Gibraltar
Debate between Lord Hannay of Chiswick and Baroness Chapman of Darlington
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
We simply differ in our view with regard to sovereignty with our friends and allies in Spain. Nothing in this agreement changes the status of the sovereignty of Gibraltar—we are very clear about that. Spain understands that, and that is reflected in the treaty. It was really important that we made sure that that was the case, because we do not want any questions about Gibraltarian sovereignty to arise out of this.
Of course this is different: when you get on the Eurostar, you go into Kent and then into France, but there are similar checks. The point is that it is not a full immigration process. This is about a Schengen check, so it is an alert about whether an outstanding warrant or criminality issue would be triggered. You would not immediately lose all your rights, be arrested or anything like that. You would have the option of going and answering the questions that may arise as a result of that trigger, or of taking legal advice and/or returning to your country of departure. This is a compromise; I accept that. It is very unusual, but this is an unusual circumstance. This is necessary to make sure that border stays open. That was the whole point of what we were trying to negotiate and what we have been trying to achieve. That is what has been achieved.
If the people of Gibraltar are front and centre of all this, as everybody has said, we need to listen to what they and their representatives are saying about this agreement. They are very warmly in support of it. I will listen to them, and if it gets to the point where they are no longer of that view then, clearly, we would have to think again. They have been involved every step of the way. We have done nothing about them without them—we would not do that—and they are pleased with this agreement. It will make such a difference to their daily lives, their prosperity and the way they are able to live and to travel backwards and forwards. The 15,000 people crossing that border every day can do so freely, without any concerns about the border being closed or any of that. This is a big win for the Gibraltarians, and I welcome it.
Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)
My Lords, I welcome the Government’s Statement very warmly, and I declare an interest: I was involved, as a senior official in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, in getting the Franco-imposed controls on the borders, which did such damage to Gibraltar, lifted well before Spain joined the European Union. I was rather surprised, as was the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, that the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, mentioned one vote—it is quite correct to do so—which was the vote of the Gibraltarians to remain part of Britain, but he did not mention the other vote: the huge 90% vote by which they voted to stay in the European Union. That, of course, was quite correctly overridden by the wider vote in this country, but it cast Gibraltar into nine years of uncertainty, anxiety and worry that things would not work out. An apology is due there from all those who were responsible for that action.
I will ask two questions. First, is it the case that, with luck and a bit of hope, this agreement will also facilitate the Government’s process of resetting the agreements we have with the European Union, in particular the one dealing with the security compact, which we hope will now go ahead at full speed? Secondly, will the noble Baroness perhaps convey to the Chief Minister of Gibraltar the very warm words from these Benches and others in this House about the remarkable patience and perseverance with which he pursued what is, in my view, an extremely valuable agreement for the Gibraltarians themselves? It would be right that he should hear words of praise from those of us who have contributed less than he has to this process.
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord for his work in the past regarding Gibraltar, which I did not know about. We will absolutely make sure that Fabian is made aware of the warmest of words that have been said in this Chamber and the other place about the tireless work that he has undertaken on behalf of the people of Gibraltar, over very many years, to make sure that their interests are reflected in the agreement that we have now made.
I will not get into the whole relitigating of Brexit; I think we are all a bit exhausted with all that. As the noble Lord says, there is now a reset of the EU relationship, which shows what can be achieved with patience and pragmatism and when there is a focus on the people rather than, perhaps, some of our ideological hobby-horses. That is the approach that this Government have taken to this issue and will take to all issues regarding our relationship with the EU. It is important that we restore our relationships, that we co-operate on things such as security, that we get our SPS agreement sorted out and that we can work together on the challenges we face, such as illegal migration, climate change and the challenges to our economies. These are all things that we need to address together in that spirit of openness and pragmatism. That is far more profitable for the people of this country as well.
Ukraine War: London Talks
Debate between Lord Hannay of Chiswick and Baroness Chapman of Darlington(2 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
My noble friend is a wily operator in this House. We agree with the President of the United States in that we want to see peace and we want to see this conflict resolved. I would not characterise the nature of the conversations that Prime Minister Starmer has with President Zelensky as advice, and nor would I wish to comment on the similarities and differences—or anything else, really—in the nature of those private conversations.
Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)
My Lords, will the Minister confirm that the objective of President Putin in these matters is to bar Ukraine from ever being a member of NATO—in eternity—because were it to be encapsulated in an agreement under international law, Russia would have a veto on it? If that is the case, how does she consider that consistent with the Charter of the United Nations, which says that a member of the United Nations has the right to determine its own allies when it wishes?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
As we have said in this Chamber many times, the intention of Russia is clearly to prevent Ukraine behaving as an independent sovereign state: it wants to choose Ukraine’s future for it, and that really is what this war is all about. We are firm in the view that Ukraine and the Ukrainians get to decide the future of their country, not Russia.
Bosnia and Herzegovina
Debate between Lord Hannay of Chiswick and Baroness Chapman of Darlington(3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
We support the role of the high representative and the use of his executive powers as the situation has required them. This role remains vital for Bosnia and Herzegovina’s future prosperity and stability. We are clear that the current political crisis was caused by Republika Srpska, President Dodik, his supporters and their secessionist actions. We will continue working to find the right way forward.
Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)
My Lords, will the Minister go a little further than she did in replying to the noble Baroness, Lady Helic, about peacekeeping in Bosnia and any role that the United Kingdom might play in that? Does she not agree that this ought to be on the table in discussion of the security pact currently being considered between the UK and the EU? A resumption of British involvement in that would be a very important signal.
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
We see EUFOR as vital for maintaining peace and security, and upholding the military aspects of the peace agreement. The UK regularly engages with the EU delegation to Bosnia and Herzegovina, and we are committed to supporting security through NATO and our bilateral defence co-operation. While the UK does not currently participate in any EU common security and defence policy missions, it is open to exploring future opportunities for co-operation.
G7
Debate between Lord Hannay of Chiswick and Baroness Chapman of Darlington(3 months, 2 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
I have a very good relationship with my colleagues at the Ministry of Defence, and I am happy to discuss any issue with them, but operational decisions such as that one probably would not fall within my remit. I am sure they will note what the noble Lord has said. They are free to make the choices that they have made, and they have more information on which to base those choices than we do here today.
Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)
My Lords, can the Minister tell the House whether the United States Secretary of State raised either the G7 becoming the G8, by the addition of Russia, or the G6, by the subtraction of Canada? If her answer to that question is “No” or “I don’t know”, can we stop being distracted from the mass of important matters that the G7 must address in the months ahead?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
I am not aware of any such discussions. I believe that the G7 has been focused on, as the noble Lord said, the vital issues that it faces.
Syria
Debate between Lord Hannay of Chiswick and Baroness Chapman of Darlington(3 months, 3 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
That is a really interesting question. It is wonderful that we are in a situation where we can even begin to have those conversations, when you consider the journey that Syria has been on. It is early days, but we will work with whoever we need to to enable the reconstruction and rebuilding of Syria, not just physically but of the society in Syria. There is still a long way to go—we are in the early stages—but the suggestions made by the noble Lord are good, and I will follow them up.
Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)
My Lords, I think the Minister recognises the very—perhaps disproportionately—central position of Syria in Middle Eastern politics over many years. Will we not allow ourselves, as we have sometimes in the past, to be a bit marginalised? One way of ensuring that we keep our finger on the pulse in Syria is to reopen the embassy in Damascus at the earliest possible moment. I know there is a special representative, but that is not the same as having somebody on the ground who is able to keep an eye on what is happening. Will the Minister say what action the Government are taking about the Government of Israel’s action to extend part of the Golan Heights beyond what was originally dealt with in Security Council resolutions to occupy some parts of Syrian territory?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
On the issue of reopening the embassy, which closed I think in 2012, that is quite difficult. I do not have an update on that for the House today. The noble Lord will appreciate that these are very early days. As he would expect, we keep these things under review. On Israel, it would be right for what we hope will be the inclusive, politically diverse new Government in Syria to make those decisions when they are elected. It is right that we allow them time for that process to complete and for a new, fully representative Government in Syria to make their position known on behalf of the Syrian people when it comes to those issues.
Gaza: Humanitarian Situation
Debate between Lord Hannay of Chiswick and Baroness Chapman of Darlington(5 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
What is important is that the reconstruction of Gaza is led by the people of Gaza—yes, with support. There is a huge difference between the people of Gaza and Hamas. We want to work with international agencies to make sure that the people of Gaza are given the support that they need. Let us be under no illusions about how difficult that will be, partly because of the issues that the noble Lord alluded to, but also because the majority of the homes in Gaza have been damaged or destroyed. The extent of the work needed means that it will take many years; we will have to support this work for quite some time.
Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)
My Lords, can the Minister confirm whether the Government have made any representations to the Government of Israel about the law that is about to come into force to remove the possibility of UNRWA having any access to the State of Israel? Can she say what rough impact assessment we may have made of the likely effect of that move, which is of course to frustrate a mandate given to UNRWA by the United Nations General Assembly? Can she also cast light on the discrepancy between the views of the Government of Israel that they have in fact provided evidence about the nine members of UNRWA staff who were thought to be acting with Hamas and were dismissed, and the view of UNRWA itself that it has not received any evidence whatever from the Government of Israel as to the guilt of these people?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
It is our view that the best way to get aid in as efficiently as is needed is through UNRWA. It is good that some aid has started to get in over the past few days but, without UNRWA, it is very hard to see how that will be sustained. To answer his specific question, yes, we have made that case very clearly to the Government of Israel.
Sub-Saharan Africa: Diplomatic Relationships
Debate between Lord Hannay of Chiswick and Baroness Chapman of Darlington(5 months, 2 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
That was very well put. I could have mentioned the Commonwealth; it is a vital multinational grouping, as the noble Lord says. I work closely with many Caribbean nations where the Commonwealth is well represented, and that needs to form part of our thinking in the future. I thank him for raising it.
Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)
My Lords, does the Minister recognise that we need ambassadorial representation in as many African countries as possible—more than we have now? We should not be seduced by the idea of multiple accreditation, which frankly is not worth a lot, as I discovered during the Somalia and Rwanda crises in the 1990s, when we had nobody on the spot.
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
I would be very wise to take what the noble Lord says seriously, and I do note it. At the moment we are engaged in a five-month consultation with African nations and others to inform what will be a new approach to Africa. The points that the noble Lord just made will be considered as part of that approach; I thank him.
Chagos Islands
Debate between Lord Hannay of Chiswick and Baroness Chapman of Darlington(7 months, 2 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
It is hard to believe that it was 25 years ago. We are confident about this treaty and the fact that it secures our presence in the Indian Ocean. We accept that when there is a change of Government questions are raised and it is right that new Governments will want to cast their own eyes over the deal that has been done. We respect that and will co-operate, but we are confident that we can answer any concerns that may exist, because we think this is the right thing for us, for Mauritius and for the Chagos Islands, in securing our security.
Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)
My Lords, will the Minister accept my welcome for what she said—that this treaty, when it has been concluded, will be brought to both Houses? If it involves the International Agreements Committee, on which I have the honour to serve, will she undertake that the committee will be given sufficient time to take proper evidence on the treaty before it?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
That would be very helpful indeed. My experience is that the more people find out about the treaty and the deal that has been done, the more likely that some of the concerns they will naturally have—we welcome questions and scrutiny on this—can be answered fully. I am not responsible for the scheduling and timing, but I am sure my noble friend the Chief Whip has heard what the noble Lord said.
Ukraine: North Korean Troops
Debate between Lord Hannay of Chiswick and Baroness Chapman of Darlington(8 months, 1 week ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
My right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary recently spoke with his counterparts in South Korea and, indeed, in China. Noble Lords can rest assured that he raised at the highest level all the issues we would want him to raise regarding Russia, Ukraine and China.
Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)
My Lords, will the Minister confirm that if North Korean troops were deployed in Ukraine or North Korean materiel were passed to Russia, that would be a breach of UN Security Council resolutions for which Russia voted in favour?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
It would clearly be a breach. It is deeply concerning, and the most recent reports seem to indicate that it is highly likely, hence the deep concern we are expressing at the moment.
British Indian Ocean Territory
Debate between Lord Hannay of Chiswick and Baroness Chapman of Darlington(8 months, 3 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
My Lords, we have engaged for a long time with Chagossian communities. This was a decision made between Governments, and the noble Lord will know that it is Governments who negotiate international treaties. It is right that we offer citizenship to Chagossians who want it, and a trust fund will be set up for Chagossians. As I have said, they will have the right to return to the other islands and the right to visit Diego Garcia.
Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)
Does the Minister recognise a remarkable similarity between this exchange and the last time there was an exchange on the Chagos Islands, in the last Parliament, when the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, for whom I have the very greatest respect, stood at the Dispatch Box and defended the negotiation of an agreement to return the Chagos Islands to Mauritius, but to keep the base in being for Britain and the United States? Is it not a bit odd?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
Far be it from me to comment on things that get said during Tory party leadership elections. However, I think it would help if I explained why the legal decisions have been made in this way. When Mauritius gained independence in the 1960s, the UK separated part of the country, in the form of the Chagos Islands, and that has been found to have been unlawful. Separation by the colonial power is not allowed in any circumstance under international law, and that is what the UK was found to have done at that time. That is why we have now had 13 rounds of negotiations to take us to this point.