British Indian Ocean Territory: Negotiations
Lord Naseby Excerpts(1 month, 2 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
I have been disappointed, as I said in my earlier remarks. We would not have played political games with the sovereignty of our overseas territories, but we have been able to offer the reassurances that were needed. We have been in close contact with the Governments in both Gibraltar and the Falklands, and I think they understand what is really going on here. I hope we have been able to offer the assurances that the noble Baroness refers to.
Lord Naseby (Con)
My Lords, in relation to the lease, will His Majesty’s Government bear in mind that Gan, in the Maldives, is a vital defence dimension, as is Hambantota, in Sri Lanka? Those are both owned, in a sense, by the Chinese, and it is a very dangerous situation if the lease can be broken at any point.
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
One of the reasons that it took so long to get this deal over the line was because of concerns such as that, and wanting to make sure that the 99 years are fixed and firm, and it is never up for question in the way that the noble Lord describes. He is quite right to raise those concerns.
Global Combat Air Programme International Government Organisation (Immunities and Privileges) Order 2024
Lord Naseby Excerpts(3 months, 3 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Naseby (Con)
My Lords, as the House knows, I had the privilege of being an RAF jet pilot. This programme is absolutely fundamental to air power, which, ultimately, in the modern world, is almost more important—some would say more important—than feet on the ground.
I will not repeat what my colleagues have said but will just say, “Well done”. It has been only two sitting days since we discussed defence issues. I took part in that really good debate, when it was made clear across the House that this particular project is fundamental to the future defence of our nation. I thank the noble Baroness on the Front Bench—and welcome her to that role—for moving with speed. I had the privilege of being a Deputy Speaker down the other end, so am willing to help with the proceedings on this important project.
I have worked with the Japanese in the past and believe that they are very efficient. That is a blessing in itself and I would not extend this programme beyond the three parties involved. I wish the Government all possible speed. We know that our friend, the noble Lord, Lord Robertson, is very much behind this as well.
Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)
My Lords, I have an advantage—or disadvantage—on these Benches because, as often with debates on defence, there is nobody behind me on the Back Benches to say anything different from what I may be or had been planning to say.
As other noble Lords have, I welcome the noble Baroness, Lady Chapman, to her place. I am speaking as the defence spokesperson for the Liberal Democrats, even though this SI is being brought forward via the FCDO, precisely because we felt that this is a critical defence issue. Obviously, the interplay of defence and foreign policy is vital.
I listened to much of the debate in the other place about the GCAP arrangements. I think that GCAP has the huge advantage that we can probably all pronounce it, as opposed to GIGO and its alternative pronunciations. I will focus on GCAP.
I had the huge benefit of listening to the passion right across the other place for this commitment to the trilateral relationship with Japan and Italy. Much of the discussion here has been about the relationship with Japan, which is clearly very important to the Japanese. Over the last couple of years, the Japanese embassy has been regularly coming to Liberal Democrat conferences. Before other embassies remembered that we existed, the Japanese ambassador and his colleagues were coming to talk to us. The bilateral relationship with Japan and the relationship on this specifically are hugely important. Last week, the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, was keen to reiterate the commitment of His Majesty’s Government to GCAP, which was very reassuring to your Lordships’ House.
Today, we are obviously supposed to be focusing on the statutory instrument. I have a couple of very specific questions I want to raise. I note that there is no impact assessment, and the reason given for that is that no impact, or no significant impact, is foreseen on the private, voluntary or public sectors in the UK. I wonder why not. What would count as significant? Surely one of the benefits of the Tempest programme is precisely that it is intended to have a significant impact on our defence capability. Presumably, this is simply the language of a statutory instrument.
In particular, it was noted that there would not be a significant impact on small businesses or micro-businesses. I raised this in the humble Address debate last week, with the noble Lord, Lord Coaker. The question was about the role of small and medium-sized enterprises. Clearly, if this is about defence investment and defence research and development, there is a potentially significant role for small, medium and even micro-businesses in the United Kingdom. What do His Majesty’s Government think are the possibilities for those small businesses and micro-businesses?
I declare an interest—not, unlike other noble Lords, an Anglo-Japanese interest—as I am a trustee of the Armed Forces Parliamentary Trust, which organises the Armed Forces Parliamentary Scheme. It is essentially funded by the defence industries and, given that some of the primes were mentioned by the Minister, I thought I should reflect that as a declaration of interest, although I do not benefit personally.
In addition to wanting a better understanding of the impact on our defence industrial base, I also want to ask a few questions related to those from the noble Lord, Lord Liddle, on the Labour Back Benches. This is not because I disagree in any way with the proposals here, but in order to get a little more information. Whether somebody was trying to tease the United Kingdom Government in drafting this convention, I am not sure. If we ever wanted to rejoin the European Union, we would be doing so under Article 49. It would appear that, if any country is looking to sign up to this convention, it is under Article 49. There are some provisions under Article 48 and 49 looking at the possibility of expansion. What is His Majesty’s Government’s thinking about the possibility of expansion? The wording seems to be slightly vague at the moment. It is down to the steering committee of the GIGO to decide whether other countries can discuss possible membership. If a third-party country decided it wished to join, would that have to come to the United Kingdom Parliament to be ratified, or is it down to the steering committee, which would not appear to be right? A greater understanding about that would be welcome.
Similarly, under Article 50, about defence exports, what are the mechanisms likely to be if one of the current parties has an arms export ban to a certain country? How is that going to work in terms of dealing with the GCAP?
Finally, there does not appear to be any provision for regular reporting, other than back to the MoD and the FCDO. Will there be a way for Parliament to be updated on these arrangements? These are very much by way of probing questions and not in any way speaking against the statutory instrument and the convention, which are most welcome.