British Indian Ocean Territory: Sovereignty

Baroness Chapman of Darlington Excerpts

Thursday 19th December 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

My Lords, if this deal is not yet legally deceased then it certainly seems to be on end-of-life support. Can the Minister explain why the Government were in such a hurry to give away strategically important British sovereign territory to a country 1,500 miles away within weeks of taking office, just before important elections in both Mauritius and the US and without even having the courtesy of consulting the Chagossian community who in fact used to live there? We have had no detail on what is in the agreement or how much we are paying to lease back something that we already own. It has had the effect of destabilising the entire region and it is concerning some of our closest allies. Is it not time to scrap the entire thing and start again?

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Baroness Chapman of Darlington) (Lab)]

My Lords, the negotiations with Mauritius are not destabilising the entire region, and we were not in a hurry to conclude them. As we have said before, these negotiations commenced two years ago and had gone through many rounds of negotiation under the previous Government. On the issue of scrutiny, I say that the treaty will be subject to the usual process in this House. There will also be primary legislation that will go before both Houses and be amendable in the usual way; I do not think we have explored that in our exchanges previously.

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

I thank the Minister for meeting me yesterday with my Commons colleagues to discuss this issue; I am grateful for that opportunity. Does she agree that this is, regrettably, turning into a bit of a political football, with the principal Opposition claiming discourtesy now, after having 11 rounds of negotiations without consulting the Chagossians or providing any details of the basis of those discussions? It was also regrettable, perhaps, that this Government released the announcement after the general election but before the Mauritian general election, and it was regrettable that the previous Government allowed the matter to drag on before our general election. However, there is an opportunity now for the involvement of the Chagossians and for there to be clarity with regard to what the treaty text might be. As the Minister has heard me say before, an enhanced parliamentary scrutiny procedure is now very important. We need to put in reassuring measures for the Chagossians that this political football will not be to their disbenefit again.

[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.

[Baroness Foster of Aghadrumsee (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I declare my interest as an adviser to the Friends of the British Overseas Territories charity. In the other place yesterday, the Minister repeatedly said that the interests of Chagossians were absolutely at the heart of this agreement. If that is so, why are so many Chagossians here campaigning against this deal? Will the noble Baroness respect the right to self-determination and grant the Chagossian people a referendum on the sovereignty of these islands?

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

No, we will not be granting one. Bluntly, there is no point in stringing people along on these issues; that just compounds the wrong that has been done to them. The Chagos Islands have never been self-governing and the view among the Chagossian populations varies quite considerably. While there is a view among Chagossians here, we should be humble enough to accept that the largest Chagossian community is not in the UK but in Mauritius. That Chagossian community has been clear that it supports the deal, I suspect largely because of the point made my noble friend Lady Blackstone: that they would have that right to settle on the outer islands. The situation is not quite as straightforward as it is sometimes suggested.

[Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)]

Does the Minister agree that the House would do well to note how warmly our friends and allies in the Pentagon, the State Department and the NSC have welcomed the extended and improved security of tenure of the base?

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

The security of and continuation of legal certainty regarding the base on Diego Garcia has been our prime objective in these negotiations. We would not have entered into any kind of agreement or deal that did not have the support of our closest allies, because if something might be acceptable to us but is unacceptable to them, the stability and security that we were trying to achieve would have been compromised, so the noble Lord is completely right.

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)]

My Lords, one of the key reasons why previous Governments did not conclude these negotiations was the issue of security. That is why there are repeated requests to see how that has been aligned. My question, however, is about the United States, which is a key component. What representations have been made to and what conversations have been had with the incoming US Administration of President Trump regarding negotiations on Diego Garcia? I say to the Minister that their perspective will be markedly different from that of the current Administration.

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

As the noble Lord knows, we deal with the current Administration until they are no longer the current Administration. I note that as negotiations concluded, support was provided by our US allies not just at the political level, but throughout their Department of Defense and Department of State. This is seen as a desired outcome not just by leading politicians; those who are closely concerned with the security and stability of the base and its continued viability and legal certainty have very much been in support of this treaty.

[Lord Grocott (Lab)]

I very much welcome my noble friend’s assurances about the Chagossian people who, in all these discussions, must be central in view of the gross injustice inflicted upon them in the past. Can she give us some further assurance about the extent and form of the discussions going on with the Chagossian communities now? This is perhaps an impossible question to ask, but I will try it. We know that there are divided opinions among the Chagossians, but when there is division there comes a point at which one has to reach a conclusion about what the majority view is, in any set of circumstances. Has my noble friend formed that opinion? Do they support, broadly, what is happening, or oppose it?

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

It really depends on who you seek the opinion from. There undoubtedly will be Chagossian communities who are deeply unhappy about this—there is no point pretending otherwise—because what they have wanted and asked for since they were removed by this Government from Chagos in the 1960s is to be able to return and to continue their life as it was previously. Since that happened, that has never been possible. To make that possible, we would need to withdraw our base and our military activity, alongside the United States, from the islands. We have taken the view that we are not prepared to do that. That being the case, the next best thing, as one could describe it, is for those Chagossians to be allowed to visit and settle on the outer islands. That is what has been achieved, potentially, through this treaty.

China: Human Rights and Security

Baroness Chapman of Darlington Excerpts

Thursday 19th December 2024 Lords Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Baroness Chapman of Darlington) (Lab)]

My Lords, I convey my gratitude to the noble Lord, Lord Alton, for securing this debate. I pay tribute to his work on China, as vice-chair of the Hong Kong APPG and as a member of the APPG on Uighurs. I thank all noble Lords for their insightful contributions to this, the last debate of 2024. The quality of the contributions has been first class, as might be expected.

Across the board, the Government are clear that the UK’s approach to China means co-operating, where we can, on issues such as net zero, as the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, said, and, as some said, on health and trade. It means that we compete where our interests differ—I will say a little more about that later—and that we challenge, as we have to, where that is what we must do to protect our national security, as many noble Lords have asked us to say, but also our values, as has rightly been said.

As the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, indicated, we need to reset and recalibrate our relationship with China, as we do with the EU, and to be a full and active participant in the CPTPP. All these things are closely interconnected, but we also need a relationship with China that is consistent and long term—and, yes, one that is pragmatic and rooted in UK and global interests.

The noble Lord, Lord Purvis, suggested that we need to be clear-eyed about this at all times. Whether it is on stopping Russia’s illegal invasion of Ukraine or tackling the causes of climate change, there will be times when we have to speak candidly and robustly not just on areas of co-operation in the UK’s national interest but on areas of contention as well.

The noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, made the important point that our concerns about Chinese state activity should not be interpreted as extending to the Chinese people themselves, and I thank her for that. As the world’s second-largest economy, our fourth-largest trading partner and a major economic power that is the largest driver of global growth this decade, we are not going to—and should not try to—ignore China. We must recognise that China, including Hong Kong, presents significant opportunities for growth that can benefit Britain and help other countries grow their economies right around the world.

In pursuit of these opportunities and a renewed partnership, we must be clear-sighted and honest—not shying away from difficult discussions over practices that harm the sort of secure and resilient growth we want to see, and, where our wider values do not align, making that absolutely clear. In doing so, we must build a platform for a relationship that works squarely in our national interest, helps grow our economy sustainably and makes working people in every corner of Britain better off, while rightly putting our national security and resilience first, recognising that the UK-China relationship exists in an increasingly challenging and unstable geopolitical context.

We recognise the importance of the UK’s robust export control system. We will continue to make sure that it has an impact. We continue to use the powers that we have through the National Security and Investment Act to scrutinise investments and other acquisitions, no matter where they come from, and to intervene where that is what is needed to protect our national security.

Of course, the UK and China share many interests—including helping the world achieve a just transition to green energy, as well as our economic links—yet we have significant differences, including on democratic values and freedoms, on Hong Kong and on Russia’s war in Ukraine, where Chinese companies continue to supply significant quantities of dual-use goods and components to Russia. So we must recognise that the UK and China by no means always agree. As a responsible global player, we must engage frankly where we have different perspectives and co-operate where that is possible.

That is why it was important for the Prime Minister to meet President Xi at the G20—the first leader-to-leader meeting in six years—and why it was right both for the Foreign Secretary to visit China in October and for my colleague, the Minister for the Indo-Pacific, to visit Hong Kong last month. As noble Lords know, we are examining the UK’s interests with respect to China through the Government’s China audit, in order to improve our understanding of the challenges and opportunities posed by China and to meet them more effectively.

I was asked about FIRS. I can say today that we have not yet made any decisions on which foreign-power and foreign power-controlled entities will be subject to the enhanced tier. The foreign influence registration scheme will further strengthen our national security while maintaining the UK as an international hub for business. Announcements will be made in due course; I knew I would have to say that at some point today.

The noble Lord, Lord Ahmad, asked about the China audit, including whether I might undertake to facilitate the engagement of the House. I would be happy to do that at the appropriate time. I join the noble Lord and others in their call for the removal of sanctions on parliamentarians. These measures are wrong and should end immediately.

We have a long, shared history with Hong Kong, and, like others, I have family links. My grandfather and father lived there while the first airport was being built. We have strong links between people and strong links on trade. I pay tribute to the work of the noble Lord, Lord Alton, and others over many years. We are now, as many have said, 40 years on from the signing of the joint declaration. We will always stand up for the people of Hong Kong and we remain committed to Hong Kong’s future as an open, dynamic and vibrant city.

The noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier, and others correctly highlighted the situation in Hong Kong. Like him, we are deeply concerned to see the erosion of the rights and freedoms of Hong Kongers following China’s imposition of the national security law in 2020. The noble Lord, Lord Alton, asked me about the activists. The recent sentencing of the 45 pro-democracy activists is another demonstration of the Hong Kong authorities’ use of the national security law to criminalise political dissent. Those sentenced were exercising their rights to freedom of speech, assembly and political participation. These rights are guaranteed under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights of basic law.

The Jimmy Lai case remains of deepest concern. The noble Lord, Lord Alton, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier, and many others spoke movingly on his behalf and I thank them for that. He should be released. He is a British national. He stood up for freedom and it is vital that he is released. It is a priority for the Government and we raise it at every opportunity that we can. In response to the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, I say that the UK will of course continue to call on the Hong Kong authorities to end their politically motivated prosecution. We will continue to seek consular access for Jimmy Lai, including to enable us to verify his health and welfare. I assure noble Lords that UK diplomats in Hong Kong continue to attend Jimmy Lai’s court proceedings—as they should.

The noble Lord, Lord Alton, asked about British nationals named in the trial and he is right to highlight this. All I can say is that attempts by foreign Governments to coerce or intimidate through the mechanism of this trial and to harm critics overseas are completely unacceptable and, just like the trial itself, they should stop.

I share the concerns that many speakers have raised on human rights in China. Across China, people face restrictions and violations of human rights and other fundamental freedoms. As the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Guildford explained powerfully, in Xinjiang China continues to persecute and arbitrarily detain Uighurs and other predominantly Muslim minorities.

We raise these concerns with the Chinese Government when we can. The Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary raised human rights with their counterparts, President Xi and Foreign Minister Wang. I am glad that they have been able to have those meetings in order to raise those concerns. I know that Members opposite will say, “But you haven’t got a solution to this yet; nothing has changed”. I do not think that one single engagement gets you that. It is about consistency, continuing to raise issues and being firm in our beliefs and articulating those beliefs at every opportunity we get.

The Government conduct independent visits to areas of major concern whenever possible, and we are supporting NGOs in exposing and reacting to human rights violations. We will continue to co-ordinate efforts with our international partners, which is why we joined Australia’s statement on Xinjiang and Tibet on 22 October at the UN General Assembly. We also joined the US’s statement on Xinjiang at the human rights court on 24 September.

The noble Lord, Lord Callanan, asked about sanctions. He will know what I am about to say. We do not comment on designations ahead of time for reasons that he will understand, but I thank him for raising that none the less.

The noble Lord, Lord Alton, was right to raise our eradication of the use of forced labour in global supply chains. The noble Baroness, Lady Smith, made a really thoughtful and well-informed speech about this. No company in the UK should have forced labour in its supply chain; it just should not.

The approach we are taking is that the Government will work with businesses and international partners, so that they properly understand what they need to do to combat forced labour so that they have an impact in tackling this. We understand that it is all very well making statements but we want to see the impact. We have been working closely with business to make sure that we achieve that.

I commit to discussing Chinese student associations with the Security Minister at the earliest opportunity.

As the noble Lord, Lord Alton, said, China’s repression of the people of Tibet is utterly unacceptable, as it restricts freedom of religion or belief and the right to assemble and associate freely. The Government stand firm on human rights, and we champion freedom of religion or belief for all. We recently appointed our FoRB envoy, and we wish him well in his work. We champion this both in our bilateral relations with China and through the UN, the G7 and other multilateral groups.

Members of this House are familiar with recent tensions in the Taiwan Strait. Our long-standing position, and that of the previous Government, remains that this issue should and must be resolved peacefully by people on both sides of the strait, without the threat or the use of force or coercion. Peace and stability in the strait matter immensely, for not just the UK but the wider world. As we outlined in a statement in October, recent Chinese military exercises around Taiwan increase tensions and risk dangerous escalation.

I thank the noble Baroness, Lady D’Souza, for the helpful suggestions in her speech, particularly on language training for officials, which she was right to raise. I assure her that that is happening.

A conflict across the strait would be a tragedy for the people there, and it would be devastating for the wider global economy. I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Alton, reminded the House of a study by Bloomberg Economics at the start of 2024, which estimated that it could cost the global economy some $10 trillion—roughly 10% of global GDP. That is why the UK does not support any unilateral attempt to change the status quo across the Taiwan Strait, and we have made our views on this clear to China. We are working with our partners to make sure that they are doing the same.

The noble Baroness, Lady Smith, raised an interesting point about polar regions. China has an interest in natural resource exploitation. Increasingly, China is attempting to undermine existing protections and multilateral co-operation, such as through the Antarctic Treaty, to further its own interests. Its increasing use of the Northern Sea Route as a transportation link poses threats to this pristine environment. We think that there is a risk here if this is mishandled.

The Foreign Secretary set out the UK’s concerns over China’s aggressive activity in the South China Sea in conversations with the Chinese Government during his visit to China in October. The UK is committed to international law, to the primacy of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, and to freedom of navigation in and overflight of the South China Sea. We take no sides in sovereignty disputes, but we oppose any action that raises tensions or the risk of miscalculation.

The speeches of the noble Baroness, Lady D’Souza, and the noble Lord, Lord Fox, focused on technology—they were both interesting and sobering. We will continue to work on improving this country’s cyber protections.

Critical minerals are a really important point. We will shortly publish a UK critical minerals strategy, because our energy security depends on it, frankly, and it is the responsible thing to do. But I take the important point of the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, about how we must not be seen to lecture partner nations on whom they should and should not do business with. We are a good partner when it comes to extractive industries: we work responsibly, environmentally and with the local workforce in country. We would like to be more strategic in our thinking about this—so, when that strategy is published, I look forward to the response of the noble Lord, Lord Fox, in particular.

[Lord Fox (LD)]

Try to stop me.

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

Indeed—I think that was an invitation that I did not need to make.

Lastly, I underline that this Government’s re-engagement with China aims to enable a consistent, long-term and pragmatic relationship through which we can pursue the UK’s interests on security and growth. We will challenge and compete where that is the right thing to do, and the smart thing to do, and we will be ambitious on areas of co-operation. That is our duty to the British people and as a responsible global actor, and that is at the heart of our commitment to re-engage, including through the long-overdue leader-level meeting, the Foreign Secretary’s successful visit to China and the Minister for the Indo-Pacific’s visit to Hong Kong. Indeed, in the new year my right honourable friend the Chancellor plans to visit China as well.

In all our engagement, from the Taiwan Strait and South China Sea, where any escalation, or deterioration in stability, would have a significant impact on UK and global growth, to Hong Kong, to the completely unwarranted and unacceptable sanctions against UK parliamentarians and others, the Prime Minister has set us all a clear direction: to co-operate with China wherever we can, to take action to protect our interests and at all times to stand up for our values.

Chagos Islands: UK-US Defence Relationship

Baroness Chapman of Darlington Excerpts

Thursday 5th December 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Goldie (Con)]

My Lords, there is a world of difference between exploratory discussions, which have always been caveated by UK security interests, and signing on the dotted line, when there has been a material change in circumstances since the inception of the original discussions. I have two questions. First, on our most important ally, the United States, why are the Government charging ahead with this matter with the agreement of an exiting President of the US with diminished authority rather than awaiting the decision of the President-elect with a new and commanding electoral authority?

Secondly, given the increased and deeply troubling levels of global risk, which were alluded to by senior military personnel just last night and which have emerged since this project was first broached, why are the Government contemplating signing anything that removes our security in the region from our control and, critically, leaves us unable to deal with any potentially malign activity in the surrounding environment?

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Baroness Chapman of Darlington) (Lab)]

Our view is that this makes us more secure. The UK-US base has been subject to challenge for the last 50 years, and this agreement would be the first time that the presence of our joint base with the US on Diego Garcia would be legally secure. We think that that is a prize worth having.

On the question of why we are rushing, I do not think that anybody could characterise this as being a rush. There have been 12 or 13 rounds of negotiations, most of them conducted under the previous Government, and we think that this is a good deal for the UK. We have prioritised our security at the front of our minds when undertaking this task, and we have been challenged on that, because there are other things that other people would have liked us to have prioritised, such as the legitimate grievance of the Chagossian community. We have prioritised security and making the base on Diego Garcia legally secure, which is the right position for this Government.

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

My Lords, notwithstanding the 11 rounds of exploratory discussions under the previous Government—and I suspect that, in the next Urgent Question on Ukraine, we will be asked not to follow the incoming Trump Administration when setting British foreign policy—does the Minister agree with me that it is perfectly right for the new Mauritian Government to review their own policies? I welcome the fact that the UK Prime Minister’s national security adviser met the new Mauritian Prime Minister in early court. Does the Minister agree with me that the principle of the Chagossians being involved in the process now under way—especially given the deficiencies in parliamentary scrutiny under the treaty-making powers—means that they need to be involved in proper parliamentary scrutiny, to avoid this becoming political football yet again in which they will lose out? That will provide an ability in Parliament to approve any treaty proposals through debates in both Houses.

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

I agree with the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, that we need to allow the new incoming Mauritian Government the time and space to do what they need to do. As a newly elected Government, it is absolutely right that they take the time they need to consider the agreement fully. We will be working with them. As the noble Lord said, Jonathan Powell has been there, and we are answering any questions that we would expect them to have.

On the engagement of the Chagossian community in the parliamentary process, I completely understand why the noble Lord wants this to happen. I am not against that happening. My concern is that we do not raise expectations or lead the Chagossian community on. We are very straightforward and clear that this is an agreement between the UK Government and the Mauritian Government. We do not want to compound the cruelty and disrespect with which they have been treated over decades by not being completely straightforward with them at this stage—I am concerned about that. He knows the deficiencies of the CRaG process as well as I do, but it still remains the process.

[Lord Anderson of Swansea (Lab)]

My Lords, recent elections in Mauritius and the United States have thrown new uncertainties into the equation. Do we know when the review of the new Prime Minister, Dr Navinchandra Ramgoolam, will be concluded? That could add some several weeks or months to the considerations. What message did Mr Jonathan Powell bring back from Washington when he saw the potential new Administration?

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

We are not putting a timetable on this for the Mauritian Government. It is not really on us to chivvy them along; they need as long as they need to consider the agreement in the fullest way, and we respect their right to do that. Jonathan Powell has been in the United States, but we need to remember that the US has very clear rules on its engagement with other Governments in the period between the election and the inauguration in January, and we need to respect its rules on that.

[Lord Lancaster of Kimbolton (Con)]

My Lords, I was the last Minister to visit Diego Garcia. It is depressing to learn, in Answers to Parliamentary Questions, that no Minister intends to visit in future—that is really not a good sign. In the sovereign base areas in Cyprus, we have a working example of ceding sovereign territory while maintaining a strategic sovereign base. Why are the Government refusing to follow that example and that model?

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

I would very much like to visit the Chagos Islands some weeks.

[Lord Lancaster of Kimbolton (Con)]

She should do so.

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

I would be very happy to. I point out that Minister West visited Diego Garcia recently. It was before she was appointed as a Minister, but she is now the Minister for Asia and the Pacific, and she has visited the Chagos Island. On the noble Lord’s second point, as he knows, every case is different. This is a unique situation, and our presence in the Chagos Island has been contested for many decades. This is a very different situation to what we have in the sovereign base areas, the uniqueness of which has led to a unique way of resolving the situation.

[Lord Grocott (Lab)]

My Lords, I fully understand why my noble friend is cautious and delicate in her language when she talks about participants in whatever agreement is reached, particularly when she is talking about the Chagossians themselves. Of course, we want to make sure that they are fully informed and understand in a transparent way what is being agreed, but can she be a little bit firmer in recognising that in every other aspect of British decolonisation that I can think of, and which I guess most people can think of, self-determination is a crucial principle? This is not easily applied in this respect, but I would like the reassurance that the Chagossians figure very highly in the dialogue that the Government are having.

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

That is right. Self-determination is fundamental when it comes to other overseas territories, most notably the Falkland Islands. We have made that very clear. The issue here is different. These issues date back to decolonisation, as my noble friend says, and the legal status. Those were very different times, and there was a move then to separate the colony, which is not allowable under international law. That is why we have ended up where we have.

It is right that we engage with the Chagossians and that we listen and understand. They will now have the right to return to the Chagos Islands but not to Diego Garcia. That is a much better position than they have been in over recent decades. What I do not want to see is the Chagossian community used and abused as a political football because some parties have decided that this is a good way to make political capital at their expense.

[Lord Howell of Guildford (Con)]

My Lords, the noble Baroness makes a great deal of sense. However, in informal contacts that I have had with Chinese officials and diplomats, they have shown enormous interest in this whole issue, particularly regarding the position of Mauritius, to the point of writing down every word of what they think that they have heard. The report seemed to be that Mauritius remains quite friendly with China. Can the Minister reassure us that, in this rather new situation in the world which the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, referred to, this dimension is being studied very carefully? This is part of a long-term Chinese strategy, which we can see, of hoovering up Commonwealth countries.

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

We are very well aware of the activities in the Indian Ocean. I remind noble Lords that Mauritius is one of the few African states not to be taking part in belt and road. It is a close ally with India but, of course, we are concerned deeply about any actions of any state that may jeopardise security in Diego Garcia. We have put that front and centre of our negotiations, and we feel that this secures the base on Diego Garcia in a much better way than it has been handled over recent decades.

Ukraine

Baroness Chapman of Darlington Excerpts

Thursday 5th December 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

My Lords, the noble Baroness will be pleased to know that she will have an easier time on this Question because we remain fully supportive of the Government’s position on supporting our Ukrainian allies in the face of Russian aggression. I have two questions for her. It was reported yesterday that a Russian ship shot at a German military helicopter over the Baltic Sea using signal munitions, according to the German Foreign Minister. Is she aware of this news and has she had any conversations with Germany and our other NATO allies about this concerning development? Secondly, can she update the House on the progress of the discussions with the US and others on the release of the seized and sanctioned Russian assets that are to be given to Ukraine to aid the rebuilding of that country?

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Baroness Chapman of Darlington) (Lab)]

My Lords, my colleague, Minister Stephen Doughty, will be taking forward any conversations that may be necessary as a consequence of recent events. On the assets, we are looking at every means possible to ensure that the funds are there for Ukraine when it needs them.

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

My Lords, we noted earlier that Prime Minister Modi took the opportunity to be with President Putin rather than with Ukraine’s allies in the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting recently. The Russian Government are still trading far too freely in energy, especially in oil and petroleum. The Vadinar refinery in India is 49%-owned by Rosneft. The Jamnagar refinery is also trading with Russia, as well as Bharat Petroleum and Hindustan Petroleum. Our Prime Minister has announced that our trade discussions with India will recommence at the beginning of 2025. Can the Minister reassure me that we will not be offering any trade preferences for the Indian energy sector, which is currently profiting from the terrible infliction of the war on Ukraine?

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

I can reassure the noble Lord that every engagement we have with every nation on any topic includes a conversation on Ukraine. Our concerns about countries that are in some ways supporting what is happening in Russia and sanctions evasion are discussed in detail and at length. As for where Heads of State decide that they want to spend their time or which conferences they wish to attend, clearly that is a matter for them. If someone wants to attend BRICS rather than CHOGM, that is their choice. However, the noble Lord can be assured that we take every opportunity that we can to make clear that Ukraine is our top foreign policy.

[Lord Houghton of Richmond (CB)]

Do the Government accept that the principal determinant of the outcome of the war in Ukraine will now be the decisions and actions of the incoming US Administration? Are the Government’s efforts focused on influencing those decisions? If so, do they think that a relatively slow-moving strategic defence review, publicly cost-capped at 2.5% of GDP, represents appropriate national leverage?

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

I am very pleased with our strategic defence review, its wide remit and the engagement that it has from not just the MoD but across Whitehall and more widely into academia and elsewhere. It will be a good piece of work. It reports in the spring, and I look forward to it. As for the noble and gallant Lord’s comment about the incoming US Administration being the principal determinant of the outcome of the war, I respectfully disagree. The people who will determine the outcome of this war and where this goes next should be and are the people of Ukraine.

[Lord Anderson of Swansea (Lab)]

My Lords, there is an increasing assumption that peace negotiations may begin in the new year and lines will be drawn at the then-existing front lines of the conflict. Is it not therefore important that we provide sufficient arms and help to the Ukrainians to ensure that no further territory is lost over the coming months?

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

I have heard much commentary about the basis on which negotiations may or may not begin. At this stage, this is all speculative and hypothetical. It is probably better that from these Benches we do not try to construct some kind of framework for negotiation without including the people of Ukraine.

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)]

My Lords, what further focus has there been, and what further determination has been made, on the Ukrainian children who have been taken by Russia? A recent report by Yale talked of re-education camps and coercion. Close to 20,000 Ukrainian children were taken. The Qataris played an important role in the return of some of them and I would appreciate it if the Minister could update us on the latest efforts in this regard.

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

I am very happy to do that. I want to do that justice as it is such an important issue, so I would like to come back to the House and speak on that properly at more length. What has happened to those children is one of the most tragic and upsetting abominations of this conflict. I cannot imagine the hell that their parents are going through not knowing what has happened to those children.

[Lord Taylor of Goss Moor (LD)]

My Lords, I do not believe that what happens next in Ukraine rests with America. It rests in large part with Ukraine, as the Minister indicated. However, it also rests with Europe, the United Kingdom and other countries that want to see that the first attempted military invasion of a country in Europe since World War II is not rewarded in any way or encouraged to go further. It is clear in its announcements that Russia intends to go further and into other countries that it has referenced—by hybrid warfare as well as direct military intervention. Will the Minister and her colleagues remind the Americans of the seriousness of this situation in Europe, the torture of prisoners, who are not all military—many are journalists, one of whom recently died, and civic leaders from Ukraine in Russian detention—and the mass exodus of people from the occupied territories, who live in other parts of Ukraine and across Europe? These issues must be tackled in any negotiations that take place. It is not just a matter of lines on a map.

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

I agree completely with the noble Lord. The only thing I would add to that is to imagine the cost of not acting, not just in human and diplomatic terms but in the price of the expenditure on another cold war for who knows how long. What we are spending now is a substantial amount, but it pales into insignificance when you consider what we would need to invest in Europe and elsewhere to maintain peace should we enter another cold war period.

[The Archbishop of Canterbury]

My Lords, I have made two visits to Ukraine, one earlier this year, and many of my colleagues have visited as well. Having seen the very sharp deterioration in civilian morale, we know that external support from the NATO powers, particularly the United Kingdom, makes a significant difference. We are seeing the northern NATO countries not only giving verbal support but actively preparing for the risk of conflict in order to deter it. The situation on the ground will not wait for the SDR. What steps are the Government taking to indicate, by their actions as well as by their words, ahead of the SDR, that we are deeply committed financially to the support of Ukraine, not only by giving weapons but by renewing our Armed Forces?

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

The most reverend Primate is correct. We do not want Ukraine to wait for the SDR, which is why we have already committed substantial sums: £3 billion per year for as long as Ukraine needs it, plus £5 billion in non-military support. As he says, this conflict is felt most keenly in Ukraine, but the uncertainty, anxiety and decisions now being made in other states as a consequence of what has happened in Ukraine need to be considered very carefully too.

[Lord Spellar (Lab)]

My Lords—

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Cromwell (CB)]

I ask a short question: while I in no way undermine the commendable support of the Government for Ukraine, will the Minister’s department look into the information I have supplied about UK components being used in Russian fighter jets?

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

Yes. I thank the noble Lord for raising this with me and writing to me about this. He is quite right to do so. Following his most recent correspondence, I have asked officials, and we are actively investigating the issues that he raises, including in relation to our overseas territories.

Georgia: Political Situation

Baroness Chapman of Darlington Excerpts

Wednesday 4th December 2024 Lords Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Baroness Chapman of Darlington) (Lab)]

My Lords, the Minister of State for Europe, North America and the Overseas Territories raised concerns about Georgia’s political trajectory with the then Foreign Minister Ilia Darchiashvili on 9 October. The Minister made a statement on 27 October to support election observation findings and calling for irregularities to be investigated. He made a further statement yesterday calling on the Georgian authorities to de-escalate the situation and reverse their path away from European values.

[Lord Harries of Pentregarth (CB)]

I thank the Minister for her reply. The situation in Georgia is extremely worrying, as I am sure she agrees. The Georgian people are firmly orientated towards Europe, but President Putin is manipulating the whole situation to draw Georgia into the orbit of Russia. There are sinister signs of KGB tactics at work, with opposition members having secret files on them. The pivotal figure is Bidzina Ivanishvili, who owns much of the business and media in Georgia and controls the Georgian Dream party behind the scenes. Will His Majesty’s Government follow the example of the Baltic states in sanctioning Bidzina Ivanishvili and his cronies?

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

The noble and right reverend Lord knows what I will say about sanctions specifically, which is that we do not pre-announce our sanctions or our intention to designate any subject of our sanctions. However, he is absolutely right to highlight the track record of Russia in interfering in democracies, not least in Georgia. I recommend that noble Lords who are interested in this look at the OSCE interim report on these elections, which highlights some serious concerns.

[Lord Blencathra (Con)]

My Lords, as the first ever elected chair of the new Council of Europe expert group on observing elections—that sounds grander than it actually is—I was the only Brit on the Council of Europe delegation to Georgia three weeks ago. I have done nine of these, and it was the first time that I ever experienced personal intimidation and my vehicle was sabotaged. I draw the Minister’s attention to the joint press release issued the next day by the Council of Europe, the OSCE and NATO. It is a very watered-down version of what happened because, inevitably, the OSCE and NATO wanted not to be too nasty to Georgia. I also draw her attention to the PACE report that was published last week, which exposes the massive intimidation by Georgian Dream, orchestrated at a very high state level. I suggest to her that that report is quite authoritative, and it casts doubt on the whole election result

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

The noble Lord is completely right, and I respect the fact that he was there so recently and took part in that process. I will read the PACE report; I have read excerpts from it, but I will read it in full, as he suggests. We are deeply concerned, as he alluded to, about the intimidation not just of observers but of voters, as well as the whole atmosphere around the elections and in the period leading up to them. I thank the noble Lord for the work that he has done and for bringing it to this House’s attention.

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

My Lords, does the Minister agree that it is the young people of Georgia in particular who need to be commended, because they are seeking to exercise their democratic and civil rights and they have been persecuted? I heard what the Minister said with regard to sanctions, but the United States has issued restrictions on those who have persecuted young people since the elections. Does the Minister agree that no Georgian official who has orchestrated attacks on young people in Georgia exercising their rights should have preferential visa access to the United Kingdom or be able to exploit certain conditions where the United States has said they are not justified?

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

We take close notice of what our allies are doing in relation to Georgia at the moment. I sometimes feel, when the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, asks these questions, that he has something specific in mind and is inviting me to guess what it might be. We will be using all the levers at our disposal to try to do right by the people of Georgia who, as far as anyone can tell, have not changed their desire to seek a democratic outcome. We have concerns that we think need to be investigated. It is up to the people of Georgia to choose who governs them and to choose whether they tilt to the West or to Russia. That is their choice, and it must be a choice that is made freely.

[Lord Cromwell (CB)]

My Lords, perhaps at one level there is a certain irony in the UK involving itself in the EU accession desires of other states. More seriously, I associate myself with all the comments that have been made, including by the Minister. It is essential that we keep pressing the Georgian Dream party, which fought long and hard to get candidate status to join the EU, on why that has now been put on the back burner, particularly given the protests that have arisen directly from it.

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

That is a question on many of our minds. However, I do not think we are trying to involve ourselves in any other country’s decisions relating to accession or otherwise. The principle that we seek to stick to is that this must be a choice made by the people of Georgia freely and democratically, and free of interference from other states.

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

My Lords, it is clear from the experiences of my noble friend Lord Blencathra and other observers that the recent parliamentary elections in Georgia were indeed seriously flawed. There were many credible reports of Russian interference—something that, sadly, seems to be happening with increasing frequency in various other countries as well; there were similar allegations in Moldova, Romania and other countries. Is the Minister working with international partners to counter this malign influence in the democratic systems of so many of our partner countries?

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

Yes, I can confirm that we are doing that, and our Minister of State, Mr Doughty, is having many meetings at the moment—bilaterally and multilaterally—to try and make that very point.

[Lord Dodds of Duncairn (DUP)]

My Lords, like the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, I had the honour of being part of the OSCE election monitoring mission last month and we witnessed the intimidation and election malpractices of the Georgian Dream party. But what we also witnessed was the tremendous courage, dedication and work of NGOs, and of many young people in particular, at the polling stations and throughout the length and breadth of Georgia. Can the Minister tell us what can be done with our international partners to strengthen support for and solidify the work of those NGOs?

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

We are very clear that what we have seen the NGOs and civil society more generally experience in Georgia recently is unacceptable, and we will work in any way that we can. This is something that is quite deep-rooted—our concerns about this are not just new and relating to this election, as we have seen cyberattacks and risks to cybersecurity in Georgia that we have tried to work to strengthen and protect it against. The truth is that this is getting more and more difficult, and these elections have really brought things that have been going on for some time to a head.

[Lord West of Spithead (Lab)]

My Lords, does my noble friend the Minister agree that this exemplifies why we must thwart Putin in Ukraine, because his malign influence in places such as Georgia, Transnistria, Moldova and, indeed, the western Balkans is becoming worse because he is becoming emboldened and causing real difficulties. His malign influence is causing huge destruction of some of the constructs that we put in place after the Second World War.

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

I have spoken many times in this House about this Government’s unwavering support for Ukraine and the fact that we will be alongside it for as long as it needs us. The noble Lord is right to raise that, but it is also true that the impact of Russia’s illegal invasion of Ukraine is causing fear among other states and influencing some of the decisions they are taking. Our position will always be that it is for the people of any nation to decide which way they wish to look. You can see some of this playing out in Georgia, and it is something that we are very mindful of and are keeping a careful watch on.

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)]

My Lords, in agreeing with the noble Lord, Lord West, I also say to the Minister that we must reassure Georgia because Russian aggression was first impacted on Georgia with South Ossetia and Abkhazia. What assessment have the Government made to ensure that the territorial sovereignty of Georgia is fully protected?

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

The noble Lord is absolutely right, and the territorial integrity of Georgia must be respected by all, including Russia, and we will be firm in that position.

Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe

Baroness Chapman of Darlington Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd December 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate]

To ask His Majesty’s Government when they expect to announce the appointment of members for the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Baroness Chapman of Darlington) (Lab)]

My Lords, the Prime Minister announced the new UK delegation to the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe via Written Ministerial Statement on 14 November. We value the work of the UK delegation and look forward to working with its new leader, the noble Lord, Lord Touhig, and all other appointees.

[Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate (Con)]

I thank the Minister for that positive response. The Council of Europe is a very important body containing representatives from many countries, not just members of the EU. Can she confirm that the Government will give full, ongoing support to our parliamentary representatives with a view to further enhancing good relations with these neighbours, who share our beliefs in the rule of law, human rights and democracy?

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

I am very pleased to confirm that to the noble Lord, and I pay tribute to the work that he has done to promote the Council of Europe both in this House and earlier in his career as a Member of the European Parliament. It is important that we play a leading role in the Council of Europe, and we will continue to support our delegation in any way possible. My honourable friend Stephen Doughty, the Minister for Europe, will meet the delegation early in January, and it will be supported by our officials in Strasbourg as well. We look forward to working closely with it.

[Lord Touhig (Lab)]

My Lords, for the first time, Britain’s delegation to the Council of Europe has Labour, Conservative, Liberal Democrat, Cross-Bench and nationalist members. While we will have different views on many issues, it is my fervent hope that we will be united on matters important to Britain. In order that we achieve that, will my noble friend and her colleague Stephen Doughty meet the delegation on a regular basis so that we work to ensure that Britain plays a fully engaged and constructive part in the Council of Europe—the vision and legacy of Churchill, established by the Treaty of London signed in St James’s Palace 75 years ago?

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

I am very happy to confirm that on behalf of my honourable friend the Minister for Europe and I welcome the invitation to meet the delegation. We have 18 Members of this Parliament and 18 substitute Members. We have a very good delegation, as he says, representing both Houses and all parties.

[Lord Ricketts (CB)]

My Lords, while we are on the subject of UK delegations to European assemblies, does the Minister share my disappointment that we still do not have a UK delegation to the EU-UK Parliamentary Partnership Assembly? The European Parliament delegation is up and raring to go. Is it not a bit odd that it seems keener on a parliamentary reset than the Westminster Parliament?

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Ricketts, for his question. I do not know precisely why the nominations for this delegation have not yet been resolved. I believe that we on this side have resolved the issues; I do not know whether the noble Lord on the Front Bench opposite can shed some light. I understand that a change of Government, new roles and a change of leader will inevitably cause some delay, but I hope we can get this resolved very soon.

[Baroness Ludford (LD)]

My Lords, could the Minister help us any more with any speculation as to what she thinks might be causing the delay? It is really not a good look that we have not yet got our act together to nominate the Westminster side of the parliamentary assembly with the European Parliament. It has been quite a few months since the general election. Some of us are very hopeful about the reset, and I am sure the Prime Minister does not want to keep meeting his EU counterparts with them saying, “Where are your Westminster people?”

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

The delay, I believe, is not something that is within my control, if I can put it that way. We are keen to get this moving. As soon as we receive the names from the Opposition in the other place then we will be in a position to move this forward. We want to engage with this on a cross-party basis, so being sympathetic and patient is the right approach. However, I am sure that noble Lords on both sides will have noted the eagerness to make progress from the noble Baroness and will take that into account.

[Lord Pearson of Rannoch (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, how much does our membership of this assembly cost us annually?

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

My Lords, the cost of our membership of the Council of Europe is something in the region of £40 million per year.

[Baroness Deech (CB)]

My Lords, the Council of Europe remains one of the fora which is shared by Britain and Poland. Will the Minister please suggest to our delegation that the council puts on its agenda Poland’s breach for 75 years of the need to restore property that was stolen from Jewish and indeed non-Jewish victims in the Second World War? If they will not pay compensation, will they at least display a commemorative plaque?

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

I am sure that the leader of our delegation, the noble Lord, Lord Touhig, was listening closely to what the noble Baroness said. To remind noble Lords, the Council of Europe came out of the Second World War. The founding of the institution was led by Churchill and Bevin. We are very proud to be members of it, and the priority that it places on the rule of law and securing human rights is something that we can justifiably be proud of.

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)]

My Lords, I understand that the first meeting of the EU-UK body to happen since the election is pencilled in for mid-January. Will there come a point between now and then when, if the Government have not heard from the Conservatives as to who their members will be, they will at least announce who the other nominated members will be, so that we can at least get started?

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

I am conscious that this is a Question about the Council of Europe, but I can see the connection, and noble Lords are right to use this opportunity to raise these kinds of questions. I genuinely hope that we do not have to get to that position and that we can get the complete delegation identified and the names shared with both the House and Europe as soon as possible.

[Baroness Hooper (Con)]

My Lords, in the 10 years when I was very happily a member of the delegation to the Council of Europe, one of the most important functions that we had was to appoint the judges to the European Court of Human Rights. Can the Minister tell us whether the Government are giving any advice to the delegation in this respect?

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

We have not as yet, because, as noble Lords will know, the delegation has only very recently been identified. The noble Baroness is right to say that that is one of the key functions of the parliamentary assembly, and we will look at who will be the best person both for the Council of Europe and the priority that the UK places on the important role of the European Court of Human Rights. We will take the appropriate action when the time comes.

[Lord Anderson of Swansea (Lab)]

My Lords, as a former member of the committee of the Council of Europe that chose the judges, I suggest to my noble friend the Minister that the committee would be wary if there were undue pressure from the Government on the members in relation to the selection.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

That is quite right. I hope that I chose my words sufficiently carefully in my previous answer. Perhaps the term “appropriate action” is where I should have placed a little more emphasis. My noble friend is correct to remind me and other noble Lords of that fact.

Israel-Gaza Conflict: Arrest Warrants

Baroness Chapman of Darlington Excerpts

Tuesday 26th November 2024 Lords Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Baroness Chapman of Darlington) (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Wolfson of Tredegar, for his point, and I have seen the letter he wrote to the Attorney-General. It raises an important point and a question of law. There are two pieces of law here, both of which the Government respect but which need to be fought out in a court. That is the right way to resolve this and that is the process that would happen should we receive a warrant and should Mr Netanyahu visit the United Kingdom.

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

My Lords, that legislation allows only the ICC to issue a waiver on immunity, so can the Minister confirm whether such a waiver from the ICC has been provided? The Minister in the House of Commons said yesterday that it is for the courts to endorse the warrant. My understanding is that that is not correct. Under the legislation, it is the Secretary of State only who endorses the warrant and then passes it on to a judicial officer. It is then for the courts to determine whether they will deliver that person—if that person is in the UK—to the ICC in The Hague. Can the Minister confirm that the Secretary of State will endorse the ICC warrant?

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

My Lords, we will comply with our obligations under our membership of the ICC. My understanding is slightly different from the noble Lord’s in that, as of now, the warrants are not issued to all signatories to the ICC. The warrant would be issued should it become known that Mr Netanyahu intended to travel to the United Kingdom. As noble Lords will appreciate, as yet we have not received any such warrant.

[Viscount Hailsham (Con)]

Does the Minister agree that although many of the actions of the Israeli Government in Lebanon, the West Bank and Gaza are grossly disproportionate, none the less the issue of the warrant is profoundly unhelpful and that it would be a good idea if, to the extent possible, we put it into the long grass?

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

The helpfulness or otherwise is not really at question. The ICC is independent of the United Kingdom Government, and rightly so. We will comply with our obligations as a member of the ICC.

[Baroness Ludford (LD)]

My Lords, I think the House deserves an answer from the Government to the question put by the noble Lord, Lord Wolfson, particularly as we have a debate later on the rule of law. So how do the Government interpret Section 23 of the International Criminal Court Act 2001, which is domestic law? The ICC and the Rome statute is one issue, but the other issue is domestic law, which seems pretty clear. The Minister batted it to the courts. I think it is important to know the Government’s legal interpretation of Section 23.

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

I do not think I batted it away. I gave an accurate description of the Government’s position. It is not unprecedented for two pieces of law to cut across each other. The right way to resolve this is through the courts. Unlike some Members opposite, although happily by no means all, we accept our obligations under international law.

[Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)]

My Lords, like the decision not to supply arms to Israel, this was a political decision, not a legal decision. Does the Minister agree that the decision taken in respect of the ICC is simply weaponising international justice and confirms many people’s opinion that the ICC is more a political tool than an international arbiter?

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

On both questions, I am afraid that I disagree with the noble Lord. That is not how we view the ICC. We respect the ICC and our obligations as a signatory to it. As for the decisions on export licences, those were made in compliance with UK law.

[Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws (Lab)]

My Lords, does the Minister agree that there is a misunderstanding by the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, if he thinks that this is a matter concerning proportionality with regard to self-defence? Warrants have been issued very specifically not in relation to disproportionate use of self-defence. They have been issued on the basis of the refusal to allow humanitarian aid to reach the civilian population of Gaza. That was the basis for the warrants being issued: the starvation that follows from that and the impact in particular on young children’s development and survival possibilities.

I want to ask a supplementary question. It is very important that people in this House know that the International Criminal Court is not indicting Israel. It is indicting two of its leaders who have conducted this war. Normally the principle of complementarity would have meant that we would respect the courts of Israel to investigate and deal with the matter. That was blocked by Prime Minister Netanyahu. Do the Government agree that because that avenue of complementarity was not available, after the opportunity had been given for an inquiry or an investigation by the Israeli authorities, warrants were issued for that reason? Does the Minister agree that it is about the people of Palestine being deprived of humanitarian aid?

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

My noble friend is correct in that the warrants are for war crimes of starvation, intentional attacks on civilians and other inhumane acts. I point out to noble Lords that the indictment is not a finding of guilt. It is the start of a process. There would theoretically be a court process that would investigate all the alleged crimes.

[Lord Verdirame (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, the first principle of the rule of law, according to Lord Bingham, is that rules must be “intelligible, clear and predictable”. I echo the question asked by the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, from the angle of international law: the Government say they are committed to the international rule of law, which means being committed to the conduct of foreign relations under clear and predictable rules, yet say they do not know whether those rules, including customary international law rules on immunity, would mandate or preclude the arrest of Prime Minister Netanyahu.

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

That is right. The issue is that this has never happened. We have never had a serving Head of State subject to an ICC warrant visit the UK. We have had situations under European arrest warrants and the situation with Pinochet, but we have never had this. We need to see the warrant; it needs to be seen by the court, which needs to make a determination at that point.

[Baroness Foster of Oxton (Con)]

My Lords, US Senators have rightly threatened sanctions against allies if they co-operate with the International Criminal Court’s decision on this matter. Is the Minister concerned that our diplomatic ties with our closest ally could be harmed if we do not speak out against the ICC’s political decision to issue arrest warrants for the Prime Minister of Israel and the former Defence Minister?

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

It is not my understanding that that is the position of the United States. One or two Senators may have made comments, but that is not the position of President Biden; nor do I think it is the position of incoming President Trump, based on what he has already said. We do not view the ICC as a political organisation or treat it politically. For the UK to sanction or pick and choose whom it thinks ought to be subject to an ICC judgment would undermine the entire institution. It is an institution that I respect and it saddens me that the party of Winston Churchill does not on this issue.

International Aid Workers: Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories

Baroness Chapman of Darlington Excerpts

Tuesday 26th November 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Oates]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what representations they are making to the government of Israel about the impact of visa restrictions on international aid workers to that country and the Occupied Palestinian Territories.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Baroness Chapman of Darlington) (Lab)]

My Lords, we are concerned by reports of humanitarian agencies being unable to do their jobs because of visa restrictions. As the Prime Minister has said, there can be no more excuses from the Israeli Government on humanitarian assistance. He and the Foreign Secretary have repeatedly pressed Israeli leaders to deliver on their promise to flood Gaza with aid, so we call on Israel to co-operate fully with the UN and other humanitarian agencies to facilitate visas and make provisions for humanitarians to carry out their work safely and effectively. Restricting their work is not acceptable.

[Lord Oates (LD)]

I thank the Minister for her Answer. Does she agree that, as the occupying power, Israel has a duty under international law to ensure adequate provision of food and medical supplies to the people of Gaza? Does she also agree that both the current and the former Governments have repeatedly urged Israel to comply with those obligations, yet obstruction to humanitarian assistance continues? Is it not time for the Government to make it clear that, unless this changes, sanctions will be applied to the responsible Israeli Ministers?

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

My Lords, as I have already said, we have concerns. Our priorities for humanitarian action in Gaza are to protect the civilian population with an immediate effort to prepare them for winter, to ensure effective and safe aid distribution in Gaza, to increase the volume and types of goods reaching Gaza and to enable fully the UN and its agencies, including UNRWA.

[Viscount Hailsham (Con)]

My Lords, does the Minister accept that the efficacy of representations made by His Majesty’s Government is likely to be reduced given that they have made it plain that they will enforce the warrant issued by the International Criminal Court?

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

My Lords, I think that our attempts to influence the Israeli Government in this regard should have nothing to do with the ICC ruling. We are making arguments about saving lives, ensuring that there is medical treatment and that children get fed.

[Lord Browne of Ladyton (Lab)]

My Lords, your Lordships’ House will be aware of the commitment of the noble Lord, Lord Oates, to the eradication of malnutrition and hunger worldwide and the work he has done on it, for which I commend him. On that issue, the Government of Israel promised to “flood” Gaza with aid, yet essential supplies are still being restricted. What representations are our Government making to their Israeli counterparts to ensure that the Israelis meet this commitment so that aid that is desperately needed reaches its destination?

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

My Lords, we are using all our diplomatic efforts to get aid into Gaza, because the situation is becoming urgent as we approach winter. Some 1.9 million displaced people are living in just 57 square kilometres in the south of Gaza. The Prime Minister, the Foreign Secretary David Lammy, Minister Dodds and Minister Falconer have raised this urgent situation and will continue to do so.

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)]

My Lords, it is very clear that representations are not enough; direct engagement is required with both the Government of Israel and the Governments of Egypt and Jordan. First, what specific meetings have been held, in country and at a ministerial level? Secondly, as I have discussed before, during the previous Government, we sought out-of-the-box thinking, not just on land routes, which are of course the major delivery mechanism, but on maritime and air routes. Has any work been done in that regard?

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

The noble Lord is completely right that this is the moment when we need out-of-the-box thinking, and we are looking at every available avenue. We have been working with the Government of Egypt to try to provide medical assistance, and we have been a major donor to that work. We are doing everything that we can. As I said, the Government-to-Government connections are being used as much as possible, because this problem is getting worse by the day, and we need action to save lives.

[The Lord Bishop of Gloucester]

My Lords, what specific steps are being taken to call on Israel to act consistently with its obligations under the Charter of the United Nations and its other obligations under international humanitarian law?

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

The right reverend Prelate is right to raise this question. We work using every channel we can and every lever available to us, and in a way that we hope maximises the chance of all this engagement having an impact. We have always said that Israel needs to act within international humanitarian law. As much as it has every right to defend itself, we are increasingly concerned, as the days and weeks progress, about what is happening, particularly in Gaza but also in Lebanon. As the UK Government, we will continue to work to bring about the access we need so that aid can get to the people who really need it.

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

My Lords, the Israeli Government have banned UNRWA from operating in Israel due to the number of its staff involved in the 7 October attack. Considering this information, can the Minister tell us why this Government chose to resume funding to UNRWA?

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

As the noble Lord should know—perhaps his noble friend might like to remind him—UNRWA is the only viable way to get aid into Gaza at the scale that is needed now. We understand the concerns of the Israeli Government, which were investigated. We resumed funding because we have an approaching crisis; many thousands of people are about to lose their lives unless aid gets into Gaza.

[Lord Singh of Wimbledon (CB)]

My Lords, the United Nations aid agencies, the International Criminal Court and human rights organisations such as Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch all say that what is happening in Gaza and the West Bank is genocide. The Pope says it is genocide. In the circumstances, does the Minister agree that to talk of humanitarian aid while supplying weapons to assist in the genocide is nothing short of hypocrisy?

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

My Lords, I am very careful about the use of the word “genocide”. It is not a word that should be bandied around by any politician. Genocide is for a court to determine. That has not happened, and unless and until it does, I will not refer to this as genocide.

[Baroness Helic (Con)]

My Lords, there are numerous independent reports of sexual violence being perpetrated against imprisoned Palestinian aid workers and medics. The worst, tragic reported case is of a male orthopaedic surgeon who was allegedly raped to death. What specific actions have our Government taken to ensure that reported cases are documented and preserved in accordance with the Government’s International Protocol on the Documentation and Investigation of Sexual Violence in Conflict, with the purpose of supporting future investigations into sexual violence as a crime under international law?

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

The noble Baroness is right to highlight what has been happening to health workers and aid workers. Almost 1,000 health workers and around 300 aid workers have been killed since October 2023. It is important that what happens is documented and recorded for the future, as she says.

[Baroness Janke (LD)]

My Lords—

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Janke (LD)]

My Lords, in light of the findings of the ICC that there are reasonable grounds to believe that Netanyahu and his former Minister intentionally and knowingly deprived the civilian population in Gaza of objects indispensable to their survival—including food, water, medicine and medical supplies, as well as fuel and electricity—will the Government publish in full the legal advice they have received from their law officers regarding the situation in Gaza and the legality of UK export licensing of arms to Israel?

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

My Lords, as we have discussed at length previously, we have a fairly well-established way of looking at arms licensing. I am confident that the decisions that have been made in regard to licensing, where we have restricted some items, have been completely and wholly in line with the UK legislation.

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I am delighted to hear the Minister making the point that we need to be very careful about the use of the word “genocide”. I also urge that we be careful about words such as “famine” and “starvation” in this instance. Hyperbole is not going to help. The terrible hardship of the people of Gaza—perhaps the Minister can comment —seems to be blamed wholly on Israel in terms of aid. More than a million tonnes of aid have got through to Gaza, and there is a crisis of distribution. Can the Minister comment on the fact that Israel is in this instance being blamed for political reasons rather than out of humanitarian care for the ordinary people of Gaza, who are victims of Hamas and not of Israel?

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

My Lords, I am honestly not interested in having a big discussion about blame at this stage. Some 40% of the population of Gaza are under 15. I do not think that it is wrong to talk about starvation, when that is what is going to happen if aid does not get in. Aid not getting in is not a logistical problem; with regard to visas, it is a political problem—and it is a political problem that we as the UK Government want to do everything we can to see resolved.

Taipei Representative Office in the United Kingdom

Baroness Chapman of Darlington Excerpts

Monday 25th November 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness D'Souza]

To ask His Majesty’s Government whether they plan to review the status of the Taipei Representative Office in the United Kingdom.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Baroness Chapman of Darlington) (Lab)]

My Lords, the UK’s long-standing position on Taiwan has not changed. The UK does not have diplomatic relations with Taiwan but does have a strong unofficial relationship based on deep and growing ties in a range of areas, underpinned by shared democratic values. The Taipei Representative Office works in the UK in the absence of those diplomatic relations. The UK does not have plans to review the status of the TRO but continues to work constructively with it in pursuit of our shared interests and within the parameters of our long-standing position.

[Baroness D'Souza (CB)]

I thank the Minister for her Answer, and I acknowledge that this is a difficult area. However, the London Taipei office is not invited to or included in any diplomatic events; does not receive protection from the police protection unit; is not exempt from council tax or business rates; cannot open a bank account with any British bank; and cannot secure meetings with Ministers or FCDO officials beyond director level, among many other restrictions. I wonder whether the Minister will say whether she feels that this is adequate support for a thriving but threatened democracy.

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

My Lords, whenever I am asked about my feelings on these issues, I know that it is probably wise to choose my words incredibly carefully. To reiterate: the Government do not have any plans to change the current long-standing position, but we have deep ties with Taiwan through various means, as do our Parliaments. Much as I hear and understand the noble Baroness’s concerns about the current situation, at present the Government do not plan to change it.

[Lord Anderson of Swansea (Lab)]

My Lords, are there any steps, short of full recognition, that would recognise that Taiwan/Taipei is a democracy with very warm relations with the United Kingdom?

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

We do recognise that. I know that several noble Lords in this Chamber have undertaken many meetings with and visits to Taiwan. This Parliament and representatives of Taiwan enjoy that connection and relationship. Long may that continue.

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

My Lords, unlike our trade with China, with which we have a trade deficit of £23.7 billion—which is a strategic vulnerability—the UK has a trade surplus of £1.1 billion with Taiwan. As discussed in our first Question today, it is a liberal democracy that respects modern slavery standards, labour law rules and intellectual property rights. Surely it is in our strategic interests to grow trade with Taiwan over trade with China. In the context of the previous visit to Europe by former President Tsai, can the Minister confirm that no FCDO official was in contact with the TRO to suggest that her visit be postponed?

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

My Lords, the noble Lord is correct to point out our good trading relationship with Taiwan. We do not see this as an either/or. We have a good trading relationship with both China and Taiwan. I can only reiterate the answers given about the visit in the other place and in this Chamber. The characterisation that has been given to this visit is not one that the FCDO recognises.

[The Earl of Courtown (Con)]

My Lords, considering the UK’s commitment to supporting democracies around the world, as mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, and the Minister, how are the Government leveraging their relationship with Taiwan to promote the shared values of freedom, democracy and the rule of law in the region?

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

We are very keen to promote our values of democracy and the rule of law in the region and elsewhere in the world. I would not say that we are particularly leveraging our relationship with Taiwan. I think it is more important to us than that, and we will promote these values throughout the world whenever we have the opportunity to do so.

[Lord Rogan (UUP)]

My Lords, I declare my interests as set out in the register. In May this year, the then United Kingdom Government published on their official website a joint statement signed by several international partners, including the British Office Taipei, reaffirming the joint support for Taiwan’s meaningful participation in the work of the World Health Organization and as an observer at the World Health Assembly. Does the Minister support this statement on behalf of the present Government? If so, will she use her good offices as a Foreign Office Minister to back the increasing momentum towards the establishment of a fully fledged UK embassy in Taiwan?

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

My Lords, we support Taiwan’s participation in multilateral bodies, particularly when statehood is not a prerequisite, such as at the World Health Assembly, and we have supported its participation as an observer in other ways, including at the WHO.

[Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)]

My Lords, I welcome what the Minister has just said about the World Health Organization. Is it not particularly reprehensible that China, the place of origin of Covid-19, should have blocked Taiwan from becoming a member of the World Health Organization? Given that we can do more, at the Human Rights Council, in the General Assembly and elsewhere, to influence these events, should we not be pointing out to others that those who fund the WHO feel some anger, having provided money to that wonderful organisation, that a country of 23 million people is excluded from its membership?

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

My Lords, we value the work of the WHO and the contribution that Taiwan has made through the World Health Assembly. We will continue to support its participation, because we believe that everyone who has something to contribute to this important organisation and its work should be supported in doing so.

[Lord Howell of Guildford (Con)]

My Lords, the Chinese say that, if necessary, they will surround and besiege the island of Taiwan in three hours. That is their estimate and they have positioned forces to do it. They will then be surrounding an island that produces about 39% of the world’s larger industrial chips and probably an even greater percentage of domestic microcircuits, which really create the modern world, so we would be in a very serious position. Can we work closely with the Taipei Representative Office here and all our Taiwanese friends to foresee and prepare for the problems with such a situation in various ways, including by developing our own microchip industries 10 times more vigorously?

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

The noble Lord is right to remind us of the precariousness of a situation arising such as he describes. It would be very dire indeed for the world economy. It would take around 10% of the world’s GDP, and no country, including China, would be immune to that impact.

[Lord Polak (Con)]

My Lords, during the election campaign, the Labour Party talked about change. Does the Minister not think that change should take place in this area—in Taiwan and Somaliland? Somaliland had peaceful, democratic elections 10 days ago; is it not about time that the British Government, who owe these people something, supported their rights? Now is the time for that change.

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

I hear the noble Lord. There are many countries in the world that I wish we could change for a statement or a shift in position. But we need to tread carefully and respectfully, and work alongside allies, putting all the interests of the United Kingdom front and centre. That is the way this Government will proceed.

COP 29: United Kingdom Delegation

Baroness Chapman of Darlington Excerpts

Thursday 21st November 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Robathan]

To ask His Majesty’s Government how many people were in the United Kingdom delegation to COP 29 in Baku, what work they did, and what was the total cost of attendance including air fares.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Baroness Chapman of Darlington) (Lab)]

My Lords, the UK’s COP 29 delegation is smaller than that for COP 28, but our delegation is planned to ensure a productive summit that will progress UK strategic outcomes. The carbon footprint of this travel is outstripped by the benefits of delivering this agenda. As well as Ministers, diplomats, thematic experts and negotiators, overall UK attendance at COP includes businesses, arm’s-length bodies, devolved Administrations, those from Crown dependencies and overseas territories, parliamentarians and external event speakers from businesses and civil society. Because COP 29 is still ongoing, it is not possible to provide a final number of participants or a cost of attendance.

[Lord Robathan (Con)]

I thank the Minister for her Answer, although it did not really increase the sum total of human knowledge. My understanding is that the delegation was 470 strong, which is over four times the size of the French delegation and larger than the American delegation—the size of a small army battalion, actually. Can the Minister now confirm whether that is the number? What were they doing? What did they achieve? How much did it cost? She says that she cannot tell us, but she can give us a guess. And what was the carbon footprint?

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

The noble Lord, with respect, might wish to retable this in a couple of weeks when COP has actually concluded. At the moment, although we know how many people we have accredited, we do not know how many of those attended, how many attended in person or for how long they attended. We will obviously be able to provide full information, which I am sure he will enjoy reading, once COP concludes, but we are not in a position to do that today.

[Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab Co-op)]

My Lords, does the Minister agree that the noble Lord, Lord Robathan, has scored an own goal with his Question? Although the Labour Government sent fewer to COP 29 than the Tory Government sent to COP 28—

[Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab Co-op)]

No, it was not in Glasgow; it was in Dubai. That is two own goals—that is better than England. The fact that our delegation was led by the Prime Minister, unlike under the previous Government, shows the real importance that we give to climate change.

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

I agree with my noble friend. We need to be serious about this, because the threat of climate change is real and it is driving a loss of resource and of water, it is driving competition for land, it is causing the displacement of people and it is incredibly expensive to deal with. There is a massive opportunity for growth based on climate investment for the UK, which is an opportunity that, as my noble friend said, I am proud is being led by the Prime Minister. I reflect today, on the day that we have learned of the sad death of our friend Lord Prescott, on the work that he did, before many people caught up with him, to lead on this issue. I am proud of what he did, and I am glad that we are able to follow and honour his legacy.

[Lord Hamilton of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, if the Minister cannot estimate the cost of the trip to Baku, can she perhaps give us an estimate of the CO₂ emissions that emerged from all the aircraft flights to Baku and back again?

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

My Lords, these matters are hugely significant for the future of the world. Yes, it would be wonderful if we could reach agreement on really difficult issues—where the UK, I am proud to say, plays a leading role—by circulating an email or on WhatsApp. Sadly, we cannot do that; we need to meet face to face and we need to hammer these things out. The cost of this and the CO₂ that may be included in gathering together to make these decisions and to provide that leadership pales into insignificance compared with the benefits to the climate of being able to reach agreements together. I just encourage noble Lords to perhaps raise their sights ever so slightly to look to the longer term.

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

My Lords, the vital issue of loss and damage for developing states, which are at the front line of the climate emergency, was not mentioned at all in the Prime Minister’s speech in Baku. I met a delegation of MPs from Barbados on Tuesday and they, alongside the SIDS community, told me—quite alarmingly—that they see little support from the UK for climate mitigation efforts. First, can the Minister assure me that UK support for loss and damage is ring-fenced against the development cuts that were announced in the Budget? Secondly, does she agree with me that—as the Barbadians told me—when the UK does not offer support, China does? It offers support with conditional lending. Surely, within the Commonwealth, the UK should be doing more and not creating gaps that China fills.

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

What the noble Lord highlights is the importance to many of our global partners of action on the climate, whether that is prevention of climate change through the work that we do, not just here in the UK but internationally, on reducing carbon, or whether it is on loss and damage mitigation or resilience against extreme weather events. Many of the countries that the noble Lord refers to are very low emitters but are on the front line of this. That is why I am proud of the leadership that this country takes on this issue.

[Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)]

My Lords, in welcoming the presence of the Prime Minister in Baku, does the Minister recall that, in 2023, 120,000 Armenians were driven out of Nagorno-Karabakh in ethnic cleansing, when Azerbaijan cut off electricity, medicine and food? During this conference, even on its margins, did the Prime Minister have the opportunity to raise with President Aliyev the continuing failure to create a peace agreement between Azerbaijan and Armenia and provide for the return of prisoners?

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

The UK has been consistent in seeking a peaceful resolution. We take every opportunity that we can to move that forward.

[Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Lab)]

My Lords, earlier this morning, I chaired a meeting of indigenous peoples from Colombia, Peru and Indonesia. They welcomed the fact that the UK Prime Minister was in Baku, because there is an urgent need to discuss climate change mitigation and how to deal with corporates—many of them from the UK and other large countries—that undertake enormous amounts of wood felling to pursue their particular business, at the expense of indigenous people. Therefore, in the interests of climate change mitigation internationally, would my noble friend meet me and those groups and campaigners who are directly involved on this issue in the UK?

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

We are not going to get any improvement in stemming the loss of biodiversity or deforestation without working with indigenous communities. I was very pleased to meet Domingo Peas, the head of Amazon Sacred Headwaters Alliance, on a recent visit to Ecuador, looking at just this topic. I would be very happy to meet representatives alongside my noble friend.

[The Earl of Courtown (Con)]

My Lords, the Minister, in her initial Answer to my noble friend, talked about outcomes from COP 29 in Baku. Can she outline how these outcomes align with our broader environmental and economic goals?

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

Our economic goal is around achieving growth for the UK, and our environmental ambition is to reduce the amount of climate change. We are aiming, still, for 1.5 degrees. How close the precise negotiations at this COP will get to delivering on those ambitions remains to be seen because, as I have already said, COP is still ongoing and there is another round of ministerial talks to take place. Really, the thorny issues have yet to be considered. Perhaps we can return to this topic when COP is completed, when we might have a better chance of assessing how successful it has been.

[The Lord Bishop of Manchester]

My Lords, last year I took a group of leaders from different faiths in Greater Manchester, along with civic leaders, to meet Pope Francis in Rome to discuss his work on climate change, which makes me think: will the Government commit to working with faith leaders, in this country and overseas, as we seek to mitigate the climate emergency?

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

I welcome contributions from any leaders who have influence anywhere. It is important that this task is not just left to the politicians and that community leaders and faith leaders from across the world step up and use whatever power they have to help.

[Baroness Hayman (CB)]

My Lords, I declare my interests as set out in the register. One of the most memorable experiences of my first few months in government in 1997 was repeating the Statement on the Kyoto conference in this House that the Deputy Prime Minister had given elsewhere. He was an extraordinarily committed environmentalist before many other people, as the noble Baroness said, and he will be missed on that account and on many others. After Kyoto, we had Paris and the 1.5 degree target, to which the noble Baroness has referred. That is in danger of being breached as we speak. Does she agree that the real issue about COP and that process is how we turn an international agreement into delivery locally?

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

Absolutely I would, and if there was anyone who took a pragmatic lens to these issues, it would be our friend John Prescott. Perhaps we could think to ourselves “What would John say?” when we reach these agreements. I hope that we do reach some meaningful agreements but, as the noble Baroness implies and as he would no doubt have said, “It’s about getting it done, love, isn’t it?”.