Lords Chamber

Monday 12th January 2026

(began 3 weeks, 6 days ago)

Share Debate
Watch Live
Skip to latest contribution
This debate has concluded
14:45
None Portrait Introduction(s): Lord Doyle; Lord Duvall
-

The The Grace The Grace of The Grace of God The Grace of God of The Grace of God of the The Grace of God of the United Kingdom, of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and of our other realms and territories. King, head of the Commonwealth, defender of the Faith to all Lords, spiritual and temporal, and all other subjects whatsoever to whom these presents shall come. Greeting. Know ye that we of our special grace, certain knowledge, and mere motion, in pursuance of the Life Peerages Act 1958, and of all other powers in that behalf are seized, presence, advance, create, and prefer our trusty and well beloved Leonard Lloyd Duvall officer of our most excellent Order of the British Empire to the state degree, style, dignity, title and honour of Baron Duval, of Woolwich, in our Royal Borough of Greenwich.

And for us, our heirs and successors, to appoint, give and grant unto him the said name, state, degree, style, dignity, title and honour of Baron Duval, to have and to hold unto him for his life willing, and by these presents granting for us our heirs and successors, that he may have, hold and possess a seat, place, and voice in the parliaments and public assemblies and councils of us, our heirs and successors within our United Kingdom, amongst the Barons, and also that he may enjoy and use all the rights, privileges, Preeminences, immunities and advantages to the degree of a Baron duly and of right belonging, which Barons of our United Kingdom have heretofore used and enjoyed, or, as they do at present, use and enjoy.

In witness whereof we have caused these our letters to be made patent witness ourself at Westminster in the afternoon of the eighth day of January, in the fourth year of our reign, by warrant under the King's sign-manual.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I Leonard Lloyd Duvall do swear by Almighty God that I will be by Almighty God that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to His Majesty King Charles, his heirs and successors according to heirs and successors according to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My
14:50
None Portrait Lord Speaker Election Result
-

>> My Lords. >> My Lords. Announce >> My Lords. Announce the >> My Lords. Announce the results of the election for the office of of the election for the office of Lord speaker. Details of the votes cast will be made available in the cast will be made available in the printed paper office. The successful candidate was Lord

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Forsyth of Drumlean. My Lords, I have the honour to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I have the honour to notify your Lordships that His Majesty the King, having been informed that your Lordships have informed that your Lordships have elected Lord Forsyth of Drumlean to be Lord Speaker, has pleasure in confirming your Lordship's choice confirming your Lordship's choice of him as your speaker.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, on behalf of the whole House, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, on being Lord, Lord Forsyth, on being elected our Lord speaker, and I look forward to working closely with him in his new role when he with him in his new role when he takes up the post, and it will be next month. I know he will represent the House rigorously and represent the House rigorously and will act robustly, as he is known to in the role for members across your Lordships House and my Lords, your Lordships House and my Lords, I also want to pay tribute to noble Lady Baroness Bull.

For her was a dedicated campaign and candidacy. My Lords, both candidates were an absolute credit to your Lordships House and I thank them. The campaign process was courteous and dignified, showing that despite being the unelected House, we can run a good election. My Lords, I also extend thanks to all the House staff involved in the election, particularly those in the Journal Office, the Hansard Society and the digital team supporting all members to take part and for making sure that a right and proper procedure was followed.

My Lords, as usual, time has made available for the House to pay tribute to my noble friend Lord McFall when he leaves the Woolsack, and I have promised him, under pain of retaliation that will not be paying tribute to him today, and pre-empting those that distribute will make later. But my Lords, I know the whole House will want to thank him for what has been really sterling service to the House for so many years. Thank you.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords. I entirely endorse everything that the Leader of the everything that the Leader of the House has said on our behalf, and I do congratulate my noble friend do congratulate my noble friend Lord Forsyth, and he is my friend. All that he has. I do remember when All that he has. I do remember when I was first Minister in your Lordships House, that it fell to the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, my the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, my friend, to ask the first question, and I was very pleased, and went up to him, said, I'm glad it's you asking a question.

He said, yes, yes, good. And my Lord, he asked me a right bastard of a question I don't know, so I may not be parliamentary language. He asked me. Really? He asked me a really difficult question, and I said to him afterwards, what's going on? He said, gave me that seraphic smile and he said, well, he did very well. And my Lords only tell that story to show that I know that my noble friend who is the Leader of the House, said is rigorous in his scrutiny.

He was rigorous in his scrutiny of us on our side when we were in government is here. He is a great parliamentarian and will be a wonderful servant of your Lordships House in his new role. I have no doubt. And like the leader, I would also like to pay a most sincere tribute to. And I will say also, if I may, my noble friend Baroness Ball, who conducted herself with her habitual decorum and charm, and I hope she will take from this election a sense of the respect and affection in which she is held.

And the crossbenches are a vital part of this House, and long may that remain. My Lords. I accept the strictures, and I ask others to do that. There should be no tributes to the Lord speaker today, but I regret that I will not be present at the on the day assigned for the tributes. For personal reasons I cannot be present, so I hope you will forgive me if I take 30s simply to say my deepest sense of friendship, affection and gratitude for the service of the Lord Speaker as chair of the Commission in so many other ways, I worked with him as Leader of the House and Leader of the Opposition, and he treated me in the same way on both occasions.

A consummate servant of the house and often not easy circumstances. And some of that may come out in the tributes. In particular. As we all know, his love and dedication to his wife, my Lords, he is an outstanding servant of the House and will be continuing to be that for the rest of the month. I hope he'll accept my apologies, though not be present on the appointed day, but that these brief words are no less deeply and sincerely meant.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

By Lords on behalf of the Liberal Democrat benches. I also wish to give warm congratulations wish to give warm congratulations to the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, on his election and an efficiently run election. I suspect Ministers of election. I suspect Ministers of all persuasions may have slight relief that he will no longer be asking those types of questions to asking those types of questions to any Minister. I wish also to thank the noble Lady Baroness Bull for the noble Lady Baroness Bull for her candidacy and the way that she conducted it, with a sense of integrity, commitment and optimism.

And the House thanks her for for that. We wish the noble Lord Forsyth well in his work on the Woolsack rules, and perhaps the noble Earl of Kinnoull, and I could be forgiven for rather liking a Caledonian continuity for Lord Forsyth and Lord McFall. But they also have another thing in common a deeply held passion for parliamentary accountability, and that their politics is based on ideas, crafting an argument, shrewdness and, yes, wit. And I know that all of his estimable skills are going to be put to good use in his service to the House Amen.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

Very brief, but I think that I'm very much looking forward on the Commission to seeing the forensic Commission to seeing the forensic skills of Lord Forsyth, questioning all the many people that we have to question. I dare say that matters. question. I dare say that matters. Like the door will will have a very rough ride, very rough ride indeed. rough ride, very rough ride indeed. The other thing is that it is a little bit hard for us sometimes to recruit members to the crossbench, recruit members to the crossbench, but I'm much looking forward to his arrival, I think, in five years time.

So that's wonderful and I will reserve everything that I have to say, the many warm and happy memories that I have for Lord Speaker as well. I finished by turning to my noble friend and colleague, who I think did show the very finest of of campaigns during the campaign. And and I'm very glad I'm going to carry on sitting next door to her. She brings much needed

**** Possible New Speaker ****

glamour to our front bench. I have known and worked alongside Lord Forsyth for many alongside Lord Forsyth for many years, since we represented neighbouring constituencies in the House of Commons in the 1980s. Michael was conservative MP for Stirling on the east bank of Loch Stirling on the east bank of Loch Lomond, while I was a Labour representative for Dumbarton on the west side, and it's fair to say that we did not see eye to eye. On every issue when there was turbulence in the waters of Loch Lomond, locals would say aye, that's McFall and Forsyth rowing again.

But although we locked horns many times, I always recognised Michael as an honourable and distinguished public servants dedicated to the good governance of our nation and the well-being of its people. That impression has been further cemented by his work here in the House of Lords, particularly as chair of the Economic Affairs Committee and the Financial Services Regulation Committee, and after more than 40 years service in both Houses of Parliament, I am sure Lord Forsyth will find, as I have done, that the post of Lord Speaker is both the most rewarding job of his career and the honour of a lifetime, and I would like to thank both Lord Forsyth and Baroness Bull for putting themselves forward as candidates to serve this House and congratulate them on the constructive way they have conducted this election, and I would also like to thank all those involved in the administration of the contest.

But above all, I would like to congratulate Lord Forsyth and his election and offer him my best wishes and support in his new role as Lord Speaker Lord Forsyth.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I'm most grateful for these very flattering tributes from all the frontbenchers. My father all the frontbenchers. My father would have been astonished and my mother would have believed them. I mother would have believed them. I am, I am really overwhelmed and slightly humbled. Believe it or not, slightly humbled. Believe it or not, by the. I don't know what you're all laughing. By the the confidence and trust which you've put on me, put in me and on me in supporting my election.

Not all of you voted for me and for those who didn't vote for me. I just like to say I completely understand why. And that's because I had in my opponent a formidable candidate, and I echo all the words that have been said about Baroness Bull. The Clerk of the House was very kind and told both of us what the result was on Friday. So we've had quite an interesting weekend trying not to tell anyone what was happening, and I rang Baroness Bull and she has very kindly agreed to continue to support me as Deputy Speaker, and we will work together to deliver what were so many common issues across the benches and that you can be sure of.

I'm sorry we're not allowed to see anything at this stage about the Lord Speaker, but can I just say, I think the Lord Speaker has done a brilliant job, and it's a great privilege for me to have the opportunity to build on the great work that she's done. On increasing accountability in the House and moving us forward. So I look forward to serving all of you, whether you voted for me or not, with with pleasure. And I will try and avoid being political, which I think must be for people like me, a bit like coming off heroin as an addict first.
15:01
15:02
15:03
Lord Katz Portrait Lord Katz (Labour)
-
-
Well, I know that the noble Baroness has taken a long interest in the sustainable drainage system, or Suds, and I want to reassure her in the House that the government is strongly committed to improving the implementation of sustainable drainage systems. In December 2024, we made changes to the National Planning Policy Framework to support increased delivery of Suds. And that means that all development now the new policy planning policy framework now requires all development to utilise Suds where they could have drainage impacts appropriate to the nature and scale of the development.

In June this last year, the government introduced new national standards to make clear that Suds should be used to design to cope with the changing climatic conditions and deliver wider benefits. And so we are now actually consulting on a revised national policy planning framework, which, including for flood risk and sustainable drainage systems, and separately on proposals to increase adoption of shared immunity amenities with guidance to ensure lifetime maintenance. And as the noble Baroness raised it, I do just want to say in terms of what the situation we see at the moment on the ground in in Kent and parts of Sussex, I want to make absolutely clear that restoring supply must be the company's absolute priority, and every possible measure must be taken to protect vulnerable customers and ensure that those affected receive decent and proper compensation.

And to that extent, Defra Ministers are meeting daily with the Chief Executive of the of the of the Water Company and local MPs to reinforce the fact that this level of service failure cannot continue.
15:04
15:05
15:06
15:06
15:07
15:08
15:09
15:09
15:10
15:10
15:11
15:11
15:12
15:12
15:13
15:14
15:14
15:15
15:15
15:16
15:17
15:18
15:18
15:19
15:19
15:20
15:21
15:21
15:22
15:22
15:23
15:23
15:24
15:25
15:25
15:26
15:28
15:28
15:29
15:30
15:31
15:32
15:33
15:33
15:34
15:35
15:35
15:36
15:37
15:37
15:38
15:39
15:39
15:40
15:40
15:41
15:41
15:42
15:43
15:43
15:44
15:45
None Portrait Private Notice Question: Treatment of protesters in Iran, and engagement with the United States government to ensure proposed responses are in accordance with international law
-

>> Thanks. Well, that's. >> My Lords. My Lords. Private notice question on the treatment of
15:46
Baroness Kennedy of Shaws Portrait Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws (Labour)
-
-
notice question on the treatment of protesters in Iran. Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws. >> I beg leave to ask. >> The question of which I've given

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question of which I've given private notice, and I should declare that I am the director of the International Bar Association's Human Rights Institute, which has been monitoring human rights abuses in Iran for many years. A grave human rights crisis is unfolding in Iran. As many of my lawyers will know, there has been a nationwide uprising taking place in 111 cities across Iran. This is not confined to Tehran and the students of Tehran or the young women of Tehran.

This is across all classes and all the peoples of Iran, and the regime is using live ammunition against unarmed citizens. There are mass arrests and there are a total internet and telecommunications blackout. Bodies are piling up in morgues, but families cannot locate their loved ones. Hospitals are overwhelmed, and even Starlink connectivity is reported to be jammed. And so the question I ask of this government is what assessment they have made of the treatment of protesters in Iran, what they feel that the British government can be doing, and how they are engaging with the government of the United States on proposed responses to ensure that those are in accordance with international law.

The people of Iran want democracy. They do not want outside entities to bring about regime change.
15:47
15:48
15:49
15:50
15:51
15:51
15:52
15:53
15:54
15:54
15:54
15:55
15:56
15:57
15:58
15:58
15:59
16:00
16:00
16:00
16:01
16:02
16:03
Baroness Chapman of Darlington Portrait Baroness Chapman of Darlington, Minister of State (Development) (Labour)
-
-
OK. I mean, that's the the noble Lords view of what should happen next in Iran, that the UK government's view is that the future of Iran and its leadership should be firmly in the hands of the people of Iran. Here. The time is up for this question. This may be an appropriate moment for Lords who wish to do so to leave the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

So.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

So.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

So. My Lords, Third Reading of the Diego Garcia military base and

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Diego Garcia military base and British Indian Ocean Territory bill. My Lords, I have it in command

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I have it in command from His Majesty the King to acquaint the House that His Majesty, having been informed of the purport of the Diego Garcia military base and British Indian Ocean Territory bill, have consented to place his interests so far as are affected by the Bill at the disposal of Parliament for the purpose of the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Bill. And the question is that this

**** Possible New Speaker ****

And the question is that this bill be. Now read a third time, beg to move that this bill now be read to move that this bill now be read a third time. The question is that a third time. The question is that this bill be read a third time. We move to amendment clause in clause six, amendment one. Baroness Chapman. My Lords, I beg to move amendment one, the amendment to this bill that the government has tabled will change the parliamentary procedure applicable to the delegated power in clause six.

With this amendment, all instruments made using that power
16:06
16:06
16:06
16:07
Baroness Chapman of Darlington Portrait Baroness Chapman of Darlington, Minister of State (Development) (Labour)
-
-
Yes. >> Question is that the amendment be agreed to? As many as that opinion will say. Content contrary, opinion will say. Content contrary, not content the contents have it in that case, we move to the bill. Do that case, we move to the bill. Do now pass. I beg to move that this bill do now pass. I am very grateful to noble Lords for their engagement in this crucial piece of legislation, which secures a vital element of the UK's national security and the UK's transatlantic defence partnership.

I would like to thank noble Lords across the House for their expertise and those who've used this to scrutinise the security of the base. The costs of the treaty support and support mechanisms for the Chagossian community, and environmental conservation provisions, to name a few. The UK Mauritius Treaty protects the Diego Garcia military base and ensures that the UK retains full control over this vital asset. This, in turn will protect our national security for generations, ensures that the UK keeps unique and vital capabilities to deal with a wide range of threats, and will keep the British people safe.

The bill, of course, ensures that the treaty can be ratified as the world grows more dangerous. So too does the importance of the base for our national security. Noble Lords will not need to be told how crucial it is that the treaty is ratified and the base protected in the ever shifting geopolitical landscape of our age. We've had extensive debate in this House, and it's been good debate, and I would like to thank noble Lords on this side of the floor, including Lord Beamish, for his thoughtful and insightful contributions.

I'd like to thank those across the House for their contributions throughout the passage of the bill, and I'd like in particular to thank the noble Lords. Lord Kerr of Kinlochard Lord Hannay Lord Jay Lord Purvis of Tweed for their thoughtful contributions. And I'd also like to thank Lord Hannan and Lord Lilley for their exuberant speeches, even if I haven't always agreed with them. And I'd also like to thank Baroness Foster, Baroness Hoey, Lord Morrow and Lord Weir for their passionate speeches.

I'd like to thank Lord Coaker for his support on leading the Bill, and to my hon. Friends in the other place, the Minister for Overseas Territories and the Minister for defence, Readiness and Industry, who has spoken at length with peers about the detail of the bill. And finally, I would like to thank the officials who've supported the bill. Those on the bill team, notably Helena Bryce, our indefatigable, indefatigable bill manager. And across the policy teams in both the foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office and the Ministry of Defence.

And they've worked tirelessly behind the scenes, often working to challenging deadlines. And I thank my private office and in particular, who have, of course, been crucial in supporting me. And thanks must also be offered to all the parliamentary staff who have

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Bill. Amendment to the motion. Lord Callanan.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Callanan. My Lords, I beg to move the motion standing in my name on the Order Paper. Well, throughout our debates on this bill, we have had, as the noble Lady has said, many as the noble Lady has said, many robust exchanges. And the bill will go to the other place with four go to the other place with four amendments passed by your Lordships House. However, it is also, I think, become increasingly clear
16:11
16:12
None Portrait Legislation: Diego Garcia Military Base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill - motion to regret Lord Callanan (Conservative)
-

from another UN body, the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, which ironically Discrimination, which ironically even contains Mauritius as a member. This committee a few weeks ago published a formal decision calling for the suspension of treaty ratification. As far as I am aware, the Foreign Office has ignored it yet to even comment on this ruling. So we have two diametrically So we have two diametrically opposed opinions from different UN bodies one to be obeyed without hesitation, the other apparently to be completely ignored.

Then Ministers tell us that they have fully secured the future of the Diego Garcia base, which will be able to continue operations exactly as before. But they have manifestly failed to explain how that can possibly be the case when Mauritius is a signatory to the Pelindaba treaty, which prohibits the placing of any nuclear weapons on any African territory which Diego Garcia would become under this deal. Nobody has been asking Ministers to disclose disclose secret defence information, but we know from openly published sources that the base has been utilised for transportations of nuclear weapons on planes and submarines.

So how can that possibly be compatible with Mauritius obligations under the Pelindaba treaty? My Lords, this agreement is completely silent on this matter, and even in the face of robust questioning from my noble friend Baroness Goldie, herself a former defence Minister, we have received no ministerial answers. So off base operation is to continue unhindered, as Ministers tell us. We can only assume that there exists some kind of secret agreement along the lines of the old, disgraced US policy on gays in the military.

Don't ask and don't tell. And what about all the other? What if the Mauritius government might play along with this fiction? What about any future Mauritian governments? And what about all the other African signatories to the treaty? Any one of them could also take action in the international courts to force Mauritius to abide by its treaty obligations for an agreement supposedly predicated on providing both military and legal certainty. It seems destined to do the exact opposite. My Lords, one of the jewels in the crown of the British Indian Ocean Territory, is one of the largest marine protected areas in the world, a tremendous achievement for the natural world of which we can all rightly be very proud.

Ministers have reassured us that Mauritius have agreed to continue that protection, except for small amounts of what they call artisanal fishing. Yet, let me quote directly from the Mauritian fishing Minister, who said last year, and I quote, what stops me tomorrow to say that I am going to give fishing license for any fishing trawler company or any fishing vessel to go to any part of Chagos, to fish and to bring the catch to be landed at our port. We have the authority, the moral authority, legal authority, legitimate authority to fish in our own exclusive economic zone.

But my Lords, even if he was fishing and Mauritius is continued to preserving the MPA, the British Indian Ocean Territory, as many members have observed, is over 2000km away from Mauritius. So there are and have been legitimate concerns that they would have no means whatsoever of monitoring or even policing the area. This concern about Mauritius capability was ably demonstrated on the 9th of September, during a visit of the Indian Prime Minister to Mauritius. The Mauritian Prime Minister Ramgoolam, was quoted as saying, we want to visit Chagos to put our flag there.

The British offered us a vessel, but we said we preferred one from India because symbolically it would be better. Maybe that's true. If Mauritius even lacks the resources to transport its own Prime Minister to the Chagos, what chance have they got of monitoring and preventing incursions into 640,000km² of one of the largest pristine marine protected areas in the world? My Lords, not only does the government have no mandate for this treaty, they actually have a manifesto commitment to do the opposite.

Let me quote from the Labour manifesto. Defending our security also means protecting the British overseas territories. Labour will always defend their sovereignty and right to self-determination. My Lords, there is much else that I could say on this dreadful deal. It's £34.7 billion cost. That figure, by the way, now confirmed in an FOI from the government Actuary's Department. The noble Lady spent the whole of the debate telling us for months that the cost is apparently only 3.4 billion. So I hope she will take the opportunity today to apologise and correct the record.

This is an astonishing sum to give away when we are imposing financial sacrifices everywhere else in our public sector. Then, of course, there is the betrayal of the Chagossian people whose wishes have been completely ignored, particularly now that it has become clear in the excellent recent report from the House International Relations Committee that most of them actually want to remain British. They have no desire to be handed over against their will, to a hostile foreign power that has trampled over their rights and discriminated against them for many years.

With this motion, your Lordships House has an opportunity to tell you other place, that really is time to think again, to see sense and to scrap this dreadful deal. I beg to move here.
16:18
Baroness Goldie Portrait Baroness Goldie (Conservative)
-
-
The question is that the amendment in the name of Lord amendment in the name of Lord Callanan be agreed to. >> First of all, I associate myself

**** Possible New Speaker ****

First of all, I associate myself with the remarks of my noble friend Lord Callanan. And may I preface my Lord Callanan. And may I preface my remarks by saying, I thought there was a very useful debate at the report, bringing out a number of important points which command attention in that context. I spoke then exclusively on the defence and security implications of this treaty, and I want to thank the noble Lords Minister Lord Coaker for both listening to my concerns and undertaking to write to me, which he has indeed done, and that attentive and helpful approach bears all the hallmarks of the responsible and helpful persona which a defence Minister should be, and of which the noble Lord Lord Coaker is the embodiment.

The content of the response bears all the hallmarks of a letter drafted by someone blind to the basic precepts of defence and security, but who finds much more comfortable the languorous corridors of the FCDO and the confines of the beauty of the text of this treaty. It is the other treaty, the Pelindaba treaty, about which I sought clarification. Instead, I received a letter about how this treaty guarantees this stops at and binds Mauritius to the other. The letter is silent on how, once Mauritius gained sovereignty of the Diego Garcia base under this treaty, Mauritius can stop the co-signatories of the treaty either on their own account or egged on by others from challenging Mauritius and alleged misuse of the base.

Under the terms of the treaty, and I suspect the reason for the silence is because you can't stop that third party interference, and that strikes at the heart of why we currently have sovereignty over the base, how we use it, how the United States uses it, how our allies may need to use it, and that unfettered unchallengeable usage and access is only possible because we have certainty. And while we can have bilateral discussions with Mauritius, enter into bilateral agreements and treaties with Mauritius, they are only as good as Mauritius has competence to give the protections, the undertakings and the reassurances.

If the hands of Mauritius are tied by a preceding undertaking such as appeal indaba Treaty, then these protections, undertakings and reassurances are not worth the paper. They are written on just a load of flummery. My Lords, I didn't put down an amendment at report because this floor is irremediable. I was prepared to allow the government a final opportunity to provide clarification and reassurance, but unsurprisingly, it has been unable to do that. The question, then is what should a responsible opposition do? My naturally bellicose nature inclined towards voting against this bill, but I am not indifferent to the constitutional status of this House and the respective conventions which regulate our proceedings in relation to government bills.

Fortunately, my leader, my noble friend Lord True and my Chief Whip, my noble friend Baroness Williams of Trafford, a far less hot headed than I am, and infinitely more thoughtful and strategic in outlook. It is their view which I accept that, however wrongheaded, naive we think this treaty to be, voting down the bill at stage three is not an appropriate way in this instance to proceed. Our regret motion places on the record. All our misgivings and apprehensions. If this precarious, ill starred government adventure comes to grief, it will give me no pleasure to say we told you so.

But at least His Majesty's opposition can hold its head up and say we did our job. What a pity the government cannot make the same claim. I support the motion in the name of my noble friend, Mark Warner.
16:22
Lord Altrincham Portrait Lord Altrincham (Conservative)
-
-
I thank the. >> noble Baroness. >> The Minister, for. Her courtesy. >> And patience. >> Throughout this. >> Very unusual bill and its

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Very unusual bill and its passage through this House, and would make a few remarks just on the financial costs that we have the financial costs that we have here. The treaty makes provision for a financial agreement that requires the UK to make payments to the Republic of Mauritius for the next 99 years. The agreement is very unusual and that is because the payments are not known. The payments are not known from year 14 for the next 85 years, because the payments are linked not to events in the Indian Ocean.

The payments are linked to UK domestic inflation. It's an extraordinarily long contract for the taxpayer to be exposed like this to UK domestic inflation. Inflation in the future is unknown, it is unknowable and it's uncapped. And that means the payments under this contract, they are unknown, they are unknowable and they are uncapped. And maybe the Foreign Office, in looking at the projections, imagined a very benign opportunity for UK inflation. And maybe they hoped that the numbers would stay very low.

But if we had inflation just as high as it was in this country two years ago, at any point in the 85 years of this contract, the payments would get completely out of hand and be completely unaffordable to the UK. This is why Ministers have been poorly briefed on the contents of the treaty, and why Parliament has been poorly briefed, and why there's this extraordinary difference between the 3.4 billion accounting valuation, which is done under the Treasury Green Book procedure. This is for UK domestic infrastructure spending.

Why there's such a gap between this accounting valuation and the concept of cost and what this is actually going to cost, and what my noble friend Lord Callanan mentioned is the government's own internal estimate of the cost, which is around 34, £35 billion, which is a very, very substantial amount to be paying. Now, we might hope at this stage of the bill to have some good advice from the OBR, but the OBR have been quite unhelpful to the government, quite unhelpful, possibly to Parliament, and said that they've got nothing to do with this.

We might hope for clarification from Her Majesty's Treasury, from His Majesty's Treasury, of course. The treaty was negotiated by the Treasury. It was negotiated by another department. But in the middle of the holidays, the Chief Secretary of the Treasury slipped out an announcement on the 16th of December. It's on Gov.uk to say the Treasury will be changing their Green Book methodology, so we can be sure that the Treasury doesn't even agree with the accounting valuation, let alone the actuarial true cost of this agreement.

So when the noble Baroness, the Minister, said to us during the passage of the bill that the total cost is £3.4 billion, and she said it to us, as in this chamber, it's not correct because the total cost is not known. And that does need to be corrected in the treaty, because it's quite clear that is the intention of the government. The government wishes for their own reasons, not well understood by the opposition, to pay the Republic of Mauritius £3.4 billion.

It's their intention and it appears to be their

**** Possible New Speaker ****

understanding. But it's not what's in the treaty. Third Reading. Arguments made previous.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Arguments made previous. No, this. Is. Third Reading and it's repeating

**** Possible New Speaker ****

what has been debated before. Motion. I'll speak briefly to the rest

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'll speak briefly to the rest of this amendment. So so the amounts quoted in the, in the reference in the chamber and during reference in the chamber and during the passage of this bill have not been correct. We need to make sure the treaty is amended to reflect what the government's intention is, that it should be a payment of £3.4 billion and not an open ended economic exposure. And given the extremely unusual nature and the long dated nature of this contract, we need to make sure the treaty is amended to protect UK taxpayers and indeed to maintain confidence in the sovereign credit of the UK.
16:26
Lord Weir of Ballyholme Portrait Lord Weir of Ballyholme (Democratic Unionist Party)
-
-
And. >> Can I join with others? First of all, in welcoming the robust but yet civilised and courteous way in yet civilised and courteous way in which this legislation has been debated? Can I say, obviously at Third Reading it is not appropriate Third Reading it is not appropriate to regurgitate all the arguments. However, I think given the significance of this bill, it is also the case that it merits some level of, albeit short a brief comment, because while we've gone through this process and I welcome the amendments that have taken place within this bill, they cannot render acceptable what I believe is totally unacceptable.

We are still left with a bill which is bad for the United Kingdom. We are not simply handing over sovereignty to Mauritius, we are actually paying them an expensive dowry to take over what has been sovereign territory for 200 years. From a defence point of view, we are left with a flawed situation rather than perhaps the jewel in the crown. We are left with a situation where, in terms of whatever the assurances that have been given, we know from a practical point of view that we will see Mauritius effectively leasing out, in either official or unofficial form to foreign powers, particularly the Chinese government.

Surrounding islands. So instead of a jewel in the crown, we will be left with a military base with a noose around it ever tightening as time moves on. But in particular, even with the amendments, we have not dealt with the situation as regards our debt and duty to the Chagossians themselves. We've been left in a situation in which they have been denied the complete access to the islands. They have no right of full self return, but more importantly, they have also been left without a right of self-determination.

This House, I think, is being united, as we saw a few moments ago, in rightly condemning what has been happening in Iran and supporting the Iranian people in their right for self-determination. This House, on a number of occasions, has utterly condemned the invasion of of Ukraine and supported the right of Ukrainians to decide their own future. And similarly, I suspect that this House would be united in saying that the Greenlanders have the right to determine their own future, and that it should not be imposed from the United States or anywhere else.

The thread that runs through all three of these situations is the right of self-determination and democracy, and that is the golden thread to which we should be standing. But yet we are in a situation as regards the Chagossians that this can apply elsewhere in the world, but shamefully not to the the people who have actually looked to us to deliver for them. And I think that if we simply let this go through and the government lets us go through unaltered, then we then lack the the moral authority or the political authority to dictate elsewhere in the world on the issue of self-determination.

So I support the regret motion in the perhaps vain hope that by sending a signal today, we can at least say to the government, think again before it is entirely too late.
16:29
Baroness Hoey Portrait Baroness Hoey (Non-affiliated)
-
-
I very much support and pleased that this regret motion has been that this regret motion has been tabled. I find the word regret not nearly strong enough because for me this is a very, very sad day when if this bill goes through from the House of Lords to the other place, we talked about self-determination of the Chagossians and the noble Lord has just said what I was going to mention. The fact, the hypocrisy, almost, of His Majesty's Government over the fact that they are determined to keep Greenland and Denmark and allow Greenland to have self-determination.

They couldn't possibly do anything else because Greenland or have to have self-determination. And I agree with that. And yet we have totally denied the Chagossian people, not just in the past year since this bill came. And incidentally, let's not forget it wasn't in the manifesto. No Labour MP here. Labour, sorry, no Labour Baroness or peer can say that this was something that was in the manifesto and no Labour MP can say that they were elected to do this.

So I think constitutionally we have every right in this noble place to have this amendment to regret and regret, not just because of the hypocrisy that I mentioned about the self-determination of the Chagossians, but also about international law. You know, the whole advisory thing that we said was so important that came from the UN, and then we just ignore, absolutely ignore the committee of the UN that says that this should be suspended because of the that it's gone against the rights of the Chagossians and, and is is racial discrimination.

In fact, that's the committee that said these things. And then there's the whole environmental issue, which was nodded through very, very quickly at Committee stage. I think we were it was late at night. I think we had about ten minutes to discuss the most important ecological danger that now lies, because none of us can believe that Mauritius is going to look after it and we have given up. We will be giving up our rights as British, as Britain, as the United Kingdom to actually protect it.

So there are so many reasons why we should be regretting this and even going further. But this is your Lordships House, and I accept that there are certain precedents here, but I would urge every noble Baroness or peer, whatever their party is saying, this is not a political party political issue. This is about giving away part of our country's British territory and then paying Mauritius to take it. It's very, very simple. We either believe in the right of the Chagossians or we don't.

We either believe in self-determination or we don't. We either believe in the security long term of our country, the exile government, the government in waiting of the Chagossians. This is not going to go away. This is going to continue and will fester and fester away at this government. And there is still time, I would urge for change, and still time for His Majesty's Government to recognise that this is a very, very bad bill and should be dropped.
16:33
Lord Beamish Portrait Lord Beamish (Labour)
-
-
Amen. >> Amen. >> Please Baroness Hoey just said that this was not part of a Labour manifesto, but it was part of the last government's determination to get a deal on the issue of Diego Garcia. And I accept that there are genuine arguments in this debate around the environmental issues and issues around Chagossian people. I've got to say, from certain quarters that's come a bit late. We've had quietness, certainly in the last government in terms of the rights of Chagossians, and I accept that there are no exceptions in this House and in the other place that have campaigned for many years for their rights.

But that was never one of the issues which was at the forefront of the last government's negotiations in terms of this bill. What the last government did, I think was very sensible. It wanted to enter into a long term agreement to ensure the security and long term use of Diego Garcia, which was at threat because obviously of the unusual nature in terms of that island territory, in terms of the Diego Garcia. It is vital not only to our international and our national interests, but to our international allies, including the United States.

There's been much said about United States being against this deal. They're not. They see the long term benefits of this. And I accept what Lord Callaghan said about the the investment. Can I just say that pales into insignificance to the amount of investment that us and other allies will be putting into that long term secure and that not only the long term interests of that base, but the capabilities on that base. It is not something we can play party politics with.

And alas, I accept that some people, I think, are playing party politics with this.
16:35
16:36
Lord Deben Portrait Lord Deben (Conservative)
-
-
Come back. >> To the one issue of the environment, which is crucial here? And I have a direct question to the Minister whom I respect in this Minister whom I respect in this area particularly. But the direct question is why on earth was there not a clear connection between our payments and the upkeep of this? The most important marine environment area that there is in the world? We have a very proud record on this, and yet we are now giving this into the hands of a country which, however good it's its words, however much it wants, has one of the worst records on marine protection in the entire world.

We are giving them power over the most important marine protection area in the entire world, and we have not connected the money we are paying with their ability to pay for the protection of this area. And my question to the Minister is very simply, why not? Why on earth have we not done that? I don't like this agreement at all. I'm opposed to it for all the reasons that the noble Lord Lord Callanan has so rightly put forward.

But at the heart of my concern is that we are letting down the whole of the international community by giving out something which we have protected, and which has set the example for marine preservation throughout the world. Without the Chagos agreement, we would never have had all the others which have followed and which have been crucial to the environmental health of this planet. And I say to the Minister again, can you explain how this arrangement has been made when there is no connection between what we pay and what we expect in terms of protection?
16:38
Lord Howell of Guildford Portrait Lord Howell of Guildford (Conservative)
-
-
Yes.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

While confessing, quite frankly, that I've taken zero part in the earlier Committee stage, but I think the Third Reading, contrary think the Third Reading, contrary to what was suggested earlier, is an opportunity for looking at the overall aim and underlying strategy of of a measure, and that the some earlier remarks, which were fascinating about the financial side, should have been ones we had were allowed to hear a bit more of. were allowed to hear a bit more of. But my question is quite simple why does the Minister think that we have not heard a single mention of the Commonwealth system? The largest, although not very centralised, organisation in the world, in looking at this issue.

Why does she think we've had no has been no discussion between the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the Development Office and the new and very lively Commonwealth Secretary general? Why does she think we haven't seen any understanding of the fact that the Commonwealth, although friends with the purpose it's been described as, is of course, deeply concerned with the rights of islanders and the rights of countries as to their status, whether it should be protected, whether they should be free and open members of the Commonwealth or associated with the Commonwealth in the knowledge that we have many friends in the knowledge they could discuss matters with Mauritius and indeed with India, and indeed with the possibility of their own status in an age of delegated and digitalised activity in which very small countries can assume a very important role, as no doubt the Chagos Island and Diego Garcia will be doing for some years.

Why does she think that that whole area of a new and changing pattern of organisations is a new world emerges as everyone admits an entire take over and difference in our international relations for years ahead. Why did you think we just haven't applied the sensible duty that we should have applied as an active member, not a hub, but an active member of the Commonwealth Network and left and left, the decisions that were now being asked to make for much further discussion in a changing world.
16:41
Lord Kempsell Portrait Lord Kempsell (Conservative)
-
-
My Lords, what a privilege to follow the incisive questions of my noble friends who spoke before me and to add my support to the regret and to add my support to the regret motion in the name of my noble friend Lord Callanan, whose speech I think crystallised the litany of reasons that there is to oppose this bill and to continue opposing it. And, if I may say so, the speech is already in this debate, have been a mirror of the way in which your Lordships House has conducted the difficult work of scrutinising this bill.

Forensic, effective and in-depth. I will restrict myself only to a point which occurred to me just now as the noble Lady the Minister was speaking, and that we haven't heard so much of in previous stages as the noble Lady the Minister was delivering her. Her paean of praise to all of those who've been involved in working on the bill. And no doubt they have worked very hard indeed to achieve this outcome. I have to say I've felt some disquiet at the government indulging itself in the way in which it has handled this particular policy for one reason, and that is the consultation of the Chagossians themselves.

When we know that only a handful, despite the government's huge machinery at its disposal, have been asked for their thoughts and views, and moreover, the way in which Ministers have adumbrated reasons, explanations and theories for the deal. First, that it was opposed, or indeed that it was designed to push back on hostile states. And then we learn that only a week later, representatives of hostile states have visited the government of Mauritius and openly praised the deal. Of course, there was the argument that the deal was necessary for the policing of the electromagnetic spectrum over Diego Garcia, an argument that we heard so much about, and then fell away when it emerged that the UN, not the International Telecommunications Union this time, but the UN's Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, criticised the bill in the sternest possible terms.

My Lord, some governments blunder into historic foreign policy disasters. Some governments have their hand forced by world events but never has a government in modern British administration walked so voluntarily into a strategic bear trap, as this government is doing so with this bill. So can I ask the noble Lady, the Minister, to clarify, as this bill returns to the other place, what plans are in place now to make good the the deficit in consultation of Chagossians, even at this very late hour, what plans does the government have for that? And I must say to the noble Lady, the Minister, this bill remains so confusing, the pace at which it's been brought forward by the government, the way in which the government handled questions and scrutiny, not least my own written question.

Back in September 2004, I asked the government to explain its intentions on the Chagos deal. It answered that it was too early to say, and only nine days later it announced the entire plan. These are deficits of consultation, of scrutiny. How does the noble Lady, the Minister, plan to make it good? And in closing, there is a suspicion, of course, that behind every great fortune and a fortune of taxpayers money is being spent on this deal, as the noble Lord, Lord Altrincham, explained, behind every great fortune there is some crime, and there are many of us who consider this deal to be an historical crime.

As it turns out, in the implementation of the government's bill. I think we will see the final answers that we are seeking as the truth about this deal later emerges.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, when I first started to ask questions about this treaty to ask questions about this treaty in this place, I asked a question about the trust fund. I'm sure the noble Lady, the Minister, will noble Lady, the Minister, will remember that question because in her answer she accused me of not her answer she accused me of not respecting national security, which for me, of course, was quite a
16:46
Baroness Foster of Aghadrumsee Portrait Baroness Foster of Aghadrumsee (Non-affiliated)
-
-
for me, of course, was quite a thing. Having spent all of my political life standing up for self-determination and indeed for security in its widest possible sense. I think that the greatest problem with this treaty has been to echo what Lord Kempsell has said. The fact that we can't have both, we can't have national security alongside respecting the rights of the Chagossian people. I don't accept that that is the case. I think we could have respected the Chagossians in their very clear desire, and I know there are some here who will say there are different views in the Chagossian communities.

But I think given the report from the International Committee of this House very recently, which we heard about in Report stage, it was clear that those who had communicated volunteered the fact that they wanted the Chagos Islands to remain British. And there are many reasons, and we've heard them from Lord Callanan as to why this treaty is a bad treaty and why this bill is a bad bill. Fiscal reasons, which again have been echoed today by Lord Altrincham and indeed from Baroness Noakes as well in Committee stage environmental issues of a monumental scale which we've heard about from Baroness Cash, from again from Lord Deben today, and indeed from Lord Goldsmith and of course, defence issues, which Baroness Goldie has rightly mentioned again today.

And this is all in the context of a live judicial review, which still has not given a judgement. And of course, that report from the UN Committee in early December on the elimination of racial discrimination. And yet the government are determined to push ahead. This is a bad treaty, my Lord. This is a bad bill. I thank Lord Callaghan for putting down his amendment to this Third Reading, because in committee and at Report stage, reasonable questions have been put to the government about this bill.

Reasonable questions. And they have been met with a wall of denial. And now the Chagossian people have set up a government in exile. What does that say about the United Kingdom, when the Chagossian people have to set up a government in exile, many of them here today again in the gallery. So even if this Third Reading goes ahead today, the denial of rights will not disappear. The Chagossian people will not disappear. That is very, very clear. And so I plead with the government, even at this late stage,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

to think again. My Lords, and what are we here

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, and what are we here for, if not to think again? We're on a hook. We're wriggling painfully on a hook. Because in the painfully on a hook. Because in the early days, I think a lot of people hearing that the Chagos Islands were to be handed over understood were to be handed over understood it to be some kind of restitution to the indigenous Chagossians, whom we all agree were very badly
16:49
Lord Hannan of Kingsclere Portrait Lord Hannan of Kingsclere (Conservative)
-
-
we all agree were very badly treated in the late 60s and early 70s. But with every week that has passed since that initial announcement was made, the arguments have crumbled. First, it's become clear that the Chagossians do not want to be handed to a foreign power that has never governed them, and whose interest in the archipelago is financial. They're here, as always, in the gallery, watching their silence, a neat symbol of how they have been overlooked in this entire debate. It's become clear that Mauritius does not have the capacity to maintain, as my noble friend Lord Deben says, the world's greatest marine conservation area.

It's become clear that the price tag is vastly higher than we were initially led to believe. It's become clear that foreign powers and unfriendly foreign powers are in favour of this deal, and it's become clear that we are steamrolling over democracy. My Lords, I have to say, if we are not prepared to take a stand on something as permanent in its impact as this changing the size of the United Kingdom, changing the maps, this is going to be remembered long after people have forgotten what the inflation rate was in 2026, or whether we band X on something of this magnitude.

If we're not prepared to take a stand as the upper house, as the revising chamber, then what on earth are we

**** Possible New Speaker ****

here for? In my Lords, I wish to rise to address a point made by Lord Beamish. Just one point.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Just one point. Lord Beamish said that the last government would inevitably have done a deal. Plainly, this is not so. As my right hon. Friend Tom Tugendhat, the then Minister of Tugendhat, the then Minister of Security, made clear in the debates on this bill. In the other place, both he and I made clear our opposition at the time that this course of negotiations should not be adopted. Furthermore, when my noble friend Lord Cameron was Foreign Secretary, he was offered a similar deal to the present one, and we know that he stopped the process.

The current treaty is and remains an act of wanton strategic self-harm. Yeah.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, this has been an important debate in an important bill on a very considerable treaty because it impacts on people's lives, it impacts on international lives, it impacts on international law, and it also has a direct relevance to UK national security.
16:51
Lord Purvis of Tweed Portrait Lord Purvis of Tweed (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
But this regret motion has a bit of a Cambodian Year Zero feel to it, as if it all started last summer. A casual observer would not be aware by this debate, notwithstanding the point that the noble Lord Murray just indicated that the previous government chose to open negotiations to cede sovereignty in November 2022 without a mandate or without consulting the Chagossian people. That decision by the previous government, which we now know was opposed by the noble Lord Murray and considered a mistake by the noble Lord Bellingham, was done without consultation, was not predicated on guaranteeing chagossian rights, and further more, we now know was actively ongoing in April 2024 because at that point the Foreign Secretary, Lord Cameron, wrote to the Commons Foreign Affairs Committee to confirm the continuation of the negotiations.

But also, regrettably, the ongoing denial of the resettlement and consultation rights of the community. So if we are to have regrets, perhaps there's quite a lot that can be shared around the chamber. I have previously said, and I don't want to repeat it, that we've got a deep regret at the current government. It's chosen not to change the path of the previous government in coming to office, and it chose not to conclude the process differently. And that is been the essence of the votes on the amendments in this House, because each step of the way, I've sought to raise the concern of a lack of consultation, consent and rights.

I'm very pleased that the House backed my amendments to seek to address this, and I hope very much the Commons will now back this to putting the permissive elements of Chagossian rights in the treaty on a mauritian and UK statutory footing going forward should now be the priority and I hope should get cross-party support from the outset. I've also raised concerns over the lack of transparency in the financial arrangements and value for money. I was also very pleased that the House backed my amendments to give Parliament and through it, the wider Chagossian community a much greater say and indeed a final say on ceasing making payments if Mauritius does not honour its commitments as part of the treaty.

As the House knows, there's only mechanisms in place if the UK renege on commitments and not Mauritius. I'm not saying that they will, and I'm sure both parties have entered into the agreement in good faith, but for whatever reason they fail to honour commitments. Parliament must have the ability to cease the financial elements of the agreement, and I hope that the government will move on these areas as they are. The view expressed by this House. Now, finally, on some of the wider political arguments we've heard, and we've heard quite a lot, notwithstanding the year zero feel of this amendment, anyone listening to this debate or reading it in Hansard should understand some basic members of this House, because some external messaging about stopping the bill, or the last ditch efforts of people who haven't stopped this bill, needs to be done into context.

There are, and I, like many of them, 281 conservative members of this House, my benches of 75. That's a different argument as to the numbers, of course, but the number of conservative peers alone could sway the decision today. If the motion is voted on and I understand it will be, it is a regret motion and the conservatives are choosing with the fire and fury we have heard in opposition that they have chosen not to oppose this bill today, but to complain about it.

I think the whole public should be aware that that is the reality of what will be happening today, and we will see how many of the 281 at least will complain about it, even though they are not seeking to stop it. Finally, I thank one of the communities at the ending of this bill most particularly, and that community is the Chagossian community member. Members have watched these debates, and sometimes I've regretted some of the language that they've had to listen to, but I hope that many of them do feel that there are many people in this House that do believe sincerely in their rights.

I also thank Ministers who have been willing to listen and to engage, and indeed, on certain occasions, as we've heard today with Lord Lansley agree. I hope that that principle. I want to chat with Lord Lansley how persuasive he was, because I hope the Minister will now act on the the other amendments that we've heard, but that will presumably have to be for ping pong. And I support those that have helped me in the debate and our whip's office and many other people who have been in touch.

I hope that we can make progress and focus on the priorities now, which is the Chagossian legal rights of resettlement and active consultation and participation, value for money and finance. And we should return to these issues after the Commons is considered a very sensible amendments.
16:57
Baroness Chapman of Darlington Portrait Baroness Chapman of Darlington, Minister of State (Development) (Labour)
-
-
My Lords, this government is >> My Lords, this government is doing the tough and vital work necessary to protect our national security and I understand we were security and I understand we were in opposition for very long time, 14 years. I do understand completely the temptation to play political games whenever you get the chance. I completely get that. But one thing we never did, we never did was put our national security at risk. And I do not aim these remarks at some of those noble Lords and Baroness opposite who I, I know for a fact, come at this like Baroness Foster and Baroness Hoey, who come at this, whose aim is true, who have a genuine long standing support for the Chagossian community.

And they apply that to this debate. But I have not seen that same integrity of and care over time expressed over the years, the many years which and often I was shadowing the noble Lord. I don't think I've ever heard him mention the rights or the needs or the the way that the Chagossian community has been treated over the years, and I am the first to say that they have been badly treated and have said so many, many times throughout the passage of this bill.

I disagree with everything that is in this motion. The deal does secure the long term future of the critically important military base on Diego Garcia. And if we had not done a deal, it would have left the future of the base as well as current operations in jeopardy, with likely further wide ranging litigation, which would have undermined base operations and waiting, as some noble Lords opposite encourage us to do, waiting for that risk to crystallised, to crystallise would have placed us in a much weaker position from which to negotiate.

Now, either there was legal jeopardy, which is why, presumably the previous government embarked upon round after round after round after round of negotiation, or, as they now ask us to believe, there was never any legal jeopardy, in which case one Earth were they doing with their time, and the time of officials undertaking negotiation in bad faith? Unlike the previous conservative government's strategy with the Rwanda deal, we have been upfront about the costs. We've clearly set them out in our explanatory memorandum and in the finance exchange of letters, which were published on the same day as the treaty and have been debated many times since.

The opposition, or some members of the opposition, appear to be wilfully ignoring the facts in order to score political points, and this is frankly, shameful. It puts at risk the UK's national security for an unedifying and unconvincing political jab. I understand the temptation, but I think it is fundamentally wrong to do that. I would have hoped, although this has clearly been a hope in vain for much better from the official opposition in relation to Chagossians. And as the IDC report noted, a series of governments have failed to engage properly with the Chagossian community.

And I hold my hand up. I take this government, takes responsibility for what it has, has done, and the former government needs to do the same. More so than our predecessors, we take responsibility. They started these negotiations three years ago. They had every opportunity to reach out at every point to the Chagossian community, but they only seem to have found their voice when it comes to listening to the Chagossians and speaking with them. Once they found themselves in opposition.

And we are working hard to rectify that because it is wrong the way that Chagossians have been treated. And that's why we've established the Chagossian contact Group and these negotiations, as noble Lords do understand, were primarily about sovereignty and securing the base on Diego Garcia. It was therefore right that these negotiations were between the UK and Mauritius. They were state to state. And noble Lords do understand this. Whatever they say today, and we recognise the importance of these islands to Chagossians.

This treaty is the only viable route to any resettlement which can now move forward under a mauritian programme, and the Chagossians will be able to work on the island and to visit Diego Garcia, which is something they have not been able to do for a very long time. We are and members and I, I do believe many members to be genuine in their concern about the marine protected area, and it's right that they've taken the opportunity to to raise this. We are working incredibly closely with Mauritius.

We are. They do not have the capability and expertise to to do this as it stands, but we're going to make sure that we work alongside them so that that important work can be done. I'm on the issue of the Commonwealth. The Commonwealth born of the past, but has a vital role to play in our future. This particular negotiation was state to state between the UK and Mauritius. But everything he says about the new leadership at the Commonwealth and about its successful past, and about the vital work that it has to do, I completely agree with him.

But noble Lord, noble Lords have said that there is no legal reason to negotiate. But this. But it negotiated all the same. This government has negotiated and has reached a conclusion. My Lords, all of our Five Eyes partners support this deal because they understand the need to resolve this in order to maintain our security. This government has one priority, and it is the safety and security of our citizens, of the British people. The noble Lord opposite has one priority, and it's to play politics with the hopes and the dreams of the Chagossian communities.

That is what he has done, and he has, without any concern about what that might mean for this nation's security.
17:03
17:04
17:05
17:06
None Portrait Division
-

Not content. >> The question will be decided by a division. I will inform the House when voting is open. Voting is now

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Excuse Oh.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords. The question is that the amendment in the name of Lord Callanan be agreed to. As many as

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Callanan be agreed to. As many as of that opinion will say. Content. Content. The contrary, not content. The contents will go to the right of the throne. Not content to the left. Yes. My My Lords, My Lords, my My Lords, my Lords, My Lords, my Lords, the My Lords, my Lords, the question My Lords, my Lords, the question is that the amendment in the name of

**** Possible New Speaker ****

And.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yes. My Lords, there have voted.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, there have voted. Contents 201, not contents 169. And Contents 201, not contents 169. And so the contents have it. And the. so the contents have it. And the. We now return to the original motion. The question is that the original motion, as amended, be agreed to. As many as that opinion will say. Content. It's the contrary, not content. The contents the contents have it. And we may take a few moments before I move to the next business for the house to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

rearrange itself. Sir.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'm informed that I should take the voices again. The question is that the original motion, as that the original motion, as amended, be agreed to. As many as are of that opinion will say. are of that opinion will say. Content. Content the contrary, not content.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

No. It's your motion. This will be. Yes.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Your motion. What does the noble Lady wish

**** Possible New Speaker ****

you to? Take it again?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I called the original motion, as amended, as a result of the vote, that your Lordships have just taken that your Lordships have just taken part in. I'll take the voices again. The question is that the original The question is that the original motion, as amended, be agreed to. As many as of that opinion will say content. Content to the contrary, not content not. Well. The question will be decided by another division. I will inform the House when voting is open.

is open.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Sorry. Is a decision whether they like it or not. But certainly not.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

not. The opposition have put their motion to the House and it's been carried. Yes. And they're now going carried. Yes. And they're now going to vote against the motion. They've just one. I just understand that at all. I mean, it seems to me that all. I mean, it seems to me that the normal thing is to regret having won. The motion is amended, and then the House would then approve that motion as amended,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

which you've tried to now three times. Yes.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

It's a bit ridiculous.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Voting is open. Clear the bar.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My. My Lords, my Lord, shall I try putting the question once again? The question is that the original motion, as amended, be agreed to. As many as of that opinion will say content to the contrary, not content. The contents have it. And now, my Lords, we may take my Lords, we may take a few moments for the House to rearrange itself before I Noble Noble Lords Noble Lords leave Noble Lords leave the Noble Lords leave the chamber.

Noble Lords leave the chamber. My Lords, my Lords, we must move to next business. Could noble Lords who are leaving the chamber do so who are leaving the chamber do so
17:20
17:21
Lord Timpson Portrait Lord Timpson, The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Labour)
-
-
>> I beg to move that this bill do now pass. Before I begin, I can update the House that the Scottish Government has granted an LCM. This covers the provisions in the Sentencing Bill on the treatment of national security offenders, which affect the executive competence of Scottish Ministers. And I'm very grateful to the Scottish Parliament for working with us. My Lords, let me start by thanking the many noble Lords who have contributed to the Bill through debates in this chamber and the extensive discussions that have taken place beyond it.

Those contributions have shown the very best of this House, and I'm especially grateful to the noble Lords, Lord Marks and the noble Lady Baroness Hamwee for their support and engagement on key measures in the Bill. I would also like to thank the noble and Lord Lord Keen and the noble Lord Lord Sandhurst for their informed interventions and constructive challenge. Lastly, I thank my noble friends Baroness Chakrabarti and the noble Lord Blunkett for their contributions. I have enjoyed working with and have learned a lot from all of the noble Lords in your Lordships House.

I also want to thank the officials who have been involved in the Bill's preparation and passage, who have supported me so ably. My Lords, this is a significant bill. As I said at its Second Reading, it will put our justice system on a sustainable footing, fit for the future, one that prioritises victims fairness and accountability and one that prioritises punishment that works. But with your help, with the help of your Lordships House, we have gone even further to strengthen the Bill.

Through its passage, we have added safeguards and increase the transparency around the new approvals processes for the Sentencing Council made it a statutory requirement for the government to lay an annual statement on prison capacity before Parliament agreed to remove the power for providers of probation services, to publish names and photos of individuals subject to an unpaid work requirement, and brought hope to those serving IPP sentences and their families by offering a faster and safer route to the end of their sentence.

My Lords. Alongside this, we also extended the whole life order starting point to include the murder of probation officers, and we made sure that this extends to current and former police, prison and probation officers where they are murdered in connection with their duties, even if it occurs while they are off duty and after they have left the service. And let me pause here to again pay tribute to former prison custody officer Leonie Scott, as well as his family, who I'm meeting tomorrow for their dignified and determined advocacy on his behalf.

Finally, my Lords, I'd like to again recognise the noble Lord, Lord foster, for his tireless and tenacious leadership on tackling gambling addiction. As he knows, I share his concerns and this is something I have committed to look at very closely. Let me finish by again thanking the many noble Lords and officials who have helped shape, strengthen and support this Bill through to its Third Reading. It will prioritise victims, bring stability to our justice system and better protect the public. I am very proud of this bill and I look forward to working on its implementation.

I beg to move.
17:24
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames Portrait Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
Question is that this bill do now pass. >> My Lords, I start by thanking the noble Lord Lord Timpson for his kind and generous introduction. Lords, this is an important bill, and on these benches we've supported its principal purposes throughout, those being to address the extreme prison capacity crisis, to move away from a reliance on more and longer prison sentences, and to introduce the presumption against short sentences of immediate imprisonment and switch to greater use of suspended sentences coupled with with community supervision.

My Lords, our concerns now are to ensure that the government's ambitions for probation are properly resourced and met. And I know the noble Lord knows how challenging achieving those ambitions will be and involve better use of technology, effective use of tagging and in particular, making a real success of the recruitment, training and motivation of the prison and probation services. The noble Lord also knows how much on these benches. We appreciate the engagement that he and the whole Bill team have had with us, but also with other noble Lords across the House, and his approach to this Bill and that of the noble Lord Lord Lemos, have been a fine example of co-operation across the House, driving significant improvement in legislation.

We have made important changes and I think without wasting time, among other welcome changes, we're particularly grateful to the government for agreeing to the removal of clause 35, with its unfortunate proposals for probation officers to take and publish photographs of offenders undertaking unpaid work. We're also very grateful to the government's commitment to thorough, open and regular reporting on prison and probation capacity and staffing, and I pay credit to the contributions of the noble Lord, Lord foster, my noble friend in this area, as well as for his contributions on gambling.

My Lords, we believe this Bill has the potential to move us towards a more effective and humane sentencing system that concentrates on rehabilitation of offenders and reducing re-offending, and also puts victims at its heart. My Lords, one issue that will need further consideration from the Commons and again here is the provision of free transcripts for which this House voted, which would benefit public understanding and particularly victims understanding of how the justice system works. Hopefully we may find an agreed and acceptable way forward on this issue.

Despite the government's concern, which I understand as to the initial cost of providing free transcripts. Finally, on the other side of the balance, it's a shame that we've not made the progress that we sought in ending the scandal of IPP prisoners still in prison or on licence for year after years after their sentences have been served. That's serious, unfinished business, and the appalling injustice involved remains to be fully addressed. And I know members all around the House hope that it will be effectively addressed soon.

Nevertheless, we're extremely pleased to see the successful passage of this bill through the House. My Lords.
17:28
Lord Stewart of Dirleton Portrait Lord Stewart of Dirleton (Conservative)
-
-
I too am grateful to all noble >> I too am grateful to all noble Lords for their constructive engagement with this important Bill at every stage of its passage. And on behalf of my noble and learned friend Lord Keen of Elie and my noble friend Lord Sandhurst, may I echo the words of the noble Lord Lord Marks of Henley upon Thames in thanking the noble Lord, the Minister, for the open and courteous manner with which he has engaged with the House throughout the Bill's consideration.

My Lords, we on this on these benches are particularly pleased that the government tabled amendment 53. We are proud to have championed the case for addressing a serious and unjust gap in the law relating to the imposition of whole life orders for the murder of police and prison officers. We to acknowledge the determined campaigning work carried out by the parents of Lenny Scott after the murder of their son in February 2024. We also welcome the government's decision to extend this provision to probation officers, who carry out exceptionally demanding and important work in the service of the public.

My Lords, I also thank the Minister for amendment 58, which introduces an annual report on prison capacity. This is an issue which we pressed strongly at committee. If Parliament is to legislate for significant changes in sentencing and release policy, it is only right that the public is provided with a regular and transparent account of the prison estate. While we would have preferred the government to commit to a more detailed report, this nonetheless represents a welcome step forward. We on these benches welcome the passage of the amendment requiring the Crown Courts to provide sentencing remarks free of charge upon request.

Victims of crime and the families of victims of crime should not be required to pay to access sentencing. Remarks directed to those who have offended against them, particularly when those remarks are central to the submission of an unduly, unduly lenient sentence. Application. I strongly urge the government in the other place, to recognise the importance of this reform and to support the amendment. My Lords, we are deeply disappointed by the rejection of our amendment to exempt the most dangerous offenders from the proposed new early release scheme.

This amendment was supported by all non-government parties in the other place, including the Green Party, reform, Independence Point Comrie, a Labour rebel, and notably the Liberal Democrats. Every single Liberal Democrat Member of Parliament present voted in favour of this amendment. Yet in your Lordships House, every single Liberal Democrat peer voted against it. A sudden and complete reversal in position that is difficult to comprehend. That divergence is all the more difficult to reconcile, given that the Liberal Democrats also tabled an amendment containing exemptions from the automatic release of offenders recalled and fixed term licences.

That amendment was in substance closely aligned with ours. As the noble Lord Lord Marks stated, in this case, we accept it as a list of serious offences. It is therefore unclear why those offences are considered serious for the purposes of the Liberal Democrat amendment, but not for others. An amendment which I emphasise again was supported unanimously by their party. In the other place. Above all, my Lords, we are disappointed by the defeat of amendment 25, which sought to prevent domestic abusers and sex offenders from benefiting from an automatic presumption of suspended sentences.

We believe firmly that amendment 25 was necessary to protect women and girls from violence and sexual assault, a direct consequence of government and Liberal Democrat opposition may be that victims of sexual assault and domestic abuse will be forced to live in the same communities as the offenders who abused them. It is not sufficient, we submit, for the Minister to claim that custody remains available in exceptional circumstances. As my noble and learned friend Lord Keen of Elie made clear, offences of sexual assault and domestic abuse are by their very nature exceptional.

The government has pledged to halve violence against women and girls by the end of the decade, and has recently published its Violence Against Women and Girls strategy. Opposition to this amendment exposes those pledges as hollow. The government speaks of protection, yet legislates in the opposite direction. My Lords, the Liberal Democrats decision to vote to keep sex offenders and domestic abusers out of prison is equally difficult to understand. Their justice spokesperson in the other place has tabled a bill to make domestic abuse an aggravating factor in sentencing to close the loophole where some domestic abusers are currently released early under the government's SDS 40 scheme.

It is therefore striking that they voted against a conservative amendment that would have achieved precisely that objective. In conclusion, my Lords, well, we continue to oppose significant aspects of the Bill. I remain grateful to all noble Lords for their engagement with it. I urge the government to reflect carefully on the amendment relating to sentencing remarks, and I have no doubt that these issues will return to Lordships House in due course. course.
17:33
Lord Russell of Liverpool Portrait Lord Russell of Liverpool (Crossbench)
-
-
Very briefly, I will not follow the. The noble Lord has just sat down and go into the politics of this, because I don't think this is the time or place to do that, but I would first of all, like to congratulate him on the way in which he has managed this bill through this House. It is an exemplary example of somebody coming from the private sector with a successful track record in leading an unusual business and transferring that expertise, apparently effortlessly and flawlessly, into your Lordships House.

So I think he is an example for other new arrivals on the front bench alongside him to learn from. So I a few seminars with him I think would would do them the world of good. I just want to briefly return to a subject which will not surprise the noble Lord, the Minister, or indeed the noble Lord Lord Stewart, which is the issue that we have spoken about, that we had meetings about, which is the issue of perpetrators of domestic abuse and stalkers being released earlier than they should be.

The noble Lord has been kind enough to suggest another meeting, so I can tell him that knocking on his door will be Dame Nicole Jacobs, the victims commissioner, the sorry, the domestic abuse commissioner, the new victims Commissioner, Claire Waxman, permitting the noble Lady Baroness May of Maidenhead to provide some real weight. And I gather that she is one of the people who made the noble Lord, the Minister, actually think about going into public life, and I shall

**** Possible New Speaker ****

be along there as the token male. Well, I thank all noble and

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Well, I thank all noble and learned and noble Lords for their very kind feedback, and I've never very kind feedback, and I've never had an appraisal in my career, so I feel that this is the first one that I've had, and I will I will that I've had, and I will I will take that. And all noble Lords are very welcome to knock on my door at any time, because I learn so much from what you bring to make what I'm trying to do far better.

And I'm extremely grateful to all noble Lords, and also to my noble friend Lord Lemos for guiding me along the way on this and contributing on very important parts of this bill. And I think everyone has contributed to make this a very good bill. So I thank all noble Lords and I beg to move.
17:36
17:37
17:43
17:43
Baroness Chapman of Darlington Portrait Baroness Chapman of Darlington, Minister of State (Development) (Labour)
-
-
I beg to move this report.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

We're having one of those days as a chamber, aren't we? I beg to move that. The report.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The report. The report be now received. That this report be now received. As this report be now received. As many as of that opinion will say content and to the contrary, not content. The contents have it after content. The contents have it after clause nine, amendment one Baroness Chapman of Darlington. My Lords, I Chapman of Darlington. My Lords, I am pleased to open this debate again today with the government amendments tabled in my name relating to the role of devolved governments in the implementation of the BBNJ agreement.

As noble Lords will be aware, the BBNJ Bill extends to the whole of the United Kingdom, apart from certain sections which extend to Scotland only. Foreign affairs, including the negotiation and signature of international treaties, are a reserved matter under the devolution settlements. However, observation and implementation of obligations arising under treaties in domestic law is accepted from the Foreign Affairs reservation. So far as those obligations relate to devolved matters, working closely with Ministers and officials in the devolved governments, we have agreed that the legislative consent motion process is engaged for Scotland and Northern Ireland, to varying extents by parts two, three and four of the Bill.

The government has been in sustained discussions with both devolved governments to seek consent for this Bill, and I can confirm to the House that motions on consent will be debated shortly. In both the Scottish Parliament and Northern Ireland Assembly. Throughout these discussions, the government has sought to ensure that devolved competences are fully respected and that is why we have tabled amendments that Report stage to strengthen the role of the devolved governments in the future. Implementation of the BBNJ agreement.

Clauses nine and 11 confer powers on the Secretary of State to make regulations to implement the UK's obligations under parts two and three of the BBNJ agreement. Government amendments one, two, five and six provide Scottish Ministers and the Northern Ireland Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs with concurrent powers to make regulations within devolved competence. In addition, amendments three and seven place a duty on the Secretary of State to consult Scotland and Northern Ireland before exercising the powers in clause nine and 11, where regulations engage devolved matters.

This approach ensures that devolved governments are engaged in advance of regulations being made, enables them to make their own provision on devolved aspects where they wish to do so, and reflects their responsibilities, while supporting timely and effective implementation of the agreement. Government amendments ten and 11 ensure that clause 23, which sets out procedures for making of regulations under the act, does not apply to regulations made under clauses introduced by government amendments one and five. Instead, the procedures for regulation set out in Government amendments two and six respectively apply.

Finally, the Government Amendments 12 amends clause 26, so that clause 18 comes into force on such a day as the Secretary of State appoints by regulations rather than upon royal assent, and this change ensures a consistent approach across the Bill with regards to the Environmental Impact Assessment regulations that are being amended. I beg to move amendment.
17:47
17:48
17:49
Baroness Chapman of Darlington Portrait Baroness Chapman of Darlington, Minister of State (Development) (Labour)
-
-
I don't want to fall out with >> I don't want to fall out with the noble Lord today. But the reason these, these changes have come at this stage is because we've come at this stage is because we've listened to our friends and colleagues in the devolved administrations who've said that they feel they need these powers. And because we respect their view. And we've had a look at it as well. And this approach, this hasn't always been the approach of the UK government, but it's it's it's what we're trying to do.

So that is why they've come at this stage. And in response to noble Lord, Lord Teverson, I do believe that the correct authorities are to be given. And I have every confidence that that that is the case. And I hope that we don't need to return to make changes to this as a consequence. I think that these amendments demonstrate our commitment to working collaboratively with the devolved governments, at the same time as ensuring that the UK is able to implement the agreement in a timely manner.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

Question is that amendment one be agreed to? As many as of that opinion will say content the opinion will say content the contrary, not content. The contents have it. Amendments two and three moved formally. Move formally en moved formally. Move formally en bloc. The question is that amendments two and three be agreed amendments two and three be agreed to. As many as of that opinion will say content the contrary not content. The contents have it. content. The contents have it.

Amendment four Baroness Miller of Chilton Domer. My Lords, in.
17:50
None Portrait AMDT: 4 Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer (Liberal Democrat)
-

Moving amendment four. I thank Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb for putting her name to it as well. This is a very important issue that we did debate at length in committee. And the reason I'm bringing something back at Report stage, albeit in a more focussed form, just dealing with plastic pellets is that plastic generally is one of the huge problems and issues that the ocean is having to have addressed, but the plastic pellet issue is something that the government actually could choose to do a lot more about monitoring, evaluating and regulating on.

It's notable that the European Union has made regulations about the pellets, and I would point out that the sheer scale of the shipping of these pellets, which form the basis of of plastic, wherever it's manufactured, the sheer scale of the loss is estimated to be 10 trillion pellets annually lost at sea, and 10 million tonnes, apparently are lost within European Union waters. So it is a massive problem. I mean, it's hard to imagine that, of course, some of the losses get into the sea and wash out from our own sewage plants.

And that, again, is something that I'm sure the government will look at. But really, I would like the Minister's assurance today that through some vehicle in the future, whether it's the forthcoming water white paper or whatever, that they will address this issue of plastic pellets and really firming up on how people shipping them are trained, the regulation of it, how they're contained on ships, absolutely everything to do with the shipping of them, because the scale of the loss is just really unsupportable and every country needs to take action on it.

I beg to move.
17:53
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb Portrait Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (Green Party)
-
-
Proposed after clause nine, insert the new clause as printed on insert the new clause as printed on the Marshalled List. I rise to speak in support of Baroness Noble, Lady Baroness Miller's amendment, which is, I think, actually an extremely good amendment, and I would urge the noble Lady, the Minister, to actually pick this up at some future date. This is such a good amendment. It really ought to go into legislation somewhere. Now, at committee, we did hear at length and with real concern about the scale and persistence of plastic pollution in our oceans.

And much of that discussion centred on consumable plastics and waste. But plastic pellets and flakes and powders are an equally serious and often overlooked in legislation. These losses might be small in individual incidents, although some might be extremely large, but they are cumulative and effectively irretrievable once they've happened. We're looking ahead, apparently, to a global plastics treaty, which I'm very excited about. And that process is obviously very welcome. But the urgency of the problem means that we really ought to be doing everything and take every available opportunity to act now, particularly where there's already an international consensus on best practice.

Now, what I do welcome very much about this amendment is its practical focus. And this would actually stop the plastic pellets getting into the sea in the first place, instead of our trying to mop them up and recover them later, which is, as I said, impossible. I'd also like to speak to my amendment nine, which is on the exemptions in this bill. It's clause 18 seeks to strengthen confidence in how environmental impact assessments are applied. And it's rather worries me that there are so many exemptions.

And this, again, is an issue I very much appreciate. If the Minister would take up this amendment. My amendment nine is supported by Wild Fish, an organisation with extensive expertise in marine conservation, and their work highlights the importance of making sure that decisions to rely on exemptions are transparent on a case to case basis and ensure that there's an equivalent that meets part four of the BBNJ agreement and article 206 of the UN UNCLOS. This amendment was set out clearly that test, and where an appropriate authority determines that a formal environmental impact assessment is not required, that determination should rest on the existence of another assessment being in place that is equivalently robust.

It also ensures that the reasoning behind such decisions is recorded and published, with the idea to keep decisions transparent and uphold public trust. In particular, there are difficulties in relying on regional fisheries management organisations as a substitute for BBNJ aligned environmental assessment, and while Rfmos play an important role in managing fishing effort and target stocks, their processes do not routinely deliver full assessment of cumulative impacts across sectors. Effects on food webs and non-target species, nor the full implications for migratory species that cross jurisdictional boundaries.

I'd be very, very happy to talk to the noble Lady and the Minister in more detail about this and hoping to see it in a future bill. I would very much like to have moved this amendment, but obviously we are in a hurry to complete the bill and so I have held off. But actually, I think it is incredibly important that we don't just allow exemptions without understanding why those exemptions have happened and the fact they haven't been recorded properly.

As interest grows in new industries such as open ocean aquaculture, the potential environmental impacts ranging from disease and growth in parasites to genetic impacts from escapes and reliance on wild caught fish are even more important. We're seeing this of salmon farms at the moment that escape fish that are covered in all sorts of rather nasty things actually spread to wild fish and and cross-breed, which is deeply unhealthy for the wild fish. So I would welcome the Minister putting on record how the government intends to apply these equivalence criteria in practice, particularly in view of the regional fisheries management organisations.

So I would like reassurance really, in any future legislation, that exemptions will be applied narrowly and cautiously. Equivalence will be actively tested, not just assumed reliance on regional organisations alone will not automatically justify exemption, and that future high risk activities will be subject to BBNJ aligned screening.
17:58
18:00
18:01
Baroness Chapman of Darlington Portrait Baroness Chapman of Darlington, Minister of State (Development) (Labour)
-
-
Although these amendments relate to environmental protection and plastic pellet pollution in areas beyond national jurisdiction. Amendment four tabled by Baroness Miller and I thank her for it. And Baroness Jones, I thank her too, would require the Secretary of State to make regulations on the control of plastic pellet pollution in areas beyond national jurisdiction within 12 months of the BBNJ act being passed. Let me just begin by saying that the government fully recognises the seriousness of plastic pollution in the marine environment, including the particular harms caused by plastic pellet loss.

It's a matter of genuine public concern as well, and the noble Baroness have been tireless advocates for action in this area, and I'm pleased that they've used the opportunity today to raise this issue again. And this is why the government is also taking steps to address the issue through existing regulatory channels. For example, the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from ships under the International Maritime Organisation already requires the reporting of the discharge, both accidental or deliberate, of any harmful substance covered by the convention, and sets out how this report must be made.

Discussions on regulating plastic pellets under the convention are currently ongoing in the IMO, and the Maritime Coastguard Agency will be responsible for addressing the implementation of these regulations. The UK implements annexe five of this convention through the Merchant Shipping Regulations on the Prevention of Pollution by Garbage from ships 2020, which prohibits any discharge of plastic into the sea. Further, as of the 1st of January, a new requirement under the International Convention on Safety of Life at Sea came into force internationally, which mandates the reporting of lost containers to the nearest coastal state and flag state so that speedy efforts to recover the containers can be made.

Additionally, there is a separate process underway to agree a global Plastic pollution treaty. Pellet loss is a global issue, and the UK has called for specific provisions in the new Treaty on Plastic Pollution to address pellet loss throughout the supply chain. And I appreciate that things have not got to where we would wish them to with this treaty, but we continue to support it. And notwithstanding the long amount of time that's already elapsed in getting the treaty to where it is today, we don't walk away.

We continue to advocate for this treaty. So whilst I recognise the important issue raised by the amendment for the purpose of this bill, this is about enabling the UK to comply with the legal obligations under the BBNJ agreement. And I know noble Baroness is understand this and they are using this opportunity to raise these issues and so they should. But this particular bill, we don't think is the most suitable vehicle for addressing plastic pollution across its full life cycle. Elements of the proposed clause may also become duplicative of measures currently being taken by the UK to manage plastic pollution at sea on amendment nine, specifically tabled by Baroness Jones, the noble Baroness rightly highlights the importance of ensuring that under the marine licensing regime, an appropriate authority cannot defer to another equivalent assessment unless that assessment meets the biodiversity beyond National Jurisdiction agreement.

Part four requirements. And I fully agree with what she's trying to do with this amendment, but I would like to reassure that these changes aren't needed, because it's already the case that the appropriate authority will not, under the Marine Works EIA regulations, be able to defer to another equivalent assessment unless that assessment meets the requirements of part four as well of the Biodiversity beyond National Jurisdiction agreement. So this would include all of the procedural consultation and public participation requirements of part four of the agreement.

The respective Marine Works EIA regulations also set out various additional procedural and public notification requirements that the appropriate authority must undertake if it decides to defer to an equivalent assessment. Given these requirements already, ensure that under the marine licensing regimes, an equivalent assessment must be appropriately rigorous and meet part four. Part four requirements, including for public participation and transparency. I am pleased that I can, I think, reassure the Baroness that this amendment isn't needed today, but happy to continue as she suggests talking about it alongside my colleagues in Defra.

But for these reasons, I hope that noble Lords are able to withdraw their amendments.
18:06
18:08
None Portrait AMDT: 8 Lord Teverson (Liberal Democrat)
-

My Lords, one of the core characteristics, obviously, of this bill is that it talks about a treaty that is about actions beyond national jurisdictions. In fact, we should celebrate it even more, because probably, I suspect it will be one of the last of these treaties that we shall endure joy and be able to make over the next few years. I think there will not be many that that follow this, but one of the areas that I believe has been left out of the treaty.

But it is important because this is beyond national jurisdiction, is one around human rights and hence this amendment. And I would like to thank the Minister and her team for the conversations that we've had recently about this, this, this area. Human rights are, by their definition, universal, but they are very differently applied in practice terrestrially as they are on the high seas. The reason being that terrestrially they can be enforced. Those that feel that their human rights are being threatened can go to authorities normally, and they cases and the instances can be pursued, whether it be through legal processes or whatever, out on the high seas.

That is very different indeed. There is a effectively a vacuum in terms of enforcement. Once the national seeds and boundaries have been crossed. And also there is an asymmetric situation in terms of power, whether it be crew, passengers or researchers in this instance. Then once they are on the high seas, they are have very little power in comparison to the the skipper or the captain, or what the owners might instruct the skipper or captain to do.

And for instance, unlike on land, there is no contact by mobile telephone. You cannot get in touch with authorities actually to pursue your case or ask for help or get protection. None of those are necessarily available. And that is also compounded by what we talked about in Committee stage, which is flags of convenience, where often the Who would be the enforcement authority on the high seas of a vessel. Then often those flag states do not have the capacity, the interest, or be able to communicate it with to actually enforce those human rights on that vessel.

Hence why I'm asking that we also include human rights in terms of the licensing requirement. I noted going through the Coastal Access Act that human health was one of the considerations, but human rights obviously much, much broader than than that. So why might who are the sort of people that might be the problem? I suspect not the researchers on a research vessel, but you still have crew beyond that, and it's usually because they are either indentured employees, that they are migrants that are unable to communicate easily with the the ship owners or the authority of the port where they are in port, that they are unable to communicate in the same way, in the same languages.

There is quite wide scale abuse, mainly in the fishing industry, but that's not also the case. There are instances in the cruise industry and there are risks in this sector as well, and that's why I feel it is really important that the licensing authorities are able to check purely in the case of licenses for research beyond national jurisdiction, that they are, that they have to consider whether the boat owner and operator and the licensee are able to protect and will have the will to protect the human rights of the persons on board those vessels.

I beg to move.
18:13
Lord Callanan Portrait Lord Callanan (Conservative)
-
-
Clause 14, page ten, line 37. At >> Clause 14, page ten, line 37. At the end, insert the words as printed on the Marshalled List.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

printed on the Marshalled List. I thank the Lord for his amendment to this group, and of amendment to this group, and of course, we share his desire to see the rights of those who are at sea beyond national jurisdiction protected. This is an important issue and I understand why he has tabled his amendment, but I'm sure even the noble Lord would probably accept that the Bill is possibly not the right vehicle for his concerns to be addressed. The amendment would add an additional duty on marine licensing authorities to have regard to the need to ensure the rights of those at sea beyond national jurisdiction are protected.

I'm obviously interested to hear the Minister's response, and I'm sure she can tell us what work her department has done to understand whether this new duty would be at all workable, and how could licensing authorities go about assessing the necessary information to comply with any new duty? And I'm sure she will tell us if Ministers have considered any other possible approaches to ensure protection for those at sea beyond national jurisdiction. Ultimately, given that this is an issue relating, by definition to issues, activities beyond national jurisdiction.

Noble Lord Teverson would consider that a multilateral approach, rather than the UK acting unilaterally on this, would probably have more luck in ensuring probably have more luck in ensuring that his concerns are addressed.
18:14
Baroness Chapman of Darlington Portrait Baroness Chapman of Darlington, Minister of State (Development) (Labour)
-
-
I thank the noble Lord for taking the time to speak with me about his amendment eight last week, and he is a long standing and committed advocate for human rights at sea, and he is absolutely right to draw attention to the seriousness of these issues, including the challenges of enforcement. As he says, on the high seas, to reassure the noble Lord on the domestic position. The UK already has a strong framework in place to protect seafarers rights through measures such as the Seafarers Wages Act 2023 and, more recently, the Employment Rights Act, which will facilitate delivery of a mandatory seafarers charter.

The UK has taken clear steps to improve working conditions for seafarers and to tackle exploitation in UK waters and ports. These protections apply robustly to UK flagged vessels and also apply where international law permits to non-UK registered vessels whose place of operation is in UK territorial waters and at the international level, including through its engagement at the International Maritime Organisation. The UK works actively to support and strengthen existing international frameworks, including the United Nations Convention on the law of the Sea and International Labour Organisation conventions such as the Maritime Labour Convention.

However, the marine licensing regime isn't probably the most appropriate legislation to look at seafarers rights, as its focus is to ensure sustainable use of the marine environment, prevent harm and manage interference with other sea users. I know that the noble Lord understands that the context of this discussion and the treaty that we are are working to implement, and while I fully recognise the importance of the issue that the noble Lord has raised to him and to the government as well, it's more appropriately addressed through dedicated domestic legislation and established international maritime and labour frameworks than it would be through the Bill.

And I hope that the noble Lord is able to withdraw his amendment for tonight. But notwithstanding, we do keep these matters under constant review, and we we understand completely what he is getting at and the difficulties with visibility of this and enforcement and protection of those working on the high seas. And we do thank him for using this opportunity to raise it.
18:17
Lord Teverson Portrait Lord Teverson (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
Well, my Lords, I suppose the greatest delight is that the noble greatest delight is that the noble Lord and the noble Baroness actually agreed with each other. And having sat through the previous debate, it seemed highly unusual. So I brought about a coming together of of the two of them. At least that's something that's a positive. But I agree absolutely with the Lord, the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, about the fact that this should be dealt with multilaterally. That is clearly the case.

But I'm a pessimist. I don't think that's on the cards in the near future in any way, unfortunately. And this would be a way in. Perhaps the UK could once again show a lead to other nations and other signatories of the treaty. In terms of this area, however, I agree with much of what the Minister has said and I hope that we can continue this conversation more productively and in other legislation, perhaps because this is an issue that really does affect a significant number of people that trade that research, that fish on the high seas.

They need our support and our understanding that there can be some very difficult times for those people on those circumstances. But I, on this occasion, beg leave to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

withdraw my amendment. Is it your Lordships pleasure that the amendment be withdrawn? It that the amendment be withdrawn? It is by leave withdrawn. Amendment nine Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb nine Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb not moved. We then moved to clause 23, amendment ten. It may be for 23, amendment ten. It may be for the convenience of the House. If ten, 11 and 12 are moved formally ten, 11 and 12 are moved formally by the Minister. Yes. The question is that amendments ten, 11 and 12 are moved formally on proposed formally En bloc.

The question is that these amendments be agreed to as many as that opinion will say. Content contrary, not content the contents have it. That concludes
18:19
18:19
Baroness Goldie Portrait Baroness Goldie (Conservative)
-
-
operational update.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

operational update. My Lords, may I begin by echoing the comments from my right hon. Friends. In the other place, the Leader of the Opposition and the Shadow Defence Secretary, in supporting the government in taking measures to tackle the ongoing scourge of sanctions busting shipping activity, the enforcement of sanctions on Russia and Iran is crucial to defending our interests, both at home and abroad, critical to upholding our on going support for Ukraine and any action we can take to weaken Putins war machine is welcome.

I would like to thank all those service personnel who took part in the operation to assist United States in the capture of the MV Bella one and as ever, their commitment to our country and our security is exemplary. On the substance of declaration of Intent, signed by both the Prime Minister and the President of France, there is a list of, I think, unanswered questions, and I understand the noble Lord. The Minister will not be able to go into operational specifics. I would not want him to do that, but I do hope he can shed some further light on his plan.

The Secretary of State's statement and the Other place mentioned that the meeting in Paris last week was the largest meeting yet of the coalition of the willing, with 39 nations present. But as far as I can tell, it was only Britain and France that agreed to send troops to Ukraine in the event of a peace agreement, and so can the noble Lords Minister confirm that all members of the so-called coalition of the willing will be contributing to the multinational force for Ukraine in that eventuality? And does he know which other countries have expressed a willingness to also make such deployments? But of course, as a matter of critical fundamental principle here, that we have to acknowledge any peace agreement between Russia and Ukraine will be fragile.

Russia has not exactly garnered a reputation for reliability, and there is always a risk in the event of a peace deal being negotiated, that Russia could violate any such agreement. And I don't need to spell out to the House what the consequences of that mean. If we have British troops in that country, who then could find themselves in direct combat with Russian troops. Outcome none of us would wish to see happen, but the government and the British people must be prepared for that scenario.

So what I'd like to ask the Minister is that does this not heighten the importance of the national conversation on defence as outlined in the SDR committed to by the government? Surely we now have to prepare the British public for a future which in reality will be less secure and is less peaceful. And the prospect which I have just outlined is a very important one for the British public to understand. So I'd be grateful if the Minister could confirm how the progress of the national conversation is proceeding.

The other point is support for our troops. And can I ask him if the government is absolutely satisfied that they will be going in as best equipped as we can possibly make them? Because this rather underlines how important it is that not only does the government ramp up defence spending, but that we begin to see this much delayed defence investment plan. I confess to disappointment that despite repeated undertakings which the government has given us, that investment plan has not yet materialised and we were told just before Christmas we'd see it before the end of the year, but no sign of and I understand we might not now see it until the spring of this year.

Mallards. Given the scenario which the Prime Minister is outlining. This is beyond the theoretical and the hypothetical. This is actually getting into the very real and raw territory of what we need to fund the mod to make sure those troops will have everything they require. And I'd be grateful if the Minister could clarify what he understands the position to be in relation to that investment plan. We also have the helicopter factory in Yeovil teetering. We've got the frigate building programme stalling and our ammunition supplies have not been replaced at anything like the speed necessary.

All of that I adduce in support of my proposition that we must now have clarity. And really there is a need for this defence investment plan, in whatever form it's in, to see the light of day. The most important thing is that we ask a lot of our armed forces. We all hugely respect what they do, and if troops are to be deployed in Ukraine as part of a multinational mission, post some peace agreement, then they do need to be safe in the knowledge that our government and all of us care about them, and the government has got their back.
18:25
Baroness Smith of Newnham Portrait Baroness Smith of Newnham (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
My Lords. there was a bit of a triumvirate where the noble Lord, the Minister was the noble Lady Baroness Golding and many times the noble Lord Lord Coaker. And I would stand up and ask questions, and I would associate myself immediately with the comments of Lord Coaker. And today I find myself in a very similar position of standing up to associate myself in these benches with the comments and questions raised by the noble Lady Baroness Goldie.

She has raised a set of questions that are extremely important, and so my questions should be seen very much as additional to those of Baroness Goldie. So firstly, again, I would like to thank His Majesty's Armed Forces, and particularly at the start of a new year, to say how important it is that we support our armed forces. And obviously our personnel were not actively involved last week, but that we support them and we want to ensure that the situation for our armed forces is going to be such that we are ready to deal with all the international situations that may come up in 2026.

And although this statement was officially briefed as or labelled Ukraine and Wider Operational update, we've already had Iran, Ukraine, Russia and the other issue, of course, that's been happening already in 2026 is the situation with Venezuela. So I don't propose to ask the noble Lords Minister question specifically about Venezuela. But I do want to stress that the importance last week of supporting the United States in tackling the tanker and dealing with the shadow fleet is precisely that.

We understand that that was in accordance with international law. And I think it's important to stress that we support His Majesty's Government, as long as action that is taken is in accordance with international law. But to ask His Majesty's Government whether they will ensure that our actions are taken even by our closest ally, the United States, we will hold them to account if we believe that they are not acting according to international law. And in particular, we clearly have a difficult situation where on some issues we agree entirely with the United States and on other issues we find ourselves perhaps at one remove.

So could the noble Lord, the Minister, help the House understand where the United Kingdom is in terms of discussing with the United States the situation of another sovereign entity, namely Greenland, because we've had answers from the FCDO which have been reassuring in terms of suggesting that the future of Greenland is a matter for the Greenlanders and for the Kingdom of Denmark. But Greenland is a significant geographical part of NATO, and I think there are questions about what support we as the United Kingdom and particularly the Mod, are giving to Greenland and to the Kingdom of Denmark.

But I would also like to ask and that question, building on questions from the noble Lady Baroness Goldie, if we were to commit troops, if the United Kingdom were to commit troops to Ukraine, what are the conditions going to be? I understand there would be a vote in the other place, but would it just be the United Kingdom and France? And is His Majesty's Government sure that if we did that, we wouldn't actually be creating vulnerabilities for our own troops? Because the prospect of peace in Ukraine still seems a long way off.

And finally, is the noble Lord, the Minister, convinced that the commitments to defence expenditure are adequate? Because although he said in the chamber last week and the Secretary of State said in the Commons as part of this statement, or in response to this statement that we have our 3% commitment. But, my Lords, as the noble Lady, Baroness Goldie said, if we're not spending that money, if we're not letting the contracts and if there are vulnerabilities for our frigates and helicopter services, where does that leave us in terms of national security, supporting the United States, supporting Ukraine is important, but so is our national security.

Thank you.
18:30
Lord Coaker Portrait Lord Coaker, The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Labour)
-
-
First of all, can I thank very much the noble Baroness Baroness much the noble Baroness Baroness Goldie and the noble Baroness Smith for their general support for what for their general support for what the government has been doing, which, to be fair, carries on very much from what the last government did. And I think it's a source of strength for our country that that is the that is the case. And there's a degree of consensus between us all about that. So I very much thank them for that, because I think as a statement of the obvious, it's extremely important for our adversaries to see that unity of purpose between us all.

And I think that is extremely important. Can I also join the noble Baroness Miller and the noble Baroness Goldie and thank him, our service personnel, for all of the various operations that they've been involved in in different ways. And I just would also like to praise the American forces as well for for their bravery in, in what they did in conducting that. And again, I thank both of them for for their support for that operation, which I think actually was a huge significance for tackling that.

The noble Baroness talked about the importance of tackling sanctions of vessels. Just if I could remind her, we've sanctioned 544 shadow vessels, of which 200, we believe have been forced off the water and which has led to a decline in Russian oil revenues from October 2024 of 27%. So whilst we all wish we want, we could do more, would want to do more. There has been some progress that's been made and indeed we always consider what more can can be done.

The noble Baroness asked about the 39. They will contribute in different ways. So, as you will have read France and UK at the forefront of that and providing leadership in different countries. This discussion is going on about what different countries do to that. But the first thing, the most important thing is that we need a peace agreement. And Russia is an impediment to that peace agreement. We get the peace agreement and then a multinational force, whatever form that takes. But with France and Britain at the lead, I think can then provide that security guarantee, which makes the peace agreement a reality.

What I would also say to both noble bonuses and to other people in the House, I think it was particularly important to see the remarks of the Americans. People like Steve Witkoff at the that conference in Paris, where he said it was very significant the discussions that had taken place and given sometimes the way in which we sometimes question whether the involvement of the Americans is as strong as it might be. I think that that was a particularly important point that was made out of it, and one that we were very pleased with and very keen to, to continue to support with that.

Can I just mention one other thing, because we talk a lot about the Americans to other particular strategic things. There was a lot of talk a couple of months ago about the new American national security strategy. Less attention was given to the Defence Authorisation Plan that was passed at the same time, the National Defence Authorisation Act, that the Americans passed at the same time, which which laid out the Americans military budget, which included significant sums of money for Ukraine, included significant troop numbers in Europe, confirmed the American general as Sakhir, which I think is is important.

And so I sometimes think in answer to noble Baroness Carr point about America and that that we continue to work very closely with the Americans. They are very important allies to us, and we do talk to them. And I'll come to Greenland in a minute, but we do talk to them. I think that's particularly important. The noble Baroness is quite right to raise the point about the national conversation. I think there's a lot of work we are starting with that work, but there's an awful lot of work to be done with respect to that, to, in a sense, to alert the the British people much more to the challenges that that they face, not just in terms of maybe necessarily troops invading, but certainly in terms of hybrid threats, in terms of some of the activity we've seen on our streets, not least a few years ago at Salisbury and so on and so forth, and some of those different ways in which we're seeing cyber attacks and so on, and some of the other things that we're seeing.

But I do think the protection of critical national infrastructure, the development of the reserves, all of those sorts of things are going to become increasingly important. And certainly we live, to put it mildly, in unsettled times and uncertain times. And the national conversation is a really important point. And I'd be grateful if the noble Baroness Hale indeed noble Baroness Vere other members have got ideas about how we take that forward. I very much welcome them because I think it's an important national endeavour that's taking place.

Of course, going back to Ukraine, planning is being undertaken. We, the chief of the Defence Staff, has been talking about what may be done. There's a lot of planning going on. I'm not going to go into the the details of that, but certainly a lot of planning going on in terms of making sure that the various equipment is available and the and all of the various materials and so on that would be needed there to, to deliver the, the reassurance and the work that needs to be done there.

The noble Baroness has heard me say what I've said about the defence investment plan. We're working at pace to try and get that developed as quickly as possible. The only thing I would say, and I just say this because there is a there is a debate and discussion about defence investment plan, but this country does do an awful lot militarily as well, even within the existing budget. And I just reflecting on that when the noble Baroness was asking that question and I was thinking about the RAF typhoons, that with France just a week or so ago took action in Syria.

The commitment we're going to make to Ukraine, the commitment that we do in the in the Arctic, we've got Marines training in Norway, we've got troops in Estonia. We had the carrier strike group recently out in the Indo Pacific. And of course, the support we gave to the Americans. So notwithstanding the debate about all of the whether enough is being spent, this country militarily does an awful lot. And we should remind ourselves, I think sometimes of that in terms of the helicopter, the noble Baroness will be pleased to know that the Philippines has just placed an order with Leonardo's for six helicopters.

So that doesn't answer the question about the defence investment plan and the British government's investment, which is still being considered. But certainly I think that would be welcome news for for Leonardo's, those six helicopters orders being placed by the the Philippines. Of course, we we we operate on legal basis. The action against. The the the shadow vessel that was a sanctioned stateless vessel which carries a long history of nefarious activity and shares close links with Iran and Russia.

So it was a sanctions busting ship. It was stateless. You know, it changed its flag when it sailed towards the eastern Caribbean. It was flying a guy, a guy in his flag. And then when it sailed away, it changed it to a Russian flag. And can I just say this as well, because I think it's a strategic point, which we won't be lost on some of the colleagues here. That strategic point that sometimes America's attitude towards Russia is questioned, and whether they actually see Russia as somebody they ought to take action against.

I think that was a very clear demonstration that we're the United States believes it's in its interest to do so. It will do so. And I think that's a strategic point that perhaps needs to be made. The noble Baroness asked me specifically about Greenland, which is quite right, that we believe that the Kingdom of the Kingdom of Denmark and Greenland is an autonomous territory within that kingdom. They have the right to determine their own future. There is a question about Arctic security and all of us, and we've talked in this chamber and discussed in this chamber at great length the need for us to to consider how we develop the Arctic, the Arctic security.

And I would say to, to others, I myself have mentioned it in debates that with climate change in the opening up of some of that ice, that opens up that territory in a way, which means that we will have to, I think, consider that even even more. The noble Baroness asked again about the commitment to invest. She'll know what I've said about the various things about investment, and that debate will go on. The government has made a commitment that made the commitments it has.

I would argue that even within the existing budget we've got, we make a significant military contribution to the defence of democracy and to the defence of our values, and we shall continue to do that, not least in Ukraine, which is at the forefront of our minds all of the time, but also in supporting the Americans, where we believe that that should happen, as we've proved just recently, in the last few weeks.
18:39
Lord Jopling Portrait Lord Jopling (Conservative)
-
-
Much impressed by. >> Two points which arose in the debate in another place last week. First of all, in the statement First of all, in the statement itself, which says, and I quote, If Putin prevails, he will not stop at Ukraine. And also another comment by Rishi Sunak who said, and again, I quote that a that we, we cannot have, we must have rather a credible and durable security guarantee. And those two points, I agree with so much.

And so my question to the noble Lord, the Minister, is this are you seized with the vital need to ensure that any settlement with Putin over Ukraine does not ignore the possibility of him just jumping in and repeating the operation elsewhere? And I'm thinking particularly of Georgia and Moldova, where there are particularly striking similarities to the Ukraine situation. First of all, he would argue with the same dishonest and disgraceful justifications as he used over Ukraine that, first of all, they used to be under Russian influence, and second, that Russia already has a military foothold in Moldova and Georgia in exactly the same way, similar way to what he had in Ukraine are have been to both of those places.

I've looked down in Georgia, in South Ossetia, over the Russian military base and material and equipment with which they illegally invaded some time ago, and again in Moldova. I've been to Transnistria and met the generals and the colonels who tell you, they told us in those days that they only had 1500 troops there, which was a total lie. And so my main part of my question to the Minister is this will the Minister agree that a settlement with Putin over.

Settlement with Putin is not just about Ukraine?
18:42
Lord Coaker Portrait Lord Coaker, The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Labour)
-
-
Well, I thought the the noble Lord made a series of very good, good points. And really I could say, well, I agree with him about the well, I agree with him about the need for for all of the things that he said. I completely agree with him about Ukraine and the need for him about Ukraine and the need for it to be a security guarantee in Ukraine. The any arrangement that's made has to have the support of the Ukrainians, and that's why we've gone to such extraordinary lengths to try and put together a coalition of the willing.

There are still discussions going on about that. I think it's a good thing that the UK and France have been in the forefront of that, and we've tried very hard, and it was good to hear what the Americans said at the Paris conference or the meeting of the coalition of the willing. Their involvement, which I think is essential as well, and sends a strong signal to to Russia. He makes the point about Moldova and Georgia. He will know that we supported in Moldova the the facilitation of free and fair elections, which led to result that certainly Russia didn't want in Moldova.

And certainly we would wish to see similar in Georgia. But all I can say to the the noble Lords, he makes a really good points. Putin has to know he can't be seen to have won. We are doing all we can to ensure that's the case. And he's quite right to point out that the front line in Ukraine is our front line as well.
18:44
18:44
18:44
18:44
18:45
18:47
18:47
18:48
Lord Coaker Portrait Lord Coaker, The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Labour)
-
-
Well, it is a hypothetical >> Well, it is a hypothetical situation, but but it goes back to the point that I was trying to make in response to to Baroness Goldie, there is a need for a national conversation about the threat that we face. There is a national we face. There is a national conversation about the state on state threat that exists in a way that a few years ago, people would not have realised it, the Cold War and Russia versus this or that country versus that.

That was supposed to be the wars of the past, and we were supposed to be into terrorist activity, counterinsurgency, these sorts of things. And whilst none of that threat hasn't totally gone away, the state on state threat has now re-emerged. And I think part of the national conversation has to be, what does that actually mean for

**** Possible New Speaker ****

our country and for our armed forces? My Lords, my question is also about the national conversation. Now, to put it on, on, on the record, the Green Party supports the principle of the UK troops the principle of the UK troops serving in a peacekeeping role in Ukraine following a negotiated settlement with robust settlement with robust international mandate and standards. And we're very pleased that the statement says there will be a statement says there will be a debate and a vote in the other place beforehand.

That's the minimum Democratic standard. But can the noble Lord Minister reassure me that the MPs will be able to robustly scrutinise the government's proposal so they will have before them? And this follows on from the noble Ladies questions, detail about the size and the composition of the force, what weapons that they would have, the rules of engagement, measurable indicators of what success actually looks like. It's really important

**** Possible New Speaker ****

that it's not just a debate, but a full debate. There'll be a wider debate as possible. I mean, some of it will possible. I mean, some of it will not be. Some of you would debate on the floor of the House necessarily, the floor of the House necessarily, for example, rules of engagement and so on. But having said that, let me just reiterate again what the Prime Minister said, because I think it's important just to make sure that that I'm accurate. So as sure that that I'm accurate.

So as the PM stated last week, if there were a decision to deploy under the agreement signed yesterday, this government would put that matter to the House for debate, for debate beforehand and for a vote on that deployment. So I think the noble Baroness can read into that the sort of answer that she wants her question.
18:51
18:51
Lord Coaker Portrait Lord Coaker, The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Labour)
-
-
I've no I've no knowledge of Russia, of the the points you made Russia, of the the points you made about Russia and any commitment from them to the points you made about about them. I've no knowledge of that at all. But in terms of the American commitment, I thought the American commitment to the discussions and the declaration of intent and the discussions which were made that happened in Paris last week, I think was very significant that people like Steve Witkoff were saying how strong the those commitments were and how much they welcomed them.

And I think that is something which is extremely important. And I think the Americans, as a, as a part of any security guarantee is really important and something we will continue to work to do. And as you, as the noble Lord says, the fact that that such high level

**** Possible New Speaker ****

representation was there, I think is a huge significance. Well, let's be quite clear that

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Well, let's be quite clear that Mr. Putin does not want a ceasefire under any circumstances. It's not going to happen, actually, without going to happen, actually, without wanting to sound trite, can I also pay tribute to the armed forces of pay tribute to the armed forces of Ukraine that are actually defending our freedom in in Europe? I'm sure we all agree with that, but I think we all agree with that, but I think it's worth actually saying it again and and actually defending it with lives and blood and treasure.

The question I want to ask, which is slightly different, is that one of
18:53
18:53
18:53
Lord Teverson Portrait Lord Teverson (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
in terms of propaganda, Ukraine and their right claw, their right cause has been on the defensive. The fact has been on the defensive. The fact is, during 2025, the Russian forces occupied a further 1%. I think it occupied a further 1%. I think it is the nearest percentage point of Ukrainian territory at huge and obscene losses of their own troops and their own population. And yet we still have the feeling that the white House understands that Ukraine has no cards, that the cause is lost, that there isn't a future in terms of this conflict being successful, in terms of stopping Putin from winning, it's going to be it is all very difficult.

But those are the facts in terms of military change over the last year. What's the minister's thought, I mean, of how we actually reverse some of that feeling so that we can be more positive about what the Ukraine is achieving in terms of its, well, its work and its firepower in terms of oil, all of that side. How can

**** Possible New Speaker ****

we change that narrative? I think that's a really important question. Let me, first important question. Let me, first of all, join the noble Lord in the congratulations for the Ukrainian armed forces, but also the stoicism armed forces, but also the stoicism and and bravery of the Ukrainian people themselves in resisting in people themselves in resisting in the way that, that they have. But I the way that, that they have. But I sometimes think, which is why to make the point, why sometimes I say about whatever the debate about defence investment and how much we should be spending, we should not also we should also remember what we actually are doing.

I think the thing with Ukraine, notwithstanding the difficulties and the challenges that Ukraine face and the re-equipping and so on, I think one of the things that we should remind all of ourselves is Russia was not expecting to be in the position that it is in now. When it attacked, it was expecting to attack and and take Kyiv within a few days and put a puppet government in place and have a vassal state. That's what the intention was.

Have Russia has Russia been successful in doing that? No, it hasn't been successful at all. And I just think sometimes instead of looking and saying, look, this is where we are now, you sometimes need to go back and look at what the original objective was. And I say to this house and I say to this Parliament, I say to our country, Russia has failed in what its original objective was. It's totally failed, and it's failed because of the bravery of the Ukrainian people and the support that many of us, many countries, most countries, have given to them.

And let me also say, what else did Russia expect? Russia expected NATO to implode. Russia expected NATO to be weakened. What's happened? Notwithstanding the discussions we've had about the United States, the NATO has been strengthened. Who would have said that Finland and Sweden would have joined NATO at the beginning of that? And yet they've joined that strengthened NATO. So as well as sometimes looking at the challenges we face, some of the difficulties that we face, we ought to remind ourselves sometimes as well, about the things that have been done and the things that are working well.

Russia has failed in its original objectives, and we should remind people about that.
18:56
18:57
18:57
18:58
14:00
None Portrait Introduction(s): Lord Doyle; Lord Duvall
-

This debate has concluded
Return to start of debate - Return to top of page