British Indian Ocean Territory: Sovereignty

Baroness Blackstone Excerpts

Thursday 19th December 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

I could not agree more with the noble Lord’s comments on his desire, which we share, that this should not be a political football. We should all tread carefully and respectfully in the way that we discuss this. The timing of the Mauritian election was not in our gift. The negotiations reached a conclusion that day, and our Prime Minister thought that the right thing to do was to be open about that fact. Yes, there has since been an election in Mauritius and, quite rightly, the new Mauritian Government wish to cast their own eye over the treaty. We respect that; it is what any incoming Government would want to do. Having said all of that, I strongly agree with the noble Lord on the way we discuss these issues, because they matter so much to many people. They affect our security but, as he rightly points out, they matter most of all to the Chagossian community.

[Baroness Blackstone (Lab)]

My Lords, can the Minister confirm that one of the benefits to the Chagossians is that they will be able, if they wish, to resettle some of the outer islands? Has this been agreed by the Government of Mauritius yet, and will it be in the treaty?

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

Yes, this was something we wanted to secure as part of the negotiations. It is intended that the Chagossians will have the right to resettlement on the outer islands, but not on Diego Garcia, because that is where the military base is sited, and the view is that that would not be feasible or in our national security interests. But the noble Baroness is quite right in what she says.

The Ukraine Effect (European Affairs Committee Report)

Baroness Blackstone Excerpts

Thursday 21st November 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Blackstone (Lab)]

My Lords, I will repeat some of what the noble Lord, Lord Ricketts, said. He has been a first-class, excellent chairman of the committee. If I repeat his points, it is only to reinforce them.

It is now nearly a year since the committee published its report, and any hopes that the war might have come to an end by now have been dashed. At the weekend, Russia launched a devastating drone and missile attack on Ukraine’s energy grid, affecting many parts of the country and resulting in the need for a nationwide rationing of energy. There are currently no signs of de-escalation, nor any prospects for peace in the near future.

There is a need for close co-operation between the UK and the EU on support for Ukraine in the contexts of both growing Russian aggression and the recent election of Donald Trump. It is still unclear what he will do when he becomes President, but the threat to reduce greatly or even to end the supply of arms to Ukraine must be taken seriously. The committee’s inquiry had, as a backdrop, the possibility of a change of political leadership in the USA and cautioned that a reduction of US support for Ukraine would have implications for both the UK and the EU. It is surely now vital that they plan for this contingency.

The Foreign Secretary’s participation last week in the EU’s Foreign Affairs Council is welcome. In the Statement on Ukraine he made in another place on Tuesday, he listed a number of initiatives that the Government are currently taking, including “non-military support”—for example, boosting the economy of Ukraine in various ways and protecting its power grid. Can the Minister tell the House whether lifting the ban on the deployment of UK-designed Storm Shadow missiles, which have some US components, was discussed with our European allies when the Foreign Secretary met them on Tuesday?

This use becomes possible following President Biden’s decision earlier this week to lift the US ban, apparently influenced by Russian escalation and the use of North Korean troops in the Kursk region. When asked yesterday, the Government said that they would neither confirm nor deny allowing Ukrainian firepower and the launching of long-range missiles into Russia. All the evidence suggests that they were used yesterday, so would it not be better for the Government to clarify this, without necessarily specifying precisely where they were used? The danger of possible Russian retaliation must also be acknowledged.

Like the noble Lord, Lord Ricketts, I turn now to the issue of sanctions, which was considered at length in the committee’s report and to which the Foreign Secretary referred in yesterday’s Statement. The committee was broadly supportive of the collaboration that had taken place with the EU, identifying what it called “pragmatic cooperation”. It said that any divergence in policies, or on sanctions, would create “gaps and loopholes” that would be exploited and would make them make them far less effective. While there was general agreement with the EU on where sanctions should apply, it argued that these policies need to be reviewed regularly, including on countries besides Russia and Belarus.

In their reply to the report, the Government reassured the committee that this was happening, although they rejected the idea of a memorandum of understanding with the EU on a sanctions policy. While the committee was relatively sanguine about international agreement on the focus of sanctions, it mentioned that witnesses had raised questions about implementation. Experts have more recently claimed that there are indeed serious concerns about implementation, and a weak enforcement regime with widespread evasion. Third countries such as the UAE and Turkey are party to sanctions-busting, out of which a great deal of money is being made. UK companies in areas such as insurance and shipping are apparently trading with Russia with impunity. Can the Minister tell the House how many UK companies have been charged with breaking sanctions? There can be little point in the Government extending sanctions, as was announced in Tuesday’s Statement, if enforcement is weak and there is no leadership in addressing the difficult issues it raises. We have not seen any specific examples of the robust action the committee requested in its report.

The committee also drew attention to the use of frozen sanctioned assets—in particular, frozen central bank assets—for the reconstruction of Ukraine. It recognised the importance of being consistent with international law, but the then Foreign Secretary suggested there was a legal route in doing so. Has that been identified? More particularly, the committee was critical of the failure to address the frozen assets arising from the sale of Chelsea Football Club. The noble Lord, Lord Ricketts, has already referred to that, so I will say no more on it.

Lastly, I want to raise the general question of the reconstruction that is needed to help the morale of Ukrainians today and to support the functioning of the Ukrainian economy in the future. It cannot until wait war ends, as the committee made clear. Close co-operation with the EU will also be vital if duplication is to be avoided and efficiency maximised. The Government accepted this in their reply. However, if action is not taken to tackle corruption in Ukraine, reconstruction could be damaged by scandals.

In her reply, I hope the Minister will be able to indicate ways in which the UK is addressing how to improve the justice system through UK aid visits, so that the rule of law is enforced in uprooting corruption. There is a need for institution-building in this area, so that the UK private sector can be confident that it can operate effectively in Ukraine in the future.

I end by simply saying that we now have to plan for the possibility that the US will indeed shirk any responsibility to help Ukraine out of its current predicament.