Diego Garcia Military Base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill
Debate between Baroness Goldie and Baroness Chapman of Darlington
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Baroness Chapman of Darlington) (Lab)
My Lords, we had a vigorous debate on the Bill at Second Reading last week, and I thank each and every noble Lord who participated in that debate. I understand and respect the concerns that have been raised, both inside and outside this House. It is worth repeating what I said last week: this Government are committed to supporting—indeed, encouraging—the thorough scrutiny of this Bill throughout its progression.
Noble Lords will understand the reason for the delay to the committal Motion last week. The Opposition’s lack of notice to the House regarding their amendment to the Motion made it impractical to proceed. I am pleased that, now the dust has settled, we are able to proceed with the committal Motion as originally planned. I reassure noble Lords that this short interruption will not impact the timing of Committee, which will be on 18 and 25 November.
The debate at Second Reading reflected the strength of feeling across the House on this important issue, and I will take this opportunity to address some of those concerns. Last week, we heard the concern across the House that Chagossian perspectives were not sufficiently reflected in the treaty and the Bill. I respect and understand this concern. However, noble Lords will also know that there is a considerable diversity of opinion across Chagossian communities. To inform further debate on this matter, and to demonstrate the Government’s commitment to the Chagossian community, the Government invite the International Relations and Defence Committee to engage a range of Chagossians to ascertain their views on the implications of the Diego Garcia treaty, and to produce a report. This process will not hold up the passage of the Bill but will be a welcome addition to debate in the House. It will be for the committee to determine the timing of the report, and I extend my thanks to the noble Lord, Lord De Mauley, who has agreed in principle to undertake this work.
I also welcome the challenge we heard to increase the participation of Chagossians in political processes. Noble Lords will know that the Government have established a Chagossian contact group to provide Chagossians with a formal role in decision-making on the UK Government’s support for their community. Following last week’s debate, the Government will explore opportunities to enhance that group by increasing its transparency and frequency. We are clear, however, that any decisions about the contact group must be made in agreement with its existing members. The Government will engage the group on this question shortly.
Further concerns were raised at Second Reading about the Chagossian trust fund and British Chagossians’ eligibility for resettlement. The Government are committed to making a Statement about both to the House as soon as can be practically achieved. Noble Lords will understand that this should happen only with the agreement of the Mauritian Government, which the Government are urgently pursuing.
I welcome the discussion we had on the Bill’s defence and security provisions. I reassure the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, that I am committed to writing a response to the forensic questions that she asked last week. This response will be sent later this week and a copy will be laid in the Library of the House.
Finally, I am aware that noble Lords have a strong interest in the protection of the environment around the Chagos Islands. Last week, I mentioned that the Government have welcomed the announcement of the Mauritian Prime Minister’s Office on 3 November, confirming Mauritian plans for the establishment of a marine protected area after entry into force of the treaty. This protected area will utilise the internationally recognised categories of the International Union for Conservation of Nature. There will be no commercial fishing across the entire 640,000 square kilometre area. The Great Chagos Bank will be given one of the highest levels of protection, with the rest of the MPA categorised as a highly protected conservation zone. Noble Lords will be reassured that there will be limited provision for controlled levels of artisanal fishing in confined zones intended for resettlement to allow for subsistence fishing by any Chagossian communities that resettle, while maintaining the commitment to nature conservation.
It is clear that this Bill is fundamental to the operation of the base on Diego Garcia and the protection of national security. The Government have also demonstrated their firm commitment to supporting Chagossians and enhancing environmental protections for the archipelago. I look forward to further debate on these important issues in Committee. I beg to move.
Baroness Goldie (Con)
My Lords, my noble friend Lord Callanan will respond to the Minister on behalf of these Benches, but I have been requested to make a brief intervention on defence and security. I am rather in the horns of a dilemma; I feel as though I am being asked to judge the weight of the baby when the baby has not yet been born, because I do not know what the Minister’s letter will say until I receive it. However, I thank her and her colleagues for their genuine and close engagement with me, my noble friend Lord Callanan and our colleagues as we endeavour to clarify issues.
The assurance I seek from the Minister at the Dispatch Box is this. It is possible that, when we receive her letter, we may disagree with the Government’s interpretation. We may consider that areas of ambiguity and doubt remain and would reserve the right to bring forward amendments in Committee. I would be very disappointed if the Government’s response were that these amendments were out of scope of the Bill and that all matters are dealt with by the agreement. That would be a very unfortunate response, so I seek a reassurance from the Minister at the Dispatch Box that, if we tabled amendments on defence and security issues, the Government would be prepared to debate them.
Israel: Royal College of Defence Studies
Debate between Baroness Goldie and Baroness Chapman of Darlington(1 month, 4 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
The straight- forward answer to that is no; we do not operate such a list.
Baroness Goldie (Con)
My Lords, the Royal College of Defence Studies enjoys an enviable global reputation, and the summary ban on attendance at the college by defence personnel of an ally is, as far as I am aware, unprecedented, which makes it extraordinary. Although she is not speaking for the Ministry of Defence, which is unfortunate, can the Minister still clarify to this Chamber whether this decision was made by the Secretary of State for Defence? Why was there no ministerial Statement to accompany it, given the significance of what was being decided?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
The noble Baroness is right: this is an unusual situation. It is a decision that has been made. I accept, to an extent, that this is in some way symbolic, but it is a reflection of the frustration and the deep concern that we have about the plight of people in Gaza, the decisions made by the Government of Israel about Gaza City, the withholding of sufficient quantities of aid and the designation of famine that we now find in Gaza. We are doing everything we can to try to persuade the Government of Israel to change course. This is part of that effort. We are not requiring students who are currently at the RCDS to return, nor their families; that would be unnecessarily disruptive to them and their lives. This is a situation that we want to see resolved. We want the Government of Israel to change course. We want to be able to reinstate the arrangements that, as she quite rightly says, matter a huge deal to us and to our allies.
Chagos Islands: UK-US Defence Relationship
Debate between Baroness Goldie and Baroness Chapman of Darlington(11 months, 1 week ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Goldie (Con)
My Lords, there is a world of difference between exploratory discussions, which have always been caveated by UK security interests, and signing on the dotted line, when there has been a material change in circumstances since the inception of the original discussions. I have two questions. First, on our most important ally, the United States, why are the Government charging ahead with this matter with the agreement of an exiting President of the US with diminished authority rather than awaiting the decision of the President-elect with a new and commanding electoral authority?
Secondly, given the increased and deeply troubling levels of global risk, which were alluded to by senior military personnel just last night and which have emerged since this project was first broached, why are the Government contemplating signing anything that removes our security in the region from our control and, critically, leaves us unable to deal with any potentially malign activity in the surrounding environment?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Baroness Chapman of Darlington) (Lab)
Our view is that this makes us more secure. The UK-US base has been subject to challenge for the last 50 years, and this agreement would be the first time that the presence of our joint base with the US on Diego Garcia would be legally secure. We think that that is a prize worth having.
On the question of why we are rushing, I do not think that anybody could characterise this as being a rush. There have been 12 or 13 rounds of negotiations, most of them conducted under the previous Government, and we think that this is a good deal for the UK. We have prioritised our security at the front of our minds when undertaking this task, and we have been challenged on that, because there are other things that other people would have liked us to have prioritised, such as the legitimate grievance of the Chagossian community. We have prioritised security and making the base on Diego Garcia legally secure, which is the right position for this Government.
Red Sea: Houthi Attacks
Debate between Baroness Goldie and Baroness Chapman of Darlington(1 year ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
The behaviour of Russia in this instance, as in many others, is deplorable. This shows how interconnected many of these conflicts are, meaning that our response to these issues and the posture that we adopt need to be carefully calibrated so that we work very carefully, consistently and with some effect—although we want to achieve far more to make sure that aid can get into Yemen and that the people of Somalia and Ethiopia get the support they need. The activities of Iran and Russia have been devastating to the lives of many people living in those countries.
Baroness Goldie (Con)
My Lords, I think we all wish to commend the professionalism of our Royal Navy personnel, so evident in this part of the world. In particular, HMS “Diamond” has been protecting shipping in the Red Sea. She called in a couple of weeks ago to refuel at Diego Garcia. Can the Minister confirm that the recent transfer of sovereignty of BIOT to Mauritius will not in any way obstruct the ability of the United Kingdom to protect UK-flagged merchant shipping in the region?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
Absolutely. I am happy to provide that assurance, particularly since, as I am sure the noble Baroness is aware, the Houthis have made statements on wishing to extend their activities into the Indian Ocean. She is completely right to raise that, and I can provide the assurance she seeks.
Ukraine
Debate between Baroness Goldie and Baroness Chapman of Darlington(1 year, 2 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
I share the noble and gallant Lord’s thoughts on the wording of the Question from my noble friend. I too noted the emphasis on Ukraine’s “war with Russia” and I disagree with that way of looking at this conflict. The UK has provided £7.6 billion-worth of support, including £3 billion for 2024-25, and we are proud to stand alongside Ukraine as it defends its territory.
Baroness Goldie (Con)
My Lords, our support for Ukraine must be unwavering, unflinching and demonstrable. The Minister has just referred to the element of support under military assistance provided by the United Kingdom to Ukraine, but will she commit to this House that the support provided to Ukraine by the Government will, at the very least, be maintained at the same levels as that provided by the previous Government?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
I thank the noble Baroness for her question but also for the work that she did in government on Ukraine. It is respected, and we wish to continue to support Ukraine both militarily and with non-military assistance. We have £242 million in bilateral, non-military assistance earmarked for 2024-25.
Israel: Arms Sales
Debate between Baroness Goldie and Baroness Chapman of Darlington(1 year, 2 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Goldie (Con)
My Lords, further to my noble friend Lord Howard’s question, I recall, when I was a Minister in Defence, having to look at export licence applications and requests. You had to determine what was being supplied, make a linkage to where it was going and then make a reasoned assumption as to what it might be used for. To the best of our ability, we tried to apply these tests objectively. I do not recall any reference to other criteria entering that assessment process. When did this change?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
The assessment process has not changed; this assessment was made on the basis of clear risk and our ability to have sight in theatre of what was being done, alongside reports about issues of aid and treatment of detainees. I believe this is consistent with the approach taken by the previous Government. We have not had sight, rightly, of the legal advice provided to them and their decisions are for them to comment on—we make no criticism of or comment on that. The decision we made was based on the advice we received.