British Council

Baroness Chapman of Darlington Excerpts

Thursday 13th February 2025 Lords Chamber

[The Earl of Clancarty]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what their response is to the concerns expressed by the Chief Executive of the British Council for the future of that organisation; and what steps they are taking to ensure that the British Council's art collection is not to be sold off.

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

My Lords, the British Council’s board of trustees is ultimately responsible for the British Council’s financial sustainability. The Government highly value the British Council as a UK soft power asset and are committed to working with it to ensure its financial sustainability. The FCDO is exploring all options, including the sale of assets, with the British Council and the Treasury to ensure this.

[The Earl of Clancarty (CB)]

My Lords, will the Government properly support the British Council which does so much for our culture and soft power, the soft power council indeed that already exists but is under enormous financial pressure? It is considering closing up to 40 country operations. The Government should take careful note that wherever we move out from, Russia or China are poised to move in. Will the Government forgive the Covid loan, with interest accruing at the commercial rate of £1 million a month? Will they review the funding of a vital institution that has been underfunded by government for years?

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

We will not be forgiving the loan. The loan was made by our predecessor Government. I cannot explain why it was done in the way that it was, and it is unfortunate that a payment schedule was not agreed as part of that process. However, we are where we are. We are working very closely with the British Council. We speak on a regular basis, and I have visited the council when I have been on overseas visits. What it does is tremendous. What the noble Earl says about other nations filling the gaps that we leave is correct. However, we must ensure that the British Council is put on a sustainable footing for the long term. That is why we are working closely with it and looking at all viable options to make sure that that is what happens.

[Lord Vaizey of Didcot (Con)]

My Lords, I hear what the Minister says about working closely with the British Council, but the Government give the British Council only about 15% of its total revenue. Regardless of where fault lies, it is unconscionable that the British Council is having to pay £14 million a year in interest on a Covid loan. It is no good saying that we are where we are, when the Government have just launched a very high-profile Soft Power Council. The British Council, alongside the BBC World Service, is the most important arm’s-length body in projecting British soft power. We cannot simply say we are where we are and leave it at that.

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

Nobody is saying we are where we are and let us leave it at that, but we are where we are. This is not where I would wish to be, for all the reasons that the noble Lord says. We must protect the British Council, and enhance and strengthen it. I am very pleased to say that the British Council is a full participant of the Soft Power Council. I have spoken to the chief executive to get some advice on how we might go about setting it up and how to take that forward. He is fully involved, and quite right too It is our determination that the British Council is strong and grows, and is able to do more of what it has done for decades. As the noble Lord says, it is a vital part of our soft power work.

[Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws (Lab)]

My Lords, I had the privilege of being chair of the British Council for six years, at the beginning of this century—which was quite a while ago, when I was a much younger woman. As I travelled the world, looking at the projects that were conducted by the British Council, I found that it was the envy of the world. It was the envy of France and Germany; they too had cultural organisations, but those never had the reach or success rate of the British Council. The scandal has been the diminution of the government grant to the British Council over the last 15 years. Given the situation we are facing—where we are watching the United States retreat from the world and from obligations to the world, and from the soft power that it exercised through USAID—is this not the very moment when we should be stepping forward and making sure that we are the people who can do soft power better than anyone? Can there not be an increase in the grant to the British Council and assistance in dealing with this debt?

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

At the moment, the Government provide around 16% of the British Council's funding. The rest, to the British Council’s enduring credit, it manages to raise itself through its own activities—mostly English language tuition and other activities that it conducts. The balance of that we are discussing with the British Council. However, it is a strength that the council has that degree of independence from government, and I would not wish to see that jeopardised. Whether or not we can increase the government grant and to what extent is open to discussion, but I point out gently that, if we did decide to do that, the money would have to come from somewhere else.

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)]

My Lords, we welcome today the vice-chair of the British Council as a new Labour Peer. We on these Benches look forward to robust defence of the British Council from the Government Benches. This is a Covid loan. The loss that the British Council made was due to Covid and the drying-up of English language teaching. There are many other Covid loans outstanding. Many of them were fraudulent, as we know; this clearly was not. The Government will struggle to recover some of those others. This was clearly an honest loan made in honest circumstances. Can we not treat this in that context, while the Government perhaps work harder on recovering other Covid loans which are a great deal less honest?

[Noble Lords]

She is here.

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

I know she was introduced today. I had assumed that she was having a cup of tea or something, but I see she is here. Fantastic. It is even better that she is here to witness the strength of feeling and support from across this House for the British Council. We welcome her with warm hearts.

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

My Lords, the Government should be commended for setting up the Soft Power Council, but, for the last 90 years, the British Council has been a vital component of the way in which this country projects its values and influence around the world. A powerful example of this is the current photography exhibition in Portcullis House, which comes from the British Council’s season of culture between the UK and Ukraine. In our debate on Thursday on the creative industries, I asked whether, rather than forcing the British Council to sell off the artworks that it has collected over nearly a century, the Government might look at the acceptance in lieu scheme. Those debts could then be offset but these artworks could be kept and shared with the public here in the UK and around the world. Is that something that the Foreign Office has discussed with DCMS or the British Council?

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

I should make it very clear that nobody is forcing the British Council to make any decision in any direction about its art collection. As I understand it, around half of that is covenanted anyway and could not be sold. There is a decision to be made, and it is right for the British Council—I would defend it on this—to look at other assets and make a decision. What that decision should be is not for me to say, but I support at least looking at that option. Does Rachel Reeves want to be paid in art? I very much doubt it. What is important is that we are able to move forward, alongside the British Council, and that it is strengthened and can get the loan on a sustainable footing, look at where its income streams are coming from, and ensure that it can grow and be strong in the future.

[Baroness Boycott (CB)]

My Lords, I declare my interest as a long-term member of the Hay Festival. We have worked for many years with the British Council and we now are working with the Soft Power Council. Despite many questions across the House just now, I do not understand why we need both. I gather that the Soft Power Council is to be more businesslike. However, looking at the record of what we have done in Colombia, Mexico and other countries, I see that we have produced enormous amounts of investment in Britain by soft power. Why do we need both? Why are the Government cutting down the council in favour of this new body? Is it just because they are the new kids on the block?

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

It is not an either/or. The British Council is central to the Soft Power Council. However, the Soft Power Council includes business, the Premier League, museums, and science and technology. It will be much bigger, but the British Council will be at the centre of it.

[Baroness Keeley (Lab)]

My Lords—

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Keeley (Lab)]

My Lords, I agree with noble Lords that the British Council is a vital part of the country’s soft power, and we have to recognise that its art collection showcases UK artists and architects across the world, including at the British pavilion at the Venice Biennale. The current financial situation of the British Council is concerning. I have to say, following the other comments, it was irresponsible of the previous Government to leave the British Council dangling with a £197 million Covid loan with no repayment schedule, leading to the current uncertainty. It is good to hear the strength of feeling in support of the British Council, but can my noble friend the Minister say any more about what steps will be taken to get it on to a sustainable footing?

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

The issue of the loan needs to be dealt with, but no one should think that that is the only thing that the British Council needs to concern itself with in making sure that it is as strong as it can be in the future. It needs to look at changes in the way language tuition takes place and at different parts of the world where it may not operate currently but might wish to in the future. All of these questions need to be discussed and thought through thoroughly, so that we get a strong, sustainable business plan and are able to see the British Council thrive in the next few years. As everybody has said—there has not been a single word of criticism or doubt about what the British Council brings—this is a vital part of the way that the UK presents itself around the world.

Belarus: Elections

Baroness Chapman of Darlington Excerpts

Monday 10th February 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Anelay of St Johns]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the outcome of the elections held in Belarus on 26 January, and what advice, if any, they have given to the Belarusian democratic movement.

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

My Lords, the sham presidential election in Belarus on 26 January represented only a self-reappointment of Lukashenko and his regime, which continues to undermine fundamental human rights and democratic freedoms. While it is not for us to advise the Belarusian democratic forces, the UK supports their tireless efforts to realise the democratic rights of the people of Belarus. We will continue to support the aspirations of the Belarusian people for a free, democratic and independent Belarus.

[Baroness Anelay of St Johns (Con)]

My Lords, does the Minister agree with me on two points: first, that the sham re-election of Lukashenko has strengthened the alignment of Belarus with Russia, giving President Putin greater use of Belarus as a tool against western security; and, secondly, that this really is the time to give greater support to the independent media and civil society in Belarus, because they provide the basis for democratic infrastructure, which at the moment Lukashenko is tearing apart every day?

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

The noble Baroness is completely right in what she says and I thank her for securing this question and allowing us to discuss the matter this afternoon. I agree with everything she said. We are working hard to make sure, as far as we can, that the people of Belarus have the opportunity to elect a government who represent their wishes.

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

My Lords, I welcome the speed with which the Government imposed sanctions on those who were involved in the sham election. Is the Minister aware of the excellent scheme organised by Libereco, whereby parliamentarians become “godparents” to political prisoners in Belarus and keep in touch with them on a regular basis, so they know they are not forgotten? Will the Minister take up the role of godmother to a political prisoner and encourage all members of this House to do so? It really does encourage those who fight against the dictatorship.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

I think it is an excellent scheme. I understand that the Foreign Secretary and other members of the Government have done this. I would be very happy to take part in this scheme and encourage any others here who wish to do so to take it up as well. I thank the noble Lord for raising this.

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)]

My Lords, does the Minister agree that what happens in Belarus depends, more than anything else, on the outcome of the war in Ukraine? In the support we give Ukraine, we must all bear in mind that the future of Belarus is also at stake. Do the Government assess that it is possible to maintain contact with groups and organisations within Belarus to encourage the further development of civil society; or have we, in the Government’s opinion, reached a point when we can work only with democratic groups and movements outside Belarus under the current circumstances?

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

That is an interesting question. One of the reasons that we maintain an embassy in Minsk is to send a signal to the people of Belarus that they have not been abandoned by us, that we are there and that we will advocate on their behalf. It is difficult to work in the way that we want, of course, but we will continue to do what we can.

[Lord Hannan of Kingsclere (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for the way she summarised government policy. I think she said that she wants a free, democratic and independent Belarus. We can all agree that it is not free and democratic, but does there come a point when it is not independent either? Since 2020, whatever autonomy there had been in foreign policy has been lost. Under the union state treaty, the Russians are now deploying not just troops but tactical nuclear weapons there; any pretence of a separate foreign policy has gone. Does there come a point when we face reality and talk about this as what it is, which is a Russian annexation?

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

The noble Lord is completely right about the state of democracy in Belarus, such as it is. This situation saddens us all. We look at what has happened in Moldova and in Ukraine, and we cannot help but see the future if we leave some of those activities unchecked. Russia is clearly intent on strengthening its grip on nations outside its borders, which is exactly what we have seen in Belarus, as the noble Lord said.

[Lord Cashman (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, the Belarus Free Theatre has played a crucial role in the last 10 years in spreading the truth about what is going on within Belarus. Will the Minister therefore ensure that the theatre company achieves the crucial financial support that it needs to carry on with this vital work?

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

I do not know about the specific theatre company that the noble Lord describes, but its work does sound incredibly important. At times as desperate and bleak as these for Belarus, this kind of activity has all the more value.

[Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)]

My Lords, given what the Minister said about the importance of reaching out to the people of Belarus and over the heads of the dictatorship, can she tell us what broadcasts are made by the BBC World Service into Belarus and assure us that there is no limitation on the funding required to maintain them?

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

The World Service is a tremendous asset and I am pleased that, this year, we have been able to secure additional funding for it. We work with it incredibly closely, although it is and will always be fully independent in its decisions about how it operates and its content. It is important that we remember that. It is good to highlight just how vital the work of the World Service is in countering some of the disinformation and misinformation that we see in Belarus and in other parts of the world.

[The Earl of Courtown (Con)]

My Lords, I join the Minister in thanking my noble friend for bringing this important subject to the attention of the House. While I understand that His Majesty’s Government do not comment on the possible imposition of future sanctions, could the Minister say what criteria are used to determine election fraud and human rights abuses in Belarus?

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

We have been proactive in this area and have introduced a raft of sanctions that tackle the problems that the noble Earl described. The exact criteria are legal and technical; I will not attempt to get into the details today, but they are all laid out, should the noble Earl wish to examine them more carefully. I would be very happy to brief him properly on this, because sanctions are an important tool when we are combating what has been going on in Belarus.

[Lord Ricketts (CB)]

My Lords, does the Minister agree that one of the most effective contributions we can make to keeping the flame of democracy alive for the democratic movement in Belarus is to fight for and achieve a settlement that keeps Ukraine free and independent and gives the people of Belarus a sense that there is life beyond being a vassal state of Russia?

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

Whenever we have spoken about Ukraine in this Chamber, one of the key messages has been that, if we do not fight for the territorial integrity of Ukraine, that will not be the end of Russian aggression and destabilisation in this area. The noble Lord makes the case very well as to why it is important that we stand firm, and shoulder to shoulder, and continue to support the people of Ukraine.

Moldova: Russian Interference

Baroness Chapman of Darlington Excerpts

Thursday 6th February 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Suttie]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of reports of Russian interference in Moldovan politics.

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

My Lords, Moldova is on the front line of Russian hybrid aggression. Moscow is seeking to degrade Moldovan democracy through disinformation, illicit financing and political subversion. The FCDO has established a cross-government task force to monitor these threats and help Moldova tackle them. This financial year, we are providing £35 million of humanitarian development and defence support to Moldova. We remain steadfast in our support for Moldova’s sovereign choice to pursue freedom, independence and closer ties to Europe.

[Baroness Suttie (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. Last Friday, I spoke to a Moldovan friend in Chiinău who runs a project to strengthen the rule of law in Moldova. The funding for that project has now been suspended by the US State Department. Given the decision of the Trump Administration, does the Minister agree that it is more vital than ever to work with our European partners to strengthen institutions, judicial reform and parliamentary democracy in Moldova, as they are key weapons in resisting the disinformation and hybrid threats coming from Russia?

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

The noble Baroness is absolutely right. It is impossible to look at what is happening in Moldova and not consider at the same time what has happened in Ukraine, Georgia and elsewhere. Russia tried everything it could to distort the outcome of the polls that were held earlier this year. Parliamentary elections are approaching, and Russia will have learned from what worked and what did not during that earlier process. We need to step up and use every tool that we can to protect Moldova and make sure that the people of Moldova get the Government that they choose.

[Lord Anderson of Swansea (Lab)]

My Lords—

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Anderson of Swansea (Lab)]

My Lords, Russia is more easily able to interfere because it occupies part of Moldova: Transnistria. If, as we hope, negotiations with Ukraine start this year, does my noble friend the Minister agree that it makes sense, in the same or in a parallel process, to deal with the frozen conflicts in the region—not only Transnistria but South Ossetia and Abkhazia in Georgia—with the aim of promoting peace in the Black Sea region?

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

I thank my noble friend, and I commend him on his decades of work providing peace, security and humanitarian causes in many places around the world. He is completely right that the frozen conflict in Transnistria should be seen alongside other conflicts in the region. His words are wise, and the Government will heed them.

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

My Lords, further to my noble friend’s Question, with regard to the parliamentary elections that are due before July, the head of the Moldovan intelligence service warned the Moldovan Parliament in December that the very same tactics that were used in the presidential and pro-EU referendum would be used by Russia. One of those tactics is vote-buying. Can the Minister say more about the practical assistance that the UK is giving, with our European partners, to ensure that money is not laundered through any of the institutions, in either the UK or Europe, and that there is no illicit finance, which has been used for the very tactics that the Minister referred to?

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

It is completely true that every trick in the book was used during the previous elections, and we expect this to happen again. This included vote-buying, voter suppression and bomb threats at polling stations in this country, where Moldovans sought to cast their vote. We are doing everything we can, including, as he says, looking at illicit economies. Our expertise in cybersecurity will be significant in the coming months.

[The Earl of Courtown (Con)]

My Lords, we have also seen reports this week concerning allegations of Russian interference in German politics. Can the Minister confirm whether the Prime Minister discussed the issue of Russian interference in international politics with our European partners during the meetings with EU leaders this week?

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

My right honourable friend the Prime Minister discusses these issues regularly with European partners, as does the Foreign Secretary and Minister Doughty, who is responsible for Europe. This is of great concern to us. Russia’s appetite for this kind of activity seems limitless. It does not respect national borders; it will be active in its disruptive activities anywhere that it thinks it can be.

[Lord Browne of Ladyton (Lab)]

My Lords, Russia’s response to the election of a pro-western Government in Moldova was characteristically callous. It cut off the supply of gas to Transnistria, leaving 350,000 people with no power in a freezing climate. In November, we entered into agreements with Moldova on migration, defence and security. Beyond that, can my noble friend the Minister outline what we are doing to support the EU as it begins to implement its recent agreement of a two-year strategy for energy independence for the Moldovan Government?

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

It is true that the energy supply to Transnistria was interrupted and that this has had a devastating impact, not just on the population in Transnistria but throughout Moldova. We are working very closely with EU partners on this. We applaud the EU’s announcement this week of a €310 million support package. We are working principally on our cybersecurity capability to be able to support and protect democracy in Moldova as it approaches elections but, as my noble friend would expect, we will continue to work hand in glove with EU partners.

[Lord McInnes of Kilwinning (Con)]

My Lords, I refer to my register of interests. The Minister referred to the Caucasus. What reassurance can she give to the Government of Armenia that the current instability with Azerbaijan will not be allowed to be used as an opportunity for Russia to once again get greater influence in Armenia?

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

We firmly believe that it is up to the people of a particular country to decide what direction that country takes. We know why Russia is doing what it is doing: it does not like the idea of Georgia and Moldova facing away from it and leaving its sphere of influence. Sadly, that is being very effective; estimates are that around 10% of the poll in Moldova was influenced by Russian activity. This is having a very real impact, and the geopolitics of it are wide-ranging. Its impact, particularly on the conflict in Ukraine, is something that we should all be incredibly mindful of.

[Lord Dubs (Lab)]

My Lords, I welcome what the Minister has said about support for Moldova. Given that Russia has been pursuing a very aggressive policy to try to undermine Moldovan democracy for many years, could we have an assurance that that support will continue? What about a high-level visit by the British Government to Moldova to show real solidarity with what it is up to?

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

That support will continue, and my noble friend will be very pleased to learn that the Foreign Secretary was there just a few months ago. My honourable friend, Minister Stephen Doughty, was there in October as well. This support will continue. We are, as we have said many times, steadfast in our support for Ukraine. It would be no good being steadfast in support for Ukraine while not being very active and doing everything we can to support Moldova, because these issues are not independent of one another.

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)]

My Lords, the Intelligence and Security Committee published a report some years ago on Russian interference in British politics. It was heavily redacted, even though it stated there had been extensive Russian interference. Would it not be appropriate to publish some of those redacted parts to inform the British public of how the Russian threat affects us, and that it is still continuing?

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

The noble Lord raises a very interesting question, the answer to which I do not have for him today, but I will take it away because he makes a very strong case.

[Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Lab)]

My Lords, when I worked with the Westminster Foundation for Democracy in Moldova some six years ago, I detected and had a strong sense that there was a high level of fear among the Moldovans because of Russian influence and aggression. Will my noble friend the Minister continue to provide assurances to your Lordships’ House that the UK Government will provide all support, along with EU partners, in building democracy there in a practical and political way?

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

Yes we will, and we do need to be practical because this is urgent. The next elections are happening in a matter of months’ time. The results last time were impacted by Russian activity, estimated to be about 10% to 15% of the ballot. This is intolerable for any democracy, and the UK must stand firm and stand up for what is right, including our democratic values.

Chagos Islands

Baroness Chapman of Darlington Excerpts

Thursday 6th February 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

My Lords, the leader in the Times this morning says that this agreement is

“the worst negotiated by a British government in living memory”.

It goes on to say that the Prime Minister and the Attorney-General

“have taken leave of their senses”.

Current Labour Cabinet Ministers describe the deal in off-the-record quotes to the BBC as

“‘terrible’, ‘mad’ and ‘impossible to understand’”.

At a time when Labour Ministers seem to spend half their time at this Dispatch Box bemoaning the supposed black hole in the public finances, how does it make any sense whatever to spend up to £18 billion leasing back an island that we already own?

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

I was an Opposition Front-Bench Spokesman for 12 years, so I know how this goes. I do not think I ever resorted to reading out a Times leader from the Dispatch Box as my primary source. Perhaps the kindest thing I could do is to invite the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, to come to the FCDO, to put the kettle on and to brief him properly so that he knows what is going on. I could point him in the direction of a communiqué issued by the Mauritian Government, which stated:

“Mauritius has never said that the financial package in the agreement between Mauritius and the UK on the Chagos Archipelago had doubled as alleged”.


I also point out that the cost of this is not for nothing; it is to buy a security arrangement that has served this country very well, alongside our allies, the United States, for very many years. It is a base and an arrangement that we are committed to. In order to secure the future of that base, we need to come to a legally sound agreement with Mauritius.

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

My Lords, the dogged perseverance of the previous Conservative Government to cede sovereignty over 11 rounds of negotiations—insisting on 11 rounds of negotiations before the general election—is in some ways admirable. What was not admirable was that the Chagossians were excluded from all parts of those 11 rounds of discussions on the ceding of sovereignty. Could the Minister confirm to me, first, that the funding package that the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, referred to was agreed by the previous Conservative Administration and inherited by the current Government, and—

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

This is a question to the Minister, not to the Opposition Front Bench.

Secondly, can the Minister confirm that, to avoid the Chagossians becoming a political football again, if any agreement is reached as a result of the pause, either with the United States or the Mauritian Government, it will be for Parliament to vote on it, to ensure that the Chagossians can have representation in the debates here in Parliament?

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

The negotiations were conducted state to state. Regrettable though it may be, it is a fact that the Chagossians were not party to that, and the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, is right to remind us of it. The Chagossians have been terribly treated since their forced removal all those years ago. My own view is that it is better and fairer to the Chagossians to be clear that, as long as that base is there on Diego Garcia, there will be no ability for them to resettle that island. That is the fact of the situation that we are in, and to give any hope of anything otherwise would be irresponsible and a mistake. But, as the noble Lord says, there will be a process, and the involvement of both Houses of Parliament will be needed as we put the treaty before them and make the appropriate legislative changes that are needed for this deal. As the noble Lord says—and I look forward to it—the voices of Chagossians will be heard through their representatives in this House and in the other place.

[Lord Howell of Guildford (Con)]

My Lords, I am sure there are great complexities behind this issue which maybe we have not been fully briefed on. One curiosity is that the Chagos people do not feel great fondness for Mauritius at all. It is 1,000 miles away, and it is a puzzle as to why we have somehow got tangled up with Mauritius, with its present inclinations in the direction of China. Should we not be much more acutely aware than we are of the intense Chinese interest in every move in this area, where they see great advantages for themselves? Indeed, they see it as a major part of the general hoovering-up of small islands around the world, including many in the Commonwealth, as part of their grand strategy to dominate the maritime area. Should we not be a bit stronger on that?

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

It is precisely because we need to ensure the legal certainty of the Chagos archipelago and the ability of the base to operate and function fully. That is so important to security, as I am sure the noble Lord agrees, and is not something that our adversaries would wish to see established. This deal strengthens our presence and arrangements in Chagos.

I am aware that the Chaggosians in this country do not, in large part, agree with this deal and, as the noble Lord says, they do not feel an identity or affinity with Mauritius. These things happened during decolonisation, and that is why we find ourselves in our present legal situation. However, it is also true that there are Chaggosians living in Mauritius who take a different view. There is not one view of this deal from the global Chaggosian community.

[Baroness Brown of Silvertown (Lab)]

My Lords, have our NATO allies commented on this deal?

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

We are working very closely with our allies in the United States. Jonathan Powell, our National Security Adviser, is in Washington at the moment working through the deal with the Americans. It is right and understandable for any new Administration to want to know every precise detail of this, because it has a profound impact on security and the stability of the base on Diego Garcia.

[Lord Bellingham (Con)]

My Lords, why were this Government so keen to reach an agreement when, because we did not contest it, the UN court case was only advisory? Why is there this rush on the part of the Minister and her ministerial colleagues?

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

We have been through this in the House several dozen times, but I am happy to take the question again. I invite the noble Lord to consider a situation where we had allowed for the legal processes to continue. The advice that we received was that it was likely that the advisory decision would be followed by a decision to which we would have to adhere. Our view—this is a judgment—is that we would be in a stronger position to negotiate ahead of a binding judgment rather than afterwards. Noble Lords can disagree with that, but it is the reason for our timing. It is also the reason for the 11 rounds of negotiation under the previous Government. It is also true that there are Members opposite and Members in opposition in the other place who know that very well.

[Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)]

My Lords, I am always grateful to my noble friend the Minister for the very careful tone with which she discusses these very sensitive subjects in a non-partisan way, despite obscene provocation to the contrary. I wonder whether she agrees that it is all very well to talk about ICJ rulings being advisory and to laugh them off, but we would not have been in the ICJ without the overwhelming support of the UN General Assembly. If we want the global South, and countries in Africa in particular, to think differently about China and to respect us going forward, we need to respect institutions such as the UN General Assembly.

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

My noble friend makes a very clear point. For the record, I am happy to come here and take questions and challenge on this issue—it is important and right that the Government are held to account on it. She made a point about the geopolitics of this, with which I agree. One also needs to think about the practical, day-to-day functioning of a base in the middle of the Indian Ocean and our reliance upon third countries to enable it to function as well as we need it to. There would have been an impact on that, should we have waited for a binding judgment.

[Baroness Freeman of Steventon (CB)]

My Lords, the Chagos archipelago contains some vital marine habitats, and in the past I have recognised the difficulties of marine protection in the area. Can the Minister give us any indication of the level of marine protection that has been agreed in this treaty?

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

That is an important point. There will be marine protection considerations in the agreement, because the waters around the Chagos Islands are precious and need to be protected. It is difficult when there is also a base there, but the protections that we would need to secure to enable the base to function securely and without interference could also serve the marine environment well.

Afghanistan: Women

Baroness Chapman of Darlington Excerpts

Thursday 30th January 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Ramsey of Wall Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend and with her permission, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in her name on the Order Paper.

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

My Lords, we remain in regular dialogue with international partners on Afghanistan, including using international mechanisms to maintain pressure on the Taliban to change course. The Minister for the Middle East, North Africa, Afghanistan and Pakistan hosted a round table in New York on 20 January with the UN and permanent representatives of key countries. This month, we also pledged our political support to refer the Taliban to the International Court of Justice.

[Baroness Ramsey of Wall Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful to His Majesty’s Government for referring Afghanistan’s violation of human rights to the International Court of Justice. However, the women of Afghanistan are in desperate need of urgent action to prevent the ban on attending medical schools having a long-term impact on the availability of female medical staff. It will have far-reaching consequences for women’s health outcomes, which are already dire. Can the Minister expand on what steps the Government have taken to ensure that women in Afghanistan will continue to be able to access women’s health services, despite the ban?

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

As my noble friend says, the situation is extremely difficult, and we are relying in large part on our partners on the ground to be able to support women in the most horrendous of circumstances. Let us remember that the ban that she refers to comes on top of laws requiring women to be veiled at all times in public, banning women from singing, reciting or reading aloud in public, forbidding them to look at men they are not related to and strictly enforcing male escorts for women. The situation is intolerable, and it is good that we have supported taking this to the ICJ. In the meantime, we are doing everything we can on the ground to support women in Afghanistan.

[Baroness Hussein-Ece (LD)]

My Lords, the brave Afghan women who peacefully protest against these brutal policies have been threatened, arrested, forcibly disappeared, detained and tortured. Their voices must be heard. They want concrete and effective measures against the Taliban. They do not want the Taliban to be granted any legitimacy and normalisation of their oppressive rule under the guise of engagement—those are their words. Do His Majesty’s Government agree that targeted sanctions, refusal to recognise this repressive regime and unwavering support for women’s resistance in Afghanistan are the minimum actions that the international community must take in good faith?

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

We are extremely careful about the way that we engage with Afghanistan. The noble Baroness knows that we recognise states and not Governments. On sanctions, we implement the UN sanctions. We have some very limited engagement with the Taliban to bring about some of the changes that we want to see and to make these points about women and human rights, but as she will know, this is incredibly difficult. We are working for the large part through international partners on the ground to make sure that we get humanitarian aid to support people today.

[The Lord Bishop of Gloucester]

My Lords, these measures are taken by men with an absolute lack of transparency and without any involvement of those concerned, and they are clearly aimed at excluding women and girls from public life. Following on from what has been said, are the Government actively meeting female Afghan leaders to hear their perspectives? Will the UK Government help female Afghans to be part of the international talks so that they are able to play a part in the future of the country?

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

That is such an important point. The voices of Afghan women are suppressed in their own country, but we must provide platforms whenever we can to make sure that those voices are heard. I was very grateful to the Leader of the House recently for her enabling me to meet Malala here in our House. The right reverend Prelate is right, and we will continue to find whatever means we can to make sure that women in Afghanistan have the opportunity to speak on their own behalf.

[Baroness Foster of Aghadrumsee (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, how are we using our influence at the United Nations to deal with these issues, particularly around education? Without education, those young girls will continue to be exploited, be badly treated and be at the risk of being married off.

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

I am grateful for that question. My noble friend the Minister for the Middle East, North Africa, Afghanistan and Pakistan is using his convening mechanisms at the UN to raise these issues, garner international support and keep the spotlight on them. It is principally through these multinational fora that we are able to bring about the pressure that may be needed.

[Baroness D'Souza (CB)]

My Lords, can the Minister outline which areas of the Government’s influence are more likely to have effect in dealing with the Taliban? By mechanisms of influence, I am talking about direct interaction with the Taliban.

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

For reasons that we have touched on today, that is incredibly difficult. The focus for us when it comes to Afghan women is to make sure that the eyes of the world are on this issue and that we get the aid to them now, because the need is desperate. That is why we are planning £161 million in aid to Afghanistan this financial year.

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

My Lords, the situation for women in Afghanistan is truly dreadful, and I am sure the whole House agrees that there are no easy or simple solutions. Perhaps the Minister could expand on the answer she gave earlier on whether the Government have considered targeted sanctions or providing diplomatic incentives to encourage the Taliban to change course.

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

We consider anything that might work. Obviously, we do not comment on future sanctions designations, but I can say that we keep the situation under very close review.

[Lord Browne of Ladyton (Lab)]

My Lords, I declare an interest that I share with many Members of your Lordships’ House in that I am an ambassador for the Halo Trust. In a speech 10 days ago, the Deputy Foreign Minister of Afghanistan described his own Government’s prohibitions on female education as

“committing an injustice against 20 million people”

and he asserted that restrictions on female education run counter to both the wishes of the Prophet and sharia law. What assessment have the Government made of internal divisions within the Afghan Government on this question, as well as our diplomatic capacity to encourage those who seek to widen the parameters of women’s rights under the Taliban? On extending the parameters of women’s rights and other rights under the Taliban, if the Government have not done so, I suggest that they would do well to speak to James Cowan, the CEO of the Halo Trust, who has established a great spread of engagement in that regard.

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

I support everything my noble friend has said about the Halo Trust and the phenomenal work that it has been able to do in the most difficult circumstances. I commend to the House the initiative taken in Pakistan recently on the importance of education of women and girls within Islam and how it is such a concern. It is a strong initiative. It is difficult to say that any one event, conference or intervention is going to have the effect that we all wish to see, but I hope that, by continuing to support such gatherings and the making of these cases, we can, over time, have the impact that we want.

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

My Lords, we have had the 2020 Afghanistan sanctions for four years now. There are a number of exceptions to those sanctions, justifiable for assuring the delivery of humanitarian aid, but any exceptions can be abused. In light of the more recent examples that my noble friend gave, have the Government reviewed the exceptions and the sanctions that have been in place for four years to ensure that they are up to date and there is no circumvention, and that those individuals who are restricting the rights of women, as we have been discussing, are not able to profit from circumventing sanctions?

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

As I have said, we keep this issue under close review. The noble Lord is right to highlight the most recent restrictions around medical education. We are working as hard as we can to make sure that we are still able to get the aid to where it needs to get to, and we have made a point of making sure that at least half the aid that we get into the country goes directly to women and girls.

Gaza: Humanitarian Situation

Baroness Chapman of Darlington Excerpts

Thursday 30th January 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

My Lords, in a week where we have all acknowledged as a country, including our Head of State, the horrors of 80 years ago, we should be sensitive to the ongoing humanitarian crisis and conflict in the Middle East. There is no place for anti-Semitism in the UK or anywhere, and we should learn the lessons of dehumanisation. That is why we should condemn President Trump when he describes the cleaning out of Gaza, and condemn extremists who called Palestinians human animals. Language is important, and therefore sensitivity should be part of our policy-making.

It is worth recognising, as the noble Lord did, that Hamas continues to dehumanise hostages. For the families of hostages who will have their loved ones returned alive, we give thanks for the ceasefire, and we commiserate with those who will receive their loved ones’ bodies. We should hope that the ceasefire holds, because it should provide—even though it is very hard to see—a basis for future and further political dialogue. But two things are actively working against that.

The first is the implementation, today, of the ban on UNRWA in Israeli sovereign territory. I welcome that this has been condemned by the Government. What actions will the UK take? UNRWA operates under a mandate. The Israeli Government have obligations under that UN mandate, and UNRWA should be free to provide humanitarian assistance within the Occupied Territories, unfettered at the border areas within Israeli territory. I would be grateful to hear what actions the Government will now take. While we welcome the fact that Ministers can condemn and raise concerns, there should not be impunity for breaching the UN mandate.

In the West Bank, we continue to see unacceptable violence, not only with regard to the settlers but in the impunity of those within the outposts, and the violence there, which is illegal under Israeli law. There can be no two-state solution if one of the authorities is systematically losing territory day by day. What actions will the Government take on expanding the sanctions on those who are perpetrating the violence, as well as ensuring that there is no impunity for those who are carrying out actions against Palestinian settlements?

On recovery and construction, I welcome that there is now a dedicated official within the FCDO to lead the UK official response to the consideration of reconstruction. I hope that the Minister might be prepared to offer a briefing on the actions in detail and what officials are doing. I welcome that we are co-ordinating that work. Previously in the Chamber, we have discussed the scale of rubble clearance, body recovery and the humanitarian catastrophe, from which the recovery will be enormous.

The Minister will not be surprised that I again raise the fact that there needs to be intensive work on child trauma, and especially on the restoration of education facilities. I have welcomed the UK support through multilateral funding. I appeal to the Government that one area where the UK can play a considerable and direct role, bilaterally, is the establishment of education support and child trauma and psychosocial support within these areas. I have raised before in the Chamber the 17,000 children—the equivalent of the entire under-10 population of London—who are homeless, without shelter or education.

I welcome the increased funding for the Palestinian Authority, but it is still lower than before the 0.7% ODA cuts. I hope the Government will now reconsider the overall envelope of UK assistance to ensure that we can play an increasing role in the recovery.

Finally, I hope that the House will allow me to raise two other brief aspects—one is Lebanon, and the other is the concerning news about conflict prevention. If we have learned anything during the last two years, with the conflicts in the Middle East in particular, it is that conflict prevention is one of the most efficient investments we can make. Where it fails, the cost is extreme. There are very worrying reports of a proposed one-third cut in conflict prevention funding. I hope that the Government will reconsider this.

Other reconstruction is needed in Lebanon. Yesterday, I and some colleagues met with Halima Kaakour, a Lebanese MP. I hope that Ministers will meet female Lebanese MPs who now want to work in a cross-party, cross-confessional and cross-community way in the Lebanese Parliament to ensure that reconstruction is part of the hoped-for peace and recovery, rather than entrenched division. If that is done badly and corruptly, unfortunately it will not bring about sustainable recovery.

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

I am grateful to both noble Lords for their comments and questions. I echo the remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, about Holocaust Memorial Day and the ever-vigilant way that we must think about anti-Semitism across the world, not least here in our own country.

The noble Lord opposite mentioned how united we have been at various points throughout this conflict. It is important that we maintain that unity whenever we can. As the noble Lord said, we need to support those hostages who are now released and are trying to rebuild their lives after the most traumatic events that they must have endured.

As the noble Lord said, our thoughts too must be with those who are enduring the most unconscionable grief at the loss of their relatives in these circumstances, as well as with those who continue to wait. Every hour that passes, they must experience agony waiting for news of their loved ones who are still held.

I am pleased that we made a decision early in the Government to restore aid to UNRWA. It is difficult to see how getting sufficient aid on the scale needed and to the places and people who so desperately need it can be achieved without UNRWA. However it is done, that aid must get to those people.

As the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, reminded us, the Foreign Secretary has said that it would not be right for Hamas to lead the work of rebuilding. As the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, said, that work will be extensive. It must not just address the physical infrastructure; it needs to think too about the trauma that the community in Gaza has been through and, most of all, about the experience of children. Sometimes it will be right for the UK to take the lead and sometimes it will right that we work through others. We have some expertise we can lend to this, so I can promise the noble Lord that, where it is right for us to take the lead, then this is what should happen.

I was asked whether the population of Gaza should be able to return. Of course, if that is their wish, then they should be able to return to their homes, rebuild their lives and live peacefully in the land in which they have lived for years and built their lives. For them to be able to do that, it is important that the ceasefire holds. Without the ceasefire holding, it is impossible to imagine how the next steps towards the peace that we all want to see can ever be secured.

We remain committed to the two-state solution. Nobody should be doing anything to undermine the prospects of achieving that solution, however far away it seemed at some point. Perhaps it seems a tiny bit closer today than it did when we last discussed these matters last week or the week before, but it is still a very long way away.

I will take away the request for a briefing on reconstruction. It is a very good idea to have more engagement and detail. Sometimes it is difficult to get a meaningful discussion in this place, but briefing is a good suggestion. With noble Lords’ permission, I will take this away and invite noble Lords to the department to answer some of their more detailed questions.

[Baroness Blackstone (Lab)]

My Lords, I will pick up on something that the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, said about education. Understandably, much of the emphasis in the humanitarian response to what has been going on in Gaza has been about providing food, fuel and medicines. Under the United Nations, education is a right for all children. There are thousands and thousands of traumatised children living in Gaza who desperately need to get back to school. Would the Minister agree that this should now be given very high priority in all our reconstruction work with the international community? UNRWA has a huge amount of experience in providing education and schools across Gaza and the rest of the Occupied Territories. Would she agree that it should be restored and allowed to continue its work so that children in Gaza and elsewhere in the Occupied Territories should be able to get back to school and learn, to gain the skills and knowledge that they need to establish themselves in future?

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

It is important to remember that our priority is to get the food, medicine and shelter to the people in Gaza who need it—most of all the children—but every day that is lost in education is a barrier to that community being able to support itself and to prosper and thrive. The only way that peace can be achieved is with a secure Israel and a prosperous Gaza. This seems such a long way from where we are. The noble Baroness is right to remind us that the need to get food and medicine in should go alongside the need for education. It seems very difficult from where we are, but it is important that we do not lose sight of the needs of young people to have the education that is their right.

[Lord Pannick (CB)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for her very sensitive response to these extremely difficult problems. I know that a number of other noble Lords share my concerns as to how the Government will ensure that the much-needed reconstruction aid for Gaza is not appropriated by Hamas or other military groups to use to prepare for further attacks on Israel.

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

Of course this is a concern. We want all the aid that we and others provide to go to those people who need it so desperately. How we can make sure of anything is a very interesting proposition when it comes to Gaza. We will do everything we can, working through partners. We think that the best way to do this is through UNRWA. If there are other ways then we must use whatever we can find. As reconstruction begins—which we hope will be soon—it is important that this is done responsibly and sustainably so that the peace we may be about to achieve can last.

[The Lord Bishop of Gloucester]

My Lords, I am grateful for this Statement and thank the Minister for her sensitive and careful comments. Would she accept that, although the ceasefire agreement offers a glimmer of hope that a different future is possible, the situation in the West Bank continues to go from bad to worse? What assessment have the Government made of Israel’s intensification of military action in the West Bank? The fear held by many, including those on these Benches who have just returned from that region, is that this is a precursor to full or partial annexation. What is the Government’s strategy for dealing with the deteriorating situation in the West Bank?

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

The right reverend Prelate is right to remind us of this. This is a very complex situation and it is moving. We speak regularly with partners in the region and directly with leaders in Israel; we also use our presence in multilateral fora to make sure that these concerns are raised as often as we can, in the right way. It is difficult to imagine a situation where there is some progress only in one situation—these things are not completely separate, of course, and we must use every tool of influence that we possess in order to bring about the peace that we need.

[Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)]

My Lords, to follow on from the question from the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, can the Minister elaborate on reconstruction in Gaza? We were all horrified by the videos that we saw when the hostages were released, which showed us that Hamas is in control and has a presence and military arms. I cannot see how there can be a long-term peace if Hamas is in control of Gaza. It will do everything it can to take the aid that we are giving. Does the Minister agree that it is impossible to imagine the long-sought two-state solution if Hamas is in control? So what steps will the Government take to create a democratically elected and governed Gaza and the West Bank?

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

What is important is that the reconstruction of Gaza is led by the people of Gaza—yes, with support. There is a huge difference between the people of Gaza and Hamas. We want to work with international agencies to make sure that the people of Gaza are given the support that they need. Let us be under no illusions about how difficult that will be, partly because of the issues that the noble Lord alluded to, but also because the majority of the homes in Gaza have been damaged or destroyed. The extent of the work needed means that it will take many years; we will have to support this work for quite some time.

[Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)]

My Lords, can the Minister confirm whether the Government have made any representations to the Government of Israel about the law that is about to come into force to remove the possibility of UNRWA having any access to the State of Israel? Can she say what rough impact assessment we may have made of the likely effect of that move, which is of course to frustrate a mandate given to UNRWA by the United Nations General Assembly? Can she also cast light on the discrepancy between the views of the Government of Israel that they have in fact provided evidence about the nine members of UNRWA staff who were thought to be acting with Hamas and were dismissed, and the view of UNRWA itself that it has not received any evidence whatever from the Government of Israel as to the guilt of these people?

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

It is our view that the best way to get aid in as efficiently as is needed is through UNRWA. It is good that some aid has started to get in over the past few days but, without UNRWA, it is very hard to see how that will be sustained. To answer his specific question, yes, we have made that case very clearly to the Government of Israel.

[Baroness Hussein-Ece (LD)]

My Lords, I welcome the Minister’s comments on UNRWA. It is reported that, in the first week of the ceasefire, UNRWA delivered 60% of all food aid into the Gaza Strip. It is therefore very difficult, without any other information from the Israeli Government, to know how they propose to replace that. Or will they literally leave people to starve in the Gaza Strip? We saw the horrific footage of hundreds of thousands of people returning to their land without much to go home to after the destruction there. The need is absolutely critical and, at a time like this, to outlaw UNRWA is completely irresponsible.

Can the Minister say whether the British Government have yet commented on the Trump Administration’s desire to “clean out” Gaza? I note that the French President and the German Chancellor have said that they do not support it and have condemned it. Indeed, in Egypt, Jordan and across the Arab world, it has been condemned and not supported. Will the British Government join those voices and utterly condemn what has been described as potential ethnic cleansing?

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

We do not agree that the people of Gaza should be prevented from returning to their homes. We are very clear about that. On what the noble Baroness said about UNRWA, yes, it is very difficult to see how the aid will be delivered and received without UNRWA. If there is another way of doing this that can be done straight away, on the scale that we need—clearly, the only important thing is that the aid gets where it is needed, not who does it—it is difficult to imagine how that could be achieved. So we continue to make that case; we know what the date is and what the law says. We will continue to make the case to the Israeli Government, but we are concerned, as the noble Baroness indicates we should be.

[Lord Turnberg (Lab)]

My Lords, perhaps I can help my noble friend the Minister. We must do everything that we can to provide humanitarian aid. COGAT has provided figures on who provides the aid: UNRWA in fact has recently provided only 13% of the aid that goes in. Much more comes from other organisations. The World Food Programme, for example, provides more than 30%. In view of the problems that UNRWA has with its relationship with Hamas, should we not be ensuring that the aid that we provide goes through the World Food Programme and other organisations, rather than UNRWA, which is suspect?

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

I am sorry, but I do not agree with that. UNRWA has been by far the most effective organisation at delivering aid in Gaza for very many years. There are other organisations and they may need to do an awful lot more, very, very quickly. We all should appreciate just how unlikely and difficult that will be.

[Baroness Morris of Bolton (Con)]

My Lords, I declare my interests as set out in the register. The world has rightly been focused on the horrors of the past 16 months in Gaza. As the right reverend Prelate said, during that time the situation in the West Bank has been rapidly deteriorating. In October, along with the noble Baroness, Lady Coussins, I hosted a group of young Palestinians from the West Bank. Two weeks ago, one of those young people, Amir, was shot in the knee and his friend was killed. A secure and prosperous West Bank is as important a component of a lasting peace as everything else that is happening. I ask the Minister: as well as speaking to people on the ground and our international partners, are we also speaking to the charities and wonderful organisations here in the UK that have been doing so much, for many years, to help bring both sides together for a lasting peace?

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

Yes, we are, but let me first convey my sincere condolences to Amir, who lost his friend in such circumstances; I also hope that he recovers quickly and fully soon. The noble Baroness is right to highlight the sterling work that has been done for very many years by charities and other organisations here in the UK that care so deeply about what is happening in the Middle East. Their work, I know, has saved lives and has enabled people to rebuild their lives and live more fully. There things are led by Governments—there are diplomatic routes and the conversations we are able to have—but nothing will substitute for the work of people-to-people connections and the links that are made between individuals and their families across the world. It is such a powerful thing and I thank her for reminding us of that.

[Lord Grocott (Lab)]

My Lords, among the numerous shocking statistics that have come out of Gaza is that there are now over 100,000 wounded people there, that Gaza has the highest proportion per head of child amputees of any country in the world, and that 60% of people in Gaza have lost at least one member of their family.

Does my noble friend agree that maybe we have a harder job on our hands than we think? It is not just the homes, the schools and the hospitals that need rebuilding; it is the shattered lives of a profoundly traumatised people.

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

I could not agree more. We are doing what we can. As my noble friend says, this is not something that you just fix. It is a trauma that can be felt through many years—indeed, through generations. UK support has meant that more than half a million people have received essential healthcare, 647,000 have received food and 284,000 have improved access to water, sanitation and hygiene. As we have said today, whether or not UNRWA is able to continue will in large part determine whether some of that work can happen in the future.

[Lord Swire (Con)]

My Lords, is it not time to remind ourselves of the obligation that this country made through the Balfour Declaration? It stated clearly that

“nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine”.

Does the Minister agree that that includes the population of the West Bank and Gaza? Will she update the House on the noises coming from Washington about the possible emptying of Gaza into neighbouring countries—namely, Jordan—and does she agree that not a penny of British taxpayers’ money should be spent on the reconstruction of Gaza if it is to be forcibly emptied of its Palestinian population?

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

The noble Lord might be getting ahead of where I was planning on going today, but I have been very clear on our view of the importance of Gazans being able to return to their homes should they wish. That is our position and, I think, something that the noble Lord will probably agree with.

[Lord Dodds of Duncairn (DUP)]

My Lords, I refer to the answer that the Minister gave to the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, when he raised the very important matter of preventing aid going to Hamas and preventing Hamas hijacking that aid, looting it and using it for future attacks on Israel. I think the noble Baroness said that this was an interesting issue. She referred to UNRWA and its role. Can she give a bit more detail about what is being done with international partners, with Israel, to prevent this outrageous movement into terrorist hands of aid that should go to the people of Gaza?

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

It is not interesting; it is urgent. Aid needs to get to the people who need it. One of the problems when a place descends into such desperation is that lawlessness always inevitably follows. That is what has happened, but we are still able to work with partners on the ground to get the aid to where it is needed. That is what we must continue to focus on. We have proven that we are able to get the aid where it is needed. We managed to vaccinate children against polio, where they needed two vaccinations. We managed to deliver that; it is not beyond us to get food, medicine and shelter to children in Gaza.

[Baroness Helic (Con)]

My Lords, does the Minister agree that measures must be taken now to protect and document locations where mass graves have been reported in Gaza? With that in mind, I suggest that we consult the International Commission on Missing Persons, which stands ready to support all efforts to protect and investigate mass graves and reliably identify human remains, for the sake of the dignity of the people of Gaza but also for the sake of peace and security in the long term.

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

Yes. That is a very good suggestion, and I will take it up. The noble Baroness is of course completely right that it is essential to be able to identify remains and to have an accurate picture of what has happened, for there to be consequences where appropriate and for loved ones to be able to identify the bodies of people they have lost. It is a bedrock without which it is very difficult to imagine how any peace could be achieved in the future.

[Lord Polak (Con)]

I refer the House to my registered interests. It was deeply shameful this morning to see that young girl, Agam Berger, come out after 15 months, surrounded, harassed and jeered by masked, armed gunmen. As I said in the House the other day, Israel is not negotiating with the UK or the UAE. Israel has to negotiate or do a deal with these thugs and terrorists called Hamas. Before everyone bemoans Israel’s decision regarding UNRWA, does the Minister agree that UNRWA has been in situ for many years, and during that time the aid that we and the rest of the world have given was used for what? It was used for building underground tunnels and amassing rockets to send to people. That is what UNRWA has done. Before we talk of the holy grail that is UNRWA, it is also responsible because it was there when all this was happening.

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

I will start by agreeing with the noble Lord about the scenes on release: the trauma is compounded by the way it is done. It is wrong, and it is not something that anybody, whatever your views on all this, should ever wish to see. On UNRWA, it is not a holy grail; it is a practical way of getting aid to a community that needs it so desperately. If there is another way of achieving the same, and if it is better or can do the same job, we must use that, but I genuinely do not see how other agencies will be able to get that aid into Gaza and to the people who need it as quickly as we need them to and at the scale we need them to.

Embassy of China: Proposed New Site

Baroness Chapman of Darlington Excerpts

Wednesday 29th January 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Jackson of Peterborough]

To ask His Majesty’s Government why Ministers have reportedly intervened to support the proposal to convert the former Royal Mint building into a new site for the embassy of China.

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

My Lords, national security is the first duty of government and it has been our core priority throughout this process. That is why the Foreign Secretary and the Home Secretary submitted a letter to the Planning Inspectorate on 14 January. That letter is clear that we have considered the breadth of national security issues and that, for China to be permitted to build the new embassy, we want to see the implementation of suitable national security mitigations.

[Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)]

My Lords, the Metropolitan Police and Tower Hamlets Council quite properly both objected to the former Royal Mint being developed into a new site for the Chinese embassy—the largest in Europe. As the Minister will know, the planning application is due to be heard at a public inquiry after a call-in next month. However, these objections were conveniently withdrawn after senior Ministers, including the Prime Minister, met senior members of the Chinese politburo at the end of last year. Can the Minister tell the House which Ministers directly intervened prior to the sending of the letter to the statutory consultees, why they did that and when? What purpose had they to intervene in this local planning issue?

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

I am slightly surprised that the noble Lord takes that view. I know that he has a background in local government and in planning, but he also has a background in strongly supporting the former Foreign Secretary and Prime Minister, Boris Johnson. It was Boris Johnson who wrote to the Government of China: “Consent is hereby given for the Royal Mint Court London to be deemed as diplomatic premises for the use as the chancery of the embassy of the People’s Republic of China in London”.

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

My Lords, the scale of the application is surely relevant, given the national security considerations the Minister announced. This Government have announced two elements of our relationship with China: the China audit, and the live consideration as to whether China should be designated for enhancement under the national security legislation because of political interference. Can the Minister reassure me that no planning decisions will be made in advance of these two pieces of work—the China audit and the consideration of China’s status under our national security legislation—being presented to Parliament?

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

As many noble Lords who have experience of the planning process will understand, this is a quasi-judicial process. It is right that the Home Secretary and the Foreign Secretary have submitted letters outlining their thoughts on this. These will be considered in the usual way by the inspectorate. This is an open process; other noble Lords and interested parties will be able to make representations.

[Lord Hayward (Con)]

My Lords, the Minister responded by not answering the question put to her as to why Cabinet Ministers wrote the letter that they did without noting the submission from the Metropolitan Police, let alone the one from Tower Hamlets Council. Can the Minister clarify why Cabinet Ministers wrote as they did, disregarding the advice from the Metropolitan Police?

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

That is not correct. The Home Secretary and the Foreign Secretary wrote expressing their consideration of national security issues, which they would like to be taken into account by the Planning Inspectorate. The Met withdrew its concerns of its own accord. I understand that the officers at Tower Hamlets Council recommended approval but the elected members decided that they did not wish to approve the application, as they had every right to do.

[Lord McDonald of Salford (CB)]

My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, pointed out, the proposed new embassy would be the biggest Chinese embassy in Europe. Are His Majesty’s Government persuaded that China needs such a very large embassy in the United Kingdom?

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

Noble Lords might be interested to understand that the Government of China have seven different locations around London although, of course, they have only one embassy. In the future, these sites could well be in one place, which would make it a very large embassy but China is a considerably large country with considerable interests. We want to develop our relationship with China. We want to co-operate, compete and challenge as appropriate but, more than that, to be consistent in our approach. We think that is the best way to raise the issues we have diplomatically and to tackle the growth challenge, as well as the climate challenge that we wish to see addressed.

[Lord Hannan of Kingsclere (Con)]

My Lords, when the Chancellor of the Exchequer came back from her recent visit to China, she boasted about having got £600 million of investment over 10 years. This is about what our bloated government spends every 12.5 hours. If that is all that the Chinese are ponying up, why do they need such a big embassy?

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

It is not for me to say how much real estate another Government might wish to have as their presence in London. As I just pointed out, at the moment they have seven locations here. Some consolidation is clearly desirable, as I think we can all appreciate.

[Lord Spellar (Lab)]

My Lords, is it not a fact that diplomatic relations are about the conduct of our international relations with countries and do not imply approval or disapproval one way or the other? Right around the world, big countries have big embassies. China is a big country. That is just a fact.

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

I have so many jokes about size in my head at the moment— I am not going to go there. I note what my noble friend says. I do not think it is any surprise that China would want to have a substantial presence in London.

[Baroness Foster of Aghadrumsee (Non-Afl)]

Will the Minister confirm that if planning conditions are put on this new embassy, compliance with them will be sought? In Belfast, we had breaches of planning regulations with the Chinese consulate, yet they claimed diplomatic immunity and did not comply with those planning regulations.

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

It is very important that any conditions that might be imposed are complied with. The noble Baroness is absolutely right to make that point.

[Lord Stirrup (CB)]

My Lords, the Minister said that the Government want a consistent approach to China. China certainly has a consistent approach, which is that the strategic intentions of the Chinese Communist Party trump everything. Will the Minister reassure the House that, in seeking to co-operate with China, as she said, the Government will bear in mind that everything the Chinese do—including in terms of trade, economic links and all the rest of it—is essentially underpinned by the Chinese Communist Party’s intention to rewrite the rules of the international order in its own interests?

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

The noble and gallant Lord is right that I said we want to co-operate with China, but we will also challenge China where we need to. We disagree on several issues, not least the treatment of the Uighur people and the imprisonment of Jimmy Lai, to name just two. We think that by having a straightforward diplomatic relationship with China, we are better able to raise those issues about which we disagree.

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

My Lords, what consultations took place with the local community and relevant stakeholders regarding the security, logistical and cultural implications of this proposed development before they decided to intervene?

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

A calling-in is a normal part of the planning process, as many noble Lords will understand because they, like me, have served in local government. There is always an opportunity for the local community to make its views known. That is encouraged and it is right that it happens; it has also happened in this case.

[Lord Sahota (Lab)]

My Lords, it is a well-known fact that foreign embassies’ workers do not pay their parking fines. Are all the Chinese diplomats paying their fines in London?

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

This is a long-standing issue. I remember seeing the noble Lord, Lord Ahmad, do 10 minutes on this very topic, during which he said not very much at all. We know that it is an issue and we raise it as appropriate. I expect that we will continue to raise it in the months to come.

[Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate (Con)]

My Lords, regardless of the point about the embassy and its location, today is the Chinese New Year—the Year of the Snake. Would the Minister therefore join us in congratulating Chinese citizens, but also all those in this country of Chinese extraction, on a happy new year?

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

That is a very good suggestion. I am happy to join the noble Lord and others in wishing everyone a happy Chinese New Year and Year of the Snake.

Chagos Islands

Baroness Chapman of Darlington Excerpts

Thursday 23rd January 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Bellingham]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what plans they have to engage with the new administration in the United States to discuss the future of the Chagos Islands.

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

My Lords, this deal protects UK and US national security interests by ensuring the long-term effective operations of the base. However, given the importance of the base to the US, it is right that the new Administration have the chance to consider the full agreement. We look forward to discussing the deal with them, which will include sharing the full detail of what has been agreed, including the detailed protections that we have secured for the base.

[Lord Bellingham (Con)]

I am grateful for that Answer. Is the Minister aware that, on independence, Mauritius was paid an extra grant to waive any future right to the Chagos Islands? Furthermore, is she aware that, because the UK did not contest the recent ICJ judgment, we are not bound by it, so it is purely advisory? Does she agree that it was a diplomatic error to push ahead with the treaty before the elections in Mauritius and the States? Has the time not now come to work with our American partners on a fresh treaty that protects the rights of the Chagossians while providing some sort of financial package for Mauritius? Above all, rather than a 99-year lease on Diego Garcia, which will only encourage the Chinese, should we not go for a sovereign base island in perpetuity?

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

Of course we are aware that the ICJ ruling is advisory—we have discussed it many times in this House—but just because that ruling was advisory does not mean that there would not be future rulings. We believe that we are in a stronger position to negotiate ahead of a binding ruling than we would be waiting for one. Interestingly, the previous Government shared that view, which is why they commenced two years and 11 or 12 rounds of negotiations themselves. We are working very closely with the new Administration in the United States, and we will talk to them in great detail about what this deal means.

[Baroness Foster of Aghadrumsee (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, one of the groups that feels so alienated from this entire process is the Chagossians who live here in the United Kingdom. Since the deal was announced by the Government, there has been little to no engagement with that group. I plead with the Minister to engage with those people, who live here in the United Kingdom and have a clear view as to the way they want to see things happen.

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

It is absolutely right that the noble Baroness raises the views of the Chagossian community, which has been badly treated over very many years. What matters now is that we are straightforward and upfront with them about what has been agreed, so that they do not feel that we are hiding things from them. We would be happy to engage with the Chagossian community. I believe my honourable friend Stephen Doughty, the Minister responsible for this arrangement, has met them in the recent past, but I will certainly take on board her encouragement that we do some more of that engagement.

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

My Lords, has the Minister seen reports that these negotiations and discussions—which, incidentally, as she said, were started by Members opposite—have led to some people suggesting that there is some doubt about the sovereignty of the Falkland Islands and Gibraltar? Does she agree that these comments from Members opposite are mischievous, and can she confirm that they are untrue?

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

They are not just mischievous; they are opportunistic, wrong, misleading and undermine the confidence of the Falkland Islanders. Our commitment to the Falklands is non-negotiable, and our commitment to self-determination remains as strong as it has ever been.

[Lord Craig of Radley (CB)]

Will the Minister confirm that, whatever solution is adopted, there will be payments to the Government of Mauritius? If so, will the United States make a contribution? Will she confirm that the Ministry of Defence will not make a contribution?

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

The noble and gallant Lord invites me to go further than my briefing allows. We do not comment on the payments made for military bases—we never have done and I do not think we will do that any time soon.

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

The previous Administration, on whose behalf the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, will be able to respond in a moment, opened sovereignty negotiations in 2022. The national security interests of the United States are legitimate. Our interests are also about upholding international law and ensuring that Chagossians do not receive any more mistreatment under international law. Will the Minister assure me that, although the American Administration have a right to discussions, decisions on UK national security should ultimately be in our hands, not in those of Donald Trump?

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

As I know the noble Lord understands, this is an agreement between the UK Government and the Government of Mauritius, but practically, given that the base on Diego Garcia is a joint base between the UK and the US, we think, and the Mauritian Government agree, that it is right that a new Administration in the United States have the opportunity to look at this and give their view. We are very happy for that to happen.

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)]

My Lords, first, I refute the allegation that anyone on these Benches believes that any of our overseas territories should be given away. Security comes first, and I am sure that view is shared across your Lordships’ House—just to be clear. Secondly, on the issue of the British Indian Ocean Territory, yes, there were 11 rounds of negotiations. There was a reason why 11 rounds took place: because the issue of security could not be addressed. I was there when we worked with President Trump’s first Administration, who were very clear—as, indeed, is the spokesman for this new Administration—that security comes first. We could not agree, which is why there were so many rounds. What changed to allow the Government to sign that deal?

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

If the noble Lord is concerned about comments by Members on the security and future of the Falklands, he ought to have a word with some of his colleagues about the comments that they have made.

[Noble Lords]

Oh!

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

I am responding to the points raised by the noble Lord. There were 11 rounds, and it was very clear in the Statement made to this House and in the other place by the then Foreign Secretary, Mr Cleverly, that those negotiations took place in good faith in order to secure the future of the base on Diego Garcia. That is something that this Government have been able to negotiate. Why the noble Lord’s Government failed to get there is a matter for him.

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

My Lords, perhaps we failed to get there because it was not the right deal for the UK. Has the Minister had the chance to read last week’s excellent Policy Exchange report on this Chagos handover? She says that she has. The forward to that report say that

“our overseas military bases—so indispensable to British national security—are an invaluable currency. So too is the strength and depth of our relationship with the United States.

For reasons that are difficult to fathom, the Government risks jeopardising both of these assets as it apparently remains determined to cede sovereignty of the Chagos Islands—the home of our … Diego Garcia military base—to Mauritius”.


That foreword was written by the noble Lord, Lord West of Spithead, a former Labour Defence Minister. Does she agree with her noble friend?

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

I think noble Lords will be pleased to know that I have not had time to read the foreword to that Policy Exchange document. It is our view, which we maintain, that we needed to resolve this issue. We prioritised security and defence when we made our decisions. That is the UK Government’s position. We have secured an arrangement with the Mauritians that we believe guarantees the security of that base. We continue with the process towards the signing of that treaty.

[Lord Cromwell (CB)]

My Lords, the mean height of the Chagos Islands is four feet above sea level. Is global warming going to take this political bickering out of all of our hands?

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

I hope not. I do not see it as political bickering, actually; it is a legitimate debate. These are important decisions and I am very happy to be held to account for the decisions that we are taking. The noble Lord is right, however, to alert us to the plight of many small islands across the world that are suffering from the impact of climate change. That is why this Government have a commitment to doing everything we can to reduce our carbon emissions.

[Lord Waldegrave of North Hill (Con)]

My Lords, does the Minister agree that the net result of the negotiations has been to introduce instability? The word is out to the Mauritian Government that if they go back to the original deal and ask for more money, they will get more money. This insecurity will be very damaging. If we now abandon the foolish deal that the Government have reached under instruction from President Trump, will we not look rather foolish and rather abject?

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

No. Like the previous Government, we think that this situation needed to be resolved in a way that gave security for the future. We have a deal that will last at least 99 years. It is far better to deal with that ahead of any binding ruling, where the UK was likely to lose support, than to wait for a binding ruling and negotiate from a position that would have been far weaker.

UK-Ukraine 100-year Partnership

Baroness Chapman of Darlington Excerpts

Wednesday 22nd January 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

My Lords, I am very happy to align myself and these Benches with everything that the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, has said. If we think back over this three-year period in British politics, we see that consensus has been hard to reach—but this is an area where there has been no division between any of the Benches within the two Houses of our Parliament. Indeed, in respect of the position of the previous Administration and this one, this agreement brings together both government-to-government relations, or the nine pillars within the agreement, and people-to-people relations, which, as the noble Lord said, are becoming ever deeper.

I also agree with the noble Lord’s observations on the coming period, when there will be an area of uncertainty, especially since the new President was elected in the United States, in the context of our main ally being the United States. But I am happy that UK policy is set by the UK and that the consensus in Parliament is therefore rock solid.

A 100-year agreement is unique. I looked at what Ukraine was like in 1925—and when you search for that, Ukrainisation comes up as the top element. There were attempts to ensure that the identity, language, culture and literature of Ukraine were protected. That was diminished under later Soviet rule—but to my mind that suggests that, whether it is with Stalin or Putin, there is an identity for an independent and autonomous people in Ukraine who wish to ensure that their own destiny is in their hands. The UK will be a stalwart ally over this Government and their successor Governments. While this is unique for being a 100-year agreement, we support it.

We support in particular the areas where we would use what are to some extent our best global assets, on renewable technology, the National Health Service, education and culture. The partnership with Ukraine within those pillars is to be welcomed. Can the Minister say, when it comes particularly to energy, renewables and green steel, whether the Government will be open to ensuring that all parts of the UK, especially our devolved Administrations, are deeply involved in this 100-year agreement? I live in Scotland, and the people of Scotland have opened their hearts and homes to those who have fled Putin’s illegal war—but we also have strategic advantage, especially when it comes to renewable energy and technology.

Economic and technical support will be incredibly important. As we debated just last week, one consequence of the illegal war on Ukraine is that 40% of the Ukrainian economy is now dedicated to defending itself. Technical support and partnership with the UK for economic reconstruction will be to the advantage of both countries. The Minister will have been briefed on assets, because we debated them fairly recently. She will be aware that these Benches are making the case that assets should be seized and used for the immediate and medium-term reconstruction of Ukraine, as well as for Ukraine’s ability to defend itself. If she could outline a bit more the timetable of when Ukraine will, we hope, be able to use some of the assets that we approved in legislation last week, that would be helpful.

I end with an appeal and an observation. The appeal is that one of the elements that I have found very important in Ukraine’s defence is the Verkhovna Rada—the Ukrainian Parliament. I had the privilege of visiting it before the war on three occasions and met many MPs and staff. It was telling that one of the first military objectives of the Russian assault on Ukraine was, within the first 48 hours, to seize the Verkhovna Rada, to cease its functioning, to ensure that MPs could not carry out their constitutional role in representing the people and to stop all legislation. It has carried on and shown incredible resilience. As a Parliament, it is a model around the world for being able to carry on its legislative and representative functions in incredibly difficult circumstances.

I hope the long-term relationship will be not just Government to Government but Parliament to Parliament. I know Mr Speaker and the Lord Speaker have extremely close relations with their counterparts in Kyiv, but I hope the Minister might be able to say that in those areas that the Government fund, whether the Westminster Foundation for Democracy or other technical assistance, we can support the Verkhovna Rada in carrying out its functions and the critical role it will play to ensure that any reconstruction is open, transparent and representative.

I close by repeating the words of my honourable friend Calum Miller. He said to the Foreign Secretary:

“We must stand with Ukraine for the long haul. The Ukrainian people must be in charge of their own destiny. If the UK’s new pledge is to be real, it must address the uncertainty generated by President Trump. The Prime Minister’s 100-year commitment must outlast the President’s desire for a quick deal in his first 100 days”.—[Official Report, Commons, 20/1/25; col. 738.]


I am certain that the Government’s intent is one we can support wholeheartedly. I would be grateful if the Minister would outline certain areas where we can use this as not just a statement of intent but a practical relationship that can help Ukraine be both resilient in war and successful in peace.

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

My Lords, I am incredibly grateful for the words of the noble Lords, Lord Callanan and Lord Purvis of Tweed. As they both said, it is so important that we commit ourselves to maintaining the unity that we have held so clearly for the three years that Ukraine has been experiencing the illegal invasion.

It is right that I pay tribute to the work of the previous Conservative Government—the Prime Ministers, Foreign Secretaries and Secretaries of State for Defence who worked so hard to support Ukraine during their time in office. I am grateful that the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, made that point. I am happy to agree with him and I thank him for the support that his party is providing in opposition to this Government. I also echo his comment about the people of the United Kingdom who, as he said, have been welcoming and, in many cases, hosting families from Ukraine in their homes. The support in our communities up and down the country remains as firm as it has ever been. I am happy to assure him that we will keep the commitment to £3 billion a year for as long as it takes to support Ukraine in its defence.

The noble Lord asked for an update on spending on military and humanitarian work. As I think I have said before, there is £7.8 billion of total support, including £3 billion for 2024-25. We have a commitment to provide £3 billion per year until 2030-31, and for as long as it takes, and for the UK to contribute £2.26 billion to the $50 billion of extraordinary revenue acceleration loans for Ukraine agreed by G7 leaders in June. The Government have laid legislation to facilitate disbursement. On humanitarian aid, the UK is providing at least £120 million in humanitarian assistance through to the end of financial year 2024-25, bringing our total contribution to Ukraine and the region to £477 million since the start of the full-scale invasion. Another £15 million delivered through UNHCR and UNICEF will support those most in need this winter.

The noble Lord, Lord Purvis of Tweed, asked about those from Ukraine living here and their status. Obviously, this is a matter for the Home Office, but we are all glad that their status has been renewed and that their ability to stay here is now secure for the time being. I am sometimes asked what this will mean in the longer term. I am very mindful of the words of President Zelensky, when he said that he wanted people to be able to go home. We do not want to compound Ukraine’s problems by keeping people here when they can be at home in Ukraine, contributing to the rebuilding of their community and their country.

I was very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Purvis of Tweed, for highlighting pillar 9 of the agreement on the people-to-people work. This is so important for morale in Ukraine and it will be vital as we move forward in the years and decades to come. He also raised the very important point—Speaker Hoyle will be glad that he did—about Parliament-to-Parliament work and rebuilding democratic structures and institutions. Speaker diplomacy is underpriced when we consider this work, and I know there will be much to be done and said, and links to be forged. It is wonderful to have his support in that. He is right too to remind us of history and to look back at 1925: that is an interesting thing to do. Let us just hope that the partnership we are agreeing between our countries today means that, in 100 years’ time, we can look back and see what was agreed in 2025 as a turning point for Ukraine, having endured so much.

The noble Lord also raised questions about climate and energy. This is vital and is covered in pillar 5 of the agreement. He is absolutely right—and I am as passionate as he is about this—that we must enable our regions and nations fully to take part in this work. It is vital that we do that.

The noble Lord also asked about assets. As he will know, we put into law an agreement enabling us to use the profits from seized Russian assets, but he will also understand that we have to proceed carefully. We are very actively discussing all this and want to make sure that we can do everything we can in this regard. Those discussions are very much live within government, I can promise him that.

To conclude, I thank both Front-Bench speakers once again for their continued support for Ukraine.

[Lord Lancaster of Kimbolton (Con)]

My Lords, to date, the UK has given £7.8 billion-worth of military assistance to Ukraine and that has been paid for from the Treasury reserve. Under this agreement, we commit to give a further £3 billion per year until 2030. Can the Minister say whether that will continue to be paid for from the Treasury reserve, or will it, as some fear, be transferred to the defence budget, because without the appropriate baselining that would effectively negate any increase in the defence budget to 2.5%?

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Lancaster, for his steadfast support and championing of the need to have sufficient resources for the MoD; I have seen him do this on many occasions. Of course, this will be subject to discussion between the Treasury and the MoD, and my understanding is that it will be allowed for within the MoD budget. We will make sure at every stage that our troops have everything that they need. We are committed to the 2.5%, and we are committed to providing the £3 billion per year to Ukraine.

[The Lord Bishop of Manchester]

My Lords, I hope the thin attendance tonight does not mean that we in the United Kingdom are losing interest in Ukraine, especially when I think of the huge number that gathered in Westminster Hall when President Zelensky came and spoke to us, and when many of us went across and sat in the Gallery in the other place when he spoke on a Zoom-type link in the early days of the conflict.

It is my privilege, as the Bishop of Manchester, to regularly attend social functions at the Ukrainian Cultural Centre, which is only about a mile away from my home. We have had a strong Ukrainian community in Manchester since the Second World War, if not before. That has been greatly increased in recent times, by those who have come as refugees. I share the comments that others have already made about hoping that many of those people will want to go back and rebuild their countries.

We are talking about friendship and a 100-year friendship at that, but a partnership has to be built on more than just defence spending or mutual hatred of a common enemy; it needs to be about building connections at every level. I am pleased to hear what was said about parliamentary connections, but I am thinking in terms of the church connections that I build with my friends in the Ukrainian Catholic Church. What other civil society connections can we strengthen and grow if this friendship or partnership really is to last and be of benefit not only to the people of Ukraine but to this country as well?

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

First, I think the lack of attendance this evening is probably something to do with a couple of late nights of voting. It is not lack of support at all; it is a lack of disagreement between our parties. If we disagreed, this place would be full, and the fact that we agree so strongly means that noble Lords feel confident in all Front Benches being here and saying things with which they would agree.

I am so glad that the issue of people-to-people links is featuring so much in this discussion. It is true that this cannot only be Government to Government or Parliament to Parliament; it needs to encompass the whole of civil society. We are speaking to the British Council, the Premier League and many other organisations so that there is a real depth to that partnership, under pillar 9 in the agreement, which is something we feel passionately about. I know that Members from across the House will want to bring their contacts, expertise and experience to contribute to making pillar 9 as deep and meaningful as we can.

[Baroness Helic (Con)]

My Lords, I welcome the Government’s clarity on the moral and strategic necessity of supporting Ukraine, and the House’s full support—from those who are here—for the future of Ukraine, and what both we and the Government have done previously. But the West’s longstanding appeasement of Russia, from Moldova to Georgia to Crimea, emboldened Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine. A pre-emptive and timely response would have been far less costly in lives and resources than addressing the aftermath. However, we are where we are. We now risk repeating the same mistakes in the western Balkans. Sadly, today’s Serbia mirrors Russia’s 2014 trajectory, engaging in large-scale rearmament and actively backing secessionists in Bosnia and Kosovo. With that in mind, can the Minister say what concrete steps the Government have taken in the western Balkans not to have the Ukraine scenario repeated there? Can she clarify the Government’s position on rejoining Operation Althea?

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

I thank the noble Baroness for reminding us of the wider context—it is very important—as well as reminding us of the not-too-distant history of this conflict. I can assure her that my honourable friend, Minister Stephen Doughty, is in regular contact with our friends and allies in the Balkans, and he is working very hard to prevent the situation that she warns us of. It is right that we do not take our eye off the situation which she discusses.

[Lord Lancaster of Kimbolton (Con)]

With your Lordships’ indulgence, I will ask one more question since we have lots of time. I want to pick up on a point that the Minister made in her initial response about the status of refugees in the United Kingdom. I declare an interest in that my wife, Caroline Dinenage, the MP for Gosport, and I have hosted a Ukrainian family for the last two and a half years. They are very happy here and are pleased that there is clarity that, with their initial visa due to end shortly, they will be allowed to apply for a further 18-month extension, which, of course, takes them to four and a half years—some six months shy of the five years required to apply for indefinite leave to remain. Notwithstanding the Minister’s comments about not wishing to hold them here, the brutal reality is that they have made their home here and they wish to stay. They do not wish to go back to Ukraine because they simply do not have anything to go back to. While I realise the Minister cannot commit as to their status, will she perhaps take this opportunity to say that the one thing the Government will not be doing is forcing people to go back to Ukraine?

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

First, I acknowledge that the noble Lord and Caroline have done so much to support a family from Ukraine. Although many families are doing this, it is still an exceptional act of generosity and welcome. It is truly something we should acknowledge and thank him and Caroline for. I respect that he has taken this opportunity to raise this issue and highlight the feelings and thoughts of some people who are here from Ukraine who may feel as he describes. Clearly, this would be a matter for the Home Office at the point at which their status comes up for renewal again. I would not want to prejudge what the Home Office might decide, but he has made the case very strongly and clearly, and I am sure that that will be heard by colleagues at the Home Office.

Colombia: Bilateral Investment Treaty

Baroness Chapman of Darlington Excerpts

Monday 20th January 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Browne of Ladyton]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of recent comments by the trade minister of Colombia regarding the investor-state dispute settlement provisions in the UK/Colombia bilateral investment treaty.

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

My Lords, the Government value the UK/Colombia bilateral investment treaty in the investment relationship between our countries. The treaty covered £6.8 billion of bilateral investment in 2023. It provides greater certainty for investors through legally binding investment protection provisions, which ensure that both UK and Colombian investors are protected against unfair and discriminatory treatment and expropriation without adequate compensation.

[Lord Browne of Ladyton (Lab)]

My Lords, my noble friend will be aware that Colombia seeks renegotiation of the terms of its investment treaty with the UK, concerned—and it is not alone in this concern—that the ISDS provisions are undermining its sovereign democratic right to legislate to protect its indigenous community and environmental rights, or to implement aspects of its national peace plan. In 10 years, it has faced 23 ISDS claims by multinational companies. One was by Glencore mining, prompted by a refusal to authorise the expansion the largest open-pit coal mine—or, if it is not the largest, it is one of the largest—in the world. Last year, we withdrew from the energy charter because of concerns that its ISDS provisions would impede our policy to phase out fossil fuels. It would be somewhat inconsistent to do that while compelling Colombia to abide by similar ISDS provisions in our treaty with it.

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

My Lords, as of today His Majesty’s Government have not been formally approached by the Government of Colombia about this, but we are of course always open to hearing the views of our trading partners. Established forums exist for civil society organisations to raise and discuss trade-related issues with government Ministers. Most recently, my right honourable friend the Minister for Trade Policy and Economic Security hosted a civil society round table in December, which included a discussion on ISDS. Ministers will continue to engage with a range of stakeholders, including from civil society, across the full range of trade policy issues, including investment.

[Lord Fox (LD)]

My Lords, as we have heard, ISDSs are not rare—there are many of them. However, increasingly they are coming under scrutiny and, moving forward, some countries are not seeking them because, as in high-profile cases such as the ones we have heard about, and in others, democratically elected Governments are being challenged and are having to overturn legitimate public policy. Can the Minister tell your Lordships’ House whether she recognises the improper regulatory chill that these agreements can create for democratically elected Governments? Can she set out, in a general sense, the Government’s position for the future? Will the Government continue to seek ISDS agreements in trade deals that they are currently negotiating?

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

I am grateful to the noble Lord. I appreciate, as he invited me to, that these agreements stand over a very long period of time. Between an agreement being put in place and 10 years later—which is where we are now with Colombia—at which point there is an opportunity to look at it again, many things may change and it is open to either side to seek changes to the agreement, or to walk away entirely. At the moment, the Colombians have not indicated to us that that is their intention. It should be remembered that these bilateral treaties are helpful in providing assurance to investors, and that is something that we would not want to harm in any way.

[Baroness Coussins (CB)]

My Lords, as of last year, ISDS claims pending against Colombia exceeded $13 billion. As the penholder for the Colombian peace process at the Security Council, what assessment have His Majesty’s Government made of the impact of this on Colombia’s ability to resource the implementation of the peace accord? How can we leverage our role as penholder to help Colombia achieve this?

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

The United Kingdom is absolutely committed to supporting Colombia in the peace process, and enormous progress has been made. We see these things as separate. I think Colombia has faced 26 cases since 2016. Only four of them have been brought by the UK, so we hope that we can continue to trade with Colombia and to invest in Colombia—it is an important partner for us—and to support it as it moves forward with its peace process.

[Lord Hannan of Kingsclere (Con)]

My Lords, the arguments against the ISDS do not come just from the ecological lobby; there is a democratic argument against them, and there is an argument that they give some foreign companies an unfair advantage over domestic ones. None the less, as the Minister correctly says, they are a necessary way of attracting investment. Can she confirm that, wherever we decide to draw that balance, we should apply it consistently across all our trade deals? It would be neither credible nor sustainable to start changing them because of lobbying from one particular country, which would then encourage every other trading partner to do the same thing.

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

I think so—but there is a difference between being consistent and having a cut-and-paste approach. Every context is unique and Colombia is a particularly special partner for us, for reasons that noble Lords will understand.

[Baroness Boycott (CB)]

My Lords, I declare my interest as director of the Hay Festival Cartagena in Colombia. We will have our 20th anniversary next week, when we will be joined by many politicians, environmentalists and tribal leaders. Perhaps I might extend the question from the noble Baroness, Lady Coussins, about the $13 billion. Australia does not have an ISDS agreement with Colombia. The mega mining group BHP has found a workaround via its UK-registered spin-off company, South32, to sue Colombia for $94 million over alleged unpaid royalties from a mine that the Constitutional Court of Colombia has ruled causes serious long-term health and environmental issues. As the penholder, can we not intervene in this? Colombia has 10% of the world’s unique birds and, just in the last 12 months, it has found 12 new species of plants and an animal, an amphibian, that we did not even know existed.

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

Colombia is an astonishing country, not least because of its biodiversity. It would not be right to try to leverage our role as penholder for the peace process at the Security Council to intervene in issues of trade. The UK is the fourth-largest investor in Colombia and we seek to work through these issues alongside Colombia in the spirit of mutual respect and partnership.

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, the Colombian Trade Minister said that the Colombian justice system had the tools to guarantee investors all reasonable protections and due process for the protection of their rights. Have His Majesty’s Government conducted an assessment of the Colombian justice system? If a renegotiation of the agreement takes place, are they satisfied that UK investors’ rights will be guaranteed all reasonable protections? That is particularly important given the ongoing dispute between ViiV Healthcare and the Colombian Government over intellectual property rights.

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

The noble Lord opposite is rather rushing his fences. Of course we would look at these things, should there be a formal request for a review or any change from the Government of Colombia, but, as of today, that is not the case. We regularly speak with our partners in Colombia—I was there myself in December—so we would be very happy to have any kind of dialogue that they wish. However, we have not had that request as of now.

[Baroness O'Grady of Upper Holloway (Lab)]

My Lords, does the Minister recognise that a fatal flaw of the ISDS secret court system is that it privileges big corporations over access and rights for citizens and workers? Can she update us on how the Government are pursuing a trade policy that can be a win-win in providing and protecting jobs and levering up labour standards, recognising that Colombia has a history of being one of the most dangerous countries in the world in which to be a trade unionist?

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

I recognise what my noble friend said. I have met with many civil society organisations, including Justice For Colombia, very recently. It is important that these agreements provide a win-win. The UK wants to be a responsible partner with all our trading partners, but—I think it is fair to say—especially with Colombia.

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

My Lords, following on from the last question, the United Nations special rapporteur on the right to development has said that ISDSs are crippling for many countries in terms of the impact on development. They have been described as a form of modern-day colonialism. Does the Minister agree with that? Does she agree that ISDSs are a significant barrier to delivering the sustainable development goals to which the whole world has signed up?

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

I certainly would not describe our relationship with Colombia in any way as being to do with colonialism, and Colombia would not, either. We have a respectful, equal relationship of partnership. We have supported Colombia for a very long time, across multiple Governments both here and there, towards its goal of total peace, and that is what we will continue to do.