Gaza and Hamas

Chris Coghlan Excerpts

Wednesday 29th October 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Falconer]

I associate myself very much with my hon. Friend’s comments. He knows that neck of the woods well. Our diplomats are excellent. I was pleased to be in New York in July when the declaration he describes was made. It was part of a declaration that included our own commitments in relation to the Palestinian state, which led to our recognition in September.

[Chris Coghlan (Dorking and Horley) (LD)]

We all hope desperately for a just peace in Gaza. I served alongside the Minister as a diplomat in the middle east and as a soldier. Given that, I particularly welcome the proposed international security force, but it is essential that such a force includes troops from Arab countries and possibly from western countries too, in order to reassure the Israelis, and that it is there for the long term and ready to take casualties. Will the Minister update the House on what progress there has been on the composition and the mandate of the potential force?

[Mr Falconer]

My friend the hon. and gallant Member is right to focus on some of these practical questions. He, like me, served in countries where peacekeeping forces were unable to keep the peace and unwilling to take casualties, and were therefore unable to fulfil their mandate. These are some of the most central and most delicate questions around the ISF. I hope he will forgive me for not giving a detailed commentary at this time, but I expect to return to the House to provide more detail when I am able.

Diego Garcia Military Base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill

Chris Coghlan Excerpts

Committee of the whole House
Monday 20th October 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Bailey]

There is already a barrage of misinformation coming from the Opposition, and I am not going to invite any more of it to flow across the Floor. There are a multiplicity of bad actors internationally who would benefit from the collapse of this Bill—and just imagine how many more there would be if we took the course the Opposition urge us to take.

[Chris Coghlan (Dorking and Horley) (LD)]

The hon. Member just said that foreign policy should not be made by referendum. Does he disagree, then, with article 1(2) of the UN charter—that the right to self-determination is a core principle in international relations and that we should therefore have a referendum for Chagos?

[Mr Bailey]

I thank the hon. Member for his intervention. The Bill has been before the House already, and at the moment we are discussing the amendments that have been tabled. The hon. Member will soon have the opportunity to discuss the amendments he has tabled. However, abdicating this Chamber’s decision—[Interruption.]

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Pinkerton]

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his intervention. I am aware that he has a long history in advocating for this particular cause, but I am relentlessly surprised by the position he takes on this point. He would seek to effectively reinscribe the colonial construction that was British Mauritius and in doing so ignore the right of Chagossians as a people to self-determine their own future. I do not see the colonial convenience of administration as anything other than overwriting a people’s right to determine their own future.

On that point, in 2019 the International Court of Justice issued an advisory opinion that concluded that the decolonisation of Mauritius had not been legally completed and that the United Kingdom should end its administration of the Chagos islands as rapidly as possible. The General Assembly subsequently endorsed that same view. But I say to this House that the ICJ opinion, however well intentioned, poses a profound problem. It proposes to hand sovereignty not to the Chagossians themselves but to Mauritius, without consulting those who were born of the islands or who are descended from them. That is not self-determination but the transfer of sovereignty over a people without their consent. The right to self-determination belongs to peoples, not to Governments. It is not and should not be a device for tidying up the diplomatic ledger of empire, but a recognition that every community has the right to shape its own future. To remove the Chagossians once was a horrific wrong. To barter away their sovereignty now without their voice compounds that wrong.

If we truly honour the UN charter and the principles that this country has long championed, the Chagossians themselves must be placed at the centre of any future settlement. They must have a say over their citizenship, over the governance of their islands and over the prospects of return. The commitment to a referendum that sits at the heart of amendment 9 seeks to address that long and burning injustice by providing Chagossians with the opportunity to exercise their right to determine their own future.

[Chris Coghlan]

I entirely agree with my hon. Friend on the importance of having a right of referendum. I have had Chagossian constituents contact me with their outrage about the compounding of injustice in the new treaty. How realistic does my hon. Friend think it is to find people eligible to vote in a potential referendum, given the length of time that has passed since they were moved from Diego Garcia?

[Dr Pinkerton]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his question. He is right that, were a referendum able to be secured, it would be unusual because of the nature of the displacement of the Chagossians. But there have been previous international consultations, and with the collective will and intelligence of a House like this, the terms of a referendum could undoubtedly be negotiated. After all, Chagossians are not backwards in coming forwards and making themselves known to all of us.

For Chagossians, this is not a geopolitical abstraction, but a deeply human matter: one of belonging, fairness and justice. Requiring a report to be made to the House would ensure their voices are not lost amid the technical language of treaties and transfers. Amendment 9 would enable transparency, accountability and, above all, genuine recognition of the rights of Chagossians to self-determination. I encourage right hon. and hon. Members across the House to think carefully when they vote tonight.

New clause 9 speaks to another vital principle: our shared moral duty to protect the natural world. The Chagos archipelago is among the most biodiverse marine environments on Earth. Its coral reefs, migratory species and rich ecosystems are a global ecological treasure and a testament to what nature can be when left largely untouched by human exploitation. In recent months, I have spoken with scientific advisers who are deeply concerned about the Bill’s lack of provisions for establishing and governing marine protected areas. The environment and sustainability institute stresses that very large marine protected areas are vital for global conservation goals. Its research shows the archipelago’s exceptional role in protecting diverse mobile species across the Indian ocean.

New clause 9 would require the Government to publish an annual report produced with the Mauritian Government setting out the progress made in establishing and managing marine protected areas and the meetings held between the two Governments on the issue. Such reporting is critical to ensure that environmental protection does not fade into the sotto voce diplomatic arrangements. It must remain a visible, audible and measurable commitment to international conservation standards. If the Government are to honour their biodiversity beyond national jurisdiction pledge, future Governments must ensure stronger marine conservation, sustainable stewardship and shared responsibility. I believe that the new clause would achieve that.

New clauses 10 and 11 would build on the principle of accountability by ensuring regular oversight of how the Bill and its associated treaty arrangements are implemented. We believe that the Secretary of State should, within 12 months, lay before both Houses a report detailing the expenditure of public funds made under the treaty during the most recent financial year and the progress made by the UK in implementing the treaty’s obligations.

[Chris Coghlan]

At a time when the cost of living is so high, does my hon. Friend agree that the cost of maintaining and operating the Diego Garcia military base and military operations must be evaluated by the House against the expenditure of public funds made under the treaty each financial year?

[Dr Pinkerton]

The maximum possible financial transparency around the treaty arrangements is essential, not least for securing and establishing public trust. I fear that, without those high levels of accountability, public trust would rapidly dissipate. Furthermore, once every financial year, the Secretary of State should present to the House an estimate of the expenditure expected to be incurred in connection with the treaty, including payments or financial commitments to the Government of Mauritius and the cost of maintaining and operating Diego Garcia. If actual payments exceed those estimates, a supplementary estimate must be laid before the House for approval and parliamentary scrutiny. I reassure Conservative colleagues that the Liberal Democrats will support any amendment to the Bill that would increase financial transparency of the treaty.

However, our moral duty extends beyond matters of territory and finance. New clause 12 would require a comprehensive review of the welfare, integration and general needs of Chagossians living in the UK. Many Chagossians here face significant challenges, including housing insecurity, barriers to employment and limited access to public services. The review would assess what support is needed and ensure a full debate in this House and the other place on its findings. That is how we show genuine care for those displaced by the actions of our predecessors in the Chamber and in Whitehall.

Finally, new clause 13 would require the Government within six months to consult with Chagossians residing in the UK and the organisations that represent them on how the Act and the treaty affect their community socially, economically and legally.

Ukraine

Chris Coghlan Excerpts

Wednesday 15th October 2025 Commons Chamber

[Yvette Cooper]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. The EU has set out work linking the issues around assets to reparation payments. We welcome that work and we believe that there is a strong basis to go forward. We need to do so in a co-ordinated way and recognise the importance of supporting Ukraine.

[Chris Coghlan (Dorking and Horley) (LD)]

I welcome the Government’s progress on the frozen Russian assets, but it is disappointing that, as yet, they are allocated only to recovery and not military capability, because Russia is spending $40 billion more than Ukraine and her Western allies on the war in Ukraine. The courage of Ukrainian forces has brought Russia to a standstill, but does the Foreign Secretary agree that if those frozen assets were used today to close and exceed that military spending gap, Ukraine would have a path not just to stop Russia but to win?

[Yvette Cooper]

We are already increasing UK military support, and we want to see that happen across the board. The way to put the greatest pressure on Russia will always be through a mix of different measures, including direct defence support, support for the resilience of the Ukraine people through their basic energy infrastructure and ensuring that they and their communities can keep going, and by establishing strong economic pressure on Russia, so that it is put in a position where it has to change course. All those things need to happen at once to have a significant impact on the way that Putin is behaving.

Middle East

Chris Coghlan Excerpts

Monday 1st September 2025 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Order. The statement will conclude at 8 pm because we also have a statement on Ukraine. Colleagues will need to be as fast as they can.

[Chris Coghlan (Dorking and Horley) (LD)]

In hearing from the Foreign Secretary that 132,000 children are at risk of dying from hunger, one can only feel utter revulsion. I recognise what the Government have done, but in their public diplomacy with President Trump, their strategy appears to be to pander to him. Again, I understand why the Government have chosen to do that, but how concerned is the Foreign Secretary that their legacy in the middle east will be the same as that of the previous Labour Government: to be a poodle to an out-of-control American President amid horror?

[Mr Lammy]

I remind the hon. Gentleman that it was me and this Labour Government who signed a memorandum of understanding of support with the Palestinian Authority just a few months ago. We use every lever that we can diplomatically to be in dialogue with our partners and to seek to influence them. This is a complex set of issues. There are different approaches internationally, and he will have witnessed that, but we use every sinew diplomatically, and that is what the Prime Minister and I do every day.

Iran-Israel Conflict

Chris Coghlan Excerpts

Monday 16th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lammy]

The phrase that I have used about no military endeavour being able to achieve this without diplomacy has been used by the US and by the Israelis themselves.

[Chris Coghlan (Dorking and Horley) (LD)]

While I deplore the alleged Israeli war crimes in Gaza, that should not cloud our view of the Iranian regime. As a British diplomat covering Syria, I saw how the Iranian regime was directly complicit in the torture and murder of hundreds of thousands of Syrian civilians. I was a British soldier in Iraq in 2020, and the British Lance Corporal Brodie Gillon was killed by the Iranians a few months before I arrived. There have been too many catastrophic British foreign policy decisions in the middle east this century, so I commend the Foreign Secretary for his commitment to a realist and hard-headed approach. Does he agree that the first question for any policy choice should be: where does it all end?

[Mr Lammy]

I am grateful that the hon. Gentleman, though new to this House, brings so much experience. I agree with his sentiment.

Frozen Russian Assets: Ukraine

Chris Coghlan Excerpts

Monday 6th January 2025 Commons Chamber

[Chris Coghlan (Dorking and Horley) (LD)]

I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Tunbridge Wells (Mike Martin) for securing this vital debate. There are many veterans in this Chamber; one in nine Liberal Democrat MPs has served in the armed forces. We know the price of freedom—many of us have seen it written on the grave of a friend. There are tens of thousands of Ukrainians paying that bitter price right now, which will all be in vain if we falter in our support. With the looming Trump Administration, that risk is real. As the hon. Member for Loughborough (Dr Sandher) has said, if Ukraine fails, the consequences for our security would be catastrophic. In the same way that our failure to show resolve on Syria perhaps encouraged Putin to attack Crimea, our failure to show resolve on Ukraine might encourage him to attack the Baltic states, test NATO’s article 5, and shatter the peace in Europe.

That does not need to be our future. If the G7 seizes the $300 billion in Russian assets, we have the opportunity not only to keep Ukraine in the fight, but to win. Many are worried that seizing that $300 billion could undermine the global financial system; I am here to argue that that is not the case. As Lawrence Summers—the former US Treasury Secretary—and many others have pointed out, those fears are overblown, because when those assets were frozen in the first place, there were no observed consequences in financial markets. It has been made clear to financial markets that the assets of a sovereign aggressor are at risk when they are on deposit in a G7 country, as they should be. The risk that those assets will be seized should already have been substantially priced in, reducing the possibility of capital flight from a negative surprise.

In any case, where would that capital fly to if the G7 countries act together? The pound, dollar, euro and yen amount to almost 90% of the world’s reserve currencies. China is not an option because of capital controls, so there are no other viable reserve currencies for countries to deposit their reserves in. As a former hedge fund manager, I spent years investing professionally in financial markets, and I can assure the House that investors will not be discouraged from investing in safe and attractive G7 currencies for two simple reasons: fear and greed.

Today, the west spends $105 billion annually on Ukraine’s defence, including $45 billion from the US. The $300 billion in Russian assets could fund the lot for three years, or the US portion for six years if Trump withdraws his support. Many think that Russia’s resources are inexhaustible, yet according to the Royal United Services Institute, Russia is going to run out of artillery ammunition and armoured vehicles next year. It has already suffered 700,000 casualties, so Russia’s capacity to wage war will fall dramatically in one year’s time, but only if we can keep Ukraine in the fight.

If Ukraine can end this war on terms that demonstrate that it is victorious, the consequences for our security will be profound. The threat from Russia will be greatly diminished, China will think twice about challenging a liberal world order, and the narrative of the decline of the free world and the rise of dictatorships will be decisively set back. Imagine what the free world could then achieve in the 21st century. As such, I urge the Government to seize that $300 billion in frozen Russian assets to keep Ukraine in the fight, and I salute the Ukrainian soldiers who are laying down their lives, not only for their country’s freedom but for our freedom too.