Ukraine: Frozen Russian Assets

Baroness Chapman of Darlington Excerpts

Wednesday 26th February 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Foulkes of Cumnock]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what action they are taking to release frozen Russian assets to help Ukraine.

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

My Lords, alongside our G7 allies, we have been clear on the principle that Russia must pay for the damage it is causing to Ukraine. We are considering all lawful routes to ensure Russia pays. We are also providing Ukraine with an additional £2.26 billion, earmarked for military spending, as part of the G7’s $50 billion extraordinary revenue acceleration loans, which will be repaid using the profits generated on sanctioned Russian sovereign assets in the EU.

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

My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for that excellent Answer. I think she knows that I have written to the Chancellor, as I wrote to previous Chancellors, asking that the £2.5 billion which Abramovich got for the sale of Chelsea Football Club be unfrozen and sent to Ukraine, where it is urgently needed. If the Government were able to take quick action on this, it would be welcome on all sides of the House.

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lord for sending me a copy of the letter he has written; it is very helpful, and it is now with officials. I commend him for the tenacity with which he approaches this and every other issue, but this issue in particular. He is right to do so, and he must keep pressing the Government on this. We are moving as fast as we can, but it is good to have the encouragement and support of Members of this House.

[Lord Stirrup (CB)]

My Lords, is there not considerable irony in the fact that Ukrainian capital resources will be used to refund some of America’s costs in the war, but the Russian aggressor’s capital assets are not being used to refund Ukraine? Will the Prime Minister be raising this issue during his visit in Washington, at the very least regarding its use as leverage in any negotiations on an end to the fighting?

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

The principle we apply here is that Russia must pay for the damage it has caused to Ukraine, but we want to make sure that we do that in a way that is legal, and in co-ordination with our partners and allies. The conversations that need to be had to bring that about will be taking place.

[Lord Banner (Con)]

My Lords, the Government have been saying for many months since they came into power that they have been considering the use of frozen Russian state funds for reparations for Ukraine. Do the Government accept that the time for a decision has come, before it is too late?

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

We all want to see Russia pay to rebuild Ukraine; it is right that that happens. The way that is done needs to be legally sound, and it needs to be done in co-ordination with our allies. That is the approach we are taking. I appreciate the encouragement to speed, and I acknowledge that we have been in this position for some months now. I accept what the noble Lord says, and I take his question as a spur to action for the Government. I can assure him that we are keenly seized of the argument he makes.

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

My Lords, these Benches have argued consistently that the assets should be seized and aid should not be cut. But yesterday, the Government announced drastic reductions to programmes that would support victims of sexual assault and rape in conflict. Does the Minister agree that it would be wrong if the Kremlin gets its money back from the United Kingdom, but our support for victims of sexual crimes in conflict does not get their lives back? At this last minute, before the programmes are cut, will the Government reconsider and ensure that not one penny supporting the victims of sexual assault in this conflict will be cut through overseas development assistance reductions?

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

The Prime Minister was very clear yesterday when he made the Statement in the other place that programmes in Ukraine, Sudan and Gaza were to be prioritised. The decision that was taken yesterday was difficult but important, and it is one that I completely support. It was the right thing to do: we must provide the additional resources to our defence to provide security. This is essential. It is not a situation that anybody is happy about, but I am afraid that politics, governing and leading are about tough choices. We have a Prime Minister who is prepared to make those tough choices, and I am proud of the decision that he made yesterday.

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

My Lords, there is a great degree of unanimity across the House that, as we mark the sombre third anniversary of this illegal and barbaric war, we stand wholly and entirely with the brave people of Ukraine, and we support the Government in their actions on this. I understand the Minister’s point about the difficult legal complexities of seizing Russian assets outright; I would like to see that done but I understand that it is difficult. Have the Government considered using these assets as collateral for long-term loans to help to support Ukraine’s reconstruction, while avoiding the unintended financial consequences that I know the Government are concerned about?

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

In a sense, that is already what is happening because the interest on the assets is being used to repay the loan that has been made. We are contributing around £2.6 billion to that, alongside partners in the EU, United States, Canada and Japan. That is the right thing to do, and I know his party supports it. I take the opportunity again, as we did last night, to thank the Opposition for their unwavering support for the Government in our approach to Ukraine, just as we supported his Government since the beginning of this conflict.

[Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe (Lab)]

My Lords, many of the frozen assets are properties, and many of those properties are empty. I look across the Thames and see a great building where Abramovich had four floors. Will the Government explore the possibility of using those empty buildings, in particular for Ukrainians and immigration?

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

That is an interesting idea; it is the first time I have heard that suggestion. I will take it back and ask that it be explored by officials. It is important, though, that whatever we do is legally sound and is done collaboratively with our partners and allies. Whatever we do, we have to be acting within the law, because part of our argument against what Russia has done is that it was a breach of international law. We take our obligations very seriously, and we want to make sure that whatever we do, alongside our partners and allies, is legally sound.

[Baroness Bull (CB)]

My Lords, as of January, UNESCO has verified damage to 476 cultural sites: churches, museums, libraries—noble Lords know what they are. This is not mere collateral damage; it is a deliberate attempt to destroy identity, culture and heritage. The 100-year partnership agreement commits us to working together to avoid looting, to restore this heritage and to counteract this cultural erasure. What consideration has been given to the use of these frozen assets towards that important shared endeavour?

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

That is such an important point. Often, when we talk about reconstruction, we are talking about airfields, roads and railway tracks. The cultural assets of a country that has been under such threat as Ukraine has experienced are so important in rebuilding that sense of identity—the Ukrainian sense of self and confidence—and in the message that that sends. We will do everything we can to support Ukraine in that, as we have said, in our 100-year partnership. On whether those assets can be used, the same argument applies that applies to any other form of reconstruction, and it must be done legally and correctly, in accordance with law.

[Baroness Hoey (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, the Minister will know that there are millions of pounds of frozen Libyan assets in London, and that there has been a long campaign by victims of Libyan Semtex supplied to the IRA for compensation through that. Will she look again at this? Other countries have managed to get the compensation. Will she also please put into the public domain the Shawcross report, which we are all waiting to see and which looked into this whole issue?

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

The point about doing this legally applies equally in every situation. I will look into the question the noble Baroness raises about the Shawcross report, but I want to be completely clear that we are examining all legal routes available to us in order to get the money that should rightfully be spent on reconstructing Ukraine.

[Lord Mackenzie of Framwellgate (Non-Afl)]

My Lords—

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Petitgas (Con)]

It is fine to talk about frozen assets and say that Russia should pay, but I want to switch gears a little bit. It looks like the Americans are focused on getting Ukraine partly to pay through this rare earth deal. I read that Zelensky was going to fly over on Friday to sign the deal. Do the Government think we should be involved in some way in a deal like this? President Macron pointed out to Trump that the European Union had put up more money than the US, and today the FT has an article with a very simple graph showing that the EU is a bigger contributor than the US—and actually, the UK looks pretty big too. When it comes to the question of sending troops, not having anything on the rare earth deal and then chasing the Russians, it feels like something is missing. What is the Government’s position on that?

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

I hear what the noble Lord is saying, but, as he has given quite a full summary of public statements over the last few days, he will be aware that it is probably not helpful for me to speculate from this Dispatch Box on conversations and the agreements that may or may not be reached in the coming days, tempted as I am. The thing that concerns us all is to find a way to end this conflict and restore the territorial integrity of Ukraine, and that whatever deals are done are in line with what Ukraine and its leadership wants. That is the firm ground on which this Government stand.

Ukraine

Baroness Chapman of Darlington Excerpts

Tuesday 25th February 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

My Lords, from these Benches I am very happy to associate myself with the noble Lord’s comments with regards to supporting the Government, as we did with the former Government. The noble Lord, Lord Ahmad, who is in his place, will know that I supported the previous Administration’s approach.

The noble Lord closed by referring to the free world being united; it is no fault of any of our political parties that the free world is no longer united, given the Trump Administration. It is a time for us to consider very carefully how we, with our European and other allies around the world who believe in genuine democracy, will support democracy.

It is worth reminding ourselves that the Putin plan was activated in February 2022 with a timeframe of three days. It had been planned that President Zelensky was either to be detained or assassinated. The Verkhovna Rada, the Ukrainian Parliament, was to be attacked and then dissolved and the Ukrainian people to have a puppet regime imposed on them. That was meant to happen in three days. Three years later, the bravery and the fortitude of the Ukrainian people, led by inspiring leaders and enduring a further war winter in terrible physical and psychological danger and stress, should be an inspiration for us all.

The fact that, under unbearable conditions, Ukraine’s democratic and representative functions continue should also be an inspiration for any democracy, not the source of an attack by a leading democracy led by Trump and Musk. The Minister knows that I have supported, since the current Labour Government have been in place, the sanctions and measures that have been introduced, and we will continue to do so. I welcome the sanctions that were announced today, especially those that seek to reduce the dark fleet, as well as the Russian war economy. We have played our part in the cross-party consensus in approving these measures, but we have also sought, in a constructive manner, to ensure that the Russian war economy does not exploit loopholes or circumvent sanctions with trading partners.

We have been able to have unanimity but also frank exchanges in this Parliament, because that is what democratic Parliaments do. We have also sought to raise the need to do more with our trading partners, who have seen an opportunity to profit from the war without contributing to the peace, be it Dubai or Delhi, seeking more investment from the former without penalty for financing the Kremlin, or, in the latter case, seeking conditionality in trade deal talks that we are now opening up again with India, potentially offering market access and energy to those who are purchasing energy from the Kremlin. We have to be frank with our allies that we have standards in both our trade and our diplomacy, and therefore we want to see that reflected in our agreements with them.

It is also why we have sought to continue the pressure not just for utilising the resource from assets that have been frozen but to seize them. We have debated this in this Chamber before, and the Minister has heard my comments on it. What has happened now with the Trump Administration, and in the vote in the Security Council, and Trump seeking to blackmail Zelensky over mineral rights, is that, frankly, any Russian assets that are seized should now be immobilised against being used by the Putin regime as part of some form of reward for doing a deal which excludes the Ukrainian people. There should be no moveable assets to reward this. There should be no impunity for this aggression, and therefore we should be using the capital of the assets for the benefit of the Ukrainian people.

I agree that we must counter a foreign policy based on lies, as the Statement says. The worry, with the vote in the UN Security Council, is that, increasingly, it is hard to disaggregate the lies and falsehoods from our strongest ally, not necessarily just from our strategic adversary in the Kremlin. As the Polish Foreign Minister put it, the new world is one where we now are seeing the reputation not just of the Trump Administration being put in question, but America as a whole. Given that our relationship with America is so important to our national security and diplomacy, this has to be something of consideration.

Therefore, I close by making the point that the debate we held in this House under my noble friend Lady Northover about the need to protect the rules-based international order was prescient. This is now an urgent matter for the United Kingdom. When it comes to the decision of the Trump Administration to demolish USAID and destroy the reputation of America, the UK response should have been filling the gap, seeing a strategic opportunity for us to expand our soft power and have a debate which means that our national security is one where we keep our people safe but we build up coalitions around the world, we prevent conflict and we work to remove the incentives for conflict, which could be hunger and migration.

The response to what is happening in America is for us to expand our international development, not to cut it by a bigger margin than the previous Government. This is sending the worst signal at the worst time about where the United Kingdom stands. We all support the increase of our national security defence expenditure. It should not be funded on the backs of the most vulnerable in the world, when, ultimately, for our security at home we are seeking to have coalitions abroad. I hope the Government will reconsider.

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

My Lords, we have discussed Ukraine many times in this Chamber, and on every single occasion we have done so there has been close agreement between all parties. I particularly commend the words of the noble Lord, Lord Callanan; he put the case for the Opposition incredibly well and he is supporting this Government as we endeavoured to support his Government when they were in power. And this matters: it is incredibly important that, as a country, we stand together on this issue and I am very proud of the way that this Chamber and the other place have done that again this week.

A just peace means Ukraine at the centre of any resolution. We all agree on that; we have said that consistently and that has not changed. The noble Lord is right to highlight the importance of the transatlantic relationship. We are all aware of what happened last night, but the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary will be going to Washington tomorrow and they will have the conversations that we would want them to have and that we would be proud to see them have on behalf of our country, making clear our position of support for Ukraine, which is in no way diminished.

On sanctions, we continued with a new raft of sanctions to mark the third anniversary. It is very important that we have the support expressed in terms by the Opposition and the Liberal Democrat Benches. The noble Lord, Lord Purvis, is absolutely right to continue, as he has done from the very beginning, to look for where we need to go next and to push us and to keep saying, “Why not here? Why not do this? What about these other considerations you could make?” That is right and welcome. We thank him for it and we hope that he continues in that way.

We thank him for reminding us of the bravery of the people of Ukraine. It is worth repeating that this was anticipated to be a short invasion. Zelensky was meant to leave. The world today was meant to be very different from what we see. Thanks to the bravery of the people of Ukraine and the leadership of President Zelensky, we find that Russia is in a situation where it is having to go to North Korea in order to shore up its troops. That has not happened by accident; it has happened because of the resolution of the United Kingdom and its allies and the people of Ukraine.

On the decision to change our development spending to 0.3% to support our defence spending rising to 2.5%, of course this is controversial and not a decision that any Labour Government would wish to make. We created the Department for International Development and we are very proud of it. We are proud, too, of the impact that our aid spending has had across the world over many years. But the world has changed and we have to be able to invest in our armed forces and in new technology that will keep us safe.

I accept what the noble Lord says about the impact that this will have in some places around the world—of course I do. But I am convinced—and I disagree with him on what he said—that actually increasing our defence spending to 2.5% will keep people safe. That is not just people here. It will enable us to prevent conflict; it will enable us to secure Ukraine; and it will provide stability around the world. Sometimes, it is about the tough choices. There is no doubt that this was a tough choice, but I am glad that our Prime Minister was able to make it. He made it quickly and clearly and he will not be rethinking it. We have made our decision. We want to get back to spending more on international development when we can. That relies on growing the economy, which is a key focus of this Government. I hear what he says and I respect what he says, but I have to disagree on that point tonight.

Having said all that, there is no reason that anyone should feel that they cannot continue to press us on this. When it comes to Ukraine, what matters most is that we are united and we maintain our firm and clear position of support, and that any negotiation has the people of Ukraine and their leadership at its centre.

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)]

My Lords, I will focus on the issues of justice and accountability. It is good that both the Defence Minister and the Attorney-General are present on the Government Front Bench. Can I get the Minister’s reassurance that we will continue to focus on the missing children of Ukraine and on the support we have given for the prevention of sexual violence in conflict? Will the prosecutor general’s office continue to ensure that the perpetrators of crime can be held accountable for their heinous crimes?

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

I am very happy to provide that assurance to the noble Lord. I thank him for the work that he did while in government, of which he should be very proud. The situation with the children is one that I think wakes many of us at night. We must do whatever we can, and whatever is possible, to get those children home where they belong.

[Lord Anderson of Swansea (Lab)]

My Lords, the foundations of what we have taken for granted in the West, possibly since the Second World War but certainly since the fall of the Berlin Wall, are being put in question by the actions of Mr Trump. It is good that we hear today a remarkable consensus from all sides of the House. I hope that that will be heard not just in Ukraine but in Europe, and even among our friends in the United States. I wonder what has happened to those voices in the US that were so vocal about the strength and importance of the transatlantic alliance.

Three years ago, on the very eve of the invasion—and it was an invasion, pace President Trump—I was at the NATO headquarters in Brussels receiving a briefing. I was told at that time that if the Russians were to invade, Kyiv would fall within three or four days. It did not fall. Why? Because of their bravery, yes, but because of the national morale of the people of Ukraine. There are lessons there for us as a country on the importance of morale at a time of warfare.

It is so important now to see the changes that have taken place and to send out the clear message that we must rally round our friends in Ukraine. There must also be a clear message, from all sides of the House, that in this new world we must put any anti-European ideology aside and be ready to join with our European partners, not just those within the European Union. We must look at ways of sharing our common response. We must get the message through that we stand together and have much to contribute, through our military and intelligence, to our friends in Europe. I am sure my noble friend will agree with my sentiments about bravery, the morale of the people of Ukraine, and the need now to work more closely with our European friends.

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

My noble friend speaks from a position of great knowledge and experience. I agree with him that it is vital that we work closely and co-ordinate with all our allies, and continue to make the case that it is for the people of Ukraine and their leadership to determine next steps. Obviously, we have to work harder at that now than perhaps we have done previously, but that is a task that I am proud that our Prime Minister is prepared for and is undertaking.

[Lord Beamish (Lab)]

My Lords, the Minister says that unity in the House is important. That is a clear message that we need to send out tonight. My noble friend knows that the threat from Russia is obviously a military one, but it is also in the grey zone as well. The Intelligence and Security Committee, which I sit on, produced a report in 2020 that highlighted the effects of the Russian disinformation campaign in this country and the use of the City of London as a laundromat. I therefore welcome the sanctions that were announced yesterday. What more can be done, certainly with our overseas territories, to find out where money is being laundered and to stop the abuse that is continuing?

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

This is an important point and, as my noble friend would expect, we work very closely with our overseas territories on this issue. He spoke about misinformation, and that is something we work hard on. We should commend our partners, such as the World Service, the British Council and our other soft power partners. The work that they do is sometimes overlooked and underappreciated, but they are very effective at countering this misinformation. That is something we need to spend more time considering, and we might want to invest in some of that as well.

[Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)]

My Lords, the Minister has just made an excellent point that I suspect many around this Chamber would agree with: spending more money on the British Council and soft power would be extremely valuable.

The noble Lord, Lord Callanan, mentioned the UN vote, when the United States voted with North Korea and Russia. Slovakia also voted with them—Slovakia is one of the countries that is potentially in Putin’s sights. Beyond that, there are many countries in the Commonwealth that have either abstained or voted against us on the Ukrainian question over the last three years. Does the Minister agree that we should be talking more with our Commonwealth partners? Reducing development aid reduces an opportunity for us to export our influence and will simply pave the way for Russia and China to take a greater role globally.

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

We talk about Ukraine in every interaction that we have with all our partners, whether they are in the Commonwealth or not. To that extent, the noble Baroness is right. When we cut our official development assistance spend, there is clearly a trade-off, so the noble Baroness is right. What she says is not completely wrong. We have to make these difficult choices, but having a Ministry of Defence that is underpowered and underresourced would have not just a hard power but a soft power impact.

[Lord Shinkwin (Con)]

My Lords, the Minister commended the Ukrainian people on their heroic bravery, and I commend President Zelensky as well. Does the Minister agree with me that, ultimately, their front line is our front line?

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

That is completely right, and I thank the noble Lord for reminding us of it. The idea that this conflict does not directly affect the people of the United Kingdom is wrong. It is important that we remind people in our country that the conflict in Ukraine and the invasion by Russia are a threat to our security here.

[Viscount Stansgate (Lab)]

My Lords, the House has been united on Ukraine and I hope it will be united in wishing the Prime Minister well in his visit to Washington. The Statement we are discussing now should have been taken in conjunction with the Statement made by the Prime Minister in another place about defence spending. Does my noble friend agree that the world is changing before our eyes? The recent UN vote, to which reference has already been made, is the most dramatic example from the last 80 years of the fact that we may have to face a future in which the protection of America is not there, in the way that it has been all my life.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

The world is changing. It changed when Russia invaded Ukraine, and we have tried to respond as best we can to support the people of Ukraine ever since. I am glad that we have a Prime Minister who is clear in what he thinks about this. He is very persuasive and he will take his message to Washington to discuss it respectfully with President Trump, as we would want. We agree with President Trump’s desire to see peace in Ukraine. Yes, there are things to talk about and there may be some differences. We should be very clear but relaxed about them, and make sure that our Prime Minister has our support when he goes to make that case. I fully expect a respectful dialogue in Washington, and I look forward to hearing the outcome of those conversations.

[Lord Fox (LD)]

My Lords, we have heard about soft power but we should also hear about hybrid warfare. We are already under attack from hybrid warfare and, the further east you go, the more intense that warfare is. Can the Minister assure your Lordships’ House that the Government are taking this seriously and are working properly with our European partners to counter the softening-up process that goes before the next stage, which is happening in the countries that have already been mentioned?

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

My noble friend made the point that this Statement might well have been taken in conjunction with the Statement that the Prime Minister made earlier today in the other place. The changes to defence spending will not be just more of the same; there will be a particular focus on the things that he discussed. The strategic defence review is about to complete as well. The noble Lord’s point is well made and is something that the Government are carefully considering.

[Lord McConnell of Glenscorrodale (Lab)]

My Lords, I first raise the issue that was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Ahmad. In our discussions with our European allies, I hope that we press them to press the United States to make sure that the children who have been stolen by Russia, and remain behind Russian lines in this conflict, are part of any future agreement to bring the conflict to an end.

I was very proud of the Prime Minister and the UK last week, when he took a firm stand in support of Ukraine in the face of the global turmoil in politics, not just in diplomacy. I was proud again today when he announced an increase in defence spending, but I will not feel proud when I next meet somebody who lost their medicines or whose school closed because of the decisions that the Cabinet made this morning. I am particularly concerned that we did not first go after the Russian assets in London that could have helped finance some of that gap. What actions are the Government taking to go after Russian assets that we have already either seized or sanctioned? What specific action are we taking to release the money from the sale of Chelsea Football Club that could fund humanitarian programmes in Ukraine and beyond?

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

We are working very hard on the Chelsea Football Club issue. It is quite difficult legally, but my noble friend is right to remind us about it and we are working on it at pace. I hear what he says about development spending and I would expect him to say nothing else. This is not a decision that anyone has taken lightly or glibly; it is a decision that had to be taken, because we needed to act quickly in this situation. We must go after Russian assets as well, but we needed to take this decision today to make sure that we have the investment in defence to provide the stability and security that we all need.

[Earl Attlee (Con)]

My Lords—

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

I thank the noble Lord. First, I wish to add the Green Party voice to the widespread expressions of solidarity with Ukraine as a nation and the Ukrainian people. We are having this discussion in the shadow of the US lining up with Russia, Iran and North Korea. As the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, said, it is a wake-up call for us all; I agree with him. Does the Minister agree with me that we need to work with a wide range of other states—European states, obviously, but states around the world that are constructive, co-operative and reliable—and that that demands diplomacy, official development assistance, other soft power arrangements and tackling human security issues such as the climate chaos, food insecurity and cyber issues? By taking money from the aid budget and putting it into defence, are the Government not simply robbing Peter to pay Paul? A more secure and more stable world is better for the Ukrainians and obviously better for us. We do, after all, have an integrated review of security, defence, development and foreign policy. Do we not have to look at the world that way?

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

The noble Baroness is not wrong. Obviously, it would be great to be able to do all the things that she describes everywhere that we would like to do them, but we have to be honest and realistic. At this moment, we had to make a decision to invest more in defence for the reasons that we all understand. It is a trade-off. This is not a decision with no consequence or that we are entirely pleased to be making, but one that I am proud that we have made. It is a clear choice. It will keep the world and our citizens safer. That is the right thing for this Government to have done.

[Earl Attlee (Con)]

My Lords—

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Craig of Radley (CB)]

My Lords, the sum of £3 billion per annum has been mentioned as our contribution to Ukraine, and that indeed is very commendable. I wonder whether it could be increased or whether it is limited in two ways: by the ability to produce new equipment and by the amount by which we have to withdraw from our own front line and munition stocks of our capability in order to support Ukraine.

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

Part of the defence review will examine exactly that question. What has become clear as this conflict has progressed is that part of the battle is about defence production and capability, so our decisions on spending today will enable us to support Ukraine more securely into the future.

[Earl Attlee (Con)]

My Lords, is the Minister aware that many of us on these Benches are deeply appreciative of the action taken by the Prime Minister? He has had to make unbelievably difficult decisions, but the problem is that he will have to make even more difficult decisions in the future.

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

That is undoubtedly true, but I believe that he is the right person to be in that particular role at this particular time, because making difficult decisions is his job and what he is good at. I think he made a good decision today, and I have every confidence that he will continue in that way.

[Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab)]

My noble friend mentioned the strategic defence review. Clearly, that is important in this context, but it strikes me that we are in a totally new situation that I, for one, did not anticipate within the last year. If necessary, perhaps the review needs to be delayed to take account of this totally new situation and a new form of warfare that we are going to have to pursue.

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

I hear what my noble friend is saying, and things are undoubtedly moving quickly, but I do not think that starting the defence review again would be the right way to move forward with this. The noble Lord, Lord Robertson, will be very well aware of what has happened and the consequences, and I have every confidence that that will be reflected very well in his report when we get it.

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)]

My Lords, can I ask about expertise within the Government on Europe and the Russian sphere, so to speak? I well remember that there used to be a very good Soviet cadre, and an extremely good European cadre, within the Foreign Office. Both were run down under the past Government, but it is very clear that what we are now dealing with has implications not just for Ukraine but for Georgia, Moldova, Belarus and Kazakhstan. We need to know and speak to people in those countries about the implications of what we are doing for the broader region, and we clearly need to have a great deal more expertise and links with large and small European countries. I remember going to Slovakia some years ago and discovering that there were only two UK-based people in our Bratislava embassy. I suggest that one of the things we now need to look at is beefing up our contacts at all levels with that sort of Government.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

That is a very interesting point. Clearly, it is right that the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office constantly reviews where it places resources to reflect changing circumstances. That work does take place. I will take back the noble Lord’s comments about expertise and where that needs to be more keenly focused. He makes a good point that the Foreign Secretary and the Permanent Secretary at the Foreign Office will want to consider.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.