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.

Gaza: Humanitarian Situation

Lord Callanan Excerpts

Thursday 30th January 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

My Lords, since the heinous terrorist attacks of 7 October, we have stood united across the House in calling for the unconditional release of all hostages by Hamas as the only way to reach a sustainable end to this abhorrent conflict. We now feel both the anxiety and the hope of the families who have waited, anticipating the release of the remarkably brave women hostages who have been returned thus far under the ceasefire agreement. We saw this morning the release of the hostage Agam Berger, with, we hope, seven more set to be freed today. We pay tribute to all their families through their suffering.

It is important to remember the hostages who we learned on Monday will not return home alive, having been murdered at the hands of Hamas. This is the most devastating news for their families, and we must have them in our thoughts during the uncertainty in the days and weeks ahead. As the Minister said in the other place, we want the ceasefire agreement to hold, but we stress that every single hostage must be released.

The Minister rightly referred to UNRWA. Although no one can doubt the size of the distribution network, we cannot ignore the problems within that organisation. It is in no one’s interest to pretend that they have not happened. We know the facts: UNRWA staff and institutions have been infiltrated by Hamas, and there have been shocking allegations of UNRWA staff involvement in the 7 October attacks. Following the UN internal investigations and the subsequent sackings, the Colonna report and the reforms need to be implemented in full. The Minister in the other place said:

“I have discussed this directly with the head of UNRWA, and I know that my colleagues have done so repeatedly”.—[Official Report, Commons, 28/1/25; col. 188.]


Does the Minister have any update for the House on how these discussions are going, and can she tell us what progress has been made on the implementation of the Colonna report?

The reconstruction of Gaza is obviously a huge task. What discussions have the Government had with regional neighbours? What role does the Minister envisage for the UK in this reconstruction? Will we be contributing financially, and is she pushing for multilateral institutions to be involved?

On the future governance of Gaza, I have said that I would like to hear more about the Government’s day 1 plan. The Foreign Secretary previously told the House—and I think we would all agree—that

“there cannot be a role for Hamas”.—[Official Report, Commons, 16/1/25; col. 516.]

As my right honourable friend the shadow Foreign Secretary said in the other place, we echo those words, but the sickening sight of Hamas gunmen parading around hostages just last weekend—we saw it again this morning—caused great alarm. What steps are being taken to end the reign of terror that Hamas has unleashed upon the Gaza Strip?

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

My Lords, in a week where we have all acknowledged as a country, including our Head of State, the horrors of 80 years ago, we should be sensitive to the ongoing humanitarian crisis and conflict in the Middle East. There is no place for anti-Semitism in the UK or anywhere, and we should learn the lessons of dehumanisation. That is why we should condemn President Trump when he describes the cleaning out of Gaza, and condemn extremists who called Palestinians human animals. Language is important, and therefore sensitivity should be part of our policy-making.

It is worth recognising, as the noble Lord did, that Hamas continues to dehumanise hostages. For the families of hostages who will have their loved ones returned alive, we give thanks for the ceasefire, and we commiserate with those who will receive their loved ones’ bodies. We should hope that the ceasefire holds, because it should provide—even though it is very hard to see—a basis for future and further political dialogue. But two things are actively working against that.

The first is the implementation, today, of the ban on UNRWA in Israeli sovereign territory. I welcome that this has been condemned by the Government. What actions will the UK take? UNRWA operates under a mandate. The Israeli Government have obligations under that UN mandate, and UNRWA should be free to provide humanitarian assistance within the Occupied Territories, unfettered at the border areas within Israeli territory. I would be grateful to hear what actions the Government will now take. While we welcome the fact that Ministers can condemn and raise concerns, there should not be impunity for breaching the UN mandate.

In the West Bank, we continue to see unacceptable violence, not only with regard to the settlers but in the impunity of those within the outposts, and the violence there, which is illegal under Israeli law. There can be no two-state solution if one of the authorities is systematically losing territory day by day. What actions will the Government take on expanding the sanctions on those who are perpetrating the violence, as well as ensuring that there is no impunity for those who are carrying out actions against Palestinian settlements?

On recovery and construction, I welcome that there is now a dedicated official within the FCDO to lead the UK official response to the consideration of reconstruction. I hope that the Minister might be prepared to offer a briefing on the actions in detail and what officials are doing. I welcome that we are co-ordinating that work. Previously in the Chamber, we have discussed the scale of rubble clearance, body recovery and the humanitarian catastrophe, from which the recovery will be enormous.

The Minister will not be surprised that I again raise the fact that there needs to be intensive work on child trauma, and especially on the restoration of education facilities. I have welcomed the UK support through multilateral funding. I appeal to the Government that one area where the UK can play a considerable and direct role, bilaterally, is the establishment of education support and child trauma and psychosocial support within these areas. I have raised before in the Chamber the 17,000 children—the equivalent of the entire under-10 population of London—who are homeless, without shelter or education.

I welcome the increased funding for the Palestinian Authority, but it is still lower than before the 0.7% ODA cuts. I hope the Government will now reconsider the overall envelope of UK assistance to ensure that we can play an increasing role in the recovery.

Finally, I hope that the House will allow me to raise two other brief aspects—one is Lebanon, and the other is the concerning news about conflict prevention. If we have learned anything during the last two years, with the conflicts in the Middle East in particular, it is that conflict prevention is one of the most efficient investments we can make. Where it fails, the cost is extreme. There are very worrying reports of a proposed one-third cut in conflict prevention funding. I hope that the Government will reconsider this.

Other reconstruction is needed in Lebanon. Yesterday, I and some colleagues met with Halima Kaakour, a Lebanese MP. I hope that Ministers will meet female Lebanese MPs who now want to work in a cross-party, cross-confessional and cross-community way in the Lebanese Parliament to ensure that reconstruction is part of the hoped-for peace and recovery, rather than entrenched division. If that is done badly and corruptly, unfortunately it will not bring about sustainable recovery.

Embassy of China: Proposed New Site

Lord Callanan Excerpts

Wednesday 29th January 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

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

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

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

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

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

Chagos Islands

Lord Callanan Excerpts

Thursday 23rd January 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

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

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

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

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

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


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

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

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

UK-Ukraine 100-year Partnership

Lord Callanan Excerpts

Wednesday 22nd January 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

My Lords, for nearly three years now, we have been steadfast and united in our unwavering support for the brave people of Ukraine. Their extraordinary determination, unparalleled courage and steadfast bravery in the face of unimaginable horror, terror and brutality have inspired nations across the globe. It is impossible not to feel profound sorrow for the pain, loss and suffering inflicted on the Ukrainian people by Putin’s illegal and barbaric war. This unprovoked invasion of a sovereign nation is not just an attack on Ukraine but an assault on the principles of sovereignty and human rights that underpin global peace and security.

I am delighted to say that, from the very beginning of this crisis, we in the UK have stood shoulder to shoulder with President Zelensky and the Ukrainian people in their valiant fight for freedom. We recognised early on the grave threats posed by Russian hostility, which began with the illegal annexation of Crimea in 2014 and continued with ongoing incursions in Ukraine’s eastern territories. The previous Government took decisive and swift action, providing vital military equipment, financial aid and humanitarian support—and I am delighted to see that the current Government have continued that policy. We established bespoke pathways to safety for Ukrainians seeking refuge in the United Kingdom, and I am proud to note the extraordinary response of the British people. Across the country, households opened their doors and their hearts, welcoming those fleeing violence and oppression. This collective effort has been a testament to the strength of our shared humanity and values.

Through the leadership of Boris Johnson, Liz Truss, Rishi Sunak, Ben Wallace and others, the UK spearheaded diplomatic efforts to galvanise international support for Ukraine and helped to isolate Russia on the global stage. Those efforts included imposing one of the most comprehensive sanctions regimes ever implemented, targeting not only the Russian state but its ruling elites, businesses and entities complicit in supporting the Russian war machine. The commitment to Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity was unshakeable. Over three years, we provided £12.8 billion-worth of support, including an unprecedented £7.8 billion in military assistance. This support encompassed advanced weaponry, vital training and intelligence-sharing to enable Ukraine to defend itself against Russian aggression. Equally crucial was our promise to provide at least £3 billion annually in military aid for as long as is required—a pledge that I hope that the Government will be able to continue with, without hesitation.

As we reflect on these achievements, it is imperative that we remain steadfast in our support for Ukraine and its people. The road ahead will not be easy, given Trump’s election, and the sacrifices that will be required are considerable. However, the cost of inaction—of failing to defend freedom and democracy—would be immeasurably greater. I want therefore to pose the following questions to the Minister.

Can the Government provide an update on the current levels of military and humanitarian aid being delivered to Ukraine and how they see this support continuing in future? What steps are being taken to ensure that sanctions against Russia remain robust, effective and tightly enforced, including measures to address any potential evasion? How are the Government working with international partners to ensure that Ukraine continues to receive the long-term economic and political support that it needs to rebuild and secure its future? What plans are in place to enhance the UK’s refugee resettlement schemes for Ukrainians, and how can we further support host families who have welcomed those fleeing this terrible conflict? Finally, in the context of ongoing geopolitical instability, how do the Government intend to strengthen and deepen the UK-Ukraine partnership to promote shared values and mutual security in the years ahead?

We owe it to the people of Ukraine, and to the principles of freedom and justice that unite us, to stand resolute and united in their hour of need.

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

Rules-based International Order

Lord Callanan Excerpts

Thursday 16th January 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

My Lords, this has been yet another fascinating, wide-ranging debate in your Lordships’ House, and I join others in thanking the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, for securing it. I thought she introduced the topic very well, although I have to say that I did not agree with her on her list of authoritarian leaders, including President Trump alongside Presidents Putin and Xi. Of course, like many people, I do not agree with or support some of the wilder statements that President Trump comes out with, but there are many checks and balances in the US system that simply do not exist in Russia and China: Congress, 52 independently minded states, independent courts, et cetera. As my noble friend Lord Gascoigne reminded us, Trump won a fair, democratic election, and, of course, we know that he can serve only a four-year term. By all means, criticise some of his statements—I suspect that we will spend a lot of time in the next few months and years ruminating on the various utterances of President Trump—but I think the noble Baroness made a flawed analogy in comparing the US, which, in my view, is still the world’s greatest democracy, with Russia and China, so I hope she will reflect on that.

The rules-based international order has enabled nations large and small to co-operate under shared principles, ensuring that the rule of law prevails over the rule of might. Today, however, as many have pointed out in this debate, this order is under threat as never before, and it is incumbent upon us, as defenders of freedom, sovereignty and stability, to address many of those challenges head on.

As many have pointed out, the first and most visible challenges come from the authoritarian states that I just mentioned, particularly Russia and China, whose actions flagrantly undermine international norms. Russia’s illegal annexation of Crimea and brutal war in Ukraine represent a blatant rejection of the sovereignty and territorial integrity of nations, a core tenet of the UN charter. I listened with interest to the comment from the noble Lord, Lord Liddell: possibly like Tony Blair at the time, I was optimistic about the direction Russia could go in following the collapse of the Soviet Union. I think all of us wanted to see Russia admitted into the family of western democratic states, and there was a possibility that that would happen, but we all now see the direction that Russia has taken, and we have to recognise it for what it is now: a threat to the international order and to European security. Similarly, across the South China Sea, we see China’s militarisation, economic coercion of smaller states, and flagrant disregard for any international rulings on territories or the famous lines that they impose on the maps, seemingly making up and deciding what is Chinese sovereign territory. This really offers a systemic challenge to the global order.

These actions are not just mere aberrations. They are, in my view, deliberate attempts to reshape the international order into one that privileges power over principles. Such behaviour destabilises regions, weakens alliances and creates a permissive environment for other rogue actors to flout international law—we can see how Russia is now cosying up to those paragons of democracy in North Korea and Iran to further its aims.

The second challenge lies in the erosion of trust within the system itself. Many multilateral institutions that were indeed put in place initially to safeguard global stability are increasingly seen as ineffective or politicised. The failure of some organisations to act decisively against aggression or hold nations accountable risks undermining their very legitimacy. We believe in strong, accountable institutions, but this requires reform to ensure that they are fit for purpose and responsive to the challenges of the 21st century.

Furthermore, the rise of economic protectionism and deglobalisation poses a subtler but equally significant threat. Free trade and open markets have lifted millions out of poverty and fostered interdependence, which discourages conflict. Yet, we will have to return to the battles many of us thought were won in the 1980s and 1990s in favour of multilateralism, free trade and globalisation, and refight those ideological battles, because retreat into economic nationalism risks dividing the world into competing blocs, undermining both prosperity and stability.

Those challenges are compounded by the growing influence of the non-state actors that a number of noble Lords referred to—from cybercriminals to extremist groups—that exploit the gaps in governance and the vulnerabilities of our interconnected world. Their actions transcend borders, creating a fragmented and volatile global landscape.

We must, first, reaffirm our commitment to the principles that underpin the rules-based order: sovereignty, democracy and the rule of law. This requires a robust defence of our values on the global stage, supported by credible deterrence. NATO’s unified response to Russian aggression is a great model of how alliances can serve as bulwarks against authoritarian threats. I would be grateful if the Minister could outline how we are continuing to build alliances around the world that help ensure that the rule of law is upheld while protecting our sovereignty.

Secondly, we have to champion reform of many international institutions to ensure they remain relevant and effective. This is not about abandoning multilateralism but about strengthening it to reflect modern realities. Can the Minister update the House on the Government’s view on reform of institutions such as the ICC, the ICJ and the European Court of Human Rights? Does she agree with the ICC arrest warrants that have been debated? The ones issued for Netanyahu and Gallant were, in my view, ridiculous and demonstrate how that institution needs serious reform.

Thirdly, we have to prioritise economic resilience—investing in secure supply chains, fostering innovation and supporting free trade agreements with like-minded partners. Finally, we have to harness the power of our values—freedom, enterprise and the dignity of the individual—to rally allies and inspire those in many parts of the world who yearn for a better future.

The challenges to the rules-based international order are real, but so too is our ability to overcome them. By standing firm to our principles and working with others who share them, we can ensure that this order continues to deliver peace, stability and opportunity for many generations to come.

Gaza: Healthcare System Support

Lord Callanan Excerpts

Thursday 16th January 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

My Lords, I join others in hoping—the latest news seems to be positive—that the ceasefire is back on and that it will hold, although I fear it may be only temporary if Hamas is allowed to continue playing any kind of role in Gaza, dedicated as it is to the destruction of the state of Israel.

There is substantial evidence that Hamas has fought from within hospitals throughout the war, periodically hiding some of the hostages it has held since 7 October 2023 inside them and using the people of Gaza as human shields. There is video evidence to demonstrate that.

We must also acknowledge the measures taken by Israel to facilitate the flow of aid into Gaza. Despite the security challenges, Israel has worked to establish humanitarian corridors and to co-ordinate with international actors to allow the delivery of vital supplies. It is crucial in this debate to recognise these efforts, as in my view they demonstrate Israel’s willingness to balance its legitimate security concerns with its obligations under international humanitarian law.

It is essential to differentiate between the legitimate self-defence actions of a democratic state, Israel, and the actions of what is essentially a terrorist group that seeks to undermine peace and stability in the region. Hamas bears total responsibility for the suffering in Gaza, not only through its attacks on Israel but through its previous governance failures and misappropriation of the considerable resources delivered over many years by the international community that were meant to help civilians.

This Government took the decision to help resume funding to UNRWA after the previous Government had suspended it. UNRWA had to fire nine staff after investigations into their involvement in the appalling attack on Israel in October 2023. We are clear that all links to the Hamas terrorist group must be severed if there is to be a sustainable peace in Gaza.

Gaza: Peace Talks

Lord Callanan Excerpts

Wednesday 15th January 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

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

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

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

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

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

Sudan: US Determination of Genocide

Lord Callanan Excerpts

Tuesday 14th January 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

British Indian Ocean Territory: Sovereignty

Lord Callanan Excerpts

Thursday 19th December 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

My Lords, if this deal is not yet legally deceased then it certainly seems to be on end-of-life support. Can the Minister explain why the Government were in such a hurry to give away strategically important British sovereign territory to a country 1,500 miles away within weeks of taking office, just before important elections in both Mauritius and the US and without even having the courtesy of consulting the Chagossian community who in fact used to live there? We have had no detail on what is in the agreement or how much we are paying to lease back something that we already own. It has had the effect of destabilising the entire region and it is concerning some of our closest allies. Is it not time to scrap the entire thing and start again?

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

My Lords, the negotiations with Mauritius are not destabilising the entire region, and we were not in a hurry to conclude them. As we have said before, these negotiations commenced two years ago and had gone through many rounds of negotiation under the previous Government. On the issue of scrutiny, I say that the treaty will be subject to the usual process in this House. There will also be primary legislation that will go before both Houses and be amendable in the usual way; I do not think we have explored that in our exchanges previously.