Embassy of China: Proposed New Site

Lord Purvis of Tweed Excerpts

Wednesday 29th January 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

I am slightly surprised that the noble Lord takes that view. I know that he has a background in local government and in planning, but he also has a background in strongly supporting the former Foreign Secretary and Prime Minister, Boris Johnson. It was Boris Johnson who wrote to the Government of China: “Consent is hereby given for the Royal Mint Court London to be deemed as diplomatic premises for the use as the chancery of the embassy of the People’s Republic of China in London”.

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

My Lords, the scale of the application is surely relevant, given the national security considerations the Minister announced. This Government have announced two elements of our relationship with China: the China audit, and the live consideration as to whether China should be designated for enhancement under the national security legislation because of political interference. Can the Minister reassure me that no planning decisions will be made in advance of these two pieces of work—the China audit and the consideration of China’s status under our national security legislation—being presented to Parliament?

Chagos Islands

Lord Purvis of Tweed Excerpts

Thursday 23rd January 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

The noble and gallant Lord invites me to go further than my briefing allows. We do not comment on the payments made for military bases—we never have done and I do not think we will do that any time soon.

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

The previous Administration, on whose behalf the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, will be able to respond in a moment, opened sovereignty negotiations in 2022. The national security interests of the United States are legitimate. Our interests are also about upholding international law and ensuring that Chagossians do not receive any more mistreatment under international law. Will the Minister assure me that, although the American Administration have a right to discussions, decisions on UK national security should ultimately be in our hands, not in those of Donald Trump?

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

As I know the noble Lord understands, this is an agreement between the UK Government and the Government of Mauritius, but practically, given that the base on Diego Garcia is a joint base between the UK and the US, we think, and the Mauritian Government agree, that it is right that a new Administration in the United States have the opportunity to look at this and give their view. We are very happy for that to happen.

UK-Ukraine 100-year Partnership

Lord Purvis of Tweed Excerpts

Wednesday 22nd January 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

My Lords, for nearly three years now, we have been steadfast and united in our unwavering support for the brave people of Ukraine. Their extraordinary determination, unparalleled courage and steadfast bravery in the face of unimaginable horror, terror and brutality have inspired nations across the globe. It is impossible not to feel profound sorrow for the pain, loss and suffering inflicted on the Ukrainian people by Putin’s illegal and barbaric war. This unprovoked invasion of a sovereign nation is not just an attack on Ukraine but an assault on the principles of sovereignty and human rights that underpin global peace and security.

I am delighted to say that, from the very beginning of this crisis, we in the UK have stood shoulder to shoulder with President Zelensky and the Ukrainian people in their valiant fight for freedom. We recognised early on the grave threats posed by Russian hostility, which began with the illegal annexation of Crimea in 2014 and continued with ongoing incursions in Ukraine’s eastern territories. The previous Government took decisive and swift action, providing vital military equipment, financial aid and humanitarian support—and I am delighted to see that the current Government have continued that policy. We established bespoke pathways to safety for Ukrainians seeking refuge in the United Kingdom, and I am proud to note the extraordinary response of the British people. Across the country, households opened their doors and their hearts, welcoming those fleeing violence and oppression. This collective effort has been a testament to the strength of our shared humanity and values.

Through the leadership of Boris Johnson, Liz Truss, Rishi Sunak, Ben Wallace and others, the UK spearheaded diplomatic efforts to galvanise international support for Ukraine and helped to isolate Russia on the global stage. Those efforts included imposing one of the most comprehensive sanctions regimes ever implemented, targeting not only the Russian state but its ruling elites, businesses and entities complicit in supporting the Russian war machine. The commitment to Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity was unshakeable. Over three years, we provided £12.8 billion-worth of support, including an unprecedented £7.8 billion in military assistance. This support encompassed advanced weaponry, vital training and intelligence-sharing to enable Ukraine to defend itself against Russian aggression. Equally crucial was our promise to provide at least £3 billion annually in military aid for as long as is required—a pledge that I hope that the Government will be able to continue with, without hesitation.

As we reflect on these achievements, it is imperative that we remain steadfast in our support for Ukraine and its people. The road ahead will not be easy, given Trump’s election, and the sacrifices that will be required are considerable. However, the cost of inaction—of failing to defend freedom and democracy—would be immeasurably greater. I want therefore to pose the following questions to the Minister.

Can the Government provide an update on the current levels of military and humanitarian aid being delivered to Ukraine and how they see this support continuing in future? What steps are being taken to ensure that sanctions against Russia remain robust, effective and tightly enforced, including measures to address any potential evasion? How are the Government working with international partners to ensure that Ukraine continues to receive the long-term economic and political support that it needs to rebuild and secure its future? What plans are in place to enhance the UK’s refugee resettlement schemes for Ukrainians, and how can we further support host families who have welcomed those fleeing this terrible conflict? Finally, in the context of ongoing geopolitical instability, how do the Government intend to strengthen and deepen the UK-Ukraine partnership to promote shared values and mutual security in the years ahead?

We owe it to the people of Ukraine, and to the principles of freedom and justice that unite us, to stand resolute and united in their hour of need.

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

My Lords, I am very happy to align myself and these Benches with everything that the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, has said. If we think back over this three-year period in British politics, we see that consensus has been hard to reach—but this is an area where there has been no division between any of the Benches within the two Houses of our Parliament. Indeed, in respect of the position of the previous Administration and this one, this agreement brings together both government-to-government relations, or the nine pillars within the agreement, and people-to-people relations, which, as the noble Lord said, are becoming ever deeper.

I also agree with the noble Lord’s observations on the coming period, when there will be an area of uncertainty, especially since the new President was elected in the United States, in the context of our main ally being the United States. But I am happy that UK policy is set by the UK and that the consensus in Parliament is therefore rock solid.

A 100-year agreement is unique. I looked at what Ukraine was like in 1925—and when you search for that, Ukrainisation comes up as the top element. There were attempts to ensure that the identity, language, culture and literature of Ukraine were protected. That was diminished under later Soviet rule—but to my mind that suggests that, whether it is with Stalin or Putin, there is an identity for an independent and autonomous people in Ukraine who wish to ensure that their own destiny is in their hands. The UK will be a stalwart ally over this Government and their successor Governments. While this is unique for being a 100-year agreement, we support it.

We support in particular the areas where we would use what are to some extent our best global assets, on renewable technology, the National Health Service, education and culture. The partnership with Ukraine within those pillars is to be welcomed. Can the Minister say, when it comes particularly to energy, renewables and green steel, whether the Government will be open to ensuring that all parts of the UK, especially our devolved Administrations, are deeply involved in this 100-year agreement? I live in Scotland, and the people of Scotland have opened their hearts and homes to those who have fled Putin’s illegal war—but we also have strategic advantage, especially when it comes to renewable energy and technology.

Economic and technical support will be incredibly important. As we debated just last week, one consequence of the illegal war on Ukraine is that 40% of the Ukrainian economy is now dedicated to defending itself. Technical support and partnership with the UK for economic reconstruction will be to the advantage of both countries. The Minister will have been briefed on assets, because we debated them fairly recently. She will be aware that these Benches are making the case that assets should be seized and used for the immediate and medium-term reconstruction of Ukraine, as well as for Ukraine’s ability to defend itself. If she could outline a bit more the timetable of when Ukraine will, we hope, be able to use some of the assets that we approved in legislation last week, that would be helpful.

I end with an appeal and an observation. The appeal is that one of the elements that I have found very important in Ukraine’s defence is the Verkhovna Rada—the Ukrainian Parliament. I had the privilege of visiting it before the war on three occasions and met many MPs and staff. It was telling that one of the first military objectives of the Russian assault on Ukraine was, within the first 48 hours, to seize the Verkhovna Rada, to cease its functioning, to ensure that MPs could not carry out their constitutional role in representing the people and to stop all legislation. It has carried on and shown incredible resilience. As a Parliament, it is a model around the world for being able to carry on its legislative and representative functions in incredibly difficult circumstances.

I hope the long-term relationship will be not just Government to Government but Parliament to Parliament. I know Mr Speaker and the Lord Speaker have extremely close relations with their counterparts in Kyiv, but I hope the Minister might be able to say that in those areas that the Government fund, whether the Westminster Foundation for Democracy or other technical assistance, we can support the Verkhovna Rada in carrying out its functions and the critical role it will play to ensure that any reconstruction is open, transparent and representative.

I close by repeating the words of my honourable friend Calum Miller. He said to the Foreign Secretary:

“We must stand with Ukraine for the long haul. The Ukrainian people must be in charge of their own destiny. If the UK’s new pledge is to be real, it must address the uncertainty generated by President Trump. The Prime Minister’s 100-year commitment must outlast the President’s desire for a quick deal in his first 100 days”.—[Official Report, Commons, 20/1/25; col. 738.]


I am certain that the Government’s intent is one we can support wholeheartedly. I would be grateful if the Minister would outline certain areas where we can use this as not just a statement of intent but a practical relationship that can help Ukraine be both resilient in war and successful in peace.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Baroness Chapman of Darlington) (Lab)]

My Lords, I am incredibly grateful for the words of the noble Lords, Lord Callanan and Lord Purvis of Tweed. As they both said, it is so important that we commit ourselves to maintaining the unity that we have held so clearly for the three years that Ukraine has been experiencing the illegal invasion.

It is right that I pay tribute to the work of the previous Conservative Government—the Prime Ministers, Foreign Secretaries and Secretaries of State for Defence who worked so hard to support Ukraine during their time in office. I am grateful that the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, made that point. I am happy to agree with him and I thank him for the support that his party is providing in opposition to this Government. I also echo his comment about the people of the United Kingdom who, as he said, have been welcoming and, in many cases, hosting families from Ukraine in their homes. The support in our communities up and down the country remains as firm as it has ever been. I am happy to assure him that we will keep the commitment to £3 billion a year for as long as it takes to support Ukraine in its defence.

The noble Lord asked for an update on spending on military and humanitarian work. As I think I have said before, there is £7.8 billion of total support, including £3 billion for 2024-25. We have a commitment to provide £3 billion per year until 2030-31, and for as long as it takes, and for the UK to contribute £2.26 billion to the $50 billion of extraordinary revenue acceleration loans for Ukraine agreed by G7 leaders in June. The Government have laid legislation to facilitate disbursement. On humanitarian aid, the UK is providing at least £120 million in humanitarian assistance through to the end of financial year 2024-25, bringing our total contribution to Ukraine and the region to £477 million since the start of the full-scale invasion. Another £15 million delivered through UNHCR and UNICEF will support those most in need this winter.

The noble Lord, Lord Purvis of Tweed, asked about those from Ukraine living here and their status. Obviously, this is a matter for the Home Office, but we are all glad that their status has been renewed and that their ability to stay here is now secure for the time being. I am sometimes asked what this will mean in the longer term. I am very mindful of the words of President Zelensky, when he said that he wanted people to be able to go home. We do not want to compound Ukraine’s problems by keeping people here when they can be at home in Ukraine, contributing to the rebuilding of their community and their country.

I was very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Purvis of Tweed, for highlighting pillar 9 of the agreement on the people-to-people work. This is so important for morale in Ukraine and it will be vital as we move forward in the years and decades to come. He also raised the very important point—Speaker Hoyle will be glad that he did—about Parliament-to-Parliament work and rebuilding democratic structures and institutions. Speaker diplomacy is underpriced when we consider this work, and I know there will be much to be done and said, and links to be forged. It is wonderful to have his support in that. He is right too to remind us of history and to look back at 1925: that is an interesting thing to do. Let us just hope that the partnership we are agreeing between our countries today means that, in 100 years’ time, we can look back and see what was agreed in 2025 as a turning point for Ukraine, having endured so much.

The noble Lord also raised questions about climate and energy. This is vital and is covered in pillar 5 of the agreement. He is absolutely right—and I am as passionate as he is about this—that we must enable our regions and nations fully to take part in this work. It is vital that we do that.

The noble Lord also asked about assets. As he will know, we put into law an agreement enabling us to use the profits from seized Russian assets, but he will also understand that we have to proceed carefully. We are very actively discussing all this and want to make sure that we can do everything we can in this regard. Those discussions are very much live within government, I can promise him that.

To conclude, I thank both Front-Bench speakers once again for their continued support for Ukraine.

Gaza: Healthcare System Support

Lord Purvis of Tweed Excerpts

Thursday 16th January 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

My Lords, the families and friends of the hostages deserve their loved ones home, and the catastrophic humanitarian crisis inflicted on the Palestinian civilians needs to end. Therefore, the ceasefire must hold, and we all hope that it does, but the hours, days and weeks ahead will be tense, and there will be major uncertainty, because it is not a peace and governance agreement but merely a ceasefire. The conditions must be in place where we can hope that it leads to that, but it could have come to an end a lot sooner, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Helic and Lady Blackstone, were right.

UNICEF’s figures are 14,500 child deaths, 17,000 unaccompanied children with no foster care and 1 million displaced children. In context, that is the equivalent of the entire under-10 population of London now displaced, that now needs to be educated and homed. Of course, as we heard, even with this agreement there continues to be outpost and settler violence in the West Bank.

None of this was inevitable, but the task ahead is enormous. In the region, an unprecedented level of rubble clearance is required, as is corpse identification and certification, the restoration of health services, trusted law and order, judicial services and water and electricity services, and emergency shelter put in place.

I can only reiterate my appeal to the Minister from earlier this week that the UK can play a very significant role in the restoration of education services with pop-up provision, and we can perhaps start the process of moving away from recrimination. That may lead to recognition of the state of Palestine—two states—and long-term sustainable peace. Let us not lose all hope.

Rules-based International Order

Lord Purvis of Tweed Excerpts

Thursday 16th January 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

My Lords, the quality of this debate has done justice to the outstanding manner in which my noble friend introduced it. She argued, in clear terms, why we have rules and why there is a structure for the way that nations relate to each other. It is to resolve competition and govern the means by which disputes can be mediated or adjudicated, and therefore for accountability. Representative institutions were formed to be the secretariats for this system of governance, in finance, trade, maritime law and, more recently, development policy, climate—as my noble friend Lord Marks indicated—and human rights, with global judicial procedures.

My noble friend outlined in compelling form the history. As my noble friend Lord Thomas indicated, that history was written by the UK and the US in many regards, and it is the UK and the US that loom large over this debate. Is this generation honouring the previous generation who designed the very system on which we rely? It is based on fundamental principles that should apply to all equitably, but, as my noble friend said, the concern is whether we in the UK apply them equitably. The double standards we have recently seen, as my noble friend Lady Hussein-Ece said, have perhaps been seen elsewhere, as my noble friend Lord Marks indicated.

The rule of law is not just for our adversaries but for our allies. War crimes are crimes, whatever the war. A human right when denied to one is denied to all. It is interesting that, last year and just this week, when I have asked questions about war crimes, the noble Lords, Lord Ahmad and Lord Collins, agreed with sincerity that war crimes have been committed by Putin. They said so at the Dispatch Box. However, just on Monday, the Minister said that she could not proclaim what a war crime was within the Gaza-Israel conflict.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Baroness Chapman of Darlington) (Lab)]

We were talking specifically about genocide. I would be grateful if the noble Lord could make that clear.

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

I am grateful to the Minister for interacting, but what she said was in response to my question on war crimes. The Minister replied from the Dispatch Box that she could not proclaim what a war crime is. The point I am making is that, for other conflicts, Ministers speaking from the same Dispatch Box over the last year have proclaimed what war crimes are. It is not about whether Ministers have adjudicated; it is about whether Ministers can state what they are. That is where the world sees UK Ministers perhaps taking a different approach.

From these Benches, my noble friend Lord Thomas has said that we have had to be the vanguard in Parliament against recent Governments who have, in our country and abroad, moved away from honouring commitments—whether through the casual treatment of the ECHR or the Rwanda legislation, as referred to. We have tried to be dogged in what we believe: we believe in honouring commitments and know that, if we do not, we give license to other countries to dishonour them too. The United Kingdom remains a leader on rules and rights and others look to us. It is coming up to Burns Night, so we should

“see ourselves as others see us”.

I agree with my noble friend Lord Bruce that it was catastrophic for the UK to cut by a third our development partnerships and in the way that we did. It was heartbreaking that a new Government, with a historic mandate, chose in their first Budget to reduce even further ODA. It is now at its lowest level in 17 years.

As a prime example, over this period, the challenges of the world, be they Covid, the climate or conflict, have made the development need even greater. Some 80% of developing nations still have not recovered their economies to pre-Covid levels, as the World Bank’s most recent reported indicated. With the growth of conflict exacerbated by the climate emergency, the most recent data shows that 282 million people in 59 countries and territories face acute food insecurity. This is seen especially in Sudan, Afghanistan and Myanmar. Despite the global aim of abolishing absolute poverty by 2030, which was set in 2015 in the SDGs, the lowest estimate is that 600 million people will remain in absolute poverty by then.

In 2015, all parties in this Chamber agreed with the SDGs. They also agreed with the International Development Act, a statutory duty that we should honour our commitment and continue to honour it. We should be dependable, reliable and predictable. I agreed with 99% of what the noble Lord, Lord Liddle, said—I did not agree with 1% of it because it was not the Labour Government who met the 0.7%. As political parties, we were all aligned to that ambition, and there is a need to restore dependability, reliability and predictability.

Those three words are not often used to describe the incoming President of the United States, but perhaps the Trump Administration will again have as their approach dysfunction by design. It is true that the previous Administration of Donald Trump had leverage, but I disagree that it was used to net benefit. I believe that legitimising the North Korean leadership, removing the guard-rails on Iran and putting at risk the NATO alliance was not strength. We have to ensure, as my noble friend indicated, that our relationship with our European partners and like-minded countries is as strong as it can be, given that we may well have uncertainty in the next Administration of the United States.

Many Trump supporters say that what he says should be listened to seriously but not taken literally. But the problem is that the people who now have to listen to what he says and judge whether to take it seriously or literally are his allies, not necessarily his adversaries, and the negative energy that will be consumed will be wasted energy, especially since the global challenges are immense.

Transactionalism at the core of United States foreign policy will potentially lead to openings of opportunity for the Kremlin and Beijing. The challenges of the 21st century are immense and include technology, AI, the climate and many others. As the noble Baroness, Lady Lane-Fox, indicated, we will see a combination of an uncertain American partner and the concentration of power in people such as Elon Musk or Peter Thiel—individuals who consider law as discretionary, standards as weakness and norms as anachronisms.

In 2015, there was considerable consensus that we should not only meet the 0.7% obligation but set sustainable development goals and work with others to meet them. It is 10 years to the week since we had the Second Reading of that 2015 legislation, on 23 January. I want to close my remarks now as I closed them then. In that debate, when we passed that legislation, I never felt that we would honour it in only three out of the following 10 years—and it is likely to be only three out of 15 by the end of this Parliament.

As I said then:

“I conclude by saying that the UK has less than 1% of the world’s population. Our global footprint is massively disproportionate to the size of our tiny islands. If the UK is a citizen of the world, what kind of citizen must we be? I say we are one that comes to the assistance of others who are in need, does not shrink from challenging those who abuse minorities, refuses to support those who prevent women accessing rights, and never turns a blind eye to those who disempower their own citizens. We establish our place and our identity as a citizen of the world if we uphold our obligations and encourage others to do likewise”.—[Official Report, 23/1/15; col. 1520.]

Gaza: Peace Talks

Lord Purvis of Tweed Excerpts

Wednesday 15th January 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

The noble Lord is completely right in everything he said about the hostages. My honourable friend Hamish Falconer the Minister for the Middle East, the Foreign Secretary and the Prime Minister have met on several occasions Emily’s family and others with British links who are wrongly held in Gaza. We are doing everything we can, using all levers to secure their immediate release.

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

My Lords, any agreement that will allow the hostages to come home and the violence against the Palestinian civilians to end cannot come too soon. Does the Minister agree that the most represented group among Palestinian deaths and verified casualties are children between the ages of five and nine? The suffering will continue even if there is a ceasefire, because there are no educational facilities separate to those provided by UNRWA and no health facilities, especially for girls. Will the UK play a crucial role, as it did after the liberation of Mosul, to support pop-up education and psychosocial support for young children in particular? If there is to be long-term sustainable peace, we cannot allow a traumatised generation of children to continue to suffer.

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

I agree with the noble Lord. The ceasefire would be only the beginning. He is also right to remind us that around 50% of the bodies identified in Gaza so far have been of children and women. We are providing substantial aid to UNRWA and other agencies that are providing the support that he wishes to see in Gaza and in neighbouring places as well. That includes education, food, medicine and the psychosocial support that they are going to need for some years to come.

Sudan: US Determination of Genocide

Lord Purvis of Tweed Excerpts

Tuesday 14th January 2025 Lords Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Baroness Chapman of Darlington) (Lab)]

My Lords, what is happening in Sudan is abhorrent, and we should all condemn it in the strongest possible terms. When it comes to genocide, the noble Lord opposite will be aware that we take a different approach to making these determinations from that of our close allies and friends in the United States.

I am surprised at the way in which the noble Lord put his point to me. Much as we agree on the substance of what is happening in Sudan and wish to see it end, I am surprised at what he said because it contradicts what his noble friend the shadow Foreign Secretary, Priti Patel, said in the House of Commons just yesterday. She said that she understood very well that we take a different approach to the determination of genocide from that of our colleagues in the United States, and that is an approach that she supported in government and still supports in opposition.

I hope that, much as we can perhaps differ—and the noble Lord can take this up with his noble friend in the Commons should he wish—the important thing is that we use every tool we can, diplomatically and using our multilateral and bilateral connections and our humanitarian work on the ground, to make sure that we do everything possible to bring an end to this unbearable suffering being endured by the people of Sudan.

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

My Lords, I declare an interest as I have ongoing work with Sudanese civilians in exile. At the weekend, I will be travelling to be with them and to facilitate dialogue. Does the Minister agree that, however it is termed, these are war crimes and atrocities, and there should be no impunity for those who have carried them out? It is now potentially 12 weeks from what would be the second anniversary of this terrible war, but there should not be a second anniversary, and that should focus everybody’s minds on there being an end and resolution to the war.

How are the UK Government supporting practical measures to ensure that there are safe zones, especially for education and health facilities; no-fly zones, especially for drones—including those that have been supplied by Iran and other countries; and no blockages of humanitarian and food aid? Countries in the Gulf and near neighbours should now cease the funding and provision of weapons to belligerents. All this now needs to take place to ensure an end to this war. I hope the Government are being very active, notwithstanding the previous Russian veto, to ensure that there is no second anniversary to this war.

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

Nothing proves more sharply that the Russians care nothing for the lives of Africans than their terrible decision to vote as they did at the UN. As the noble Lord said, there must be no impunity here. That is why we are supporting fact-finding missions and evidence-gathering activity on the ground in Sudan. Whether or not determinations of genocide are made at a court in the future, it will need that evidence to enable it to make a sound decision. That has been the Government’s focus.

The noble Lord talked about other countries and their activities. All I can say is that any countries with any influence of any kind, or any relationship with any side—this is a multi-sided conflict now—must use that for one purpose only. That is to de-escalate, to bring those parties to the negotiating table and to get that humanitarian support which, as the noble Lord said, is urgently needed by those communities now.

Sub-Saharan Africa: Diplomatic Relationships

Lord Purvis of Tweed Excerpts

Tuesday 14th January 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

Further to the Minister’s reply to my noble friend on partnership assistance levels, is it not correct that, as a result of this Government’s Budget, ODA is now at the lowest level for 17 years? Also, one of the unforgivable actions of the previous Administration was to score more ODA spending in the United Kingdom than in sub-Saharan Africa, or indeed anywhere abroad. This is a policy choice, not a fiscal choice, and the Government have so far chosen to adopt the previous Conservative Government’s approach. Will the Minister agree with me that the way to restore trust with those countries with the greatest need and poverty is to ensure that ODA is not only official development assistance but overseas development assistance and is not scored for spending here in the UK?

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

I do not want to spend ODA here in the UK. That money is being spent on housing people who have come here in hotels, and it is costing a fortune to do so. That money ought to be spent on education and humanitarian assistance in countries where it is needed the most. That is how this should be, and that is the situation that the FCDO and the Home Office are working hard to get to. We have committed so far to the 0.5%. What 0.5% equals depends entirely on the size of the economy and, as the economy grows, that 0.5% will be worth an awful lot more. As I said earlier, we want to get to back to 0.7% spend, which we never should have left.

Gaza: Humanitarian Situation

Lord Purvis of Tweed Excerpts

Monday 6th January 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

We take our advocacy role seriously, and we are glad to undertake it. We do make the points about humanitarian law, the protection of civilians and the access that we need to provide humanitarian aid. We make those cases privately, yes—but we are now in a situation where we make them publicly too.

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

My Lords, I hope the House will allow me to say that I miss my noble friend Lady Randerson terribly.

Not to strive to protect children in conflict is a war crime. Forcibly moving civilians to areas where there is no shelter, medicine, food or sanitation is a war crime. Militaries actively depopulating civilian areas permanently after conflict is a war crime. These continue to be advocated by members of the Israeli Government, two members of which these Benches have called for the UK to sanction. Why have our Government not indicated to the Israeli Government that there are consequences for breaching international humanitarian law and the institution of war crimes? Our relationship with the Israeli Government cannot carry on as it is.

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

In pointing out that those acts are war crimes, the noble Lord is absolutely right. What I do not think is right is for me, at this Dispatch Box, to proclaim who is or is not guilty of a war crime. We make the case to the Israeli Government in the strongest possible terms, privately and publicly, about the necessity of adhering to international humanitarian law.

China: Human Rights and Security

Lord Purvis of Tweed Excerpts

Thursday 19th December 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

My Lords, this has been a debate of fitting quality at the end of this calendar year. I pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Alton, for bringing it to us. In some respects, I hope this final debate of 2024 might frame some of the early debates we have in 2025, when we look at the Chancellor of the Exchequer’s visit to Beijing and other Ministers’ visits to China. I hope they will be able to take the contributions from this debate into consideration when they form their views, because we have served a challenge function and reflected on some of the subjects we need to debate.

As my noble friend Lady Smith said, tis the season of another government approach to China. The noble Lord, Lord Ahmad, outlined the previous Administration’s approach, so we can see the word salad of “protect”, “co-operate”, “prioritise”, “challenge”, “align”, “compete” and “engage”. The word that is missing is “strategy”, and you could add “published” in front of that. I pay tribute to my noble friend Lord Fox, because he outlined in such clear terms why we need to have one.

I say this with great respect, because I both understood and agreed with much of the speech from the noble Baroness, Lady Lawlor, but I felt there was a contradiction, to some extent, in seeking to move away from trade dependency on China towards other trading partners in the CPTPP who also predominantly have seen growth as a result of trade with China and are now basically a vehicle for us to have enhanced trade with China. This seems to be the Government’s adopted approach for trade. It seems that “European Union” are the two words that dared not speak their name in the debate. If we seek to diversify away from trade dependency on China, it might be that we should have stronger trade links with our European neighbours.

[Baroness Lawlor (Con)]

Just to clarify, my proposal, which was not clear at all, was that we should help and encourage those countries that have a trade dependency with China—that is, those CPTPP partners—to move away from that trade dependency and use our role to do that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

I can understand that as a theoretical approach, but of all the current CPTPP members, it is the United Kingdom—the newest country —that has the largest trade deficit of them all with China. Those members would look to us to diversify away from China, so the whole ambition is the other way around. We hope, if the Government are doing a strategic audit, that their analysis will come to the fore, but, as the noble Lord, Lord Rogan, indicated, there are worrying signs that the audit may not be published or that it may be delayed until the Chancellor of the Exchequer has been in Beijing. We may not even have it presented for debate in Parliament, so I am starting to be quite concerned.

As my noble friend Lord Fox indicated, we need this because of the industrial-scale economic surveillance, and the scraping and capture of data from the UK economy, as a tool for industrial espionage, for state advantage, and for state enterprises to strategically undercut and underprice in certain key sectors of our economy. As my noble friend Lord Fox’s work on other elements of our key technology and infrastructure says, we need to enhance our resilience, especially now when we see what China is doing globally in seeking software and hardware for global ports of entry systems, for shipping and for telecommunications.

China is not a passive global actor. I acknowledge that neither are we, and nor is it a criticism that it is not, but the strategic aim for China is to have a sphere of influence in a multipolar world. That is distinct from how we see the world, which we feel should be based on a liberal, international order of rules. There are differences in how we see global diplomatic and development interactions. The UK—working with partners, of course—should be clear that our perspective of the world is distinct.

In previous Questions and Statements, the Minister has been honest with us and said that she did not know whether the new Government’s approach to this will work. She has said that in this Chamber. However, she said that it was worth trying. It is worth trying if we are seeking to grow our economy, but the cost of the growth of our economy, while being a supplicant at a trade deficit in key sectors, means that we are unlikely to see a level of sustainable growth, or the protection of human rights and national security. Of course we should be partnering in certain areas, but we should not do it blind.

That is why the noble Lord, Lord Rogan, and others have said, as I did in my question to the Minister just this week with regard to the National Security Act—on which the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, and I worked very hard—that the approach should be evidence-based, taking into account national security considerations and threats. It should not be subservient to economic development or to one perception of economic development. That is why we need to look at elements of our relationship with Taiwan, as the noble Baroness, Lady D’Souza, said; we have a strategic economic partnership with Taiwan, which is a liberal, open democracy that does represent our thinking.

With regard to China, there are further actions that this Government can take, which the previous Government did not take, when they look at auditing UK-based assets owned by the CCP and at the potential use of Magnitsky sanctions against those responsible for the erosion of Hong Kong’s freedoms. We can pursue further areas of human rights, and I hope that the Government will not set them aside as a result of the Treasury’s approach.

Last weekend, on a fascinating visit to the Doha Forum, I saw the approach that many developing nations and economies are taking to China. I sat in a session with President Kagame of Rwanda, Prime Minister Mottley of Barbados and a Chinese operative. What was fascinating was that President Kagame said that, when he speaks to potential western investors, “We get tons of lectures, not goods”, but Prime Minister Motley said that all her interactions and developing nations’ interactions should be based on “global principles”. There was a contradiction that I heard from them. I pointed out that when it comes to China and Africa, for example, the UK is a bigger investor in Africa than China at the moment. We can assert ourselves with the values of Barbados on global principles and not accept the narrative that there are lectures, but we should be an active participant in this area.

I close by coming back to what my noble friend Lady Smith indicated when it comes to the need for there to be a coherent approach, and perhaps this is referencing the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Godson. It seems that the new Government’s approach is to

“find a way of engaging with China in a more meaningful and deeper relationship that recognised the threat, but also sought to try to co-opt China into the international order”;

an approach that understands

“that many of the world’s biggest challenges like climate change or biodiversity loss were not going to be solved without engagement with China”.

That is a direct quote from George Osborne’s evidence to our International Relations and Defence Select Committee, which my noble friend and I had the pleasure of serving on, when we concluded our report in September 2021.

That report’s title was The UK and China’s Security and Trade Relationship: A Strategic Void. It called for the Government to

“produce a single, coherent China strategy, as recommended by the Foreign Affairs Committee in April 2019, and a plan for how it will execute that strategy”.

We still need that. If the Government believe that they will have a 10-year period in office rather than five years, the need for a single, coherent, published China strategy is vital, and I hope the Minister may agree to it.

As I sit down, I wish all Members a happy Christmas and a merry New Year. He is not in the Chamber at the moment, but this will be the last occasion when Mr Cameron-Wood, the Deputy Principal Doorkeeper, will carry the Mace out as the House rises, after 13 years of sterling service to this House. I wish him and all the staff a very happy Christmas and New Year.