King’s Speech

Lord Callanan Excerpts

Thursday 21st May 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

My Lords, I start by expressing total agreement with the Minister on the fantastic success of His Majesty’s visit to the United States. We saw an increasingly rare moment of bipartisan support for his remarks in Congress; it was a tremendous visit that did the country great credit.

We have had four long days of debate on the shortcomings of the Government’s legislative agenda, so I would like to begin with one point of support for the King’s Speech. There was no Chagos Bill. The Chagos deal should be dead. That would be the right decision, and I know I speak for many noble Lords when I say that the decision should stand for the rest of this Parliament. The concerted efforts of noble Lords across the House showed just how effective our scrutiny role can be. Sadly, while that deal should be dead, we know that the Government’s policy is still to transfer sovereign British territory to Mauritius. That should change. That is the policy of the current Government, but we eagerly await the views of the “King of the North” on Chagos. Perhaps electors in Makerfield should ask him in some of the increasingly rare debates that might happen in that by-election. We wonder what the “King of the North” will have to say about Chagos in the south—although Makerfield was not part of Chagos last time I looked.

Could the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, in winding, reassure the House that the Government will go back to the drawing board and consider all their options afresh on this matter? Can he confirm that the proposal to resettle the Chagos Islands, previously considered by both Conservative and Labour Governments in the past, would cost a great deal less than the £35 billion current Chagos surrender deal? When we debated this before Prorogation, I asked the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, to update the House on the status of the Chagossians who had returned to their homeland on Peros Banhos. I wonder whether he could give us further updates.

We were grateful to receive his letter of clarification correcting the record on the right of settlement for Chagossians in the current treaty. However, when we asked him about the provision of humanitarian supplies, he used a very peculiar form of wording. He kept saying that he had been “assured by officials”. I wonder whether, since that debate, he has had the chance to check for himself the statements about whether the commissioner is withholding vital humanitarian supplies from those people. When we have asked questions about this, we keep getting an answer from the Foreign Office that it is a decision for the commissioner—yet, when we write to the commissioner, we do not get much clarification either. It is unusual that Ministers seem to be a bit reticent in clarifying this matter, so I wonder whether he could clear things up at the end of this debate.

I should also congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Weir of Ballyholme, who is sadly not in his place, on his success in the Private Member’s Bill ballot. We have not yet seen the final text of his Bill, but the British sovereignty protection (Chagos Islands) Bill will be interesting to read and will enable us to show the Government once again just how strongly we feel about protecting our interests in that region.

The Chagos Islands are just one part of the world where British sovereignty needs defending. We are also facing pressure in Gibraltar and in the Falkland Islands. The British people expect their Government to stand up for their interests both at home and abroad. Gibraltarians and Falkland Islanders expect the British Government to stand up for them too. Could the noble Lord, when he winds up, reassure the House that His Majesty’s Government will continue to defend British sovereign territory and support our overseas territories whenever they are threatened?

Indeed, the Government made a manifesto commitment to this principle. I do not know whether it still applies to Mr Burnham, but they said in their manifesto:

“Defending our security also means protecting the British Overseas Territories and Crown Dependencies, including the Falklands and Gibraltar”.


The manifesto went on to say:

“Labour will always defend their sovereignty and right to self-determination”—


a point sadly lacking on Chagos. Nevertheless, that was the commitment that they made to the British people, and that is a promise that we expect them to keep.

On Gibraltar specifically, we are grateful to Ministers for making the draft EU-UK agreement in respect of Gibraltar available. It is right that Parliament has the time to scrutinise a treaty as complex as this in full detail. At the end of the debate, could the noble Lord confirm whether the final approved treaty will be laid before the House in June or July of this year? If it is laid in late July, there is a risk that we will not be able to satisfy the requirements of the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010 before the Summer Recess. What is the Government’s timetable for ratification of the treaty? Can the Minister also confirm whether the Government believe that additional enabling legislation will be required in this case, or is CRaG approval sufficient?

Turning to the Falkland Islands, I think we were all concerned by Argentina’s calls for talks on the future of the Falkland Islands some weeks ago, and the very concerning corresponding reports about the United States reviewing its position on the islands. I am pleased that the US Secretary of State has since downplayed these reports. I know that the Foreign Secretary has recently met the US Secretary of State, so could the noble Lord say what discussions Ministers have had with our American partners and what reassurances they have been given? The Falkland Islands are British. The Falkland Islanders overwhelmingly wish to remain British. Our allies and our Government should respect that. I hope that the Government and the Official Opposition are united on that matter. If that is the case, we will of course support the Government in its work to defend British sovereignty, both overseas and at home.

On international threats to our security, the conflict in Ukraine, which we have just discussed, remains fundamental. An expansionist Russia is a threat to our European security. I am proud of our record of support for Ukraine, and, notwithstanding their latest decisions, we have thus far been pleased to support the Government in their policy of support for Ukraine. Britain has, rightly, backed Ukraine throughout Putin’s war, and we must continue that support until Russia’s illegal invasion has been turned back—there have been some encouraging signs recently. Britain also has an important role to play in helping Ukraine’s recovery and the response to atrocities committed in that conflict.

I do not wish to return to the previous debate, but I was saddened that our excellent record on tough sanctions was blemished this week by the decision, which we discussed, to weaken restrictions on oil products originating in Russia. On the radio this morning, I heard the Chief Secretary to the Treasury saying, as did the noble Baroness, Lady Lloyd, that these temporary licences will be short lived. The noble Baroness used the expression that it could be only “a number of months”. I wonder if, at the end, the Minister could confirm whether the Government have a timescale for those licences to be revoked. It flies in the face of the Minister’s Statement on support.

On Iran, of course we cannot discuss the energy crisis without addressing that terrible conflict, which has had a major destabilising effect on economies all over the world. I suspect that we have not yet seen the full effects of that in the UK, and that we will see them in the months to come. As a result of our failure to secure domestic oil and gas supplies, we know that we are particularly exposed, but the impacts of this conflict go far beyond energy. It is essential that the Foreign Office works at pace, and in concert with other departments, to secure our supply of essential goods and particularly fertilisers—something that has not been remarked on nearly as much as energy but could be even more important.

We have also had questions all week about the risks of a super El Niño. Such a significant climatic event coinciding with oil and fertiliser supply issues, the Ebola outbreak and the conflict in Sudan is extremely concerning. I am sure that Ministers will want to take all necessary steps to put mitigations in place to protect British citizens from any potential impacts. The House would also benefit from a broader update on the Government’s approach to these issues.

On what is currently the world’s greatest humanitarian crisis, in Sudan, which the noble Baroness, the Minister, referenced, could we please have a further update from the noble Lord the Minister on what steps Ministers are taking to engage with our regional partners to help bring that terrible conflict to an end?

In the Middle East, the Israel-Gaza ceasefire, uneasy though it is, represents a significant step towards peace. While we have not been central to those negotiations, Britain still has an important role to play. His Majesty’s Government must be unequivocal on Israel’s right to self-defence while seeking a peaceful settlement in the region.

To that end, when the Minister winds up, will he take the opportunity to set out what difference the UK’s recognition of Palestine has made? It was seen by many as an inappropriate step that only continued to give legitimacy to Hamas, so what view do Ministers now have, a few months after that sad decision? It excluded us from the negotiations; Israel reacted very negatively, and any influence that we had with it was lost. I therefore do not see what difference it has made on the ground. Perhaps the Minister could update us at the end?

That conflict has, of course, had a profound impact on relationships between different groups in the UK, and we have seen a quite appalling rise in antisemitism in recent months. I am sure that the whole House will stand united against antisemitism. However, words are not enough. The rise in the hatred of Jews, which led to the violent and bloody assault of our neighbours in Golders Green and the murder of our fellow countrymen in Manchester, is appalling. It is targeted, it is driven and, sadly, it is on the rise in our country. With one voice and one accord, we must all act to eradicate this vile hatred in our land and reassert our true national values of tolerance and respect that have for so many years—indeed centuries now—made Britain a place where Jews feel safe and can prosper and thrive. I fully accept that domestic affairs are not the responsibility of the Foreign Office or the MoD, but we must never shy away from the relationship between that conflict and rising hatred in our own country.

I will end on China. The Chinese state has engaged in espionage in the UK—we have seen a number of cases recently, even here in Parliament—and Chinese state actors have been responsible for numerous cases of intellectual property theft and serious cyber attacks. Indeed, China has even sanctioned Members of your Lordships’ House, all the while it continues to persecute the Uyghur people in Xinjiang. I particularly want to pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Alton of Liverpool, for his tireless campaigning for justice and an end to the repression of the Uyghur people. I am sure that he will refer to it in his remarks later.

We have constantly raised concerns about the establishment of a new Chinese mega-embassy on the Royal Mint site in the heart of the City of London. We continue to oppose that decision, and we will continue to call for the release of Jimmy Lai, who has been so appallingly treated by China. Could the Minister provide us with an update on Jimmy Lai’s case when he responds to the debate? While China poses such a significant threat to the UK, represses its own people and wrongfully imprisons Jimmy Lai, the Prime Minister continues to call for a thawing in our relationship. I completely accept that Britain must engage with China; that is clear. However, in our view, the Government’s approach is the wrong one; we need to treat China as the threat that it is.

We are facing many global threats, and the world feels less stable than it has been for a very long time. We must give clear moral leadership, and we must help to mitigate those threats. I have spoken about the approach that Britain must take towards the global challenges that we are facing, but, at its core, we know that British foreign policy cannot succeed unless we have the tools to defend our interests. That is why defence spending is an essential priority for the Government. I know that, towards the end of the debate, my noble friend Lady Goldie will focus on defence in her remarks. We are at a time of great uncertainty, and Britain has a role to play in securing a more stable future. We need the right strategy and the right tools if we are to achieve that. Therefore, we on this side of the House will remain critical friends to His Majesty’s Government, willing Ministers on to increase our defence spending, to mitigate threats posed by foreign states and, ultimately, to stand up for Britain’s interests on the world stage.