British Indian Ocean Territory
Graham Stuart Excerpts(1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Priti Patel
As is often the case, the hon. and learned Gentleman is spot on. That is exactly why the Minister has this marvellous opportunity today to explain this to the House and the British public.
Let us not forget that President Trump, the commander-in-chief, said that the UK is giving away extremely important land in an “act of great stupidity”—I think the House would agree with that comment—and that:
“There is no doubt that China and Russia have noticed this act of total weakness.”
Has there been any Minister-to-Minister engagement with the US Administration on this? Had the Prime Minister spoken directly to the President on this matter before kowtowing to China? I asked this very question here on Monday, but the Minister for the Overseas Territories, who is not present, could not answer. There is a new opportunity today for the Minister for the Indo-Pacific, the hon. Member for Feltham and Heston (Seema Malhotra), to tell us: yes or no?
On that point, it is also worth asking whether, should there be a change in the proposed US-UK treaty, it will come to Parliament through the 21-day Constitutional Reform and Governance Act process? Again, we asked this question on Monday, and the Minister refused to answer. What are the Government trying to hide? As Labour failed to provide the House with scrutiny under the previous CRaG process, it is clearly happy to give away this sovereign territory and billions in taxpayers’ money without being held to account.
Given the Labour Government’s abject failure to clarify these points, it took Conservatives in the other place to take action, leading to this pause of the treaty. Instead of showing some humility and transparency and commitment to engage in proper scrutiny, however, Labour has sought to gaslight its critics—and, by the way, the British public—with a Government spokesperson telling the media:
“This is irresponsible and reckless behaviour by peers”.
Blaming peers—Conservatives, Cross Benchers and others—for doing their job diligently is another new low from a Labour Government seeking to undermine accountability, democracy, scrutiny and accountability. When the junior Minister for the Indo-Pacific responds, I hope she will speak on behalf of this feeble Labour Government and apologise to the British people for their appalling and discredited conduct.
Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)
Like my right hon. Friend, I am proud of the role that Conservative peers have played in this, but can we also take a moment to pay credit to Back-Bench Labour MPs? I think it is important to note that they are not here. Practically the only Government Member present, scribbling away, is the hon. Member for Rugby (John Slinger), whom I admire a great deal, but who is loyalist to his very core. If he is the only Member prepared to speak up, the truth is that Labour MPs have voted with their feet, and they now agree with my right hon. Friend that this deal has to go.
Priti Patel
I commend my right hon. Friend for his intervention. He has highlighted a lot of things there, which, in the interest of time, I am grateful for, because we have a lot of other colleagues who want to speak. It is worth pointing out that the Government will have a few of their Members who like to climb the greasy pole—there is one, who is not present today, who is now the trade envoy for Mauritius because he spoke up so frequently for the Government.
Ultimately, this is about the security and defence of our country. [Interruption.] No, no. The Government have a lot of questions to answer, because their feeble remarks in defence of this entire process have been absolutely shameful. That includes on China, with not just the Government’s relationship with China, but the relationship between the Governments of China and Russia. We have had completely misleading remarks about China and Mauritius, when it is the Opposition who have constantly called out that cosy relationship. I have even brought the Minister some press cuttings, but, as she has responsibility for the Indo-Pacific, she may have seen them already. None the less, I advise her to read the website of the Chinese Foreign Affairs Ministry. It provides a weekly diary of its friendly relationship with the Government of Mauritius.
On the Pelindaba treaty, we have already heard the comments about what this now means. It is absolutely wrong to inhibit and restrict our ability when it comes to stationing a nuclear deterrent on Diego Garcia, and it is right that we on the Conservatives Benches continue to question this.
Before I conclude, let me discuss the money. It is an absolute disgrace that this House has not had full disclosure on the money. It is in the public interest for Ministers to tell the truth, to be held to account, and to stop hiding the true cost by misrepresenting the positions of the Office for Budget Responsibility and the Government Actuary’s Department. That is utterly shameful. Today, Labour MPs have an opportunity to join us—
Priti Patel
They are all in hiding, because they are embarrassed. They can join us and stop this surrender. They can tell their constituents that they voted to save a British territory from being lost, that they stood up for our defence and security, that they voted to save £35 billion from disgracefully being handed over to a foreign Government while their taxes at home go up and their public services are squeezed, and that they voted to defend the rights of the Chagossians. Alternatively, they can sleepwalk through the Division Lobby like sheep, defending the indefensible and backing another Labour weak policy and failure of their enfeebled Prime Minister. Conservatives have opposed this deal at every stage from day one and we will continue to do so. We will fight to kill this Bill to defend both British sovereignty and Britain’s pride and national interests.
Seema Malhotra
I thank the shadow Defence Secretary for his intervention. It is a long-standing policy, as he will know this from having been in government, that we do not comment on operational matters or the location of nuclear weapons.
The Opposition know—[Interruption.] Perhaps I may make some comments on the Pelindaba treaty—
Graham Stuart
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. The Minister said that she would address the issue of whether nuclear weapons could go to Diego Garcia, and now she says that she cannot comment. Is that—
Mr Speaker
Order. No, no, no. You are on the Panel of Chairs. You know that that is not a point of order—it’s not even the start of one. You are trying to continue the debate. I am sure that you are on the list to speak, so you will get to make your points later.
Diego Garcia Military Base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill
Graham Stuart ExcerptsTuesday 20th January 2026
(2 weeks, 1 day ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Diego Garcia Military Base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill 2024-26 View all Diego Garcia Military Base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Commons Consideration of Lords Amendments as at 20 January 2026 - (20 Jan 2026)
Stephen Doughty
I give way on this issue to the right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes).
Stephen Doughty
Thank you for clarifying that, Madam Deputy Speaker.
In parallel with the other measures, we have established a contact group to give Chagossians a greater say in UK Government support to their communities and we are in the process of enhancing that group, as Baroness Chapman committed to do in the other place. Thanks to the work we have done and the reasonable concerns raised across the House, the Chagossian trust fund will be operated for Chagossians by Chagossians. There will be a Chagossian majority on the board, which will include a UK-based representative and a Chagossian chair. Those reasonable concerns have been raised in the course of the debates and we are trying to address them.
Stephen Doughty
I need to make progress, as Madam Deputy Speaker has asked me to be conscious of time. I will come back for further interventions.
Before moving on to discuss the specific amendments, I express my thanks to the noble Lords for their tireless efforts and to the many noble peers who scrutinised and supported the Bill. Lords amendment 4 was tabled by the Government, and I thank Lord Lansley for his helpful conversation and collaboration on the topic. The amendment will change the parliamentary procedure applicable to the delegated power in clause 6. With that amendment, all instruments made using that power will be subject to the negative procedure. Previously, no parliamentary procedure applied unless the power was used to amend, repeal or revoke Acts of Parliament or statutory instruments made under them. The amendment makes it clear that the Government are prepared to work with those who engage in genuine, constructive dialogue, rather than those who rely on political point scoring, to achieve meaningful compromise.
Turning to the other amendments made in the other place, I make it clear that the Government are thankful for all the scrutiny and are willing to engage with challenge. However, the other amendments are either already provided for or not necessary, or they simply make political points and play games with our national security, so we cannot accept them.
Lords amendment 1 would amend clause 1 to prevent the Bill and the treaty from entering into force until the Government had sought to renegotiate the termination clauses to include the base becoming unusable due to environmental degradation. That is unnecessary and I shall set out why. First, limiting the circumstances in which the treaty can be terminated protects the UK’s interests and those of the United States, which has invested heavily in the base. In line with the United States’ wishes, the previous Conservative Government agreed to limit termination to two grounds, both of which are in UK control, and this Government have secured that—
Graham Stuart
The Minister mentions the United States’ wishes, and he appears to be presenting the case that the United States remains in the position that it was in previously, despite what President Trump said last night. The Deputy Prime Minister said in February:
“If President Trump doesn’t like the deal, the deal will not go forward”.
Last night, President Trump said that he did not like the deal. Is it still going forward, or is the Minister suggesting that President Trump did not mean what he said last night?
Stephen Doughty
I have already answered that point. As I said, discussions will continue with the US Administration in the coming days, as they have done throughout the process. We will remind them of the strength of this deal, allay concerns and, of course, emphasise how it secures the base for both the United Kingdom and the United States. We work together on these matters. As the Speaker of the House of Representatives set out this morning, it is important that we work together on all matters of national security.
Priti Patel
If the Government wish to U-turn and scrap the Bill, we would welcome that and support it; there is no question about that.
I turn to amendment 1. It is not just when it comes to money, which is addressed in amendment 5, that the Government’s claims lack any credibility; amendment 1, which deals with the surrender of British sovereignty, leaves us weaker and, as we have heard from my right hon. and hon. Friends, will compromise the long-term operations of the base.
We are required to give notice to the Government of Mauritius about a range of activities taking place on the base. As the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) pointed out, Mauritius is a signatory to the Pelindaba treaty, and if that applies to Diego Garcia, it would prohibit the stationing and storage of nuclear weapons there. This is very serious. While the Prime Minister has claimed that China, Russia and Iran oppose the surrender, we know that they back it; they publicly endorse it, and they will seek to gain from this lack of sovereignty.
These points are all relevant to amendment 1, as it requires the Government to renegotiate article 11 of the treaty, so that payments cease should the use of the base for military purposes became impossible. Obviously, we hope that that scenario does not materialise, as we believe that Diego Garcia is a vital cornerstone of our national security and defence, and should remain so. However, as the treaty stands, if we stop using the base, the UK is still bound to make pretty significant payments over the 99-year lease period; it is a huge cost. Amendment 1 is therefore a vital point of contingency.
We would like the whole agreement binned, but we believe that it is reasonable and practical for the Government to accept this change. When he sums up, will the Minister explain why he is not prepared to consider the amendment, and to renegotiate parts of the treaty?
Graham Stuart
Does my right hon. Friend, like me, feel some sympathy for the Minister? He has rested his whole case on the support of the United States of America. The Deputy Prime Minister said that the Bill would not go ahead if the American President did not support it. We all remember the great mystery about who shot J.R., but there is no mystery about who shot the Minister’s fox—it was the President of the United States last night, and the Minister’s whole case has crumbled.
Priti Patel
My right hon. Friend is spot on. This is the critical moment when the Government should tear up the Bill and scrap this disaster. It should not proceed at all.
Graham Stuart
The hon. Gentleman is talking about the costs of the deal. Can he just set them out for the House? I do not think anyone has done so in today’s debate so far, and he is speaking with such expertise. It would be great to hear from him exactly what this deal is costing.
Alex Ballinger
I will happily outline that to the House. The Minister has already outlined it: it is approximately 0.25% of the defence budget, which is tiny in comparison to the base in Djibouti that the French operate. If we compare it with the operation of an aircraft carrier or something of that size, it is very good value for money.
Lords amendment 6 would cut across long-standing constitutional practice on treaty payments, and would infringe Commons financial privilege and established arrangements for authorising expenditure. More importantly, it would send a damaging signal that the UK is building an exit ramp into primary legislation, weakening our hand and injecting instability into the very agreement designed to secure the base. The treaty already contains robust dispute resolution mechanisms, which is the right way to deal with such issues.
Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)
Oh, stop giving him extra time! He is not going to trouble the scorer, is he?
Stephen Doughty
No, I will not give way. I am conscious of time—I need to respond to the points made.
Of course, many groups support the deal, including the Chagos Refugees Group, the Chagos Islanders Movement and the Seychelles Chagossian committee.
The shadow Foreign Secretary, the right hon. Member for Witham (Priti Patel), made many criticisms. We have heard and been through them a number of times. I remind her that, of course, it was her party that started the negotiations in the first place. She supported this when she was in government. The Conservatives have demonstrated absolute naked opportunism, ignoring the national security issues and jumping on the political bandwagon. They talk about defence and national security, but in 14 disastrous years in office their party hollowed out our armed forces. Our Government are investing at levels not seen since the cold war, and 85% of the negotiation rounds took place—
Graham Stuart
I fear the Minister may have inadvertently misled the House. The only public statement by the Chinese Government on this subject was on 29 May last year when they welcomed the Chagos deal.
Madam Deputy Speaker
That is not a point of order. Can we prevent the debate from continuing in points of order? If colleagues wish to intervene, they can try to do so, and it is up to the Minister whether he wishes to respond to those interventions. We can keep going until 7.18 pm when the time will cut off.
Diego Garcia Military Base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill
Graham Stuart ExcerptsMonday 20th October 2025
(3 months, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Diego Garcia Military Base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill 2024-26 View all Diego Garcia Military Base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Committee of the whole House Amendments as at 20 October 2025 - (20 Oct 2025)
Wendy Morton
I am grateful to the Minister, but can he actually give me the reassurance that no discussions are taking place? Perhaps he can answer that question when he responds to the debate later.
The promises given by Ministers that nothing can happen in the Chagos archipelago that threatens our interests are already being undermined. If these discussions with a friendly country are taking place without the UK, I can only wonder what discussions are taking place in secret. If such discussions are taking place, that would undermine the assurances Ministers have given to this House and be an act of bad faith on the part of Mauritius. The House knows that this Government kowtow to the Chinese Communist party, leading it to threaten our interests here. Now, they are failing to take seriously the warnings about China, and the threats it poses to Diego Garcia, our military assets and our interests in the Indo-Pacific.
Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)
My right hon. Friend has highlighted the Prime Minister misleading—perhaps I have to say inadvertently misleading —us about the cost of this, when the Government Actuary’s Department has shown that it is £35 billion. More than that, he was suggesting in his press conference that China, Russia and others—
The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Caroline Nokes)
Order. The right hon. Member may like to rethink his words about the Prime Minister.
Graham Stuart
I bow to you, Ms Nokes. Having misrepresented—I think I am allowed to say that—
Graham Stuart
Oh, I cannot say “misrepresented”. Having inadvertently confused the £35 billion that is actually going out with the £3.5 billion he claimed was going out, the Prime Minister, equally inadvertently, Ms Nokes, made out that China, Iran and Russia were in the column—he used the word “column”—of those opposing this deal, although I think each and every one of them came out publicly to say how much they welcomed it. Can my right hon. Friend share any knowledge about that with us?
Wendy Morton
I think my right hon. Friend makes some very interesting points, and perhaps not surprisingly, one might ask the question: are the Government sleeping with the enemy here?
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.
Graham Stuart
The hon. Gentleman is giving a powerful speech on the Chagossians and marine protected areas, as well as the need for transparency. But it is not just about transparency. What I have not heard from him, on behalf of the Liberal Democrats, is any sense of outrage at the very fact that we are to pay out £35 billion for sovereign British territory on which we have arguably the most important base in the whole Indian ocean.
Dr Pinkerton
I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his question. It is precisely in order to cast the strongest possible spotlight on the financial transaction involved that we are asking for financial accountability to be magnified. On his geopolitical point, nobody can question the significant geopolitical importance of the base—it is vital to our national security and to global security. It is essential that it is maintained in British hands, but that must be achieved with the consent of the Chagossians.
The resulting report to be laid before Parliament within 12 months would allow us to evaluate whether the Government’s legislative intent has translated into justice and inclusion in the lives of those who are most directly affected.
These amendments would address critical shortcomings with the Bill. They would embed accountability, environmental protection and a commitment to the right to self-determination within its framework for implementation. I urge Ministers to ensure that the Chagossians are not treated as diplomatic collateral in any future discussions with Mauritius. They are not a footnote to be managed between states; they are a people deserving of justice, agency and dignity.
The Chagossians have waited more than 50 years to go home. The least we can do now is let them decide freely and finally what home means for themselves and ensure that they have the tools they need to exercise their rights. The amendments tabled in my name seek to afford those protections and ensure that those rights are respected.
Nigel Farage
When the Americans realise that, actually, Mauritius is not a trustworthy nation—it is bankrupt; it needs the money; it will not honour this treaty—we will be in a very different place. I do ask the question about the role of our National Security Adviser, somebody very much in the news in the last few days. He was seemingly very happy that a trial against two alleged Chinese spies, operating at times within this building, had disappeared. Not only is he honouring the Labour manifesto, which is very soft on China, but apparently he is very for this Chagos deal.
I put it to Members that this deal is un-British, it is against our national interest, and there is no upside or gain. I can assure them that a future that a future Reform Government will not honour this treaty—end of.
Graham Stuart
I refer the Committee to my interests, having observed the Mauritian elections last year as a guest of the Mauritius Labour party.
It is hard not to feel a little bit sorry for the beleaguered Minister at the Dispatch Box today, sent to defend something that is so clearly a betrayal of this country and its interests. Out of the grand total of 400-plus Labour Members of Parliament in this House, he was backed by just one—the hon. Member for Leyton and Wanstead (Mr Bailey)—who sat with his face glued to his iPad, reading the words put there by Lord knows who, and who struggled so much when he finally took an intervention and had to speak off the cuff. Indeed, he has fled now, doubtless to lick his wounds. Not one single other of those 400 Government MPs wanted to come here and defend this Bill.
The Minister is in fact a decent man, and he will know that this Bill has no defence and brings no benefit to this country. Last week, too, we had a Minister sent out to answer for the China spy case. He had never spoken at the Dispatch Box before; it was his very first outing, but he was thought the best person to defend the Prime Minister’s blushes by knowing nothing about the topic in hand and denying things—without lying—by dint of ignorance. It was indeed a triumph, of sorts.
Armando Iannucci and “The Thick of It” cast could not script something as cynical, empty and damaging as this Government’s behaviour in so many spheres. As we can see in the amendments and new clauses before us, which will doubtless all be rejected by the Minister, amidst the betrayal of first-time buyers, farmers, small businesses, special needs children, pensioners, young workers—
The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Caroline Nokes)
Order. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman might stay within the scope of the Bill.
Graham Stuart
Thank you, Madam Chair. I was setting the context for the amendments to the Bill that we are rightly proposing to ensure that the Government report back on the money that they plan to spend and to ensure that the Mauritius taxpayer is not the only taxpayer to benefit from this.
As I say, the amendments and new clauses come amidst the betrayal of those first-time buyers, farmers, small businesses, special needs children, pensioners, young workers, restaurants and pubs, and amidst the expense grifting, tax dodging, scandals and resignations packed into 14 busy months. Amidst all that, this Chagos sell-out is still a stand-out disaster for this country, and the Ministers on the Front Bench know it. That is why not a single one of their 400-odd colleagues—bar one, glued to his iPad—has been prepared to come to this Chamber tonight and speak in favour of the Bill.
That is why there is no provision to allow a vote on the £3.4 billion—sorry, not £3.4 billion; the £35 billion that has now been set out. As the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage) rightly says, that is based on a rather small c conservative estimate of the interest, but that is what the Government themselves have said it is likely to cost. This Labour Government decided to give away UK sovereign territory and the location of a critically important military base to another country, and to pay £35 billion for the privilege.
Sir Iain Duncan Smith
On the argument about the money, which comes up throughout all this and which we had in the last debate, the Government have used a dodgy system to calculate it. It is called the GDP deflator. Their own actuarial department has dismissed that completely because, of course, it is all about a forecast of where social issues will go on an island that will never have anything to do with us after all this, so we have no idea how to predict it.
Finally, clause 5 makes this whole debate meaningless, because the Government can change anything they like whenever they wish to, so what the heck are we doing debating this even now?
Graham Stuart
My right hon. Friend makes an extremely powerful point. The Henry VIII powers in the Bill are not limited at all. I heard so many complaints when I was a Minister from the Labour party about Henry VIII powers. The Bill literally gives Ministers the ability to change any existing piece of legislation in any sphere whatsoever if it is necessary to implement this deal. There can never have been a Henry VIII power as powerful as that given to Ministers by this legislation, which is all to do with the surrender of Chagos and the transfer of tens of billions of pounds to a foreign power—a foreign power that is in a strategic partnership with China and in close workings with other countries that are not on our side. What on earth was the Prime Minister thinking? As the Minister lay in bed last night tossing and turning in anticipation of the debate, I am sure that that was the question that went round and round in his head.
So many questions remain to be answered. Why did the Prime Minister say that the payment would be £3.4 billion when the Government’s own offices now show that it will be at least £35 billion? Is this the most important strategic base in the Indian ocean? Can the Minister confirm that Diego Garcia is effectively a US base, manned by thousands of Americans, with at most a few dozen Brits there in liaison? If this is in fact a United States base and not operationally—
The Minister for Defence Readiness and Industry (Luke Pollard)
It is a joint base.
Graham Stuart
It might be a joint base technically, but what is it in reality? I would love an intervention from the Defence Minister; he could tell us. How much do we use it operationally, because there are thousands of Americans there and, as I understand it—unless he corrects me—at most dozens of Brits. In other words, it is a United States base on sovereign UK territory that we will pay tens of billions of pounds for over the next 100 years to provide it to the Americans for free. It makes no sense, and I do not see why we have had no answer from Ministers as to why that is a sensible use of public money.
Stephen Doughty
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his generous comments. He and I have always had robust but friendly discussions on many issues. However, I do have to correct him on this point. The US pays for the operations, and the value to the British taxpayer, the US taxpayer and, indeed, all our allies is priceless in that it protects the people of this country from multiple threats, so what he says simply does not make sense.
Graham Stuart
The United States plays a critical role as a member of NATO and as a key ally—if not the key ally—of ours, but despite the priceless nature of the service it provides, we do not typically pay for it. We do not normally pay for its bases; we pay for our own.
Graham Stuart
I said I would give way to my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis).
Sir Julian Lewis
My right hon. Friend is quite right. On the face of it, this does not make sense, unless we look at it in one particular way. If the Government have made a decision that they wish to have a strategic economic partnership with communist China, this makes sense, the closing of the case with the China spies makes sense, and the willingness for China to have the biggest embassy of any country in Europe makes sense. Even though the Government say that that is a quasi-judicial decision, it is interesting that for political reasons, they put it off till December. None of it makes sense, or all of it makes sense, as long as the National Security Adviser wants us to suck up to communist, totalitarian China.
Graham Stuart
My right hon. Friend makes a powerful point. That is at the heart of it. There are so many questions but one question is: why? Why would a deal like this be done by the Government? He puts forward a credible case as to why it might be.
Graham Stuart
Perhaps the hon. Gentleman, who is not brave enough to speak fully but is prepared to intervene, can tell us why he would like to vote, if only he was given the chance, to give £35 billion to Mauritius and hand over a sovereign British base to someone in strategic partnership with China.
Graham Stuart
That is rather desperate. I give way to the right hon. Member for East Antrim.
Sammy Wilson
The Minister described this asset as “priceless”, yet he is giving it away—and not only is he giving it away; he is paying someone to take it! Is this the kind of decision people would expect from a rational Government? More importantly, if it is priceless in security terms, why are we compromising it?
Graham Stuart
The right hon. Gentleman is quite right to ask that question. That is what we are trying to get to the bottom of, and we hope to hear answers from the Minister this evening so that ordinary citizens of this country can understand how it is in the UK’s interest to do this.
Of course, other points have been touched on, including, quite rightly, the Chagossians. Why is the Labour party—the party so committed to human rights and which very much sees itself as champion for the underdog—absolutely disregarding the Chagossians? As the hon. Member for Bolton West suggested, Labour also sets itself out as a nature and climate champion, yet it is handing this asset over to a country without the wherewithal—I do not know about the will, but it is certainly without the wherewithal—to ensure that the protection of that marine area continues. That is the problem, and it is why we need answers from the Minister. The Government may be unable to get anyone to speak in favour of the Bill, but they should think again, accept the amendments and new clauses, and bring some light to bear on this rather murky issue.
Aphra Brandreth (Chester South and Eddisbury) (Con)
The treaty that the Bill will implement is shocking for so many reasons: the security implications, the staggering costs, and the voices that it has ignored—the voices of British Chagossians. Their views and concerns are many and varied. I had the privilege of meeting members of the community when they came to Parliament, while the former Foreign Secretary, the right hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy), met British Chagossians only once, and that was on the very day that the treaty was signed—far too late for their voices to have any influence. They are rightly frustrated that they have been excluded from negotiations and denied meaningful engagement. It is painfully clear that their voices were not considered; if they had been, the treaty might have placed their rights at its very centre.
Instead, article 6 gives Mauritius the freedom to resettle Chagossians, but not the duty to do so. After half a century of waiting for it, their right of return is left entirely at the discretion of a foreign Government. Under article 11, despite the billions of pounds that the Bill will transfer to Mauritius, only a fraction—in the form of a trust fund—is intended for Chagossians. Even then, it will be administered solely by Mauritius, with no guarantee that British Chagossians will have any say in how it is spent.
The treaty says that the UK and Mauritius want to
“recognise the wrongs of the past”,
but how can we recognise a wrong if we refuse to listen to those who suffered it? New clause 7, tabled by the shadow Foreign Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Witham (Priti Patel), is vital because it would require the Government to listen to and consult the Chagossian community here in the UK, and to report back on how their rights are being upheld. That would give British Chagossians the voice that they have been denied again and again.
Another vital issue is the risk that the Bill poses to one of the most precious marine environments on earth. The waters around the Chagos Islands form one of the world’s largest and most pristine marine protected areas. As we have heard, it is a haven of biodiversity, untouched by industrial fishing since 2010. Yet the treaty places that fragile ecosystem in jeopardy. Mauritius has promised to establish a new marine protected area, but it lacks the capacity to enforce it. It has no navy, and its coastguard of nine vessels is already stretched by patrolling waters thousands of miles away. By contrast, the UK has spent over £1.2 million since 2022 on monitoring and protecting those seas, developing world-leading expertise in remote enforcement through ships, sensors and satellite imagery.
Illegal fishing is already rife across the Indian ocean. China’s distant-water fleet is the largest in the world and the worst global offender for illegal fishing, according to the illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing index. What confidence can we have that Mauritius—a close ally of China—will be able or willing to resist such pressure and protect these fragile waters?
Danny Kruger
I am grateful to the Minister. I suspect there has been a private conversation with the American Government as well, and that in recognition of the fait accompli that this Government have yielded to Mauritius, the Americans have extended this somewhat limited statement of support for the deal as some kind of favour to the Prime Minister, in exchange for support he has given them on other matters. The fact is that this deal is bad for Britain and bad for Britain’s sovereignty, and behind the scenes we know that the Americans do not support it.
I want to talk about secret deals, because my only addition to the debate—very powerful points have been made already—is to say that secret deals have been done with respect to the Chagos islands in the past. Under the 30-year rule, archival evidence has come out recently of a secret deal with respect to the base at Diego Garcia between the British Government of the day—the Thatcher Government—and the American Administration. That deal was done in the national interest. The renewal of the nuclear deterrent—the Trident programme—was being set up, and there was an agreement with the Americans whereby they could expand their access and the use of Diego Garcia in exchange for a reduction in the fee, essentially, that the British Government were charged for collaboration on the Trident programme. We had to pay significantly less than we would have paid otherwise because of the expanded access that we were giving to the Americans in those years. It was called the Diego-Trident package in the negotiations and the correspondence between the British and the Americans at that time. It was kept quiet for understandable reasons, and we only know about it now. I worry that there is a similar lack of transparency around this deal because, as I say, it cannot possibly be a deal that is in the national interest.
Graham Stuart
We are trying to get to the bottom of precisely why the Labour Government would make this deal. The hundreds of people who worked at the Vivergo plant in my constituency were sold out by the Prime Minister who, in a personal call with the President of the United States, surrendered the entire bioethanol market of this country to the United States, with nothing in return, at the end of an already concluded trade deal negotiation. It is things like that that make us worry what is behind this Bill, what is the secret deal and exactly who has been sold out.
Danny Kruger
The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. The key demand that this House is making is for greater transparency about what is going on behind the scenes with this deal. I implore the House to insist that, before Parliament accepts any new arrangements for the sovereignty of the Chagos islands, Ministers explain what is going on. Specifically, is the Minister aware of any effect on our nuclear posture? Is there any relationship between the deal that is being done today and implications for our deterrent? The base is vital to our national interest, and I would be grateful to understand whether any discussions have been had with reference to the deals that were done many years ago about the relationship with the nuclear deterrent.
Graham Stuart
We are all wrestling with the question “Why?” As my hon. Friend has said, the Government’s position was clear in 2017: namely, that the ICJ had no power over a deal we made with a Commonwealth member. Perhaps this Prime Minister has, without telling us, reversed that in some way, and the Government have decided that this should be subject to the ICJ, in which case the Minister would have a point, but should we not know that we made ourselves subject to the ICJ when previously we were not? What other answers are there?
Jerome Mayhew
My right hon. Friend is absolutely right to ask those questions—questions that have been asked of the Government time and again throughout this legislative process, but to which we simply have not had an answer.
The Government seem to be blind to the risk of the craven withdrawal of influence from the Indo-Pacific region. This is more Jonathan Powell. He was, of course, the Prime Minister’s envoy, and the architect of the negotiation and the deal. The more I learn of Jonathan Powell, the more I realise that he seems to have a long-term instinct to downplay the threat from China—a threat in the Indian Ocean through this negotiated deal. Let us not forget that this is the same Jonathan Powell who now wears a different hat. He is now the National Security Adviser, and that, very unusually, was a political appointment. There is the question of his involvement—or perhaps it is not his involvement— in the collapse of the Chinese spying case. We are asked to believe that he was not involved in it, and that seems baffling as well.
Stephen Doughty
The right hon. Member knows that we regret what happened historically in relation to the Chagos Islands. He will also know that the islands are not permanently inhabited. That was necessarily a negotiation between the United Kingdom and Mauritius.
Let me respond to the many points about the environment, on which many amendments were tabled. We are absolutely clear that the United Kingdom and Mauritius are committed to protecting one of the world’s most important marine environments. Indeed, the Mauritian Prime Minister met the former Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, my right hon. Friend the Member for Streatham and Croydon North (Steve Reed), in the margins of the third United Nations ocean conference in Nice on 9 June, where he reaffirmed his commitment to the creation of that marine protected area around the Chagos archipelago. That will be supported by an enhanced partnership with us. The treaty has been welcomed by leading conservation NGOs, including the Zoological Society of London. We continue to work with Mauritius on the implementation of that measure. We are considering seriously the many genuine concerns that right hon. and hon. Members, including the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee and members of the Environmental Audit Committee, have raised. They are serious and important questions, and I assure the Committee that we are taking them seriously, and I will try to update the House on them in due course.
Graham Stuart
I am grateful to the Minister for giving way—he is being very generous. In 2017, the clear position was that the International Court of Justice was not in a position to adjudicate on the relationship between us and a member of the Commonwealth. Has that changed, and, if so, when?
Stephen Doughty
We have been very clear about the legal position and the legal risk. The right hon. Gentleman’s Government knew this; it is why they started the process. I do not want to detain the Committee by going through all the arguments that I made on Second Reading—[Interruption.] But he knows that we faced the comprehensive rejection of our arguments at the ICJ in 2019, we lost votes at the UN General Assembly, we had the maritime delineation judgment binding on Mauritius and the Maldives—[Interruption.]
Ukraine: Forcibly Deported Children
Graham Stuart Excerpts(8 months, 2 weeks ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Several hon. Members rose—
Graham Stuart (in the Chair)
Order. I remind Members that they should bob if they wish to be called in the debate. I suggest an informal four-minute limit to allow all those who wish to speak to do so.
Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stuart. I congratulate the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South (Johanna Baxter) on securing this debate. She has spoken with passion and sincerity in this place, not just today but on a number of occasions. I join her in welcoming the delegation from Ukraine, who will surely, after listening to this debate, be totally convinced of the cross-party support for their country and its people. The passionate and emotional contributions today have made that very clear. Many Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Chester South and Eddisbury (Aphra Brandreth), have reflected on their personal visits to the country and its people.
Few crimes are as harrowing or telling as the theft of a child, but that is what we are debating today: the forced abduction, deportation and ideological reprogramming of Ukrainian children by the Russian state. We need to call it out for what it is. It is not a relocation or an evacuation, which the Kremlin may dress it up as, but a systemic, state-sponsored assault on identity, sovereignty and humanity itself.
Since Russia launched its full-scale invasion of Ukraine on 24 February 2022, more than 19,500 Ukrainian children are known to have been forcibly removed from their home and transferred across Russian-occupied territory into Russia itself. Independent estimates suggest that the true figure could be more than double that. As we have heard today, with each child taken, we see families torn apart, culture erased and the future of a nation under threat. Behind every number or statistic is a child, a family, friends and loved ones.
I want to make three points. First, Russia’s actions are not just indefensible, but calculated, deliberate and disgraceful. Secondly, during our time in government, the Conservatives led the way not just with weapons and sanctions but with unwavering moral clarity and practical action in support of Ukraine. Thirdly, I urge the Government to be clear-eyed and bold. They should build on what we started and not flinch in the face of Putin’s cruelty.
I have had the privilege of visiting Ukraine twice: once as a Foreign Minister in 2021, and again in 2023 as a Back Bencher with the Westminster Foundation for Democracy. On my first visit, I stood alongside Ukrainian leaders at the launch of the Crimea Platform, which was a powerful signal of international solidarity. Even then, Russia’s creeping aggression in Donbas and Crimea cast a long shadow, but the spirit of the Ukrainian people shone through.
When I returned two years later, though, Ukraine was in the grip of war as a result of Putin’s illegal invasion. Towns were scarred by missile strikes, civilians were forced underground and families were scattered across borders, but what struck me most was the resilience of the people I met: parliamentarians who had lost colleagues, mothers who had sent their sons to the frontline, children who were being educated in bunkers at school, and civil society leaders who were rebuilding community life amid chaos. They were resisting not just an illegal military invasion, but an assault on their identity, their history and, as we have heard clearly today, their children.
That is why the forced deportation of Ukrainian children is such a grotesque element of this war—it is wrong. These are not isolated incidents; they are part of a strategy to wipe out the next generation of Ukrainians by forcibly assimilating them into Russia—renaming them, placing them with Russian families and indoctrinating them in so-called re-education camps. That is not just child abduction; it is cultural erasure. That is why the International Criminal Court has, rightly, issued arrest warrants for Vladimir Putin and his commissioner for children’s rights, Maria Lvova-Belova.
Let me turn to what we as Conservatives did in government in response. When Russia invaded Ukraine, the UK did not hesitate. We were among the first to send advanced weapons to Ukraine, including anti-tank missiles, long-range precision arms and air defence systems. We trained tens of thousands of Ukrainian troops under Operation Interflex, co-ordinated international aid and introduced the largest, most severe package of sanctions in UK history, targeting around 2,000 Russian individuals and entities. We also sanctioned Maria Lvova-Belova over the forced transfer and adoption of Ukrainian children.
Under our watch, we did not stand with Ukraine just in principle; we stood with it in practice. We understood, and we understand, that helping Ukraine to defend itself was about not just charity—it was about national security, and we treated it as such. We also understood, however, that Russia’s war crimes required a broader response. That is why we supported the gathering of evidence for war crimes prosecutions, championed media freedom and democratic resilience in Ukraine, and supported Ukrainian civil society, which is the lifeblood of any free nation.
I was proud, in and out of government, to advocate for Ukraine, from sanctioning oligarchs and calling out disinformation to welcoming Ukrainian families into British homes through the Homes for Ukraine scheme, including some in my own constituency. What are the Government doing to build on that legacy? I am sure the Minister will set that out.
The moral imperative could not be clearer. Returning these children must be a top diplomatic priority, not just for Ukraine, but for the entire international community. If we do not act now, we normalise the weaponisation of children in conflict and we send the message that the forced erasure of national identity can go unpunished. What are the Government doing to press international bodies, including the UN and the OSCE, to intensify efforts to track and return these children?
What support is the UK providing to Ukrainian and international NGOs that are engaged in tracing, documenting and litigating these cases? What diplomatic pressure is the Government applying to countries that are complicit in circumventing sanctions or turning a blind eye to Russia’s war crimes, including Belarus, which has been directly implicated? I welcome the commitment to £3 billion in annual military aid to Ukraine, but how much funding is earmarked for protecting civilians, documenting atrocities and countering the ideological indoctrination of abducted children? Ukraine does not need just tanks; it needs truth and justice.
I end with this: in every Ukrainian family torn apart by abduction, there is a mother waiting, a father grieving and a sibling left behind. Each stolen child is not just a tragedy, but a test of whether the democratic world will match words with action. We on this side of the House say that we must. We led the way in government, and we will continue to hold the line in opposition. We owe it to Ukraine and the families, and we owe it to every principle that this place is meant to defend.
Graham Stuart (in the Chair)
I call the Minister, with a reminder to finish by 3.58 pm at the latest.
Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill
Graham Stuart Excerpts(8 months, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Siân Berry (Brighton Pavilion) (Green)
I will speak only briefly, as I spoke in favour of the Bill on Second Reading in November, my name is on it, and I have long supported the campaigns to change the law, including those of Dignity in Dying and Humanists UK, of which I declare I am a member and patron.
Since the vote on Second Reading, I have met and listened to a range of groups, professionals and individuals, mainly those who have concerns and those who want to see further changes made. In Brighton that has regularly included constituents at my surgery, as well as a group of leaders of local faith groups and charities who provide support to different vulnerable groups, including disabled people.
Today we are debating about half of the more than 100 proposed amendments, led by several tabled by the hon. Member for Spen Valley (Kim Leadbeater), who has set out so well how she put them together based on her own very detailed work with civil servants and her listening, including to opponents. I cannot commend her work and that of the Committee more.
The new amendments from the promoter of the Bill include welcome changes to transparency rules and how the processes and decisions made are reported and scrutinised. Other MPs have also tabled many carefully drafted and clear proposals. On eligibility, I continue to support people with slowly progressive neurological diseases, such as motor neurone disease, as reflected by my support for amendment 4, which I have signed and which was argued for so well by the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Tom Gordon).
I intend not to list lots of amendments, but to set out briefly the approach that I will take to those amendments being debated, before listening to the rest of the debate and then deciding how to vote, because I believe we must end up with the strongest, clearest and fairest process for making decisions, safeguarding against abuse, scrutinising the use of the policy after it becomes law, and providing the very best and most appropriate help to people who want this choice at the end of their lives.
I aim to back strongly the amendments that demand greater reporting and recording of decisions made and that demand transparency, including financial transparency, demographic data and other statistics from those who are supervising decisions and providing the new service, including the new supervising commissioner. The ability to monitor the implementation of this policy, ensure it is working as intended and detect any problems immediately is really important to me. I will also back changes in the process that ask for more training for those taking part in decisions and to ensure fair and effective communication throughout, including new language requirements
However, I am not currently aiming to support amendments that I think place undue, compulsory, additional burdens, hurdles, intrusions or demands on the people applying for permission to make this choice beyond what is in the Bill currently. On the basis of what I have heard, the experiences of many of my constituents and the statistics, the people asking for this choice will, by definition, be at the end of a horrible disease—often terminal cancer—which they will have fought, and fought with their doctors, for a long time. They will now be facing their final months in a situation of potentially huge suffering over which they have no control and that they fear greatly.
We must all remember that only dying people are eligible. In the vast majority of these cases, the person’s eligibility, capacity and reasons will be more than clear to the decision makers. I believe we must enable those cases to be approved in a respectful, caring and compassionate way, and as swiftly as the current Bill process allows.
In other cases, where things are less clear, I agree: many more questions may need to be asked. I believe that the professionals currently tasked in this rigorous process under the Bill will be very well placed to judge when more information, consultation and investigation will be necessary. Under the current rules, along with the amendments and new clauses I support, they will also have to account very clearly for what they ask and what they decide under effective scrutiny.
I cannot, therefore, support proposed changes that would make every applicant subject to additional intrusive steps and interrogation, with somebody appointed to argue against them, extra processes or compulsory psychological investigation.
Siân Berry
I am sorry, but I am on my last paragraph.
Those measures are effectively barriers to helping eligible people make their own choice for when and how to die at the end of all they have suffered.
I truly believe we must not make the process of gaining permission any harder or more traumatic than we need to. Although I am listening hard to the arguments made, quite a few of the amendments and new clauses cross that line. These momentous decisions about our deaths must be led by compassion, and must not be made to seem like yet another battle for people who have already given their all to staying alive.
Stephen Kinnock
I will make some progress, if I may.
Amendment 87 would require the co-ordinating doctor to “take all reasonable steps” to establish whether a first declaration had previously been made, so it may slow down the process for accessing assisting dying.
Amendment 45 would significantly impact the operability of the Bill. It would duplicate the role of the assisted dying review panel, and place an additional burden on the co-ordinating doctor to convene the clinical panel. It would also require additional NHS and social care resources, particularly palliative care consultants. That could slow down a person’s access to an assisted death, because there is no requirement on when the panel must be convened, and it could take some time to set up, given the demands on health and social care professionals. The amendment does not specify who is to be on the clinical panel in situations where the co-ordinating doctor is neither a GP nor a consultant. Similarly, there is no provision for whether the clinical panel is to make its decisions unanimously or by majority.
Amendment 48 would require significant changes to the functions and focus of the bodies that are proposed to present arguments to the panel as to why a certificate of eligibility could not be granted. Where an official solicitor acts as an advocate to the court, their purpose is to assist the court on a difficult or novel point of law, not to perform an adversarial function. Similarly, there is no precedent for the Attorney General, His Majesty’s Procurator General or the Treasury Solicitor to intervene in a case in the way that is envisaged, as their roles are to act on behalf of, or provide advice to, the Government, and not to represent a specific argument. In the Government’s view, there are no existing public bodies that are well suited to undertaking this adversarial role.
Graham Stuart
Has the Minister any sympathy with the point made by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kenilworth and Southam (Sir Jeremy Wright)? The panel might struggle to get the evidence it needs to make a decision, and there is no mechanism to address a situation in which, in the absence of that evidence, the panel makes a decision, but evidence then comes forward that suggests that its decision was incorrect. Does the Minister have any workable ideas for addressing that issue?
Stephen Kinnock
Clause 15 sets out the process that the panel must go through. It includes a right for the panel to request information and input from a range of potentially interested people. Clause 15(4)(d) appears already to cater for the intended effect of the amendment in the name of the right hon. and learned Member for Kenilworth and Southam (Sir Jeremy Wright).
British Indian Ocean Territory
Graham Stuart Excerpts(10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Stephen Doughty
My hon. Friend asks a very important question. As I have set out, there will be multiple opportunities for this House and the other place to consider this matter, not only through the normal Constitutional Reform and Governance Act process, but through the Bill that will be brought forward to make the necessary provisions under the treaty, which will go through the normal process. Full scrutiny will be afforded to Members of this House.
Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)
The President and Vice-President of the United States have made clear their detestation of countries freeloading on defence and security matters. We are not asking for the detail, we are not even asking for the quantum, but we do deserve to know in this House today whether the Government have asked the US to contribute to the base on Diego Garcia that is so vital to it—yes or no?
Stephen Doughty
As I have said on a number of occasions, we welcome the US endorsement of the deal and of its strength, and we are grateful for the close co-operation between the United Kingdom and the United States. The full details will be provided when the treaty is presented to the House.
Middle East
Graham Stuart Excerpts(1 year ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Lammy
The United Kingdom has unique capability and experience in governance issues particularly. We have unique partnerships with not just Israel but the Palestinian Authority and Arab partners, and of course the special relationship with the United States, so we are uniquely positioned for the next phase. I look forward to discussing these issues with the incoming Secretary of State Senator Rubio in the coming months to see what more the United Kingdom can do.
Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)
May I thank the Foreign Secretary for his statement, and express hope that the ceasefire is agreed and implemented and that the humanitarian aid we want to see follows on from it? In that light, does he share my concern about the evidence that UNRWA has been penetrated by Hamas and that the curriculum in schools run by UNRWA has propagated hate? Does he agree that the job of reform of UNRWA has not yet been finished and needs to be looked at so that UNRWA does not act as a place where terrorists can hide and hate can be promoted?
Mr Lammy
I was horrified by the allegations against UNRWA, and it was entirely proper and appropriate that the United Nations got someone of eminence and importance to look at those issues. I know Madame Colonna, and I spoke to her following her review. In re-establishing funding to UNRWA, we gave £1 million to the UN to assist the implementation of her plan. The hon. Member is right that the process is not yet complete, but we heard again this morning from United Nations representatives that they are reassured that the process is under way and that UNRWA cannot and can never be a hiding place for those who commit terrorism.
Oral Answers to Questions
Graham Stuart Excerpts(1 year, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Hamish Falconer
I will have to write to my right hon. Friend about the specific watchtower and whether we have provided any aid. Underlying her point, I think, is a question about what we do when our statements about UNIFIL are not abided by. Let me be clear with the House: the current situation is unsustainable, and we continue to raise the matter through all diplomatic measures and will do so until there is progress. I can perhaps write to my right hon. Friend about our future plans regarding peacekeepers in Lebanon.
Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)
There is only one route to sustained peace in Lebanon, and that is for the UN and the Lebanese state to stop Hezbollah carrying out its operations. That’s right, isn’t it?
Hamish Falconer
We agree that Lebanese Hezbollah should not be conducting the actions that it has been conducting. As I said in response to the previous question, this situation needs to be resolved in accordance with the UN Security Council resolutions. If the right hon. Gentleman is asking me whether we think what Lebanese Hezbollah is doing across the blue line is correct or justifiable, my answer is that it is not. We call on it, as we have always called on it, to stop. We have proscribed the organisation domestically and have absolutely no truck with it whatsoever. Iran’s malign influence in Lebanon must stop, and we are taking actions to try to effect that.
Oral Answers to Questions
Graham Stuart Excerpts(3 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP)
The Minister for Europe (Graham Stuart)
The Northern Ireland protocol is not delivering the goals set out in it. First and foremost among those is ensuring peace and prosperity in Northern Ireland, and protecting the Belfast/Good Friday agreement. The protocol is also disrupting east-west trade, including by doubtless affecting businesses in the hon. Lady’s constituency. Northern Ireland is an integral part of the UK and we must resolve the very real problems it is facing, which is why we have introduced the Bill.
Deidre Brock
University College London’s chair of science and research policy recently said that the UK has “no pathway to association” with Horizon Europe and that
“leaving Horizon knocks us back both in reputation and in substance in terms of the UK as an international partner in research. It is fanciful to pretend anything else.”
Will the Government finally accept that as a truth? What does the Minister say to researchers and academics up and down the UK who are missing out on precious funding and collaboration with European partners in the name of the Brexit vanity project?
Graham Stuart
I am grateful for the hon. Lady’s passionate espousal of the need for us to be a member of Horizon, Euratom and the other programmes, all of which were agreed, as she will recall, in the trade and co-operation agreement. The EU has failed to implement our association with that, and there is no linkage. I would ask the hon. Lady, with the scientific community of this country, to stand up to the EU and say that inappropriate linkages should be resisted, that they are damaging them, damaging us and damaging our joint endeavours to tackle the greatest challenges facing mankind, and it is something that needs to change.
Mr Steve Baker (Wycombe) (Con)
I think we can all agree that the protocol, as it stands today, has become a thorn in the side of relations between us and Ireland, and indeed a thorn in Ireland’s side as it seeks to move things forward with the rest of the EU. Is it not time that we proceeded with the humility to recognise the legitimate interests of all parties to the protocol and the fierce resolve to say enough is enough and it is time to solve the evident problems that have arisen and to evolve the protocol in a negotiated way, if possible, but in any event to a solution that can last?
Graham Stuart
My hon. Friend is right. The protocol is not delivering the main objectives set out on its face. That is why something has to be done. I was delighted to spend Friday and Saturday at the British-Irish Association with the Taoiseach and the Irish Foreign Minister and, indeed, the vice-president of the European Commission. I believe, as I am sure my hon. Friend does, that our clear preference for a negotiated solution is the right one. I would further add that the Bill includes the facility to accelerate any negotiated agreement, and that is very much our offer to the EU. We prefer a negotiated solution. It is very important to put this right.
Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)
Can the Minister assure us that in any of his discussions with his international counterparts he will robustly argue that the protocol cannot continue? Will he explain that it has ripped apart the Belfast agreement, it has undermined democracy in Northern Ireland, it has increased costs to consumers and businesses, it has disrupted Great Britain and Northern Ireland trade and displaced it with trade from the Republic, and it is being cynically used by the EU as a mechanism to punish the UK for leaving the EU, regardless of the cost to the people of Northern Ireland?
Graham Stuart
The hon. Gentleman makes very strong points. At the heart of the Belfast/Good Friday agreement is the idea of communities coming together, to have the Executive, to make sure that we put the war-torn years and all that tragedy behind us. It is clear that not just one party in Northern Ireland but the entire Unionist community has ruled out the protocol as a route to delivery of that. And, of course, there is disquiet in all communities, as can be found in the surveys of, for instance, the University of Liverpool’s Institute of Irish Studies.
Mr David Lammy (Tottenham) (Lab)
We are facing a cost of living crisis in which bills are sky-rocketing and people across the country will face the choice between eating or heating. Instead of proposing a solution, the Conservatives have spent the summer ramping up the rhetoric on the protocol, to risk new trade barriers with Europe. This Minister has had a recent elevation. Will he take this opportunity to commit to scrapping the reckless Northern Ireland Protocol Bill so that the Government can begin serious negotiations with the EU to fix the protocol and avoid hitting the British public in their pockets?
Graham Stuart
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for yet again making it so crystal clear, both to the House and to the British public, that in any dispute he and his party will always side with the EU and not with the interests of the British people. [Interruption.] As he says, I am horribly new to this brief. The first thing I did on the first weekend after my appointment was to read the protocol. It does not matter how we look at it, the protocol is not functioning and it is not working. For him and his party to suggest that it is us and not the EU that needs to change tack shows that, yet again, he betrays the British people and shows why Labour now, in the past and in the future is unfit for office.
Alyn Smith (Stirling) (SNP)
I find myself in unexpected agreement with the right hon. Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson): I do believe that the protocol is being cynically abused. However, I do not think that it is being cynically abused by the EU; it is being cynically abused by the future Prime Minister. The Northern Ireland Protocol Bill is wrong in international law; wrong in politics, in that most MLAs support the protocol; and wrong as a negotiating tactic, because it has put backs up across the EU. There are ways of reforming the protocol within the protocol, but that has been ignored. The only way that the Bill makes sense to me is as a vehicle for the future Prime Minister to prove how tough she is on Europe. Now is the time to get rid of it. As we have heard, it is stymieing lots of constructive relations. Will the Minister please pass that on to the future Prime Minister?
Graham Stuart
As I have said, I am new to this, but I have looked at the protocol and it is not working. There are three main priorities. One is the protection of the single market—perhaps there is a tick. On the Good Friday agreement, peace in Northern Ireland and community consent, that is required by the protocol but it is not working, and neither is the prevention of unnecessary blockage for east-west trade. I would have thought that the hon. Gentleman, and even the shadow Foreign Secretary, might have put their constituents and the businesses that they represent first, and for once been prepared to recognise that it is the British Government who are correct. We are ready to negotiate. As the hon. Gentleman said, the protocol set out the objectives and said that it might need amendment, it might need replacement, but in any event it needs consent. That is what the protocol says. I suggest that he reads it, rather than insisting on the imposition—
Mr Speaker
Order. Minister, this might be your last outing, but do not overperform—save something.
Theresa Villiers (Chipping Barnet) (Con)
The Minister for Europe (Graham Stuart)
I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend; she is a great champion for the reunification of Cyprus. We are determined to find a negotiated settlement for the island, which is why I met Cypriot Foreign Minister Kasoulides in my first week in office to set out the UK’s commitment to finding a just and lasting settlement.
Theresa Villiers
Will the Minister condemn the actions of the Turkish authorities in reopening parts of the beachfront town of Famagusta as this is causing great distress to the Greek Cypriots who were driven from those homes 48 years ago and have never been able to return? Such provocative actions make it harder to achieve a negotiated settlement.
Graham Stuart
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The fact that the suburb of Varosha within Famagusta is being fenced off underlines the importance of reaching a comprehensive Cyprus settlement. The UK strongly opposes any destabilising actions. We support the UN Security Council resolutions covering Varosha, the latest of which calls for the immediate reversal of the Turkish course of action and of all steps taken on Varosha since October 2020.
Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)
Mr David Davis (Haltemprice and Howden) (Con)
The Minister for Europe (Graham Stuart)
We must support Ukraine’s vision for rebuilding a sovereign, prosperous, democratic nation that is stronger than it was before Putin’s invasion. Significant support will be required. That is why, in early July, the Foreign Secretary presented our vision to support the Ukraine-led effort for recovery and reconstruction at the Ukraine recovery conference in Lugano. We will host that conference next year because we must not only support the Ukrainians now, but look ahead to a better future.
Several hon. Members rose—
Humanitarian Situation in Afghanistan
Graham Stuart Excerpts(3 years, 6 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Europe (Graham Stuart)
My noble Friend the Minister for South and Central Asia, North Africa, United Nations and the Commonwealth (Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon), has made the following written ministerial statement:
The UK has committed £286 million in financial year 2022-23 for Afghanistan. This aid will provide life-saving support to the most vulnerable, especially women and girls. We are working with aid agencies to ensure that marginalised groups have equal, safe and dignified access to assistance and services. Our funding has included support for access to sustainable clean water and sanitation, nutrition treatment and primary healthcare services, as well as support in response to gender-based violence.
The earthquake in Paktika and Khost provinces in eastern Afghanistan on 22 June exacerbated the humanitarian situation and killed over 1,000 people and injured over 2,900. The Government offered support only hours after the earthquake struck. UK aid was already being delivered to the affected areas prior to the earthquake via the UN, non-Government organisations and the Red Cross. The Government rapidly allocated £3 million for immediate life-saving support to people affected. £2 million has been disbursed to the International Federation of the Red Cross, £500,000 to the Norwegian Refugee Council and £500,000 to the International Rescue Committee to provide shelter, healthcare, water, sanitation and hygiene support.
The Government’s response to the earthquake is part of our concerted ongoing humanitarian support. Afghanistan’s humanitarian crisis is affecting just under half of the population, with 18.9 million facing acute food insecurity. Afghanistan remains one of the world’s most severe food security crises. People continue to turn to drastic measures to feed their families. Over 6 million people have been internally displaced and millions of children are out of school, in part because the Taliban still prevent girls from attending secondary school.
The UK has disbursed £140 million in humanitarian aid since April 2022 including £50 million to the Afghanistan Humanitarian Fund, £70 million to the World Food Programme and £12 million to the United Nations Children’s Fund. Through the World Food Programme, the UK aims to support over 4 million people with food assistance. All our funding is provided directly to humanitarian organisations working in Afghanistan. All UK aid is subject to strict monitoring and verification to ensure it is only used to help the vulnerable people it is intended for.
Humanitarian partners report they are increasingly facing interference attempts by the Taliban and other armed groups in the delivery of independent, equitable and safe humanitarian assistance. There have been instances of periodic disruption in aid delivery in specific locations, however to date, UK funded agencies continue to deliver. The UK regularly emphasises to the Taliban the need for humanitarian organisations to operate independently in the delivery of assistance and to respect the rights of women and girls.
The UK continues to engage closely with donors and played an instrumental role in supporting the World Bank Board’s decision to make the remaining $1 billion in the Afghanistan Reconstruction Trust Fund available. $793 million of programming is currently in the process of being mobilised, focusing on community projects and livelihoods, health and food security.
The Foreign Secretary and Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon are in regular contact with their international counterparts on Afghanistan. At the G7 Foreign Ministers meeting in May, the Foreign Secretary discussed the current security, humanitarian, and human rights situation as well as longer term prospects for the country and region with her counterparts. Ministers have regular discussions with humanitarian actors working in Afghanistan, most recently during Lord Ahmad’s trip to Geneva in June 2022, where he met the Red Cross and United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees.
[HCWS222]