Middle East and North Africa
Debate between Baroness Chapman of Darlington and Baroness Foster of Oxton
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
I can confirm that there is regular contact between UK Ministers and their counterparts in the UAE and KSA specifically about Yemen. They are substantial and meaningful, and they are not, as my noble friend described it, going through the political motions. This is serious. We want to see progress and de-escalation, and that is what we are hearing from the UAE and KSA as well. We need to keep up those contacts and try to make sure that we see the results of them on the ground.
Baroness Foster of Oxton (Con)
My Lords, on Iran, refusing to proscribe the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, which is the regime’s primary tool of repression and terror, sends a dangerous signal of weakness. At this critical moment, more than 10 days into the uprising, there has been no public statement of support for the people of Iran from the Prime Minister at a time when protesters are being killed, hospitals are being attacked and a nation is demanding freedom. Recent statements from the President of the United States warning the regime against mass killings and expressing support for the Iranian people have resonated strongly inside Iran. They offer hope, not because of rhetoric but because the people of Iran can finally express their protests, knowing full well that they have forces on the ground in their support. Can the Minister tell us when the Prime Minister is planning to stand up and condemn the atrocities being heaped upon civilians in Iran and, at the same time, when he will proscribe the IRGC as a terrorist organisation?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
We do not talk about proscription before we do it. As I explained in my response to the Front Benches earlier, we are careful of what we say. That is not because we think that people should not have the right to protest and be free to do so—and we do not agree with many of the things that they say when they do—but because we want to make sure that nothing this Government say puts at risk the lives of people protesting and making their case as they should. We do not want to do anything that would make their predicament even worse, because it is the position of the regime in Iran that we are somehow encouraging, facilitating, enabling and encouraging those protests. Clearly, we are not. These are very firmly the views of the people of Iran, who are choosing to take the steps that they are taking. We are mindful of what we say, and I think it is right that we are.
Venezuela
Debate between Baroness Chapman of Darlington and Baroness Foster of Oxton
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
I do not recognise that characterisation of the world, but it is right that we ask ourselves these big strategic questions, because the world is changing. The most significant example of that has been Russia’s illegal invasion of Ukraine and its stated intention to expand Russia. It is legitimate that we concern ourselves with questions of spheres of influence. I do not think it is as simple as the characterisation the noble Lord just put forward, and I do not think that is what he believes either, but it is absolutely right that we continue to ask ourselves these really important geopolitical questions.
Baroness Foster of Oxton (Con)
My Lords, the Maduro regime is responsible for permitting corrupt links with the Islamic Republic of Iran, which was responsible, obviously, for funding proxies such as Hamas and Hezbollah and, in turn, for the attacks on Israel on 7 October. Does the Minister agree with me that the actions taken by the USA may go some way to preventing illicit funding finding its way to Iran and, I hope, clipping its wings?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
I do think it is a good thing that Maduro is no longer running Venezuela. There is a long way to go, and there will still be money laundering, illicit finance, trade in narcotics and guns, people trafficking and all manners of abuse happening in that country. There is a lot of work to be done and a lot at stake. As the noble Baroness says, and I agree with her, the issues emanating from Venezuela were global, and it is good that there is now the prospect of a different future for Venezuela.
Gibraltar
Debate between Baroness Chapman of Darlington and Baroness Foster of Oxton
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
I have visited Gibraltar as well, and I echo everything the noble and learned Baroness had to say. This has been the work of many years and many Foreign Secretaries. It proves that sometimes, when we knuckle down and focus on the outcome that must be achieved for the people of Gibraltar, we can get there with relatively little fuss and drama.
Baroness Foster of Oxton (Con)
My Lords, I welcome this Statement and support very much my noble friend Lord Callanan’s comments and questions for clarification. I too have been visiting Gibraltar for many decades, in my initial job and when I was a Member of the European Parliament, so I am aware that, certainly post-Brexit, there have been some issues and some need for clarification in certain areas. I met regularly with Gibraltarian officials and Ministers regarding airspace use and other issues of that nature. Nevertheless, we need to remember that Spain continues to assert its claim over Gibraltar, and it has never ever backed off from that.
On the comparison to how we get to the continent, to France or Belgium, using the Eurostar system—namely, with a French immigration officer—it is not the same at all, because you go through that control and then into an EU country. My concern, which we need clarification on, is that I read that a Spanish immigration officer or police officer—whatever you want to call them—will check the British passports of British passport holders and can refuse entry to that British citizen going into a British sovereign territory. That is the difference: we have a Spanish officer refusing a British citizen going into a British Overseas Territory. I would really like some clarification on that.
I would obviously welcome seeing the detail that my noble friend asked for on a number of these issues —the devil is always in the detail. Of course, what is important is that the Gibraltarian Government and the citizens of Gibraltar continue to realise that we, as the United Kingdom, will certainly always watch their backs. Should anything arise that is a bit untoward through these negotiations, we need to make sure that we are diligent in the oversight that takes place.
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
We simply differ in our view with regard to sovereignty with our friends and allies in Spain. Nothing in this agreement changes the status of the sovereignty of Gibraltar—we are very clear about that. Spain understands that, and that is reflected in the treaty. It was really important that we made sure that that was the case, because we do not want any questions about Gibraltarian sovereignty to arise out of this.
Of course this is different: when you get on the Eurostar, you go into Kent and then into France, but there are similar checks. The point is that it is not a full immigration process. This is about a Schengen check, so it is an alert about whether an outstanding warrant or criminality issue would be triggered. You would not immediately lose all your rights, be arrested or anything like that. You would have the option of going and answering the questions that may arise as a result of that trigger, or of taking legal advice and/or returning to your country of departure. This is a compromise; I accept that. It is very unusual, but this is an unusual circumstance. This is necessary to make sure that border stays open. That was the whole point of what we were trying to negotiate and what we have been trying to achieve. That is what has been achieved.
If the people of Gibraltar are front and centre of all this, as everybody has said, we need to listen to what they and their representatives are saying about this agreement. They are very warmly in support of it. I will listen to them, and if it gets to the point where they are no longer of that view then, clearly, we would have to think again. They have been involved every step of the way. We have done nothing about them without them—we would not do that—and they are pleased with this agreement. It will make such a difference to their daily lives, their prosperity and the way they are able to live and to travel backwards and forwards. The 15,000 people crossing that border every day can do so freely, without any concerns about the border being closed or any of that. This is a big win for the Gibraltarians, and I welcome it.
Palestinian Authority Prime Minister Visit
Debate between Baroness Chapman of Darlington and Baroness Foster of Oxton(8 months, 2 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Foster of Oxton (Con)
My Lords, on 5 and 24 March I asked the Minister to clarify details of the oversight in place to monitor the £41 million of UK taxpayers’ money that we had donated for humanitarian aid to UNRWA. I am still none the wiser. I now note that after this meeting a further £101 million is being given to the Palestinian Authority, a corrupt organisation that supported the 7 October attacks on Israel, that has no control over Hamas or the several terrorist groups on the West Bank, and that has done nothing to call for the release of the 59 hostages—which is a war crime—or the laying down of weapons by Hamas. So when will the Minister provide the House with the information that I have twice requested? How can this Government justify donating a further £101 million to that terrorist-supporting organisation? Finally, where exactly would the proposed Palestinian state be located?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
I genuinely do not think the tone of that is at all helpful to what we are all trying to achieve here, which is peace and a two-state solution. Perhaps the noble Baroness is not seeking a two-state solution, I do not know. We do not recognise her characterisation of the Palestinian Authority. I met with them myself last week, and I would encourage her to do that should she wish to educate herself about this.
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
I am answering the question that the noble Baroness asked. The reason we are donating aid is that children are starving and people are being displaced. Around 90% of the population has been displaced and aid is needed. We encourage Israel to enable that aid to reach the people who need it, and to do that immediately.
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
There are many reforms, as noble Lords can imagine, that the Palestinian Authority know that they need to make. The conversations that I have had have centred on their need to develop their ability to manage money responsibly and how they raise money and accesses funds to be able to deliver the services that they are going to have to deliver in the future. That may feel like high-ambition work from where we are today, and I think they would accept that, but we have to start somewhere, and it is right that we are providing the assistance that we are.
Baroness Foster of Oxton (Con)
My Lords, on the Minister’s comments regarding my questions, we on this side of the House are here to scrutinise what the Government are doing, as was the case when we were in power as a Conservative Government. The Minister may not like what I said, but it is factual. To infer that I said what I said because I have no knowledge of the region or perhaps have never visited or met the Palestinian Authority—which I have; I have been visiting Israel over the last 50 years—I find rather offensive, frankly. She may not have the facts at hand to reply to the questions I asked on oversight of the amount of money that the taxpayer is putting into UNRWA, and now this latest £101 million, but it would nevertheless be a courtesy to say that she will write to me or at least inform the House of the details that I have asked for.
Israel-Gaza Conflict: Arrest Warrants
Debate between Baroness Chapman of Darlington and Baroness Foster of Oxton(1 year, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
That is right. The issue is that this has never happened. We have never had a serving Head of State subject to an ICC warrant visit the UK. We have had situations under European arrest warrants and the situation with Pinochet, but we have never had this. We need to see the warrant; it needs to be seen by the court, which needs to make a determination at that point.
Baroness Foster of Oxton (Con)
My Lords, US Senators have rightly threatened sanctions against allies if they co-operate with the International Criminal Court’s decision on this matter. Is the Minister concerned that our diplomatic ties with our closest ally could be harmed if we do not speak out against the ICC’s political decision to issue arrest warrants for the Prime Minister of Israel and the former Defence Minister?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
It is not my understanding that that is the position of the United States. One or two Senators may have made comments, but that is not the position of President Biden; nor do I think it is the position of incoming President Trump, based on what he has already said. We do not view the ICC as a political organisation or treat it politically. For the UK to sanction or pick and choose whom it thinks ought to be subject to an ICC judgment would undermine the entire institution. It is an institution that I respect and it saddens me that the party of Winston Churchill does not on this issue.
Middle East Update
Debate between Baroness Chapman of Darlington and Baroness Foster of Oxton(1 year, 4 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
The suggestion of an update on negotiations may well be helpful. It is not something that I am in a position to provide now; it is perhaps something worthy of a longer discussion when time allows. I will definitely convey that suggestion to my colleague, my noble friend Lord Collins, when he returns from his visit to Rwanda.
Baroness Foster of Oxton (Con)
My Lords, I do not believe the action taken by this Government has anything to do with international law. We see Hamas carrying out war crimes on a daily basis. Does the Minister agree with me that trying to defend the indefensible will not wash with the majority of people in this country?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
I will let the people of this country decide what will wash and what will not wash with them. This is not the indefensible. This is sticking to, adhering to, international law. It is as simple as that. We have been very clear about our continued desire to be a close ally of Israel and our firm commitment to supporting Israel in defending itself.