Chagos Islands

Baroness Chapman of Darlington Excerpts

Wednesday 2nd April 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Callanan]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the government of Mauritius reopening negotiations on the Chagos Islands.

[The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Baroness Chapman of Darlington) (Lab)]

My Lords, as we and Mauritius have repeatedly said, including in joint statements on 20 December and 13 January, both sides remain committed to concluding a deal on the future of the Chagos archipelago which protects the long-term effective operation of the joint UK-US base on Diego Garcia. Although it is in everyone’s interest to progress the deal quickly, we have never put an exact date on it and we do not intend to. Following signature, the Government will bring forward a Bill to enable implementation of the treaty, and Parliament will have the opportunity to scrutinise the treaty before ratification.

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

I am grateful to the Minister for that Answer. It is disappointing that the Government seem determined to proceed with this dreadful surrender policy. It is worth remembering that this whole sorry saga originates from an advisory, non-legally binding ICJ opinion from a panel of judges—including those from Russia and China, who unsurprisingly were fully supportive of the UK giving up its sovereignty of a key strategic asset. Is the Minister not even a little embarrassed at having to find painful cuts in her new overseas aid budget to fund essential extra defence spending, only to then see £18 billion of that funding wasted on leasing back an asset that we already own?

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

What I am embarrassed by is that we inherited such a mess in our overseas development spend, with asylum accommodation being paid for by our development spend, and an Army that had been neglected—the smallest Army since Napoleon. That is what we inherited. That is what he ought to be ashamed of.

[Lord Grabiner (CB)]

My Lords, there has been a great deal of chatter over the past few days to the effect that President Trump has approved a Chagos deal. Can the Minister advise us whether that is true? Also, whether it is true or not, is the Government’s expectation that the Americans will pay or at least make a significant contribution towards the rent?

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

We have received formal confirmation from the White House that the United States supports the UK proceeding with the deal. This follows a rigorous US inter-agency process. We welcome the US endorsement of the deal and the President’s recognition of its strength.

[Lord Harris of Haringey (Lab)]

My Lords, given the synthetic anger from the Benches opposite, can my noble friend the Minister remind us how many rounds of negotiation to resolve this issue were done by the previous Government, and tell us who the Prime Ministers and Foreign Secretaries were who led those discussions?

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

We went through quite a few Prime Ministers and Foreign Secretaries. My recollection is that there were 12 or 13 rounds of negotiation under the previous Government.

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

My Lords, I am sure that the House will sympathise with the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, that his investment in Donald Trump is not getting many returns on this issue. However, perhaps it will allow us to move on to the real issue rather than the politicking of it. The Chagossians have had their rights denied over generations and many periods of government. I am aware that the Minister has not put a timetable on this, but can she indicate when we will get the draft text of the treaty?

Also, will this Government honour the Grimstone rule of the previous Administration that if a committee of this House, in looking at a draft treaty, asks for a debate in government time on a Motion that can be amended then the Government will commit to that? I would be grateful if the Minister could say that that rule will continue to apply.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

There will be legislation before the House to do this. I do not know exactly the process or whether a debate will be in government time—the Chief Whip is sitting to my right. As far as I am aware, we are not amending the process by which this would be considered.

[Lord Bellingham (Con)]

Can the Minister confirm that the total cost over 99 years will be a staggering £50 billion, according to my figures? The Government did not have to give in to Mauritius at a time when we face economic headwinds. What will she say to Labour MPs in marginal constituencies that face the consequences of the Chancellor’s austerity, with cuts to libraries, children’s services, the fire service and grants to charities?

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

The numbers that have been quoted are completely incorrect. This is an agreement with Mauritius that we have worked out respectfully and collaboratively. The characterisation that the noble Lord puts forward is not correct.

[Lord Stirrup (CB)]

My Lords, if we are to spend such large sums of money on the lease of an overseas military base, it is important that that base remains viable. What measures are being put in place to ensure that Diego Garcia is protected from surveillance of hostile powers, such as China?

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

The noble and gallant Lord is completely right. The security of the base is one of the reasons why we felt we wanted to make sure we had a stable, legal agreement. There will be provisions within the agreement that prevent the things that he is concerned about.

[Lord Anderson of Swansea (Lab)]

My Lords, the one party not mentioned in the Question is the Îlois—the Chagossians themselves. What efforts will the Government make to ensure that these communities are properly represented? Will they give some encouragement to the Mauritian Government to ensure that the Chagossians, both inside and outside Mauritius, are fully consulted during the negotiation process?

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

As my noble friend says, the Chagossian people have been badly treated since the very beginning of all of this. This is an agreement that has been reached between the United Kingdom and Mauritius as states, but he is right to highlight that it is important that the Chagossians are included in our thinking on this. They will be able to return to Diego Garcia on visits again, and the Mauritians will enable a programme of returning to some of the outer islands. It is a better position for the Chagossians than they have at the moment, but I accept—and we are completely open about the fact—that it will not give the Chagossian communities everything that they have wished to see since they were forced to leave.

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)]

My Lords, I will inform the House that there were 11 negotiations under the previous Government, and continuity counts— I can vouch for that. The main reason why there was no agreement was the issue of security. I seek the Minister’s assurance on that point. Also, under the new Prime Minister of Mauritius, there has been some disagreement over the possibility of the extension of the 99-year lease by another 40 years. I would welcome the Minister’s insights as to where the negotiations have got to on that point.

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

The thing with the new Governments is that they like to look at things afresh, and it is absolutely right that they are able to do that. The noble Lord will be reassured to know that we have managed to iron out the differences that there were, and the Government of Mauritius, the UK Government and now the US Government, it would seem, are content to proceed.

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)]

My Lords, is there any overall consistency about who pays rent for the use of overseas bases? I understand that the American Government pay the Japanese Government for the use of Okinawa, which is a substantial base. As far as I am aware, the United States does not pay the British Government for its bases in Britain, or for its use of Ascension Island and listening posts in Cyprus. They are covered simply by exchanges of letters—which, I understand, have since been lost. Why is it that in Diego Garcia, where, as I understand it, there are fewer than 20 British personnel and a much larger number of American personnel, we are paying the rent to the Mauritians, not the Americans?

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

Reducing this to who pays rent to whom does not really reflect the nature of the benefit to each country. We have a very close relationship with the United States. We could not be closer in terms of defence, security and intelligence. That is the benefit that we want to gain from this arrangement. It is about keeping people safe. Discussions around rent may be interesting in this Chamber, but I am concerned that we achieve a stable, secure base that we are able to benefit from for our national security in the years to come.

[Lord Katz (Lab)]

My Lords, my noble friend the Minister is right: the Diego Garcia base is of vital strategic importance to us in the UK and to the Americans. For the avoidance of any doubt, can she tell your Lordships’ House whether the negotiations have included any guarantees over future UK access to the Diego Garcia base?

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

The whole purpose of the negotiations was to enable the joint base to continue, because we feel that we work very well together as allies. That is the situation that we want to continue.

European Convention on Human Rights: 75th Anniversary

Baroness Chapman of Darlington Excerpts

Thursday 20th March 2025 Lords Chamber

[The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Baroness Chapman of Darlington) (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Wolfson, for that speech. It is good to see him, and I am very sorry to have learned of the death of his father recently—may his memory be a blessing. I enjoyed the noble Lord’s speech very much. I did not agree with some of it, but he is always entertaining and speaks with passion.

I would gently say on the issue of immigration, about which I argued with very many Ministers over the 14 years we enjoyed in opposition, that the previous Government completely lost control of the system. They had an expensive distraction with Rwanda. There was no co-ordination across Whitehall and minimal engagement with foreign Governments on the topic. I wonder what some of the Ministers were doing: they made speeches about immigration but then did precious little to deal with the problem. What the noble Lord says about the ECHR may or may not be right but there were so many other things that could and should have been done that were not, so we have plenty to do when it comes to tackling immigration before we get to ECHR reform.

Having said all that, I want to thank the noble Lord, Lord Alton. He has inspired many people, inside and outside this Chamber, over very many years. I thought he set out his argument most convincingly and I thank him for securing this debate.

I begin by completely reinforcing the assertion from the noble Lord, Lord Lilley, that we always start with history; yes, we often do. I will begin not as far back as the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans with the 10 commandments, but with March 1951 when the UK became the first country to ratify the European Convention on Human Rights—the ECHR. Signed in Rome on 4 November 1950, it came into force in the United Kingdom in 1953. Although some commentators would have us believe that the ECHR was imposed on us unwillingly by our neighbours, this is not the case.

In response to the horrors of the Second World War, which engulfed the world in a generation, Winston Churchill was a leading proponent of the Council of Europe, which made this convention the first order of business. Indeed, I know that the Lord Speaker and many of my noble colleagues recently commemorated the historic moment when the treaty that led to the creation of the Council of Europe was signed at St James’s Palace in 1949. I recognise the contributions made by Members of both Houses who serve on the delegation to the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe under the able chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Touhig.

Furthermore, a British Conservative MP and lawyer, David Maxwell Fyfe, played a leading role in drafting the convention. The pioneering Labour Foreign Secretary Ernest Bevin was active in shaping the convention, and the first president of the European Court of Human Rights was British too, Arnold McNair—Lord McNair.

The Government are proud of Britain’s role in the formation of the European Convention on Human Rights, and of all that it has made possible for our individual rights and freedoms in the decades since. That spans everything from forming an important pillar of the devolution settlements to underpinning guarantees in the Belfast/Good Friday agreement, and supporting the safety and security of British citizens by facilitating cross-border law enforcement and judicial co-operation in the trade and co-operation agreement.

Yet so much of what the ECHR does for us goes unsung, precisely because so much of it sounds so abstract. So, noble Lords have today shone a light on some of the ways it has made a difference to the lives of people across our country for decades by reminding us of some of those stories. My noble friend Lady Chakrabarti explained movingly the impact of the convention on victims of sexual violence. My noble friends Lady Kennedy and Lady Goudie, the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst, and the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, reminded us how central the ECHR is to stability in Northern Ireland. My noble friend Lord Rook spoke about freedom of religion and belief. The noble Lord, Lord Cashman, spoke about how the ECHR has literally changed his life. My noble friend Lord Hendy reminded us of the impact of the convention on trade union activity.

We also considered the abolition of corporal punishment in the UK. In 1982, it was an ECHR ruling that put an end to schoolchildren being beaten against their parents’ wishes and paved the way for the eventual abolition of corporal punishment in all state and private schools in the UK. There is also the status of homosexuality in Northern Ireland. Male homosexual acts were a crime in Northern Ireland until 1982, yet a human rights case brought to the ECHR by a gay rights activist from Belfast argued that the criminal law in Northern Ireland amounted to an unjustified interference with his right to respect for his private life. It was rightly decriminalised.

Then there is the duty of states to protect the right to life. The families of the 97 football fans who lost their lives in the 1989 Hillsborough disaster relied on that right while they campaigned for the truth to obtain a new inquest, which concluded that the fans were unlawfully killed. There is also the lifting of the ban on LGBT people joining the military, following a landmark case in 2000 brought by two British servicemen who had been dismissed from the army simply for being gay. The law changed, allowing members of the Armed Forces to be open about their sexuality.

Then there is the protection of religious belief in the workplace. When an employee of British Airways wore a small cross around her neck as a sign of her religious faith, she was suspended from work without pay because the cross violated its uniform policy. Yet, in 2013, the ECHR ruled that this was an unreasonable interference with this woman’s right to freedom of religion, leading to a change in relevant standards in the UK.

Indeed, the ECHR continues to provide protections to the rights of British citizens at home and abroad. Only last month the court ruled that the Cypriot authorities had failed a British woman who alleged that she had suffered horrific sexual violence in Cyprus in 2019, finding that there had been a lack of effective investigation and a violation of her right to respect for a private and family life.

These stories remind us of just a few of the ways our country and our people have benefited from the protections of the European Court of Human Rights over the years. It is important that, as well as applying the law consistently and working in partnership with others well beyond our continent, we tell these stories.

Sadly, there are some who seek to paint a picture of the UK constantly under attack by the European Court of Human Rights. I am not saying that that is what the noble Lord opposite did today—his comments were considered—but it is worth noting too that the UK has one of the lowest rates of applications to the court per million inhabitants, as the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, said. Last year, only one adverse judgment was given, finding one violation against the UK.

The Human Rights Act, which a Labour Government put in place, gives effect to the ECHR in UK law. It was wonderful to hear the recollection from the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Hale, of the Queen’s Speech that made this announcement. It is an important part of our constitutional arrangements and fundamental to human rights protections in the UK.

Of course, no organisation is perfect; neither the ECHR nor the European Court of Human Rights is static or frozen in time. The ECHR is a living instrument that evolves in response to emerging challenges and challenging times. The European Court of Human Rights has shown itself to be open to change. Indeed, during the UK’s presidency in 2012, Council of Europe member states adopted a substantial package of reform measures, and only last year, the European Court of Human Rights introduced more fairness and accountability into its approach to interim measures following consultation with member states. There is one accepted principle of dialogue between national courts and the European Court of Human Rights, through which the UK continues to influence the direction and impact of the ECHR. Our respect for the rule of law domestically and internationally is profound, as we are demonstrating through our actions. That is more important than ever at a time where we have been dealt a stark reminder of what is at stake for all of us.

The noble Earl, Lord Dundee, asked about development and education. I can confirm our commitment and support along the lines of his comments, and partnerships in higher education. He put a helpful question. The noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, invited me to talk about AI regulation. He will forgive me if I do not, but I am sure that a DSIT Minister will be along very shortly and will be happy to take his questions on that.

There are things that we all need for a good life: security, prosperity, equality, human rights and the rule of law. I am afraid I differ from the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, but I agree with many noble Lords, including the noble Lords, Lord Griffiths, Lord Carter, Lord Balfe, Lord Hannay, the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Neuberger. As my right honourable friend the Prime Minister said, and as the noble Lord, Lord Jay, said we should, this Government are firmly committed to the European Convention on Human Rights and we will never leave it. As my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary has said, quoting former Labour Foreign Secretary, Robin Cook, it is self-evident that a world where every individual’s rights are respected is a world that will be more peaceful, and where Britain will be more prosperous and more secure.

As we reset and deepen our relationships with friends across Europe and beyond to help us face the challenges and opportunities of our times, in this 75th year of the European Convention on Human Rights, we welcome this chance to reflect on all we have achieved and to look forward to what needs to come next. We are a Government with a progressive, realistic outlook, meeting the world as it is and working towards how we want it to be in the months and years ahead. We look forward to the celebrations in Strasbourg in November.

G7

Baroness Chapman of Darlington Excerpts

Thursday 20th March 2025 Lords Chamber

[The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Baroness Chapman of Darlington) (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank both noble Lords for their contributions. The noble Lord, Lord Callanan, made an important point in his opening remarks, about co-operation and unity being vital when we face so many challenging situations around the world. I thank him for saying that and I agree with him wholeheartedly.

The noble Lord asked about the Prime Minister’s comments on us being prepared to support security guarantees for Ukraine, which includes boots on the ground, should that be needed. It is too early to be able to say anything detailed in response to his question. I understand why he would like more information, and, if I had it, I would share it with him, but we are at an early stage and I do not have anything to share today.

As the noble Lord rightly said we should be, we are working closely with the US and other allies. As noble Lords will know, on Saturday, the Prime Minister hosted a leaders call to discuss next steps in developing the coalition of the willing, to which the noble Lord referred. Leaders agreed that we will accelerate our military support, tighten our sanctions on Russia’s revenues and continue to explore all lawful routes to ensure that Russia pays for the damage that it has done to Ukraine. Military planners will meet in London this week to progress practical plans. The Foreign Secretary met G7 counterparts last week, and G7 Foreign Ministers endorsed the US-Ukraine ceasefire agreement and discussed imposing further costs on Russia if a ceasefire is not agreed. The Defence Secretary met E5 Defence Ministers last Wednesday, and they committed to stepping up support for peace, working towards the establishment of security guarantees.

On China, noble Lords know that our approach is to co-operate and compete, and challenge where we need to. That is done through dialogue with our Chinese counterparts.

The noble Lord, Lord Purvis, suggested that we work closely with Canada and our EU partners when we face challenges on certain trade and other issues, and he is right to do so. He asked me to update him on the issue of frozen Russian assets. All I can say is that we are working as hard as we can on this; we have redoubled our efforts and will keep going. It is vital that Russia pays for what it has done in Ukraine.

The noble Lord and I will have to agree to differ on the issue of official development assistance. It was the right decision; we needed to get the money into the defence budget quickly. There is a development pay-off in doing that, because it enhances our ability to provide security, and that supports many developing nations—they have said as much.

On the issue of the 0.7%, I strongly urge noble Lords not to fetishise legislation that has not had the effect that those who proposed it wanted. Our desire to reach 0.7% is not to do with legislation; it is a desire to have an impact on developing nations because that is the right thing to do. That is what will drive us to meet that figure when the economic situation allows. It is a policy choice—I am not pretending it is not; of course it is. We have decided to put more money into defence. However, we do not sit here, in a crouched position, wondering how on earth we are going to fulfil our obligations to the global South over the next few years. We are going to be active, prioritising certain countries and streams of work. We will be engaging closely with our partner countries and the aid sector, and will be working multilaterally. We will be more active because we have to be.

It is not just about the money; it is about investment, our approach, working together and the technical assistance we can provide. I encourage noble Lords to think about our responsibility to the global South not just in terms of ODA. It is far bigger than that. There is not a limit on our ambition just because we have had to make these difficult financial decisions. They were the right decisions, but over the next few years we will have a more active and energised approach than we have ever had, because that is what is needed and what this Government want to do.

[Lord Browne of Ladyton (Lab)]

My Lords, I draw the House’s attention to my entry in the register of interests. In common with many Members of your Lordships’ House, I am an ambassador for the Halo Trust. Most of the Statement delivered by my right honourable friend in the other place was, quite appropriately, about our unwavering support for Ukraine’s people and territorial integrity.

Ukraine—where, along with allies, we are now considering boots on the ground—is the most heavily mined country in the world, with over 23% of its land contaminated or at risk of contamination with landmines and unexploded ordnance. At the fifth review conference of the Ottawa treaty in December, we reaffirmed our commitment to continuing the UK’s mine action commitments. We are home to two of the largest mine action organisations in the world: Mines Advisory Group and the Halo Trust are responsible for almost 70% of global mine clearance. I urge my noble friend to ensure that the FCDO’s mine action programme is protected as our budget is reduced. It costs only £12 million per year and raises twice that from other sources, including philanthropy. GMAP is cheap, it is genuinely world leading, and it is indispensable and irreplaceable.

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

I hear what my noble friend says about demining, and he is right. He urges me to commit to protecting that programme, and I will take his very wise counsel seriously. I get a lot of people coming to tell me what must be protected. No one has ever come to tell me that there is this programme that is not very good, but the case he makes is incredibly strong and I will keep that in mind.

[Lord Hussain (LD)]

My Lords, the Statement mentions Sudan very briefly. I happen to have visited that country on a couple of occasions, albeit a few years ago. I have two very brief questions. First, the Minister said that funding for Sudan will be prioritised, but can we have an assurance that all development support for the broad civilian front will be protected? Secondly, will the Minister agree with me that for the peace, prosperity and security of the African region and, more importantly, for the people of Sudan, the best option will be to keep Sudan as one sovereign country? If so, what are the British Government’s efforts to achieve that?

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

The noble Lord is right that we have committed to protecting our support for Sudan, because so many thousands of people find themselves in such a horrific situation in that region. We are about to hold a conference here in London for international partners to come and talk. I think the prospect of an imminent resolution is limited. However, the right way to approach this is to use our convening power and to encourage dialogue in the hope that it can in time unlock this situation, because it is desperate. We are undertaking a great deal of humanitarian assistance in the region, which is right, but ultimately we need to see peace in Sudan.

[Lord Howell of Guildford (Con)]

My Lords, the Minister struck a global approach when she was answering the questions earlier, which is quite right. Will she remind all those involved around her that it is not just Commonwealth countries? It is Japan this time as well. It is on our side and anxious to make a contribution, and keeps on asking at what point it should be brought in and so on. It is not just a European issue.

Secondly, have we picked up on the rather interesting emergence of a discussion about energy vulnerability? The Russians have been exploiting this, of course, but say that for the moment they will not hit energy and power stations. It reminds us that this is a world and a situation in which civilian, non-front-line utilities can be reached by rockets in a way they never could in earlier combat. They must be defended, and the cost of that defence is part of our defence expenditure. It is not just MoD tanks and rockets; we will have to spend defence money on defending vital utilities and civilian populations, because this is a war against civilians.

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

The noble Lord is right to mention Japan, an incredibly close friend and ally of the United Kingdom. We do work with it, so I take his point; he is completely right to remind noble Lords about that.

Attacks on energy and other civilian infrastructure are abhorrent, and we work closely with our allies and partners to try to make sure that we do what we need to protect them and, where necessary, that we are fully engaged in reconstruction that, sadly, will need to happen.

[Lord Katz (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend the Minister for the Statement and particularly the strong words, on which I think we are united in this House, about standing by Ukraine. On that matter, I particularly noted her comments about the discussion around Russia paying for the damage it has wreaked across Ukraine. Of course, the damage is not just a cost in pounds alone. Does she agree that there can be no peace worthy of that name while there are tens of thousands of Ukrainian children taken from their parents, scattered across the country and, according to some reports, even being brainwashed against their mother country? There can be no peace worthy of that name while those children remain in Russia. Does she share my concern of recent reports that Yale University’s humanitarian lab has been defunded by Elon Musk’s DOGE while it was in the midst of trying to track many of those abducted children? Has the G7 discussed the fate of those poor, abducted children? Their safe return really must be an absolute non-negotiable in any peace deal.

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lord. Many things keep me awake at night, but the fate of those children is one that frequently comes to mind. We do discuss those children and the necessity of their safe and immediate return to their families. What has happened is unimaginable. He is completely right, and I can assure him that we take every opportunity to discuss that.

[Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws (Lab)]

I co-chair the taskforce for the return of the children who have been taken into Russia. The evidence is really shocking and quite scandalous. It is interesting that no one from the Government has ever asked me to come and speak to them about the evidence. I draw that to the attention of the Front Bench; perhaps it will find its way down to the other end of this House. I suspect that no one in this House knows more about it than I do, and yet I have never been asked.

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

I would like the noble Baroness to consider herself invited. I would be very keen to hear what she has to say, to consider the evidence she has and to discuss ways in which she may be able to assist in efforts to have those children returned.

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)]

My Lords, I draw attention to my entry in the register of interests on organisations working for conflict resolution, particularly chairing the ICO advisory panel in this regard. I associate myself closely with the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Katz. We are all as one on this, and we must look at alternative sources.

My question is on the one glimmer of hope in the Statement. I commend the Government on continuing to draw attention to the resolution of the dispute between Armenia and Azerbaijan, as the previous Government did. That is a positive within the Statement. In the same way, were there any discussions about the territorial gains that Russia has made in Crimea, South Ossetia, Abkhazia and, of course, the Donbass? What would be the resolution there? At the moment, the way discussions are going, it seems that Russia gets to keep lands that it has occupied.

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

I do not have anything specific to say on the content of those negotiations. It would be strange to disclose things such as that—were I aware of them, which I am not—while those negotiations are ongoing. What matters is that the agreement that is finally reached is one that the people of Ukraine are satisfied with. What matters is that we get peace, but it needs to be a just peace and it needs to be agreed with Ukraine at the very centre of it.

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

My Lords, the Statement refers, rightly, to Israel’s complete blocking of aid to Gaza as being “appalling and unacceptable”. Since the Statement was made, Israel has resumed attacks on Gaza; 400 people have died, including many children, and there is great concern for the remaining Israeli hostages in this situation. Sir Keir Starmer said that he was “deeply concerned” about the Israelis resuming military action, and, in the other place, he refused to rule out the suspension of further arms sales. Surely we are now at the point where we have to suspend all arms sales to Israel.

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

We have been very clear that we think that Israel ought to allow aid into Gaza, and that it is wrong to disrupt that flow and to cut off the electricity supply. What matters is that we can protect that population, feed those children and get the medical supplies where they need to be. On arms and restrictions, as noble Lords know, we take an approach that is based on the law, and we apply the law. We made decisions last year to impose restrictions; we will do so again should we need to in future. The situation today is the same as it was yesterday, and we have made no new decisions on that.

[Lord Soames of Fletching (Con)]

Following the ongoing work and conclusions of the G7, will the Minister have a further word with the Ministry of Defence about the extreme inadvisability of dispatching a carrier group to the Far East at this time, taking with it a very large amount of the depleted serviceable aircraft and ships of the Royal Navy currently available for operations? The carrier’s place now is in the north Atlantic with its escorts, and it should not go to the Far East.

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

I have a very good relationship with my colleagues at the Ministry of Defence, and I am happy to discuss any issue with them, but operational decisions such as that one probably would not fall within my remit. I am sure they will note what the noble Lord has said. They are free to make the choices that they have made, and they have more information on which to base those choices than we do here today.

[Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)]

My Lords, can the Minister tell the House whether the United States Secretary of State raised either the G7 becoming the G8, by the addition of Russia, or the G6, by the subtraction of Canada? If her answer to that question is “No” or “I don’t know”, can we stop being distracted from the mass of important matters that the G7 must address in the months ahead?

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

I am not aware of any such discussions. I believe that the G7 has been focused on, as the noble Lord said, the vital issues that it faces.

[Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)]

The Statement said that the G7 was

“united behind an inclusive political transition in Syria”.

I am not quite sure how we can help to bring that about until we again have an embassy in Syria. I apologise for coming around like a cracked record on this. The last time we spoke about it, Ministers seemed to be showing a bit of leg; there was a hint of movement. Is there any chance of that leg moving into action?

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

I do not need to explain to the noble Lord that it is not straightforward to reopen the embassy in Damascus after such a period of time, but I take on board his desire to see that happen. I understand why he said that; there are very good reasons to take that view. I will consider that alongside Minister Hamish Falconer, who I am sure will respect, as he should, the views of the noble Lord.

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

My Lords, the Statement refers to the G7 condemning

“the Rwanda-backed offensive in the eastern DRC, which is a flagrant breach of the DRC’s territorial integrity”.

Shortly after the Statement was made, the EU sanctioned nine additional individuals and one entity in association with Rwanda’s backing of the M23. I know that if I ask about Magnitsky-style sanctions, the Minister will answer saying, “We don’t talk about what we are going to do in the future”. Instead, I seek from her a reassurance that the Government are maintaining a focus on this crucial issue of the highest humanitarian damage and disaster, particularly because of violence against women and girls but also more generally. Can she reassure me that the Government are keeping a focus here?

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

I thank the noble Baroness for raising that point, and particularly for mentioning women and girls—she is right to do so. On sanctions, obviously we do not talk about designations ahead of time, but it is important. It is too easy, sometimes, to forget about the DRC—and, indeed, Sudan—when we have Ukraine and Gaza so prominent in our minds, so I am grateful to her for raising that.

HIV/AIDS: US Withdrawal from WHO

Baroness Chapman of Darlington Excerpts

Thursday 20th March 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Fowler]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the impact of the United States of America’s withdrawal from the World Health Organization on the global treatment of HIV/AIDS.

[The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Baroness Chapman of Darlington) (Lab)]

My Lords, I pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Fowler, for the work that he has done on this agenda over very many decades. The UK will continue to work with the World Health Organization, member states and other partners to support the WHO’s ongoing transformation and to strengthen its efficiency, transparency and responsiveness. We are proud of our long-standing support for global health organisations at the core of the response to HIV/AIDS and we continue to support efforts to end AIDS as a public health threat by 2030.

[Lord Fowler (CB)]

My Lords, I am grateful for that reply. There have been, to date, 40 million deaths from AIDS across the world. Because of the success of efforts over the last years, official predictions were that AIDS could be eliminated as a public health disease by 2030, as the Minister has just said, but that was before the abrupt and recent changes of policy by the American Administration, which have caused havoc across the world. Is it really the Government’s view that the 2030 target is achievable in the new conditions? Do they share the view of most medical experts that the American policies are leading the world backwards, to defeat, in a vital area of public health?

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

I do not think it has made it any easier, but we stand by our commitment to do this by 2030. There are some things in our favour around medical advances and new treatments, and a willingness of some Governments now to play a part that perhaps they have not been able to in the past. There is no doubt that the situation is now more challenging, but we will work as firmly and with as much energy as we ever have towards this goal, because it is important that we do.

[Lord Herbert of South Downs (Con)]

My Lords, tuberculosis is the single biggest cause of death for people with HIV/AIDS, killing 1.25 million people a year. It is the most deadly infectious disease of all. Given the reduction of funding and the dismantling of USAID, and the withdrawal of funding from the WHO, does the Minister share my concern that our ability to conduct ongoing surveillance of this airborne transmissible disease is at risk? Will the Government maintain their programmes to ensure that this disease too can be beaten by 2030?

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

We are concerned about HIV/AIDS and tuberculosis, malaria and other diseases. The theme of these exchanges today is going to be one of heightened concern about our ability to make the progress that we have an ambition and a responsibility to make. There is no doubt that it has now been made more difficult. The noble Lord asked about the decisions we are making here in the UK. We are not responsible for the decisions that other countries make, but we are responsible for the choices that we take. Although those decisions are currently being made, I find it difficult to envisage a situation where the United Kingdom does not play a leading role in the fight against these diseases.

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

My Lords, with regard to our approach, this week marks the 10th anniversary of the 0.7% legislation passing this House. I mourn that, because I was naive; I felt that subsequent Governments would honour it. However, we now have the position where the Government will be paying more to private sector landlords in the UK than the entirety of all our support for children with malaria or those born with AIDS. In two years’ time, we will be spending the same level on official development assistance as Viktor Orbán’s Hungary. With all great seriousness, given how far away we will be from that legislation—and the more incredulous government statements saying that when fiscal circumstances arise we will get to it—as the people now in charge of that legislation, will the Government now do the decent thing and repeal it?

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

Absolutely not. Why would we do that? It is our ambition to regain the 0.7% spend on official development assistance. We have been very clear about that. Why would we repeal that legislation? I find it very difficult that we are spending so much money on housing asylum seekers and migrants in the UK out of our ODA budget. I do not think that is what we should be doing. The previous Government completely lost control of the borders of this country and we have inherited this situation. The Home Office is working hard to get the numbers down and to reduce the spend so that money can be spent where it is needed most. We did make the decision—and it was a difficult one for this Government—to prioritise spending on defence. I do not think I need to explain to noble Lords why we did that. It is a decision I support, and I will be working incredibly hard, with allies and partners, to make sure that the money that we do have is spent wisely, and that we get the best value for money for British taxpayers and the most impact that we can for our partners overseas.

[Viscount Stansgate (Lab)]

My Lords, last week, I co-hosted on behalf of the parliamentary Science and Technology Committee a meeting of STOPAIDS in this House. We heard from people from Africa whose ability to access drugs had, in one case, enabled a woman to live to become a grandmother. We heard about the devastating effect, mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Fowler, of the cuts in USAID, for which we are not responsible. I hope my noble friend the Minister will understand that, to the extent that Britain can continue to play its part in trying to reach the 2030 target, it must use the resources, scarce though they are, to enable this work to continue. We cannot allow the world to go backwards. This needs to be tackled now.

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

I completely agree. There are encouraging things happening around some of the medical devices and the drugs that can be used now to provide protection against HIV, including devices for which women are in control of their use, because we are seeing an increase in prevalence among women and young girls. There are encouraging things happening, but it would be incredible to stand here and say that the situation that we now find ourselves in is not far more challenging than it has been more recently.

[The Earl of Courtown (Con)]

My Lords, taking into account the withdrawal of the United States from the WHO, can the Minister inform the House how we are working with other international partners to fill that void?

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

It is vital that we do that, and we are doing that. I met the executive director of the WHO earlier this week, and that is something we spoke about in some depth. The noble Earl is absolutely right to encourage the Government to take that approach, and we will be doing so.

[Baroness Bull (CB)]

My Lords, alongside the withdrawal from the World Health Organization, the Trump Administration are cutting billions of dollars from US universities and research institutes. What assessment have the Government made of the impact on the UK’s research partnerships, and, crucially, in relation to this question, the impact on our shared global health challenges?

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

There is no doubt that research and development is critical to making progress on this and many other agendas in development. We are working through the impact, as the noble Baroness suggests we should. Clearly, we cannot fill the void, but we can work smarter and more collaboratively, and certainly with our university and research partners it is important that we do so.

[Lord Scriven (LD)]

My Lords, the Minister seems to suggest that devices and medication are expanding. The problem is that people need to get tested. The impact of the US pulling out is that there are 228,000 fewer tests a day and the supply of things such as condoms and PrEP has ceased in certain programmes. If the Minister wishes the UK to take a lead, as she said at the Dispatch Box, what extra support and resources will be made available if this temporary suspension becomes permanent?

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

We are working through the impact of the United States’ decision and looking at how we reprioritise our own spending. The noble Lord is absolutely right. Encouragingly, in 2023, approximately 86% of people living with HIV worldwide knew their HIV status. What we do not want to see is that incredible achievement going in the wrong direction. He is right to remind the House of that.

United Kingdom: Global Position

Baroness Chapman of Darlington Excerpts

Thursday 13th March 2025 Lords Chamber

[The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Baroness Chapman of Darlington) (Lab)]

It was all going really well. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, for that. When he was on the topic of universities, I thought “This is going to be really good”. I was chancellor of a university until I was told that that would be incompatible with my role in government. I agree with him about the importance of our higher education partnerships, the benefits of leaders coming here to be educated, and the great export of our amazing higher education institutions.

However, to then pivot to Chagos and to suggest that in any way there is a threat, particularly to the Falkland Islands, is really unbecoming of the noble Lord, who actually was doing rather well up until that point. The level of consensus and agreement in this Chamber this afternoon speaks really well of all the speeches we have heard. It is such a shame we had a little bit of a blip with that section of his speech, but never mind—we will move on none the less.

I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Howell, for securing this debate. I pay tribute to his work over many years, and particularly to his recent work on the International Agreements Committee. It has been an outstanding debate. First, I pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Pitkeathley, for his excellent maiden speech. The creativity, adaptability and leadership that he recommended to us all, he demonstrated in his speech. I refer the noble Lord opposite to the first motto that the noble Lord, Lord Pitkeathley, said that he had in his organisation. I am not going to repeat it; the noble Lord can look it up in Hansard.

I thank all noble Lords for their contributions. The noble Lord, Lord Howell, asked where the trust, respect and manners are. Our Prime Minister is behaving with impeccable decency, integrity and diplomatic skill at this time of real challenge and disruption in the world, and I thank all noble Lords who have made similar points about the work Keir Starmer is doing. We cannot always influence others as much as we might like, but we can control what we do and the way that we go about it, and I am proud of our Prime Minister in that.

We can all see that the world faces an uncertain future. In too many places, it is dangerous, contested and volatile. We are seeing a greater number of active armed conflicts than any time since the Second World War, and progress to address them is fragile: from Russia’s brutal, illegal and unprovoked invasion of Ukraine to the need for a permanent ceasefire and lasting peace in the Middle East. The natural world around us is under enormous pressure, with the ever more visible impact of climate change and environmental degradation on every continent, including here in the UK. We are seeing the rapid emergence of artificial intelligence, hybrid threats and cyberattacks, with adversaries active in all these areas.

As the Foreign Secretary underlined at the G20, so many of the greatest challenges and opportunities we face today are truly global, with direct consequences for the national interest. My right honourable friend the Prime Minister has been clear: we may not like it, but here we are, in a world where so much has changed.

As Homer Simpson would no doubt agree, we are at a crossroads in history. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Sherbourne, for that reference. We have had everything from Lenin to Nancy Pelosi to “The Simpsons”—I think that speaks well of this debate. As he suggested, it is time to act. A generational challenge requires a generational response. It demands extremely difficult and painful choices. It requires us to call on our strengths, and it puts a premium on our willingness and ability to focus squarely on the world as it is, and not as we want it to be. So, we take realistic steps towards the secure, prosperous, stable future that people everywhere want to see, including here in the UK.

The noble Lord, Lord Hannan, encouraged us to sing our song to the world, and I would agree. The noble Baroness, Lady Prashar, encouraged soft shoes on the ground—for example, her emphasis on diplomatic efforts. I can assure her that our Soft Power Council is going well. It is early days, but she is right, and others made this point: soft power goes hand in hand with strong defence. It was also wonderful to hear the noble Baroness, Lady Stuart, champion the benefits of dialogue, specifically Wilton Park. I commend her for all she does to bring about the vital conversations that have never been more needed.

Our national security is the bedrock of the UK’s society and economy, and the ultimate guarantor of everything we hold dear. It is the foundation of this Government’s plan for change. Seven months ago, the British people gave this Government this responsibility, and we hold it with a profound sense of duty. Putin’s Russia is a threat not only to Ukraine and its neighbours but to all of Europe, including the UK.

As I have taken on the international development brief in recent weeks—I thank noble Lords for noticing that—something that has been at the forefront of my mind is how deeply the impacts of Russia’s aggression are being felt by the poorest and most vulnerable people right across the globe, so we are speeding up support for Ukraine and increasing economic pressure on Russia. The Prime Minister, the Foreign Secretary and the Defence Secretary have travelled to Washington in recent weeks; convened European leaders, including here in London; and brought friends and allies together from both sides of the Atlantic, just as we have done for decades, to ensure peace and security. Serious leadership is exactly what the times require, and the UK has a unique role to play. We are focused on pursuing a just and lasting peace through strength.

As many noble friends will understand, our closest ally, the United States, has focused on the Indo-Pacific increasingly, over successive Administrations. The noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Jones, spoke wisely on this point. We are calling for NATO’s European members to shoulder more of the burden for our continent’s security. The noble Lords, Lord Balfe and Lord Kerr, referred to Bevin and I thank them for that. I can assure them that the Foreign Secretary talks regularly of Bevin, who has become a big feature in my life in recent months.

We are stepping up. This is not to please the US but, as the noble Lord, Lord Howard, said we must, to strengthen our own security in a time of instability and threat. These are shared priorities, from our AUKUS partnership—the Foreign Secretary visited Japan and the Philippines last week—to the Prime Minister’s long-standing argument that all European allies must step up and do more for our own defence. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Ahmad, for his comments on leadership, soft power and diplomacy. His words were grounded in values. Despite our different affiliations—I do not care about football teams, which he talked about, but I know the point he was making—we share many of those values across this House.

At this moment of pressure on public finances and geopolitics changing around us, things are moving quickly. We will never leave our country ill prepared for a more dangerous world or facing even tougher choices in the future. It is right, as the noble Lord, Lord Rogan, said, that the Prime Minister has announced the biggest sustained increase in defence spending since the Cold War, through this Parliament and the next, and we urge others to do the same. The noble Lord, Lord Waldegrave, made an excellent case for never assuming that the public will come with us. We must make the case, win the argument, explain and rebuild trust in the ability of politics to deliver. This is no small task, but one that I think every speaker today believes we have a responsibility to undertake.

In order to make this commitment within our fiscal rules, we have had to lower our spending on international development. As the Prime Minister said, that is not a decision the Government take lightly. It is not one that we relish, and I know I have now taken on a great responsibility. I am determined to make the argument for international development afresh and win the public’s trust. I will be coming back to this House soon to update Parliament on some of the early choices that we have made.

I echo the pride that the Foreign Secretary and the Prime Minister have expressed in our record on international development, as I did in my earliest meetings with key partners from the World Bank and the International Committee of the Red Cross. Between the late 1990s and the early 2010s, the world made headway in lifting hundreds of millions of people out of poverty. Throughout recent decades, our work has shown that the UK can address global challenges from health to migration, boost prosperity at home and across the globe, and improve the lives of the world’s most vulnerable people. I have seen this for myself in all my visits to our partners overseas. We continue to play a hugely important role in everything from reaching tens of millions of people with immunisations, including polio vaccination campaigns in Gaza, to working alongside partners from the global South to secure reforms at the big multilateral development banks that will unlock tens of billions over the next 10 years, at no cost to donors, and get more of it flowing to those in greatest need across everything from education to resilience.

For all those reasons and more, this Government remain committed to spending 0.7% of gross national income on official development assistance when the fiscal conditions allow. I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, of this, and I welcome his challenge and our—not that robust—exchanges across this Chamber.

The noble Lord, Lord Bruce, urged us to continue to face the world, especially the Commonwealth, and to reset our relationship with Europe. The Government accept this advice. We continue to provide humanitarian assistance in Ukraine, Gaza and Sudan, and remain committed to tackling climate change and to multinational efforts on global health. The noble Lord, Lord Browne, is right that we need to work harder than ever to strengthen partnerships in the future, looking carefully and reviewing what will work. In all we do, we want the public to take pride in our work overseas, feel the benefits of it in their lives and have confidence that we are using their money wisely and in ways that match their sense of decency and our moral obligations to the world’s poorest people.

We know that so many countries share our ambitions for growth and opportunity. For most of them, aid is no longer the most important part of that, to say nothing of the paternalism that has all too often gone with it. The introduction to this debate by the noble Lord, Lord Howell, on the importance of respect, listening and partnership is timely and very wise. We are focusing on genuine, respectful partnerships, which are more effective in creating security, growth and investment in jobs and opportunities here at home and around the world, and are better suited to fusing local knowledge with our greatest strengths, from the City of London to science, technology, innovation, arts and culture and to our world-class expertise right across the UK.

Much has been said about soft power. Someone said that they wonder about that phrase, as do I—“I am going to do soft power on you” is not really the best introduction to having influence. But it is a phrase that we all use and probably all understand.

We are looking to the future, from auditing our relationship with China to resetting our relationships with the global South. The Foreign Secretary hosted the Indian Foreign Minister this week and announced the reopening of FTA negotiations. The Foreign Secretary’s dialogue with the Nigerian Foreign Minister demonstrated our partnership on regional security and migration. We are making the most of the valuable role that the UK has to play, proving through our actions that we are a responsible permanent member of the UN Security Council, committed to international law, the UN charter and the rules-based trading system.

Keeping our country safe is the first duty of government. We must meet the world as it is, with an indelible belief that things can be better. We recognise that we do not need to balance the compassion of our internationalism with the necessity of our national security—they go hand in glove. We must respond to the urgent challenges before us. That is the job of any Government. Despite the hard choices before us, however much we might wish it were not so, we must make the best of the moment to give even greater impetus to the important work of modernising our approach to international development, which is already under way. That is how we bring security and prosperity to people here at home and around the world in the months and years ahead.

As the noble Lords, Lord Howell and Lord Vaizey, said, everyone needs a country to love. We all love this country and have a duty to share that love with the world as a force for good and, as the noble Lord, Lord Udny-Lister, said, for freedom, prosperity and peace.

Syria

Baroness Chapman of Darlington Excerpts

Thursday 13th March 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the Government for the Statement. Obviously, we have national security, regional and humanitarian interests in respect of Syria, and I wish to ask the Minister questions on all three areas. It very welcome that the noble Lord, Lord Hanson, from the Home Office, is also present. First, on national security, it is worth noting that there seems to be positive news on Syrian internal security, in the form of the agreement with the Kurdish groups, but it is too early to say what the consequences will be. Part of the UK interests has been working with our American allies to ensure that detainees who were recruited by Daesh and were active members are not presenting any future threat to the United Kingdom. What reassurance have we received from the US Administration that troops will still be in place? What contingency arrangements will the UK have for our national security if the Americans pull out?

On the loosening of sanctions, is there a public statement on our assessment of the groups that form the functioning, de facto Government of Syria, which we had previously considered to be terrorist organisations? How will we ensure that the loosening of economic sanctions does not result in profiteering by those considered to be terrorist groups? What mechanisms will be in place to ensure that, as I called for previously, we support local civil society groups that are helping the local communities, rather than channelling through to what until very recently had been—and in many respects still are—terrorist organisations that want economic support for their own groups, rather than for the benefit of the people of Syria?

A critical part of ensuring that we are safe is reducing the prospects of recruitment for terrorist organisations within Syria, so what support are we providing for transitional justice mechanisms as a result of responding to the crimes of the previous Assad regime? Are we supporting an enhanced UN transitional assistance mission? It is welcome that the UK will be participating in the pledging meeting that Minister Falconer has referred to. It is worth noting that UK support for the Syrian crisis had been at scale. As recently as 2019-2020, the UK had committed £380 million. This year, it is £103 million. According to HMG’s Development Tracker website, that is likely to go down to £55 million in 2028. Therefore, are we proposing new additional funding at the donor conference, or are we simply going to reassert our committed funds as part of the £103 million?

With regard to regional interests, the territorial integrity of Syria is of significance to the UK. What reassurance have we received from the Israeli and Turkish Governments that they believe in the territorial integrity of Syria, especially when it comes to Lebanon? Are we supporting the reconstruction of Lebanon? I would be grateful if the Minister considered meeting with me and a number of Lebanese MPs with whom I am in contact, especially female MPs, who are seeking ways of reconstructing Lebanon—especially the border areas—that avoid enhancing confessional divisions. We have a potential opportunity to look at Syrian and Lebanese reconstruction, and I hope the Minister will respond positively to that.

I hope the Minister does not mind me raising an issue of concern. Last week, I asked a question about the ODA commitment to vulnerable countries where UK interests could be at risk. I raised concerns about countries such as Lebanon, where UK support is likely to reduce dramatically as a result of the Government’s decision. The Minister said —I can quote from Hansard—that I was talking “complete nonsense” and my supposition was “frankly, ridiculous”. I looked at the support for Lebanon. In 2019-2020, it was £188 million; last year, it was £6.75 million; this year, thankfully, it is £47 million; but next year and the year after, it will be zero. So when I ask questions to Ministers in this House using government information that is available today on Development Tracker, I hope they will respond in a temperate manner.

Finally, when it comes to humanitarian support, I strongly welcome the stated position of the Government that seeks an inclusive, non-sectarian and representative Government, but I know that the Minister will recognise that that is some way away. So, with regard to the support that we are providing to the Syrian people for education, can we find ways of benchmarking UK engagement, both diplomatic and for education and humanitarian assistance, so that education reform can include independent oversight of curriculum reform, the removal of content inciting hatred or violence, and fair representation of women and minorities? There is an opportunity for our support to be linked with development assistance that can benefit all parts of Syrian society and move away from the hatred and violence which have afflicted the country so badly in recent years.

[The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Baroness Chapman of Darlington) (Lab)]

I am grateful to both noble Lords for their words. I think we all agree that the situation in Syria is incredibly fragile, to say the least, and that we all want a stable elected Government to be in charge in Syria. We are some way from that at the moment, and everything this Government are doing is aimed at bringing about that situation, which we all want to see.

The noble Lord, Lord Callanan, asked why this is our first Statement on Syria. I kindly and gently point out that there are mechanisms within the procedures of this House for him to raise whichever issues he wishes, and I would be very happy to arrange some training for him, should that be welcome.

There is clearly deep concern about the events of recent days, and we are working closely with our allies and partners in the region and beyond. Noble Lords asked whether we have spoken to the interim Government in Syria. We have and, as the noble Lord encouraged us to do, we have raised our concerns about these events and have sought to bring about the peace and stability that we all wish to see. On his question about ministerial travel, I will not comment on our intentions about ministerial travel to this part of the world. There are obvious reasons why we do not always announce ministerial travel ahead of time.

On sanctions, of course we keep our sanctions designations under review. The decisions that we made following the fall of the Assad regime were to remove the designation from some entities, such as the Central Bank of Syria, because we want to enable the reconstruction and economic development of Syria, which has been so badly harmed for reasons that we all know. It is important that the new regime in Syria and the Government we hope will follow will be able to invest in their country to grow and prosper in future. We took that decision, but, clearly, we keep all these things under review.

On chemical weapons, we are working with the OPCW on that. We are very concerned that chemicals do not fall into the hands of people that none of us would wish them to, so we are working with others on that.

On the comments from the Liberal Democrat spokesman, we agree and welcome the statements from the PKK about downing weapons, but, as I said, the situation remains incredibly fragile. On troops, it is for the future Syrian Government to determine which nations, in what capacity and where they may have a presence in Syria. Since December, we have spent more than £62 million in additional humanitarian assistance, which will include support for justice measures so that evidence can be obtained and secured for use in future proceedings.

The noble Lord is correct when he makes points about national security. I do not think I have ever been intemperate in this Chamber, but I am entitled to call nonsense nonsense when I hear it. That is not intemperate. That is in the spirit of frank exchange, which I think we all wish to engage in. I felt that in his question last week the noble Lord was asserting that we were not putting national security front and centre in our decision-making. I was pointing out to him that our decision to reduce the overseas aid budget was done to support our defence budget, which I argue is in the interest of national security. If he found that intemperate, I am glad that he was never in the other place, where I think he would have had a very difficult time.

This is a critical, fragile moment for Syria. The country faces significant challenges as it transitions after almost 14 years of conflict. Stability in Syria is firmly in our interests. The UK remains committed to the people of Syria and will continue to stand with them in building a more stable, free and prosperous future.

[Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)]

My Lords, I welcome the Government’s Statement. On justice and accountability, following what the charity Aid to the Church in Need has described as a “black and painful day” for Syria, with entire families killed in the violence, does the Minister welcome the importance of the decision by Syria to appoint an independent commission of inquiry into the horrific atrocities committed in the coastal areas against ethnic and religious communities, including Druze, Christians, Alawites and Ismailis, and welcome the arrest of some of the perpetrators? Can we give direct support to this holding to account, the collecting of evidence, reporting mechanisms, transparency and measures necessary to prevent similar incidents in the future? Might we be able to work with others to create a route through which the UK can monitor the situation of egregious human rights violations and religious freedom, making UK aid to Syria and the lifting of any sanctions conditional on introducing measurable improvements in the situation of human rights in Syria, which, as we have heard, are crucial to its future?

Can the Minister also say a word about Turkish bombing of civilian areas in northern Syria and the continuing danger posed by ISIS operatives in camps in Syria, some of whom are UK nationals and the subject of a current inquiry by the Joint Committee on Human Rights, which I hope the Minister will agree to engage with and whose proceedings I hope she will follow with care?

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

My Lords, on northern Syria, of course we are acutely aware of the fragility of that situation and want to make sure that we do not see a vacuum created that is filled by Daesh and others. The noble Lord is right in what he says about Aid to the Church in Need and its work, and we commend it for it. We have encouraged the Government in Syria on the commission, the investigations and the collection of evidence, for the reasons that he gave. We can, we should, and we will continue to do that.

On the conditionality of humanitarian aid, that is a difficult situation. There are around 16 million people in need of humanitarian aid in Syria, and I think it is important that we continue to play the best possible part that we can in supporting those people, but I take the point that he makes.

[Lord Reid of Cardowan (Lab)]

My Lords, as the Minister said, the situation in Syria is very fragile and therefore it is proper and sensible that His Majesty’s Government engage with the interim Administration. However, I think it would also be useful to maximise engagement with civil society in Syria. Can the Minister say a little more about the Government’s engagement in that area, including, of course, the Christian community in Syria?

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

It is true that in the situation that Syria finds itself in, the ability of civil society to work closely with communities is essential. My colleague Minister Falconer is talking to civil society groups and working through any agencies and relationships that he has to support this because they are vital in establishing a stable future for the country.

[Lord Bellingham (Con)]

My Lords, the Minister is aware, obviously, that Syria is facing the world’s largest refugee crisis, with a truly staggering 14 million Syrians having fled their homes. Over 6.2 million have fled abroad, including many to this country. Among their number are some of the brightest, best and most qualified Syrian citizens, who are needed for rebuilding their country. This leads on from the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Reid. What steps will the Government take, working with civil society, the new President, Ahmed al-Sharaa, and the UNHCR, to find a way of trying to smooth the return of many of these very able and capable people?

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

That is a really interesting question. It is wonderful that we are in a situation where we can even begin to have those conversations, when you consider the journey that Syria has been on. It is early days, but we will work with whoever we need to to enable the reconstruction and rebuilding of Syria, not just physically but of the society in Syria. There is still a long way to go—we are in the early stages—but the suggestions made by the noble Lord are good, and I will follow them up.

[Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)]

My Lords, I think the Minister recognises the very—perhaps disproportionately—central position of Syria in Middle Eastern politics over many years. Will we not allow ourselves, as we have sometimes in the past, to be a bit marginalised? One way of ensuring that we keep our finger on the pulse in Syria is to reopen the embassy in Damascus at the earliest possible moment. I know there is a special representative, but that is not the same as having somebody on the ground who is able to keep an eye on what is happening. Will the Minister say what action the Government are taking about the Government of Israel’s action to extend part of the Golan Heights beyond what was originally dealt with in Security Council resolutions to occupy some parts of Syrian territory?

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

On the issue of reopening the embassy, which closed I think in 2012, that is quite difficult. I do not have an update on that for the House today. The noble Lord will appreciate that these are very early days. As he would expect, we keep these things under review. On Israel, it would be right for what we hope will be the inclusive, politically diverse new Government in Syria to make those decisions when they are elected. It is right that we allow them time for that process to complete and for a new, fully representative Government in Syria to make their position known on behalf of the Syrian people when it comes to those issues.

[Baroness Goudie (Lab)]

My Lords, further to the Minister saying that the Government are consulting community workers and organisations, are they insisting that women make up 50% of those groups? At the last peace talks in Ukraine, there were no women at all, and we have made an undertaking here that women have to be part of all the peace talks. I do not believe that women would give away some of the intellectual property of their country so easily if they had any say in this, so it is important. Also, women will talk about investment, education, schooling and other issues that would never otherwise be discussed at the peace table—just closing down the conflict. We want to close it down, but we have to do it in the right way so that that country can continue, after all that has happened, to become a country of its own, where children will go into further education and its GDP will be much improved. It cannot continue in this way.

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

We know now, from many contexts in recent history, how vital it is that women are included and central to these processes. My noble friend has made a very strong case. It is important that women have a say and are able to lead in the future rebuilding of their country.

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)]

My Lords, we of course want to see peace in Syria, but I will sound a note of caution. Recent events have demonstrably shown, as the noble Lord, Lord Alton, articulated, the threat to minority faiths within Syria. Indeed, ironically, the previous dictator was secular, in that he protected and afforded protection for Christians and Alawites. The ideological base of the current leadership and organisation, Hay’at Tahrir al-Sham, is Daesh. The Minister talked about Daesh and its dangers; we have seen it before. We have seen it in Libya and Iraq, and we may, regrettably and tragically, see it again in Syria, so I caution that, as we move forward on engagement, let us not forget the ideological base that drives the current Administration.

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

I do not think anybody is getting carried away with optimism at the moment. The noble Lord is absolutely right to remind us just how precarious this situation is. We proceed with some hope, given where we have been, but it is always worth being reminded just how fragile this is and of the dangers that remain as we go forward.

[Lord Polak (Con)]

My Lords, I totally agree with my noble friend Lord Ahmad’s words. This is fragile but, as the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, said, there is potential, for the first time in decades. In their Statement, the Government are rightly looking for stronger moral leadership characteristics. They say that

“anyone seeking a role in governing Syria should demonstrate a commitment to the protection of human rights, unfettered access for humanitarian aid and the safe destruction of chemical weapons stockpiles, and combat terrorism and extremism”.

I hope that person exists in Syria—or anywhere else, for that matter—but, as my right honourable friend the shadow Foreign Secretary asked on Monday, how confident is the Minister that the chemical stockpiles will be destroyed, for the benefit of the whole region?

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

Confidence is a very difficult thing to measure in situations such as this, but perhaps the best thing to do is to say that we are mindful of the dangers that the noble Lord outlines. It is still right for this Government to have clarity and high ambition for the people of Syria, because they have suffered so much and desperately need a Government with the qualities that we outlined in the Statement.

[Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)]

My Lords, before we leave this Statement, may I pursue the Minister on the point that the noble Lord, Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon, raised? I referred in my earlier question to the presence in Syria of the camps, which are of course held together by the Kurds, without whom the people who were responsible for genocide in northern Iraq and northern Syria would be free and on the loose all over again. What are we doing to ensure that they are brought to justice, as has happened in some cases in Germany and Holland but not in the United Kingdom?

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

We are working with our partners and allies on this. As the noble Lord knows, decisions have been made, particularly on the citizenship of certain individuals, which I think is what he is getting at. Those decisions have been made; I do not have anything further to add today.

[Lord Bellingham (Con)]

My Lords, before we leave the subject, may I ask a quick supplementary? There are Syrian community and civil society groups in this country. Will the Minister find out who they are and work with them on this agenda?

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

I know some of them very well. Many have made an enormously positive contribution since they arrived in the United Kingdom, setting up businesses and becoming leaders in the community. For some of them, there may be choices to make now, and I am very happy to work with whoever wishes to on anything that would help improve the chances of a lasting and stable situation in Syria.

Prime Minister: Meeting with Prime Minister of Canada

Baroness Chapman of Darlington Excerpts

Wednesday 12th March 2025 Lords Chamber

[Viscount Stansgate]

To ask His Majesty’s Government when the Prime Minister expects to meet the new Prime Minister of Canada.

[The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Baroness Chapman of Darlington) (Lab)]

My Lords, as the Prime Minister said in the House of Commons, the UK and Canada are the closest of allies. The Prime Minister has congratulated Mark Carney on his forthcoming appointment as Canada’s new Prime Minister. He looks forward to working closely with him on shared international priorities through the G7 and to further deepening the UK-Canada relationship together.

[Viscount Stansgate (Lab)]

I thank my noble friend the Minister for that Answer. Mr Carney is indeed well known in this country. In the light of growing tension and destabilising global uncertainty, with the world apparently changing in front of our very eyes, does my noble friend agree that the Prime Minister has been skilfully navigating his way towards a different role for the UK in international affairs? In that context, when he next meets the Prime Minister-elect of Canada, will he be able to offer some reassurance to a fellow head of a Commonwealth Government that the UK values its friendship with Canada and its close links and ties, and that Canada will, and should, remain a sovereign country?

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

My Lords, the UK and Canada are of course the closest of allies. We have a proud history of partnership built on shared values. We share a sovereign; we are among the oldest parliamentary democracies in the world; and the British and Canadians fought bravely alongside one another in two world wars, and in nearly every major conflict for more than a century. It should go without saying that the future of Canada lies solely in the hands of the Canadian people.

[Lord Lilley (Con)]

Will the Minister express solidarity with the Prime Minister of Canada in his determination that Canada should remain an independent country, making its own laws and trading with its huge continental neighbour on the basis of a free trade agreement that America should respect? Will she also express delight that he has abandoned the advice he used to give to Britain—that, in order to trade with our huge continental neighbour, we should submit to all its laws and join a political union with it?

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

I compliment the noble Lord on the agility of his questioning. The best thing I can do is repeat what I said about our long-standing friendship with Canada and to extend our friendship, good wishes and congratulations to Mark Carney on his appointment as Prime Minister.

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

My Lords, we on these Benches welcome Mr Carney’s election to the leadership of our long-standing sister party in Canada. He is reported to be assembling his Cabinet on an economic war footing. He obviously knows the UK economy and the European market extremely well. We still trade with Canada on a continuity agreement, not on a full FTA. Does the Minister agree with me that, when our Prime Minister meets Mr Carney, it will be a very good opportunity to turbocharge discussions on a full UK FTA; and that, given what the Trump Administration are doing, it will be an opportunity for an EU-UK-Canada strategic trade alliance, so that we are all resilient against the uncertainties around what the Trump Administration will do?

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

We are firm believers in free trade, as the noble Lord knows. However, he will also be aware that negotiations for an FTA with Canada did stall under the previous Government in the UK. This was primarily to do with regulations around food, specifically cheese and beef. This is a familiar issue and similar to those that are likely to be encountered when negotiations take place with the European Union. It is a tangled knot—but his point about us needing to enhance our trading arrangements is a good one.

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

My Lords, Canada will shortly hold a general election and we on these Benches hope that the reign of Mr Carney will be short-lived and that there will be a different Canadian leader. But, whichever leader the Canadian people choose, will the Prime Minister take the opportunity to reiterate our long-standing friendship and support? Canada has stood alongside us and alongside the US throughout many conflicts, as the noble Baroness said, from World War II to 9/11. Will she reiterate that the way it is being treated by the current US Government is appalling?

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

I would like to restate, for the third time in the last five minutes, our deep and enduring friendship with Canada. I gently suggest that it is not really for politicians in the United Kingdom to stand up in this place and express a preference for the outcome of the forthcoming general election in Canada. We will be happy to work closely alongside whoever the people of Canada choose to lead their country.

[Lord Beamish (Lab)]

My Lords, my noble friend says that Canada is a close and valued ally. It is a key part of NATO and very important in terms of our intelligence efforts. When the Prime Minister does meet the new Prime Minister of Canada, will he also try to build on the relationships in terms of security around defence exports—for example, around the Type 26 frigates that have been exported? This area could be built on to secure not just Canada but the UK.

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

Canada is a very close ally of the UK in defence, security and intelligence. I am sure that, when the Prime Minister meets Mark Carney, they will discuss in some depth the issues that my noble friend raises since, as many noble Lords have mentioned, this relationship is now more important than ever.

[Baroness Altmann (Non-Afl)]

Canada and Canadians feel more alone than ever right now. Does the Minister agree that Canada is not just a friend or ally but part of a family that we are supposed to belong to? The President of the United States has used, if you will forgive the expression, trumped-up charges—completely specious reasons—for imposing these tariffs on Canada. That country is under attack. Talking to people in Canada, it seems there is a real risk that they feel abandoned by us. They may be considering abolishing ties with the monarchy and even leaving the Commonwealth. What are we and our Commonwealth partners doing to support Canada when it is under such attack?

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

We are close friends, allies and family members inside the Commonwealth with Canada, as the noble Baroness quite rightly reminds us. That closeness is unshakable. It is for the people of Canada to decide what they wish to do in terms of their sovereignty and all those issues, and we respect that, but there is no need for Canada to feel isolated. It will always have a strong friend, ally and family member in the United Kingdom.

[Lord Stirrup (CB)]

My Lords, does the Minister agree that we should recall that, following 9/11, Canadian military forces fought heroically and suffered many casualties in Kandahar province—as did the Danish military, alongside the British military in Helmand province?

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

It is interesting that the noble and gallant Lord should mention both Canada and Denmark today. He is, of course, completely right, and we are proud to have served alongside the armed forces of Canada and of Denmark.

[Lord West of Spithead (Lab)]

My Lords, at the end of the Second World War, Canada had the third-largest navy in the world, we had the second-largest and America had the largest. In support of my noble friend Lord Beamish, it is very important that we work very closely with Canada on the maritime side, because the Arctic is becoming, I am afraid, a new battle zone. We already have deals on the Type 26, but there is an opportunity here both for ourselves and the Canadians and it is crucially important, for global peace and for Europe, that we get the Arctic battleground right.

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

That is a very important point. Canada is a leader in working alongside other Arctic nations on issues of security. I am pleased that we work closely with the Canadians on issues surrounding the Arctic region and we have every intention of continuing to do so.

[Lord Hannan of Kingsclere (Con)]

My Lords, since Mr Carney became leader of the Canadian Liberal Party, both of the main Canadian parties are now in favour of CANZUK—that is to say, closer links between Canada, Australia, New Zealand and the UK on issues such as a free market, free movement of labour and enhanced diplomatic collaboration. Is this something that His Majesty’s Government will look upon as a way of building on the ties we have of language, law, habit, history, culture and kinship? We are already linked in the trans-Pacific partnership. Could we not deepen our alliance with the countries that, as the Minister correctly says, have fought longest and hardest at our side?

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

As the noble Lord says, we are members of the CPTPP, together with Canada. If there are other ways that we can deepen our collaboration and enhance the ties he described, I am sure that we should look at them and speak with our Canadian friends about this.

Official Development Assistance

Baroness Chapman of Darlington Excerpts

Tuesday 4th March 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Bruce of Bennachie]

To ask His Majesty’s Government how aid priorities will change following the decision to reduce the Official Development Assistance budget to 0.3 per cent of gross national income (GNI), and whether they intend to restore the commitment of spending 0.7 per cent of GNI in future.

[The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Baroness Chapman of Darlington) (Lab)]

My Lords, as the Prime Minister made clear, increasing our security and defence spending has demanded the difficult but necessary decision to temporarily reduce our ODA budget from 0.5% to 0.3% of GNI from 2027. This Government remain fully committed to the UK playing a globally significant role on development; it is both in our national interest and in the interest of our partners. We remain committed to return to spending 0.7% of GNI on ODA when fiscal circumstances allow.

[Lord Bruce of Bennachie (LD)]

First, I congratulate the Minister on her promotion, albeit in somewhat difficult and unexpected circumstances. I will seek to work with her to try to ensure that aid, in its reduced capacity, gets to where it matters most. Nevertheless, I believe that the cut in ODA is a strategic error, which not only gives a terrible signal but is a mistake that threatens our security. Anneliese Dodds, in her resignation letter, said that the scale of the cuts would make it virtually impossible for the Government to deliver their continuing commitments. So may I ask, in particular, how the UK will maintain engagement in conflict prevention, reducing migration pressure and building resilience? On top of the cuts inflicted by the previous Government, how can we prevent Russia and China supercharging their presence within the vacuum left by the US and the UK, pulling most of Africa and south Asia into their sphere of influence, undermining democracy and what is left of the rule of law, and seriously compromising our security? I am glad that she said this was temporary, but how temporary is it? When will we get back to 0.7%?

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

We will get back to 0.7% when we no longer use debt for day-to-day spending and our overall debt starts to decline. We have not done this because of values or a wish to turn away development; we believe in international development, and we are proud of the record of the United Kingdom on international development. However, I should not have to remind anyone in Parliament that the first responsibility of any Government is the safety and security of our citizens, and we have committed to and will spend 2.5% on defence. That is the decision that the Prime Minister took, and it will not change; it was taken for reasons that I think we can all understand. We do not wish to turn away from our global commitments to development. I am glad that the noble Lord has reached out and offered to work with me on this, and I accept that offer. Undoubtedly, some choices will have to be made, and spending will have to be reprioritised; I will embark on that process today and I look forward to working alongside the noble Lord on it.

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

My Lords, I too congratulate the Minister on her promotion to the Cabinet. She has inherited her very own personal black hole in the finances along with the job, but we wish her well none the less—I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Livermore, will be on hand to advise. We support the Government’s decision, given the overwhelming importance of increasing the defence budget, but it will obviously require a very difficult exercise in the prioritisation of ODA programmes. Which ones will she cut?

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

We will embark on a process. The Prime Minister very clearly told me that he wants a line-by-line analysis of our spend, most of which we inherited from the previous Government. We will look very closely at that and make sure that, on behalf of the British taxpayer, every pound we spend is spent as well as we possibly can. I emphasise again that it is our intention—because we are the Labour Party and we believe in international development—that, when we can, we will increase the spending back up to 0.7%. We are committed to our international obligations, multilaterally and bilaterally. This is a task that I do not think any of us in government enter into light-heartedly or glibly; we take it incredibly seriously. As soon as we have made decisions, we will of course make announcements in the usual way.

[Baroness Amos (Lab)]

My Lords, this is a particularly challenging and difficult time for fragile countries, countries caught in conflict and some of the most vulnerable people in the world. In congratulating my noble friend the Minister on her new role, can I ask: first, how will we protect the gains we have already made on poverty reduction across the world? Secondly, how will we protect what we have been able to do on the sustainability of some of the most fragile countries? Finally, how can we increase the impact of the money we spend through working through multilateral organisations?

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

I thank my noble friend for that. While this undoubtedly will be a difficult process and choices will need to be made, there is also an opportunity here to rethink how we approach international development and how we work more in partnership with other nations. We need to get away from some of the paternalism and the ways that may have been cutting edge in the 1990s; we need to have a fresh look now, and there is an opportunity to do that. She is also right to point to the successes and gains that have been made through the work that the United Kingdom has done over the years. We need to have a fresh conversation with the British public about why we do international development—what the point of it is and what the benefits are to the United Kingdom —and that is something that we have not put sufficient focus on in the recent past.

[Baroness D'Souza (CB)]

My Lords, I wonder whether I could press the Minister on what criteria are being employed to reduce development assistance. Which projects will be targeted? Can I also ask her whether existing commitments, especially to those smaller NGOs, will be honoured? Otherwise, so many of these smaller NGOs will simply cease working and may not be revived.

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

That is an important point. The Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary were very clear with me that they wish to avoid cliff edges, which is why we will maintain the 0.5% that we currently have for the next financial year. We need to work closely with our partner countries and organisations and make sure that this is done in a responsible way that avoids some of the dramatic changes that have such a devastating impact, which we know can happen in these circumstances.

[Baroness Sugg (Con)]

My Lords, while I fully support the increase in defence spending, I am afraid I deeply regret where the money has been found. I genuinely wish the noble Baroness well in what are going to be incredibly difficult decisions on deciding where to spend the remainder of the money. The Minister will know that, historically, women and girls have been disproportionately impacted by cuts. Will she use her best endeavours to ensure that that is not the case this time? Will she also commit to carrying out and publishing an impact assessment in relation to women and girls?

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

First, I commend the noble Baroness for her own work and her track record of being a champion for women and girls globally and for the work she did as part of government—we should all thank her for that. Ordinarily, yes, we would conduct an impact assessment; that is part of making sure that we make sensible decisions and that we understand the impact of the choices that we make. She made that point very well.

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

My Lords, I congratulate the Minister. Will she agree with me that a key part of our national security and defence is working with allies, especially those smaller vulnerable nations, through ODA commitments for technical resilience against interference from both state and non-state actors? This is a large part of ODA funding, which the Government have now signalled will be cut by more than three-quarters. What security assessment was carried out before the Government indicated they were going to remove our technical and security support almost entirely for the very nations on which we rely for our national security?

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

That is complete nonsense; we are not going to do that. When we talk about prioritisation, that is about making choices. The idea that the Government, who have just reallocated the money into defence, are then going to be blasé or relaxed about reducing spending that contributes towards our security is, frankly, ridiculous.

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

My Lords, further to the question raised by my noble friend Lady Amos, to make sure that every pound we spend is as effective as possible, particularly on poverty reduction in sub-Saharan Africa, would my noble friend the Minister consider setting up an advisory group consisting of non-governmental organisations and experts—such as the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Bennachie, and others—to advise on where the priority for spending should be?

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

I can assure my noble friend that I have not been short of advice in the last few days, but he makes a good point. We do not want to make these important decisions, which have such far-reaching consequences, in an office in Whitehall. That would be the wrong way to go about it. I do not know if an advisory group is the right or wrong way to do that, but it is important to think about how we make sure that people with expertise, experience and knowledge of how these decisions will impact operations on the ground are included, and that they are part of the decision-making process.

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.