Diego Garcia Military Base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill

John Whittingdale Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 9th September 2025 Commons Chamber

[Sir Jeremy Wright]

My right hon. Friend makes an important point, which I know he has made before. I repeat the point I made earlier: we are simply not getting from the Government an adequate rebuttal of these points, and we need to have that. If the Government have a good answer to what he and my hon. Friend the Member for Hinckley and Bosworth (Dr Evans) have said, Second Reading of the Bill is the moment for the Government to deliver that explanation. We are all still waiting.

[Sir John Whittingdale (Maldon) (Con)]

My right hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois) is right, but the existing position goes even further. Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware of the written answer from the Government on 7 February this year:

“Individual countries, not the ITU, make their own sovereign spectrum assignments in accordance with the Radio Regulations. The ITU has no legal authority over these assignments regardless of the country’s civilian or military classification of spectrum.”?

[Sir Jeremy Wright]

I am extremely grateful to my right hon. Friend, and perhaps I should refine my argument. It is not just that the Government are not answering the questions; it is that when they do answer the questions, they undermine their own argument. It is worse than we thought. We are not getting clarity from the Government about what would be the legal judgment that they themselves have relied on as almost the entire basis for their actions, and this really matters. The Government owe us a proper explanation.

I am prepared to concede—I hope the Minister will accept that I am a fair-minded person—that there may be a persuasive argument that the Government could make about which court and which circumstances would deliver the kind of judgment that makes this action inevitable and necessary, but I have waited a long time to hear it, and I am still waiting. I hope that when the Minister stands to sum up the debate he will give us that answer, because the House of Commons deserves to hear it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir John Whittingdale (Maldon) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to take part in the debate. The Foreign Affairs Committee, on which I sit—I welcome two of my Labour colleagues from the Committee and my hon. Friend the Member for Chester South and Eddisbury (Aphra Brandreth) to the debate—has had the opportunity to question the Minister, the hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty), although I was not entirely persuaded by some of his answers. That is not to say that the Intelligence and Security Committee, which has other powers, is not an appropriate body for looking at some aspects—indeed, the Defence Committee should also do so.

The one thing that I think everybody agrees on is the importance of Diego Garcia and the Chagos islands to the United Kingdom. My right hon. Friend the Member for South West Wiltshire (Dr Murrison) quoted Admiral Lord West, his former boss—he was, of course, a Minister in the last Labour Government and the security adviser to the Prime Minister—who said:

“It is no exaggeration to say that Diego Garcia—the largest of the Chagos Islands—hosts the most strategically important US air and logistics base in the Indian Ocean and is vital to the defence of the UK and our allies.”

I have no doubt that Labour Members share that sentiment, but perhaps not his later comment, which was:

“An agreement with Mauritius to surrender sovereignty over the Chagos Islands threatens to undermine core British security interests, and those of key allies, most notably the United States.”

We do need to listen to the warning he gave.

[Sir Julian Lewis]

Admiral Lord West has been referred to twice so far in the debate. My right hon. Friend may be unaware that Admiral Lord West had a letter published in the national press on 28 May in which he talked about the

“disgraceful decision to hand over ownership of the Chagos archipelago”.

He added:

“I do not accept that the move is ‘absolutely vital for our defence and intelligence’, as the Prime Minister claims.”

I wonder what Government Back Benchers who have been slavishly reading their scripts make of that from someone of that calibre—a former director of Defence Intelligence.

[Sir John Whittingdale]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right—

[Mr Calvin Bailey]

Will the right hon. Member give way?

[Sir John Whittingdale]

If I might just answer my hon. Friend before doing so. Admiral Lord West has immense experience and knowledge. If the Defence Committee should decide to look at this, it might well ask him to give evidence on the basis of his considerable experience in the area.

[Mr Bailey]

Will the right hon. Member explain how UNCLOS enables intelligence activity, and then perhaps why we have represented the views that we have on the basis of our experience and understanding?

[Sir John Whittingdale]

I will come on to UNCLOS. As the hon. Member knows, it is an organisation that has expressed a view, but not one that is binding on the United Kingdom. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kenilworth and Southam (Sir Jeremy Wright), the former Attorney General, set out very clearly the various international opinions that have been expressed but which are not binding or mandatory for the United Kingdom to follow. That is critical to this debate.

[Mr Bailey]

Will the right hon. Member please explain, then, what the limits of UNCLOS are on the sovereign space—sea, land and air—around Diego Garcia, as they stand and as they are extended in the agreement?

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir John Whittingdale]

I cannot answer the hon. Gentleman specifically on that issue, but I can tell him that it has been absolutely clear that whatever the UNCLOS opinion is, it is not binding on this country. We will read with interest its view, but it is not one that we are necessarily required to follow.

The existing position has safeguarded the interests of this country for a very long period, so the first question one is required to ask is: why are we changing a guaranteed security status for this country by handing over the sovereignty of Diego Garcia? As my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kenilworth and Southam has said, it is based on opinions that have been expressed but not ones that we are required to follow.

As the hon. Member for Crawley (Peter Lamb) said, I understand that the original linkage of the Chagos islands to Mauritius that took place was regarded as a matter of administrative convenience. However, they are actually 1,250 miles apart. On that basis, when the United Kingdom agreed to the independence of Mauritius, it was separated from the Chagos islands. There was no suggestion at that time that the two should be linked and that the islands be given over to Mauritius, which, despite the linkage, had no claim and no involvement in their running.

[Alex Ballinger]

Does the right hon. Gentleman, who is my colleague on the Foreign Affairs Committee, acknowledge that by opening negotiations with Mauritius, the last Government conceded that there was a point around sovereignty to be discussed and that, certainly from then onwards, it was difficult for this Government to roll back that point?

[Sir John Whittingdale]

It had already been rolled back. The hon. Gentleman is right that the last Government began discussions because Mauritius expressed a view. However, that was on the basis that a mutually beneficial arrangement could be reached. It was concluded that such an agreement could not be reached, and on that basis the last Government ceased the negotiations. It is not a question of their being rolled back; it was this Government who chose to reopen negotiations that had been closed down by the previous Government.

I come back to the international judgments. The other one cited by Ministers on the Government Front Bench early on in the discussion, when this issue was first raised, was the risk to access to electromagnetic spectrum as a result of the ITU potentially reaching a judgment that might be based on the non-binding judgment expressed by the ICJ. There is no actual evidence that it was going to do that, but it was possible that it might, and for that reason the Government expressed the view that this was important.

I would point out that the ITU has no ability to determine the use of spectrum. The Minister, in answering a written parliamentary question in February this year, made it clear that the allocation of spectrum was a matter for sovereign states. The ITU is a sort of gentleman’s club where everyone gets together to discuss these matters, but it is not able to hand over the right to the use of spectrum from one country to another. It is also worth noting that the ITU has, over the years, been subject to considerable pressure from China, which had a secretary general of the ITU. I recall from my time dealing with issues around the ITU the real concern about how the Chinese were seeking to use the ITU, so in my view it is a good thing that the ITU does not have the power to allocate spectrum.

There are also serious strategic concerns that the Government have not yet properly addressed. As has already been mentioned, an element of the agreement involves a requirement for us to “expeditiously inform” Mauritius of any armed attack on a third state directly emanating from the base. When the Minister gave evidence to the Committee, I pressed him on whether that would require advance notification—

[The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Stephen Doughty)]

indicated assent.

[Sir John Whittingdale]

He is nodding. He gave me a very firm assurance that that was not the case. That is of some reassurance, but it does not go far enough. The fact that we are no longer able to carry out actions from our own base without then having to notify Mauritius, and presumably take note of any objection it has, represents a limitation that could well affect decisions as to where to deploy assets.

[Sir Julian Lewis]

rose—

[Sir John Whittingdale]

I shall give way to my right hon. Friend, who is an expert on these matters.

[Sir Julian Lewis]

If this means that we do not have to inform Mauritius in advance of a direct armed attack from the base, presumably it means that we have to inform it as soon as possible after such an attack. If such an attack were an overt attack, Mauritius would presumably know about it already because everyone would have seen it, so this rather suggests that we might have to inform it if there had been some sort of covert attack that other people had not seen and that it would otherwise not know about. Is that a satisfactory situation?

[Sir John Whittingdale]

My right hon. Friend makes a fair point. A requirement for us to tell the Mauritians what has been happening from the base is exactly what might influence decisions as to its use for operations of the kind he describes. The Minister gave evidence to the Committee on this point just a few days, I think, after the Americans had launched their attack on Iran, which did not involve Diego Garcia. That was something I raised with the Minister.

[Stephen Doughty]

I know how seriously the right hon. Gentleman takes these issues, and it is important for the House to understand this. I can confirm what I said to him previously, but also I draw his attention to article 3(2)(b) in the treaty and to annex 1. Article 3(2)(b) sets out clearly that

“the Parties shall not undermine, prejudice or otherwise interfere with the long-term, secure and effective operation of the Base, and shall cooperate to that end; and…the United Kingdom shall have full responsibility for the defence and security of Diego Garcia.”

It sets out clearly our unrestricted ability to conduct the operations, including with the United States. That is very clear; it is in the treaty, and it is important that the House understands that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir John Whittingdale]

I understand that that is part of the treaty, but I hope that when the Minister winds up, he will address the point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis) that the requirement to “expeditiously inform” Mauritius, even after an operation, presumably means that we must do so as soon as possible, and that that will presumably apply to whatever kind of operation has taken place using the base. Perhaps he could tell us whether that might compromise decisions about the use of the base.

The other aspect I raised with the Minister when he was in front of the Committee was Mauritius being a signatory of the Pelindaba treaty. The Pelindaba treaty states that signatories will not have nuclear weapons on their soil. Britain, the UK, is not a signatory of it, but, as I say, Mauritius is. Again, the Minister told the Committee that there was no way in which anything in the agreement would affect the operational use of the base, but he would not go further and comment specifically on the aspects of potentially nuclear weapons on the Diego Garcia base. That is something of real concern, and I hope the Minister might say a little more about that conflict between his assurance and Mauritius’s membership of the Pelindaba treaty, which specifically says that there should not be nuclear weapons held on the sovereign territory of signatories.

I turn to the cost of the treaty to the UK. We are told that there is some disagreement about the precise figure. I have to say that even £3.5 billion seems pretty large to me, let alone £35 billion, which is universally believed on the Opposition side to be a more accurate figure. It has been suggested, nevertheless, that this is a relatively small amount of money and it is a good deal. I recall that when this was first suggested, a different Mauritian Government were in power. The Prime Minister of Mauritius at that time had signed a deal, which the current Prime Minister of Mauritius described as a terrible deal and that as soon as he was elected, he would reopen the whole discussion. It certainly appears that he was successful in doing so: the sum that has now been agreed is, the Mauritian Prime Minister has told us, considerably bigger than his predecessor had originally agreed, and this was a great success of the new Prime Minister of Mauritius that he managed to squeeze even more money out of the British Government. That does beg the question: at what point does it stop being a good deal? The impression given is that the British Government were so keen to sign up to this deal, they basically have signed away to almost any sum advanced by Mauritius. As one or two of my hon. Friends have made clear, that will be a difficult message to sell on the doorstep at a time when the Government are having to make significant savings and to raise taxes.

In particular, I am concerned—the Minister will understand why—about the impact on the Foreign Office budget, because the Foreign Office suffered the biggest cuts of any Whitehall Department in the last spending round. It is already unclear about how those savings will be met, and there is speculation that the budgets of the British Council or the World Service, or our representation in embassies around the world, will be reduced. Despite those pressures and potentially very damaging cuts to Foreign Office expenditure, the Foreign Office appears to be expected to meet part of this bill. The Minister was unable to tell the Committee how the bill would be divided up between the Foreign Office budget and the Ministry of Defence budget. Perhaps that is something else that he might say a little more about when he winds up.

I will also touch on the other aspect of the consequences of this deal: the impact on the environment, which has been referred to by one or two Members. I pay tribute to the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee, the right hon. Member for Islington South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry), who is, I think it fair to say, engaged in other projects at the moment. She was assiduous in raising with the Minister her concern about the treaty’s impact on an incredibly important marine environment—that is recognised around the world. She wrote to the Minister, as he will be aware, and said:

“My principal concern is that there is now no funding mechanism in place to ensure Mauritius will properly resource marine protection in the Chagos Archipelago… Without any dedicated funding mechanism…there is nothing to ensure that this protection will continue other than the on-going willingness of the Mauritian Government to allocate resource”.

As has been observed, the archipelago is 1,250 miles away from Mauritius, and we are not entirely convinced that that willingness in Mauritius, on which the Government appear to be pinning their hopes, exists.

Finally, I wish to acknowledge the presence of the Chagossians in the Public Gallery. They have been very badly treated over years, and it is of concern to me that they appear to have had virtually no input in this agreement, and that there has been no consultation with them. I know that a contact group is being established in the Foreign Office, but there is some scepticism about whether it has ever met, and about how many staff will be allocated to it. Perhaps the Minister might give details in his reply. [Interruption.] I am pleased to hear him say that it met last week.

I am grateful to the Government for answering questions so far, but an awful lot remain, and the answers that I have heard have failed to convince me that this treaty is in the economic, strategic and environmental interests of this country or the Chagos islands.

Ukraine

John Whittingdale Excerpts

Monday 1st September 2025 Commons Chamber

[John Healey]

My hon. Friend speaks plainly and strongly. I recognise the work that he has done on Ukraine, just as President Zelensky did last month when he awarded my hon. Friend the Ukrainian Order of Merit for his support.

My hon. Friend is right to remind the House of the recent assassination of Andriy Parubiy, which is a reminder of the brutality of the invasion. Andriy was not just a leader in the Maidan uprising; he was an ex-Speaker of the Ukrainian Parliament. In many ways, his assassination brings home just how serious this war is for us in this House.

Finally, my hon. Friend makes the point that if Putin prevails in Ukraine, he will not stop at Ukraine. That is one of the reasons why the British public, the British House of Commons and the British Government remain so steadfast in our support for Ukraine.

[Sir John Whittingdale (Maldon) (Con)]

It is 17 days since President Trump rolled out the red carpet for Putin—during which time, as the Secretary of State said, Russia has stepped up its bombardment of Ukraine with drones and missiles. I thank him for his remarks about Andriy Parubiy, the former Speaker of the Rada. I knew him well and admired him hugely. The last time I met him was when we entertained him in this House as a visiting Speaker. It is a mark of Putin’s hatred of democracy that he regarded the Speaker of a democratic Parliament as an appropriate target.

Does the Secretary of State agree that, at the present time, Putin shows no interest in a ceasefire? Will the right hon. Gentleman do whatever he can to persuade President Trump that the only way that Putin can be made to consider a ceasefire is by stepping up the pressure on Russia through extra sanctions, and by giving ever more support to Ukraine?

[John Healey]

I think the whole House appreciates the right hon. Gentleman’s remarks about Andriy Parubiy and the relationship that he had with him. On the question of pressure on Putin to come to the negotiating table, that is a matter for the nations that stand with Ukraine, and we are determined to play our role. It is also a matter that is recognised by the US and the US President. He wants Putin to come to the table. He wants Putin to start to act in the way that he says—interested in peace and ready to talk about peace—but at the moment, he is not yet showing signs of doing so.

Ukraine Update

John Whittingdale Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd April 2025 Commons Chamber

[John Healey]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for being out in Ukraine, demonstrating the solidarity of Government Members and the House in general. As he will have heard in his conversations with the Ukrainians, the overwhelming priority of the civilian population is air defence. That is why the announcement of the £1.6 billion that I put into new short-range air defence missiles—lightweight multi-role missiles, or LMMs—to Ukraine was so important. It is also why the work we have done in recent months alongside Denmark to develop Gravehawk, an innovative new technical system to help reinforce Ukrainian air defence systems that we will be able to roll out more generally, is so important. It is that combination of innovation, industrial speed and partnership with Ukraine that is reinforcing Ukraine’s ability to fight for itself and protect itself.

[Sir John Whittingdale (Maldon) (Con)]

The Secretary of State rightly began his statement by condemning the Russian missile attack on Sumy on Palm Sunday, which killed civilians and children. However, he will be aware of Russian claims that this was a military target and that 60 Ukrainian military commanders were killed, as were NATO servicemen who were “in charge”. Can he confirm that we will not only provide increased military support to Ukraine, but step up efforts against Russian lies in the information war?

[John Healey]

I can indeed. These were men, women and children on their way to church; children were killed and severely injured in the attack. Madam Deputy Speaker, I know you want short questions and short answers at this stage.

Ukraine

John Whittingdale Excerpts

Thursday 13th February 2025 Commons Chamber

[Maria Eagle]

We have always said that Ukraine’s rightful place is in NATO, and our position is that Ukraine is on an irreversible path to NATO membership. However, we have also always been clear that the process will take time. I have already said quite clearly that the fate of Ukraine in these negotiations cannot be determined without Ukraine being fully involved, and that is our priority. At the moment, warfighting is still happening to put Ukraine in the strongest possible position to negotiate from strength.

[Sir John Whittingdale (Maldon) (Con)]

In 1994, Russia —along with the UK and the US—signed the Budapest memorandum, pledging to respect the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Ukraine. Given Russia’s flagrant breach of that undertaking, why should Ukraine believe a word that Putin says without concrete security guarantees?

[Maria Eagle]

The right hon. Gentleman is correct that there must be security guarantees, and the US Defence Secretary said as much. These are all matters for any negotiations that take place. Of course, we will be supporting Ukraine, and we have made it quite clear that there cannot be a peace that does not involve Ukraine or that it does not support.

Ukraine

John Whittingdale Excerpts

Thursday 19th December 2024 Commons Chamber

[Luke Pollard]

The way that this House has come together on Ukraine—not just the provision of military equipment, but our diplomatic efforts and our support for Ukrainians—is a testament to all parties in this House. We are making sure that we are putting our national security and that of our friends ahead of any partisan desires. I expect that the Government and every single party in the House will continue that, because gaps in our position are where Putin will seek to prosper. That is why maintaining cross-party support is essential for our overall UK approach. I am grateful to all right hon. and hon. Members for continuing that today.

[Sir John Whittingdale (Maldon) (Con)]

I welcome the Minister’s confirmation of the Government’s support for Ukraine’s eventual membership of NATO. As a step along that road, will he look at the UK taking a lead in further integrating Ukraine into the joint expeditionary force?

[Luke Pollard]

The joint expeditionary force is an important part of the complementary military alliance with NATO, enabling the beer-drinking nations of northern Europe, as they are often described, to come together. It is important that that geographical centre point in northern Europe is maintained, especially in the Baltic sea and the high north. However, there are discussions around learning lessons by Ukraine having more participation alongside JEF nations. It is certainly true that many of the JEF nations have been the most forward-leaning of all our NATO allies in providing support for Ukraine, and I expect that to continue.

Chagos Islands: UK-US Defence Relationship

John Whittingdale Excerpts

Monday 2nd December 2024 Commons Chamber

[Luke Pollard]

I thank the former Minister for his question. As he served in the Department that I now serve in, he will know that it is normal to reveal the operating costs for overseas bases, but that we do not—he did not and we do not—reveal the Government-to-Government payments. That was standard procedure for his Government and every Government before, and it remains the policy of this Government. This deal secures the future of the UK-US base, and I am hopeful that when the details come out, he will be able to understand why it secures that for so long, and hopefully he will be able to back it.

[Sir John Whittingdale (Maldon) (Con)]

The Minister has said that he is not willing to give details of the financial arrangement, although he will be aware that the Mauritian Prime Minister has described the deal as a sell-out. Can he at least give an assurance that the Government will not commit to giving yet more money to get the deal through before the new US Administration arrives in January?

[Luke Pollard]

We think that this is a good deal. When the details come out, others will be able to make their judgment, but I think they will conclude that it is a good deal. It secures the future of the UK-US base on Diego Garcia, which was the overriding objective when the right hon. Gentleman’s party was in power. The Conservatives set that objective, and we are glad that this deal secures the future of the base well into the next century. That is an important step for UK and US national security.

Oral Answers to Questions

John Whittingdale Excerpts

Monday 12th December 2022 Commons Chamber

[The Minister for Armed Forces (James Heappey)]

I will write to the hon. Gentleman.

[Sir John Whittingdale (Maldon) (Con)]

T9. I welcome the fact that air defence equipment is already being supplied to Ukraine, but does my right hon. Friend agree that Ukraine also needs to strengthen its air force, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Boris Johnson) suggested? Will he consider extending the security agreement with Sweden to allow it to supply its Gripen aircraft to Ukraine and to train Ukrainians in its use?

[Mr Wallace]

We are grateful to Sweden. Swedish personnel are here in the UK training Ukrainian ground forces with us in the north of England. Sweden is one of the contributing countries. Whether Sweden wishes to donate aeroplanes is genuinely a matter for the Swedish armed forces, but I understand the need that my right hon. Friend is trying to tap into. We are doing everything we can to solve that.

Ukraine Update

John Whittingdale Excerpts

Thursday 20th October 2022 Commons Chamber

[Mr Wallace]

That last point is extremely important. The Department of Health and Social Care has already done significant work in securing medical supplies during the conflict, but the hon. Gentleman prompts me to see what we can do in a more international, co-ordinated manner. I will, perhaps, write to him giving the details of that. He is right to say that this is going to be a tough winter, and we need to make sure that the Ukrainians can cope.

I agree with the hon. Gentleman about the calmness of the RAF. Incredibly professional men and women are doing an incredible job, and not only here. Some of those same aircraft, and the P-8s from Lossiemouth, go out to protect us in the very high north from aggression and Russian activity. It is often in Scotland that Russia enters our airspace with its long-range bombers and the patrols that it did not give up after the cold war. The difference that should be noted is that we were in international airspace. However, we try to retain a professional manner with Russia. It is important that we maintain that professional link with the Russian Ministry of Defence, and recognise that we can still have those important engagements at times like this.

[Sir John Whittingdale (Maldon) (Con)]

Given the extraordinary success of the Ukrainian armed forces in pushing back Russian troops, does my right hon. Friend agree that there is a danger that Putin may consider escalating the conflict? While attention has focused on the potential use of battlefield nuclear weapons, does he agree that any use of chemical or biological weapons equally represents a red line which Putin must not cross?

[Mr Wallace]

When it comes to the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons and the chemical weapons convention which all of us, including what are viewed as some of the key anchor countries, have signed up to—when chemical weapons were used in Syria, for instance, military action was taken by countries including ourselves and France—it is extremely important to uphold that convention. Breaking the taboo, or allowing it to be successfully broken, would have severe consequences for all of us. Similarly, the messaging is that the use of nuclear or chemical weapons would lead to severe consequences for the Russian state, and we urge that none of those be resorted to.

As for President Putin’s position, he has obviously made a number of speeches, and he has annexed illegally parts of countries that are still full of Ukrainian forces. His ambitions do not seem to match the realities on the ground. The key message to him is that we are interested in helping Ukraine to succeed in defeating Russia’s illegal invasion. If he understands what that is about, he should be able to calibrate his response so as to leave Ukraine in an orderly manner, and we can start the process of trying to rebuild that amazing country and ensuring that Russia is held accountable for its crimes.

Ukraine Update

John Whittingdale Excerpts

Wednesday 9th March 2022 Commons Chamber

[Mr John Whittingdale (Maldon) (Con)]

Three years ago, I visited Mariupol with my right hon. Friend’s predecessor, Michael Fallon, and we heard the Ukrainian armed forces’ appreciation of the help we were already giving them then through Operation Orbital, so I strongly welcome my right hon. Friend’s announcement today. Does he agree with the Secretary-General of NATO that the sight of bodies lying unburied on the streets in Mariupol is credible evidence that Russia is guilty of war crimes?

[Mr Wallace]

As I have previously reported, the International Criminal Court has opened an investigation. A number of countries, including Britain, are collecting evidence—Canada is taking quite a strong lead—and it is important that we follow the evidence. The open-source reports of not only civilian bodies but Russian dead abandoned by their own forces show a crime in itself. What a disgrace that the Russian generals have abandoned those young men who have been killed. The leadership of the Russian army deserve to be in court for betraying their own soldiers and, at the same time, for what they are doing to the civilians of Ukraine. They are criminally responsible and I hope they face justice.

Ukraine

John Whittingdale Excerpts

Monday 21st February 2022 Commons Chamber

[Mr Wallace]

The right hon. Gentleman raises a point about Minsk. I was clear in my press conference in Moscow and elsewhere that both Russia and Ukraine signed Minsk. As he will know, and as we have found with the Good Friday agreement, treaties are one thing, but the big challenge is in rolling up our sleeves and delivering the sequences in the right way. We all remember that from decommissioning in Northern Ireland, which was easy to write into the Good Friday agreement but hard to deliver, and it is the same for the Minsk agreement. However, we all recognise that the Minsk agreement is one of the ways out, and we should do our best to support its implementation.

On the right hon. Gentleman’s point about pulling back NATO, we did not put 165,000 combat troops on the edge of a sovereign country and hold a gun to the head of a democratically elected Government; Russia did. We have nothing to de-escalate from; Russia does. I hope that he will condemn the Stop the War Coalition, which always seems to paint us as the aggressor. Perhaps he would like to ask the people of Ukraine who they think the aggressor is.

[Mr John Whittingdale (Maldon) (Con)]

Has increased military action been detected in other Russian-controlled areas, such as Transnistria, as well as in Crimea and Kaliningrad? What assessment has my right hon. Friend made of the possible threat—if not now, then in the future—against other former Soviet states that are outside of NATO, such as Moldova?

[Mr Wallace]

Russia’s malign activity—we have packaged it up and called it that—has been a long-running challenge that we have seen in the likes of Bosnia and Herzegovina. In all of this, we should not forget that Bosnia and Herzegovina is in a fragile position, because it is in an impoverished state, the minorities are already starting to agitate, and Russia’s influence on some of the separatists could send us all back to the early ’90s. Russia’s malign activity does no good. It challenges not only our European values, but the wealth of those states, seemingly for no reason other than to weaken people who think differently.