HIV/AIDS: US Withdrawal from WHO

Lord Purvis of Tweed Excerpts

Thursday 20th March 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

We are concerned about HIV/AIDS and tuberculosis, malaria and other diseases. The theme of these exchanges today is going to be one of heightened concern about our ability to make the progress that we have an ambition and a responsibility to make. There is no doubt that it has now been made more difficult. The noble Lord asked about the decisions we are making here in the UK. We are not responsible for the decisions that other countries make, but we are responsible for the choices that we take. Although those decisions are currently being made, I find it difficult to envisage a situation where the United Kingdom does not play a leading role in the fight against these diseases.

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

My Lords, with regard to our approach, this week marks the 10th anniversary of the 0.7% legislation passing this House. I mourn that, because I was naive; I felt that subsequent Governments would honour it. However, we now have the position where the Government will be paying more to private sector landlords in the UK than the entirety of all our support for children with malaria or those born with AIDS. In two years’ time, we will be spending the same level on official development assistance as Viktor Orbán’s Hungary. With all great seriousness, given how far away we will be from that legislation—and the more incredulous government statements saying that when fiscal circumstances arise we will get to it—as the people now in charge of that legislation, will the Government now do the decent thing and repeal it?

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

Absolutely not. Why would we do that? It is our ambition to regain the 0.7% spend on official development assistance. We have been very clear about that. Why would we repeal that legislation? I find it very difficult that we are spending so much money on housing asylum seekers and migrants in the UK out of our ODA budget. I do not think that is what we should be doing. The previous Government completely lost control of the borders of this country and we have inherited this situation. The Home Office is working hard to get the numbers down and to reduce the spend so that money can be spent where it is needed most. We did make the decision—and it was a difficult one for this Government—to prioritise spending on defence. I do not think I need to explain to noble Lords why we did that. It is a decision I support, and I will be working incredibly hard, with allies and partners, to make sure that the money that we do have is spent wisely, and that we get the best value for money for British taxpayers and the most impact that we can for our partners overseas.

G7

Lord Purvis of Tweed 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 Purvis of Tweed 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.

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

I am grateful to both noble Lords for their words. I think we all agree that the situation in Syria is incredibly fragile, to say the least, and that we all want a stable elected Government to be in charge in Syria. We are some way from that at the moment, and everything this Government are doing is aimed at bringing about that situation, which we all want to see.

The noble Lord, Lord Callanan, asked why this is our first Statement on Syria. I kindly and gently point out that there are mechanisms within the procedures of this House for him to raise whichever issues he wishes, and I would be very happy to arrange some training for him, should that be welcome.

There is clearly deep concern about the events of recent days, and we are working closely with our allies and partners in the region and beyond. Noble Lords asked whether we have spoken to the interim Government in Syria. We have and, as the noble Lord encouraged us to do, we have raised our concerns about these events and have sought to bring about the peace and stability that we all wish to see. On his question about ministerial travel, I will not comment on our intentions about ministerial travel to this part of the world. There are obvious reasons why we do not always announce ministerial travel ahead of time.

On sanctions, of course we keep our sanctions designations under review. The decisions that we made following the fall of the Assad regime were to remove the designation from some entities, such as the Central Bank of Syria, because we want to enable the reconstruction and economic development of Syria, which has been so badly harmed for reasons that we all know. It is important that the new regime in Syria and the Government we hope will follow will be able to invest in their country to grow and prosper in future. We took that decision, but, clearly, we keep all these things under review.

On chemical weapons, we are working with the OPCW on that. We are very concerned that chemicals do not fall into the hands of people that none of us would wish them to, so we are working with others on that.

On the comments from the Liberal Democrat spokesman, we agree and welcome the statements from the PKK about downing weapons, but, as I said, the situation remains incredibly fragile. On troops, it is for the future Syrian Government to determine which nations, in what capacity and where they may have a presence in Syria. Since December, we have spent more than £62 million in additional humanitarian assistance, which will include support for justice measures so that evidence can be obtained and secured for use in future proceedings.

The noble Lord is correct when he makes points about national security. I do not think I have ever been intemperate in this Chamber, but I am entitled to call nonsense nonsense when I hear it. That is not intemperate. That is in the spirit of frank exchange, which I think we all wish to engage in. I felt that in his question last week the noble Lord was asserting that we were not putting national security front and centre in our decision-making. I was pointing out to him that our decision to reduce the overseas aid budget was done to support our defence budget, which I argue is in the interest of national security. If he found that intemperate, I am glad that he was never in the other place, where I think he would have had a very difficult time.

This is a critical, fragile moment for Syria. The country faces significant challenges as it transitions after almost 14 years of conflict. Stability in Syria is firmly in our interests. The UK remains committed to the people of Syria and will continue to stand with them in building a more stable, free and prosperous future.

United Kingdom: Global Position

Lord Purvis of Tweed Excerpts

Thursday 13th March 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the very thoughtful contribution of the noble Lord. I join others in thanking the noble Lord, Lord Howell, for bringing us this debate. It gave us an opportunity to hear the excellent maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Pitkeathley, made under what I observed to be the studious eye of the occupant of the Woolsack at the time. The noble Lord said that dreams alone are not enough. That is something we on these Benches have reflected on for many years, but he is very welcome and will make an excellent contribution to this House.

The noble Lord, Lord Howell, asked us to set aside some of the orthodoxies and consider the fast pace of change. The noble Baroness, Lady Prashar, said that there was a kind of reckoning, which I agree with. My noble friend Lord Taylor said in response that there is a very high degree of consensus in this Chamber. For us, on a cross-party and non-party basis, the norms and rules are even more important in a modern technological world, especially if those who control the technology have personal, political and financial ambitions and see nation states as vessels. Just this week, the Polish Foreign Minister called for European satellite and security resilience, and Elon Musk replied on X:

“Be quiet, small man … there is no substitute for Starlink”.


We have benefited, until recently, when navigating these uncertainties and complexities of the 21st century, from being a joint partner both within and then with the European Union, and working closely with the United States. We know, however, that we cannot entirely rely on the Trump Administration. The noble Lord, Lord Howard, said that Administration was unreliable. Thomas Friedman, in the New York Times this week, wrote:

“I would call Trump’s foreign policy philosophy not ‘containment’ or ‘engagement,’ but ‘smash and grab.’ Trump aspires to be a geopolitical shoplifter”.


I think that has a great deal of sense to it.

This new reality is posing us major challenges, and it is fair to say—I think, very fair—that our Prime Minister is conducting himself, on behalf of us all, with professionalism and a seriousness befitting the office and, importantly, the moment, and we thank him for it. This recognition will, of course, not inhibit us from highlighting areas of either difference or concern; we are functioning democracy and a Parliament. My noble friend Lord Bruce eloquently referred, as many others have, to choices on development assistance and also soft power. We remain a significant force in that, and that is to be welcomed. As the noble Baroness, Lady Prashar, highlighted, recent complacency is leading us to fall behind China and putting us in a deteriorating position in our relationship with developing economies.

I have often questioned the term “soft power”; what it means is quality, innovation, standards, reliability and predictability. These should all be part of our position in the world and are all elements that are in deep need, given that our key partner is showing very little of those qualities. It is why, when we look at our BBC World Service, cherished around the world, and when there is concern about its future funding, we on these Benches will challenge the Minister—we will seek to add pressure. When it comes to other areas of ODA, linked with national security, I will continue to ask and challenge the Minister, in temperate ways, on choices where we think the Government have taken the wrong direction. Earlier, the Minister suggested I might not have done well in the House of Commons if I think the tone is intemperate here. Her noble friend Lady Curran, behind her, will know I have a saddle-leather thick skin from my time in the Scottish Parliament. We will have this cut and thrust, because we can in our Parliament, and that is to be cherished.

On that aspect, I agree very strongly with the noble Lord, Lord Browne. He highlighted one of the consequences of cutting ODA in areas where countries are on the front line against not only terrorism but the encroachment of Russia. For example, there was a high degree of consensus when we proscribed the Wagner Group, so in areas where its successor, the Africa Corps, is active, it makes little sense for our national security to pull ODA development funding when it comes to resilience against autocracies.

On 26 March 10 years ago, there was consensus when we passed the 0.7% legislation in this House. Part of that consensus was not just about the 0.7% level, that our ability to be a development partner should be on that scale. It was also that defence spending and development investment were complementary, and that one should not be cut to fund the other. I hope we can restore that consensus, because it is of great significance to our standing in the world. It is interesting to me, looking at the fiscal tests, that they were not being met in 2014 or 2015 when we established 0.7%. These are policy choices, not fiscal choices, and that is why, when it comes to policy choices about our position in the world, the faster we can return to 0.7% the better.

The noble Lord, Lord Kerr, said there was some shift in American policy. It perhaps could be argued by some in America—apologists for Trump, not the noble Lord—that the main adversary is Beijing and therefore we have to settle ourselves to the rescheduling of our relationship with Moscow. That does not even make sense for those who support the Trump Administration, because of decisions they have made such as reversing the decision on TikTok, Elon Musk wanting contracts from Beijing and raising concerns about Taiwan.

I want to raise Taiwan and some others, and I hope the House will allow me to be partisan for a second. Taiwan, Ukraine and now Canada all have Governments that are our sister parties. There are Liberals on the front line of the challenges of this new, unsettling world order. Fascinating discussions I have had with my parliamentary colleagues in all three of those governing parties have inspired me, and this is where I want to close.

In listening to the noble Baroness, Lady Prashar, some others and my noble friend, there are potential opportunities in this global landscape. I agree with the point that the noble Lord, Lord Howard, made that there are more people living in a democracy. There are more people living in economic security than ever before in civilisation, however messy, uneven or unequal that is. For my party, often perhaps with bitter experience—or maybe because of the Scottish perspective—when you have exhausted pessimism, there is only optimism left.

So what are the opportunities? We are seeing now Parliaments, whether in Lebanon or Ukraine, resisting the interference of cyberattacks on a daily basis, or interference in democratic elections. There is civil society. Young women in Sudan are still doing remarkable things to keep their communities safe in unbelievably difficult circumstances. There are brave and principled political leaders, and we should be signalling our support for them. There are innovative young people, especially in African nations, who present an enormous economic and social opportunity for the UK. Of course, there are the networks, whether it is the Commonwealth or the European Union.

Nancy Pelosi always used to say that diversity is our strength but unity is our power. We can relay that to our friendship networks around the world. There are also standards, including the sustainable development goals, which, interestingly, have received not one mention in the debate so far. We can work with our allies. Let me close on this. We need to have the 2.5% and growing defence, not funded from cuts in ODA but by, perhaps, as we have suggested, the tech companies contributing not 2% but 10% of their unearned profits. There should be a distinct development department again, not a replacement of the 1997 DfID but a department for global transition, so countries know that, in this uncertain world when they are transitioning to zero poverty and zero emissions, the UK is a reliable, dependable and predictable partner at a time of great flux.

Prime Minister: Meeting with Prime Minister of Canada

Lord Purvis of Tweed Excerpts

Wednesday 12th March 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

I compliment the noble Lord on the agility of his questioning. The best thing I can do is repeat what I said about our long-standing friendship with Canada and to extend our friendship, good wishes and congratulations to Mark Carney on his appointment as Prime Minister.

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

My Lords, we on these Benches welcome Mr Carney’s election to the leadership of our long-standing sister party in Canada. He is reported to be assembling his Cabinet on an economic war footing. He obviously knows the UK economy and the European market extremely well. We still trade with Canada on a continuity agreement, not on a full FTA. Does the Minister agree with me that, when our Prime Minister meets Mr Carney, it will be a very good opportunity to turbocharge discussions on a full UK FTA; and that, given what the Trump Administration are doing, it will be an opportunity for an EU-UK-Canada strategic trade alliance, so that we are all resilient against the uncertainties around what the Trump Administration will do?

[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.

Official Development Assistance

Lord Purvis of Tweed Excerpts

Tuesday 4th March 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

First, I commend the noble Baroness for her own work and her track record of being a champion for women and girls globally and for the work she did as part of government—we should all thank her for that. Ordinarily, yes, we would conduct an impact assessment; that is part of making sure that we make sensible decisions and that we understand the impact of the choices that we make. She made that point very well.

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

My Lords, I congratulate the Minister. Will she agree with me that a key part of our national security and defence is working with allies, especially those smaller vulnerable nations, through ODA commitments for technical resilience against interference from both state and non-state actors? This is a large part of ODA funding, which the Government have now signalled will be cut by more than three-quarters. What security assessment was carried out before the Government indicated they were going to remove our technical and security support almost entirely for the very nations on which we rely for our national security?

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

That is complete nonsense; we are not going to do that. When we talk about prioritisation, that is about making choices. The idea that the Government, who have just reallocated the money into defence, are then going to be blasé or relaxed about reducing spending that contributes towards our security is, frankly, ridiculous.

Ukraine: Frozen Russian Assets

Lord Purvis of Tweed Excerpts

Wednesday 26th February 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

We all want to see Russia pay to rebuild Ukraine; it is right that that happens. The way that is done needs to be legally sound, and it needs to be done in co-ordination with our allies. That is the approach we are taking. I appreciate the encouragement to speed, and I acknowledge that we have been in this position for some months now. I accept what the noble Lord says, and I take his question as a spur to action for the Government. I can assure him that we are keenly seized of the argument he makes.

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

My Lords, these Benches have argued consistently that the assets should be seized and aid should not be cut. But yesterday, the Government announced drastic reductions to programmes that would support victims of sexual assault and rape in conflict. Does the Minister agree that it would be wrong if the Kremlin gets its money back from the United Kingdom, but our support for victims of sexual crimes in conflict does not get their lives back? At this last minute, before the programmes are cut, will the Government reconsider and ensure that not one penny supporting the victims of sexual assault in this conflict will be cut through overseas development assistance reductions?

[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.

Ukraine

Lord Purvis of Tweed 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.

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

My Lords, we have discussed Ukraine many times in this Chamber, and on every single occasion we have done so there has been close agreement between all parties. I particularly commend the words of the noble Lord, Lord Callanan; he put the case for the Opposition incredibly well and he is supporting this Government as we endeavoured to support his Government when they were in power. And this matters: it is incredibly important that, as a country, we stand together on this issue and I am very proud of the way that this Chamber and the other place have done that again this week.

A just peace means Ukraine at the centre of any resolution. We all agree on that; we have said that consistently and that has not changed. The noble Lord is right to highlight the importance of the transatlantic relationship. We are all aware of what happened last night, but the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary will be going to Washington tomorrow and they will have the conversations that we would want them to have and that we would be proud to see them have on behalf of our country, making clear our position of support for Ukraine, which is in no way diminished.

On sanctions, we continued with a new raft of sanctions to mark the third anniversary. It is very important that we have the support expressed in terms by the Opposition and the Liberal Democrat Benches. The noble Lord, Lord Purvis, is absolutely right to continue, as he has done from the very beginning, to look for where we need to go next and to push us and to keep saying, “Why not here? Why not do this? What about these other considerations you could make?” That is right and welcome. We thank him for it and we hope that he continues in that way.

We thank him for reminding us of the bravery of the people of Ukraine. It is worth repeating that this was anticipated to be a short invasion. Zelensky was meant to leave. The world today was meant to be very different from what we see. Thanks to the bravery of the people of Ukraine and the leadership of President Zelensky, we find that Russia is in a situation where it is having to go to North Korea in order to shore up its troops. That has not happened by accident; it has happened because of the resolution of the United Kingdom and its allies and the people of Ukraine.

On the decision to change our development spending to 0.3% to support our defence spending rising to 2.5%, of course this is controversial and not a decision that any Labour Government would wish to make. We created the Department for International Development and we are very proud of it. We are proud, too, of the impact that our aid spending has had across the world over many years. But the world has changed and we have to be able to invest in our armed forces and in new technology that will keep us safe.

I accept what the noble Lord says about the impact that this will have in some places around the world—of course I do. But I am convinced—and I disagree with him on what he said—that actually increasing our defence spending to 2.5% will keep people safe. That is not just people here. It will enable us to prevent conflict; it will enable us to secure Ukraine; and it will provide stability around the world. Sometimes, it is about the tough choices. There is no doubt that this was a tough choice, but I am glad that our Prime Minister was able to make it. He made it quickly and clearly and he will not be rethinking it. We have made our decision. We want to get back to spending more on international development when we can. That relies on growing the economy, which is a key focus of this Government. I hear what he says and I respect what he says, but I have to disagree on that point tonight.

Having said all that, there is no reason that anyone should feel that they cannot continue to press us on this. When it comes to Ukraine, what matters most is that we are united and we maintain our firm and clear position of support, and that any negotiation has the people of Ukraine and their leadership at its centre.

Moldova: Russian Interference

Lord Purvis of Tweed Excerpts

Thursday 6th February 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

I thank my noble friend, and I commend him on his decades of work providing peace, security and humanitarian causes in many places around the world. He is completely right that the frozen conflict in Transnistria should be seen alongside other conflicts in the region. His words are wise, and the Government will heed them.

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

My Lords, further to my noble friend’s Question, with regard to the parliamentary elections that are due before July, the head of the Moldovan intelligence service warned the Moldovan Parliament in December that the very same tactics that were used in the presidential and pro-EU referendum would be used by Russia. One of those tactics is vote-buying. Can the Minister say more about the practical assistance that the UK is giving, with our European partners, to ensure that money is not laundered through any of the institutions, in either the UK or Europe, and that there is no illicit finance, which has been used for the very tactics that the Minister referred to?

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

It is completely true that every trick in the book was used during the previous elections, and we expect this to happen again. This included vote-buying, voter suppression and bomb threats at polling stations in this country, where Moldovans sought to cast their vote. We are doing everything we can, including, as he says, looking at illicit economies. Our expertise in cybersecurity will be significant in the coming months.

Chagos Islands

Lord Purvis of Tweed Excerpts

Thursday 6th February 2025 Lords Chamber

[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.

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

My Lords, the dogged perseverance of the previous Conservative Government to cede sovereignty over 11 rounds of negotiations—insisting on 11 rounds of negotiations before the general election—is in some ways admirable. What was not admirable was that the Chagossians were excluded from all parts of those 11 rounds of discussions on the ceding of sovereignty. Could the Minister confirm to me, first, that the funding package that the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, referred to was agreed by the previous Conservative Administration and inherited by the current Government, and—

[A noble Lord]

Nothing was agreed. That is not true.

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

This is a question to the Minister, not to the Opposition Front Bench.

Secondly, can the Minister confirm that, to avoid the Chagossians becoming a political football again, if any agreement is reached as a result of the pause, either with the United States or the Mauritian Government, it will be for Parliament to vote on it, to ensure that the Chagossians can have representation in the debates here in Parliament?

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

The negotiations were conducted state to state. Regrettable though it may be, it is a fact that the Chagossians were not party to that, and the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, is right to remind us of it. The Chagossians have been terribly treated since their forced removal all those years ago. My own view is that it is better and fairer to the Chagossians to be clear that, as long as that base is there on Diego Garcia, there will be no ability for them to resettle that island. That is the fact of the situation that we are in, and to give any hope of anything otherwise would be irresponsible and a mistake. But, as the noble Lord says, there will be a process, and the involvement of both Houses of Parliament will be needed as we put the treaty before them and make the appropriate legislative changes that are needed for this deal. As the noble Lord says—and I look forward to it—the voices of Chagossians will be heard through their representatives in this House and in the other place.