Embassy of China: Proposed New Site

Baroness Chapman of Darlington Excerpts

Wednesday 29th January 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Jackson of Peterborough]

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

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

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

[Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)]

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 However, these objections were conveniently withdrawn after senior Ministers, including the Prime Minister, met senior members of the Chinese politburo at the end of last year.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

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

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

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

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

[Lord Hayward (Con)]

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

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

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

[Lord McDonald of Salford (CB)]

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

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

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

[Lord Hannan of Kingsclere (Con)]

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

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

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

[Lord Spellar (Lab)]

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

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

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

[Baroness Foster of Aghadrumsee (Non-Afl)]

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

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

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

[Lord Stirrup (CB)]

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

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

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

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

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

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

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

[Lord Sahota (Lab)]

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

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

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

[Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate (Con)]

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

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

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

Chagos Islands

Baroness Chapman of Darlington Excerpts

Thursday 23rd January 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Bellingham]

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

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

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

[Lord Bellingham (Con)]

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

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

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

[Baroness Foster of Aghadrumsee (Non-Afl)]

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

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

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

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

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

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

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

[Lord Craig of Radley (CB)]

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

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

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

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

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

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

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

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)]

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

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

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

[Noble Lords]

Oh!

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

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

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

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

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

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


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

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

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

[Lord Cromwell (CB)]

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

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

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

[Lord Waldegrave of North Hill (Con)]

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

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

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

UK-Ukraine 100-year Partnership

Baroness Chapman of Darlington Excerpts

Wednesday 22nd January 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Lord Lancaster of Kimbolton (Con)]

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

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

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

[The Lord Bishop of Manchester]

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

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

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

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

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

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

[Baroness Helic (Con)]

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

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

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

[Lord Lancaster of Kimbolton (Con)]

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

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

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

Colombia: Bilateral Investment Treaty

Baroness Chapman of Darlington Excerpts

Monday 20th January 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Browne of Ladyton]

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

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

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

[Lord Browne of Ladyton (Lab)]

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

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

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

[Lord Fox (LD)]

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

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

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

[Baroness Coussins (CB)]

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

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

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

[Lord Hannan of Kingsclere (Con)]

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

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

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

[Baroness Boycott (CB)]

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

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

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

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

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

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

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

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

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

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

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

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

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

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

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

Gaza: Healthcare System Support

Baroness Chapman of Darlington Excerpts

Thursday 16th January 2025 Lords Chamber

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

My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for securing this debate and to noble Lords who have contributed. I know this House will join me in welcoming the news overnight of major progress on a ceasefire deal between Israel and Hamas. This provides hope and the prospect of an improvement in the dire situation in Gaza. I pay tribute to those who have worked so hard to bring this about, including the negotiating teams from the United States, Qatar and Egypt.

At the same time, we recognise that for the hostages and their families, the suffering continues. We especially think of British citizen Emily Damari, and of Eli and Yossi Sharabi, Oded Lifshitz, and Avinatan Or, who have strong links to the UK, and their loved ones, who have shown so much courage and commitment to bringing them home. We stand with Gazan civilians as they await more information about what this deal will mean. They need to be able to start rebuilding their lives and livelihoods as soon as possible. Winter has come to Gaza, and after 15 months of conflict Gazans are in a desperate situation. The legacy of conflict will take time to address fully. Nearly 2 million people have been forced to flee their homes, and the whole population of Gaza, not least the children and the most vulnerable in society, bear the scars of the conflict, both physically and psychologically.

Since the appalling Hamas attacks of 7 October, hospitals and other healthcare facilities make up much of the vital infrastructure that has been destroyed in Gaza. What is needed immediately is a rapid surge in aid reaching Gaza and an effective security context for this to be delivered. We need to see commercial deliveries fully reinstated and medical supplies allowed. We must also see more medical evacuation routes opened and the urgent facilitation of new and sustainable healthcare provision. Reports that more than 1,000 medical staff in Gaza have been killed, injured or detained during the conflict only underline the scale of the problem. The impact on Gaza’s people has been devastating. They have been unable to safely access the healthcare they desperately need; child malnutrition has rocketed and the whole population has faced the risk of famine for some time now. Infectious diseases have spread, and babies have died for lack of warmth.

Throughout the conflict we have pressed all sides to meet their obligations with regard to healthcare in Gaza. The noble Baroness, Lady Helic, asked about UNRWA. In our view, UNRWA is the best way forward to get aid, and it should be allowed to continue. Last month, the Prime Minister committed an additional £30 million to UNRWA, which will support vital services including medical care. We have now committed £41 million of UK funding to UNRWA this financial year to support its work in Gaza and the wider region. As the ceasefire begins to be implemented, it is essential that UNRWA is enabled to carry out its vital mission in Gaza and beyond.

Through our wider funding to the Occupied Territories, we have supported UK-Med’s operation of field hospitals and other healthcare services. UK-Med has provided vital care to over 300,000 Gazans since the start of the conflict. We have also provided £1 million of funding to the Egyptian Ministry of Health and Population, delivered through the WHO in Egypt, to support Palestinians who have been medically evacuated from Gaza.

Given the distressing plight of the sick and injured, we continue to look for opportunities to alleviate the suffering, particularly of those in need of specialised treatment and urgent care. Officials across government are examining all options to ensure we are doing everything in our power to help and to explore all avenues in order to support the critically ill in Gaza. It remains essential that all parties work urgently to establish safe passage for patients who need treatment that is not available in Gaza. We have to take the opportunity of the ceasefire to further enable this. It is true that Israel has provided field hospitals; I am happy to confirm that. But we must acknowledge that the humanitarian situation we see today tells us that this has not been enough. Journalists should be able to operate freely and safely in Gaza, and we hope that that can be brought about soon.

In closing, I reiterate that what we urgently need now is for the implementation of the ceasefire announced last night, long overdue though it is, to bring swift and significant relief to the people of Gaza. We need to see a rapid increase in the amount of aid reaching Gaza and immediate action to restore civilian infrastructure, including access to healthcare. Reconstruction should be Palestinian led, but Hamas should play no part in this. We stand ready to play our part in reconstruction and psychosocial support. I suspect that this House, like the wider world, will never agree on the balance of responsibility and blame for the deaths of tens of thousands of children, women and men. But what we can support, and we surely all have a duty to support, is that negotiation, dialogue, humanitarian aid, a ceasefire and the release of all hostages, today, is the only way forward.

Rules-based International Order

Baroness Chapman of Darlington Excerpts

Thursday 16th January 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

My Lords, the quality of this debate has done justice to the outstanding manner in which my noble friend introduced it. She argued, in clear terms, why we have rules and why there is a structure for the way that nations relate to each other. It is to resolve competition and govern the means by which disputes can be mediated or adjudicated, and therefore for accountability. Representative institutions were formed to be the secretariats for this system of governance, in finance, trade, maritime law and, more recently, development policy, climate—as my noble friend Lord Marks indicated—and human rights, with global judicial procedures.

My noble friend outlined in compelling form the history. As my noble friend Lord Thomas indicated, that history was written by the UK and the US in many regards, and it is the UK and the US that loom large over this debate. Is this generation honouring the previous generation who designed the very system on which we rely? It is based on fundamental principles that should apply to all equitably, but, as my noble friend said, the concern is whether we in the UK apply them equitably. The double standards we have recently seen, as my noble friend Lady Hussein-Ece said, have perhaps been seen elsewhere, as my noble friend Lord Marks indicated.

The rule of law is not just for our adversaries but for our allies. War crimes are crimes, whatever the war. A human right when denied to one is denied to all. It is interesting that, last year and just this week, when I have asked questions about war crimes, the noble Lords, Lord Ahmad and Lord Collins, agreed with sincerity that war crimes have been committed by Putin. They said so at the Dispatch Box. However, just on Monday, the Minister said that she could not proclaim what a war crime was within the Gaza-Israel conflict.

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

We were talking specifically about genocide. I would be grateful if the noble Lord could make that clear.

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

I am grateful to the Minister for interacting, but what she said was in response to my question on war crimes. The Minister replied from the Dispatch Box that she could not proclaim what a war crime is. The point I am making is that, for other conflicts, Ministers speaking from the same Dispatch Box over the last year have proclaimed what war crimes are. It is not about whether Ministers have adjudicated; it is about whether Ministers can state what they are. That is where the world sees UK Ministers perhaps taking a different approach.

From these Benches, my noble friend Lord Thomas has said that we have had to be the vanguard in Parliament against recent Governments who have, in our country and abroad, moved away from honouring commitments—whether through the casual treatment of the ECHR or the Rwanda legislation, as referred to. We have tried to be dogged in what we believe: we believe in honouring commitments and know that, if we do not, we give license to other countries to dishonour them too. The United Kingdom remains a leader on rules and rights and others look to us. It is coming up to Burns Night, so we should

“see ourselves as others see us”.

I agree with my noble friend Lord Bruce that it was catastrophic for the UK to cut by a third our development partnerships and in the way that we did. It was heartbreaking that a new Government, with a historic mandate, chose in their first Budget to reduce even further ODA. It is now at its lowest level in 17 years.

As a prime example, over this period, the challenges of the world, be they Covid, the climate or conflict, have made the development need even greater. Some 80% of developing nations still have not recovered their economies to pre-Covid levels, as the World Bank’s most recent reported indicated. With the growth of conflict exacerbated by the climate emergency, the most recent data shows that 282 million people in 59 countries and territories face acute food insecurity. This is seen especially in Sudan, Afghanistan and Myanmar. Despite the global aim of abolishing absolute poverty by 2030, which was set in 2015 in the SDGs, the lowest estimate is that 600 million people will remain in absolute poverty by then.

In 2015, all parties in this Chamber agreed with the SDGs. They also agreed with the International Development Act, a statutory duty that we should honour our commitment and continue to honour it. We should be dependable, reliable and predictable. I agreed with 99% of what the noble Lord, Lord Liddle, said—I did not agree with 1% of it because it was not the Labour Government who met the 0.7%. As political parties, we were all aligned to that ambition, and there is a need to restore dependability, reliability and predictability.

Those three words are not often used to describe the incoming President of the United States, but perhaps the Trump Administration will again have as their approach dysfunction by design. It is true that the previous Administration of Donald Trump had leverage, but I disagree that it was used to net benefit. I believe that legitimising the North Korean leadership, removing the guard-rails on Iran and putting at risk the NATO alliance was not strength. We have to ensure, as my noble friend indicated, that our relationship with our European partners and like-minded countries is as strong as it can be, given that we may well have uncertainty in the next Administration of the United States.

Many Trump supporters say that what he says should be listened to seriously but not taken literally. But the problem is that the people who now have to listen to what he says and judge whether to take it seriously or literally are his allies, not necessarily his adversaries, and the negative energy that will be consumed will be wasted energy, especially since the global challenges are immense.

Transactionalism at the core of United States foreign policy will potentially lead to openings of opportunity for the Kremlin and Beijing. The challenges of the 21st century are immense and include technology, AI, the climate and many others. As the noble Baroness, Lady Lane-Fox, indicated, we will see a combination of an uncertain American partner and the concentration of power in people such as Elon Musk or Peter Thiel—individuals who consider law as discretionary, standards as weakness and norms as anachronisms.

In 2015, there was considerable consensus that we should not only meet the 0.7% obligation but set sustainable development goals and work with others to meet them. It is 10 years to the week since we had the Second Reading of that 2015 legislation, on 23 January. I want to close my remarks now as I closed them then. In that debate, when we passed that legislation, I never felt that we would honour it in only three out of the following 10 years—and it is likely to be only three out of 15 by the end of this Parliament.

As I said then:

“I conclude by saying that the UK has less than 1% of the world’s population. Our global footprint is massively disproportionate to the size of our tiny islands. If the UK is a citizen of the world, what kind of citizen must we be? I say we are one that comes to the assistance of others who are in need, does not shrink from challenging those who abuse minorities, refuses to support those who prevent women accessing rights, and never turns a blind eye to those who disempower their own citizens. We establish our place and our identity as a citizen of the world if we uphold our obligations and encourage others to do likewise”.—[Official Report, 23/1/15; col. 1520.]

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, for securing this debate and for sharing her thoughts on how we have arrived at where we are and what we need to do next. This debate has raised important questions that I hope we can continue to consider in the months and years ahead. I thank her for sharing her experience of serving as Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for International Development, now 10 years ago—I hope she does not mind me saying that—and for her continued dedication in the years that have followed. Her long view was inspiring and sobering. Her debate has enabled us to hear vast experience from across the House as well as fresh perspectives. By no means have we had unanimity, but there is broad agreement that the rules-based order is necessary and our best, if not only, prospect of tackling the greatest challenges the world faces.

It is interesting how much emphasis has been placed on populism and threats to our democracy. As the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, said, we are not immune to these pressures. We must defeat populism and rebuild our international reputation. His words about our relationships in Africa are well worth heeding.

Equally, concerns about disinformation, as highlighted by the noble Baroness, Lady Lane-Fox, and others, are an urgent call to action that must be answered multilaterally through technology, governance and, as several noble Lords said, our use of soft power. We need global action to address global challenges and—more optimistically, perhaps—to make the most of global opportunities.

The rules-based international order continues to play an important role in making sure we can take action at the scale and pace that is needed, including in facing crises, with most countries trusting the United Nations to act effectively as first responder. Of course, we can all see, as many noble Lords reminded us, that the reality of today’s world is piling on the pressure. The system is being stretched by the strain, with millions of the world’s poorest and most vulnerable people bearing the brunt of the consequences.

We can all see opportunists, such as Russia and China, seeking to set themselves up as the true defenders of the system and the true champions of the global South, even as they contribute so very little and strive to set countries against one another—just when we most need to be working together on everything from respecting sovereignty and upholding rights to getting help to those in desperate need and making sure the system is fit for the future. Indeed, it should give us pause to see just how hard they are working to pervert and undermine a system that is still robust, resilient and widely shared. We can all see, 80 years since it all began to come together, in the shadow of the war between great powers that engulfed the world in a generation, that it endures.

As the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, the noble Lord, Lord Liddle, and—as he reminded us— Tony Blair have warned us, we must not take this system for granted. Our focus must be on making sure it thrives. As my right honourable friends the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary told the United Nations General Assembly and the summit of the future in New York last September, the Government are committed to multilateralism and to the mission of the United Nations. We recognise that this is an important part of how countries work together on everything from conflict to the climate and nature crisis, economic shocks, poverty, public health, and trade. As the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy, said, our commitment to justice and peace must be renewed, consistent and shared internationally. These partnerships are the only way forward.

The noble Baroness, Lady Helic, warned us that we need a massive global effort to get back on track to meet our shared goals for sustainable development by 2030. Learning from history, we must make progress towards our climate and nature goals together or we will never meet the urgent and growing humanitarian need that we see in so many countries. Indeed, as the Foreign Secretary said in a major speech just last week, across the board what we need now is

“a whole new level of global engagement”,

not only with our closest allies and strategic partners but with all those who are committed to the principle of the UN charter. That is how we work together: in genuine, respectful partnership with others, taking realistic steps towards progressive ends.

Over the last six months we have been putting this into practice across a vast range of work, spanning everything from irregular migration to emerging technologies, and the needs of women and girls and other marginalised people. At the UN Security Council, as well as standing with Ukraine, we used our presidency to keep the world’s worst crises firmly in the spotlight when others would prefer to look away. No doubt noble Lords will have seen the Foreign Secretary’s passionate address in November on the catastrophe unfolding in Sudan. We have not only doubled UK aid to Sudan but pushed our partners to do more for the world’s biggest humanitarian crisis, and worked intensively with our partners to support people living through traumatic situations in Yemen, Syria, the Democratic Republic of Congo, the central Sahel, Somalia, Mozambique, Bangladesh, and more.

We are committed to upholding and promoting the rule of law, putting it at the heart of our approach, from our domestic legal and judicial system, to strengthening accountability and the international institutions that defend international law, including the United Nations, the Council of Europe, and the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe. We are seeking re-election to the Human Rights Council and to return a UK judge to the International Court of Justice. This Government will not withdraw the UK from the European Convention on Human Rights, and I can tell the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, that this Government support the effective and independent International Criminal Court.

We are pursuing justice at the local level too, and that includes helping Ukraine to build capacity to investigate and prosecute allegations of war crimes in its own judicial system. The noble Lord, Lord Ahmad, asked who attended Ukraine’s First Lady’s conference on sexual violence. I can tell him that our ambassador in Kyiv attended that event to represent the UK. I also highlight that Prime Minister Starmer is in Ukraine today to progress and highlight our determination that we have a long-standing partnership with Ukraine.

We continue to promote compliance with international humanitarian law, including in Gaza. From our first day in office, this Government have pressed for an immediate ceasefire, to free the hostages and to bring relief, reconstruction and hope to civilians, who have suffered so much. All phases of the ceasefire deal announced yesterday must now be implemented in full. We were all pleased to hear that news yesterday, and we are hopeful that every phase of the agreement that has been reached can be implemented. The UK will continue to make every diplomatic effort to get lasting peace, security and a two-state solution for the Israeli and the Palestinian people.

The UK remains a top donor to the multilateral system. We are the largest flexible funder of the World Health Organization. Indeed, we have unlocked $42 billion from the International Monetary Fund to support our partners’ health systems, saving lives and safeguarding economies from future pandemics, as well as building long-term systems that will support communities for the future. From the UN regular and peacekeeping funds to the World Bank, we are channelling UK assistance through the multilateral system because it is effective and cost effective.

For example, last year we increased the UK’s pledge to the World Bank’s International Development Association by 40%. We did that because partners agree that this will help them to grow their economies long term. Indeed, since 1960 that fund has had a transformative impact for so many countries around the world. It supports 1.9 billion people, almost one-quarter of the world’s population, in 75 countries. Already every £1 that we put in pays for itself in results three or four times over, and that is set to rise as we encourage private sector investment as countries add their own fiscal resources to multiply that even further.

As we use our leverage to secure reforms, we are delighted that Tom Fletcher has started his new role as UN relief chief, working on the reforms that are needed to make sure that all our efforts are much more joined up across the humanitarian and development system that is so stretched. We are working with pioneering partners such as Mia Mottley to get more climate finance to those who need it faster and with greater impact, and to reform the global financial system, making the most of our leverage as a major donor to secure the reforms that we need to achieve it, not least through the multilateral development banks. In all my visits, I have heard our partners underline just how important that is for them. The UK is not only at the forefront of developing innovative financial tools in areas such as insurance but we are using our heft to implement much-needed reforms, with the World Bank now mainstreaming climate resilient debt clauses.

As part of our work to strengthen, improve and reinvigorate the wider system—as, to be fair to him, the noble Lord, Lord Ahmad, said we should—we are supporting expanded membership of the UN Security Council, with additional permanent and non-permanent seats. In all that we do, our approach is one of genuine partnership grounded in mutual respect.

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Howell of Guildford, for highlighting the launch of the soft power council yesterday. I can assure him that promoting our values of the rule of law and democracy will be central to that work.

This Government are committed to fulfilling our first duty, which is to keep people safe, and determined to make good on our guiding mission to grow our economy and bring opportunity to people across our country. In today’s world, the work we do with our partners, overseas and globally, is an essential part of how we achieve that. I say that partly in answer to the challenge from the noble Lord, Lord Gascoigne. I agreed with much of what he said about ensuring that what we do in foreign affairs is directly relevant and interesting and feels important to people from every part of our country. That is why this Government are focused on making sure that the way we do things works in today’s world, so that we overcome those who seek to set us against one another and reinvigorate hope for a shared future by working towards it together.

Gaza: Peace Talks

Baroness Chapman of Darlington Excerpts

Wednesday 15th January 2025 Lords Chamber

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

My Lords, resolving the conflict has been a priority since day 1 of this Government. The fighting must stop and all sides must seize the opportunity to open a pathway to lasting peace and stability. We are encouraged by the progress being made on ceasefire negotiations and urge all parties to show the flexibility needed to reach an agreement. We continue to use every diplomatic lever to bring about a ceasefire and secure the safe release of hostages in co-ordination with international partners.

[Lord Hain (Lab)]

My Lords, does my noble friend not agree that Palestinians, Israelis and indeed the whole world need a permanent ceasefire—not a quick fix, but a real end to hostilities? All the hostages should be out and Palestinian civilians should be returned to what little remains of their Gaza homes north and south. There should be no more starvation—which means preserving UNRWA—no reduction in the size of this integral part of the state of Palestine and no Israeli settlements. A Marshall-type plan is needed for the recovery of Gaza, with everyone held to respecting international law. Surely, this is the only path to real and stable peace for both Israelis and Palestinians. How will the Government help achieve that?

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

I thank my noble friend and acknowledge the work that he did as Minister for the Middle East and North Africa. He is absolutely right that a permanent peace is what we need to seek. A ceasefire would only ever be the first step. The hostages must be released and be home with their families. We also agree on the importance of UNRWA being able to continue its work. My noble friend asked about reconstruction. We are thinking very much about the next phase of planning in Gaza and building up its governance and security institutions. This must be predicated on tangible progress towards a Palestinian state.

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

My Lords, I am sure that the whole House is united in wishing to see peace in this terrible conflict. The key to a sustainable end to the fighting in Gaza remains, first, the elimination of Hamas and, secondly, the release of the hostages, whose suffering is truly intolerable. It should be intolerable for anyone who cares about human dignity and human rights. Does the Minister have any information on the well-being of the British national hostage, Emily Damari?

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

The noble Lord is completely right in everything he said about the hostages. My honourable friend Hamish Falconer the Minister for the Middle East, the Foreign Secretary and the Prime Minister have met on several occasions Emily’s family and others with British links who are wrongly held in Gaza. We are doing everything we can, using all levers to secure their immediate release.

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

My Lords, any agreement that will allow the hostages to come home and the violence against the Palestinian civilians to end cannot come too soon. Does the Minister agree that the most represented group among Palestinian deaths and verified casualties are children between the ages of five and nine? The suffering will continue even if there is a ceasefire, because there are no educational facilities separate to those provided by UNRWA and no health facilities, especially for girls. Will the UK play a crucial role, as it did after the liberation of Mosul, to support pop-up education and psychosocial support for young children in particular? If there is to be long-term sustainable peace, we cannot allow a traumatised generation of children to continue to suffer.

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

I agree with the noble Lord. The ceasefire would be only the beginning. He is also right to remind us that around 50% of the bodies identified in Gaza so far have been of children and women. We are providing substantial aid to UNRWA and other agencies that are providing the support that he wishes to see in Gaza and in neighbouring places as well. That includes education, food, medicine and the psychosocial support that they are going to need for some years to come.

[Lord Grocott (Lab)]

My Lords, I strongly welcome the possibility of an end to the killing, but is not the sad lesson of the history of this region that the world’s attention is strongly on it and the need for solutions as long as violence is threatened or immediate? As soon as the violence goes away, the world’s attention moves elsewhere. After the slaughter that has taken place, is it not vital that we try to build something constructive out of it? That can occur in the long term only if the Palestinians have a state of their own.

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

That is right. The United Kingdom Government stand ready to play a leading role in reconstruction and securing a stable Palestinian state alongside a secure Israel. Gaza’s recovery and reconstruction must be Palestinian led, though, and support for future governance of the Palestinian Authority in Gaza and maintaining the viability of a future Palestinian state are an important part of the UK’s approach.

[Baroness Foster of Aghadrumsee (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, to follow on from the last question, it is vital that a sustainable reconciliation process happens, hopefully after any peace deal. Bearing in mind what happened with us in Northern Ireland dealing with domestic terrorism, is it not important to set rules in relation to any elections that take place to any Palestinian Authority? Would not those rules have to include a commitment to non-violence and recognition of the State of Israel?

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

These issues of reconciliation and truth and the process that needs to be undergone are fiendishly difficult, as the noble Baroness has experienced and which we can see when we look at any of these processes anywhere in the world, from Chile to South Africa to Northern Ireland—and I hope in the future in Israel-Gaza. She made her point very well.

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)]

My Lords, I am sure I speak for all in your Lordships’ House in recognising the importance of a peace agreement; we are on the brink. We hope, and those of faith pray, that this agreement is reached. Will the Minister acknowledge, as I do, the important role that the United States—and indeed the incoming Administration—Egypt and in particular Qatar have played in their persistence in ensuring that this deal is reached? We all want to see the hostages released; we want to see aid into Gaza, and we want to see peace and security across the Holy Land. Will the Minister ensure that, as others have said, the momentum is sustained? You must be in the game, you must persist, and you must keep the momentum going to see the peace and security that we all so desire and that, most importantly, Israelis and Palestinians need now.

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

The noble Lord is right. It is important that we acknowledge the role of all players who have been instrumental in facilitating negotiations and smoothing this along, including, as he says, the United States, Egypt and Qatar. Of course, we have hope, given recent announcements, but I would draw a strong distinction between hope and optimism. We need to be realistic and patient, but our hope remains, and I have more hope today than we perhaps did a week ago.

[Lord Dubs (Lab)]

Does my noble friend agree that there has also been an increase in violence in the West Bank? Will the Government confirm that they are totally opposed to any expansion of settlements in the West Bank no matter what the American Government decide?

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

As we have discussed previously, the problem with settlements and some of the activity we have seen around them is that it makes the two-state solution more difficult to deliver in practical terms—so we do have concerns, as the noble Lord says.

[Lord Soames of Fletching (Con)]

My Lords, can the Minister confirm that in respect of these particular talks, quite apart from the vital necessity of the release of the hostages, it is very much the imperative that the Israelis are made to open more spaces for relief to starving Palestinians in Gaza and elsewhere?

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

The Israeli Government have a responsibility to allow aid to those who need it. The situation is urgent: the hunger and the deaths from the cold that we have seen among young children because of the change in the weather are appalling. We appeal to the Israeli Government to allow the necessary aid to reach those who need it.

[Baroness Hayman (CB)]

My Lords, will the Minister take this opportunity to recognise the courage and commitment of those groups of Israelis and Palestinians working for peace who have continued to do so throughout this conflict? Will she also ensure that they are involved in the desperately difficult process that will follow any ceasefire of building a sustainable peace?

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

As in many conflicts, there are some incredibly courageous individuals who risk their own lives to bring forward the cause of peace. It is only right that we are reminded of those people today. We should also remember the more than 300 aid workers who have been killed throughout this conflict. I thank the noble Baroness for her comments.

Sudan: US Determination of Genocide

Baroness Chapman of Darlington Excerpts

Tuesday 14th January 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

My Lords, the news that our close allies in the US have assessed the situation in Sudan as genocide is, of course, deeply worrying. It underscores the terrible humanitarian situation going on there, something that we have debated extensively in this Chamber. Does the Minister agree that what is going on in Sudan is genocide? Does she agree with the Americans or with her ministerial colleague in the other place who said that this was a matter

“for the courts to decide”?”.—[Official Report, Commons, 13/1/25; col. 36.]

What assessment have the Government made of the potential security and geopolitical implications of this ongoing—I will call it what it is—genocide in Sudan for the UK and its allies?

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

My Lords, what is happening in Sudan is abhorrent, and we should all condemn it in the strongest possible terms. When it comes to genocide, the noble Lord opposite will be aware that we take a different approach to making these determinations from that of our close allies and friends in the United States.

I am surprised at the way in which the noble Lord put his point to me. Much as we agree on the substance of what is happening in Sudan and wish to see it end, I am surprised at what he said because it contradicts what his noble friend the shadow Foreign Secretary, Priti Patel, said in the House of Commons just yesterday. She said that she understood very well that we take a different approach to the determination of genocide from that of our colleagues in the United States, and that is an approach that she supported in government and still supports in opposition.

I hope that, much as we can perhaps differ—and the noble Lord can take this up with his noble friend in the Commons should he wish—the important thing is that we use every tool we can, diplomatically and using our multilateral and bilateral connections and our humanitarian work on the ground, to make sure that we do everything possible to bring an end to this unbearable suffering being endured by the people of Sudan.

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

My Lords, I declare an interest as I have ongoing work with Sudanese civilians in exile. At the weekend, I will be travelling to be with them and to facilitate dialogue. Does the Minister agree that, however it is termed, these are war crimes and atrocities, and there should be no impunity for those who have carried them out? It is now potentially 12 weeks from what would be the second anniversary of this terrible war, but there should not be a second anniversary, and that should focus everybody’s minds on there being an end and resolution to the war.

How are the UK Government supporting practical measures to ensure that there are safe zones, especially for education and health facilities; no-fly zones, especially for drones—including those that have been supplied by Iran and other countries; and no blockages of humanitarian and food aid? Countries in the Gulf and near neighbours should now cease the funding and provision of weapons to belligerents. All this now needs to take place to ensure an end to this war. I hope the Government are being very active, notwithstanding the previous Russian veto, to ensure that there is no second anniversary to this war.

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

Nothing proves more sharply that the Russians care nothing for the lives of Africans than their terrible decision to vote as they did at the UN. As the noble Lord said, there must be no impunity here. That is why we are supporting fact-finding missions and evidence-gathering activity on the ground in Sudan. Whether or not determinations of genocide are made at a court in the future, it will need that evidence to enable it to make a sound decision. That has been the Government’s focus.

The noble Lord talked about other countries and their activities. All I can say is that any countries with any influence of any kind, or any relationship with any side—this is a multi-sided conflict now—must use that for one purpose only. That is to de-escalate, to bring those parties to the negotiating table and to get that humanitarian support which, as the noble Lord said, is urgently needed by those communities now.

[The Lord Bishop of Leeds]

My Lords, that being the case, what pressure can the UK and the United States Governments put on the United Arab Emirates, which has been supplying and continue to supply funding and weapons to the RSF?

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

The best thing I can do is to repeat what I have already said: the most important thing is to get those parties around the negotiating table and get that humanitarian aid where it is needed. Anybody or any state, with any influence over any party, must use that influence for good and to bring this conflict to an end as soon as possible.

[Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)]

My Lords, there is no disagreement in the House about the importance of dealing with all atrocity crimes. In the previous Parliament, the noble Baroness’s party kindly supported amendments from the Front Bench to enable the High Court of England and Wales to determine whether a genocide is being committed. She touched on the problem of the International Criminal Court and the use of vetoes by countries such as China and Sudan never to allow these issues to get to the ICC.

Will the noble Baroness go back and look at the way that we determine genocides? Will she accept that, as long as 20 years ago, the ICC announced a genocide in Darfur? Some 2 million people were displaced and 300,000 people died; and 18 months ago, the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Sudan and South Sudan, in an inquiry that I chaired, warned that signs of genocide were emerging again. Under the 1948 convention, we have a duty to predict, prevent, protect and punish. The truth is that we are not doing any of them.

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

My Lords, I remember the events of 20 years ago very well. I remember Colin Powell saying that it was genocide and being astonished by the continuation of atrocities, given that declaration. It is why our focus should not be on whether we use a particular term—that will come and words are important—as that determination must be made by a competent court in possession of the relevant evidence. Quite how that is done and which courts are deemed competent is an interesting question, and one that I am happy to take away. I think that we should re-examine that.

I am very glad that this has come before the House, because one of the things that has concerned me is that the famine taking place in Sudan is causing the death of more people than in Mali, Afghanistan, Bangladesh and Gaza put together, and it is receiving far too little attention from the world.

[Lord Reid of Cardowan (Lab)]

My Lords, I entirely agree with the sentiments and comments of the noble Lord, Lord Purvis. Whatever this is called, it is horrendous. Can my noble friend the Minister say a little more about what efforts have been made to achieve a political solution? Does she retain any hope in the Jeddah process?

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

Hope is an interesting concept when it comes to Sudan. All parties seem to have breached the commitments they made as part of the Jeddah process. We remain the penholder at the Security Council. To give up hope is to give up on every effort we need to make to move things forward, so giving up on hope is not an option. It does not help anybody to be optimistic when there is little reason for optimism, but we will continue to pursue our calls for a negotiated outcome, a cessation of all violence and atrocities, and the aid to get to where it is needed.

Sometimes we will work directly and sometimes through multilateral partners. This has to end—so many people, and so many children, are dying. The sexual violence being experienced by women and children in Sudan is completely intolerable. We all have a responsibility to do what we can to highlight what is happening and do something about it.

[Baroness Foster of Aghadrumsee (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, as with all these things, there is much high politics, but meanwhile over 90% of children are not receiving schooling, as the Minister for Development in the other place pointed out yesterday. Can the Minister tell us some practical ways in which we can help those children to get the education they so desperately need?

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

That is a really important point. Last summer my right honourable friend the Minister for Development, Anneliese Dodds, visited South Sudan on one of her first visits after her appointment. She got as close to the border as she could. She met many of the women and children who had been forced to flee and who had experienced the most awful violence. She has managed to secure a doubling of our aid to Sudan—it is now around £113 million—and that is for food, healthcare and, importantly, education, to make sure that those young people are educated as close to their homes as possible, because to miss out on that education just compounds the terrible circumstances in which they have found themselves.

Sub-Saharan Africa: Diplomatic Relationships

Baroness Chapman of Darlington Excerpts

Tuesday 14th January 2025 Lords Chamber

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

My Lords, in line with our manifesto commitment, the Foreign Secretary launched a five-month consultation to inform the UK’s new approach to the African continent during his visit to Nigeria and South Africa in November. Our goal is fundamentally a transformed partnership that engages with African countries as equals. This will promote our economic growth ambitions, including trade and investment, address our migration priorities and draw on our shared cultural and people-to-people links.

[Lord Bruce of Bennachie (LD)]

While I welcome that Answer, the UK has disengaged drastically from Africa in the last few years—aid has been slashed, trade and investment have been halved, the investment summit was cancelled, and the World Service and the British Council are struggling to maintain their services. Russia and China have come exponentially into this vacuum, so what are the Government going to do specifically and practically across all sectors to engage with sub-Saharan Africa? Will they follow the example of Japan, China, India and the EU and set up a UK- Africa partnership?

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

My Lords, I could not have put that better myself. It was a very helpful summary of where we are. On aid, we are committed to the 0.5%. We have an ambition to get back to where we ought to have been at 0.7%, but noble Lords will understand the inheritance we received—I do not need to mention the £22 billion black hole as my noble friend is here beside me.

The noble Lord is completely right to highlight the World Service and the British Council. He will notice the financial support we were able to provide the World Service in the recent Budget, and we are working closely with the British Council to make sure it is put on a stable footing because it is essential as one of the finest soft power assets this country possesses. He referred to Russia and China, and clearly it is for African nations to decide their own international partnerships, but many have expressed the view that they wish to work more closely with the United Kingdom and we are very open to that as part of our new approach.

[Lord Howell of Guildford (Con)]

My Lords, is it not a slight pity that so far in this exchange there has been no mention of the Commonwealth network? There are 22 Commonwealth countries south of the Sahara. They are the main bulwark against Chinese and Russian incursion. Is it not time for us to have a rather more central role for the Commonwealth in our thinking about Africa and to commit more seriously to Commonwealth countries, several of which now wish to join in addition to the existing 22? It is a growing organisation and we should support it vigorously.

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

That was very well put. I could have mentioned the Commonwealth; it is a vital multinational grouping, as the noble Lord says. I work closely with many Caribbean nations where the Commonwealth is well represented, and that needs to form part of our thinking in the future. I thank him for raising it.

[Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)]

My Lords, does the Minister recognise that we need ambassadorial representation in as many African countries as possible—more than we have now? We should not be seduced by the idea of multiple accreditation, which frankly is not worth a lot, as I discovered during the Somalia and Rwanda crises in the 1990s, when we had nobody on the spot.

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

I would be very wise to take what the noble Lord says seriously, and I do note it. At the moment we are engaged in a five-month consultation with African nations and others to inform what will be a new approach to Africa. The points that the noble Lord just made will be considered as part of that approach; I thank him.

[Lord Anderson of Swansea (Lab)]

Does my noble friend agree that in our engagement with sub-Saharan Africa we must try to understand the Africa gap and why the region is turning out so badly compared with east Asia, for example—a matter illustrated very well in the most recent edition of the Economist? We should try to encourage having more Africa specialists in our Diplomatic Service. We should also try to encourage the lowering of national barriers and co-operation with Africa and, as always, do our very best to encourage civil society in the region.

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

I read the piece in the Economist and it was very useful. The approach that we are consulting on at the moment will touch on many of the issues raised by my noble friend. We want to see an approach that is more about partnership than paternalism, working alongside African nations. My noble friend Lord Collins is in Botswana today, and I know that is precisely the approach that he wishes to take.

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)]

My Lords, what assessment have His Majesty’s Government made of the growing influence of the BRICS grouping, in particular its economic influence? There are also the issues of security and cyber, which will impact sub-Saharan Africa as well as other parts of the world. BRICS is a growing grouping, and we saw its direct contest with the Commonwealth during the recent CHOGM held in the Pacific.

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

We do not think of it as a contest. That was just a diary coincidence, if I can put it that way. It is not for us to tell African nations or anybody else which groupings they should align with, but we find that there is a desire—a genuine desire, I think—to work more closely with the United Kingdom. Sometimes we have perhaps not put the energy that we might into that; sometimes we have perhaps made it too difficult compared with attracting investment from other nations. We want to consider and do all these things as well as we can, as we get to the end of our consultation on the new approach.

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

Further to the Minister’s reply to my noble friend on partnership assistance levels, is it not correct that, as a result of this Government’s Budget, ODA is now at the lowest level for 17 years? Also, one of the unforgivable actions of the previous Administration was to score more ODA spending in the United Kingdom than in sub-Saharan Africa, or indeed anywhere abroad. This is a policy choice, not a fiscal choice, and the Government have so far chosen to adopt the previous Conservative Government’s approach. Will the Minister agree with me that the way to restore trust with those countries with the greatest need and poverty is to ensure that ODA is not only official development assistance but overseas development assistance and is not scored for spending here in the UK?

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

I do not want to spend ODA here in the UK. That money is being spent on housing people who have come here in hotels, and it is costing a fortune to do so. That money ought to be spent on education and humanitarian assistance in countries where it is needed the most. That is how this should be, and that is the situation that the FCDO and the Home Office are working hard to get to. We have committed so far to the 0.5%. What 0.5% equals depends entirely on the size of the economy and, as the economy grows, that 0.5% will be worth an awful lot more. As I said earlier, we want to get to back to 0.7% spend, which we never should have left.

[The Earl of Courtown (Con)]

My Lords, notwithstanding what the Minister has said concerning His Majesty’s Government’s aims and ambitions in sub-Saharan Africa, how are they ensuring that their foreign aid there delivers measurable outcomes and aligns with the Government’s priorities, such as supporting good governance, supporting economic development and tackling corruption?

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

The Foreign Secretary’s priorities for this are around growth, security, government and climate. These are things that we are working hard on through our engagement not just with sub-Saharan Africa but in Asia, Latin America and elsewhere. The noble Earl is absolutely right that every penny we spend on official development assistance must be the very best value for money that we can secure—yes, because of fairness to the UK taxpayer, but also because a bad programme funded by ODA means that a good programme somewhere else does not get to take place. The Foreign Secretary is very keen that we make sure that happens. He is reviewing our spend and the effectiveness of programmes, and he is right to do that.

[Lord Grayling (Con)]

My Lords, I declare an interest as a trustee of the African Wildlife Foundation. I ask the Minister to look carefully at how we spend our aid money. So much of it goes through international or regional bodies and, often, when the money gets to practical solutions on the ground, the UK is not visible as a donor. That weakens our soft power, so can the Minister look at the different ways in which we spend aid money to make sure that our soft power really is visible on the ground?

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

I think it was Tony Blair who said that our international development spend is the strongest soft power asset that we have. He had a point. We work multilaterally because that is often the most effective way to get the best value for money. I take what the noble Lord says about that sometimes meaning that we do not get all the credit, but sometimes it is important to prioritise getting the aid to where it is needed most, which needs to be our first concern. I will consider what he says, but this is all about making sure that we get the biggest impact for every penny we spend.

Gaza: Humanitarian Situation

Baroness Chapman of Darlington Excerpts

Monday 6th January 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Helic]

To ask His Majesty’s Government (1) what representations they are making to the Government of Israel and (2) what steps they plan to take to deliver humanitarian aid to Gaza, following reports of infant deaths due to hypothermia and starvation.

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

I thank the noble Baroness for her Question. The suffering that we are seeing in Gaza is intolerable. The UK is committed to alleviating this. We announced £112 million for the Occupied Palestinian Territories this financial year, while also supporting Palestinians in the wider region. Our support has provided 52,900 shelter items, 76,000 wound care kits, 1.3 million items of medicine and 500 warm children’s clothing kits. The UK continues to press the Government of Israel to better protect civilians in Gaza. In November the Foreign Secretary wrote, with his French and German counterparts, to urge Israel to ensure sufficient winter preparations and supplies.

[Baroness Helic (Con)]

My Lords, I join other noble Lords in paying tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson.

A year ago, on 26 January 2024, the International Court of Justice issued the first set of provisional orders in the case of the application of the genocide convention in the Gaza Strip. Less than a year later, nowhere are civilians in Gaza safe. Everything and everybody is a target. Schools, hospitals, civilian infrastructure, aid workers, journalists, medics and civilians are all reduced to rubble and corpses. North Gaza has been under a near-total siege for more than two months and south Gaza is under constant bombardment. Today, an eighth baby froze to death.

According to Tom Fletcher, the head of OCHA, the Israeli authorities have denied over 100 requests to access north Gaza since 6 October. With the fear of polio spreading to the region, the UN was able to respond and vaccinate 600,000 children twice. Now we see babies dying of cold when blankets and shelter, and all the aid that we have paid for, have been sat waiting to enter Gaza for six months. Removing UNRWA, the largest aid organisation on the ground, is another step in the wrong direction.

The only way anything can change is with political will. Given that nothing the UK has done so far has shifted the dynamic on the ground and prevented this catastrophic loss of life, what will now change? What will HMG do to defend international humanitarian law, maintain UNRWA’s vital work and secure the basic protection of civilians in Gaza, including humanitarian access and the release of hostages?

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

I am grateful to the noble Baroness. We were quick to reinstate aid to UNRWA. She is quite correct to point out that October and November 2024 were the worst months since 2023 for access to Gaza. The success—if I can put it that way—of the polio vaccination programme shows that access can be achieved. When it can be facilitated, it can be used to good effect and can save lives. We urge the Israeli Government to allow the international community, we think through UNRWA—if there is another viable way of doing this, we would be interested, but our assessment is that there is no viable alternative to UNRWA at this time—to have that access, so that the protection from the weather, the food and the medicine that are so urgently needed can be provided.

[Lord Pannick (CB)]

My Lords, have the Government made an assessment of how much of the large quantities of aid entering Gaza is being stolen by Hamas, either for its own purposes or for sale on the black market at grossly inflated prices, to the enormous detriment of the people of Gaza?

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

My Lords, the situation here is desperate and urgent. Although I have no doubt that the things the noble Lord describes, highlights and brings to this Chamber’s attention do happen, I point out that we are in a situation where there is a humanitarian catastrophe, where 90% of the population has been displaced—sometimes multiple times—and where half the identified bodies are women and children. So our priority at this time is for de-escalation of the conflict, yes, but also to meet the urgent humanitarian need.

[Lord Grocott (Lab)]

Can my noble friend confirm that, since this conflict began, many reports have told us that schools have been attacked by the Israelis, involving the killing of children; that hospitals have been attacked, involving the killing of children; that areas designated as being safe by the Israelis have been attacked, resulting in the killing of children; and that, overall, at least 11,000 children have been killed, including 710 babies under the age of 12 months? If any of these allegations are true, do they not clearly constitute a gross violation of international humanitarian law?

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

We are very clear—noble Lords have heard me and others say this repeatedly—that Israel has a clear right to defend itself. There is no moral equivalence with the horrific attack that Israel was subject to. But the defence that it has every right to undertake must be conducted in accordance with international humanitarian law.

[Viscount Hailsham (Con)]

My Lords, can the Minister please tell her counterparts in the Israeli foreign office that many of us who have been long supporters of Israel find it very difficult now to reconcile the deaths of 45,000 people, many of whom are wholly unconnected with terrorism, either with the requirements of self-defence or with the principles of a just war?

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

We take our advocacy role seriously, and we are glad to undertake it. We do make the points about humanitarian law, the protection of civilians and the access that we need to provide humanitarian aid. We make those cases privately, yes—but we are now in a situation where we make them publicly too.

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

My Lords, I hope the House will allow me to say that I miss my noble friend Lady Randerson terribly.

Not to strive to protect children in conflict is a war crime. Forcibly moving civilians to areas where there is no shelter, medicine, food or sanitation is a war crime. Militaries actively depopulating civilian areas permanently after conflict is a war crime. These continue to be advocated by members of the Israeli Government, two members of which these Benches have called for the UK to sanction. Why have our Government not indicated to the Israeli Government that there are consequences for breaching international humanitarian law and the institution of war crimes? Our relationship with the Israeli Government cannot carry on as it is.

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

In pointing out that those acts are war crimes, the noble Lord is absolutely right. What I do not think is right is for me, at this Dispatch Box, to proclaim who is or is not guilty of a war crime. We make the case to the Israeli Government in the strongest possible terms, privately and publicly, about the necessity of adhering to international humanitarian law.

[Baroness Gohir (CB)]

My Lords, eight members of the Israeli parliament’s foreign affairs and defence committee recently wrote to the Defence Minister demanding that he order Israeli forces in Gaza to destroy all energy, water and food sources. Are the Government aware of this, and what are they doing specifically to challenge these genocidal attitudes?

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

I am not sure what a genocidal attitude is, but I will into what the noble Baroness has highlighted. I was not aware of that letter, but I will look into it for her.

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)]

My Lords, as the Minister knows, the previous Government worked directly with the neighbouring states—Egypt, Jordan and indeed Lebanon—which are key partners, ensuring that land routes were open. We were also there in the mix on the ground. What physical meetings have taken place with Israel, Jordan and Lebanon to ensure that these land access points are open? As I have said repeatedly in the House, we also explored air routes and maritime routes. I accept that they are not as effective as land routes, but we have seen a void. This is not happening; we need to act now.

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

I am the first to commend the noble Lord on the work that he did in office. My right honourable friend Anneliese Dodds was in the region in December having just those conversations. The noble Lord is right: anybody who can do anything, no matter how seemingly small, needs to lend their shoulder to the wheel to support people, to get the medical aid in and to address the humanitarian disaster that we see unfolding in Gaza.

[Lord Soames of Fletching (Con)]

My Lords, is the Minister aware that, for many of us, this institutionalised cruelty is contrary to all the laws of war? It does not seem to many of us that Britain is making enough of this. We owe it to those children and others in the freezing cold to make much more of this disgraceful behaviour.

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

We are providing £112 million to the Occupied Territories, and £41 million specifically for UNRWA, because we understand that it is desperate. We want the conflict to stop, we want the violence to stop and we want children to be safe. We are unable to achieve that immediately, but what we ought to be able to achieve very quickly is to get that aid in. At the moment that depends on facilitation by the Israeli Government. That has not been happening, and that is what we are calling for.

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, the humanitarian cost of the horrors of war is especially brutal in winter—though shocking in any circumstances. I am nervous when the main culprit named so far in this debate is Israel, as though nobody else is involved. To go back to the Question, aid that gets through is not being distributed. Israel is not to blame for that; it is because Hamas and the forces there are not allowing it to get to those who need it. I just cannot let this Question go without reminding noble Lords of the hostages, particularly Emily Damari, who is a British citizen. This war did not come out of nowhere. Israel did not start it and is not to blame for its horrific consequences.

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

Where I agree with the noble Baroness is that the hostages ought to be released, and released immediately. They ought to be at home with their families, and she is right to raise that. I do not agree with the suggestion that it is a futile act to get aid in to support those children. It has been proven through the vaccine programme that, where there is the will to do this, it can be done at speed and at scale. Our view is that UNRWA is best placed to deliver that, which is why we are calling for UNRWA immediately to be able to access Gaza in the way that it needs in order to get those supplies in quickly.

[Baroness Blower (Lab)]

There have been many calls from these Benches and other places for the Government to consider urgent temporary medical evacuation, in particular for children who are desperately ill, facing death and terribly injured. Does my noble friend have any comments on that?

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

This is a really important question. The situation as it stands at the moment, as my noble friend will know, is that it is best for people who need medical treatment to be treated as close to where they are as possible. Clearly, this situation is desperate and exceptional, and the Government will look compassionately at what is happening. Where we can assist, we will.

[Lord Walney (CB)]

I hear what the Minister says on this, but can she reflect on whether it is the most effective way in which to help the Palestinian people for this House, this Government and the UN community to repeatedly castigate Israel while apparently minimising the fact that these aid convoys are being routinely violently looted by Hamas to stop the aid getting to the people who desperately need it?

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

I take the noble Lord’s question as a suggestion of his concern that the aid gets to where it is needed. That is the spirit in which I take his question, and I thank him for that. All I can do is repeat the point that the very difficult task of getting children vaccinated multiple times in a short period was delivered successfully and saved thousands of children’s lives. My challenge is to say to anybody who is able to facilitate the aid getting in that they have a responsibility to make sure that happens. We can provide the aid and the money, and we have done, but getting it to the people who desperately need it needs the help of the Israeli Government.