Foreign Affairs Council—16 January 2017

Alan Duncan Excerpts

Thursday 26th January 2017 Written Statements

[The Minister for Europe and the Americas (Sir Alan Duncan)]

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs attended the Foreign Affairs Council on 16 January. The Foreign Affairs Council was chaired by the High Representative of the European Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, Federica Mogherini. The meeting was held in Brussels.

Foreign Affairs Council

A provisional report of the meeting and conclusions adopted can be found at: http://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/meetings/fac/2017/01/16/.

Agenda items included the middle east peace process, Syria and a forward look for 2017. Ms Mogherini briefed Foreign Ministers on the recent European Court of Justice ruling on Morocco. Ms Mogherini also informed Foreign Ministers of the outcome of the previous week’s talks in Geneva on the Cyprus settlement.

Syria

Foreign Ministers discussed developments in Syria including the ceasefire agreement announced by Russia on 29 December; and the talks convened by Russia and Turkey to be held in Astana. Ms Mogherini updated Foreign Ministers on: the EU’s regional outreach initiative; the EU’s Syria strategy; and a road map for EU policy on Syria. Ms Mogherini also informed Ministers that the EU would co-host a conference on Syria to follow up the London conference of February 2015. The Foreign Secretary welcomed this and, together with other Ministers, reconfirmed support for post-conflict reconstruction in Syria once a credible political transition was firmly under way.

MEPP

Foreign Ministers had an informal discussion about issues relating to the middle east peace process. The Foreign Secretary reiterated the UK’s commitment to a two-state solution.

Ministers agreed without discussion a number of measures:

The Council adopted conclusions on Lebanon.

The Council delisted four entities from the list of persons and entities subject to restrictive measures against Iran.

The Council approved the delisting of five vessels from the list of persons and entities subject to restrictive measures against the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, following the respective delisting by the United Nations Security Council.

The Council decided on the withdrawal of the European Commission from the EU-level framework in accordance with the recommendation of the UN Committee for the convention on the rights of persons with disabilities so as to ensure the independence of the monitoring framework.

The Council approved the conclusion of the protocol to the Euro-Mediterranean agreement establishing an association between the EU and Algeria. The protocol contains a framework agreement on the general principles for the participation of Algeria in EU programmes and agencies such as Europe’s programme for small and medium-sized enterprises COSME, Europe Creative or Horizon 2020.

The Council approved rules of procedure to be adopted by various trade sub-committees established under the EU-Ukraine association agreement.

[HCWS436]

OSCE Ministerial Council, Hamburg

Alan Duncan Excerpts

Friday 13th January 2017 Written Statements

[The Minister for Europe and the Americas (Sir Alan Duncan)]

I represented the United Kingdom at the 23rd Ministerial Council meeting of the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE), held in Hamburg, Germany on 8-9 December 2016 and hosted by German Foreign Minister and OSCE Chairman-in-Office Frank-Walter Steinmeier. The Council is the top decision-making body of the OSCE and was attended by Ministers from across its 57 participating states.

The Council took place in the final month of a year when the OSCE has continued to be at the centre of the international response to the Ukraine crisis, via its special monitoring mission, its observer mission to two Russian checkpoints on the Ukrainian-Russian border and through its membership of the trilateral contact group. Ukraine remained the core element of many statements in plenary by participating states including by US Secretary of State Kerry, German Foreign Minister Steinmeier, Ukrainian Foreign Minister Klimkin and EU High Representative Mogherini among others. In my interventions in the discussions that took place on 8 December I repeated our strong support for Ukrainian sovereignty and territorial integrity and expressed deep concern at the ongoing situation in eastern Ukraine and Crimea.

A number of other important issues were also discussed. The UK used the event to highlight the need to resolve other protracted conflicts and to minimise the risk of new conflict, including by reducing military risk through conventional arms control. I joined Georgian Foreign Minister Janelidze and other ‘Friends of Georgia’, including US Secretary of State, John Kerry in expressing our support to Georgia’s sovereignty and territorial integrity and calling on Russia to reverse its recognition of Georgia’s regions as independent states. I also underlined the UK’s ongoing support for the OSCE’s autonomous institutions and its field missions including in my bilateral discussions with Michael Link, Director of the Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights (ODIHR) and Dunja Mijatovic, the representative on freedom of the media.

Behind the scenes, the UK delegation continued to negotiate a range of declarations and decisions for adoption by the Ministerial Council. These negotiations made progress in a number of areas, resulting in a declaration welcoming the broad range of the OSCE’s project assistance in the field of small arms and light weapons and stockpiles of conventional ammunition. A declaration on the OSCE framework for conventional arms control was also agreed, signalling approval for a structured dialogue between participating states on the current and future challenges and risks to security in the OSCE area. Declarations and decisions were also made on migration, on reducing the risks of conflict stemming from the use of information and communication technologies, on enhancing the use of advance passenger information, and on strengthening good governance and promoting economic connectivity.

Divergent approaches limited the scope to reach consensus on a number of proposed declarations. It was particularly disappointing that disagreement from certain participating states to the inclusion of a reference to Crimea meant that a declaration on the OSCE’s role in, and support to, Ukraine could not be agreed, despite 56 of the 57 participating states agreeing the text. It was also disappointing that, despite the best efforts of the UK and other states, attempts to agree decisions in the human dimension failed, primarily due to further Russian obstructionism. However, the UK was instrumental in securing the agreement of 42 participating states to a joint statement on human rights which was delivered by the Ambassador to Norway to the OSCE during the closing session.

I met Irish Foreign Minister Dara Murphy and Turkish Foreign Minister Mevlüt Çavusoglu on non-OSCE business.

A copy of the UK plenary intervention can be found online on the gov.uk website:

https://www.gov.uk/government/world-location-news/united-kingdom-statement-to-the-23rd-osce-ministerial-council

[HCWS411]

BBC Monitoring

Alan Duncan Excerpts

Thursday 12th January 2017 Written Statements

[The Minister for Europe and the Americas (Sir Alan Duncan)]

Following the written statement by the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, (HCWS358), on a Royal Charter for the continuance of the BBC, the Government and the BBC have agreed a new BBC monitoring agreement. The agreement took effect on 1 January 2017. BBC Monitoring will continue to be a publicly funded service under the licence fee arrangement.

I have placed a copy of the “BBC Monitoring Agreement” in the Libraries of both Houses.

[HCWS406]

Foreign Affairs Council: 16 January

Alan Duncan Excerpts

Thursday 12th January 2017 Written Statements

[The Minister for Europe and the Americas (Sir Alan Duncan)]

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs will attend the Foreign Affairs Council on 16 January. The Foreign Affairs Council will be chaired by the High Representative of the European Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, Federica Mogherini. The meeting will be held in Brussels.

Foreign Affairs Council

The agenda for the Foreign Affairs Council (FAC) is expected to include Syria, Egypt, Libya and the middle east peace process.

Syria

Ministers will discuss the announcement of a nationwide ceasefire for Syria agreed by Russia, Turkey and Iran on 29 December. The intention is that political talks will follow later this month. UN Special Envoy Staffan De Mistura has welcomed the planned talks, but stresses they should contribute to UN-led negotiations scheduled for 8 February.

Discussions will focus on the EU’s humanitarian aid response to the crisis in Syria. More than 700,000 people remain in besieged areas within Syria: humanitarian aid has yet to reach these areas as the Syrian regime and its backers have not allowed the UN immediate full and unhindered humanitarian access across all of Syria, as required by UN Security Council resolutions.

The 2016 UN joint investigative mechanism report concluded that the Assad regime had used chemical weapons—as has Daesh. The UK has been working with France and the rest of the Security Council to draft a resolution which makes clear that there can be no impunity for the use of chemical weapons. The resolution seeks to impose various sanctions designations and ban on exports of helicopters, helicopter parts and certain chemicals. The EU should stand firm should the UNSC vote fail. The UK will call for collective EU support to designate individuals linked to the use of chemical weapons in Syria who are not currently sanctioned by the EU.

Egypt

Ministers will discuss Egypt’s bilateral relationship with the EU and Egypt’s role in the region. We expect discussions will cover Egypt’s political and human rights situation, including the growing restrictions on civil society. Ministers are also likely to discuss how the EU can best help strengthen Egypt’s internal security, co-operate on bringing stability to Libya, and work together on combating illegal migration in the region.

Libya

Discussions will cover the latest developments in the Libyan political process. We will encourage the EU to consider how it can best continue to support the Presidency Council and Government of National Accord.

Middle east peace process

Ministers will discuss progress on the middle east peace process (MEPP) and may reflect on obstacles to peace including incitement, terrorism, demolitions and settlement expansion, as highlighted in the recent UN Security Council resolution 2334. Ministers may also consider the outcomes of the Paris conference on the MEPP which takes place on 15 January.

[HCWS405]

Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention

Alan Duncan Excerpts

Tuesday 10th January 2017 Written Statements

[The Minister for Europe and the Americas (Sir Alan Duncan)]

The eighth review conference to the biological and toxin weapons convention held in Geneva concluded on 25 November 2016.

At the review conference, states parties agreed a final declaration reaffirming their continued commitment to the convention’s objectives and their determination to exclude completely the possibility of the use of biological weapons. States parties reviewed the operation of the convention and expressed views on its articles. States parties agreed that the prohibitions in article I, defining the scope of the convention, apply to all scientific and technological developments in the life sciences and in other fields of science relevant to the convention that have no peaceful purpose.

The conference also agreed to:

Hold meetings of states parties of up to five days every year before the next review conference in 2021. The first meeting in December 2017 will seek progress on issues of substance and process, aiming to agree a substantive programme of work up to 2021.

Renew for five years the mandate of the three-person implementation support unit, which serves as a focal point and support for states parties’ work under the convention.

Continue to seek improvements to the convention’s assistance and co-operation database and to ensure specific, timely and concrete offers to states parties seeking assistance under the convention.

Renew the sponsorship programme to support participation by states parties otherwise unable to attend key meetings, funded by voluntary contributions.

The United Kingdom worked closely with other European Union member states and like-minded partners in preparatory meetings and at the review conference to secure an outcome which strengthened implementation of the convention. Despite our best efforts and the support of an overwhelming majority of states parties, a more ambitious work plan proved impossible to secure.

The UK will continue to support work in this field, addressing substantive issues with like-minded states parties and others; where necessary, we will do so outside the formal framework of convention-sponsored meetings. The UK will engage constructively in future annual meetings of states parties to support and strengthen the convention which remains a foundation stone of the international non-proliferation system.

[HCWS400]

Foreign Affairs Council: 12 December 2016

Alan Duncan Excerpts

Tuesday 20th December 2016 Written Statements

[The Minister for Europe and the Americas (Sir Alan Duncan)]

I attended the Foreign Affairs Council on 12 December. The Foreign Affairs Council was chaired by the High Representative of the European Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, Federica Mogherini. The meeting was held in Brussels.

Foreign Affairs Council

A provisional report of the meeting and conclusions adopted can be found at:

http://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/meetings/fac/2016/12/12/

EU-Africa relations

The Council discussed EU-Africa relations in preparation for the EU-Africa summit in November 2017. Ministers discussed priorities in the EU’s relations with Africa, as well as how those relations should evolve in the light of emerging economic, security, demographic and migration challenges. I encouraged the EU to fulfil its security commitments, whilst supporting capacity building and African ownership of African challenges in the longer term.

Democratic Republic of the Congo

The Council adopted restrictive measures against seven DRC officials, and had a short discussion on the situation in the country. Ms Mogherini set out the clear aim of the measures: to deter a violent response to likely protests on 19 December when President Kabila’s mandate would come to an end.

Syria

Over lunch, Ministers discussed the situation in Syria in view of the latest developments, in particular in Aleppo. I stressed the severity of the situation in Aleppo, underlining the role of Russia and Iran as well as the Syrian regime, and the importance of holding to account those responsible for the appalling situation.

Migration

Ministers discussed migration issues ahead of the European Council on 15 December. The Council took stock of the progress made on the migration partnership framework approach; and on the country-specific compacts with the five priority countries (Mali, Niger, Senegal, Nigeria and Ethiopia).

Any Other Business (AOB)

France raised the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, noting the importance of swift implementation of UN Security Council Resolution 2270 and encouraging consideration of further EU autonomous measures.

In the margins of the Council, Ms Mogherini, EU Foreign Ministers and the Cuban Foreign Minister, Bruno Rodriguez Parrilla, signed the EU-Cuba Political Dialogue and Co-operation Agreement. After the Council meeting, Ministers had an informal discussion with President Santos of Colombia. The EU and participating member states then signed the constitutive agreement of the EU Trust Fund for Colombia.

Ministers agreed without discussion a number of measures:

Council conclusions on South Sudan.

Council conclusions on the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea.

A protocol to the framework agreement on comprehensive partnership and co-operation between the EU and Vietnam, to take account of the accession of Croatia.

The EU position for the 3rd meeting of the EU-Ukraine Association Council in Brussels on 19 December 2016.

Prolonging the mandate of the EU monitoring mission in Georgia for a further period of two years (until 14 December 2018) and allocating to the mission a budget of €18 million for the period 15 December 2016 to 14 December 2017.

Prolonging the mandate of the two common security and defence policy missions in Somalia, the civilian capacity-building mission (EUCAP Nestor) and the military training mission (EUTM), until 31 December 2018. The Council renamed EUCAP Nestor capacity-building mission “EUCAP Somalia”.

Renewing for two years the declaration on the common funding of the deployment of EU battlegroups, until December 2018.

[HCWS391]

Foreign Affairs Council December 2016

Alan Duncan Excerpts

Monday 12th December 2016 Written Statements

[The Minister for Europe and the Americas (Sir Alan Duncan)]

I will attend the Foreign Affairs Council on 12 December. The Foreign Affairs Council will be chaired by the High Representative of the European Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, Federica Mogherini. The meeting will be held in Brussels.

Foreign Affairs Council

The agenda for the Foreign Affairs Council (FAC) is expected to include EU-Africa relations, the Democratic Republic of the Congo and external migration. Ministers will discuss Syria and Iraq over lunch.

EU-Africa relations

EU Foreign Ministers will discuss EU-Africa relations ahead of the EU-Africa summit (which is likely to take place in November 2017). The UK remains committed to working with African nations in partnership and for mutual benefit on shared interests of security, migration and prosperity, strengthening the continent’s own ability to respond to threats and maximise opportunities. European partners play a key role in Africa and we expect discussion to range across politics, security and economics. Migration will be covered substantively later in the day. The UK will look to ensure EU-Africa relations are positively focused on mutual growth, trade and investment.

Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC)

Discussions will focus on EU sanctions in response to recent violence in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) and the ongoing political impasse there. President Kabila is deeply unpopular but is showing no sign of stepping down when his term of office ends on 19 December. Widespread protests are expected. The Council will agree sanctions against seven individuals identified as having been responsible for human rights abuses and the obstruction of the electoral process. The UK, alongside France and Belgium, has led the EU response to the political crisis. The sanctions aim to apply pressure on the Government to find an inclusive political solution and schedule timely presidential elections, ideally in 2017.

Migration

High Representative Mogherini is expected to provide an update on progress establishing migration partnership frameworks with the five initial priority countries— Ethiopia, Mali, Niger, Nigeria and Senegal. The discussion may also cover potential countries for the next wave of partnerships. We support the comprehensive approach envisaged under the frameworks and will continue to argue that there should be enhanced engagement on migration, even if not full partnership frameworks, with major source and transit countries. The frameworks should not divert attention from other migration initiatives, such as the Khartoum process and implementation of the Valletta action plan (between EU and African states).

Syria and Iraq

Ministers will discuss the devastating assault on eastern Aleppo and what more the EU can do to achieve a full ceasefire in order to pursue a credible political process in Syria. Ministers are expected to discuss how the EU can support the UN’s humanitarian plan for the city and will continue to call on the Syrian regime to allow aid in. Ministers will discuss the ongoing military campaign in Mosul and the continued importance of the global coalition following Daesh’s military defeat in Iraq. That includes the challenge of ensuring that Mosul is liberated in a manner that protects civilians, minimises the humanitarian impact, and limits longer-term conflict by supporting political reconciliation. Ministers are also expected to discuss the wider challenge of addressing those underlying political factors which led to the rise of Daesh in Iraq.

[HCWS342]

Oral Answers to Questions

Alan Duncan Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd November 2016 Commons Chamber

[Michael Tomlinson (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (Con)]

2. What discussions he has had with his counterparts in the EU, Africa and the middle east on tackling the refugee situation in Europe and the middle east.

[The Minister for Europe and the Americas (Sir Alan Duncan)]

Ministerial colleagues and I regularly discuss migration with our European and international partners. The UK will continue to play a leading role towards securing a co-ordinated and comprehensive approach to the migration crisis that tackles the causes as well as the consequences of unmanaged migration.

[Michael Tomlinson]

I am grateful to the Minister for that answer, but what reassurance can he give me and my constituents that he and the Prime Minister are working with the international community to help resolve this terrible situation?

[Sir Alan Duncan]

My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister gave exactly that reassurance when she set out, at the United Nations in September, three key principles to improve the international response to the mass movement of refugees and migrants: the protection in the first safe country of arrival; the right of states to maintain their borders; and a clearer distinction between refugees and economic migrants. We are pursuing this agenda vigorously with our international colleagues.

[Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)]

Is the Minister aware of the rising levels of violence directed towards those in refugee camps on the island of Chios, including volunteers? Is he aware that on 16 November the camp at Souda was attacked by about 60 members of the far-right group New Dawn? Boulders were thrown into containers containing refugee women and children. Following that, three volunteers, two of whom are UK citizens, were arrested by the Greek police. Can he assure me that every support will be given to UK citizens volunteering in that area to ensure that their rights are protected?

[Sir Alan Duncan]

The right hon. Gentleman makes a perfectly fair point. I hope that everybody in this House fully condemns any such violence. Behind that bad news, however, there is some better news. Since the EU-Turkey agreement, the number of migrants arriving on Greek islands has reduced significantly from an average of about 1,500 in February to just over 100 a day now.

[Daniel Kawczynski (Shrewsbury and Atcham) (Con)]

I believe that my right hon. Friend visited Turkey recently. Does he agree that Turkey plays an important role in helping refugees and managing the whole process, and that our relations with Turkey will become increasingly important in this regard?

[Sir Alan Duncan]

My hon. Friend is right. I have been to Turkey twice and my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has been there, too. The UK is committed to the successful implementation of the EU-Turkey agreement, which started in March this year. For that to work well, we need to retain good and constructive diplomatic engagement with countries, including Turkey.

[Mark Durkan (Foyle) (SDLP)]

Has the Minister had any pause for thought about the commitment of the UK Government and EU member states to engage and fund President Bashir’s regime, as partners in the management of migration?

[Sir Alan Duncan]

The answer to that is no.

[Brendan O’Hara (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)]

3. What role he plans that the UK will play in providing diplomatic assistance to help rebuild communities in Iraq and Syria.

--- Later in debate ---

[Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)]

11. What discussions he has had with the incoming US Administration on their policy on article 5 of the NATO treaty.

[The Minister for Europe and the Americas (Sir Alan Duncan)]

rose—

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr Tobias Ellwood)]

I want to do it. [Laughter.]

[Sir Alan Duncan]

Let the little guy get a word in for once!

Throughout the election period, our embassy in Washington engaged both campaigns across the breadth of our policy interests, including NATO.

[Toby Perkins]

I agree with the Foreign Secretary that we should encourage all NATO allies to spend 2% of their GDP on defence, but will the Minister take this opportunity to send a message to President-elect Trump and to President Putin that article 5 is sacrosanct and not in any way conditional on our allies’ spending levels?

[Sir Alan Duncan]

I confirm that we strongly support the leaving in of article 5 as the bedrock of NATO and support NATO as the bedrock of European and wider defence interests.

[Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (The Cotswolds) (Con)]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Russians’ stationing of new ballistic missiles in Kaliningrad is curious given that it will probably unite NATO members, the United States in particular, around article 5?

[Sir Alan Duncan]

NATO is taking necessary and proportionated steps—balanced with dialogue—to strengthen defence and deterrents in response to Russian belligerence. At Warsaw, NATO announced an enhanced forward presence, which my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has already referenced today, in Poland and the Baltic states. The UK will lead in Estonia, providing an infantry battalion of 800 troops from May of next year.

[Fabian Hamilton (Leeds North East) (Lab)]

May I come back to article 5? The principle that an attack on one NATO country is an attack on all is the cornerstone on which the alliance is built. At a time when the Baltic states are rightly concerned about Russian expansionism, that principle is now more important than ever. Will the Minister make it clear today that article 5 is an inviolable right for all NATO members, not something that is contingent on how much they spend on defence?

[Sir Alan Duncan]

I can repeat my having said just that. July’s NATO summit demonstrated the commitment of all allies to article 5, and I can confirm that again today.

[Gerald Jones (Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney) (Lab)]

14. What discussions he has had with the incoming US Administration on their policy on the nuclear agreement with Iran.

--- Later in debate ---

[Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con)]

Talks on the future of Cyprus have broken down without agreement. As one of the guarantor powers, can the Minister advise what the Government will do to try to influence the situation and to enable the talks to continue?

[The Minister for Europe and the Americas (Sir Alan Duncan)]

It is an exaggeration to say that the talks have totally broken down, but they have stalled for the moment, and we are giving every possible support that we can to enable the talks to continue in the hope that they can yet reach a successful conclusion for the reunification of the island.

[Ann Clwyd (Cynon Valley) (Lab)]

Will the Minister assure us that the UK will continue to assist in the gathering of evidence for war crimes and crimes against humanity in Syria, so that, eventually, those responsible for these terrible atrocities will be brought to book?

Foreign Affairs Council and Foreign Affairs Council (Defence)

Alan Duncan Excerpts

Friday 18th November 2016 Written Statements

[The Minister for Europe and the Americas (Sir Alan Duncan)]

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs attended the Foreign Affairs Council on 14 November. He and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence attended the joint session of the Foreign Affairs Council and Foreign Affairs Council (Defence) on 14 November. The UK Ambassador to the EU Political and Security Committee (PSC), Angus Lapsley represented my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence at the Foreign Affairs Council (Defence) on 15 November. The Foreign Affairs Council and Foreign Affairs Council (Defence) were chaired by the High Representative of the European Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, Federica Mogherini. The meetings were held in Brussels.

Foreign Affairs Council

A provisional report of the meeting and conclusions adopted can be found at:

http://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/meetings/fac/2016/10/18.

Turkey

The Council discussed Turkey in the light of recent developments in the country. The Council recalled the declaration by the High Representative on behalf of the EU of 8 November and agreed on the need to keep communications open with Turkey. No conclusions were adopted.

Eastern Partnership

Ministers exchanged views on recent developments in the six Eastern Partnership States (Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Georgia, the Republic of Moldova, and Ukraine) and looked forward to the next EU-Eastern Partnership summit, to be held in November 2017 in Brussels. Conclusions were agreed. At the end of the discussion the Foreign Secretary debriefed Ministers on his recent visit to the Western Balkans noting that the EU and member states needed to be more visible and engaged in the region.

Syria

Ministers discussed the southern neighbourhood over lunch, focusing on Syria. Ms Mogherini informed the Council of her recent outreach efforts with key actors in the region, in line with the European Council mandate and in full support of the efforts of the UN Special Envoy Staffan de Mistura. The Council expressed its concern over the escalation of tensions in the region, and called for an end to the violence in Syria and support for the resumption of a political process. A further 18 Syria sanctions designations were agreed as a procedural point by the Council, bring the total to 28 since the October Foreign Affairs Council.

Libya

Foreign Ministers discussed Libya, and considered how to support the Government of National Accord and implementation of the Libyan political agreement. Ministers underlined that building a safe, secure and prosperous Libya that is able to tackle with confidence the challenges in the region is in our collective interest.

Security and Defence Implementation Plan (SDIP)

Member states agreed conclusions on the security and defence implementation plan (SDIP), which will increase the effectiveness of common security and defence policy. The Foreign and Defence Secretaries restated the UK’s guiding principle that nothing should undermine NATO as the cornerstone of European defence, and this was reflected in the conclusions. NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg joined the EU Ministers for a discussion on EU-NATO co-operation, which the conclusions will help strengthen. The Foreign Affairs Council (Defence) also agreed on the need to keep the European defence industry open and competitive.

Ministers agreed without discussion a number of measures:

Council conclusions on Iran.

Council conclusions on security sector reform (SSR).

Council conclusions on the upcoming fifth review conference of the convention on prohibitions on restrictions on the use of certain conventional weapons which may be deemed to be excessively injurious or to a have indiscriminate effects (CCW).

The Council authorised the European Commission and the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy to open negotiations on a comprehensive agreement between the European Union and Azerbaijan.

The Council agreed in principle on the enhanced partnership and co-operation agreement between the EU and Kazakhstan and requested the consent of the European Parliament.

Foreign Affairs Council (Defence)

Commissioner Bienkowska spoke about the European defence action plan (EDAP), which is due to be adopted by the College of Commissioners at the end of the month. The EDAP will focus on: funding defence research; fostering support for defence supply chains; joint financing of defence capabilities; and an internal market with a defence industry that is fit for purpose.

Member states agreed an increase to the European Defence Agency (EDA)’s budget in line with inflation, the first increase in six years. The UK agreed to maintain the level of the EDA budget in real terms because the EDA had made some progress on reform and performance, and, importantly, in recognition of the EDA’s future role in taking forward SDIP and EDAP issues that could benefit UK security and UK industry.

[HCWS271]

Chagos Islands

Alan Duncan Excerpts

Thursday 17th November 2016 Commons Chamber

[Andrew Rosindell (Romford) (Con)]

(Urgent Question): To ask the Minister of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs to make a statement on the future of the British people of the Chagos Islands and the British Indian Ocean Territory.

[The Minister for Europe and the Americas (Sir Alan Duncan)]

The islands of the Chagos archipelago have been British territory since 1814, when they were ceded to Britain by France. In 1966, the UK agreed with the United States to make the British Indian Ocean Territory available for the defence purposes of the US and the UK, and the Chagossian people were removed from the islands. Like successive Governments before them, this Government have expressed their sincere regret about the manner in which Chagossians were removed from the British Indian Ocean Territory in the late 1960s and early 1970s. It is right that the UK Government paid substantial compensation to Chagossians—nearly £15.5 million in current prices—and the British courts and the European Court of Human Rights have confirmed that compensation has already been paid in full and final settlement.

We must now look forward, not back, on decisions about the future of the British Indian Ocean Territory. The Government have considered this complex issue very closely and carried out an independent feasibility study of the practicalities of resettlement and a public consultation, which sought better to gauge the demand for resettlement by illustrating the most realistic way in which resettlement would hypothetically take place. The Government have looked carefully at the practicalities of setting up a small remote community on low-lying islands and the challenges that such a community would face. We were particularly concerned about the difficulty of establishing modern public services, about the limited healthcare and education that it would be possible to provide—which would create difficulties for any new population and especially for elderly Chagossians returning to the islands—and about the lack of realistic economic opportunities.

The Government have now considered all the available information and decided against the resettlement of the Chagossian people on the grounds of feasibility, defence and security interests, and the cost to the British taxpayer. Although the Government have ruled out resettlement, we are determined to address the aspirations that drove Chagossians to seek to resettle—for instance, their desire for better lives and their wish to maintain a connection to the territory. To meet those aspirations, the Government are creating a significant and ambitious support programme to provide Chagossians with better life chances and developing an increased visits programme. The British Government intend to liaise with Chagossian communities in the UK and overseas and to work closely with the Governments involved to develop the kind of cost-effective programmes that will make the biggest improvement in the life chances of those Chagossians who need it most.

[Andrew Rosindell]

I thank the Minister for his reply, but does he not understand the shock, anger and dismay among members of the Chagossian community in the United Kingdom, in Mauritius and in the Seychelles who were displaced from their homeland in the 1960s at the Government’s decision not to allow resettlement? Does he not realise that they are British subjects who are entitled to the same rights, freedoms and self-determination that all British citizens should have? How can the Government defend the right of self-determination for the people of the Falkland Islands, Gibraltar and other British overseas territories, while completely denying the same rights to the people of the Chagos Islands?

Why have the Government ignored the arguments put forward over the years by the all-party parliamentary group on the Chagos Islands and by experts concerning viability, sustainability, cost, funding, defence and security, international human rights obligations and the views of the courts, which since 2000 have deplored the treatment of the Chagossians? Have the Government properly considered the Supreme Court conclusion that, in the light of the KPMG study, maintaining the ban on Chagossian return might no longer be legal?

Does the Minister accept that the United States was not opposed to resettlement and that any security concerns would be easily manageable, just as they are when indigenous people around the world who live around military installations are accommodated? Will he clarify whether the right of abode, which is different from resettlement, can be restored, giving Chagossians the right to visit their homeland whenever they wish? Does he not see that this decision continues to undermine the United Kingdom’s human rights record and the British sense of fair play? Why should Chagossians, who are British, be treated any differently from other nationals of overseas territories? How does this leave the Government’s so-called “unwavering commitment” to human rights?

British Chagossians should have the right of self-determination that is afforded to all Her Majesty’s subjects, who rightly expect the protection of the Crown, which is being denied to the Chagossians today.

[Sir Alan Duncan]

I fully accept my hon. Friend’s passion on this subject, which he has demonstrated for many years. He has become a champion of this issue. However, as he will appreciate, the Government and I do not agree with many of his points. First, we do not consider that the right of self-determination actually applies to the Chagossians. In fact, the issue here is one of sustainability and viability—[Interruption.] Well, let me go into that.

When I was an International Development Minister, looking at communities such as the Pitcairn Islands, one needed to appreciate that it is demographically difficult to sustain a population of that size in such a remote area: services cannot be provided; the travel distances are enormous; and the costs are quite significant. The costs here have been estimated to vary between £55 million for a mere 50 people and something like £256 million for 1,500. The obligation on Her Majesty’s Government to pay on an annual basis the costs of sustaining the population would be triggered. When no hospital is available and when care cannot be delivered urgently, it is unsustainable to expect a community of any such size to exist in such a setting.

[Emily Thornberry (Islington South and Finsbury) (Lab)]

Thank you for granting this urgent question, Mr Speaker. After four decades of intense debate on the disgraceful relocation of the Chagossians, after the campaign for their resettlement and after all the legal disputes, the marches and rallies, the parliamentary debates and the reviews and inquiries, it is disappointing that the Government thought they could deal with the issue with a 500-word written statement in the other place yesterday.

After KPMG provided a comprehensive analysis of the resettlement options, why have we not at least seen an equally detailed evaluation of those options from the Government, so that we can understand the rationale behind the decision? We are told that cost is one of the three factors, but that comes from a Government who have spent £285 million building an airport on St Helier—[Hon. Members: “St Helena.”] Whether it is called St Helier or St Helena, the fact is that we have spent £285 million on an airport where it is impossible to land planes. If cost is of such importance, let us put it in that context. If the Government are prepared to spend such amounts on an airport that does not work properly, why not evaluate this situation in those terms?

We are told that the agreement with the United States on the Diego Garcia military base is another factor, but that agreement is due to expire at the end of this year. Has the Minister even discussed with the incoming US Administration whether the renewal of the agreement could be made conditional on both parties facilitating the resettlement of the Chagossians?

Finally, we are told that feasibility is also a factor, but why has that not been tested by means of a pilot programme of relocation, as considered by KPMG? The treatment of the Chagos islanders is a dark stain on our country’s history. Yesterday’s decision, and the manner in which it was made, has done nothing to remove that stain. It is another disgraceful attempt to cover it up, but it will not be covered up. The Chagossians can be assured that the Opposition, led as we are by someone who has campaigned for them for 30 years, will never give up on their right to return.

[Sir Alan Duncan]

May I at least agree with one thing the hon. Lady said, which is that we all deplore the relocation that took place in the 1960s, and the manner in which it took place? That is why compensation has been paid to those who were displaced in that manner. May I also point out that the written statement yesterday was not in another place, but here in this House of Commons?

[Emily Thornberry]

Yes, it was.

[Sir Alan Duncan]

The statement goes out in parallel to both Chambers. Perhaps the hon. Lady would like to learn something about how parliamentary procedure works. It went out at the same time.

The Government have been looking at this issue for more than four years, and the decision was made at Cabinet level by appropriate Ministers. During that process, there has been a full consultation. Perhaps I should point out that, of those invited to express a view, 832 people answered. When it was described what life on the islands would look like, only 25%—approximately 200 people—indicated that they would like to go to reside on the islands. As for Diego Garcia, the hon. Lady needs to appreciate that the Chagos Islands, or the British Indian Ocean Territory, comprise 58 islands—it is not just Diego Garcia. The agreement is likely to be renewed before the new President comes in and is expected to continue—indeed, it will continue—until 2036.

[Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con)]

It has been my privilege, since 2010, to represent one of the largest communities of the Chagos Islands anywhere in the world—it is certainly larger than that on the Chagos Islands. I have pursued this issue since before being elected to this place and it has been my honour to do so. I believe that the Chagos islanders have a right of return, and I am very disappointed with yesterday’s statement by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. I note that a compensation package of £40 million over 10 years has been proposed. Can the Minister say a little bit more about how that will be spent in local communities such as mine in Crawley? And rather than just regretting the forced eviction of Chagos islanders from their homeland, will the British Government now apologise?

[Sir Alan Duncan]

Yes, I am very prepared to—and do—apologise. That is why compensation has been paid, and the matter has been recognised by the courts. My hon. Friend, who has a large Chagossian population in his Crawley constituency, has taken a keen and proper interest in this issue ever since he was elected. That must be respected, as must his views and opinions. He has touched on something that is very important, which is that, in looking forward, the Government intend to allocate £40 million, shared between the Department for International Development and the Foreign Office, to address the needs of Chagossians wherever they are—whether in Mauritius, the Seychelles or the United Kingdom. In respect of how that will be paid, some of it will qualify as official development assistance—the DFID element—and the rest will do lots of other things in conjunction with the communities and with the Governments in the countries in which they reside. I very much hope that this £40 million over 10 years will be well spent and particularly address the needs of those older Chagossians, who might have been displaced in the ’60s and ’70s, but who are still alive and who are perhaps the ones in greatest need.

[Alex Salmond (Gordon) (SNP)]

Has it occurred to the Minister that, in the era of President Trump, an island group in the middle of the Indian ocean, thousands of miles from anywhere, might be one of the safer and more desirable places on this planet? In the late 1960s, the community on the Chagos Islands was fully employed and perfectly sustainable. How can the Minister seriously argue now that it would not be so in modern times, particularly with the advantage of an airport with a very long runway? Finally, the Minister has said that the right of self-determination does not apply here. Why exactly is that? The shame of successive Administrations is not something to do just with the 1960s and 1970s. It covers the past 15 years, where successive Administrations have used every effort through the courts to block and tackle the rights of the Chagossians, including the use of the royal prerogative, disgracefully, against Her Majesty’s subjects. Instead of apologising for the past, will the Minister properly address the future and allocate to these people their right of self-determination and their right of return?

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Alan Duncan]

The right hon. Gentleman’s reference to the runway refers to only a very small part of the archipelago, where there are 58 islands. There is no obvious manner in which a few people on low-lying islands will be able to sustain themselves economically without outside help.

As for what the right hon. Gentleman describes as the runway, and hence implicitly Diego Garcia, the nature of the employment there did not prove attractive to those Chagossians who were consulted, because in most cases they are people who cannot take their families and work in a solitary manner, and they did not find the likely package of employment attractive. The right hon. Gentleman may shake his head, but that is the response that came through in the consultation.

On self-determination, the legal advice that we have received is that the Chagossians were not and are not a “people” for the purposes of international law and hence self-determination.

[Dr Matthew Offord (Hendon) (Con)]

There are many issues that we could raise in connection with the statement, and many of us did raise them on 25 October, when there was a Westminster Hall debate on the issue. At that time, I asked the Minister what the timeframe was for announcing his decision about the islands, and we were told that it would be announced before the end of the year. Does he accept how regrettable it is for many of us to have read the contents of the written ministerial statement in The Guardian on Tuesday night and how concerned we were, whether the written ministerial statement was published in this House or the other place, that it was published two hours before a long-standing meeting of the all-party parliamentary group to discuss the matter? Many of us feel that that was an affront to many Members. Will he undertake an investigation to determine how the statement ended up in a national newspaper, rather than here on the Floor of the House?

[Sir Alan Duncan]

I understand what my hon. Friend is saying, although the Minister to whom he refers was not me. What I am doing today is repeating a statement that was made in another place. I hope and believe that the APPG was afforded proper respectful attention. I think that there were three Ministers there, properly explaining the policy. Quite how the matter got into The Guardian I do not know. All I can say is that that is not the natural paper for Her Majesty’s Government, and I therefore suspect that the sources probably lie elsewhere.

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

The Guardian contacted me on Tuesday and asked me whether the Minister was going to make an announcement. Nobody in this House or in this country thinks that Britain behaved well in the 1960s in relation to the Chagos Islands. How we behaved then is a disgrace. The question is how we proceed now. Many people have suggested, incorrectly, that the Chagos marine preserve zone, which was initiated in 2010, was deliberately put in place to prevent the Chagossians returning to the British Indian Ocean Territory. That is completely untrue. Will the Minister update us on where we are now with protecting the biodiversity there, which is vital not only in itself, but to the entire east coast of Africa?

[Sir Alan Duncan]

I acknowledge the keen attention that the hon. Gentleman gave to the matter when he was a Minister. He is right that the creation of a marine protection area or zone has no bearing on what we are discussing today, but in respect of his subsequent question, I am pleased to say that I was in Washington last month at the ocean summit and, because we have a number of these islands as part of our historic legacy, I was able to announce a 4 million sq km marine protected area around many of them, which puts the UK in the forefront of marine biodiversity and protection.

[Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)]

Did any of the estimates for the cost of resettlement include the building of a prison such as we have had to build in Pitcairn?

[Sir Alan Duncan]

I am not aware that they did, but my right hon. Friend and successor as Minister in the Department for International Development puts his finger on an example of a small community on a remote island that has had serious difficulties—demographic, behavioural and economic difficulties. Under our legislation we are obliged to offer reasonable support to such a population, even though on the Pitcairn Islands there are only 46 people. Simply for child safeguarding, when I was a Minister I insisted that all teenagers go to New Zealand to be educated, rather than suffer improper behaviour on the island.

[Kate Hoey (Vauxhall) (Lab)]

I know the Minister quite well, and I detect a bit of embarrassment about his statement today, perhaps partly because of the way this whole thing has been handled, with a statement being rushed out yesterday, having been leaked to the papers. This is a very sad day for our country and it reflects so badly on our attitude to human rights across the world. Is there anything he would listen to that would make the Government change what I think is a deplorable decision?

[Sir Alan Duncan]

I am afraid I have to say directly to the hon. Lady that I diametrically disagree with her. I am not in any way embarrassed, although, of course, when it comes to leaks, I neither like nor approve of them. However, this is the final decision. I do not think it is deplorable. Certainly in my direct experience, and looking at the evidence—and, indeed, in response to a consultation where so few people actually said, given what they thought the conditions would be in living there, that they wanted to go—it is not deplorable or a breach of human rights to say that, in our judgment, this would be creating a community that would actually not be sustainable and that, probably, at the end of the day, would be neither safe nor happy.

[James Duddridge (Rochford and Southend East) (Con)]

This is a sensitive decision, but it is the right decision. Is the Minister of State aware that, when I was Minister for overseas territories, I actually travelled out to the Chagos Islands and also went out to the outer islands? I think I am the only person in the House today who has visited. It was certainly quite a difficult experience; over five days, I spent only 15 minutes on land in a bed. This is a massive area, and it is very difficult to get to. It would be wholly impossible to populate the islands, as other Members of the House have argued. Does the Minister agree that, while this is a sensitive issue, it is good to have what I hope will be closure on it going forward?

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Alan Duncan]

I am very grateful to my hon. Friend, who has served, of course, as a Minister. As he says, he is probably the only one of us who has visited. I really think that what he has said is right: it is wise to realise that, despite the many arguments we have heard for repopulating the islands, that would not lead to an attractive existence for those who lived there, in what we foresee as the circumstances in which they would live. For instance, if someone has appendicitis and it takes them five days to get to a hospital, they are probably not going to get there alive. I hope the House will listen to my hon. Friend’s first-hand evidence and experience.

[Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)]

What have the Government actually decided here? They say they will not facilitate resettlement, but do they accept or not that the Chagossians have a right of return or a right of abode? If I won the lottery and decided to spend my winnings on building a paradise retreat for myself on one of the Chagos Islands, would that kind of development be permitted?

[Sir Alan Duncan]

It would potentially be illegal. In my view, it is quite clear that our decision is that there should not be resettlement or repopulation on these islands.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

When we renegotiate this treaty with the Americans for the use of the Chagos Islands, could not part of the conditions of agreement be that Chagossians should be the people of choice for employment in the American airbase there? They would then be sustained by the American infrastructure and be looked after that way. That would be an honourable thing for us to do; what we decided to do yesterday is dishonourable.

[Sir Alan Duncan]

I do not agree with my hon.—and gallant—Friend. I do not think this is dishonourable. As I have already said, Diego Garcia is only one small part of this large archipelago. The nature of the employment there would not necessarily prove attractive, and it is not seen as practical to link subsistence payments for a repopulated series of islands to the use of the defence base, for which, at the moment, there is no payment anyway.

[Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)]

May I assure the Minister that I understand better than most people in this House the challenges of providing public services in remote island communities? However, if the Chagos Islands are where people belong and that is where they want to be, they have an inalienable right to be there. What the Minister describes today as practicalities exist only because of what this country did some decades ago. Paying £40 million over 10 years cannot buy out our responsibilities.

[Sir Alan Duncan]

Notwithstanding the fact that, as I said earlier, the manner in which the Chagossians were displaced in the ’60s and ’70s was deplorable, we think it inappropriate to return them. We have to look to the future, not the past. Compensation has already been agreed and upheld in the courts, so we are now trying to offer a forward-looking support package of £40 million in the manner that I described.

[Charlie Elphicke (Dover) (Con)]

If resettlement went forward as an option, how resilient would that be to climate change and changes in sea levels, which have been a problem elsewhere in the area? Will the Minister explain the background on the business of ceding the archipelago to Mauritius if it is no longer used for defence purposes?

[Sir Alan Duncan]

My hon. Friend answers his own questions in a way. Yes, the islands are low-lying and so do face some of the perils of climate change, although I hope that recent decisions and the actions of Governments will stop the water level rising any further. He is correct in saying that there is an understanding that we would cede the islands to the Mauritians in the event that they were no longer needed for defence purposes.

[Mike Kane (Wythenshawe and Sale East) (Lab)]

I believe this decision to be wrong. I also believe that the FCO has not comported itself well in how this information has come out. This morning I spoke to my constituent, Louis Elyse, who is the leader of the small Chagossian community in Wythenshaw and Sale East. He is utterly heartbroken and said that it was cruel and unusual that the KPMG report gave so much hope only for it to be undermined in such a way by Government yesterday.

[Sir Alan Duncan]

It is not entirely fair to say that the KPMG report was undermined by Government. The report gave a whole range of possible scenarios, and consultation then followed. I say again that only 25% of the 832 people who responded after further discussions indicated that they would want to return. These are very, very small numbers that would, under the KPMG report, trigger a very high cost per capita. I very much hope that the package we have announced will benefit those of the hon. Gentleman’s constituents who qualify for assistance as Chagossians. It is on those people on his own doorstep that I would like to concentrate the expenditure of this money. We are very happy, in the FCO and DFID, to discuss how that might take place.

[Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)]

I welcome my right hon. Friend’s commitment to increase the number of visits to the Chagos Islands, and the package of measures for elderly people who were removed forcibly from the islands. Will he undertake to ensure that priority is given particularly to enabling elderly former residents of the islands to return to see the land of their birth, and their children and other parts of their family to see the beauty of the area?

[Sir Alan Duncan]

My hon. Friend puts his finger on a very important element of the support package that has been designed. It is a heritage package, in most respects, such that those who were born there and are still alive can go back and see the place of their birth, while those who are descendants can see the origin of their heritage. I very much hope that an appropriate amount of the £40 million will be directed to that end and will promptly facilitate exactly what he has described.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

A study by the coalition Government in 2014-15 concluded that resettlement was possible and affordable if Diego Garcia was involved. What consideration was given to that option? How have we moved from the resettlement that the previous Government decided was a good idea to a statement today that says there will be no resettlement at all?

[Sir Alan Duncan]

The link with Diego Garcia as a potential payer, as it were, for all this is illusory, particularly because following consultation and the discussions that followed the KPMG report, it was clear that few, if any, Chagossians really wanted to work on the base.

[Dr Paul Monaghan (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (SNP)]

On the rights of Chagossians, the United Nations has found in their favour in regard to return, and recently the UN Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination has found against the UK Government and criticised their policy. Why is the Minister ignoring the view of the United Nations?

[Sir Alan Duncan]

We are not ignoring the view of the United Nations, and I do not accept the hon. Gentleman’s interpretation. For all the reasons that I have described at length today, this would be an impractical proposal that would not lead to happy lives for those who might choose to go there.

[Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)]

The original decision is a throwback to colonial thinking, and the support package currently on offer does not even match the original discount given to Polaris nuclear missiles, so more money should be made available. More recently, the KPMG report says that it is feasible for Chagossians to return, and despite the Minister’s comments on the quality of life that they would get, the consultation showed that more than 200 of them want to do so. How can the Government decide that they are not allowed to return because they would not get a good enough quality of life?

[Sir Alan Duncan]

Because of the expense and, indeed, because they would not get a good quality of life. Only 200 maximum said that they wished to do that, and it is not the case that the KPMG report said that it was straightforwardly feasible. It presented a number of scenarios, most of which came out at a very high cost that could not justify the resettlement of Chagossians on the islands.

[Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)]

I am sure that the Minister knows his history. A couple of hundred years ago, his predecessor would have stood in the same place and assured Parliament that the colony called America could not possibly deliver a decent standard of life to its people. Does not he accept that if the decision whether it is in the interests of islanders to return is made here and they are not given the right to decide, that is a return to the days of the arrogant, colonial, Britain-knows-best days, which should have been consigned to the dustbin of history 100 years ago?

[Sir Alan Duncan]

No, because, as I have already said, that right of self-determination is not considered legally to apply. We have gone through all the arguments today and explained why we think that would be impractical. It is better to look to the future and to make sure that the help that the islanders need, wherever they are, be it in Mauritius, the Seychelles or the United Kingdom, is properly given by Her Majesty’s Government.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Last but certainly not least, I call Ian Paisley.

[Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)]

The Minister’s statement about no right to self-determination will have much wider implications and will be listened to by many people on other islands and rocks around the world. Will he make it clear to those people who may have felt a shiver down their spine when they heard that statement that Her Majesty’s Government do not intend to roll back self-determination anywhere else?

[Sir Alan Duncan]

My interpretation of the hon. Gentleman’s question—I think that this will be to his satisfaction—is that he is implicitly also referring to sovereignty. May I make it absolutely clear that questions as to the existence or presence of a population on the British Indian Ocean Territory do not affect our position on sovereignty? We have no doubt whatsoever about our sovereignty of the British Indian Ocean Territory.