually increases our standing in the world that we can point out that we have kept our promises and were able to use that money to enhance not only the economic standing of those countries, but our own security as well.”—[Official Report, Commons, 10/6/15; col.1203.]
I agree with the then Prime Minister.
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Baroness Chapman of Darlington) (Lab)
My Lords, I thank both noble Lords for their contributions. The noble Lord, Lord Callanan, made an important point in his opening remarks, about co-operation and unity being vital when we face so many challenging situations around the world. I thank him for saying that and I agree with him wholeheartedly.
The noble Lord asked about the Prime Minister’s comments on us being prepared to support security guarantees for Ukraine, which includes boots on the ground, should that be needed. It is too early to be able to say anything detailed in response to his question. I understand why he would like more information, and, if I had it, I would share it with him, but we are at an early stage and I do not have anything to share today.
As the noble Lord rightly said we should be, we are working closely with the US and other allies. As noble Lords will know, on Saturday, the Prime Minister hosted a leaders call to discuss next steps in developing the coalition of the willing, to which the noble Lord referred. Leaders agreed that we will accelerate our military support, tighten our sanctions on Russia’s revenues and continue to explore all lawful routes to ensure that Russia pays for the damage that it has done to Ukraine. Military planners will meet in London this week to progress practical plans. The Foreign Secretary met G7 counterparts last week, and G7 Foreign Ministers endorsed the US-Ukraine ceasefire agreement and discussed imposing further costs on Russia if a ceasefire is not agreed. The Defence Secretary met E5 Defence Ministers last Wednesday, and they committed to stepping up support for peace, working towards the establishment of security guarantees.
On China, noble Lords know that our approach is to co-operate and compete, and challenge where we need to. That is done through dialogue with our Chinese counterparts.
The noble Lord, Lord Purvis, suggested that we work closely with Canada and our EU partners when we face challenges on certain trade and other issues, and he is right to do so. He asked me to update him on the issue of frozen Russian assets. All I can say is that we are working as hard as we can on this; we have redoubled our efforts and will keep going. It is vital that Russia pays for what it has done in Ukraine.
The noble Lord and I will have to agree to differ on the issue of official development assistance. It was the right decision; we needed to get the money into the defence budget quickly. There is a development pay-off in doing that, because it enhances our ability to provide security, and that supports many developing nations—they have said as much.
On the issue of the 0.7%, I strongly urge noble Lords not to fetishise legislation that has not had the effect that those who proposed it wanted. Our desire to reach 0.7% is not to do with legislation; it is a desire to have an impact on developing nations because that is the right thing to do. That is what will drive us to meet that figure when the economic situation allows. It is a policy choice—I am not pretending it is not; of course it is. We have decided to put more money into defence. However, we do not sit here, in a crouched position, wondering how on earth we are going to fulfil our obligations to the global South over the next few years. We are going to be active, prioritising certain countries and streams of work. We will be engaging closely with our partner countries and the aid sector, and will be working multilaterally. We will be more active because we have to be.
It is not just about the money; it is about investment, our approach, working together and the technical assistance we can provide. I encourage noble Lords to think about our responsibility to the global South not just in terms of ODA. It is far bigger than that. There is not a limit on our ambition just because we have had to make these difficult financial decisions. They were the right decisions, but over the next few years we will have a more active and energised approach than we have ever had, because that is what is needed and what this Government want to do.
Lord Browne of Ladyton (Lab)
My Lords, I draw the House’s attention to my entry in the register of interests. In common with many Members of your Lordships’ House, I am an ambassador for the Halo Trust. Most of the Statement delivered by my right honourable friend in the other place was, quite appropriately, about our unwavering support for Ukraine’s people and territorial integrity.
Ukraine—where, along with allies, we are now considering boots on the ground—is the most heavily mined country in the world, with over 23% of its land contaminated or at risk of contamination with landmines and unexploded ordnance. At the fifth review conference of the Ottawa treaty in December, we reaffirmed our commitment to continuing the UK’s mine action commitments. We are home to two of the largest mine action organisations in the world: Mines Advisory Group and the Halo Trust are responsible for almost 70% of global mine clearance. I urge my noble friend to ensure that the FCDO’s mine action programme is protected as our budget is reduced. It costs only £12 million per year and raises twice that from other sources, including philanthropy. GMAP is cheap, it is genuinely world leading, and it is indispensable and irreplaceable.
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
I hear what my noble friend says about demining, and he is right. He urges me to commit to protecting that programme, and I will take his very wise counsel seriously. I get a lot of people coming to tell me what must be protected. No one has ever come to tell me that there is this programme that is not very good, but the case he makes is incredibly strong and I will keep that in mind.
Lord Hussain (LD)
My Lords, the Statement mentions Sudan very briefly. I happen to have visited that country on a couple of occasions, albeit a few years ago. I have two very brief questions. First, the Minister said that funding for Sudan will be prioritised, but can we have an assurance that all development support for the broad civilian front will be protected? Secondly, will the Minister agree with me that for the peace, prosperity and security of the African region and, more importantly, for the people of Sudan, the best option will be to keep Sudan as one sovereign country? If so, what are the British Government’s efforts to achieve that?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
The noble Lord is right that we have committed to protecting our support for Sudan, because so many thousands of people find themselves in such a horrific situation in that region. We are about to hold a conference here in London for international partners to come and talk. I think the prospect of an imminent resolution is limited. However, the right way to approach this is to use our convening power and to encourage dialogue in the hope that it can in time unlock this situation, because it is desperate. We are undertaking a great deal of humanitarian assistance in the region, which is right, but ultimately we need to see peace in Sudan.
Lord Howell of Guildford (Con)
My Lords, the Minister struck a global approach when she was answering the questions earlier, which is quite right. Will she remind all those involved around her that it is not just Commonwealth countries? It is Japan this time as well. It is on our side and anxious to make a contribution, and keeps on asking at what point it should be brought in and so on. It is not just a European issue.
Secondly, have we picked up on the rather interesting emergence of a discussion about energy vulnerability? The Russians have been exploiting this, of course, but say that for the moment they will not hit energy and power stations. It reminds us that this is a world and a situation in which civilian, non-front-line utilities can be reached by rockets in a way they never could in earlier combat. They must be defended, and the cost of that defence is part of our defence expenditure. It is not just MoD tanks and rockets; we will have to spend defence money on defending vital utilities and civilian populations, because this is a war against civilians.
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
The noble Lord is right to mention Japan, an incredibly close friend and ally of the United Kingdom. We do work with it, so I take his point; he is completely right to remind noble Lords about that.
Attacks on energy and other civilian infrastructure are abhorrent, and we work closely with our allies and partners to try to make sure that we do what we need to protect them and, where necessary, that we are fully engaged in reconstruction that, sadly, will need to happen.
Lord Katz (Lab)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend the Minister for the Statement and particularly the strong words, on which I think we are united in this House, about standing by Ukraine. On that matter, I particularly noted her comments about the discussion around Russia paying for the damage it has wreaked across Ukraine. Of course, the damage is not just a cost in pounds alone. Does she agree that there can be no peace worthy of that name while there are tens of thousands of Ukrainian children taken from their parents, scattered across the country and, according to some reports, even being brainwashed against their mother country? There can be no peace worthy of that name while those children remain in Russia. Does she share my concern of recent reports that Yale University’s humanitarian lab has been defunded by Elon Musk’s DOGE while it was in the midst of trying to track many of those abducted children? Has the G7 discussed the fate of those poor, abducted children? Their safe return really must be an absolute non-negotiable in any peace deal.
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord. Many things keep me awake at night, but the fate of those children is one that frequently comes to mind. We do discuss those children and the necessity of their safe and immediate return to their families. What has happened is unimaginable. He is completely right, and I can assure him that we take every opportunity to discuss that.
Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws (Lab)
I co-chair the taskforce for the return of the children who have been taken into Russia. The evidence is really shocking and quite scandalous. It is interesting that no one from the Government has ever asked me to come and speak to them about the evidence. I draw that to the attention of the Front Bench; perhaps it will find its way down to the other end of this House. I suspect that no one in this House knows more about it than I do, and yet I have never been asked.
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
I would like the noble Baroness to consider herself invited. I would be very keen to hear what she has to say, to consider the evidence she has and to discuss ways in which she may be able to assist in efforts to have those children returned.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, I draw attention to my entry in the register of interests on organisations working for conflict resolution, particularly chairing the ICO advisory panel in this regard. I associate myself closely with the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Katz. We are all as one on this, and we must look at alternative sources.
My question is on the one glimmer of hope in the Statement. I commend the Government on continuing to draw attention to the resolution of the dispute between Armenia and Azerbaijan, as the previous Government did. That is a positive within the Statement. In the same way, were there any discussions about the territorial gains that Russia has made in Crimea, South Ossetia, Abkhazia and, of course, the Donbass? What would be the resolution there? At the moment, the way discussions are going, it seems that Russia gets to keep lands that it has occupied.
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
I do not have anything specific to say on the content of those negotiations. It would be strange to disclose things such as that—were I aware of them, which I am not—while those negotiations are ongoing. What matters is that the agreement that is finally reached is one that the people of Ukraine are satisfied with. What matters is that we get peace, but it needs to be a just peace and it needs to be agreed with Ukraine at the very centre of it.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, the Statement refers, rightly, to Israel’s complete blocking of aid to Gaza as being “appalling and unacceptable”. Since the Statement was made, Israel has resumed attacks on Gaza; 400 people have died, including many children, and there is great concern for the remaining Israeli hostages in this situation. Sir Keir Starmer said that he was “deeply concerned” about the Israelis resuming military action, and, in the other place, he refused to rule out the suspension of further arms sales. Surely we are now at the point where we have to suspend all arms sales to Israel.
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
We have been very clear that we think that Israel ought to allow aid into Gaza, and that it is wrong to disrupt that flow and to cut off the electricity supply. What matters is that we can protect that population, feed those children and get the medical supplies where they need to be. On arms and restrictions, as noble Lords know, we take an approach that is based on the law, and we apply the law. We made decisions last year to impose restrictions; we will do so again should we need to in future. The situation today is the same as it was yesterday, and we have made no new decisions on that.
Lord Soames of Fletching (Con)
Following the ongoing work and conclusions of the G7, will the Minister have a further word with the Ministry of Defence about the extreme inadvisability of dispatching a carrier group to the Far East at this time, taking with it a very large amount of the depleted serviceable aircraft and ships of the Royal Navy currently available for operations? The carrier’s place now is in the north Atlantic with its escorts, and it should not go to the Far East.
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
I have a very good relationship with my colleagues at the Ministry of Defence, and I am happy to discuss any issue with them, but operational decisions such as that one probably would not fall within my remit. I am sure they will note what the noble Lord has said. They are free to make the choices that they have made, and they have more information on which to base those choices than we do here today.
Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)
My Lords, can the Minister tell the House whether the United States Secretary of State raised either the G7 becoming the G8, by the addition of Russia, or the G6, by the subtraction of Canada? If her answer to that question is “No” or “I don’t know”, can we stop being distracted from the mass of important matters that the G7 must address in the months ahead?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
I am not aware of any such discussions. I believe that the G7 has been focused on, as the noble Lord said, the vital issues that it faces.
Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)
The Statement said that the G7 was
“united behind an inclusive political transition in Syria”.
I am not quite sure how we can help to bring that about until we again have an embassy in Syria. I apologise for coming around like a cracked record on this. The last time we spoke about it, Ministers seemed to be showing a bit of leg; there was a hint of movement. Is there any chance of that leg moving into action?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
I do not need to explain to the noble Lord that it is not straightforward to reopen the embassy in Damascus after such a period of time, but I take on board his desire to see that happen. I understand why he said that; there are very good reasons to take that view. I will consider that alongside Minister Hamish Falconer, who I am sure will respect, as he should, the views of the noble Lord.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, the Statement refers to the G7 condemning
“the Rwanda-backed offensive in the eastern DRC, which is a flagrant breach of the DRC’s territorial integrity”.
Shortly after the Statement was made, the EU sanctioned nine additional individuals and one entity in association with Rwanda’s backing of the M23. I know that if I ask about Magnitsky-style sanctions, the Minister will answer saying, “We don’t talk about what we are going to do in the future”. Instead, I seek from her a reassurance that the Government are maintaining a focus on this crucial issue of the highest humanitarian damage and disaster, particularly because of violence against women and girls but also more generally. Can she reassure me that the Government are keeping a focus here?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
I thank the noble Baroness for raising that point, and particularly for mentioning women and girls—she is right to do so. On sanctions, obviously we do not talk about designations ahead of time, but it is important. It is too easy, sometimes, to forget about the DRC—and, indeed, Sudan—when we have Ukraine and Gaza so prominent in our minds, so I am grateful to her for raising that.