Arlene Foster – journalist

 

Our British family of nations is not confined to simply the United Kingdom of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. It includes the people of Gibraltar, the Falklands, Bermuda, Montserrat, and the other territories scattered across the globe. The UK Overseas Territories are not distant lands inhabited by strangers – they are a core part of our shared identity and country, and the people that live in them are as British as those in Belfast, Edinburgh, Cardiff and London. As the First Minister of Northern Ireland, I sought to forge friendships with leaders of the Overseas Territories, most notably with our European counterparts, Gibraltar.

This week, I have the privilege of visiting the Falkland Islands as part of a delegation organised by Friends of the British Overseas Territories. This visit is both an opportunity to learn more about the lives of those living on the islands, but also a chance to reflect on the broader principles of self-determination, sovereignty, and the rights of those who call the UK Overseas Territories their homes.

Nowhere is this more evident than in the Falkland Islands, where the population has repeatedly reaffirmed its wish to remain British with the support of successive UK Governments, despite pressure from Argentina. The Falkland Islanders cherish their right to self-determination, just as the people of Northern Ireland do.

It is against this background that I wish to highlight the plight of the Chagossian people. As the UK Government negotiates a deal with Mauritius over the sovereignty of the islands, they are doing so over the heads of the Chagossian people and failing to respect their right to self-determination. This is wrong. It is unjust. And it is something that those of us who care deeply about the UK Overseas Territories and their people must stand up against.

Yet, whilst the UK Government rightly defends the other Overseas Territories’ right to self-determination, they fail the Chagossians by negotiating their future without their consent, citing the lack of a permanent population on the islands as an excuse (one of many excuses) – which is only the case because they were forcibly removed in the first place.

The argument provided by the UK Government is that handing over sovereignty of the Chagos Islands to Mauritius is a way of righting a historic wrong. But what kind of justice ignores the very people who were forcibly removed from their homeland? True justice would mean allowing the Chagossians to return to their islands under British sovereignty and live side-by-side with the base on Diego Garcia; just like in Cyprus or Ascension Island. Instead, they are being told that their homeland will be handed to a country they do not wish to be part of, and one with no real claim over the islands, under a government that has shown little interest in their well-being. To identify yourself as Chagossian in Mauritius could land you with a 10-year jail sentence – what sort of free-speaking Commonwealth partner is this?

But there is a bigger issue at stake, and one that should concern all of us who value the right to self-determination. If the UK Government is willing to negotiate away the sovereignty of one Overseas Territory without the full consideration of its people, what message does that send about their support for the right to self-determination across the other Overseas Territories? The principle of self-determination cannot be selectively applied. If we defend the right of the Falkland Islanders and Gibraltarians to decide their own future, we must do the same for the Chagossians. During my visit to the Falklands, I am looking forward to meeting people who understand what it means to fight for their identity and right to self-determination. The Falkland Islanders know what it is like to face a threat to their sovereignty from a nation with no legitimate claim.

I have previously stood-up for Northern Ireland, putting the case forward that we are one British family – we must look after each other and put our interests first.

That is why I am calling on people of the Overseas Territories, and people right across the UK, to stand in solidarity with the Chagossians. This is not just their fight – it is a fight for all of us who believe in the right of British people to determine their own future, and I have sought to strongly support them in the House of Lords and through Friends of the British Overseas Territories.

The Falkland Islanders have shown the will of the people matters: not just once, but twice they decided to remain part of the British family. The Chagossians have suffered enough, it is time to right the wrongs of the past and ensure their voices are heard and their wishes implemented.

 

 

 

Friends of the British Overseas Territories to visit the Falkland Islands in February with Parliamentary Adviser, Baroness Foster

CEO Philip Smith of Friends of the British Overseas Territories (FOTBOT) will visit the Falkland Islands with the charity’s committee.

Accompanying the delegation will be the former First Minister of Northern Ireland, Baroness Foster of Aghadrumsee who is a House of Lords Parliamentary Adviser to FOTBOT.

Whilst in the Falkland Islands the delegation will be touring all the different aspects of life in the Falklands. We will also host our own reception to meet islanders.

In 2022, FOTBOT hosted a campaign to raise funds for the Falkland Island Museum to help build a new hangar for an old harrier from the Falklands War which the delegation will visit.

The visit comes in the midst of the Chagos Islands row where self-determination has been at the heart of the campaign. We hope to rally Falkland Islanders in solidarity with the exiled Chagossians in their right to self-determination.

CEO Philip Smith says: “This visit is an important milestone for Friends of the British Overseas Territories. On one side we are celebrating conservation efforts and understanding life in the Falkland Islands but on the other, we are standing up for self-determination.

“The British Overseas Territories are a family and we must stand together and speak-up when something is not right.

“We are looking forward to meeting officials and Islanders alike to understand critical issues of the Falkland Islands for now and the future, and incorporate our findings into the charity’s work.”

Baroness Foster says: “I’m honoured to visit the Falkland Islands and meet islanders during this special time and understand the critical issues facing the British people there.

“After going through the invasion and subsequent war in 1982 and then being asked about their identity in 1986 and 2013 – the Falkland Islands knows the definition of self-determination and so proudly waves the Union flag.

“This is why we must stand up for Chagossians and I’ll certainly be understanding the view from the Falkland Islands and show solidarity with our wider British family.”

 

 

 

 

Betrayal of Victims: Govt’s Shocking Adams U-Turn!

By Arlene Foster – The Government’s decision to allow Gerry Adams and others to claim compensation for wrongful detention during the Troubles is a shocking betrayal of victims across the UK. It disregards decades of suffering inflicted by terrorists and overturns a well-established legal principle that safeguarded government decision-making during a time of crisis. Successive governments have repeatedly failed victims, but this latest move crosses a new line by prioritising technical legalities over moral responsibility. Parliament had acted to close this loophole, yet the Government now seems determined to reopen it, causing further pain to those who have already suffered too much.

The Government decision disregards the immense suffering caused by terrorist violence and undermines decades of efforts to heal the wounds inflicted during that dark period. Successive governments have repeatedly failed victims, and now, by overturning long-standing legal principles, they risk retraumatising those who have already endured unimaginable pain. This issue goes beyond legal technicalities; it strikes at the heart of justice, fairness, and the moral responsibility owed to victims of terror.

Victims in Northern Ireland and across the rest of the United Kingdom suffered immensely during the euphemistically termed Troubles. These decades of violence and terror inflicted deep wounds on communities, families, and individuals. With the signing of the Belfast Agreement in 1998, many hoped that victims’ voices would finally be heard, their suffering acknowledged, and their needs addressed. However, successive Governments, regardless of party affiliation, have either neglected victims or, worse, retraumatised them through misguided policies and actions.

The latest affront to victims is to allow Gerry Adams, and by extension others, to claim compensation for the wrongful exercise of interim custody orders in the early 1970s. This decision is deeply distressing to victims and to many right-thinking people across the UK. Adams, a prominent figure in the Troubles, represents for many the very face of the terror and trauma they endured. The idea that he might now receive compensation—essentially financial reward—for a legal technicality is abhorrent.

The legal basis for this decision stems from a controversial Supreme Court ruling that overturned the established Carltona principle. This principle allowed powers conferred on a secretary of state to be exercised by others, such as a Minister of State, ensuring the efficient functioning of government. The Supreme Court’s judgment in the case of R v Adams disrupted this long-standing precedent and opened the door for claims of wrongful imprisonment by individuals like Adams.

This ruling has been heavily criticised by senior legal figures and experts. The think tank Policy Exchange’s detailed paper, “Misjudging Parliament’s Reversal of the Supreme Court’s Judgment in R v Adams,” dissects the flaws in the court’s reasoning. It highlights the detrimental impact of the judgment on government functioning and the dangerous precedent it sets. The paper also underscores that the court’s decision effectively disregarded the intentions and practical realities of governance during a time of extraordinary crisis in Northern Ireland.

Recognising the significance of this issue, Parliament acted decisively to address it through the Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act of 2023. While the Act was controversial—with many criticising elements related to amnesty provisions and the structure of truth recovery mechanisms—sections 46 and 47, which reinstated the Carltona principle, received broad cross-party support. These sections were seen as essential to preventing claims like Adams’ from succeeding and preserving the integrity of government decision-making during the Troubles. This was challenged in the Northern Ireland High court which said the provisions unanimously agreed by Parliament were not compatible with Human Rights legislation. Government could and should have resisted this determination but instead have decided to ignore the will of parliament.

The Labour Party’s current position on the Act is concerning. In their election manifesto, they committed to repealing the Legacy and Reconciliation Act. However, their approach to repeal has been selective. They plan to retain provisions establishing the Independent Commission for Reconciliation and Information Recovery while removing sections 46 and 47. This selective approach raises serious questions. If Labour can keep the clauses related to reconciliation, why can they not also retain the widely supported provisions reinstating the Carltona principle? Their failure to do so is not only inconsistent but also deeply troubling.

What is particularly alarming is the lack of any substantial justification from Labour for this decision. Their argument essentially boils down to deferring to the court’s ruling. Yet, in a parliamentary democracy, it is Parliament’s role to legislate and make decisions on matters of public policy. Courts interpret the law, but it is Parliament that sets the law. The sovereignty of Parliament is a cornerstone of the UK’s constitutional framework. In this case, the will of Parliament—as expressed through the passing of sections 46 and 47—should take precedence, especially given the profound public interest at stake.

The implications of Labour’s stance are far-reaching. By failing to uphold sections 46 and 47, they risk undermining public confidence in government processes and, more importantly, they risk causing further harm to victims. Many victims of the Troubles have already endured unimaginable pain and loss. They have seen perpetrators walk free, and they have watched as their suffering has been sidelined in the pursuit of political agreements and reconciliatory gestures. The idea that someone like Gerry Adams could now receive compensation adds insult to injury. It sends a message that their suffering is secondary to legal technicalities and political expediency.

Like many more eminent noble Lords who have expressed their opposition to the Government’s approach, I too will continue to challenge this move. The work of Policy Exchange and other critical voices must be amplified. The Government’s attempt to change the law through a remedial order in Parliament must be scrutinised and resisted. This is not just about technical legal principles; it is about recognising the hurt and pain that victims have already endured and preventing further harm.

There is still time for the Government and the Opposition to reconsider their positions. They must ask themselves: what message are we sending to victims? Are we prioritising justice, fairness, and compassion, or are we letting legal formalities and political calculations dictate our actions? The answer should be clear. The Government must think again. They must prioritise victims, uphold the integrity of parliamentary sovereignty, and prevent the retraumatisation of those who have already suffered so much at the hands of terrorists.

In the end, this is about more than legal doctrines and legislative provisions. It is about people. It is about communities that have been torn apart by violence and are still trying to heal. It is about acknowledging their suffering and ensuring that the actions of Government do not exacerbate their pain. The decision to allow Gerry Adams to claim compensation is a step in the wrong direction. It is a step that must be challenged and reversed. For the sake of victims, for the sake of justice, and for the sake of our collective conscience, Parliament must stand firm.

 

 

By Arlene Foster

As someone who has spent more than two decades in the gritty, exhausting, and often frustrating world of peace negotiations, I know first hand that the road to lasting peace is neither straight nor smooth. But there is one truth that I have learned through it all: peace processes that exclude women are doomed to fail.

Today [15^th November 2024] , in the House of Lords I strongly supported the Women, Peace and Security Bill [HL] which is all about giving women the voice they deserve in global peace talks and diplomacy. It forces our Government to take women’s roles seriously in conflict prevention and foreign policy, making sure their input shapes decisions that affect us all. For women in the UK, it’s a big win—showing that Britain backs equality, values women’s leadership, and knows that putting women at the heart of decision-making creates a safer, fairer world for everyone.

Let me be clear: involving women in peacebuilding is not a “nice-to-have” policy or an act of tokenism. It is a proven strategy that increases the chances of achieving sustainable peace. Evidence shows that peace agreements are 35% more likely to endure for 15 years when women participate meaningfully in negotiations. For that reason alone, we must prioritize women’s inclusion—not just because it is the right thing to do, but because it works.

Yet, despite the international community’s commitments, progress has been slow. The United Nations resolutions cited in this Bill have shone a spotlight on the importance of women’s participation in security and peace processes. However, the numbers tell a different story. Across the globe, women remain vastly underrepresented in peace negotiations. In some parts of the world, their rights are being systematically rolled back.

Afghanistan is the most harrowing example. The Taliban’s latest decree banning women from listening to other women’s voices is a horrifying reminder of how deeply entrenched this oppression has become. Just when you think it cannot get any worse for Afghan women, it does.

I call upon my colleagues in the Lords to give time to a full debate on the plight of Afghan women. Their struggles are emblematic of the broader fight to uphold and protect women’s rights, particularly in conflict zones.

The Women, Peace and Security Bill is an opportunity for the UK to lead by example. The Bill places a duty on the Government to have regard to the UK’s National Action Plan on Women, Peace and Security, which lays out a comprehensive framework for addressing these issues. The current plan, covering 2023 to 2027, sets ambitious targets, and rightly so.

Its first strategic objective—to increase women’s meaningful participation, leadership, and representation in decision-making processes—is especially close to my heart. From my experience in Northern Ireland, I can attest that the more representative the process, the more effective it becomes.

When I sat at the negotiating table during some of Northern Ireland’s most challenging periods, I saw how women brought unique perspectives to the conversation. Women are often deeply connected to their communities, understand the nuances of relationships on the ground, and are more likely to advocate for reconciliation and inclusivity.

Northern Ireland’s women have not only been peacemakers but peace sustainers. They’ve worked tirelessly behind the scenes, fostering better relationships and driving reconciliation efforts long after the ink on agreements has dried. These contributions deserve to be recognized, and I am pleased that the fifth National Action Plan highlights the expertise of women peacebuilders in Northern Ireland.

Of course, we did not always get it right. As my bishop reminded me during our Remembrance Day service last Sunday, diplomacy rarely succeeds on the first, second, or even third attempt. It requires patience, resilience, and the ability to find a chink of light in the darkest of moments.

But the lessons we learned in Northern Ireland can—and must—be applied elsewhere. Women’s involvement in peace processes is not an optional extra; it is essential. Their voices bring perspectives that men, however well-intentioned, often overlook.

So, as we debate the Women, Peace and Security Bill, I urge my fellow legislators to recognize its importance. This is about more than ticking boxes or fulfilling quotas. It is about creating the conditions for lasting peace and security, both for those directly affected by conflict and for the world as a whole.

The UK has an opportunity to lead by example and show that women’s voices in peace processes are not a luxury—they are a necessity. This Bill is a step in the right direction. Now, we must ensure that its principles translate into meaningful action on the ground.

The time for vague commitments has passed. Women must be at the table—not as an afterthought, but as a driving force for change. Because when women lead, peace lasts.