Jamaica: Hurricane Melissa
Debate between Lord Empey and Baroness Chapman of Darlington
Lord Empey
To ask His Majesty’s Government (1) what steps they are taking to assist the Government and people of Jamaica to recover from Hurricane Melissa, (2) what UK assets and personnel are stationed in the region, and (3) whether they plan to offer financial support.
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Baroness Chapman of Darlington) (Lab)
The UK stands in solidarity with Jamaica following the devastation caused by Hurricane Melissa. The Foreign Secretary has spoken with her Jamaican counterpart to reaffirm our commitment to support recovery efforts. We have activated our crisis centre in London to assist British nationals in Jamaica, have deployed response teams to the region and are mobilising up to £2.5 million in emergency humanitarian aid to help Jamaica rebuild in the wake of this disaster.
Lord Empey (UUP)
I thank the Minister for her response. The people of Jamaica have been subjected to the fiercest storm to have taken place anywhere in the world this year. The statistics are shocking. I know that we are at the rescue and recovery stage and that it will be some time for all fatalities or injuries to be established, but I am sure that the whole House will want the people of Jamaica and other islands in the region to know that they are in our thoughts and prayers.
As for the personnel in the region—we do not yet know whether there will be further damage to other territories and people in the region—is the Minister satisfied that we have adequate facilities in the area to give real support at the early stages, particularly with the restoration of power and water supplies to avoid disease and further distress? Furthermore, will there be further tranches of financial assistance available from, I presume, our overseas development budget?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
We will provide support in the way that is needed. We have people pre-positioned alongside practical assistance such as shelter kits and other necessary immediate response equipment. I have visited the response centre in Antigua that supports the region. The noble Lord is right that this is not over; the hurricane, although diminishing in ferocity—it was a level 5 when it hit Jamaica, the fiercest hurricane in history—is still at level 3, which is severe. We are keeping in very close contact with our overseas territories in particular, but it also looks as though the hurricane may pass over the Bahamas, so we need to be alive to further developments. We have a Royal Navy presence in the region in the form of HMS “Trent” and experts in initial humanitarian response. We also have our consular team in Miami ready to respond and support the very many British nationals in Jamaica.
Gibraltar
Debate between Lord Empey and Baroness Chapman of Darlington
Lord Empey (UUP)
The Minister said that this agreement would be subject to approval. We have not seen the detail, but I want to know what would happen if there were a different Government—for instance in Spain—who might take a different attitude. Is there something there to protect the situation? Is there some arbitration? Once people get their foot in the door the bureaucracy can be more difficult: they can refuse this, that and the other, and quite a bit of nastiness could develop at the point of entry. I am sure that has been taken into account, and I hope that when the minutiae are available, we will be able to confirm that. It would be helpful if the Minister could address that.
The other thing I want to do is to gently remind the Minister that she has said twice now that negotiations had been taking place and that the people of Gibraltar, through their First Minister, were represented at each stage—quite properly. I just gently remind her that when the Governments were negotiating the Windsor Framework and related matters, our representatives were not present.
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
If the noble Lord thinks I am getting back into the Windsor Framework and all that—I am sorry, but not tonight. He is right to say that there is the possibility, with a change of Government here or in Spain, or even in Gibraltar, that different approaches may be favoured in the future. As we would always expect in this type of deal, there will be some dispute mechanisms. Ultimately, although I genuinely do not expect this to happen, and I hope for the sake of the people of Gibraltar that this never happens, there is the possibility for either party unilaterally to end the agreement. However, we do not anticipate that happening. This is a good outcome for the people of Gibraltar.
St Helena: UK Immigration
Debate between Lord Empey and Baroness Chapman of Darlington(1 year, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
It is important to note that there would be no automatic right to entry rights or citizenship. It is for the Helenian Government to make a determination about anybody who arrives and facilitate their removal.
Lord Empey (UUP)
How will people be physically removed? How will they get to St Helena? Is accommodation being provided for them on St Helena on their arrival?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
Again, we are not anticipating migrants arriving, and this is very much a contingency measure. But should that happen, transport would be provided and they would be accommodated, in line with all the obligations anyone would expect in terms of decency, far better on St Helena, where there is a civilian population and healthcare and education facilities. It is far better there than on BIOT, where no such facilities were available.
Patrick Finucane
Debate between Lord Empey and Baroness Chapman of Darlington(1 year, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Empey (UUP)
My Lords, I, too, welcome the noble Baroness to her place. Will she tell the House what the criteria will be in determining any future inquiries? It seems to a lot of people that there is a hierarchy of who gets inquiries and who does not. That can, in part, result from a campaign, whether well-funded or by people who have a profile. However, hundreds of ordinary people were murdered in atrocious circumstances similar to those of Patrick Finucane, and they do not seem to have a voice. Sight of the criteria that the Government will apply would be most helpful, because that would at least let people know what the process is rather than it seeming to be simply responding to high-profile campaigns.
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
I am familiar with the point that the noble Lord has made. The Government are giving careful consideration to the recent rulings and requests for public inquiries in these cases. A decision to establish a public inquiry will be taken only after full consideration of the specific individual factors of each case. The Secretary of State is very concerned to ensure that the Government make decisions in these cases as soon as possible.
Protocol on Ireland/Northern Ireland (EUC Report)
Debate between Lord Empey and Baroness Chapman of Darlington(4 years, 2 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
I am sure that the lure of a cup of tea was probably greater than the speech that I am about to finish, or that the Minister will provide as well.
The committees have done vital work but, so far, the Government have been unable to clarify a way forward. Perhaps not today—that might be too much to ask—but we look forward soon to the Minister providing answers to the question of what the future will look like for Northern Ireland and when we will see arrangements on a long-term, secure and predictable footing. As the noble Lord, Lord Wood of Anfield, said, the Government need to be candid—as candid as they can—about what the protocol does, as opposed to what the Government say or have said in the past it does. Does the Minister agree with the noble Lord that failing repeatedly to implement the protocol and having government by grace period is disastrous for the UK’s international reputation?
Various solutions have been proposed, but we all seem broadly to agree that a red line needs to be that any suggestions requiring border infrastructure on the island of Ireland should be disregarded. Many issues will have to be overcome, but I do not want to have to explain to the next generation of young people in Northern Ireland that a hard border, with all the consequences we fear that would bring, came about because this generation wanted the freedom to reduce food standards despite saying that they had no intention of reducing standards. As the noble Baroness, Lady Suttie, said, regulatory sovereignty should not be prized at the expense of political stability. I realise that that is a very stark way of putting this. I expect the Minister will say we can have both—I do hope so—but it would be useful to know how he intends to do that.
I enjoyed the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Empey, very much. It was really engaging. I was just saying to the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, that I could listen to him all day.
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
I am sure they do. He urged realism and pragmatism, and encouraged dialogue, and he is obviously right on all those points. We used to hear a lot of talk about technological solutions to this problem. Can the Minister update us on whether the Government are still pursuing those technological solutions and describe to us what they could involve?
The current situation of deadline followed by extension followed by deadline is a nightmare for business. Options are available: alignment, equivalence, domestic legislation. The choices we have are sometimes considered in a very rigid and limited way, posing alignment against equivalence. As the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie, said, we need a bespoke solution for Northern Ireland.
The Government have rejected alignment, and the EU has rejected equivalence. That is fine, but we need flexibility and compromise, and, as we have heard repeatedly today, we need trust. We could introduce domestic legislation, for instance. What response have the Government had from the European Union to the option of imposing penalties on businesses which are found to have failed to comply with the rules?
In his speech at the British-Irish Association on 4 September, which was referred to by other contributors, the Minister said that these are
“existential issues of territory, of identity, of borders, all against a background of a peace process and institutions in Northern Ireland which can only bear so much weight … So we badly need to look reality full-on. To put our arrangements here onto a more durable and sustainable footing, one that represents genuinely mutual benefit”.
I welcome this. I could not agree more. This is the kind of approach that we need from the Government. I note that the tone from the European Union also seems to have changed in recent weeks. However, other than saying in the Command Paper that Article 13 of the protocol allows for subsequent agreements to replace it, the Minister does not really tell us what he thinks should be done. Still, this is a change of tone, and we should welcome it.
While we have the Minister here, I want to ask him about Article 10 of the protocol, which has not received much attention today. Can he provide the Committee with his assessment of whether, and in what circumstances, Article 10 has any impact on state subsidy in Great Britain, not just in Northern Ireland? What legal advice was sought before agreeing to Article 10? Did he know that restrictions on subsidy in Northern Ireland could “reach back”—which I think is the legal term used—into the rest of the UK? I ask this because not only because I am interested in the answer but because I know from the Command Paper that the Government think that Article 10 is now redundant. I can see why they would make that claim, but it reveals their approach to these negotiations. After all, the Prime Minister described the protocol at the time as an ingenious solution. Did he know when he made that comment that he was potentially compromising on state aid? If he did not, he really should have done.
The Government have an appetite for immediate gratification, agreeing things to get through the immediate crisis. This can work; we get it—