Chagos Islands

Lord Callanan Excerpts

Wednesday 2nd April 2025 Lords Chamber

Asked by

[Lord Callanan]

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

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

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

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

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

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

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

G7

Lord Callanan Excerpts

Thursday 20th March 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

My Lords, the turbulence of the global situation that we face was reflected in the breadth of the subjects covered in the joint statement of the G7 Foreign Ministers’ meeting: Ukraine, Gaza, China, Sudan, the DRC, Latin America and Iran were all covered. We are faced with a world of growing uncertainty and instability, and we welcome the commitment shown at the G7 to face those global challenges together.

The importance of co-operation and alliance with those countries that share our values in facing these threats is, in my view, crucial. Over the weekend, and in the other place this week, we have heard that the proposed peacekeeping initiative for Ukraine is now moving into an operational phase, which we welcome. However, the Foreign Secretary did not expand on what that means in practical terms, or what our European and Atlantic allies have committed to in supporting it. Can the Minister provide the House with an update on these issues?

Across both Houses of Parliament, there is overwhelming support, I am delighted to say, for our Ukrainian allies, and we on these Benches continue to support Ukraine in its fight to defend its freedom, democracy and the rule of law. The Government have taken admirable steps to co-ordinate our allies, which we welcome, although the House would welcome an update on what this means for us and our country in practice. What are the effects of this initiative on our Armed Forces? What planning is currently under way as part of this operational shift? Which allies in the so-called coalition of the willing have expressed interest in this initiative, and what are they willing to offer? What discussions have the Government held with the United States to advance clarity on this plan? Facing Putin and ensuring the security and sovereignty of Ukraine can be achieved only alongside our allies, and I think that the House would welcome further clarity from the Government to explain what they are doing to shift this coalition of the willing to a coalition of the committed.

The G7’s joint statement also made clear the growing and very serious concerns among allies about China’s activities aimed at

“undermining the security and safety of our communities and the integrity of our democratic institutions”.

This comes alongside many other concerns raised at the G7, including China’s non-market policies and practices that are leading to harmful overcapacity and market distortions; China’s military build-up, and the continued, rapid increase in China’s nuclear weapons arsenal; and increasing efforts to restrict freedom of navigation and overflight through militarisation and coercion in countries bordering the South China Sea, in clear violation of international law.

Given these clear and blatant risks to our domestic security, and the threat that China poses to the rule of international law, will the Government now take steps to place China on the enhanced tiers list of the foreign influence registration scheme? In my view, this would further strengthen the resilience of the UK political system against covert influence and provide greater assurance around the activities of China that are deemed a national security risk.

Proceeding from the concerns expressed at the G7, the country now needs to see further concrete responses from the Government to address the threat posed by China. I therefore close by asking the Minister: what other measures are being considered by the Government to compel China to engage in strategic risk reduction discussions, and what steps are the Government taking to deter China’s non-market policies and practices?

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

My Lords, the seriousness of the issues addressed by the G7 are such that, from the welcome Statement that the House of Commons received on Monday, events have changed between then and when it has come to this Chamber with regards to the likely slow movement of President Putin in his talks with President Trump over a ceasefire for Ukraine, the increased concern with regard to the Red Sea, and the strikes from the United States and the repercussions of that—I remind the House that, on Sunday, President Trump’s national security adviser called the previous attacks, which very brave RAF personnel took part in, as “feckless”. The war has restarted in Gaza with more humanitarian concern and more violence on the West Bank, just within three days of that Statement coming to this Chamber.

We are now close to the second round of tariffs from the principal economy within the G7, as part of what the Wall Street Journal—not a liberal newspaper—in America has described as the

“dumbest trade war in history”.

Regardless of its dumbness, there will be effects across the whole of the G7, including the UK. From these Benches, we reiterate our desire to have ever-closer relations with the European Union and Canada in particular, so that there is a co-ordinated response. It is regrettable that there should need be that within the G7, but this is the world which we have to address.

On the Statement itself, I welcome the Foreign Secretary stating that they discussed using frozen Russian assets. The Minister will know that these Benches have asked for accelerated work on the seizure of the assets. Can the Minister update us on that, and tell us what the prospect of an announcement is from the G7 Heads of Government meetings? At the very least, we think there is a justified case for draft UK legislation to be released, so that we can understand what we would be required to do to move fast on that. I would be grateful if the Minister could outline where we are on the seizing of assets.

The Minister knows that we have supported the increase in defence expenditure across the UK, as the Foreign Secretary referred to in the Statement. Can the Minister give a bit more clarity as to what proportion of the increased defence expenditure is likely to be spent within the UK and what proportion is likely to be spent within the US? What is the Government’s position on the reports that we have seen about the UK’s difficulty in taking a full role within the common defence procurement approach in the European Union? Are we seeking to move quickly on a defence and security treaty which should facilitate this? There are a number of Members in this House who called for that under the last Government and continue to do so. It is now urgent, and I hope the Minister can update us on it.

The Minister will not be surprised to hear me say that we disagree with the method of the increased funds. We believe that the companies that avoid paying tax in the UK—tech companies—and are operating on underpaid taxes for their profits should contribute more. That is under the Basel 3.1 mechanism. There is agreement within the EU and, as I understand it, the G7. Only one country has argued against it and pulled out of it: the United States. A second G7 country has delayed our implementation because of that first country. We do not believe that that is appropriate; we should move quickly on using the resource from an increase from 2% to 10% on undertaxed profits. That is a better way of funding increased defence expenditure, rather than cutting the ODA budget.

Earlier, the Minister reiterated the Government’s position, which is an ambition to honour the 0.7% legislation. I remind the House that the legislation does not require the Government to have an ambition to meet 0.7%; it requires them to meet it. It is not a “We would like to do it” Act; it is a “We must do it” Act. If the Government are not committed to this then they should state it clearly, with regards to the means by which they would meet the legislative target.

On the fiscal circumstances of meeting the legislative requirement, it seems that the Government’s policy choice is to cut ODA to fund defence expenditure—that is a policy choice, not a fiscal one. What are the fiscal rules now when it comes to the policy choice of funding in an alternative way? There is no mechanism under the 0.7% legislation for alternative policy choices to be used, other than fiscal circumstances, so what is the status?

Finally, I reflected on the Government’s Statement 10 years ago, when we passed this legislation, on the 2015 G7. Granted, that was not a meeting of Foreign Ministers but of Prime Ministers, and the Prime Minister said this to the House of Commons:

“For the first time in a number of G7s and G8s, we actually got the 0.7% commitment back into the text, so it is clear and there for all to see. I would argue that it is not just right for Britain from a moral standpoint, but that it actually increases our standing in the world that we can point out that we have kept our promises and were able to use that money to enhance not only the economic standing of those countries, but our own security as well.”—[Official Report, Commons, 10/6/15; col.1203.]


I agree with the then Prime Minister.

Syria

Lord Callanan Excerpts

Thursday 13th March 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the Government for this important Statement on the situation in Syria. As my right honourable friend the Shadow Foreign Secretary said in the other place:

“This is the first statement on Syria offered by the Government this year, and frankly, it could not have come soon enough”.—[Official Report, Commons, 10/3/25; col. 664.]


We have witnessed some of the deadliest violence in Syria in recent days, since the beginning of this dreadful conflict.

The reports that hundreds of civilians have been killed in clashes, including many Alawite civilians, is, of course, deeply troubling. I am sure we have all seen the horrific videos of that violence that have been circulated. The Syrian people have now suffered 14 years of conflict and, of course, decades of oppression. The situation will need to be monitored closely to prevent backsliding into further conflict on ethnic and religious lines.

The Government have decided to establish contact with Hay’at Tahrir al-Sham and the interim Administration in Syria, so can the Minister confirm whether the Foreign Office has raised this escalation in violence with the interlocutors in the current Syrian Government, and if so, whether our Government have clearly conveyed a set of expectations of how the temperature should be taken down and how stability can be restored? Are there plans for Ministers to visit Damascus any time soon, for instance?

We note, of course, that the Government have announced that they are lifting 24 sanctions on entities linked to the deposed Assad regime. Does the terrible violence of recent days change the Government’s assessment of the merits of lifting such sanctions? Before the Government lifted them, did they consult US and European allies or partners in the region? Were the sanctions lifted at the request of HTS, and are there plans to lift further sanctions? Can the Minister also be clear with the House about precisely what conditions, criteria and evidence are being used to drive their various decisions?

On the vital subject of HTS’s progress in countering drug trafficking, does the Minister know whether Syrian Captagon, an extremely harmful pharmaceutical drug, is still in production, or has HTS managed to prevent Captagon being produced in Syria and distributed to the wider region?

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

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

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

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

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

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

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

United Kingdom: Global Position

Lord Callanan Excerpts

Thursday 13th March 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

My Lords, it is indeed a pleasure today to address this important subject and to have heard so many great speeches from all sides of the House. There seems to have been, if you like, an overall theme of strategic uncertainty—just how much the world has changed in the last few weeks.

I have to say that the debate was so ably moved by my noble friend Lord Howell of Guildford in what I thought was an outstanding introductory contribution, and I also really enjoyed listening to an excellent maiden speech from the noble Lord, Lord Pitkeathley. Like the rest of the House, I am sure, I am looking forward to some excellent contributions from him to your Lordships’ House in the future.

My noble friend Lord Howell made some very thought-provoking points in his introduction and I agreed with so many of his conclusions, particularly about the world being potentially on the edge of an abyss. I, like many other Members of the House, I am sure, wake up in the morning, switch on the radio and wonder with trepidation what statements have emerged from the current occupant of the White House during the night. Indeed, we have had more of them during the course of today’s debate. We debated yesterday during OQs some of the appalling attacks on our Canadian brethren and I commend the Government for the support they have provided. Even if they are a Liberal party, sometimes we have to support them in their democracy.

I was particularly impressed by the contribution of my noble friend Lord Howard, who expressed very well the changing nature of the US under its current leader, who, it seems, as he said, sadly can no longer be regarded as an ally. He seems to revel in his unpredictability, as my noble friend also said. It is an uncomfortable realisation for those of us who have grown up during an era of US leadership to have someone like this occupying the presidency of the US. Throughout my political life, I have always regarded the president as the leader of the free world and somebody I have wanted to support.

My noble friend Lord Vaizey also made some excellent points about UK soft power, one of the greatest examples of which—I do not think this has been mentioned much in the debate—is our education system. A few weeks ago, alongside the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, we were in Malaysia with a CPA delegation. It was striking just how many of our interlocuters in the Parliament and the Government had been educated in UK universities, or currently had children attending them, and used it as an excuse to visit our country. It really is a powerful soft power asset of the UK.

My noble friend Lord Hannan was right to remind us of the importance of our largest continental allies; the opportunity of working with them in a CANZUK-like relationship is one we should take increasingly seriously.

There has been an awful lot of common ground in this debate and that is understandable, but there are some actions of the current Government that I want to take issue with. There is great concern at some of their actions on the world stage. Just last week, it was announced that Britain has fallen behind China on the prestigious soft power index. While we welcome and are enthusiastic backers of the Government’s continued support for Ukraine, as I said, they have taken some decisions to which we are opposed.

Nowhere is this more evident than in the Government’s decision to transfer the Chagos Islands to Mauritius. This is not just a betrayal of the Chagossian people; it is a profound abdication of Britain’s responsibilities as a sovereign power. The islands have been British territory for over two centuries, and our presence there has been critical to both UK and allied security. This Government, in their eagerness to appease international critics, and populated as they are by human rights lawyers, have shown no regard for our strategic interests or for the right of the Chagossians to defend their own future. Instead of standing firm, Labour has caved in to international pressure, surrendering territory in a manner reminiscent of past colonial retreats, sending a clear signal that Britain no longer has the resolve to defend its commitments. It sets a dangerous precedent. What message does this send to our other overseas territories, be it the Falkland Islands or even Gibraltar? A strong Britain does not surrender territory for short-term diplomatic approval. A strong Britain does not weaken its historical narrative for fear of offending others, and it should not apologise for its past; it should build upon it.

We should reject the culture of retreat. The UK remains a global power, and we should have the will and means to act like one. We should stand by our overseas territories, and we need to defend our legacy. We should refuse to be cowed by those who seek to diminish Britain’s role on the world stage.

Prime Minister: Meeting with Prime Minister of Canada

Lord Callanan Excerpts

Wednesday 12th March 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

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

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

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

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

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

Official Development Assistance

Lord Callanan Excerpts

Tuesday 4th March 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

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

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

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

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

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

Ukraine: Frozen Russian Assets

Lord Callanan Excerpts

Wednesday 26th February 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

The Prime Minister was very clear yesterday when he made the Statement in the other place that programmes in Ukraine, Sudan and Gaza were to be prioritised. The decision that was taken yesterday was difficult but important, and it is one that I completely support. It was the right thing to do: we must provide the additional resources to our defence to provide security. This is essential. It is not a situation that anybody is happy about, but I am afraid that politics, governing and leading are about tough choices. We have a Prime Minister who is prepared to make those tough choices, and I am proud of the decision that he made yesterday.

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

My Lords, there is a great degree of unanimity across the House that, as we mark the sombre third anniversary of this illegal and barbaric war, we stand wholly and entirely with the brave people of Ukraine, and we support the Government in their actions on this. I understand the Minister’s point about the difficult legal complexities of seizing Russian assets outright; I would like to see that done but I understand that it is difficult. Have the Government considered using these assets as collateral for long-term loans to help to support Ukraine’s reconstruction, while avoiding the unintended financial consequences that I know the Government are concerned about?

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

In a sense, that is already what is happening because the interest on the assets is being used to repay the loan that has been made. We are contributing around £2.6 billion to that, alongside partners in the EU, United States, Canada and Japan. That is the right thing to do, and I know his party supports it. I take the opportunity again, as we did last night, to thank the Opposition for their unwavering support for the Government in our approach to Ukraine, just as we supported his Government since the beginning of this conflict.

Ukraine

Lord Callanan Excerpts

Tuesday 25th February 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

My Lords, I start by expressing my full support for His Majesty’s Government and for the unequivocal stance that they have taken in standing with Ukraine against Russia’s brutal and illegal war. Three years ago, the world watched in horror as Vladimir Putin launched his full-scale invasion. It was an act of aggression, not just against Ukraine but against the very principles of sovereignty, democracy and the rule of law. Today, as we mark three years of heroic Ukrainian resistance, we must recommit ourselves to ensuring that Ukraine not only survives but prevails.

The Foreign Secretary was right to remind the other place of the long history of Russian imperialism and deception. The Kremlin has repeatedly violated international agreements, treating diplomacy as a means of delay rather than resolution, and we cannot allow history to repeat itself. Strength is the only language that Putin understands, and strength is what we must demonstrate.

I am proud that the UK has played a leading role in supporting Ukraine from the very beginning. Under the previous Conservative Government, we were the first European nation to provide lethal aid. We trained tens of thousands of Ukrainian troops, and we led the world in sanctioning Russian assets. That proud legacy of leadership continues under this Government, and I welcome the Prime Minister’s and the Foreign Secretary’s commitment to ensuring that the UK remains at the forefront of international support. We were the first mover on vital lethal aid, such as Challenger 2 battle tanks and Storm Shadow missiles, and we brought other countries along with us. We were also one of the very first to provide a cast-iron, multi-billion, multi-year funding pledge for military aid. All of that was the right thing to do, and we stand by it totally.

Let me be clear: there can be no retreat, no wavering and no false compromises. A just peace cannot be dictated by Moscow, nor can it be one that rewards aggression. Ukraine must be the arbiter of its own future. We must ensure that any settlement guarantees its sovereignty, secures its territorial integrity and provides iron-clad security against any future Russian aggression.

To achieve that, we must all accept that we must do more, however politically difficult that will be. The UK has already committed £3 billion annually in military aid for as long as it takes. That commitment is right and necessary and we commend the Government for it, but we must also work with our European allies to ensure that they are stepping up to the plate. Europe must take greater responsibility for its own security, and that includes increasing defence spending and accelerating the provision of military support. We welcome the Government’s announcement of that earlier today.

I wish the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary well on their forthcoming visit to Washington DC. Our transatlantic partnership is vital, and I hope that it will be able to continue. But, like many people, I was profoundly shocked by last night’s UN vote. I never thought I would see, in my lifetime, the United States voting with North Korea, Russia and Iran against its own NATO partners for the first time since 1945. It was profoundly disturbing for all of us who believe in the transatlantic relationship, and it should be a wake-up call for us all. We can only hope that the many sensible voices in the US and Congress can perhaps, at some stage, talk some sense into Trump.

Sanctions remain a crucial tool in this fight. The Government’s latest package, targeting over 100 entities including Russia’s shadow fleet of oil tankers, is a significant step, but I hope the Minister will accept that we can do a lot more. We are buying more Russian fertiliser than we used to buy before the war, and there are still Russian LNG tankers that are unsanctioned and still transporting gas to Europe and elsewhere. We must continue to tighten the economic vice on the Kremlin, ensuring that Putin’s war machine is starved of resources. The Government will have our full support if they choose to do that. Additionally, the UK’s willingness to contribute to Ukraine’s future security, including the potential deployment of British personnel, while a very serious step, sends a powerful message. It demonstrates our long-term commitment to Ukraine’s defence and to the stability of Europe.

At this profoundly disturbing time, the stakes could not be higher. If Putin is allowed to succeed in Ukraine, we all know that he will not stop there. Moldova, the Baltics and beyond will be all at risk, particularly with the current US Administration. Authoritarian regimes around the world are watching. They are calculating what they can get away with. We must make it clear that aggression does not pay, that democracy will not be cowed and that the free world stands united. I commend the Government for their steadfast leadership. This is a time for resolve and not for hesitation, for action and not just for rhetoric. The United Kingdom should never falter, and Ukraine should never stand alone.

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

My Lords, from these Benches I am very happy to associate myself with the noble Lord’s comments with regards to supporting the Government, as we did with the former Government. The noble Lord, Lord Ahmad, who is in his place, will know that I supported the previous Administration’s approach.

The noble Lord closed by referring to the free world being united; it is no fault of any of our political parties that the free world is no longer united, given the Trump Administration. It is a time for us to consider very carefully how we, with our European and other allies around the world who believe in genuine democracy, will support democracy.

It is worth reminding ourselves that the Putin plan was activated in February 2022 with a timeframe of three days. It had been planned that President Zelensky was either to be detained or assassinated. The Verkhovna Rada, the Ukrainian Parliament, was to be attacked and then dissolved and the Ukrainian people to have a puppet regime imposed on them. That was meant to happen in three days. Three years later, the bravery and the fortitude of the Ukrainian people, led by inspiring leaders and enduring a further war winter in terrible physical and psychological danger and stress, should be an inspiration for us all.

The fact that, under unbearable conditions, Ukraine’s democratic and representative functions continue should also be an inspiration for any democracy, not the source of an attack by a leading democracy led by Trump and Musk. The Minister knows that I have supported, since the current Labour Government have been in place, the sanctions and measures that have been introduced, and we will continue to do so. I welcome the sanctions that were announced today, especially those that seek to reduce the dark fleet, as well as the Russian war economy. We have played our part in the cross-party consensus in approving these measures, but we have also sought, in a constructive manner, to ensure that the Russian war economy does not exploit loopholes or circumvent sanctions with trading partners.

We have been able to have unanimity but also frank exchanges in this Parliament, because that is what democratic Parliaments do. We have also sought to raise the need to do more with our trading partners, who have seen an opportunity to profit from the war without contributing to the peace, be it Dubai or Delhi, seeking more investment from the former without penalty for financing the Kremlin, or, in the latter case, seeking conditionality in trade deal talks that we are now opening up again with India, potentially offering market access and energy to those who are purchasing energy from the Kremlin. We have to be frank with our allies that we have standards in both our trade and our diplomacy, and therefore we want to see that reflected in our agreements with them.

It is also why we have sought to continue the pressure not just for utilising the resource from assets that have been frozen but to seize them. We have debated this in this Chamber before, and the Minister has heard my comments on it. What has happened now with the Trump Administration, and in the vote in the Security Council, and Trump seeking to blackmail Zelensky over mineral rights, is that, frankly, any Russian assets that are seized should now be immobilised against being used by the Putin regime as part of some form of reward for doing a deal which excludes the Ukrainian people. There should be no moveable assets to reward this. There should be no impunity for this aggression, and therefore we should be using the capital of the assets for the benefit of the Ukrainian people.

I agree that we must counter a foreign policy based on lies, as the Statement says. The worry, with the vote in the UN Security Council, is that, increasingly, it is hard to disaggregate the lies and falsehoods from our strongest ally, not necessarily just from our strategic adversary in the Kremlin. As the Polish Foreign Minister put it, the new world is one where we now are seeing the reputation not just of the Trump Administration being put in question, but America as a whole. Given that our relationship with America is so important to our national security and diplomacy, this has to be something of consideration.

Therefore, I close by making the point that the debate we held in this House under my noble friend Lady Northover about the need to protect the rules-based international order was prescient. This is now an urgent matter for the United Kingdom. When it comes to the decision of the Trump Administration to demolish USAID and destroy the reputation of America, the UK response should have been filling the gap, seeing a strategic opportunity for us to expand our soft power and have a debate which means that our national security is one where we keep our people safe but we build up coalitions around the world, we prevent conflict and we work to remove the incentives for conflict, which could be hunger and migration.

The response to what is happening in America is for us to expand our international development, not to cut it by a bigger margin than the previous Government. This is sending the worst signal at the worst time about where the United Kingdom stands. We all support the increase of our national security defence expenditure. It should not be funded on the backs of the most vulnerable in the world, when, ultimately, for our security at home we are seeking to have coalitions abroad. I hope the Government will reconsider.

Chagos Islands

Lord Callanan Excerpts

Thursday 6th February 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

My Lords, the leader in the Times this morning says that this agreement is

“the worst negotiated by a British government in living memory”.

It goes on to say that the Prime Minister and the Attorney-General

“have taken leave of their senses”.

Current Labour Cabinet Ministers describe the deal in off-the-record quotes to the BBC as

“‘terrible’, ‘mad’ and ‘impossible to understand’”.

At a time when Labour Ministers seem to spend half their time at this Dispatch Box bemoaning the supposed black hole in the public finances, how does it make any sense whatever to spend up to £18 billion leasing back an island that we already own?

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

I was an Opposition Front-Bench Spokesman for 12 years, so I know how this goes. I do not think I ever resorted to reading out a Times leader from the Dispatch Box as my primary source. Perhaps the kindest thing I could do is to invite the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, to come to the FCDO, to put the kettle on and to brief him properly so that he knows what is going on. I could point him in the direction of a communiqué issued by the Mauritian Government, which stated:

“Mauritius has never said that the financial package in the agreement between Mauritius and the UK on the Chagos Archipelago had doubled as alleged”.


I also point out that the cost of this is not for nothing; it is to buy a security arrangement that has served this country very well, alongside our allies, the United States, for very many years. It is a base and an arrangement that we are committed to. In order to secure the future of that base, we need to come to a legally sound agreement with Mauritius.

Afghanistan: Women

Lord Callanan Excerpts

Thursday 30th January 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

For reasons that we have touched on today, that is incredibly difficult. The focus for us when it comes to Afghan women is to make sure that the eyes of the world are on this issue and that we get the aid to them now, because the need is desperate. That is why we are planning £161 million in aid to Afghanistan this financial year.

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

My Lords, the situation for women in Afghanistan is truly dreadful, and I am sure the whole House agrees that there are no easy or simple solutions. Perhaps the Minister could expand on the answer she gave earlier on whether the Government have considered targeted sanctions or providing diplomatic incentives to encourage the Taliban to change course.

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

We consider anything that might work. Obviously, we do not comment on future sanctions designations, but I can say that we keep the situation under very close review.