Future Capability of the Armed Forces
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon Excerpts(1 week, 6 days ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, it is always a distinct privilege to rise in your Lordships’ House, particularly when the subject matter before us concerns the key priority of any nation: the defence and security of the realm in an era of unprecedented global volatility and conflict.
However, before I turn to our physical defences, it is my great honour to pay tribute to a defender of a different kind, one who has spent years fortifying the moral and spiritual armour of our nation. I refer of course to the right reverend Prelate—and my dear friend—the Bishop of Southwark, and I congratulate him on a poignant and reflective valedictory speech.
I feel immense warmth towards the right reverend Prelate and his neighbourly affection, for he is the person who is the spiritual guide for many of the good people of Wimbledon—indeed, he is the shepherd, as many remind me. I have always maintained that trying to guide people spiritually, especially when they are quite diverse, including the occasionally highly opinionated folk of south London, requires a level of tactical patience, strategic diplomacy and sheer resilience that would challenge any seasoned peacekeeping commander around the world. Yet, the right reverend Prelate has done so for over 15 years with quiet but effective diplomacy and, as we have seen again today, boundless grace and deep humility.
In this House, the right reverend Prelate has been a reassuring and welcome presence. He has never been one, as we have heard again today, to shy away from what I would call difficult issues. Indeed, over many years in the very place where the Minister sits, I was on the receiving end of his quiet but very effective challenges to the Government of the day. He has consistently championed the homeless, the marginalised, and a cause that we share and which is incredibly close to my own heart. I live by the mantra that the greatest test of our own faith is when we stand by and for the faith and belief of others. He has lived by that. We have stood together on many platforms advocating for human rights, and I have always been struck, as I have already said, by his gentle yet effective moral clarity.
While the Ministry of Defence has frequently struggled with its logistics at times, the diocese of Southwark has operated with enviable precision under the right reverend Prelate’s stewardship. It has proved, perhaps, that faith can not only move mountains but manage complex organisations. We worked together when the right reverend Prelate was the lead bishop on the issues of the Middle East, and again—I quoted that mantra earlier—he stood for justice, not just for Christians or for the Jewish community but for the Muslim community, and he addressed the challenges both in Israel and Palestine with equality and justice.
Together, we worked with Archbishop Hosam of Jerusalem, a friend to us both. I was proud to lead on the issue of Christian persecution, where the support of the right reverend Prelate and others on the Spiritual Benches was vital. I am sure that I speak for all in this House when I say that we will miss deeply his wisdom, his pastoral warmth and his profound service to this House and to the nation. We wish him every blessing for his well-deserved retirement, which is with our sincere prayers.
Turning back to earthly challenges, I thank my noble friend Lord Harlech—we will hold the “gallant” for a moment or two, but I am sure that it is something for the future—for tabling this debate and join the chorus welcoming him back. When I look at the international horizon, I am reminded of my own time representing our nation and our interests globally. As a Foreign Minister, one learns very quickly the value of diplomatic tact. However, as any seasoned hand will tell you, diplomacy is greatly assisted when the person whom you are negotiating with knows that you have something more formidable behind you than a beautifully drafted joint communiqué. In my case, it was my noble friend Lady Goldie. We were a double act often on the world stage.
However, on a serious note, we find ourselves surveying a world that is, to put it in our customary British way, “highly complex”. To our east, state-based threats are no longer looming but are real and are redrawing borders. In maritime lanes around the world, we see state and non-state actors operating with technology that makes some of our procurement processes look positively glacial.
This brings me to the capabilities of our own, magnificent Armed Forces. Our men and women in uniform are, without a shadow of doubt, world class. Their courage, their adaptability and their professionalism are second to none. I have seen their work on the ground and witnessed what they did in places such as Afghanistan. The only issue, as has already been highlighted in this debate, is that there are ever fewer of them. We have a Navy of sublime sophistication—the noble Lord, Lord West, is in his place—but, on certain Tuesdays, one wonders whether we have enough hulls to cover the water that we are legally obliged to protect and to fulfil our duties to the treaties that we are signed up to.
Our defence procurement has historically operated on a philosophy that I can best describe as bespoke tailoring. We do not merely buy a helicopter; we commission a flying work of art, hand stitched by many committees, adjusted for 32 different eventualities and delivered precisely three years after the conflict that it was intended for has resolved itself. The Government’s own SDR is so ably led by the noble Lord, Lord Robertson, who I am delighted is in his place and who chairs the International Relations and Defence Committee which I am honoured to serve on. He highlighted this very issue of procurement. Yet I want to be fair. The SDR and the welcome and final publication of the delayed Defence Investment Plan is a move forward and shows that we are waking up to the reality of the challenges that we face in 2026. We are investing heavily in cyber, space and AI, areas where a well-placed line of code can do the work of an entire regiment. This is commendable, as is the £5 billion for drones.
Yet you cannot deter a hostile frigate with a sternly worded PowerPoint presentation. At some point, hard capability must mean physical presence, be it in the Middle East or defending the Falkland Islands. We are a nation that prides itself on punching above our weight. It is a marvellous face, but without that punch behind it having the force of our Armed Forces, you eventually bruise your knuckles. Our friends, but more importantly our foes, are looking at us very carefully.
We have rightly stood together in unity on Ukraine. I commend the Prime Minister’s comments today in Ukraine and thank him for his service in that area.
Let us continue to work together, as my noble friend Lord Harlech said, in supporting government steps to modernise. However, let us do it with a healthy dose of reality and realism. Let us ensure that when we speak of deterrence, we are talking about forces that are ready to be deployed today, equipped today and sustained for tomorrow. We need the defence readiness Bill. When will we see that?
Our adversaries are not waiting for the next strategic defence review to conclude. They are acting. When it comes to peace, the pen may be mightier than the sword, but it would be incredibly reassuring for all of us, in a typically British way, to have a highly sharp, fully serviced and readily available sword in the umbrella stand, just in case we need to deploy.
King’s Speech
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon Excerpts(2 months, 1 week ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, we meet today at a moment of profound consequence, as we have already heard, for the Middle East and, as events have shown subsequently, for our shared future. I draw attention to my registered interests and to my work with organisations focused on conflict resolution and with the Council of Arab Ambassadors.
I begin, as did the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Houghton, from a place of hope, optimism and principle. History shows, as did my tenure as a Foreign Minister, that when courage meets conviction even the most intractable conflicts can bend towards justice and lasting peace. I will set out three truths that must guide us on this pathway to peace.
The first truth is that every life has equal worth. The death of a child in Gaza, Israel, the West Bank, Lebanon, Syria, Yemen or Iran diminishes us all. Our politics and actions must never become so hardened that we forget the humanity at the heart of these conflicts and crises.
Secondly, security and dignity are two sides of the same coin. Israelis and Palestinians must be able to live in peace and security, but any framework that asks for one people to mortgage their dignity so that another may feel secure will fail. A durable peace will emerge only when both peoples can see their rights, safety and aspirations reflected in equal measure. I ask the Minister to detail what is being done to stop the shocking attacks by Israeli settlers and the expansion of illegal settlements in the occupied West Bank of Palestine. What are we doing through our long-standing support for Lebanon in helping its Government to disarm Hezbollah? The Government’s response must be more than references to past sanctions or statements of condemnation. When was the last Foreign Secretary or Defence Secretary visit to Israel and Palestine? When did we last meet President Aoun of Lebanon?
The third truth is that principles matter most when they are hardest to uphold. International humanitarian law is not a menu of optional extras; it is the baseline of our common morality. The protection of civilians standing with and for survivors of sexual violence, unfettered humanitarian access and accountability for abuses are human obligations.
From these truths flows a practical path: a ceasefire respected in deed as well as word, humanitarian aid moving at scale and infrastructure being rebuilt. These are not political concessions; they are lifesaving imperatives.
I met this week with the Egyptian Foreign Minister during his visit to the UK. What is the action planned and agreed with Egypt, and indeed other partners that the noble Baroness, Lady Chapman, alluded to through the partnerships conference, in making progress in this respect?
On the security architecture, a ceasefire must be underpinned by credible security arrangements. This means co-ordinated efforts to ensure the disarmament of militant groups. It means robust border and maritime monitoring. It means the accountability of security institutions—to the law, not to the gun. What is the United Kingdom doing to deploy to the region training and defence assets?
On the political horizon, we must restore the pathway to a viable, sovereign Palestine, living in peace and security alongside Israel. It must be time-bound, with clear milestones of governance reform, economic stabilisation, security and, yes, steps that reopen Jerusalem as a shared city of faith, hope and heritage.
As we heard from the Minister, Iran has changed the dynamics. Neighbours have a stake, but we do as well. Normalisation anchored in de-escalation, reconstruction and investment can change the calculus of despair. I am sure all in this House will join me in commending the efforts of our Gulf partners—particularly Pakistan, which, as we speak today, is in Iran again through its Interior Minister to avert the restart of a war. Can the Minister share what assessments have been made on the new security and defence architecture in the Gulf, which includes Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Türkiye and Pakistan, and is supported by Qatar? What support have we extended to the UAE and Bahrain in the C-SIPA partnership? What is the current status of the Abraham accords?
To our international partners, we must align our efforts, not just our statements. The Government have hollowed out aid and development budgets to their bare bones, and we have lost leverage. I feel for and genuinely appreciate the efforts of the Development Minister in this regard, but, as the noble Baroness, Lady Ashton, reminded us, development, diplomacy and defence come together; it requires leadership in all three areas.
I close with a simple conviction. Leadership is the art of narrowing the gap between the world as it is and the world as it should be. The hardest day to make peace is always today; tomorrow offers the illusion of easier choices that never arrive. If the Middle East is, as we argue, the cradle of faiths that teach the sanctity of life, the dignity of the stranger, and indeed the possibility of redemption, and if those truths can take root again in policy and action, through ongoing action and investment, and through prayer, then peace becomes a reality.
Diego Garcia Military Base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon Excerpts(3 months, 2 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Coaker (Lab)
The noble Lord will know that I will not go into all the detail that he referred to, but the point I am making is that it is a fundamentally important security base for us, the Americans and the alliances to which we belong. All across the world, different bases operate under different arrangements and are made up of different armed forces. People do not go into those details because it would draw attention to them and could help our adversaries. The only point I am making is that it is a strategically crucial base for us, the Americans and the alliances to which we belong. As such, the Government are seeking to protect that. Others have a different way through which they think they would protect it, but we are seeking to ensure that we have the legal certainty that will provide the security to that base that we think is vital.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, I did not intend to speak, but we need to put the record straight on the issue of the 11 rounds of negotiations. I agree with the Minister that the previous Government had discussions with the Government of Mauritius in good faith, but as I have said to him, both inside and outside the Chamber, the issue of the long-term, permanent security of Diego Garcia could not be agreed on. There were peripheral issues too. The Minister alluded to Annex VII of UNCLOS. Its enforcement mechanism is within the jurisdiction of the UN Secretary-General. Ultimately, the only authority carried within the UN structures is within the UN Security Council, on which, of course, the United Kingdom carries a veto.
The previous Government were fully versed with some of these things, so ultimately, it would have come down to a decision on security and political priority. That is important for the record, because this idea that there were 11 rounds of negotiations is a fact. On the fact that they were not concluded, the proof is there for the Minister to see.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
The noble Lord is one of the most esteemed Members of your Lordships’ House. There were 11 rounds of negotiation. On the fact that—to use the noble Lord’s words—they were not concluded, that happens with negotiations, but there was an intent to try to reach a negotiated settlement on what to do about the future of Diego Garcia. I have been in many negotiations that have not been concluded, but that does not mean that you are not trying to negotiate to get to a conclusion. That is the only point I would make on that.
Going back to Annex VII of UNCLOS, because I knew that people were going to ask what the binding judgment that could be made upon the UK Government would be, and people have made much of the fact that many of the legal things that have been referred to have been non-binding judgments, I ask: what would be a binding judgment? Legal people, who understand these matters and advise me—as they will have advised the noble Lord in his Foreign Office ministerial capacity—have told me that Annex VII of UNCLOS would provide a binding judgment.
Iran and the Middle East
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon Excerpts(4 months, 2 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
To ask His Majesty’s Government, following the deployment of UK naval and air assets to the Middle East and the appointment of Ayatollah Mojtaba Khamenei as the Supreme Leader of Iran, what assessment they have made of the conflict in the region and the status of the UK’s security and diplomatic relationship with the United States.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, I beg to ask a Question of which I have given private notice, and I draw attention to my entry on the register of interests as an adviser to the Arab Ambassadors Council.
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Baroness Chapman of Darlington) (Lab)
My Lords, we condemn Iran’s strikes on its neighbours. They are unacceptable and threaten regional stability. Keeping people safe and defending national security is the Government’s first duty, and we continually assess potential threats to the United Kingdom. We continue to have discussions at every level with the US and others. American planes operating out of British bases and British jets shooting down drones and missiles to protect American lives is the special relationship in action. The appointment of Mojtaba Khamenei as the new Supreme Leader suggests no change in direction from Iran.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, at a time when our Gulf partners are asking for de-escalation and diplomacy, and indeed the United States President has said that he does not require the UK’s intervention, we seem to be intervening and escalating. The Minister delved on the issue of national security, but what is the stated objective of His Majesty’s Government when it comes to resolving this conflict specifically? The Minister referred to the use of UK bases; bearing in mind the Prime Minister’s stated objective that our intervention is defensive and that the US is carrying out a military intervention that is offensive, how does she square those two key strategic objectives?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
We want to see a swift conclusion to this conflict; that is in the interests of our Gulf partners, and they are very clear what they would like to see. We are involved in a defensive capacity, as the noble Lord says, because British lives and the lives of our allies and partners are at risk.
Lithuania: Balloon Incursions
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon Excerpts(7 months, 1 week ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Captain of the Honourable Corps of Gentlemen-at-Arms and Chief Whip (Lord Kennedy of Southwark) (Lab Co-op)
We have plenty of time. We will hear from the Lib Dem Benches next.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, I welcome and support the Government’s announcement of support through NATO. I have visited troops in that part of the world, and I know we do a lot of work in the JEF as well. Can the Minister say, particularly with regard to countries in the Balkans, what extra support is planned within the context and framework of the JEF to send a straight signal to Belarus and Russia that the threat from Belarus—we have also seen challenges in the airspace of Poland—will not be accepted or tolerated?
Lord Coaker (Lab)
It is an important question, and one that both the previous Government and this Government have sought to deal with. The noble Lord will know that there are 1,000 British troops in Estonia as part of the forward land forces, along with defence attachés and others in support in other JEF nations. The noble Lord will know of Baltic Sentry, the maritime defence in and around underwater cables in the Baltic. So we have forward land forces, Baltic Sentry and, alongside that, the Eastern Sentry, which is the aerial operation. At a land force level, a maritime level and an air level, within the auspices of NATO, this country is contributing to deter Russia and to deal with the threats. We can be proud of what we are trying to do to deter Russia from the activity it is seeking to pursue.
Diego Garcia Military Base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon ExcerptsTuesday 25th November 2025
(8 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Diego Garcia Military Base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill 2024-26 View all Diego Garcia Military Base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 139-II(a) Amendments for Committee (Supplementary to the Second Marshalled List) - (24 Nov 2025)
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, I speak briefly in support of my noble friend Lady Foster, based on insight and experience. The Chagossian package that we, the previous Government, negotiated was for £40 million over 10 years. Part of the challenge faced by the previous Government was around administration and governance and who would have a say on how that money was spent. For example, the delivery partners included the British Council for packages on English language training. We worked with universities, including Middlesex University, on delivering skill sets for Chagossian communities, and there was some insight provided on governance by local communities right here in the United Kingdom. I share that insight and experience because it remained a big challenge as to how the money would be administered.
Perhaps I can ask the Minister about some specifics. The £40 million Chagossian support package was, as she will know, administered by the FCDO—in other words, the UK Government. In the £40 million now being proposed, that will shift, so the issue of accountability, particularly for the Chagossian people, will be a vital component. I have some probing questions on the existing schemes that are already operational. Going purely from memory, about £30-odd million had been allocated. Will those schemes run to the end of their project period? What has happened to that extra £10 million? Has it been reallocated to the £40 million now being proposed in the trust fund by the Government?
Lord Hay of Ballyore (DUP)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 38A and 38B in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Weir. The amendment before the Committee in my name would require that this Government
“shall seek to permit limited commercial and chartered flights for British Chagossians to and from Diego Garcia, using the existing runway facilities”,
and is of great importance. Like many colleagues have already mentioned, the islanders themselves ought to be at the very heart of this conversation. I was privileged to receive correspondence from many members of the Chagossian community living in the United Kingdom, asking that I reflect their concerns on this issue. I believe this would be a modest but vital step towards addressing the historic injustice inflicted on the Chagossian community.
I shall explain why the Government should accept this amendment and why the Bill in its present form is inadequate without it. Noble Lords will be aware of the history of the British Indian Ocean Territory, and I do not intend to repeat it today. However, we must be continually mindful of what happened to the inhabitants of these islands from 1968 to 1973, then numbering around 2,000: they were removed from their homes so that Diego Garcia could become the site of a UK-US military base.
Since then, the Government have repeatedly recognised that these are British Overseas Territories citizens, some native, but many descendants of deceased islanders who never returned, and the Government have provided certain support measures throughout the years, or so they might contend. Yet, in spite of this, they have failed to take into account the undeniably important right of the Chagossians to have any meaningful access to their former homeland. They have been denied what we consider an expectation to return home at the end of the day.
This amendment is about more than symbolic flights; it addresses infrastructure, reconnection and justice. It taps into the Chagossian people and their campaign for representation throughout this long process, during which His Majesty’s Government have continually left them very much outside in the cold. This amendment would allow limited commercial or charter traffic, especially for the Chagossian community in the United Kingdom. This would not be a wholesale opening of the island, nor would it challenge the base operations; it would simply permit members of the community, many of whom live in the United Kingdom, to visit, reconnect and maintain their culture and family ties to the Chagossian community.
Those opposed to this amendment may argue that additional flights raise security and other major issues. I respectfully suggest that this argument cannot be used to stonewall all access. Instead, this amendment demands a managed, limited and regular scheme—for example, scheduled charters once or twice a year. Under vetting, with government oversight, this is entirely compatible with defence interests. Indeed, recognising the ties of displaced people is part of Britain’s international human rights obligations. The amendment would permit family members to see where their parents were born and to grieve, remember and connect with their roots. That matters more than any of us could ever know. It gives the Chagossian community a tangible and practical link to their homeland. Practically speaking, the Government should include reporting requirements on how many flights, who operates them, capacity and cost. We should ensure a transparent and accountable process. I therefore urge noble Lords to consider this amendment carefully. Without it, the Bill will proceed without a tangible measure of access and leave the Chagossian community with yet another broken promise.
I turn to Amendment 38B in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Weir. In its current form, the Bill fails to provide even the most basic protections for a community whose treatment by successive Governments has been one of the most regrettable chapters in our modern history. The proposal in this amendment is simple. All employment on the Diego Garcia military base must include fair and equal opportunities for the Chagossians as British Indian Ocean Territory citizens, and conditions must be in line with UK labour standards. Those conditions are the bare minimum we should expect for individuals working under the authority of the United Kingdom, particularly in the case of British Chagossians, who have just as much claim to Britishness as we do. Although the Government like to point out that Chagossians can apply for jobs on Diego Garcia, in reality very few have ever had meaningful access to stable, fair and properly regulated employment on the island. Much of the labour force is made up of contracted or sub-contracted workers from elsewhere. Where Chagossians have been employed, concerns have been raised in relation to pay disparity and unclear contractual safeguards. Without explicit protection in legislation, these inequalities will simply continue unchecked. We cannot allow that to happen.
The British Overseas Territories should reflect British values, and those include adherence to UK recognised labour standards. These standards cover fair pay, safe conditions, rest periods, paid leave and protection from discrimination. I completely disagree with the claim that a military base “complicates” and creates a problem for workforce regulations. Civilians work on UK and allied military installations right across the world.
This amendment is about treating the Chagossian community with fairness and basic justice. It is a chance for Parliament to ensure that the community that paid the highest price for Britain’s historical decisions in the British Indian Ocean Territory is no longer marginalised from its own homeland.
This amendment may not ensure self-determination or the maintenance of sovereignty, and nor is it likely to affect the security of the region. But what it does seek to do is to put the Chagossian people first. If the Government are serious about righting the past wrongs, surely, they must begin by guaranteeing equal treatment in employment.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, I totally support the amendments in the names of my noble friends Lord Callanan and Lady Goldie. The noble Lord, Lord Coaker, and the noble Baroness, Lady Chapman, both know that I, as someone who was involved with direct negotiations, albeit in 2019, remained unconvinced of one specific element above all else—I remain unconvinced of it today—and that was the security protections that have just been so eloquently narrated by my noble friend Lady Goldie.
In associating myself with those amendments, I will also press ahead on the archipelago and the lay of the land beyond Diego Garcia. I draw attention to paragraph 3(a) of Annex 1, which says that
“vessels and aircraft of the United Kingdom and the United States of America shall have unrestricted rights of overflight, navigation and undersea access”.
That is clear. It continues:
“States operating with the United Kingdom or the United States of America shall also have such unrestricted rights, save in respect of overflight or undersea access, which require notification”.
We need a degree more clarification to unwrap that provision, particularly on passage to and from Diego Garcia and the lay of the other parts of the archipelago. Like my noble friend, I press the Minister to give the specific assurance, which I certainly feel should be within the agreements signed with Mauritius, that notification does not mean before the event but after.
Lord Beamish (Lab)
My Lords, I will speak on Amendment 67. This part of the agreement is being portrayed as though it has some type of special status. It is similar to the agreement we have with the sovereign base areas in Cyprus. The UK and our allies use Cyprus as a staging post for a number of operations outside the Republic of Cyprus. The way it operates there is that the Government of Cyprus are not informed prior to the use of that base but, like in this agreement, are informed afterwards. I accept the point about the use of “expeditiously” —what it means is worth debate—but the way I read this is that it is no different from other bases.
The noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, said she was nitpicking. To be fair to her, I do not think she is: she is trying to get clarity on this important point. We want to ensure that our forces and allies have free movement and use of the base under this treaty. I do not think that our United States allies would agree with the Bill and treaty if they in any way limited their use of the base, not only for actions against other parts of the world but in the siting of various pieces of equipment on those important islands. We look for some reassurance on that point, but it is important to have clarity. That would certainly allay some of the fears raised, quite legitimately by some people and by others as scaremongering against the Bill.
Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)
I think it is probably best to take what they say at face value. They probably mean what they say.
I will now attempt to address the amendments from the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, and surprise her by saying that I think they are extremely sensible. I understand the thinking behind them. I understand her concerns that are encapsulated in Amendments 83 and 85 to 87, but I think the amendments are probably unnecessary. I suspect that the statements the noble Baroness is calling for could be made today. I suspect that we will hear them before the debates on this Bill are over, but it seems to me important that we should hear them, so I understand what the noble Baroness is saying.
I would like briefly to refer to the consistent and cogent arguments from the noble Lord, Lord Bellingham, for a sovereign base area solution rather than the solution that is written into the treaty. I do not know why the last Government looked at it but decided not to pursue it. I do not know what the reasons were. They were probably, I would guess, topographical—we are talking about a very large area, rather than the two restricted areas on Cyprus—but I do not know, and I think it is a valid question to ask.
The big point, surely, is that we are where we are. We have a treaty, and we cannot ratify it until we pass this Bill. That is why I disagree strongly with the four amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Kempsell. He comes straight out and says that he wants renegotiation. He wants the treaty renegotiated in four separate respects, but we are where we are. The treaty exists. If we were to decide to reopen the negotiation, I think we could expect a rather hostile reaction in the United States. The principal concern of the United States is security of tenure and the continuing co-operation of third countries over supply chains. That is what they are concerned about—not our blue eyes but security of tenure of the base. Given that, some in Washington would argue that it is time for the United States to switch sides, to ditch us and do a direct deal with the Mauritians. That argument has been made in Washington and could be made again if we get ourselves into such a mess that, having secured a treaty that the Conservative Government sought and the Labour Government have concluded, we were to decide, after all, that it was not a treaty we wanted and that we wanted to go back to the start and negotiate something different. I can imagine the United States losing patience with us.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
I know that the noble Lord speaks with great insight but the whole point of the amendments, with which I agree—that is why I back my noble friend Lady Goldie in particular—is on the specific issue of security. Yes, as I have said on the Floor of the House before, there were 11 rounds of negotiation but, at the end of them, agreement could not be reached because—I speak from my own insight and experience—back in 2019, that element of security was not assured. When I returned to London, I asked Boris Johnson directly, in good faith—I was not the OTs Minister but I had a good rapport with the then Prime Minister—and he could not give me that assurance. That is what I have pressed for throughout the passage of the Bill.
It has come up repeatedly that there were 11 rounds of negotiations. I have spent a lot of time in business and, as the noble Lord knows, in government. When you are looking for a negotiation and seeking to agree something, the fact that there were 11 rounds would suggest—I know this for a fact—that that agreement could not be reached.
Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)
I respect what the noble Lord says and he knows what he is talking about. I also respect what the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, asked for in requesting four statements. We should be asking for statements rather than changes to the text of a treaty. We voted in July for the ratification of this treaty; we cannot ratify the treaty until we pass this Bill, and we should pass the Bill.
President Trump: Nuclear Weapons Statement
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon Excerpts(8 months, 1 week ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Coaker (Lab)
The UK has a long-standing and important relationship with the United States—it is important to start out and say that on a number of occasions. The comprehensive test-ban treaty, as my noble friend has said, is a really successful treaty, and we continue to push and to do all we can to ensure that it is as effective as it is with as many states as possible. We look forward to everyone who signed it ratifying it in due course.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, we saw the PrepCom for the nuclear non-proliferation treaty—or NPT—conference, which is due to meet again next year. We have five signatories. In light of what we have heard from the rhetoric of Russia, and the actions that others have taken, what assessment is being made of the potential success of the NPT meeting next May? Further, linked to the recent conflict we saw between India and Pakistan, what extra efforts have been made to ensure that those countries also sign the NPT?
Lord Coaker (Lab)
The noble Lord has a lot of experience in these matters, and he knows that numerous conversations go on and numerous efforts are made by numerous countries, in ways we cannot often speak about in this Chamber. Whether it is India and Pakistan, or other countries, numerous debates and discussions take place to ensure that we are as safe as we possibly can be. As he knows, the parties to the nuclear non-proliferation treaty will meet in New York next year—I think is an important statement that it is taking place in New York. It is a really important treaty. We have the comprehensive test-ban treaty, and we have the nuclear non-proliferation treaty. I think sometimes that what countries such as us should do, as well as recognising the difficulties and problems, is to continue to push the importance of those treaties and to do all we can to ensure their continued success.
Qatar: Israeli Strike
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon Excerpts(10 months, 2 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Coaker (Lab)
The noble Lord makes the point for himself in his question. We have close and strong relationships with Qatar. I myself hosted the ambassador of Qatar at the recent military tattoo in Edinburgh, and met others around that to reiterate the points that the noble Lord has made. Again, as I said to the noble Lord on the Liberal Democrat Benches, the way that Qatar and its Emir have responded to this flagrant violation of its sovereignty is such an important statement about the Emir himself and the nation of Qatar, and they are to be congratulated on the fact that they are willing to continue with those peace negotiations.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
I declare an interest as an adviser to the Council of Arab Ambassadors. The previous UK Government played a bridging role. Indeed, I remember facilitating the first engagement between the hostage families—I spent an extensive amount of time with them—and the Qatari Administration. The intervention of Qatar and other partners resulted in the release of 139 hostages. As has been asked, where do these events leave the status of Qatar today and the important role that it plays? Where are we on the important issue of bringing the war in Gaza to an end? Again, Qatar has played a key role, and the facilitation of the dialogue between Israel and Hamas in Doha was an important role that it was playing.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Ahmad, for his question. The work that the current Government are doing is very much building on the work that he did when he was in government and the relationships that he established between this country and Qatar. I reassure him that we see Qatar as a continuing bridge between the different parties in the conflict in and around Gaza. Qatar is to be congratulated on the way in which it has tried to bring the two sides, Israel and Hamas, together to try to create a peace settlement. As the noble Lord points out, we continue to discuss with the Qataris how we might bring about an immediate ceasefire, see the release of the hostages and bring an end to what we are seeing in Gaza. Qatar remains crucial to that.
Ukraine: Negotiations
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon Excerpts(10 months, 2 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Coaker (Lab)
New to the Foreign Office brief as I am, let me try to say that we are very pleased that President Trump is coming and look forward to making his visit a success. Our intention is to continue to say to the United States that it remains an important partner—our most important partner—and that we will continue to work with it to bring about peace and security in Ukraine as in other parts of the world.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, I first join in the tributes to the noble Lord, Lord Collins. I sparred with him for over seven years as a Minister. His support both inside and outside the Chamber was not just welcome but often very important to ensure the unanimity of the focus of your Lordships’ House and, indeed, the country on issues such as Ukraine. Specific to Ukraine, what engagement has taken place directly with countries such as China and India, which, clearly, with the recent meetings held in China, have leverage with Russia?
Lord Coaker (Lab)
We continue to raise these issues and make the case with all countries. There are regular meetings with respect to China where all sorts of issues are raised, including international matters. We also raise these issues with India. We continue to make the point on what we believe to be the correct approach in respect of Ukraine and the defence of freedom and human rights, and that that approach is in the interests of us all. We will continue to raise it with those nations.
Diego Garcia Military Base
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon Excerpts(1 year, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Coaker (Lab)
I am not sure of the answer to that, but I suspect not. All I can say with respect to this is that, whatever the payment is that the UK Government are making, through the MoD and the FCDO, to the Mauritian Government for the use and protection of the base, we should be clear that the US’s ability to use the base, with its equipment, its facilities, and the soldiers, airmen and sailors of its military, is the massive contribution that the US makes to it. Whatever arrangements we have, the fact that the US and the UK are standing together on that base sends a massive signal to China, the rest of those who stand against us and our adversaries. We are a proud country. We are going to stand with our friends, and we will deter those who seek to undermine us.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, may I perhaps inform the Minister? He is, of course, right that the previous Government engaged on this in good faith to try to seek a resolution. The reason why it could not be agreed, as has been said before in your Lordships’ House, was the principal issue of security. I visited at the behest of a previous Prime Minister and directly met the Prime Minister of Mauritius. One assurance that he could not give me at that time was about the long-term security of both the maritime waters and the Diego Garcia base. Linked to that, my specific question is about the other islands that make up the British Indian Ocean Territory. What assurances and, indeed, guarantees are there that there will not be a separate negotiation on them?
Lord Coaker (Lab)
My Lords, I know that the noble Lord, Lord Ahmad, will have negotiated in good faith. I know too that if there had been an agreement that he felt was in the national interest then he would have recommended to his Government that it should be supported.
The point that I am making is that the principle was established that negotiations were happening to see what arrangement or agreement, if any, could be made between the UK and Mauritius with respect to Diego Garcia. This Government’s judgment is that we have reached such an agreement. The noble Lord is quite right to point out the security guarantees that we have. He will know that in the treaty there is a 24-mile buffer zone around the island, and the US and the UK can veto any development within that zone. He will also know that there is a further exclusion zone beyond that encompassing the rest of the islands, which means we can prevent development that we are opposed to there as well. That is why we felt we could sign an agreement containing the sorts of security guarantees that the noble Lord himself sought but did not manage to achieve, and therefore did not feel there was an agreement that he could come to or recommend we agree to. We feel that we have guarantees that will protect the integrity of the base by excluding others who would seek to undermine it.