Arrangement of Business
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Morgan of Drefelin) (Lab)
My Lords, if there is a Division in the Chamber while we are sitting, this Committee will adjourn as soon as the Division Bells are rung and resume 10 minutes afterwards.
Road Vehicles (Type-Approval) (Amendment) Regulations 2025
(1 day, 2 hours ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Dodds of Duncairn
That the Grand Committee takes note of the Road Vehicles (Type-Approval) (Amendment) Regulations 2025.
Lord Dodds of Duncairn (DUP)
My Lords, I will speak also to the Road Vehicles (Type-Approval) (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations.
The stated purpose of these regulations is to bring Great Britain’s vehicle type approval regime into closer alignment with the European Union legislation—legislation which, of course, applies in Northern Ireland as a result of the protocol/Windsor Framework. That objective, I say in passing, inevitably raises serious and wider questions regarding implications of the Windsor Framework and the Government’s trajectory of regulatory convergence with the European Union, despite the UK having no role in shaping the rules with which it is expected to comply.
Ministers argue that such alignment is necessary to reduce friction within the United Kingdom’s internal market. However, the practical effect of these regulations is not to preserve that market but to formalise its division. They explicitly acknowledge and entrench the existence of two separate regulatory systems within our country—one applicable to Great Britain and another in Northern Ireland, which remains bound by the EU single market for goods. Indeed, paragraph 5.9 of the Explanatory Memorandum to the no. 2 regulations talks about the removal of barriers for vehicle manufacturers
“wishing to sell vehicles on both GB and EU/NI markets”.
Therefore, these regulations do not resolve the fundamental issue; they institutionalise it. They reinforce the reality of a United Kingdom operating under two distinct vehicle type approval regimes. This situation—that division of regulatory regimes—is causing real problems for car dealers and ordinary consumers and customers in Northern Ireland through additional costs, reduced availability of vehicles, and burdensome administrative complexity. It is a position that, in my view, is wholly unsustainable for the United Kingdom.
I put it to the Government that in reinforcing the division of the UK into two separate and distinct vehicle type approval schemes, they must realise that they are acting in contradiction of Section 46 of the United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020, which says that Ministers must have special regard to Northern Ireland’s place within the United Kingdom and to the need to
“facilitate the free flow of goods between Great Britain and Northern Ireland”.
Whatever else these regulations do, they do nothing to meet those criteria and to restore Northern Ireland’s place within the UK internal market. Until the Government address the underlying structural issue of dual regulatory regimes, businesses and consumers will continue to bear the costs of a flawed system.
I come to the real and practical problems that consumers and businesses now face in Northern Ireland as a result of the dual regulatory regime, even after these regulations come into force. In the first 10 months of this year alone, the car market in Northern Ireland is down by 6%, and in the rest of the United Kingdom it has increased by 5%. That represents a reduction in turnover of approximately £50 million. Matters are expected to deteriorate significantly as we approach next year, when full implementation of the GB type approval scheme is due to come into force.
We have seen some very stark consequences already. The best-selling car in Northern Ireland, the Vauxhall Corsa, cannot be sold in Northern Ireland as things stand; it can be sold in the rest of the United Kingdom, but it cannot be sold in Northern Ireland. Renault, Citroën, Peugeot, Fiat, Jeep, Alfa Romeo, Vauxhall, Nissan and Jaguar Land Rover are not dual-approved. BMW is making dual-approved cars, but they are still Great Britain-designated when leaving the factory. This industry in Northern Ireland supports 17,600 employees. If we keep on the present course, job losses will be an unavoidable reality, consumer choice will continue to be greatly restricted and the costs for consumers—including hard-working families in Northern Ireland—will rise sharply.
This is not theoretical; it is already happening. The National Franchised Dealers Association of Northern Ireland has given oral and written evidence to the Northern Ireland Assembly’s Committee for the Economy on a number of occasions, most recently just last week. Its message, as it stated to Members of the Assembly—who, by the way, unanimously agreed across all parties that this was a serious and important issue that needed to be addressed—was one of profound frustration. It expressed exasperation at the degree to which the free flow of vehicles within the United Kingdom is being obstructed. It said in its evidence last week that there has been little meaningful progress in identifying a workable solution; that sentiment is shared in the Northern Ireland Assembly and by elected representatives in Northern Ireland.
The Government have given assurances, but action to remove the fundamental problem has been lacking. Businesses and customers cannot operate on the basis of promises that something may be done at some unspecified point in the future. Action is needed now or at the start of next year; otherwise, we are going to face immense problems. It is simply not logical or defensible that Northern Ireland should be excluded from the UK-wide car market, which accounts for 2 million units per year; the Northern Ireland market accounts for 45,000 units a year. We are old that this system exists to protect the EU single market, yet the reality, according to the evidence given to the Assembly, is that, in the first 10 months of this year, only six vehicles moved into the Irish Republic. That is the scale of the so-called risk.
This system is doing so much damage to consumers in Northern Ireland, whom it is designed to protect. It is destroying the UK internal market and, with it, reducing competitiveness, undermining consumer choice and placing livelihoods in jeopardy. Consumers will increasingly and inevitably turn to Great Britain, where there will be greater choice and lower prices, to purchase vehicles. Manufacturer incentives and deals that are available on the mainland are not, and will not be, accessible in Northern Ireland, exacerbating the trend. Why should citizens in Northern Ireland be disadvantaged in this way? Sales at Vauxhall, one of the leading manufacturers in terms of market share, are up by 16% in Britain and down by 59% in Northern Ireland. That is not market fluctuation; that is structural failure.
With all of this, I fear that Northern Ireland is becoming increasingly marginalised. Our consumers are viewed as less valuable and attractive and are increasingly inaccessible within the manufacturers’ supply strategies. Car dealers and franchises in Northern Ireland will no longer have access to the UK unsold stock pipeline, as vehicles will be produced primarily to GB standards. This will fundamentally change the ability of local dealers to source and supply vehicles competitively.
Market distortion is inevitable. Great Britain-based dealers will pre-register vehicles and actively market them into Northern Ireland, or consumers will simply travel to England, Scotland or Wales to access better value and wider choice. That is not a functioning internal market, which is the Government’s obligation to uphold under the internal market Act.
It will also become increasingly difficult for dealers to sell new electric vehicles, particularly as compliance requirements tighten. Dealers will be forced to stockpile EU-compliant vehicles to maintain availability, creating significant additional cost burdens. Meanwhile, consumers in Northern Ireland will be excluded from the very consumer offers targeted at clearing unsold pipeline stock across Great Britain.
The EU, and thus Northern Ireland, is due to adopt new emissions standards in the coming years in respect of plug-in hybrids, as well as applying the new general safety regulation phases 2 and 3. This will drive divergence between Great Britain and Northern Ireland new car markets even more. They will also increase benefits-in-kind taxation costs in Northern Ireland. These costs are based on different utility factor categorisations allocated by the EU to Northern Ireland and by the UK Government to Great Britain. This is expected to work out to some £4,000 extra for a Northern Ireland consumer of a new car compared to the rest of the United Kingdom.
The NFDA asked last week: why is it acceptable, under the Windsor Framework, for consumers in Northern Ireland to have less choice and yet pay higher taxes than the rest of the United Kingdom? The Government have spoken about future equalisation measures, and I have no doubt we will hear that again today. However, that provides little comfort for customers standing in showrooms today, or after the Christmas holidays and in the new year, or for dealers, who face the immediate prospect of the problems that these measures create.
The Government say that there is no technical impediment to manufacturers dealing with dual-type approval. They say that it is legal for them to do it, but permitting something and making it legal is very different from the actual practice of businesses, which of course want to operate within the law, but they operate on the basis of what makes sense commercially. Manufacturers are not taking guidance from government officials; they are, naturally and inevitably, pursuing separate type approvals wherever it gives them commercial advantage—that is what is happening. As I said, sometimes cars are made dual approved, but on leaving the factory, they are designated as either EU or GB type approval. The reason given by manufacturers for pursuing single-type approvals is that they are restructuring their internal engineering processes and systems on the assumption of progressive divergence between EU and GB standards over time. That is the commercial reality they are preparing for. Even those manufacturers who have opted for dual-type approval do so only as an interim measure, expecting future divergence and prepared to adapt their approvals accordingly. They will move away from EU standards if they believe there is a commercial benefit in doing so.
As I said, the Government will say that we need not worry about all this because we will converge with the EU and adopt its standards. However, that is not sufficient to meet the here and now; it is not sufficient to meet will happen in the next six months to a year. In reality—according to the evidence given to the Northern Ireland Assembly Committee for the Economy—we are not going to have 100% convergence in any case, so manufacturers will always say that they are going to build according to the GB regulations; it is a far bigger and more profitable market compared with doing something to accommodate the 45,000 sales in Northern Ireland. Some manufacturers have indicated that they will exit the Northern Ireland market entirely, as the volume simply does not justify the cost and complexity of operating under these incredibly complex conditions.
We are going to have restricted consumer choice, increased prices compared with the rest of the UK, higher benefits-in-kind taxation, differing vehicle specifications, customer confusion, reduced stock availability and prolonged delivery times. The Government must now acknowledge that this is unsustainable. It is not protecting trade but suppressing it. It is not safeguarding jobs but placing them at risk, and it is eroding Northern Ireland’s place within the UK internal market.
Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate (Con)
My Lords, I know there are a lot of colleagues from Northern Ireland present. Before we hear the elaboration here, I would just like to get some clarification, if I may, from the Minister.
We are, of course, party to the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe—1958 was the agreement signed by the United Kingdom—as are member states and the EU itself. Indeed, I was quite amazed to read the amount of regulation that the United Nations has applied in connection with motor vehicles. I speak not with direct knowledge but as vice-chairman of the Historic Vehicles All-Party Parliamentary Group, but it seems to me very interesting and really quite amazing that we cannot see the coming together of regulations, when some of the exemptions have clearly negatively affected the marketplace in Northern Ireland.
The detail in which the United Nations goes into these matters is quite extraordinary. For instance, on the emergency call systems that are now installed in all new motor cars, it requires confirmation of the details. Whether it is to be through 2G or 3G, as it was known, or under the new 4G or 5G speed of communication has to be specifically stated under United Nations Regulation 144. When it comes to ISOFIX—child seats, safety seats, and of course it is vital that they should be safe—the United Nations again has a clear regulation in place. Automated lane keeping systems that many new cars now have installed come under United Nations Regulation 157. Yet we seem to be behind the curve.
Our friends in America, particularly Mr Musk and his FSD Supervised—that is, the driving system where a car drives itself in an automated fashion—is now moved to a category called v14.2, which he has now asked the European authorities to approve for the markets both in Europe as a whole and in the United Kingdom in the hope that it will be installed or available from 2026. I wonder whether the United Nations has been consulted or if it is going to come in with its own regulations, which would give control of this situation more broadly.
Of course, it is right that Northern Ireland should not be in any way in difficulties over this. It is aligned with the United Nations, but in one or two cases—type approvals and so on—one or two elements seem to have been missed, so that Northern Ireland is out of sequence with the rest of the United Kingdom on certain of these regulations. Is not one of the answers to this to try to make sure that the United Nations umbrella is more available in order to oblige the manufacturers to make sure that the markets are equal and there are not these disparities, which are often taken for commercial reasons, due to the size of the relevant markets?
I happen to be in favour of alignment when it comes to standards in motor cars—I think it makes sense—but I am disappointed that the separation between one part of the UK and another in these regulations is both unfair and biased in such a way that it deprives one vital part of the United Kingdom of the opportunity to have commercial success in relation to what is undoubtedly a very useful United Kingdom enterprise.
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Lab)
My Lords, I declare my interest as a member of the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, which considered these regulations, and, like others, of the Northern Ireland Scrutiny Committee, which also dealt in some small way with this issue, in that when we were in Newry, we took evidence from a representative of one of the car dealerships, and in fact I have had further discussions with him.
I would say that the root cause of all this is Brexit. Brexit means less choice and more cost for new car sales. In fact, after Brexit I was a victim of that, because I was seeking to purchase a new Renault Clio, and it took me some seven months in 2022 to secure that new car, because all the parts arrived from France, they were constructed and put together in Britain, and then the car was brought to Northern Ireland along with other similar cars. Then, when I got a flat tyre, it transpired that the wrong spare had been placed in the car. Therefore, it caused a lot of difficulties and challenges.
A consequence of Brexit is divergence. The people of Northern Ireland voted on a majority basis to remain within the European Union. Surely, safety standards in the UK and EU in terms of car manufacturing are similar, if not the same, so surely a solution could be found there. The report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee states:
“While the existence of two vehicle approval regimes in the UK is a consequence of the Windsor Framework, we urge the DfT to consider all potential barriers that manufacturers may face in obtaining dual approval and the resulting impact on NI”.
Our Northern Ireland Scrutiny Committee, back in April and May this year, wrote to the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. In his response to our chair, the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, the Secretary of State said that the Government were
“keen that Northern Ireland consumers have access to the same vehicles and models … as in Great Britain, and a key part of that is ensuring manufacturers can dual-approve vehicles to both the GB and EU type approval schemes”.
Having talked to the dealership, I note that it cannot understand and finds it totally inexplicable that the same standards in the EU and GB do not exist. The Secretary of State further states:
“Our goal is to ensure that the regulations that apply in the UK work well for businesses and to address practical issues where we can. We are working closely with manufacturers to ensure that UK-wide approvals for vehicles are available, and are considering what more we can do to smooth processes and fix any issues that may arise”.
I ask my noble friend the Minister: what further progress has been made in relation to this issue, as the Department for Transport has overall responsibility? In fact, the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland says in that letter that
“we continue to monitor regulatory activity in the EU and have recently adopted consistent rules for the design of rear registration plate space on vehicles. The Government intends to make announcements shortly on its intention in regard to a number of other EU regulations, including the Euro 6e emission standard”.
I ask my noble friend the Minister if he could advise us on that.
I will ask some other questions. Has the Department for Transport considered the delay in procuring cars, as they have to comply with certain regulations, and the impact on the local economy? Like the noble Lord, Lord Dodds, I was told that there are problems for Jaguar Land Rover, Nissan, Renault, Vauxhall and Citroën. People want to access such cars. They have used them traditionally, and they want to continue to use them, because they are cost effective.
What impact will this delay in the provision of certain EU car models to Northern Ireland have on our local economy? The noble Lord, Lord Dodds, has already amplified that, but we want a solution to that, and we always have to remember that. I am clearly somebody who wants to see a route back to membership of the EU. I support the Windsor Framework but, where there are obstacles and challenges, they should be resolved and the Government should work directly with the EU as part of the reset in order to try to achieve something that is meaningful, practical and pragmatic. Last week, a BBC story emerged out of the Northern Ireland Assembly economy committee in relation to this issue.
Undoubtedly, we need the challenges, delays and lack of knowledge among businesses around the Windsor Framework to be resolved as quickly as possible. In that regard, I ask the Minister to outline when these issues around new car sales and approvals will be resolved, and to outline what discussions have taken place with the European Union to ensure that this happens.
Furthermore, when will we receive responses to the recently published reports, which dealt with the challenges and fissures in the system? One, the Independent Review of the Windsor Framework, was produced by my noble friend Lord Murphy; one, Strengthening Northern Ireland’s Voice in the Context of the Windsor Framework, was produced by our Northern Ireland Scrutiny Committee; and the third was produced by the Independent Monitoring Panel. They dealt with the challenges, difficulties and issues that need to be resolved. I agree that there may need to be a delay in the transition to this, in order to ensure that those difficulties can be resolved, but we must all remember that with Brexit came divergence and that it is difficult to achieve convergence in those circumstances.
Baroness Hoey (Non-Afl)
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to support my noble friend Lord Dodds’s Motions and to listen to his detailed analysis of the effects that they will have on the garages that sell these cars, on consumers and on the economy of Northern Ireland.
We have raised a number of issues over a period of time around how the Irish Sea border has affected so many issues in Northern Ireland, ranging from pets to dentists, as well as around the huge amount of extra bureaucracy that is now involved, with the paperwork, the duties, the duty reimbursement schemes—all of that. Yet this Irish Sea car border is qualitatively different and even worse because, as has been said, in three months’ time, these SIs will create an absolute prohibition on the movement of new cars for sale in Northern Ireland from GB if they have not been manufactured fully—I stress “fully”—to the EU-type approval regulations, as laid down by the European Union.
The Irish Sea new cars border, as I will call it, presents an absolute barrier to vehicles that have only GB-type approval. The initial government answer, as was mentioned earlier, was that manufacturers should manufacture to both GB and EU vehicle type approval standards. However, as the National Franchised Dealers Association pointed out recently, in Northern Ireland, manufacturing a car to the EU vehicle type approval standard can make it up to £4,000 more expensive than a car manufactured to the GB vehicle type approval standard; it is also more expensive because of the extra burdensome environmental requirements. Car manufacturers are in the business to make a profit, so I can see why many of them have decided that they are not going to bother to send to Northern Ireland: it does not make sense to sell their models here because of the smaller market in Northern Ireland, as distinct from the GB market.
I know that the Government seem to have realised that they have to do something about this; and that the only solution is to require that all cars produced for sale in the UK must be made to the same standard if there is to be a UK internal market for goods for new cars. They have stated that their policy is now to subject GB vehicle type approval to what is, in effect, EU vehicle type approval; of course, that is what these regulations will do today. The problems with this are that, as has been pointed out, it is going to happen not all at once but over a period of time—there have already been something like three regulations in the last few months—and it still will not make a difference to Northern Ireland sales.
Of course, what we are also seeing—I know that there are noble Lords who will be happy about this—is the Government falling again for the European Union’s strategy of keeping part of the UK in the EU, in effect, then giving the EU the leverage to undermine our leaving the European Union across the whole UK and working towards what I imagine this Government would like to do but cannot quite do yet because it was not in their manifesto: bringing the whole of the UK back into line with the whole of EU law.
Part of the rationale for many people, in voting to leave the European Union, was that they would be able to produce goods more cheaply as a result of not having to bow to the EU’s excessive bureaucracy requirements. Having reflected on this, car manufacturers have concluded that the economic gains to be had from fully exploiting the Brexit pricing benefits in the 2 million-unit GB market are worth more to them than the loss of not being able to sell some of their cars in the much smaller Northern Ireland market.
More worrying, of course, is the fact that this will have an effect—indeed, it already is having an effect—on jobs in the motor car sales market. When any of us who come from Northern Ireland speak to the garages selling the various types of vehicle that have been mentioned—some of us have already done so, I think—they all say that they are already beginning to look at redundancies. This will lead to a very serious situation, quite apart from the fact that people are losing choice in terms of what kind of car they want.
The Government need to move quickly on this. If they think that it is necessary for GB producers to have the same type of regulations as Northern Ireland is going to have to have—or that we are being told we will have to have, because of the Windsor Framework and being left in the European Union—they should be doing that very quickly indeed. I know that they are not going to do this, but I would prefer it if they said, “Sorry, European Union, that’s not what we’re going to do. We’re going to align Northern Ireland with GB. So what about the Windsor Framework? That’s just too bad. You’re being far too pedantic over this, and it’s not necessary”.
We are now seeing more of a move towards getting alignment. It is fair enough if people want to have that, but let us have it for the whole of the United Kingdom and not drip by drip, with little bits here and there. I know that the Minister understands the pressure that will be put on people and garages in Northern Ireland, especially in terms of sales. I hope that he will look at this matter and give a commitment that the Government will speed up the changes and get a move on—or, at the very least, postpone the date of 1 February, because that is less than three months away and will be ruinous for so many people. I ask the Minister to respond to those questions—plus the questions put by the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie, and the noble Lord, Lord Dodds—because we need answers and we need action.
Lord Bew (CB)
My Lords, I wish briefly to express my solidarity with and sympathy for the concerns that have already been raised by all the previous speakers. This afternoon, we have been presented with an accurate account of the problems that face the car industry in Northern Ireland.
I want simply to make one point. The noble Lord, Lord Dodds, made the point that the situation we are faced with apparently conflicts with the internal market Act 2020—and he is right. However, there is also an issue here around the promise of the Windsor Framework, to which this Government are committed, the previous Government were committed and the European Union is committed. Nobody who reads the Windsor Framework can miss the fact that in it is an attempt to reassure the people of Northern Ireland that the fear of increasing divergence—that is, the fear of the sneaking imposition of an island economy on the island of Ireland or on Northern Ireland—is now over. The language on page 10 is very explicit.
If it turns out that the promise of the Windsor Framework to the people of Northern Ireland is simply something that they misunderstood—I do not think it is—and is not valid, that will have implications for the stability of the political process in Northern Ireland, because it was at least partly on the basis of the Windsor Framework that the return of the devolved institutions happened in Northern Ireland. So there is a lot at stake here. The spirit of the Windsor Framework is very clear, and there is a lot at stake here for both the UK Government and the European Union in maintaining loyalty to that spirit.
Lord Murphy of Torfaen (Lab)
My Lords, I was not intending to speak, but it has been a fascinating short debate on a hugely serious issue. My noble friend Lady Ritchie mentioned that there were three reports on the Windsor Framework that the Government are currently looking at: the one that I produced some months ago, the report of the committee of your Lordships’ House on Northern Ireland, and that of the Independent Monitoring Panel. I understand it is likely that, some time in the new year—January or February, or something like that—the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, having consulted other Ministers, will produce a response to that.
It is clear to me that, in addition to the points and recommendations that all those reports came up with—in my own case, for example, I recommended 16 different things that the Government and the Stormont Assembly should do—this has become a hugely serious issue. The idea that people in Northern Ireland cannot buy a car of their choice in the way that we can everywhere else in the United Kingdom is really serious. I did not come across this during my review; this is a relatively new phenomenon. I have had a look at the statutory instrument, and I cannot pretend I understand every single word of it, but it means that a very serious situation is developing.
My plea to my noble friend the Minister is for him to take the results of this debate back to the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and to the Minister for European Affairs, Nick Thomas-Symonds. Perhaps they could have a look, in conjunction, at the serious ways in which this could be addressed. The last thing we want is further instability in Northern Ireland around this issue, as the noble Lord, Lord Bew, said. I very much look forward to hearing my noble friend the Minister’s response.
Baroness Suttie (LD)
My Lords, as ever, this has been an important and interesting short debate, and it was a particular pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Murphy, who raised some important issues. It is useful to know that these reports are likely to be responded to in the early new year.
Particularly, perhaps, for the benefit of the Minister, as ever this debate has been less to do with the substance of the regulations before us—which are rather technical in nature—and more to do with the legitimate and very real constitutional concerns of the noble Lord, Lord Dodds, and other noble Lords about some elements of the Windsor Framework.
The actual substance of these regulations seeks to align the EU and GB eCall components and to incorporate recent developments in international regulations on vehicles. Like the noble Lord, Lord Murphy, I cannot claim to be an expert on these subjects, but it strikes me that it would be rather hard to be against the regulations as such.
As the noble Lord, Lord Dodds, is aware, I have a great deal of sympathy with his arguments about the lack of input, as well as the lack of parliamentary scrutiny, and the realities of becoming a de facto rule taker, as we increasingly follow EU regulations since leaving the European Union. But, like the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie, and as I have often said in these debates on Windsor Framework-related regulations, I think that this is a direct result of Brexit, particularly the hard Brexit that the previous Government chose to follow. It is the case that we would not be having these debates if we were still in the European Union.
These regulations state that they are about alignment and removing barriers to trade: paragraph 5 of both the Explanatory Memorandums states that they
“will ultimately remove barriers for vehicle manufacturers wishing to sell vehicles on both GB and EU/NI markets”.
In these debates on Windsor Framework regulations, we often have justifiable criticism about the lack of consultation with the relevant sectors. However, paragraph 7 of both Explanatory Memorandums states:
“All the trade associations representing vehicle manufacturers supported the proposal, highlighting the importance of aligning with international standards”.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, there has been such a remarkable degree of unanimity of view on this topic, especially from the voices from Northern Ireland, that I worry that I may start by saying some things that sound a little harsh. The first is that I do not accept the proposition that Northern Ireland voted to remain in the European Union. That question was not on the ballot paper. The question on the ballot paper was whether the UK should remain in the European Union or leave, and the fact that a certain geographical part in this UK-wide vote happened to vote one way or another is merely a fact of historical interest: it has no legal or practical effect. It is like saying that London voted to stay in the European Union. What one means is that the majority of people in London voted for the UK to stay in the European Union. That is perfectly true, but nothing flows from it. To imply or claim that something flows from it in the case of Northern Ireland, I think, is a mistake.
The second thing I want to say is that I rather resent, especially having myself been a staunch supporter of Brexit in 2016 and still being so, the fact that debates such as this are used by certain colleagues, not least the noble Baroness I am following, to continue to claim that everything is the fault of Brexit, and would not it be wonderful if we reversed it all and went back and joined the European Union. There is very little basis for that claim.
I discovered something interesting in the course of this. Like, I suspect, certain other noble Lords who are not great experts on vehicle type approval, I assumed that the Windsor Framework—remember that the Northern Ireland protocol was going to give the best of both worlds to Northern Ireland—meant that the people of Northern Ireland would bask in the luxury of being able to choose between a rich array of vehicles emanating either from Great Britain or from the European Union, as suited them. In fact I discover, and I am going to quote here briefly from the UK Vehicle Certificate Certification Agency, that:
“While EU and UK(NI) type approvals”—
note the plural there—
“follow the same legislative requirements”—
in other words, they have to have the same content—
“they are considered as separate legislative frameworks. The GB type approval scheme is another separate legislative framework”.
So, in fact, for the people of Northern Ireland, having the best of both worlds, in the case of vehicles, means having access to neither world but having access to their own world only. Since manufacturers, as has been explained, are not that keen to manufacture for this relatively small world—this delicious, beautifully shaped and richly endowed but none the less relatively small world of Northern Ireland, choice is running low.
The noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie, explained the difficulty she had in acquiring her car, and I am sure that other stories can be advanced of a similar character. There is nothing, at the moment at least—I would be grateful if the noble Lord could say that this will continue to be the case when these regulations come into effect—to prevent somebody who lives in Northern Ireland going to Britain, buying a car, taking it back, presumably registering it in Northern Ireland, paying its tax in Northern Ireland and so on. So that can happen, but the result, of course, is that the automotive industry in Northern Ireland—that is, the dealerships but also to some extent those parts of the industry that are involved in maintaining cars and doing all those things—will be gutted, because they will not be selling any cars; everyone will be nipping over to Britain to buy a car.
Of course, they could go across to the Republic to buy a car, I presume, but the Republic does not manufacture any cars and they are quite expensive, so Britain is the place to go. But that does not mean that they will necessarily get all the advantages that they would get in buying a car in Britain when there are sales, discounts and so forth, so it is not a satisfactory situation. It is not the best of both worlds—that is the point—and that is what was promised to the people of Northern Ireland. In other words, this is not working for the people of Northern Ireland.
The Government may say that this is not a situation of their making but one they inherited from the previous Government, and that of course is a perfectly fair point. But one of the consequences of being in government is that problems created by other people land on your plate, so it is for the Government to come up with a solution to this, and these instruments do not represent a solution. They are not addressing the problem that exists, so I second those noble Lords from across the Commitee who have asked the Minister to say what the solution is. Everyone has said that this is not the solution, but what is the solution for addressing these real and practical problems that exist in Northern Ireland? We are looking for a practical solution—not an ideological one or one that is to do with whether the EU is a good thing or a bad thing, but a practical solution that means that Northern Ireland can have access to vehicles on at least as good terms as the people of Great Britain. I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say about that.
The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill) (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Dodds, for bringing forward these Motions and all who have contributed to the debate on these statutory instruments, which are very technical and cover a range of subjects that make up a small part of the type approval requirements for road vehicles. The instruments themselves are part of a continuing process to ensure that the regulatory requirements that apply to cars, vans and other road vehicles keep up with the fast pace of technological developments in the automotive industry. In the absence of updates such as these, the type approval requirements would rapidly become out of date and no longer be fit for purpose. Regular updates are necessary both to ensure that new vehicles meet the highest standards for safety, security and environmental performance and to support the introduction of new technologies and features to benefit UK drivers.
The international nature of vehicle production means that most technical regulatory requirements are harmonised around the world. These are developed in the United Nations by experts from countries as far apart as Japan, Australia and South Africa, but also by experts from the United Kingdom and from European Union member states. More than 70% of GB requirements derive from the United Nations requirements. For instance, the statutory instruments we are discussing today applied in Great Britain the UN regulation on automated lane-keeping systems, UN Regulation 157. These are some of the first examples of self-driving systems, and the statutory instruments allow manufacturers to bring these safely to market.
These statutory instruments also recognise another UN regulation concerning anchorages in vehicles—as the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate, remarked—that allow child restraints to be safely installed. These UN regulations have been adopted across the globe, including the EU, and it makes sense that they should also apply in the United Kingdom. Through the application of these international regulations, UK experts continue to play an important and influential role in setting the regulatory requirements that apply across the United Kingdom.
These amendments will also ensure that a safety system known as eCall continues to work effectively as the mobile signals it relies on switch from the older 2G and 3G standards to the newer 4G and 5G standards. The eCall system works by automatically calling the emergency services in the event of a severe crash, improving response times—especially in single-vehicle accidents in remote areas. In the absence of these amendments, safety would be lowered. My department consulted on these amendments, both publicly and with the devolved Administrations, and the responses showed overwhelming support for the proposals and for the approach to ensuring that GB regulations remain aligned with those in the EU.
Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate (Con)
I apologise for interrupting the Minister. I am looking at the Explanatory Memorandum for these regulations. Let me just read out paragraph 5.12, which says:
“Type approval authorities of Governments (‘contracting parties’) that sign up to an internationally agreed specification”—
here, it is referring to the United Nations regulation—
“are permitted to issue approvals to vehicles or components that comply with that regulation. Contracting parties”—
that must include the EU as well as the UK—
“must accept vehicles and components type-approved by another contracting party that is a signatory to the relevant UNECE regulation”.
Does the Minister not think that that brings not a solution, perhaps, but something where the Government can act to make sure that there is a benefit to Northern Ireland in this matter?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Lord; I will come back to that point, if I may. I am sorry—I have lost my train of thought.
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
It is okay.
I am mindful of the concerns that have been raised around businesses in Northern Ireland—I will come back to that point in a moment—and the challenges that, as we have heard, they face. It is important that dealers and consumers in Northern Ireland are not restricted in their choice of vehicle brands and models, and have the same choice as those across the rest of the UK. The GB-type approval scheme, which these statutory instruments amend, was designed to support manufacturers to mark vehicles with both an EU and a GB approval; the Government fully expect manufacturers to do so.
The technical requirements in the GB scheme are such that vehicle manufacturers can design and approve a single vehicle for the entire UK market. They do not need to conduct additional testing for the GB market or fit components that differ from those used on vehicles intended for the market in Northern Ireland. The updates to the GB scheme made by these statutory instruments preserve this situation and avoid divergence that could prevent the free movement of new vehicles throughout the UK. The interests of both the UK Government and the European Union are the same: we both want vehicles that are safe, clean and secure. UK and EU officials will continue to work together in UN forums to ensure that the regulations reflect this common aim.
None the less, the Government are aware that there is apprehension among some manufacturers and dealerships regarding the potential for future divergence between Great Britain-type and Northern Ireland-type approval systems. To that end, my department has reassured businesses that they should operate on the basis of an explicit presumption of alignment between the GB and the EU schemes. Again, this reflects the shared objectives of improving vehicle standards and working together to develop common technical regulations; it also demonstrates that this Government are committed to providing certainty and clarity to business by ensuring that the type approval regulations remain up to date while easing administrative burdens and supporting trade. My colleague in another place, then the Minister for Roads, wrote to the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders on 25 June specifically to set out both that commitment and our concern that the basis of the presumption should always be that it will be aligned between the GB and the EU schemes.
These statutory instruments reflect this approach by aligning with the EU on eCall, making sure that the GB scheme uses the same test procedures and applies the same UN regulations. The Government fully expect that vehicles will be dual marked wherever possible to ensure that they can be sold across the United Kingdom. Moreover, we monitor developments and have listened to concerns raised by businesses in Northern Ireland, where it appears that legislation might inadvertently create distortions in the marketplace. We continue to safeguard Northern Ireland’s place within the UK internal market; indeed, the Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury announced in July that we intend to legislate for a UK-wide easement in the benefit-in-kind tax applicable to vehicles in order to address concerns that the recent move to a new emissions level, known as Euro 6e, would unfairly affect customers of vehicles that meet the new emissions standards.
Lord Moylan (Con)
The Minister is talking about his conversations with manufacturers to ensure that they offer models that are available in GB and in Northern Ireland. How does he conduct those conversations with manufacturers that are not based in Britain and are not manufacturing in Britain? Do they pay any attention?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
The answer is that the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders represents all manufacturers. Most vehicles are produced in various countries around the world. My understanding, at least, is that they represent all of the manufacturers, wherever they are based. As the noble Lord knows already, I am sure, this is an international market, and it does not suit manufacturers to have many different types of the same vehicle. What we are talking about here are our best efforts to ensure that there are limited types of vehicle; that the types of vehicle that are produced are marketed in as many countries as possible; and, in particular, that the same vehicles are marketed in Great Britain as in Northern Ireland.
I hope that my earlier references to the influence of the United Nations have answered at least some of the questions asked the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate. He pointed out paragraph 5.12 of the EM, which I will go away and look at. We are all, I think, trying to do the same thing here: have one set of standards deriving from world standards, to which the EU and UK standards ought to be as near as possible simply because these markets are very large. Manufacturers should be trying to make the same thing. What these regulations, among many other regulations, do—and what we must continue to do—is ensure that all of these standards are as consistent and equal as possible, in order to make manufacturers produce their vehicles to the same standard in as many places as possible.
Lord Moylan (Con)
I do not want to be unhelpful; I am genuinely trying to be helpful. I will make the point that I tried to make in my earlier remarks. The Minister is missing the point slightly when he talks about standards. It may well be the case that they have the same standards—for example, this widget may be exactly the same as the one in another car—but what is significant here is the legal basis of the certification regime. We have three of them in play. Even if they are all producing exactly the same standards, the certification is the difficulty.
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
I certainly understand the noble Lord’s point. Given that we are working in this area, the best thing that the Government can do is to make sure that whatever rules apply are as easy to comply with as possible. If you have to comply with only one set of rules but the certification is duplicated, that is a very different thing from having to comply with two separate sets of rules.
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
I think we are at common cause on that. My understanding is that complying with two sorts of certification with the same rules is not particularly burdensome. The assurances that we are giving to the manufacturers, wherever the vehicles are made, is: if the requirements are in harmonisation, it is a relatively easy process to make sure that the vehicles comply with any certification standards. We will see. The point that the noble Lord, Lord Dodds, raised, which I take completely, is that if the ranges offered are so limited, we have more work to do. That is a perfectly reasonable conclusion that we will seek to look at.
In response to my noble friends Lady Ritchie of Downpatrick and Lord Murphy, the Government are taking great care to ensure that they comply as much as they can. The answer to both is that the Government will respond to the report from the noble Lord, Lord Murphy, by the legal deadline of early January. The Government are doing their best to make sure, by inspection, that the rules that we have set out to apply are the right ones. The first report of the Independent Monitoring Panel concluded that the guarantee was fully met. However, I take the point that that is not the same as the practical implication of what we are debating this afternoon—which is the extent to which vehicle types, and therefore vehicles, are available in Northern Ireland—and our intention is that they always will be. I say to my noble friend Lady Ritchie of Downpatrick that we will work both with the Northern Ireland Office and my own department to do our best to ensure that what we set out to deliver is what is actually there.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, referred to the date of the mandatory phase of GB-type approval as 1 February 2026. I say to her and other noble Lords that we will have more to say on that shortly, and ahead of that deadline, to make sure that the deadline is not a hindrance to these processes and is capable of being adhered to.
The only other thing I have to say to my noble friend Lord Murphy is: happy birthday. That is obviously the right thing to say.
The noble Baroness, Lady Suttie, asked me a variety of questions. It is our intention to continue to align with the European Union rules, simply because this is an international market and we will not get anywhere if our certification requirements are different. We want to make it as easy as possible for the manufacturers and vendors of motor vehicles to sell the maximum number of vehicles of the same description across those markets.
I cannot answer the noble Baroness’s question about oversight in the House of Commons; I do not know whether she expected me to, but I cannot. However, the objective is to ensure that we continue to align fully and that that results in the market in Northern Ireland being no less accessible to manufacturers and the choice for consumers being equal in Northern Ireland and Great Britain.
Lastly, the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, quoted the Vehicle Certification Agency. I will go away and see what it says, but I understand his point about the regimes. My point is that I do not think the requirement for dual certification, if the standards are the same, is particularly onerous, but I take the point that various noble Lords are raising about what is for sale in Northern Ireland. I will go away after this debate and seek both information and advice from the department to see to what extent we can concur with their conclusions about the lack of choice and the lack of sales, and see what else can be done. We will do that in good order before the GB type approval scheme moves to its mandatory phase in February 2026.
I hope I have demonstrated that the reason for these amendments—indeed, the reason why the Government will continue to make amendments such as these—is in order to keep consistency going. I hope I have demonstrated that we are listening to the concerns that have been raised, that we are committed to the continuing refinement of the type approval regulations, and that I will go away and take the points that have been raised by noble Lords very seriously in order that we can make a success of moving the GB type approval scheme to its mandatory phase from February next year so that the market in Northern Ireland is vibrant and the people in it can continue to function.
Lord Moylan (Con)
Does the Minster have an answer to my question about there being no inhibition on the people of Northern Ireland purchasing motor vehicles in Great Britain, taking them to Northern Ireland and registering them there as a result of these instruments, and the Government having no plans to inhibit or restrict that?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
I believe that what the noble Lord says is correct—you can buy a car anywhere in the United Kingdom and use it anywhere in the United Kingdom—but equally I take the point that that is probably not an especially helpful message to motor dealers in Northern Ireland, who probably do not want people to travel to England to buy cars, which would not be good for their business.
That is why the Government are concerned to make sure that that market is as vibrant as possible. I note that the noble Lord, Lord Dodds—I think it was him—said that 17,000 people’s jobs depended on it, so I should take note of that.
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Lab)
Will my noble friend the Minister consider working with Ministers in the Northern Ireland Office with a view to meeting the manufacturers’ association and those involved in car dealerships in Northern Ireland so that he is fully appraised of the whole picture and that he can provide some comfort to them? At the end of the day, that is what they are looking for.
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
I thank my noble friend for that. I think her proposed remedy is the right one, which is to meet people who know what they are talking about and listen to them. If that is part of the solution here, I am sure that we should do that.
Lord Dodds of Duncairn (DUP)
I am grateful to all noble Lords who have contributed to this debate. I think we are all agreed that this is a very serious issue, as the noble Lord, Lord Murphy, said, for people in Northern Ireland. The noble Baroness, Lady Suttie, mentioned constitutional issues. I have sought in this debate to emphasise the practical problems, which are the outworking of some of these wider issues on the constitutional front that in my view are totally unnecessary, but we have to find solutions. I am therefore grateful to the Minister for his reply to this debate and for the tone and content of what he has said, in that he is going to take this away, take it seriously and talk to colleagues and those who matter to try to find solutions. That is what we would love to see happening. Up to now, I do not think there has been enough urgency, if I may say so, as the deadline has crept up and up. I am grateful to the Minister for his commitment. Knowing him and the way in which he operates, I know he will hold fast to that, and that will, I hope, deliver results.
Road Vehicles (Type-Approval) (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations 2025
Lord Dodds of Duncairn
That the Grand Committee takes note of the Road Vehicles (Type-Approval) (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations 2025.
Relevant document: 33rd Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee
Bosnia and Herzegovina: Democratic Resilience
Lord Browne of Ladyton
To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of democratic resilience in Bosnia and Herzegovina.
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Baroness Chapman of Darlington) (Lab)
My Lords, Bosnia and Herzegovina’s democratic resilience matters for regional stability and European security. We are working with international partners to strengthen the rule of law and democratic processes, promote political pluralism and counter malign influences. We condemn attacks on the country’s constitutional framework, including by former Republika Srpska President Dodik, and we support the role of the high representative and empowerment of domestic institutions and leaders to end the political crisis and uphold the rule of law.
Lord Browne of Ladyton (Lab)
My Lords, as we recall the initialling of the Dayton peace agreement on 21 November 1995 and appreciate the progress that Bosnia and Herzegovina has made in NATO and EU accession efforts since, and while remaining concerned about the ongoing threats to the country’s peace, security and constitutional order by Russian-aligned authorities in the Republika Srpska entity, can my noble friend the Minister assure us that the Government will maintain their sanctions against Bosnian Serb secessionist Milorad Dodik and Zeljka Cvijanovic and expand the same to others in their regime if there are further threats to the integrity of the Dayton agreement?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
We are of course aware that other countries have decided to lift their sanctions, and that is a matter for them. For the time being, we are going to keep our sanctions in place. These were taken after careful consideration and we have no plans to lift them at this stage, although, as my noble friend will appreciate, we do not make any comment on future plans or designations.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, following on from the noble Lord’s Question, it is 30 years on from the Dayton accords and we have recently seen a snap election in the Republika Srpska, so what is His Majesty’s Government’s assessment of the stability within greater Bosnia and the integrity of Bosnia-Herzegovina? Linked to that, given the recent developments in Ukraine and Russia’s support for Republika Srpska, what assessments have been made of further instability in that part of the world?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
We are now 30 years on, almost to the day, from the Dayton peace agreement. Noble Lords should know that we are concerned by developments in the western Balkans and the fragility of the situation there—which, I have to say, is not helped by the now former leader in Srpska or by the activities of Russia in the region, which are aimed at destabilisation, misinformation and undermining democracy. We work closely with our allies and partners, and we are part of the Quint and a signatory to Dayton. It is our responsibility to maintain that focus so that the agreement, which was signed 30 years ago, can continue to maintain stability and peace in the western Balkans.
Lord Stirrup (CB)
My Lords, do Russia’s divisive activities in support of Republika Srpska not underline once again the importance of taking a strategic approach to countering Russia’s malign influence on the international scene more widely? What discussions are His Majesty’s Government having with other Governments to develop such an approach, and what practical measures are they putting in place in this regard?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
We talk with very many of our allies and partners, I suppose most notably the United States, France, Germany and Italy, and through the EU and NATO. We have some programming in the region specifically aimed at countering Russian activities and misinformation, and we need to continue to do that. We work also on democratic institutions and strengthening those, including through the Westminster Foundation for Democracy, which many noble Lords will have worked alongside in the past.
Lord Bruce of Bennachie (LD)
My Lords, the election in the Republika Srpska, which resulted in a margin of less than 2% on a turnout of under 35%, hardly clarifies the mood on the ground in that republic. But, as has been said, Russian interference there is surely a call to everybody to understand that Russia will disrupt European democracy at every opportunity, wherever it can. The idea that we should surrender to its intimidation is just not acceptable.
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
The noble Lord put that extremely well, and I agree with every word he said.
The Lord Bishop of Leeds
My Lords, it is perhaps salutary to remember that the GDR lasted for only 40 years, that the 30 years since the Dayton accords is not a very long time, and that what can be built up over a period of time can be demolished very quickly. Can the Minister say what the UK Government are doing to hold particularly Serbia to account in the public arena, exposing what is going on and what its influences are—from Russia in particular but not from Russia alone?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
We have put a lot of diplomatic energy into our relationship with Serbia, and there have been visits from the Foreign Secretary. My honourable friend Stephen Doughty, the Minister with responsibility for Europe, has convened several meetings, which we think have been helpful and are moving things in a more positive direction. Nevertheless, it is important that we are realistic and clear-eyed about our relationships and the need to continue to work very closely with Serbia, because it is vital to maintaining the stability of the region.
Lord Callanan (Con)
My Lords, Siniša Karan, who is a close ally of the dismissed President of the Republika Srpska, Milorad Dodik, has criticised what he calls foreign intervention in its politics. Can the Minister explain whether that fear of foreign influence will perhaps undermine efforts to strengthen democratic processes in the region, and how her department intends to manage that challenge?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
Well, I think anyone who is a close ally of the former leader in Srpska probably would say something like that, and they would not be someone we would look to for guidance on this issue. We feel that we need to stay very close to what was agreed at Dayton, working closely with our allies and partners, as we do, to support the Office of the High Representative. I realise this is controversial in some places, but this is the way stability has been maintained for 30 years. As the right reverend Prelate reminded us, in the scheme of issues such as this, that can be seen as not that great a length of time. It is essential that we stick with the institutions and models we have for as long as we feel they are necessary.
Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)
My Lords, will the Minister say whether the Government have given or are giving any consideration to the possibility of strengthening the peacekeeping operation in Bosnia and Herzegovina—Operation Althea—which is currently being conducted by the European Union?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
We talk to our allies in Europe about EUFOR, which is vital in maintaining peace and stability. We work with it, examining how we can support it further and make sure that we maintain our closeness to it, because it is vital to keeping the peace that we have been able to stick to for 30 years now.
Baroness Mobarik (Con)
My Lords, having travelled to Bosnia shortly after Dayton, I saw the devastation for myself and was asked to witness the uncovering of a mass grave. I therefore know where hateful rhetoric and weakened institutions can lead. Today, Bosnia’s resilience is threatened by not only disinformation and external influence operations but a quiet hollowing out of its future as young people leave in large numbers. In this fragile setting, the lifting of US sanctions on Mr Dodik risks sending the wrong signal to those who challenge Bosnia’s constitutional order. Will the Minister say how His Majesty’s Government intend to help strengthen Bosnia’s democratic resilience, especially with other international institutions, and how we can help to stem the flow of young people who are leaving Bosnia?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
I thank the noble Baroness for reminding us of the need for Dayton and the horrific events that took place not so long ago, between 1992 and 1995. It is vital that, as a signatory to Dayton, we continue to maintain our support for the principles, institutions and positions that were agreed at the end of that process. As for the movement of people and the decisions made by young people in the western Balkans more generally—she mentioned Bosnia specifically—there are many drivers for this. We seek to understand them as fully as we can because, as she says, it is not great for a society that is still recovering from the after-effects of that devastating conflict to lose so many of its young people.
Wales: Further Devolution
(1 day, 2 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Smith of Llanfaes
To ask His Majesty’s Government what plans they have to devolve further powers to Wales, and what is the timeline for these plans.
Baroness in Waiting/Government Whip (Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent) (Lab)
The Government remain committed to the promises in our manifesto and are working to deliver them. For example, we have so far provided £10 million for the Welsh Government to deliver an economic inactivity trailblazer in Wales, as part of our wider commitment to devolve employment support funding to the Welsh Government. Through our Railways Bill, we are giving the Welsh Government a statutory role in the management of the rail network, building on our record investment in Welsh rail.
Baroness Smith of Llanfaes (PC)
I thank the Minister for her Answer. Pursuing the devolution of policing is in Welsh Labour’s programme for government. Just last week, we heard a Statement in this House on the abolition of police and crime commissioners. In England, those powers will be transferred directly to elected mayors, where they exist. However, where those powers go in Wales is not clear. Does the Minister agree that this presents the perfect opportunity to deliver Welsh Labour’s commitment and devolve policing to Wales? If not, what is it about Welsh democracy that the UK Labour Government distrust?
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
The noble Baroness will not be surprised at all to hear that I disagree with both her assessment and her request that we devolve policing to Wales. The announcement last week on PCCs was not about the devolution of policing. It related solely to the abolition of PCCs, a model that simply was not working. We will seek the views of all partners, including the Welsh Government, before deciding on the best form of local policing, governance and scrutiny in Wales.
Lord Deben (Con)
In opposition, the Labour Party was very clear about the unfairness of the way in which money was given to Wales under the Barnett formula. Why is it that it is still cheating Wales and giving it much less money than any other part of the United Kingdom?
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
My Lords, I used to represent Stoke-on-Trent. The noble Lord will find that the Barnett formula ensures that the people of Wales receive 20% per capita more than my former constituents. The Welsh Government received a record-breaking settlement of £21 billion this financial year, which, because of the Barnett formula, is £4 billion more than it would otherwise have been. The Government are delivering for the people of Wales, financially and by supporting them through devolution in action.
Baroness Humphreys (LD)
My Lords, one key area of potential devolution is youth justice, where the Welsh Government have already been implementing policies to tackle the root causes of crime and break intergenerational cycles of crime, through early intervention and a compassionate approach to justice. I welcome the announcement by the Welsh Government that officials would work together with UK counterparts to explore, among other items, options for governance arrangements and the funding of youth justice services. When will this work be completed and when will we see true devolution of these services to Wales?
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
As the noble Baroness outlined, the UK Government and the Welsh Government have agreed to work together to consider options for the governance and funding of youth justice services and for partnership arrangements on probation services. That work is currently under way, but I do not have a deadline for when they will come forward with their recommendations.
Lord Wigley (PC)
There is a strong possibility that, following next May’s elections, Plaid Cymru will be the largest single party in Senedd Cymru. Will the UK Government ensure that Plaid Cymru has access to civil servants dealing with devolved or potentially devolved portfolios, as is the practice for incoming Governments at Westminster?
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
The noble Lord raises an interesting point. There are still six months until the elections, and I would expect to see another Labour Administration elected next year. We will be working hard to deliver, as we do every day for the people of Wales and for the people of the United Kingdom. With regard to the substance of his point, that is the first time that it has been raised with me. I will speak to officials, and I would ask him to come forward if there are any problems or challenges.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
Does my noble friend agree that testimony to the working relationship between the UK Government and Wales is the decision about the SMR development at Wylfa, which is welcome and which I earnestly hope will add to the growth potential of the Welsh economy?
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
Many Members of your Lordships’ House were delighted to see the Prime Minister with the First Minister in Wylfa earlier this month announcing investment of £2.5 billion, which will create 3,000 jobs. It is a true recognition of our faith in, and the ability of, the Welsh economy, and it will drive growth for the Welsh economy.
The Earl of Effingham (Con)
My Lords, ambulance delays in Wales have increased fourfold over the past seven years, and PISA scores are lower than the OECD average in reading, science and maths. With all due respect to the Welsh Administration, does the Minister believe that further powers should be devolved to Wales if it is currently struggling to manage its own healthcare and education systems?
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
My Lords, for 14 years, the party opposite cut funding to the people of Wales. We have increased the funding settlement for Wales, to ensure that the Welsh Government can deliver public services. With respect to the NHS, which the noble Earl raised, that has meant that the waiting list fell in the last month that was counted, and continues to fall month on month. We are delivering for the people of Wales. NHS England and NHS Wales are sharing best practice, we are doing public sector reform and, most importantly, we are giving them money that the noble Lord’s party did not, to get on with the job.
Lord Anderson of Swansea (Lab)
My Lords, if the Government accept that devolution is a process, what further steps do they envisage before the end of this Parliament?
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend. We are seeing devolution in action. It was this party that introduced the legislation to bring forward devolution, which has led to the Welsh Senedd. As for current conversations and discussions about further devolution, as I said earlier, we are working closely with the Wales Office, the DWP and the Welsh Government to deliver more on the devolution of employment support, with the £10 million trailblazer. We are working with youth justice and probation services, as I said earlier, to consider options for moving forward.
Lord Roberts of Llandudno (LD)
My Lords, may I remind the Minister that, of the four nations of the United Kingdom, child poverty in Wales is consistently the highest? Is the Minister ready to think about this and, in any future arrangements, to recognise the situation for children in Wales and make it fairer?
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
My Lords, I am a member of the Labour Party because of our ongoing commitment to try to tackle child poverty. The child poverty strategy will be coming forward in due course. We will continue to work with the Welsh Government to ensure that every child has the opportunities they deserve.
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Lab)
My Lords, as part of the devolution settlement, the Northern Ireland Executive already have revenue-raising powers. Will my noble friend the Minister tell us what position the Government would adopt if the Northern Ireland Executive were to seek new, additional fiscal powers in order to deliver for the people of Northern Ireland in the areas of health, education and infrastructure?
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
I thank my noble friend for her question. She is very aware that, under the recent spending review, Stormont was awarded £19.2 billion—its largest ever financial settlement. As for additional tax-raising mechanisms, they exist, if Stormont wishes to use them. That is a matter for Stormont. We would support it in whichever endeavours it wants to do to access the powers already available to it.
Lord Patel (CB)
My Lords, it is unusual for me to get up and support Wales, but in a recent debate about the manufacture of radio isotopes, I agreed that Wales had made a fantastic business case to have a nuclear reactor to produce radio isotopes—a facility that the United Kingdom does not possess. Therefore, patients in the UK suffer because we have to import all the radio isotopes needed for diagnosis and treatment. Will the Government support Wales and establish the nuclear reactor for the production of nuclear isotopes?
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
This Government always support Wales—and I will be doing so this weekend when they are playing the Springboks. On the noble Lord’s specific point, last week I sat in on the debate that he mentioned, in which he raised some really interesting points that were answered by my noble friend. I will reflect on what he says and return to him on that.
Lord West of Spithead (Lab)
My Lords, I understand that one of our late and long-awaited frigates is to be called HMS “Cardiff”. Are we going to put any of the new factories producing defence equipment, and ammunition in particular, in Wales?
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
My noble friend always manages to get a ship into his question. For that, as an honorary captain in the Royal Navy, I am very grateful. He is absolutely right about HMS “Cardiff”—I am still waiting for HMS “Stoke-on Trent”, but my lobbying has not yet been effective. We have seen, as we have wider conversations about the expanded defence industrial strategy, that some of that work will absolutely be going to Wales.
Schools: Funding
(1 day, 2 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Laing of Elderslie
To ask His Majesty’s Government how they propose to fund any increase in the numbers of children attending state-funded schools as a result of the decrease in the numbers of children attending private schools.
The Minister of State, Department for Education, and the Department for Work and Pensions (Baroness Smith of Malvern) (Lab)
My Lords, private school pupil numbers remain firmly within historical patterns, with no evidence of excessive pressure on the state system. We are confident that the state sector can absorb any additional pupils. To deliver our commitment to the 94% of children who attend state schools, we are increasing school funding by £3.7 billion this year, taking total core school funding to £65.3 billion. By 2028-29, core school funding, including SEND investment, will reach £69.5 billion.
Baroness Laing of Elderslie (Con)
I thank the Minister for responding to my Question, but I am not quite sure about the Answer because, sadly, the facts do not support the Government’s rather spiteful ideology in this matter. The imposition of VAT on school fees means that thousands of hard-working parents who previously invested money in their children’s education, and therefore in the education system as a whole, now cannot afford to, so thousands of children have transferred from private schools to state schools. I am baffled by the statistics that the Minister mentioned, because we know that private schools are closing and that children are moving from private schools to state schools. Is it not the case that while the Government might well be raking in more money in VAT, local education authorities have to bear the cost of educating thousands more children? In spite of what the Minister has said, is it not the case that the Government are not investing in education but taking money out of the education system?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
No, that is not true. The noble Baroness is keen on facts and concerned about the closure of private schools, as would anybody be if a school was closing. I hope she will be somewhat reassured by knowing that, while on average 74 private schools have closed per year over the last 20 years, in this last year 59 closed.
Lord Mohammed of Tinsley (LD)
My Lords, do His Majesty’s Government have in place a monitoring system to look at the numbers of young people with special educational needs accessing private schools? I am deeply worried that when state schools cannot provide that service, parents often then fall upon the private sector.
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
If a young person has an education, health and care plan that identifies a private school for them, their parents will not be impacted by VAT on private school fees. Equally, most children with special educational needs and disabilities are educated in the state system. It is in order to improve the outcomes of our state system that this Government are committed to reforming our SEND system to make sure that all pupils will be able to access the support that they need within it.
Lord Watts (Lab)
My Lords, is it not the case that the opposition party cried that this would have a damaging effect on state schools? From the facts that the Minister has just read out, it is clear that is not the case. Have the Opposition apologised or suggested that the extra money going to secondary schools in the state sector should be removed and given back to people who are in a better position to maintain their child’s education?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
No, the Opposition have not apologised, and nor would I necessarily expect them to. That will not stop me continuing, as I think my noble friend has invited me, to identify the facts of the situation as opposed to the rhetoric from the noble Baroness opposite. I am sure that noble Lords will be interested to know that the number of pupils in private schools is still higher than it was in 2021-22 and before the pandemic. As I said, the latest school census data reveal that pupil numbers remain firmly within the historical patterns seen for over 20 years, while private schools have continued to open, even after the Government’s announcement about ending tax breaks: 79 schools have opened since July 2024. The average between 2014 and 2023 was 75 private schools opening each year. The average was 75 and the numbers in the last year were 79.
The Earl of Effingham (Con)
My Lords, the Chancellor said that every single penny of the money raised from this new VAT would be ring-fenced for state education, but the Prime Minister subsequently said that the decision to levy VAT on private school fees has allowed the Government to invest in housing. Will the Minister please confirm whether every pound of the money raised is going into better education for state-funded pupils?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
The Treasury’s analysis of this policy suggested that it would be able to raise around £1.8 billion a year by the 2029-30 financial year. As I identified in my first Answer, in this year alone we are increasing the amount of money that is going into our core schools budget by £3.7 billion. I think that demonstrates that, yes, we are investing every pound of that £1.8 billion in the £3.7 billion by which we have increased the core schools budget. That is before we get on to talking about the pay increase that we have been able to provide for our teachers to keep them in our schools, the investment that we are making in special educational needs and disabilities, and the capital funding that will enable schools to have both the condition and the places necessary for the 94% of pupils who have their education in the state system.
Baroness Deech (CB)
Has the Minister witnessed what I and some of my acquaintances have witnessed, which is a failure of social engineering because very rich parents and many foreign parents can still afford private schools but a larger number of the middle class and the less well-off will be going to state schools, hence a much bigger chasm between the privately educated and the state educated?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
I am not sure that is unusual. It has always been the case that in order to benefit from a private education, you need to be able to afford it. The vast majority of children in this country attend state schools. That is why this Government are focusing our investment and our reform on those schools. That is the way to solve the problem of children from whatever background not receiving the education that they deserve.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)
My Lords, will the Minister please answer the question that my noble friend Lord Effingham asked? Is this money being ring-fenced or not? Ring-fenced means ring-fenced, not part of some general budget.
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
The point I was making was that the VAT on private schools is raising £1.8 billion a year, and in just one year we are investing £3.7 billion in the increase in the core schools budget. If the argument that noble Lords opposite are making is that this is a small amount of the increased investment that this Labour Government are putting into education, they are right, but it is nevertheless an important amount.
Lord Lexden (Con)
My Lords, how are the Government getting on with recruiting the 6,500 extra teachers for which their iniquitous, unprecedented education tax is designed to pay? Is it not the case that the total number of teachers is going down, not up?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
No. The number of new teachers in secondary and special schools, where the demographic need particularly is, is increasing due to the investment that we have been able to put into both a 5.5% pay award for last year and a 4% pay award for this year. That means that we have already seen the workforce grow by 2,346 full-time equivalents in secondary and special schools, where they are needed most. We are also able to report in the latest census one of the lowest leaver rates since 2010. We are recruiting more teachers for the schools that teach the majority of our children, and I am proud that that is the decision we have taken.
Forthcoming Fiscal Changes
(1 day, 2 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Altmann
To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the impact on the economy, businesses and individuals of Ministerial comments which have been interpreted as suggesting forthcoming fiscal changes.
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Lord Livermore) (Lab)
My Lords, the Chancellor will deliver the Budget tomorrow. She has rightly been clear with the country about the challenges we face and the need to deliver stability in the public finances. The Budget will build more resilient public finances to withstand global turbulence. It will reduce inflationary pressure in the economy and get the cost of living down. It will protect the NHS and public services from a return to austerity, and it will support growth and innovation. I will not comment on individual measures ahead of the Budget.
Baroness Altmann (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his Answer. I have the upmost respect for him and believe he has acted commendably ahead of this Budget. He has been left in the position of having to issue constant denials by an approach from his colleagues which has damaged the economy, businesses and individuals. The Government are supposedly pro-business, pro-wealth creation and pro-growth. Other Ministers should not have been speculating and could have issued the kinds of robust denials the Minister has issued—much to the frustration of this House, I understand, and difficulty for himself. I would like to put on record that the communications have been shambolic and unnecessary.
Does the Minister agree with his right honourable friend the Secretary of State Peter Kyle, who said that we are in a “growth emergency”? If so, does he believe the policy change pitch rolling, constant kite flying, and policies that are withdrawn, brought back and then changed, help business or individuals planning their lives? Businesses have put investment on hold. Individuals have rushed to take money out of their pensions. I urge the Minister to urge his department in future not to engage in the same kind of speculation and kite flying ahead of Budgets that we have seen now.
Lord Livermore (Lab)
I am most grateful to the noble Baroness for her question. As she knows, I am not going to comment on the ongoing Budget process, which will conclude tomorrow when the Chancellor delivers her Budget. She asked about growth. Growing the economy, and supporting businesses to create jobs and innovate, will be absolutely central to tomorrow’s Budget alongside protecting our NHS and public services from a return to austerity, improving the cost of living, doing what is necessary to protect families from high inflation and interest rates, and keeping debt under control.
Baroness Kramer (LD)
My Lords, can the Minister tell us whether there are any significant measures in the Budget which have not been announced in advance or leaked? I would invite him to mention them to us, then he can have a clean slate.
Lord Livermore (Lab)
The noble Baroness need only wait 22 hours and then she will know for herself.
Lord Hayward (Con)
My Lords, according to opinion polls, the public at large in this country think that Rishi Sunak was a better Chancellor of the Exchequer than the current one by a ratio of over 2:1. Does the Minister agree with the public at large?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
Why do we not just compare their records? Where the previous Government delivered the slowest projected growth in the G7, growth in the first half of this year was the fastest in the G7. Where they presided over the worst Parliament ever for living standards, living standards have increased by 2.1% since the election. Where they oversaw the worst pay growth in a century, real wages grew more in the first 10 months of this Government than in the first 10 years of the previous Government. Where they continually cut capital spending and deterred investment, we are investing for the long term, with £120 billion extra over the next five years. We will continue to rebuild the economy after 14 years of failure from the party opposite.
Lord Hintze (Con)
My Lords, why does the Minister never look at GDP growth per head?
Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted (LD)
My Lords, does the Minister consider that, apart from him, the days of trying to avoid government-induced market glitches are history? Do the Government and Chancellor think that markets will cease to be responsive or that investors will not go elsewhere as they have done for other countries exhibiting inconsistency?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
As the noble Baroness knows, and as I think I have made clear, I am not going to comment on speculation ahead of the Budget, neither am I going to comment—I never do—on market movements.
Lord Bridges of Headley (Con)
My Lords, the Minister just said that the Budget tomorrow will be focused on protecting our NHS, reducing our national debt and improving the cost of living, which the Chancellor has said in one of her many scene-setters are the priorities of the British people. However, back in May, the Prime Minister said that the Government
“see security and defence not as one priority amongst many others but as the central organising principle of government – the first thought in the morning – the last at night. The pillar on which everything else stands or falls”.
Therefore, why is not defence one of the priorities, or has No. 11 not yet got the memo?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
I know that the noble Lord thinks that his question is terribly clever, but it is perfectly possible for the Government to have ongoing priorities and for there to be specific priorities for this Budget. Those two things are not in any way contradictory. He will see what we have to say about defence in the Budget tomorrow; likewise, he will see what we have to say about the NHS, growing the economy and the cost of living.
Lord Blunkett (Lab)
Does my noble friend agree that the investment in Sheffield Forgemasters, and through BAE Systems in other aspects of defence procurement in Sheffield, has substantially improved the growth prospects, job prospects and prosperity of the people of my city?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
I 100% agree with my noble friend. Defence spending and growth go hand in hand. We will see far higher levels of growth in our economy as a result of the investment we are putting into our defence industry and increasing the security of our country.
Lord Fox (LD)
My Lords, looking back rather than forward, it is quite clear that UK business cannot take another Budget like the last one. I was reminded by the introduction of our new and very welcome Peer of the apocryphal medical ethical oath. Could the Minister please carry back to the Chancellor one thing: do no harm?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Lord for that. As he knows, I am not going to comment on specific measures or any speculation ahead of the Budget. I have set out clearly what our priorities are for tomorrow’s Budget; he will just have to wait a few more hours until he finds out for himself.
The Earl of Clancarty (CB)
My Lords, how much do the Government now blame Brexit for the black hole?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
As the noble Earl knows, alongside the Budget tomorrow, the Office for Budget Responsibility will set out the conclusions of its review of the supply side of the UK economy. I will not pre-empt those conclusions, but it is likely that the OBR will downgrade its historic assessment of the UK’s productivity and find that the productivity performance we inherited from the last Government is weaker than previously thought. The causes of this economic underperformance are well understood: austerity, Brexit and the Liz Truss mini-Budget have left deep scars on the British economy that are still felt today.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
My Lords, one of the main objectives of the Treasury, as stated on its own website, is to:
“Ensure the stability of the macro-economic environment”.
Few people believe that this stability objective has been achieved in recent weeks, which have instead been characterised by presentational chaos. As my question is not a Budget question, does the Minister agree?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
The noble Baroness talks about stability and chaos; let us talk about 14 years of chaos. First, there was austerity, which took demand out of the economy at exactly the wrong moment, cutting investment and undermining the economy’s ability to grow. Then we saw a disastrous and tragically misjudged Brexit deal, which imposed new trade barriers equivalent to a 13% increase in tariffs for manufacturing and a 20% increase in tariffs for services, reducing total trade intensity by 15% and permanently reducing GDP by 4 percentage points. Finally, the Liz Truss mini-Budget crashed the economy and sent mortgages soaring by £300 a month. We on this side will take no lessons from the party opposite on how to manage the economy.
Lord Harper (Con)
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Fox, simply asked whether the Minister could rule out doing harm in the Budget—he did not ask about lots of specific measures—so let me ask him again: can he just rule out the Budget doing harm to British business?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
As I have said already, I am not going to comment on individual measures ahead of the Budget.
Lord Pannick (CB)
Can I ask the Minister a question of facts and not speculation? Will he confirm that Ministers and officials have been floating possible Budget proposals over the last few weeks?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
As the noble Lord well knows, I am not going to comment on the ongoing Budget process, which will conclude tomorrow when the Chancellor delivers the Budget.
Russian Ship “Yantar”
(1 day, 2 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Goldie (Con)
My Lords, the “Yantar” spy ship has form when it comes to pushing boundaries, but directing laser beams at a UK Poseidon surveillance plane is an unwelcome development. It is provocative and irresponsible. In the air domain during the Cold War, there was a regular pattern of incursion into United Kingdom airspace by Russian planes, and the stratagem of reaction and close-flying escort by UK planes was developed, which was effective. How do we replicate that in the marine domain? For example, can a frigate close-shadow the “Yantar” so that the Russian crew feels under constant observation and any attempt to interfere with subsea infrastructure is immediately visible—and, importantly, whatever protective action is then necessary can be taken?
The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Lord Coaker) (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for such an important question. The Royal Navy constantly monitors activity in and around UK waters. This includes the “Yantar”, which is continuously and closely monitored by Royal Navy frigate HMS “Somerset” and the RAF’s P-8s. As the Secretary of State for Defence described last week, Russia has been developing military capability to use against critical underwater infrastructure for decades. For that reason, we have directed a change in the Royal Navy’s posture so we can more closely track and robustly respond to the threats from that vessel and many others. Such actions have previously included surfacing a Royal Navy submarine, strictly as a deterrent measure, close to the “Yantar”, to make it clear that we have been covertly monitoring its every move. We will not shy away from the robust action needed to protect the UK.
Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)
My Lords, as the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, said, the “Yantar” has form. Do His Majesty’s Government feel that sufficient action is being taken? I note that one question asked in the other place was whether the Russian ambassador had been called into the Foreign Office, and the answer appeared to be in the negative. Do the Government need to be doing more? Are they doing everything to ensure that Russia realises that we will not tolerate its actions and incursions into our waters?
Lord Coaker (Lab)
That is another very important question. The whole House will recognise the significance of what the noble Baronesses have said. The UK Government are constantly talking to the Russian ambassador, constantly making the Russians aware of what we are doing, and we are constantly monitoring those ships that seek to monitor our underwater cables, potentially for purposes in future. We have Royal Navy ships monitoring that and P-8 Poseidons from Lossiemouth—we have a fleet of nine now—looking at that. But I say to the noble Baroness and to all noble Lords—and I am sorry to repeat it, but it is just to make it clear, because the implications of what I am saying are obvious—that to surface a Royal Navy submarine close to the “Yantar”, as was done towards the end of last year, is an unprecedented way of demonstrating to Russia and the “Yantar” how seriously we take what they are doing. I know that that is supported by all Members of your Lordships’ House, but that signifies the importance of the deterrence and the importance and significance of the activity that we are undertaking to try to deter such activity.
Lord Craig of Radley (CB)
My Lords, with the greatest respect to the Minister, is this not much more than a simple defence matter? If the laser used was a weapons system, not just laser torching by a member of the “Yantar” crew, is this not a serious disregard of the 1980 UN protocol and its convention on certain conventional weapons? What steps have the Government taken with the Russians? Has the Russian ambassador been called to a meeting in the FCDO, to be informed of the UK’s disapproval?
Lord Coaker (Lab)
Nobody can be in any doubt about the seriousness with which we take the incident that has happened. As the noble and gallant Lord has pointed out, it was not a weapons system, but that does not alter the fact that a handheld laser was pointed into the cockpit of one of our planes. That is of huge significance and importance, and the Russians are in no doubt about how seriously we take that incident. We have made sure that they are aware of that and we will continue to make sure that they are aware of it. Indeed, the noble and gallant Lord’s question—with those from the noble Baronesses from the other Benches—has helped to signify to the Russians, again, quite how seriously we take the incident which occurred.
The Lord Bishop of Leeds
My Lords, it is clear that that message is conveyed, but it seems to do nothing to deter the Russians from continuing with their activity. Can the Minister say whether our military leaders have come to any conclusions about what an appropriate response will be to what, in the end, could be an act of war?
Lord Coaker (Lab)
This is a really important question, but I say to everyone that we have to be really careful about the language that we use when we ask, “If this happened, what would we do? If that happened, what would we do? Would we see such and such as an act of war?” That is not to underplay the seriousness of what is happening, but it is about trying—as any Government would—to be reasonable and sensible in the language that is used.
Let nobody be in any doubt that the seriousness of this is significant. We know what the “Yantar” is doing as part of Operation GUGI, we know that it is surveying the underwater cables in a peacetime way for potential use in other scenarios in the future and we are making sure the Russians are aware of that.
Lord West of Spithead (Lab)
The Minister said he was going to visit the NMIC and the joint cell that was with it down in the south. I do not know whether he has done that yet, but I am glad it is up and operating fully, because we have been bad at tracking the “Yantar” and the other ships of that type. Now, we are doing it properly and we need to have ships that can counter it. I hope that there will be enough money in the Budget for us to get in more ships; we will see.
I have been at sea with the Russians in the Cold War when they tried to ram us, opened weapon systems against us and interrupted flying operations—all highly dangerous things, and similar to what happened in the Iceland cod war. I believe there is more that we can do to make it very uncomfortable for a ship such as the “Yantar”. There are things one can do that make life horrible at sea. They are not all seen and we should start thinking about doing some of those.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
I thank my noble friend for the question. We are trying to do a whole range of different things. He will know that, as well as the measures that I have talked about against the “Yantar”, we have Operation Baltic Sentry—in the Baltic Sea, obviously—which is NATO monitoring, run from Northwood, to track what is going on there. We have Nordic Warden, which is a JEF operation as well, with maritime capabilities, alongside P-8s. There is a whole range of different things that are taking place. The defence investment plan will be published this year; let us see what is in that in terms of the increase in capability to deal with this threat.
Lord Robathan (Con)
My Lords, I understand the difficulty of the Minister; I am not trying to stir things up, I assure him. But supposing a laser had brought down the aircraft by disabling the pilot, what would we consider that? Would we consider it an act of war?
Lord Coaker (Lab)
To be clear, I am not in any difficulty answering the question from the noble Lord, but I will not speculate at the Dispatch Box about what we would do if this or that happened. The noble Lord has much more experience in military matters than I do, so he will recognise how serious it would be if I misspoke in answer to his question. So I am not evading the question but, in the interest of the country, it is sometimes best to have these discussions in private.
Viscount Stansgate (Lab)
My Lords, given what we know the “Yantar” has been engaged in, would the Minister be able to tell the House whether the Government are now actively considering some of the suggestions made in the recent report by the Joint Committee on the National Security Strategy in relation to the possibility of a purpose-built vessel that would help fix undersea cables, were any activity to take place that resulted in them being severed?
Lord Coaker (Lab)
Certainly, those sorts of considerations are being looked at in the context of the defence investment plan. As we have committed to, that will be published this year. Let us see what is in that in terms of the capability my noble friend mentions.
Lord Banner (Con)
My Lords, do the Government consider that these acts of aggression and subversion will come to an end if a deal is reached in relation to Ukraine?
Lord Coaker (Lab)
One can only say: let us hope the discussions around Ukraine bring about arrangements that are satisfactory to the Ukrainians, which is the important part of any agreement that is or is not breached. I think we are in different times now, and the different times we are in mean that Russia will continue to look at underwater cables and some of the other things that go under water, such as energy and data. Certainly, what we see from the “Yantar”, along with other ships that are part of the GUGI operation, is the mapping of the underwater capabilities that we and other nations have for peacetime purposes, but of course that could be used in other scenarios.
Separation Centres: Terrorist Offenders
(1 day, 2 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Keen of Elie (Con)
My Lords, we are told that the independent review into separation centres’ operation, following the attack at His Majesty’s Prison Frankland, has been completed but remains unpublished. Given that the continued non-disclosure of its findings undermines transparency and accountability, will the Minister tell us why the review has not been published and when it will be published? Could he also explain what interim changes have already been made to the regime to ensure that vulnerable staff and other prisoners are not exposed to unacceptable risks in the meantime?
The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord Timpson) (Lab)
The Government are carefully considering the findings of Jonathan Hall KC’s independent review into the operation of separation centres, which was commissioned following the dreadful attack at HMP Frankland in April. We will publish Mr Hall’s report and our response in due course—I would add imminently. On the regimes in our separation centres, Members of your Lordships’ House will be pleased to know that I have been to see the centre at HMP Frankland to meet a number of the staff, who are incredibly brave and professional public servants. We are making a number of operational improvements to improve their safety as well.
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (LD)
My Lords, a finding by the High Court that any prisoner in England, whoever they may may be, has been subjected to inhumane or degrading treatment shames us all. We all understand the need for separation centres for high-risk terrorist offenders, but can the noble Lord say what steps the Government will now take, in the light of the Abu judgment, to ensure that prisoners in separation centres are not so cut off from human contact as to endanger their mental health, and that all such prisoners have access to adequate psychiatric care, as Abu did not?
Lord Timpson (Lab)
Separation centres protect the public from the most serious offenders. A small number of prisoners are held in these centres. The regime is purposeful activity, limited association and rehabilitation; the noble Lord will know that rehabilitation is really important to me. Having met the staff who work in separation centres, it is very clear that they are not all classically trained prison officers. A number are psychiatrists, psychologists, experts in security and so on. There is a team effort to make sure we run good regimes that have a real focus on rehabilitation. I look forward to getting into more of the detail on Jonathan Hall’s report when it and its recommendations are published because it will be very helpful to us as we look to the future of how we run these very specialist areas of the justice system.
Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)
Does my noble friend agree that there is no inconsistency between having adequate separation of terrorism offenders and complying with our most basic and fundamental human rights obligations? In the light of the question from the noble Lord, Lord Marks, and, crucially, the decision of Mr Justice Sheldon last week, all we need to do is to ensure that appropriate mental health provision is made for any offender, particularly those who are isolated for long periods in the day. I know my noble friend is an expert in these matters.
Lord Timpson (Lab)
I thank my noble friend. We are carefully considering the High Court ruling on the Abu case, including considering appealing the decision. Our decisions are based on risk, and the proportionality of our response to that risk is how we make our decisions. Someone’s mental health throughout the justice system is a very important factor in how we manage everyone’s risk, whether they are on the first night of their first time in prison or they have been in the system for a very long time.
I am proud of so many of my colleagues who spend so much of their time in our prisons, and of our probation staff, who go out of their way to support people with their mental health requirements. The support we give our NHS and health providers in our prisons is clearly important too. We need to enable them to have the right space and time to work with people who are often very vulnerable.
Lord Farmer (Con)
My Lords, there is a gaslighting quality about the High Court judgment that the public sector equality duty was breached because no consideration had been given to decisions that meant a cohort of prisoners, all Muslim, were treated in a particular way. The judge said that this could have been perceived as a form of collective punishment against Muslims. All the inmates in the separation centre are Muslims. Some 75% of MI5’s counterterrorist caseload is Islamist extremists, and 63% of prisoners for terrorism-related offences are Muslims. When I visited HMP Frankland in 2022, a prison officer in the separation unit told me that they were perpetually—and, I thought, dangerously—constrained by the PSED and human rights legislation. Will the Government appeal this judgment and strenuously reassure prison governors that they can and must continue to use separation units to keep officers, prisoners and the public safe?
Lord Timpson (Lab)
As I said to my noble friend, we are considering appealing the decision. It is also important that the staff who work in our separation centres have the skills they need to care for the people there. The system is robust, but we always need to look for improvements. That is why we commissioned Mr Hall to look at all our separation centres and the policies we have to make sure they are right for the future.
Baroness Ramsey of Wall Heath (Lab)
My Lords, does my noble friend the Minister think that we are doing enough to keep our prison staff safe? With increasingly violent prisoners challenging authority, what else is being done?
Lord Timpson (Lab)
My noble friend is right to raise this question. One of the things that surprises me going round prisons now compared with 25 years ago is how much more violence there is on our wings. That is probably due to a combination of the amount of drugs in our prisons and the number of people with severe mental health issues, but also people serving very long sentences.
We are investing in protecting our staff. As my noble friend said, our staff do an amazing job, often in very difficult and dangerous situations. That is why we have invested £15 million in 10,000 personal body armour jackets and suits. We are also training 500 staff in how to use Tasers. Every other week, I speak to prison leaders. Last week, I spoke to the governors of the long-term high-security estate, who told me how much reassurance the staff have had from the fact they are now getting investment in this extra protection.
Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)
Does the Prison Service have sufficient resources for the mental health issues it has to deal with?
Lord Timpson (Lab)
I am not an expert in healthcare, but I am an expert in prisons. I see prisoners getting incredible levels of support, often in regimes that are running hot. My personal assessment is that prisoners are getting very good care within a system that is struggling, so we need to make sure that we have a much more stable prison environment. That is why it is very difficult to run everything, to get people out of their cells and to give people the support that they need when we literally have no space left.
It is also important to have the right facilities. The medical facilities in some of the new prisons we have built that I have seen are excellent and appropriate. We are dealing with people who are often very ill. The life expectancy of someone in a prison is much lower on average than someone who has not been to prison. We need to do all we can to support people with their mental health and other health issues.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean (Lab)
My Lords, the Minister spoke about increasing violence in prisons. Is that as true of women’s prisons as it is of men’s prisons?
Lord Timpson (Lab)
I do not know the exact facts. I will write to the noble Baroness on the exact details on violence in women’s prisons, but there are two facts that are very worrying: the rate of self-harm in a women’s prison is eight times higher than in a men’s prison, and 60% of women in prison have brain damage as a result of being hit. We are dealing with some people with severe illnesses and we need to support them.
Diego Garcia Military Base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill
(1 day, 2 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Callanan
(2A) Sections 2 to 4 of this Act come into force only when the Secretary of State has—(a) sought to undertake negotiations with the Government of Mauritius on whether Mauritius would agree an amendment to Article 10 of the Treaty to allow Chagossians as well as Mauritian nationals the right to be employed on the Base to the maximum extent practicable;(b) laid before both Houses of Parliament a report on progress on establishing such negotiations with the Government of Mauritius and the outcome of any that have taken place.(2B) Within two months of the report being laid under paragraph (2A)(b), a Minister must table substantive motions in the House of Commons and the House of Lords on the contents of the report.(2C) In this section “Chagossians” are defined as those eligible for British citizenship under section 4 of the Act and their descendants.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is intended to prevent the provisions from coming into force until the Government has sought to negotiate Chagossian employees the same right to work in support of the operation of the Base as Mauritians under Article 10 of the Treaty, with a report laid before Parliament on the outcome of the negotiations and subsequent motions in the Commons and Lords on the contents of the report.
Lord Callanan (Con)
My Lords, the trust fund set up for the Chagossians is absolutely central to this treaty. Under Article 11, the Mauritians have been given the responsibility for administering the fund, which will be paid for, of course, by the UK. However, we still do not have any clarity on how Mauritius will manage the fund. We seem to have no say in it whatever.
The reality of Mauritius’s past record is also a cause for concern. Since the forced removal of the Chagossians from the archipelago, many Chagossians have lived on Mauritius. As has been pointed out a number of times in the debates so far, in the 1970s the UK Government paid £4 million into a trust fund for the benefit of registered Chagossians. I would be very interested to know the Government’s assessment of whether that trust fund has indeed been a success. Do the Government have any concerns about the way Mauritius has managed that fund before we offer to donate cash for another one? If the Government are concerned about Mauritius’s past actions in this area, what additional assurances have Ministers sought from the Mauritian Government to prevent mismanagement, corruption or failure to properly distribute funds in future?
The domestic reality of this arrangement is also worrying. Many Britons will struggle to understand why we are transferring funds to a foreign Government so that they can manage a trust fund on our behalf. Does this mean that we are transferring funds without proper control over how those moneys are spent? What powers will the UK have under the treaty to ensure that Mauritius is fulfilling its responsibilities? These are all important questions—many Members have raised them in the debates so far—which Ministers should seek to answer, either at the Dispatch Box or in the Bill.
Amendment 17 in my name and Amendments 26 and 78 in the names of my noble friends Lord Lilley and Lord Hannan of Kingsclere relate to the employment of Chagossian citizens on the military base. The treaty makes provision for the employment of Mauritians on the base. We debated issues related to that provision in an earlier group. The treaty, sadly, does not make any provision for the employment of Chagossians on the base. We already know how many Chagossians living on Mauritius feel that they are treated as second-class citizens. Does the Minister agree that Chagossians should have similar protections for their employment on the military base as Mauritians?
Amendment 81, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Morrow, is a very simple amendment that would provide for a report on the impact of the treaty on British Indian Ocean Territory citizens. I see no reason why a Minister would refuse to produce that report. The rights of BIOT citizens are, or should be, central to the future of the islands. We need some clarity on this matter. If the Government cannot commit to a report on the impact of the treaty, will the Minister at least give the Committee an assurance that her department will do everything in its power under the terms of the treaty to ensure that BIOT citizens are properly supported by Mauritius?
I look forward to hearing the rest of the debate and the Minister’s reply.
Baroness Foster of Aghadrumsee (Non-Afl)
My Lords, in this group I will speak to my Amendments 20A, 50A and 81A. I also strongly support Amendment 55 in the name of my noble friend Lord Weir of Ballyholme. As the Minister knows, I have asked several questions about the trust fund, which, as I understand it, will be totally in the control of the Mauritian Government. This brings inherent problems, particularly as those Chagossians living here in the UK are often near or below the poverty line and could well do with access to help and assistance. Amendment 55 seeks to probe the fairness of the payments to Mauritians and Chagossians.
I will go further in saying that the Secretary of State should establish a Chagossian advisory council comprised primarily of individuals of Chagossian descent, including members based here in the UK, Mauritius and Seychelles. This council could then be consulted on all strategic programme and spending decisions relating to the trust fund, ensuring that Chagossian communities are directly involved in shaping priorities and oversight. That would promote transparency. The minutes of the council meetings and any recommendations or advice could also be published annually. That goes further than the amendment in the name of my noble friend Lord Weir, but I would be obliged to hear from the Minister on this as it would deal with some of the issues around transparency and accountability as well.
On Amendment 20A, I am not going to labour the points raised as we discussed some of this last week in Committee, but I remind the Committee that the current provisions of the treaty do not grant a right for Chagossians to access their homeland. They leave it up to the Mauritian Government as to whether this happens. Article 6 states that the Mauritian Government are
“free to implement a programme of resettlement”.
That falls far short of right to access the islands. That is what this amendment seeks to do.
Amendment 50A concerns the protection of Chagossian identity and birthplace. I tabled this amendment at the request of the Chagossian community here in the UK, including many native islanders who were born on Diego Garcia, Peros Banhos and Salomon before their forced removal between 1968 and 1973.
This amendment is not theoretical and it is not precautionary. It responds to a real, current and deeply troubling practice that is already happening, and the Committee needs to be aware of the seriousness of this. We have now seen documentary evidence that Mauritian authorities have begun issuing birth certificates to Chagossians in which the true place of birth has been removed and replaced with Mauritius. In each case, the names of islands such as Diego Garcia, Peros Banhos or Salomon have been deleted from the official record. It is not an allegation; it is a matter of record. Chagossian families have shown us the documents and they have been verified by lawyers. Native islanders born on Peros Banhos and Diego Garcia are now being told by a Government claiming future sovereignty over their homeland that they were not born there at all.
This pattern of altering official records is consistent with long-standing concerns expressed by Chagossians who lived in Mauritius, many of whom describe decades of discrimination, marginalisation and a complete lack of constitutional recognition as a distinct people. United Nations human rights experts have previously documented that Chagossians in Mauritius faced entrenched barriers to housing, healthcare, employment and political participation, and continue to experience de facto discrimination as an Afro-descendant minority. Would the Minister care to look at the page on the website of the Mauritian Government which is dedicated to the Chagos Archipelago? There they refer to those who were “forcibly removed” from the islands in the 1960s as
“Mauritians born and residing at the time in the Chagos Archipelago”.
I have seen the passport of a Chagossian who was deported from Diego Garcia to the Seychelles. In that case, the birthplace that was originally recorded as Diego Garcia has been replaced with Mauritius. I am informed by those directly affected that this practice followed political agreements involving the former Mauritian Prime Minister and the former Seychelles President, under which Chagossians living in Seychelles were required to have Mauritius entered on their documents rather than the true place of their birth on the island. Whether these arrangements were informal or formal, the effect is the same: the birthplace of Chagossian natives has been erased, replaced or falsified. That is an act of identity deletion; it is happening now, and the evidence is in front of us.
The way to deal with this is through this amendment, which I believe is essential. The Chagossians were removed once, their homes were demolished, their pets were killed, their possessions were thrown into the sea, and they were shipped to Mauritius and the Seychelles with no warning and no rights. They lost their land, their livelihood and their future. What they ask for today is, I believe, modest in comparison. They ask for the one thing they still possess: the truth of who they are and where they were born. The Committee needs to be cognisant of that. Identity is not a technicality; for a displaced person, it is absolutely everything. It is the final surviving link to their home, lineage, history and dignity. Yet we now know—not just fear or speculate—that the birthplace of Chagossian natives has been altered by an external authority. There can be no more powerful demonstration of why this House must intervene.
The Government have repeatedly argued that decisions about the Chagos should respect international norms—we have heard it many times in this House. International law is absolutely clear on this point. Altering a displaced person’s civil status records without their consent violates the principles laid down in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the UN guiding principles on internal displacement and the fundamental norms to identity as recognised in human rights jurisprudence.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, I speak briefly in support of my noble friend Lady Foster, based on insight and experience. The Chagossian package that we, the previous Government, negotiated was for £40 million over 10 years. Part of the challenge faced by the previous Government was around administration and governance and who would have a say on how that money was spent. For example, the delivery partners included the British Council for packages on English language training. We worked with universities, including Middlesex University, on delivering skill sets for Chagossian communities, and there was some insight provided on governance by local communities right here in the United Kingdom. I share that insight and experience because it remained a big challenge as to how the money would be administered.
Perhaps I can ask the Minister about some specifics. The £40 million Chagossian support package was, as she will know, administered by the FCDO—in other words, the UK Government. In the £40 million now being proposed, that will shift, so the issue of accountability, particularly for the Chagossian people, will be a vital component. I have some probing questions on the existing schemes that are already operational. Going purely from memory, about £30-odd million had been allocated. Will those schemes run to the end of their project period? What has happened to that extra £10 million? Has it been reallocated to the £40 million now being proposed in the trust fund by the Government?
Lord Hay of Ballyore (DUP)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 38A and 38B in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Weir. The amendment before the Committee in my name would require that this Government
“shall seek to permit limited commercial and chartered flights for British Chagossians to and from Diego Garcia, using the existing runway facilities”,
and is of great importance. Like many colleagues have already mentioned, the islanders themselves ought to be at the very heart of this conversation. I was privileged to receive correspondence from many members of the Chagossian community living in the United Kingdom, asking that I reflect their concerns on this issue. I believe this would be a modest but vital step towards addressing the historic injustice inflicted on the Chagossian community.
I shall explain why the Government should accept this amendment and why the Bill in its present form is inadequate without it. Noble Lords will be aware of the history of the British Indian Ocean Territory, and I do not intend to repeat it today. However, we must be continually mindful of what happened to the inhabitants of these islands from 1968 to 1973, then numbering around 2,000: they were removed from their homes so that Diego Garcia could become the site of a UK-US military base.
Since then, the Government have repeatedly recognised that these are British Overseas Territories citizens, some native, but many descendants of deceased islanders who never returned, and the Government have provided certain support measures throughout the years, or so they might contend. Yet, in spite of this, they have failed to take into account the undeniably important right of the Chagossians to have any meaningful access to their former homeland. They have been denied what we consider an expectation to return home at the end of the day.
This amendment is about more than symbolic flights; it addresses infrastructure, reconnection and justice. It taps into the Chagossian people and their campaign for representation throughout this long process, during which His Majesty’s Government have continually left them very much outside in the cold. This amendment would allow limited commercial or charter traffic, especially for the Chagossian community in the United Kingdom. This would not be a wholesale opening of the island, nor would it challenge the base operations; it would simply permit members of the community, many of whom live in the United Kingdom, to visit, reconnect and maintain their culture and family ties to the Chagossian community.
Those opposed to this amendment may argue that additional flights raise security and other major issues. I respectfully suggest that this argument cannot be used to stonewall all access. Instead, this amendment demands a managed, limited and regular scheme—for example, scheduled charters once or twice a year. Under vetting, with government oversight, this is entirely compatible with defence interests. Indeed, recognising the ties of displaced people is part of Britain’s international human rights obligations. The amendment would permit family members to see where their parents were born and to grieve, remember and connect with their roots. That matters more than any of us could ever know. It gives the Chagossian community a tangible and practical link to their homeland. Practically speaking, the Government should include reporting requirements on how many flights, who operates them, capacity and cost. We should ensure a transparent and accountable process. I therefore urge noble Lords to consider this amendment carefully. Without it, the Bill will proceed without a tangible measure of access and leave the Chagossian community with yet another broken promise.
I turn to Amendment 38B in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Weir. In its current form, the Bill fails to provide even the most basic protections for a community whose treatment by successive Governments has been one of the most regrettable chapters in our modern history. The proposal in this amendment is simple. All employment on the Diego Garcia military base must include fair and equal opportunities for the Chagossians as British Indian Ocean Territory citizens, and conditions must be in line with UK labour standards. Those conditions are the bare minimum we should expect for individuals working under the authority of the United Kingdom, particularly in the case of British Chagossians, who have just as much claim to Britishness as we do. Although the Government like to point out that Chagossians can apply for jobs on Diego Garcia, in reality very few have ever had meaningful access to stable, fair and properly regulated employment on the island. Much of the labour force is made up of contracted or sub-contracted workers from elsewhere. Where Chagossians have been employed, concerns have been raised in relation to pay disparity and unclear contractual safeguards. Without explicit protection in legislation, these inequalities will simply continue unchecked. We cannot allow that to happen.
The British Overseas Territories should reflect British values, and those include adherence to UK recognised labour standards. These standards cover fair pay, safe conditions, rest periods, paid leave and protection from discrimination. I completely disagree with the claim that a military base “complicates” and creates a problem for workforce regulations. Civilians work on UK and allied military installations right across the world.
This amendment is about treating the Chagossian community with fairness and basic justice. It is a chance for Parliament to ensure that the community that paid the highest price for Britain’s historical decisions in the British Indian Ocean Territory is no longer marginalised from its own homeland.
This amendment may not ensure self-determination or the maintenance of sovereignty, and nor is it likely to affect the security of the region. But what it does seek to do is to put the Chagossian people first. If the Government are serious about righting the past wrongs, surely, they must begin by guaranteeing equal treatment in employment.
Lord Jay of Ewelme (CB)
My Lords, I will say at the outset that I do not see the need for the amendments we are discussing. However, I do think that responding to and respecting the wishes and interests of the Chagossians is one of the most important and difficult issues facing the Governments of both the United Kingdom and Mauritius.
There is a lot of history to make good here. It is all the more difficult, in that there is no single Chagossian view. There are Chagossian people in Britain, in Mauritius, in the Seychelles and elsewhere, and there are different views among and indeed within the different communities. It would be unwise to think that there is an immediate or straightforward answer to meeting the wishes and interests of these different communities. My guess is that current and future British and Mauritian Governments will be dealing with these questions for quite some time to come.
It is sensible of the Government to ask the International Relations and Defence Committee to look into the issue, and sensible of them to conduct a survey of Chagossian interests and wishes. This is not an easy task. There will be, and indeed already are, doubts expressed about the time and scope of the IRDC’s work. That, I fear, is inevitable, but I hope that the results of the IRDC’s survey and its report will give the Minister some firm ground on which to make her promised statement in due course.
I know that discussions have been going on between the Mauritian and British Governments about the way forward. I hope that one conclusion of these talks will be that the £40 million trust fund to be administered by Mauritius will be administered in the interests of all Chagossians, and in a way that reassures Chagossians, wherever they are now, that their views are properly heard and represented. There is understandable scepticism about this, and it needs to be addressed.
I hope too that the Government will recognise and indeed facilitate the right of return to and resettlement on the Chagos outer islands, and that here too, there will be close and constructive co-operation between the British and Mauritian Governments.
There is a lot of history to put right as far as the Chagossian community is concerned, in Britain and elsewhere. The Government are, I know, fully conscious of that, and I am sure that future Governments will be too. Meanwhile, I hope that this Bill will soon be approved, passed and implemented.
Lord Bellingham (Con)
My Lords, I would certainly agree with the noble Lord, Lord Jay, when he says that the Chagossian people, in the disparate parts of the world in which they live, are not united on many issues. However, one thing on which they are united is their desire for employment opportunities on Diego Garcia, so I very much support the words of my noble friend Lord Callanan.
When I looked at this as a Foreign Office Minister, one of the things that staggered me was the number of people employed on that base from Sri Lanka, India and many other countries. There were occasionally some Chagossians, but there was no comprehensive, well-thought-out framework for Chagossians, be they in Crawley, Mauritius or the Seychelles, to find opportunities for employment in Diego Garcia. It was almost as though there was an underlying desire on the part of both the MoD and the Americans not to employ them on the basis, probably, that they might well go on to claim other rights. There was a lot of concern about whether there would be an issue of self-determination if they went there and settled there. I think my noble friend Lord Callanan’s amendment makes a great deal of sense. This is one issue that the Chagossian people are fully agreed on, and we should absolutely support it.
Lord Weir of Ballyholme (DUP)
My Lords, I rise in relation to this group. Picking up the remarks, first of all, of the noble Lord, Lord Jay, I will say that, yes, there is not, perhaps, a single unified position of every single Chagossian. Perhaps we should not be surprised at that. Can we identify an issue in the United Kingdom on which there is a single view which every citizen of the United Kingdom holds? We may indeed have great difficulty in finding many issues within this House on which every single one of us is on exactly the same page. Of course, there would be a way to test that, which is the case of democratic self-determination. That would have been the way to see where the majority of opinion lay within the Chagossian community. It would not be beyond the wit of any Government to do that.
Turning to the amendments in this group, I want to particularly address my Amendments 38C and 55. I have also co-signed a number of my noble friend Lord Hay’s amendments. The thread that very much runs through the amendments in this group, both in content and spirit, is an attempt to actually do something practical, even at this late hour, to support the Chagossian people.
For example, the amendments from the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, look at employment rights; my noble friend Lord Hay’s amendments look to both employment rights and making some level of provision in terms of flights to the Chagos Islands, and Amendment 50A, from the noble Baroness, Lady Foster, looks at birthright and identification, so that the Chagossians do not become some sort of 21st-century Trotsky, who will suddenly be erased, with their identity being erased from all photographs. They will simply become some sort of non-people. All the amendments are very much in the spirit of trying to provide support to the Chagossian people.
It seems that there are objectively three ways in which the United Kingdom can support the Chagossian people. It is undoubtedly the case. I think it has been acknowledged in earlier parts of this debate, from all sides of the House, that, whatever our views on the present treaty, and whatever our views on a wide range of issues, there does seem to be a common agreement and an acknowledgement that we have had over half a century of poor and shameful treatment of the Chagossian people. Successive Governments of whatever political persuasion have let down the Chagossian people. We cannot turn back the clock to prevent what happened in the late 1960s or the 1970s, or what happened subsequent to then. But what we can try to do is ameliorate the situation.
Again, I would highlight three areas which we could look at. The first is the issue of democracy and self-determination, which was the subject of an earlier debate. The second area, which I think is the principal focus of this group of amendments, is how we can provide financial and practical support for the Chagossians. The third issue is the rights of resettlement of Chagossians. My two amendments deal specifically with the latter two.
Turning first to Amendment 38C, this highlights to the Government that there was an alternative way forward. The KPMG report that was produced in 2015, commissioned by a former Labour Prime Minister, put forward a potential pathway of progress as regards the Chagos Islands. My amendment, in the spirit of trying to be practical in terms of help, does not seek to go fully down that pathway or to reinstate the KPMG report. That is clearly something that the Government would reject, but there were a range of proposals within that report dealing with resettlement.
The cost highlighted in 2015 for implementing that report would, I think, have been about £400 million. Sadly, at that stage, the Government rejected that as being far too expensive. Whatever arguments we may have had at an earlier stage over the broader financial cost of this settlement, it seems to me that a solution which cost £400 million would have been very cheap compared with what we face in practice, no matter what figures we belie.
So it strikes me that, while we still have that sovereignty and control of the Chagos Islands, we should be facilitating that resettlement, because it is clear that the treaty agreement that we have reached does not give a right of resettlement to the Chagossians; it hands that lock, stock and barrel to the Mauritius Government. As I said at an earlier stage, I suspect that those who make the right noises towards the Mauritian Government may be able to resettle, while those who are deemed the “awkward squad” will not be able to go back to their homeland. It seems that the very least we can do is to make that provision while we still can for the resettlement of the Chagossian people.
Finally, Amendment 55 is, again, a probing amendment. We have rehearsed the broader financial position. It is clear that, in stark figures, £101 million will be paid per year to the Mauritius Government. We know that the disparity in terms of what that equates to as a total will vary between the Government’s assessment, using one particular calculation of £3.4 billion, and the main Opposition’s figure of £35 billion, but we know that vast sums will go directly to the Mauritian Government. Where we owe a duty of care in particular is to the Chagos Islanders: they should be our top priority when it comes to finance, but this amendment does not even go quite as far as that. We are simply saying that, financially, we want to ensure that there is at least a determination that what is provided is fair and equal towards the Chagos Islanders compared with Mauritius.
I have to say that there is deep concern over the £40 million trust fund. No doubt the Government will say that it is very well intended to provide direct support to the Chagossian people. However, by providing it in such a way that it is entirely within the Mauritian Government’s control, while Chagossians appear to have no particular leverage as to how it is spent, we do not know on what projects or on whom it will be spent. This is one opportunity, at least, to probe the Government on what actions are going to be taken to at least try to ensure equality of provision on that basis.
I look forward to the Minister’s summing up to see what practical measures the Government can take. For instance, will they accept that we monitor the situation closely through an equality assessment, or ensure that there are Chagossians put on any board that deals with the distribution of the money? The noble Baroness, Lady Foster, has suggested that there should be a reference group of Chagossians who could at least monitor this. If it simply becomes, effectively, a slush fund for the Mauritian Government to indulge whatever pet projects they want, under the guise of providing for the Chagossian people, without any direct input or control from them, we will simply have repeated the mistakes of history and let down the Chagossian people again.
Lord Hannan of Kingsclere (Con)
My Lords, I will speak to my Amendment 78 and in support of the amendments of the noble Lords, Lord Hay and Lord Weir, the noble Baroness, Lady Foster, and my noble friend Lord Callanan. The crux of this debate is about ending the dream of return for most British Chagossians. As long as they were British citizens, there was always the possibility of resettlement, but we know that Mauritius denies their nationality, treats them as so many Mauritian citizens and is certain not to allow a general right of return to the Chagossian population.
One or two Chagossians who have said all the right things, as the noble Lord, Lord Weir, says, may be allowed back as part of that general migration, but we can be pretty certain that they will not be our fellow subjects watching now from the Gallery, stoical and silent, ignored and overlooked in a grisly symbol of these past five decades.
My amendment deals specifically with the rights of employment at the base, but I want to widen it a little to what would make an economically viable community in the Chagos Islands. The Minister has said several times at the Dispatch Box that our priority is maintaining the base and that by implication, therefore, we cannot do the right thing by the Chagossian population. I do not believe there is a contradiction. Maintaining sovereignty would meet both our strategic and our moral obligations of stewardship as the sovereign power and the focus of loyalty of the Chagossian population, and it is economically viable. We heard in our last debate that it could not happen because it was too far away, too distant and too expensive, but as we have just heard from the noble Lord, Lord Weir, it is a fraction of what we are paying in direct transfers to Mauritius, let alone any associated costs. We can take the Minister’s figures and say that it is six times more expensive to hand the archipelago away, or we can take my noble friend Lady Noakes’s figures and say that it is more like 60 times as expensive. Either way, it is extraordinary that we are not considering the option of resettlement.
I want to explore how that would work. I mentioned last week that the Falklands War was, paradoxically, the beginning of the economic revival of that archipelago because the regular link to the UK and the impact on the economy, as well as our readiness to start exploiting some of the resources, made an island that until then had been suffering from emigration viable and hugely attractive. It has nearly doubled its population since. At the moment we are flying in civilian contractors for all the non-military jobs on an occasional flight from Singapore. These contractors come from the Philippines, Sri Lanka or India, and they do the many non-military jobs on a base of that size—the construction, cooking, cleaning and so on. There is no reason why those jobs could not be done by local people. It would make sense both economically and in security terms, as well as giving a viable economic option to the British Chagossians who return.
But I would not want to leave your Lordships with the thought that this would be a population wholly dependent on the existence of the military base. That is not a position that anyone wants in the long term. It is not a position that the Falkland Islands would want to be in. We will come on to our other overseas territories in a later group, but the economy of Gibraltar has been transformed since the 1980s. Having been almost completely dependent for GDP on our naval base there, it has now become a hugely successful territory through private enterprise. There are lots of other things. What would those other things be? I have said before in this House that it is not for politicians to second-guess the private sector and I am conscious of sitting next to my noble friend Lord Moynihan, who has written a wonderful book making this point at greater length, but here are some ideas off the top of my head after conversations with British Chagossians who had been kicking around a couple of these ideas. Here are seven or eight ideas. Maybe one or two of them might be viable. That is all you would need.
First is the extraordinary marine resource. What about establishing a marine and oceanographic university on Peros Banhos? There has been a lot of interest from academic institutions here and elsewhere. Lancaster University, the University of Exeter, the University of Western Australia in Perth and Dalhousie in Canada have all been involved in ecological and maritime projects around the archipelago. Is it so unthinkable to have a permanent base there that in time could take visiting students and have accommodation for them?
Secondly, the obvious one is tourism. People put a great premium on both novelty and isolation. Here is the last undiscovered tourist archipelago. It can be reached by seaplane from the Maldives which, it is worth reminding ourselves, is closer to the Chagos Archipelago than either the Seychelles or Mauritius. It is perfectly feasible to see snorkelling, birdwatching, scuba-diving and exploration of the marine fauna becoming viable. There are wealthy people who would spend a great deal of money for the additional seclusion and the new frontier.
Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)
This is all very fascinating. I hope we get back to Heligoland soon, and maybe the Gilbert and Ellice Islands, but I have to ask the noble Lord: where was he when his Government decided that the straightforward thing to do was to go for the cession of sovereignty?
Lord Hannan of Kingsclere (Con)
I was a Member of the European Parliament, and I spoke out quite strongly against that Government. I hope the noble Lord knows me well enough to know that I was never a party line man. I thought it was an appalling thing to do then, and I still think it is an appalling thing to do.
Lord Bellingham (Con)
Yes, the previous Government set out to give sovereignty to Mauritius across the archipelago, but not necessarily on the sovereign base. In fact, the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, has made it very clear that one of his red lines was protecting the sovereign base in perpetuity, as in Cyprus. That would have been a very plausible and popular decision.
Lord Hannan of Kingsclere (Con)
That was my understanding, but even that was too much for me. Even if we had been able to get continued sovereignty on the base and some kind of shared sovereignty on the outer atolls, that would still have been exchanging a freehold for a leasehold. It is a preposterous thing to do when we are being told to do it by a court that has expressly been denied jurisdiction in cases between Commonwealth states. We would be doing it, setting a terrible precedent, to satisfy a tribunal that has no authority.
I was very critical of the previous Government for countenancing these changes. I have told the people involved what I think of it. I am equally critical of this Government, as I suspect are quite a lot of the people on the Labour Benches. I look at the expressions of some noble Lords opposite. I know they are decent patriots and democrats, and I know they feel a sense of obligation to our dispossessed Chagossian colleagues. Of course, they have to do their duty, such is the essence of politics.
I finish by holding out the prospect—just the vision—of people coming back: of civilian and military life coming back; of stories told again by grandmothers under newly thatched roofs, their voices stitched with salt and memory; of footsteps remembering the pale coral paths; and of the islands themselves remembering their old inhabitants, as the tides remember the moon.
Lord Morrow (DUP)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 31 standing in my name. I want to place on record my appreciation for the noble Lord, Lord Hannan, stepping in last week during the difficult situation I had back home. It again demonstrates clearly that, when you throw an awkward ball to a good player, he will pick it up, make you look good and carry on as if nothing has happened, but I appreciate his assistance in that instance.
I was about to say three lines on this amendment, but then I thought I was perhaps being too presumptuous, because I hoped that the Government, just by reading the amendment, would simply have said that there was no reason why they could not support it. I hope that that is exactly what they will say at the end of the debate, but I think I had better say more than just one or two lines in relation to it before sitting down.
Even if one accepted that it was just £101 million every year for 99 years and considered the proposition in its own terms, without regard for the preceding history, the contrast between this and a one-off payment of £40 million to the Chagossians conveys the message that, while the Mauritians are important and worthy of respect, the Chagossians are, by contrast, worthy only of a few crumbs from the table, relatively speaking, which is deeply hurtful and insulting.
Secondly, to really understand the injustice presented by the arrangement, it obviously needs to be seen in the context of history. The Chagossians do not, for the most part, regard themselves as Mauritian.
I have heard what the noble Lords, Lord Weir and Lord Jay, have said. As the noble Lord, Lord Weir, rightly said, across the United Kingdom there is a multiplicity of views on many issues, so it is difficult to get a concise, exact and single supporting view on this, but I will say these things anyway. In this context, the decision to also pay Mauritius a fantastically large sum of money for the use of just one of the Chagos Islands, while the Chagossians are afforded just £40 million, compounds the present injustice.
To appreciate the menacing nature of the way this monetary injustice greatly compounds the underlying injustice, one must point out that the monies for resettlement set out in the KPMG report are significantly less than the monies it is now proposed the Republic of Mauritius be paid for the UK to lease just one of the Chagos Islands.
Finally, the funding for the Chagossians is also important. Article 11 of the treaty undermines the UK Government’s argument for it by addressing the Chagossians apart from the Mauritians. They are, in effect, saying that it is right to return the islands to the Republic of Mauritius because the pre-8 November 1965 boundaries of the colony express the self-determination of the people of the territory, which implies that everyone, at least from a civic perspective, can be happily Mauritian. However, in that context, there would be no need to address the Chagossians separately and allocate payment to them. In addressing the Chagossians separately, the treaty, in effect, hoists itself with its own petard.
Lord Kempsell (Con)
My Lords, I will speak to the amendments in my name in this group, and I support the amendments in the name of my noble friend Lord Hannan, who masterfully adumbrated his litany of development ideas, as well as those in the names of the noble Baroness, Lady Foster, the noble Lords, Lord Weir and Lord Callanan, and others.
The theme before the Committee in this group has surely been, as the noble Lord, Lord Weir, put it, an attempt to understand the views, wishes, legitimate desires and concerns of Chagossians. How is it possible to do so without a proper process for consultation with the Chagossian community? Much has already been said in the Committee about the inadequacy of the consultation process followed by the Government that has brought us to this point in the design of the Bill and their policy. My Amendment 81C would make the Chagossian contact group, the Government’s official consultation forum, more robust. Indeed, it would ensure that the Chagossian contact group remained in existence throughout the lifetime of the treaty.
In all the impenetrable fora, groups and organisations within Whitehall, the Chagossian contact group has been shrouded, I think it is fair to say, in a little secrecy. I have repeatedly asked Written Questions of Ministers about the operation of this consultation mechanism. We know that it met earlier this year and was attended by a Minister and that it is chaired by a deputy director in the FCDO and has a small secretariat. My amendment would ensure that it remained active and that Chagossians continued to be enfranchised to a greater extent than they have been thus far by the Government.
My Amendment 81G pertains to the theme of resettlement, which has already been mentioned extensively in the debate. The Government prayed in aid the notion of resettlement as one of their key motives for pursuing this policy, and they have taken the word of the Mauritian Government, I think it is fair to say, on trust when it comes to resettlement. To a certain extent, that is to be expected at international negotiations and in bilateral fora, but there is no reason why the Government should not take steps to ensure that the important issue of resettlement is continually checked on by Ministers in future. That is why, in Amendment 81G, I suggest that within 12 months of Royal Assent the Secretary of State should publish a report made in connection with Article 6 of the treaty as to progress on resettlement.
For the sake of timing, I shall speak also to my Amendment 20C, which is grouped here, on the marine protected area. With this amendment, I seek to ensure that the Government take external expertise and consultation of the kind that the noble Lord, Lord Hannan, mentioned, from universities and scientific experts, who have deep concerns about the potential administration of the marine protected area by the Mauritian authorities and the standards to which those authorities will hold the administration of the MPA and its future designations—whether they will truly be in accordance with the standards that have thus far been set by the UK Government, in terms of both environmental protection and the quality of expertise, scientific and otherwise, used in governing those important regions for marine and broader conservation. My Amendment 20C seeks to ensure that an independent panel is commissioned before those elements of the treaty come into force to provide a serious and well-thought-out independent view, away from the scientific advice that the UK Government will take from their own resources, and to publish that advice so that the international community can see that the Mauritian Government will be held to those international standards.
Lord Fuller (Con)
My Lords, I rise to particularly support Amendment 20 in the name of my noble friend Lord Callanan, and, more generally, Amendment 26 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Lilley, who is not in his place, and Amendments 38B and 78. This is an important group because it seeks to remedy the way in which the Bill will not only make the Chagossians stateless, but prejudice their ability to financially provide for themselves and their families for today and tomorrow.
Last month, I travelled to Hamburg on business. At dinner, I was sat next door but one to a gentleman who was involved in business in quite a substantial way in Mauritius. It did not take long for my German colleagues to explain to him that I sat in your Lordships’ House, upon which he leant over and implored me—no, begged me—to do that deal with Diego Garcia, so that, in his words, “our streets can be paved with gold”. Those were his exact words.
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Baroness Chapman of Darlington) (Lab)
My Lords, I was not sure whether anybody else wanted to follow that last speech. I do not think I have ever seen the Prime Minister drink prosecco—he would prefer a pint, I think.
Anyway, I thank noble Lords for their speeches on this quite important set of amendments, and I would be very surprised if we did not come back to some of these issues on Report, because, for all the nonsense we have just heard, there are actually some very thoughtful and quite important considerations here. Someone put it very well when they said that, while they might not agree with everything we are doing, there is a shared view across the House that we need to do as best we can through this process for the Chagossian communities.
Regarding Amendments 17, 26 and 78, the Chagossians are already entitled to work on the base and have done so. There are a range of job opportunities on Diego Garcia, open to Chagossians with British, Mauritian and Seychelles citizenship. A link to vacancies advertised by KBR, the main contractor responsible for recruiting and managing support staff at the base, is already available on the GOV.UK pages, setting out UK government support for Chagossians. On Amendment 78 from the noble Lord, Lord Hannan—
Lord Bellingham (Con)
How many Chagossians are actually working on the base today?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
I do not think that data is published anywhere, I am afraid. If it is, I shall provide it to the noble Lord.
I very much enjoyed the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Hannan, as I always do, but it is unjustifiable to define Chagossians as only those holding British Overseas Territories citizenship. I think that is what he was getting at. There are many Chagossians living in Mauritius, the Seychelles and beyond, and this would also exclude anyone who holds British citizenship, but not British Overseas Territories citizenship.
Amendment 20 from the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, which is one of many that would require the Government to seek something from Mauritius, is not needed. We have already committed to making a Statement to Parliament—and I think it is right that we do this—on the modalities of the Chagossian trust fund and eligibility for resettlement. That is in large part a response to the considerable interest that there has been from noble Lords across the House in making sure that the trust fund is run properly and fairly.
Taking this together with Amendment 38A from the noble Lord, Lord Hay, on air travel to Diego Garcia, I say that, as we have said numerous times, the UK is taking forward planning for a programme of heritage visits for Chagossians to the Chagos Archipelago, including Diego Garcia. These were paused in 2019 because of Covid, but we are working hard to reinstate them as soon as possible. Now, as then, these visits would include visits to key heritage sites. Specifically on the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Hay, there are no commercial flights to Diego Garcia, and nor would they be practical, as it is a working military base that is highly sensitive. Allowing commercial flights would interfere with the operational use of the base. Heritage visits in the past have often involved the use of charter aircraft and this may be the case for future visits also, but there is nothing in the treaty that would prevent this.
On Amendment 20C, noble Lords will recall that we debated the environmental impacts of the treaty and the marine protected area around the Chagos Archipelago last week. Both the UK and Mauritius are committed to protecting the unique environment around the islands. Noble Lords will be aware that on 2 November Mauritius issued a statement announcing the creation of a marine protected area once the treaty enters into force. No commercial fishing whatever will be allowed in any part of the MPA. Low levels of artisanal fishing, compatible with nature conservation or for subsistence of the Chagossian community, would be allowed in certain limited areas.
The noble Lord’s amendment seeks to delay the implementation of the Bill and the entry into force of the treaty. The treaty has already been reviewed by two Select Committees of this House. They have reported their findings and agreed that the treaty allows for positive environmental work, with the IAC welcoming
“the Government’s assurance that it will work closely with the Mauritian Government to establish a well-resourced and patrolled Marine Protected Area”.
Amendment 38C, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Weir, would require the Government to implement the resettlement recommendations of the 2015 KPMG study. The KPMG report, commissioned by the Conservative Government, concluded that resettling a civilian population permanently on BIOT would entail substantial and open-ended costs. The then Government ruled out resettlement, acknowledging the acute challenges and costs of developing anything equivalent to modern public services on remote and low-lying islands.
Lord Hannan of Kingsclere (Con)
Will the Minister confirm that there were three different options for how many people you would resettle, and the costs of all of them were substantially lower than the transfer payments that we are making to Mauritius alone under the current deal?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
That is correct, but those payments would not have paid for a legally secure operation of the base alongside our United States allies. Whatever legal geniuses we have opposite us today, those in the White House differed on the analysis now being put forward by the Conservative Party, which is clearly different from what they put forward in the not-so-distant past.
The agreement gives Mauritius the opportunity to develop a programme of resettlement on its own terms, without requiring the UK taxpayer to pick up the bill.
On Amendment 81G from the noble Lord, Lord Kempsell, as I and other Ministers have said on numerous occasions, it will be for Mauritius to establish a programme of resettlement once the treaty comes into force. I am very sympathetic to the way he put his case on this, but it would not be a good use of taxpayers’ money to keep reporting on something that is not in our gift to achieve. The Government are increasing their support to Chagossians living in the UK through new and existing projects. These include Chagossian-led community projects in Crawley and beyond, as well as education and English language support, and have involved the creation of a number of FCDO-funded full-time jobs for Chagossians. The noble Lord, Lord Ahmad, asked me about commitments on this going forward. We are committed to these at least until the end of this Parliament. He will understand that what happens beyond that may depend on decisions of Ministers in the future.
Amendment 31 tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Morrow, and Amendment 55 tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Weir, ask for an equality impact assessment on the payments to be made by Mauritius to Chagossians. The Government have already released the public sector equality duty report relating to the treaty, which addresses all the issues around equalities and the impact assessment.
Amendment 50A tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Foster, raises a really important issue. We do not think it is necessary to make provision for this in the Bill, but we understand her concern. As I said in my letter in relation to the first day of Committee, we will work with relevant authorities to ensure that official documentation reflects historic connections to the Chagos Archipelago wherever possible. British passports issued to Chagossians will continue to display their place of birth and, if they wish, those who already have British Overseas Territories citizenship status can hold a British passport reflecting their status as British Overseas Territories citizens. I am very sympathetic to the arguments put forward by the noble Baroness and commit to making diplomatic representations to the Government of Mauritius to ensure that place of birth is recorded accurately on documentation.
Baroness Foster of Aghadrumsee (Non-Afl)
I very much appreciate the Minister’s commitment to do that, because this is such a hurtful thing. Sometimes, those of an Irish republican disposition will say that I am not British but just Irish, so it is something I feel very strongly about. The Chagossians are entitled to have their identity confirmed, and I would be very pleased if she could write to me after she raises those issues through the diplomatic channels.
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
Of course, I would be very happy to do that.
Lord Weir of Ballyholme (DUP)
On the amendments that the noble Lord, Lord Morrow, and I put forward, as was alluded to in a number of speeches, including by the noble Baroness, Lady Foster, the reason why we raised equality issues as regards financial payments is the potential role of Chagossians within the trust fund. There is a widespread concern at present that we are simply hoping that Mauritius does the right thing with that. I appreciate that the Minister is perhaps not in the position today to give any level of direct assurances. However, can she at least go away and come back before Report with the Government’s thoughts or information—perhaps after discussions with the Mauritian Government—as to how we can inject a level of Chagossian direct involvement and control over that trust fund? That would be very helpful for whenever we reach Report.
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
That is not too much to ask. We are talking to the Mauritian Government about this, because we want the same thing as the noble Lord. I had hoped that we would be able to say something a little bit more detailed about that by now. We have not quite got there, but we will use best endeavours to get there before Report. I understand the motivation behind this, and it is right that we do what we can to make sure that noble Lords have the assurances they need by Report.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
In light of the reaffirmation that there will be both ongoing citizenship as well as dual nationality, and, perhaps uniquely, that community will be impacted directly by the terms of this treaty, does the Minister accept the principle that formal mechanisms of representation for the duration of this agreement, rather than just between now and the treaty coming into force, in principle warrant very serious consideration?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
It depends on what we mean by formal and what that looks like. We have an arrangement at the moment via the contact group and a commitment to strengthen and expand that, to make sure that does the job it is intended to do and the Government can support it in doing that. However, we are clear that we do not do anything to it without its consent. It is an area on which we are interested in having further conversations—I think the noble Lord knows what I am getting at. Whether that completely satisfies his desire for formality, we will probably continue to explore together.
With that, I hope the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, feels able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Callanan (Con)
My Lords, I agree with the Minister that this has been a fascinating debate. It was a real pleasure to hear so many noble Lords focusing, as we rightly should, on the rights and futures of the Chagossian people.
The trust fund is an essential part of the treaty. Essentially, it is the only part of the treaty that is positive for the community. Therefore, we must not allow it to be maladministered, or worse, by the Mauritian Government. My noble friend Lord Ahmad made some very good points about the management of the existing fund, to which he got some answer from the Minister. We are certainly clear that the UK Government should take all necessary steps to hold the Mauritian Government to account for their management of the fund to ensure that the Chagossians are properly looked after and no longer treated as second-class citizens. I apologise to my noble friend Lord Fuller for trying to apply a little imaginary lipstick to his proverbial pig in this matter.
The points raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Foster, were particularly important and extremely serious. I was pleased to hear the assurances given to her by the Minister. We should not allow the Chagossian people to be treated in this manner by Mauritius.
This speaks to our concerns on value for money. Whichever figures you take, this agreement is a major financial undertaking, costing the British taxpayer billions of pounds over the lifetime of the deal. Any situation where the fund is capitalised but not managed properly would surely be unacceptable, and we should make sure that there are powers to hold Mauritius to account should that happen.
My noble friend Lord Hannan, in his excellent contribution, made some great points on how the Chagossians could be resettled in future and many of the alternative occupations that they could take in such circumstances.
If the Minister is not satisfied that the Government have the powers that they need to do that, I hope Ministers will go back to the Mauritian Government to ensure that we have those stronger powers before the treaty takes effect. The Minister is right that many of these matters will be returned to on Report. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Lord Callanan
(2A) Sections 2 to 4 of this Act come into force only when the Secretary of State has—(a) sought to undertake negotiations with the Government of Mauritius regarding a guarantee that paragraph 3(d) of Annex 1 will cover all non-UK and non-US civilian personnel stationed in the Chagos Archipelago, in addition to military and civilian security forces;(b) laid before both Houses of Parliament a report on progress on establishing such negotiations with the Government of Mauritius and the outcome of any that have taken place.(2B) Within two months of the report being laid under paragraph (2A)(b), a Minister must table substantive motions in the House of Commons and the House of Lords on the contents of the report.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is intended to prevent the provisions from coming into force until the Government has sought guarantees regarding the presence of non-UK and non-US civilian personnel in the Chagos Archipelago beyond Diego Garcia.
Lord Callanan (Con)
My Lords, the amendments in this group speak to perhaps one of the most concerning parts of the treaty—although the previous bit was also concerning: namely, the risk that this agreement will undermine our security. Given the large number of amendments in this group, I will speak only to those in my name. I know that my noble friend Lady Goldie will speak to her amendments as well, and I will certainly not seek to pre-empt her arguments in my remarks, as my noble friend is much more of an expert on defence matters than I will ever be.
My Amendment 18 is a commencement block that would prevent the main clauses of the Bill coming into effect until the Government have laid a report on securing a guarantee that all non-UK and non-US civilian personnel stationed on the archipelago will benefit from the provisions of Annex 1. Annex 1 protects the UK’s unrestricted access to Diego Garcia’s sea and airspace. The treaty makes reference to some civilian activity, but we are seeking an assurance from the Government that that part of the treaty in its entirety applies to civilians stationed on Diego Garcia. I hope the Minister will be able to give us that assurance.
Amendment 67 speaks to one of the most fundamental questions, which has already been the subject of much debate. The treaty is clear that the UK must inform Mauritius of any armed attack on a third state directly emanating from the base on Diego Garcia, using the magnificent word, “expeditiously”. The dictionary definition of expeditiously is “quickly and efficiently” and “with speed”. Many have rightly asked what expeditiously means in practice. My Amendment 67 clarifies that the UK Government must not inform Mauritius of any relevant armed attacks until the attack has ended. Providing prior notification to Mauritius, or indeed any third state not directly involved in the attack, could risk the safety of British and American servicemen who are engaged in the relevant operation. Could the Minister confirm that nothing in the treaty requires the UK Government to give forewarning of any attack emanating from the military base? If that is the case then I am sure they can accept the amendment.
Additionally, my amendment seeks a requirement not to notify Mauritius if notification would endanger the security of the base. Can the Minister confirm that nothing in the treaty would prevent the Government withholding notification if notifying Mauritius would endanger the base? My noble friend Lady Goldie will be going into additional details on these important issues.
Amendment 69 in my name seeks to make a point about the location of specific equipment and installations on the base. It is essential that the security of the base is maintained. It would not be acceptable if the UK Government were to endanger the security of equipment at the military base by notifying Mauritius. In replying to the debate, can the Minister please address those concerns? It is essential that the UK Government have the right to refuse notification when doing so would endanger the base itself or our personnel.
Baroness Goldie (Con)
My Lords, I associate myself with the remarks of my noble friend Lord Callanan on the amendments to which he spoke. I shall be dealing with the word “expeditiously” and I will try to ensure that that characterises my contribution, and perhaps influences this debate.
I wish to speak to my Amendments 83, 85, 86 and 87. At Second Reading, I raised the issue of the mismatch between the Bill and the treaty that it implements. My main concern in this whole affair is our defence and security and the implications of this Bill on that. I identified a range of areas where greater clarity is required. Before I continue, I should say that I have received a letter from the Ministers, for which I thank them. That sought to clarify some of the questions that I asked at Second Reading. The letter brings a degree of clarification, but in other respects it leaves me with questions. I shall address these as I explain my amendments.
Amendment 83 is simply a technical drafting amendment to accommodate my remaining amendments in this group. It specifies that the commencement of the treaty cannot occur until the conditions outlined in my amendments have been satisfied.
Amendment 85 relates to the specific notification requirements under Annex 1 1(b)(viii) of the treaty. My amendment would require that Clauses 2 to 4 do not come into force until the Secretary of State has published a statement establishing that the notification in Annex 1 1(b)(viii) of the treaty does not require the consent of Mauritius in response. The provision in Annex 1 to which this refers says that:
“In accordance with this Agreement and with reference to Article 2(5) and Annex 2, in respect of Diego Garcia, Mauritius agrees the United Kingdom shall have … unrestricted access, basing and overflight … for non-United Kingdom and non-United States of America aircraft and vessels, upon notification to Mauritius”.
The amendment seeks to enable the Secretary of State to make explicit, before Clauses 2 to 4 of the Bill can come into force, that the consent of Mauritius is not required for us to host third-party forces on Diego Garcia.
As I mentioned, I have the letter from the Ministers in which they helpfully clarify that permission from Mauritius is not required. However, I require the Minister to confirm that such notification is after the event. If notification is required before the event, that implies consent is required, or that the intimation of an objection by Mauritius is possible. That is why I seek the clarification.
We cannot have a situation where Mauritius can in any way object to which forces are present at the base. The operation of the base, including the matter of the basing of our allies, must be solely at the discretion of the United Kingdom. I would appreciate the Minister giving a guarantee that Mauritius will have no control whatever over the basing and overflight of other countries’ forces. Unusually, the Minister and I are perhaps nearly at consensus in idem here. If that is the case, why would the Secretary of State be reluctant to publish a statement?
Amendment 86 is another defence and security amendment. It seeks that Clauses 2 to 4 would not come into force until the Secretary of State has published a statement establishing that the obligation under Annex 1(2) of the treaty
“does not extend to aircraft and vessels which have landed or docked at the Base for the purposes of maintenance or refuelling prior to the armed attack on a third state”.
Annex 1(2) of the treaty is the provision that requires the United Kingdom
“to expeditiously inform Mauritius of any armed attack on a third State”.
As we have discussed, much has been made of what is meant by “expeditiously”. The Ministers’ letter to me stated that they are satisfied that this does not require the UK to seek the permission of Mauritius, nor for notification to be given prior to the event. That is helpful. The International Agreements Committee of this House has also concluded that it interprets “expeditiously” to mean
“as soon as reasonably practicable in the circumstances”.
I believe that the Minister gives her interpretation in good faith, but what of Mauritius’s interpretation? Does the Minister know whether the Mauritian Government share this view? If she does not currently know, and I quite accept that she may not, I would be happy for her to write to me to confirm the point.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, I totally support the amendments in the names of my noble friends Lord Callanan and Lady Goldie. The noble Lord, Lord Coaker, and the noble Baroness, Lady Chapman, both know that I, as someone who was involved with direct negotiations, albeit in 2019, remained unconvinced of one specific element above all else—I remain unconvinced of it today—and that was the security protections that have just been so eloquently narrated by my noble friend Lady Goldie.
In associating myself with those amendments, I will also press ahead on the archipelago and the lay of the land beyond Diego Garcia. I draw attention to paragraph 3(a) of Annex 1, which says that
“vessels and aircraft of the United Kingdom and the United States of America shall have unrestricted rights of overflight, navigation and undersea access”.
That is clear. It continues:
“States operating with the United Kingdom or the United States of America shall also have such unrestricted rights, save in respect of overflight or undersea access, which require notification”.
We need a degree more clarification to unwrap that provision, particularly on passage to and from Diego Garcia and the lay of the other parts of the archipelago. Like my noble friend, I press the Minister to give the specific assurance, which I certainly feel should be within the agreements signed with Mauritius, that notification does not mean before the event but after.
Lord Beamish (Lab)
My Lords, I will speak on Amendment 67. This part of the agreement is being portrayed as though it has some type of special status. It is similar to the agreement we have with the sovereign base areas in Cyprus. The UK and our allies use Cyprus as a staging post for a number of operations outside the Republic of Cyprus. The way it operates there is that the Government of Cyprus are not informed prior to the use of that base but, like in this agreement, are informed afterwards. I accept the point about the use of “expeditiously”—what it means is worth debate—but the way I read this is that it is no different from other bases.
The noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, said she was nitpicking. To be fair to her, I do not think she is: she is trying to get clarity on this important point. We want to ensure that our forces and allies have free movement and use of the base under this treaty. I do not think that our United States allies would agree with the Bill and treaty if they in any way limited their use of the base, not only for actions against other parts of the world but in the siting of various pieces of equipment on those important islands. We look for some reassurance on that point, but it is important to have clarity. That would certainly allay some of the fears raised, quite legitimately by some people and by others as scaremongering against the Bill.
Lord Bellingham (Con)
My Lords, following on from the noble Lord, Lord Beamish, surely the fundamental difference with the two bases on Cyprus that he mentioned is that we kept them in perpetuity—they are sovereign bases. Yes, we have an arrangement with the Cypriot Government to inform them of activity after deployment takes place, but what concerns me about this particular lease arrangement is very simple.
At the moment, we have in place a Government in Mauritius headed by His Excellency Navin Ramgoolam, who is a democrat and a friend of his country. I had the privilege of meeting him a number of times when he was premier before. Indeed, he took over from a Government who were also democratic and had all the right intents. We had many arguments about this issue but, fundamentally, we were two democratic Governments discussing a matter.
The concern I have is this: what would happen if there were some sort of coup or a military Government in Mauritius? In these worst-case scenarios, we have to be prepared for the future. Let us hope for the best but prepare for the very worst. Could the Minister comment on what would happen to these arrangements in the treaty in that event? If, indeed, a military coup took place and an alliance was made with a hostile power, the operations of this base could be jeopardised.
Lord Morrow (DUP)
My Lords, I wish to speak to Amendments 20G and 20H in my name. I have tabled them because I want to probe more deeply whether the consequences of non-ratification are such that non-ratification is not an option.
Furthermore, it is important that we are clear about what we can and cannot do. The Minister has told the Committee that the treaty is a done deal; that it cannot be changed; and that the role of your Lordships’ House in relation to it and to the Bill before us today is really very limited. The noble Lord, Lord Purvis, has supported the Government in this view, suggesting that, going forward, there is only scope for possibly impacting the details of the implementation. It is clear that, although the CRaG process did not prevent the Government ratifying the treaty, the treaty was defined between the UK Government and the Republic of Mauritius in terms that place not only a clear distinction between the act of signing and ratification but unusual distance between the two, in that the treaty cannot come into focus unless and until the Bill before us today is passed and Clause 2 transfers sovereignty.
The comments of the noble Lord, Lord Murray, on day one in Committee were important. He said:
“Because of the way the treaty is drafted and the way Article 18 operates, the treaty can come into force only when this legislation is implemented. That is unusual”.
After an exchange, the Minister helpfully clarified the situation further and said:
“Before the UK can ratify the treaty, we will need to do the following: pass both primary and secondary legislation, update the UK-US exchange of notes, and put in place agreements on the environment, maritime security and migration”.—[Official Report, 18/11/25; col. 713.]
In this context, it is clear that, although the treaty has been negotiated and cannot be changed without reopening negotiations, it has been defined in terms to which both parties consented. This means that what could be drawn from the act of signature on 22 May was, by definition, inherently provisional and contingent. It was signed subject to recognition that the act of signing did not bring the treaty into force; and that the treaty would not come into force unless and until the respective political processes of both countries had been properly honoured. In this context, because the coming into force of the treaty depends on an Act of Parliament, this is plainly not a done deal, in my estimation.
Furthermore, as a legislature on its toes, we have to let the Executive know that we understand that, having negotiated the treaty, they will encourage us to pass this legislation so that it can move to ratification. We know that this does not mean that we have to pass this piece of legislation any more than we have to pass any other piece of legislation. If we reject this Bill, the islands could not be given to Mauritius. If the Government chose, they could then invoke the Parliament Act, which would delay things by some 13 months or thereabouts, in the context of which there is a good chance that common sense would prevail. The Republic of Mauritius could not object to this because it signed up to the treaty knowing that it depended on domestic processes that, in this case, require the passing of legislation through a legislature that cannot be dictated to by the Executive. It is really important that we are open, transparent and honest about the opportunity that we have both to stand up for the Chagossians and to say no to this treaty because, if we have the power to do so, we have the responsibility to do so. That is, I think, is of equal importance; it may even be more important.
Lord Weir of Ballyholme (DUP)
My Lords, I rise to deal with Amendments 58, 61 and 62, which are, largely speaking, probing amendments.
My noble friend Lord Morrow raised the question of whether the Government have breached their manifesto; far be it from me to suggest that. There are even some scurrilous rumours that they will raise taxes, but that will clearly not be the case, and such rumours will obviously be disproved in the next few hours.
I and others have been very critical of the deal, the legislation and the approach that has been taken by the Government. We have been critical of the treatment of the Chagossian people on issues such as the right to self-determination and the ceding of sovereignty. It seems to me that the response that the Government will offer as a rationale is essentially that, whatever the position on those issues—and I appreciate the Government will dispute the position that I and others have put forward—the outweighing factor is the securing of our strategic defence within the area and, if that is got right, that will trump everything else.
That is why the amendments in this group are so important, as they try to put that to the test. My amendments and, indeed, a number of the others, try to seek assurances. I am using the word “assurances” as I am reminded of a phrase that a friend of mine would use when talking of “clarification”. He would say that the purpose of clarification is often not to make things clear but to put yourself in the clear. Instead, I will ask the Government for assurances on the issue of defence. Is what is being put forward—what is said on the tin—being met by what is delivered in respect of assurances?
As regards the amendments, I want to deal with three issues that are interrelated. First, I want to probe the position as regards the potential. We know what has been secured directly on Diego Garcia itself, but I want to probe on the potential for the Mauritius Government to enter into arrangements with third countries, to have a movement by those countries towards other islands by way of a leasing or some other arrangement, which may then descend into some form of military activity, with monitoring bases and things of that nature.
Earlier today, in answer to an Oral Question, the Minister rightly indicated that it would be wrong to speculate on potential future events. However, this is not an issue that simply appears in a vacuum. We know that the Mauritius Government have had relatively close relationships with Russia, for example, and have been in discussions with India, and that there are ongoing discussions with China. Indeed, it is reported in relation to one of the islands—Peros Banhos, if I am pronouncing that correctly—that there are discussions around a leasing arrangement. It is clear that Mauritius will look towards the Chagos Islands as an opportunity to work with a range of other Governments to lever in what they have been given.
Specifically, the concern is with regard to China. Where arrangements have been made between other jurisdictions and China, they have led, in a military sense, to a level of mission creep. We have seen that these things are beginning to happen. There are a number of examples, from Sri Lanka to Djibouti to the Solomon Islands. We need a belt and braces approach to how we are going to prevent any level of development around that side of things.
I know that the Minister will respond in part by saying that there is provision within the treaty that, should there be any sort of military arrangement, Mauritius would then have to notify the UK Government and that, effectively, the UK Government could say no to such an arrangement. However, there are a couple of concerns in relation to that. Amendment 58 therefore looks to see what practical measures can be taken. We need to flesh out in very clear-cut terms what we can do. The concern, of course, is that any notification by Mauritius might be post the event. We might see a situation in which something is, for example, leased to the Chinese, who then develop their own mission creep. Mauritius could then turn round and say that, “Actually, this has been leased out to them, and we do not know what they are doing, and they have gone beyond that”. We need to tease out from the Government what they intend to do in practice in a situation where, for example, a listening station was placed on one of the islands or there was a range of other realistic possibilities.
Lord Beamish (Lab)
What the noble Lord is saying is very interesting, but the treaty protects the outer islands from development. Mauritius is one of only two African countries that is not part of the belt and road initiative, so its main interlocuter is not China but India.
Lord Weir of Ballyholme (DUP)
We can pick which Government are looking to lever in additional influence in the area. I am simply saying that China has a particular record of reaching agreements with other countries to—
Lord Hannan of Kingsclere (Con)
Will the noble Lord confirm that, although it is true that Mauritius is not part of the belt and road initiative—the road thing would not really work, if you think about the geography—it was the first African country with which China signed a free trade agreement, and it has received a state visit from the President of China, which, given the population of Mauritius, would suggest something a little more unspoken than just trade between those two territories.
Lord Weir of Ballyholme (DUP)
It is clear that the Chinese interests—and indeed those of other countries, which I think goes to the heart of why we are seeing this as a key strategic point of view—go beyond simply trying to create trading relationships. We know that Mauritius has around 1.3 million people, much smaller than even my own beloved Northern Ireland—but President Xi is not beating down the doors for a state visit to Belfast any time soon, as far as I am aware. Whether it is China, India or anyone else, whatever the assurances that are there, what are the practical implications and what can we do to assure ourselves that there will not be a level of mission creep?
I will continue very briefly, as I suppose time is moving on. Amendments 61 and 62 probe the position as regards airspace and maritime assurances. Again, this has been sold particularly on the basis of it being not simply the British position but the US position, so I think we need to see some level of joint assurance in relation to that. There has been a concern—and some level of suspicion, which I seek assurances that the Government can allay—that the position of the Americans has been effectively to go along with this treaty. There was, I think, a level of reluctance. It was reported initially that the Americans had given a level of lip service. I think we want to get a much greater level of reassurance that they have bought into this, rather than simply acquiescing with something that one of their allies has asked for. Specifically, as highlighted by the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, there are some restrictions in terms of notification that seem to undermine the security implications.
For instance, if we look at the airspace side of things, there is a 12-mile zone around Diego Garcia, but airspace around the rest of the Chagos Islands is simply with Mauritius. On a maritime basis, we know that the treaty details that the archipelago waters, the territorial seas and the EEZ around the Chagos Islands are all within the control of Mauritius. Where there can be a level of restriction or interference on airspace or maritime boundaries, that can also create a concern. We seek assurances from government that what is being proposed—and this is a question of belt and braces—is actually going to provide the genuine level of defence. If so much else is potentially being sacrificed to bring about this deal, we need to make sure that we have something that is ironclad as regards our defences.
Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)
It is probably best to let the Americans be the judge of their own best interests. They seem to be rather keen on this treaty and its ratification. The Secretary of State in Washington, who is also currently head of the National Security Council, called its conclusion a “monumental achievement”. He does not seem to be concerned that it might open the road to Chinese influence; nor do the Indians, who are, of course, close friends of the Mauritians and are as concerned as we and the Americans are about Chinese influence in the Indian Ocean. The treaty is seen as a barrier to that, not an opening to it.
Lord Hannan of Kingsclere (Con)
Of course, the noble Lord knows better than anyone that Governments do each other favours in these situations, and Heads of Government will sometimes say, “I need you to say the following”, but I am pretty sure the Secretary of State said at the beginning that he was extremely worried by what he described as a serious threat to our national security when the deal was first put forward.
Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)
I am not sure what remarks the noble Lord is referring to. I am talking about the position taken by the current Administration of the United States.
Lord Weir of Ballyholme (DUP)
I appreciate what the noble Lord has said in relation to the response in the public sphere by the American Government. Whatever one’s views—and there will be a range of views towards the current American Government across this Chamber—it is a fair accusation that they occasionally lapse into a certain level of hyperbole. It is either the greatest thing that has ever happened or the worst disaster. We should not necessarily take an enthusiastic apparent public endorsement as something being a great thing from the Secretary of State or the current President as a full reassurance of the American position.
Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)
I think it is probably best to take what they say at face value. They probably mean what they say.
I will now attempt to address the amendments from the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, and surprise her by saying that I think they are extremely sensible. I understand the thinking behind them. I understand her concerns that are encapsulated in Amendments 83 and 85 to 87, but I think the amendments are probably unnecessary. I suspect that the statements the noble Baroness is calling for could be made today. I suspect that we will hear them before the debates on this Bill are over, but it seems to me important that we should hear them, so I understand what the noble Baroness is saying.
I would like briefly to refer to the consistent and cogent arguments from the noble Lord, Lord Bellingham, for a sovereign base area solution rather than the solution that is written into the treaty. I do not know why the last Government looked at it but decided not to pursue it. I do not know what the reasons were. They were probably, I would guess, topographical—we are talking about a very large area, rather than the two restricted areas on Cyprus—but I do not know, and I think it is a valid question to ask.
The big point, surely, is that we are where we are. We have a treaty, and we cannot ratify it until we pass this Bill. That is why I disagree strongly with the four amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Kempsell. He comes straight out and says that he wants renegotiation. He wants the treaty renegotiated in four separate respects, but we are where we are. The treaty exists. If we were to decide to reopen the negotiation, I think we could expect a rather hostile reaction in the United States. The principal concern of the United States is security of tenure and the continuing co-operation of third countries over supply chains. That is what they are concerned about—not our blue eyes but security of tenure of the base. Given that, some in Washington would argue that it is time for the United States to switch sides, to ditch us and do a direct deal with the Mauritians. That argument has been made in Washington and could be made again if we get ourselves into such a mess that, having secured a treaty that the Conservative Government sought and the Labour Government have concluded, we were to decide, after all, that it was not a treaty we wanted and that we wanted to go back to the start and negotiate something different. I can imagine the United States losing patience with us.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
I know that the noble Lord speaks with great insight but the whole point of the amendments, with which I agree—that is why I back my noble friend Lady Goldie in particular—is on the specific issue of security. Yes, as I have said on the Floor of the House before, there were 11 rounds of negotiation but, at the end of them, agreement could not be reached because—I speak from my own insight and experience—back in 2019, that element of security was not assured. When I returned to London, I asked Boris Johnson directly, in good faith—I was not the OTs Minister but I had a good rapport with the then Prime Minister—and he could not give me that assurance. That is what I have pressed for throughout the passage of the Bill.
It has come up repeatedly that there were 11 rounds of negotiations. I have spent a lot of time in business and, as the noble Lord knows, in government. When you are looking for a negotiation and seeking to agree something, the fact that there were 11 rounds would suggest—I know this for a fact—that that agreement could not be reached.
Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)
I respect what the noble Lord says and he knows what he is talking about. I also respect what the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, asked for in requesting four statements. We should be asking for statements rather than changes to the text of a treaty. We voted in July for the ratification of this treaty; we cannot ratify the treaty until we pass this Bill, and we should pass the Bill.
Baroness Hoey (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I wish to speak to my Amendment 54. I must say to the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, that I think we are all pleased that we are where we are. It seems very strange to say that we cannot be discussing the Bill—that was almost the way it was put.
My amendment really follows on a little from what the noble Lord, Lord Weir of Ballyholme, talked about. During Committee in another place, concerns were expressed that other countries may seek to lease individual Chagos Islands and reference was made to reports that India and China were in consultation with the Republic of Mauritius. At that time, the Minister of State at the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, the honourable Member for Cardiff South and Penarth, responded robustly. He stated:
“I want to say on that point that this is absolute nonsense. Is the shadow Minister willing to provide any evidence that that is going to take place? This treaty protects the security of the outer islands and expressly prohibits foreign forces building bases on them—something on which her Government did not succeed in their negotiations”.—[Official Report, Commons, 20/10/25; col. 686.]
What is this great protection to which he referred?
Noble Lords will find that in paragraph 3 of the first annex to the Mauritius treaty. It states:
“In accordance with this Agreement, in respect of the Chagos Archipelago beyond Diego Garcia, Mauritius agrees”—
this is point d—that,
“except in circumstances of necessity for a response to a humanitarian emergency or natural disaster in instances where the United Kingdom or the United States of America is unable or unwilling to provide such a response, Mauritius and the United Kingdom shall jointly decide on authorisations permitting the presence of non-United Kingdom, non-United States or non-Mauritian security forces, either civilian or military”.
I cannot see anything there to validate the Minister’s assertion that the treaty
“expressly prohibits”
foreign forces building bases on the islands. What it says is that they cannot do so without the agreement of the UK Government.
For me, this presents two real concerns. First, and most importantly, there is nothing in the treaty to provide any kind of safeguard in relation to the leasing of islands for purposes other than security and defence. This would leave the door wide open for other countries to seek to lease the islands, ostensibly for purposes other than security and defence. The argument made by the Minister in the other place was that the suggestion that there was a problem was nonsense. It seems to me to be very well founded. The extraordinary thing about these provisions is the fact that they relate to islands of immense geostrategic importance, yet the protections in relation to them are effectively non-existent. That seems very complacent to me.
There is nothing to prevent a hostile country leasing an island and either combining security and defence purposes with others, in the hope of hiding the former, or on beginning with non-security and defence purposes and then changing over to them. Can the Minister tell me how that could be prevented? What would happen if an island is leased for non-security and defence purposes, yet it subsequently becomes apparent that it is being used for those purposes and that the country has dug in well and has no intention of relinquishing the islands? How could they be dislodged? Would the Minister here like to respond on that? I found the suggestion from that Minister in the Commons that there are no presenting difficulties quite alarming. It suggested a certain otherworldliness with a high degree of disconnection from political reality.
Secondly, the other difficulty is the completely opaque nature of the protection that is provided and the lack of parliamentary scrutiny. At the moment, we would have no knowledge about when or if approaches were made by the Republic of Mauritius to seek UK agreement for other countries to use other islands, and we need to know that. My Amendment 54 would address this concern by requiring the Minister to develop regulations stating that before the UK can agree to a proposal from the Republic of Mauritius—made under Annex 1(3)(d) of the treaty—that any island other than Diego Garcia be used for security and defence purposes by another country, that proposal must be brought to Parliament and endorsed by a vote of both Houses. Will the Minister give me a reason why that should not happen?
In ending, I will ask at this stage about the point made in the debate on the fourth group about whether the Government were asked to give their consent before the deal between Mauritius and India was done. I am not sure that we got a response to that. It was going to give India a defence presence. I would really like to know how long the Government knew before that happened. Did they know and when did they agree to it?
Baroness Foster of Aghadrumsee (Non-Afl)
I will speak to my Amendment 81J on behalf of all those who have written to me, urging the House of Lords to look again at the security implications of the Bill. My amendment would require the Secretary of State to consult the Government of the United States before taking any action that may affect the security environment of Chagos or the operation of the facilities on Diego Garcia. It is simple, reasonable and, I think, essential. The Minister may well say that we will of course speak always and at length to our closest ally, but this amendment seeks to put that into the Bill and on a mandatory footing.
We are all aware that Diego Garcia is not an ordinary base; it is the backbone of US and UK operations in the Indian Ocean, the Middle East and east Africa. It is critical for surveillance, early warnings, carrier support and global rapid deployment. Hundreds of thousands of British and American personnel have depended on it for missions authorised by this country, but the Bill does not have any statutory requirement even to consult with the ally whom we seek to stay closest to. Of course, the US is not a passive observer; it is a treaty partner that has kept those waters free from extremism, piracy and hostile influence for decades. Therefore, this is a straightforward amendment. I will not prolong the debate, because I can see the Whips getting nervous. Unfortunately, this is a rather large group of amendments, but I thought that it was very important to speak to my amendment. I hope that it will be considered by the Committee.
Lord Kempsell (Con)
My Lords, I am more than happy to associate myself with the amendments tabled in the name of my noble friend Baroness Goldie. We started the group by saying that your Lordships’ House would consider it expeditiously, so I will be brief.
My full sympathy is with the experience of the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, in these matters. All I can say is that he must be speaking to different people in Washington DC than I am when it comes to the provisions of this treaty. Occasionally in your Lordships’ House, we hear extreme criticisms of the Government of the United States, and that is entirely justifiable from noble Lords who take that position, but it is impossible on the one hand to criticise the position of the Government of the United States or the way they conduct themselves and simultaneously to suggest that the United Kingdom should resile from seeking to renegotiate provisions in the treaty that are, on further reflection and discussion in your Lordships’ House, found to be wanting. There is no reason why the Government of the United Kingdom should resile from seeking to renegotiate elements of this treaty which are deficient, as is being exposed in the debate. The noble Lord, Lord Morrow, gave an interesting constitutional deposition on the ins and outs of that process.
I will confine my comments to my controversial Amendments 81F and 20F, which seek that renegotiation. My full sympathy is with Ministers opposite who are trying to steer a difficult Bill on a difficult issue into a safer port. My amendments come from the fact that it is incumbent on your Lordships’ House to look beyond the current security situation. The treaty and its Annex 1 are necessarily drafted in the context of the current security picture, but that security picture is dynamic, and it does not take much imagination to envisage a time very soon when Ministers find themselves in a completely changed security scenario; for example, in the Indo-Pacific and the wider Pacific region. What if a military superpower were to invade a neighbouring country and the requirements of the UK’s Armed Forces in their use of the base area and the wider contested issue of sovereignty over the Chagos Islands changed dramatically from the position today? That is why I support the amendments in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, on issues such as the notification of the Government of Mauritius, the third-party armed forces being present, and the placement of devices and installations.
My Amendment 20F seeks to take that a step further by looking into the future and saying there may well come a point at which Ministers feel, at the outbreak of hostilities more widely in the world, a pressure to derogate from the restrictive provisions of Annex 1. That is why I package it with Amendment 81F, which would take the unusual step of placing a requirement on the Government to notify Parliament should there be communications from the Government of Mauritius about the application of that annex in future. It is an issue of such public concern. More broadly, outside of your Lordships’ House, the public feel the treaty has been so poorly handled and drafted that these extraordinary provisions are required.
Lord Hannan of Kingsclere (Con)
My Lords, I will not detain the Committee for long, but I want to speak briefly to Amendments 20D, 20E and 20F from my noble friend Lord Kempsell and to Amendment 87 from my noble friend Lady Goldie. We have witnessed in recent decades an extraordinary alchemy in the South China Sea. Whole islands are called from the vasty deep, summoned like Brigadoon into existence, not by prayer but by the imperatives of Chinese geopolitics. Reefs are dredged into runways; lagoons are refashioned into naval installations; artificial islands are planted thickly with radar, missile systems and airstrips, and it is all done in the name of installing civilian infrastructure. None of those installations or airstrips is openly avowed as a military unit, so, when we hear that in this treaty there is an effective British veto for any kind of defence installation, I ask noble Lords to consider that no one is going to call it a defence installation. It is going to be done subtly, little by little, and it is going to be a much tougher proposition suddenly to object when we feel that a line has been crossed than at present when we have the unquestioned sovereignty over the entirety of the archipelago.
I did not want to misquote the US Secretary of State, so just after my exchange with the noble Lord, Lord Kerr of Kinlochard, I looked up what he said on taking office. In November of last year, he said that the deal
“poses a serious threat to our national security”.
Obviously, he has changed his tune; people are entitled to change their minds. I just invite noble Lords to ask why he might have changed his mind. Is it that he saw a blinding figure on the road to Damascus and heard a voice saying, “Go into Damascus”—I think Marco Rubio has changed his religion at least twice, so I mean no disrespect to our most important ally. Or is it not more likely that he has been worked on by this Government’s officials?
Lord Beamish (Lab)
Could it not also be that when he came into office, he had not received the security briefings from his own intelligence services and possibly then he saw the importance of getting this deal and the permanency which it gives to both us and the United States?
Lord Hannan of Kingsclere (Con)
It is a very good point. I think there is a divergence, exactly as in this country, between the permanent apparat and the rest of the country, which would explain why my noble friend Lord Kempsell and the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, are speaking to very different sets of people. As the German ambassador to London in 1914 said to his French counterpart, “You have your information, we have ours”. It seems that there is at least a debate in the United States about this, and you can see why. As my noble friend Lord Bellingham said, there is a real prospect down the line that a future Mauritian Government may take a very different attitude towards the presence in the outer atolls of powers that are unfriendly to us. We have no assurance that we will always be on friendly terms with that republic.
The world is imperfect, I understand that. The world is sublunary. We are dealing with lesser evils, as is usually the case in politics. But when the Minister has justified this treaty and the treatment of the Chagossians, she has always done so by saying, “Our priority was the security of the base”. I just ask noble Lords on all sides to consider how this makes us more secure in an imperfect world than we are at present. We have obvious sovereignty over the entire region at the moment. We have the great advantage of its isolation. There is no prospect of anybody taking a leased island and putting any kind of listening infrastructure or anything else nearby. How does moving from where we are now to what is proposed in this treaty make us more secure, even if we set aside all the wrongs being done to the Brits of Chagossian origin?
I thought the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, was on to something when he asked, “What if the Americans were to change sides?” But I am not sure that quite makes the point he intended. I just invite noble Lords to consider the wholly pecuniary terms in which Mauritius has considered this territory: not as part of its own demos, not as part of its own nation, but as an investment and a way of raising money—of paving its streets with gold, as my noble friend said earlier. Would it not be the ultimate humiliation if Mauritius were to trouser the sum of money that we are now paying it and then to turn around and sell the base to the United States? Where would that leave this Government? I would love to hear the Minister’s reply.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Lord Coaker) (Lab)
I thank all noble Lords who have contributed to an important set of amendments, and I thank them too for the way in which they have put those amendments. There is clearly some disagreement between us, but there is no disagreement over the fact that every single person in the Chamber is seeking to ensure that we protect the security of the nation and the security of Diego Garcia, and on the importance of that base to us. I start from that point. There were a couple of times when noble Lords almost seemed to question that. I do not question it at all. I do not agree with everything that has been said, but I do agree with the right to challenge how we take this forward, because out of that come better legislation and more clarity. While I do not agree with the need for some of the amendments, some of the comments that those amendments require to be made from the Dispatch Box are important. I wanted to set that context out for noble Lords.
I also just want to say this, because I think it is important. I do not want to have a Second Reading debate again but the noble Lords, Lord Kerr and Lord Beamish, and others have made this point: the Government, whatever the rights and wrongs, are trying to bring stability. The noble Lord, Lord Hannan, disagrees with the treaty, and it is fair for him to make that point, but the Government’s point of view is that we are trying to bring stability and certainty to an uncertain situation. The noble Lord disagrees with that, as do a number of noble Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord Callanan. But that is the Government’s view. The Government’s view, in answer to the challenge the noble Lord raised, is that we are changing it because we are trying to bring certainty to an uncertain situation. We believe we have done that, and we have made certain that we have secured one of the most important military bases—if not the most important military base—for ourselves and the United States. The noble Lord does not accept that or agree with that, but that is the alternative proposition the Government are making.
It is really important, therefore, to say, in answer to the points made by the noble Lords, Lord Morrow and Lord Weir, and others, that we would not have gone forward with this were it not for the fact that the Americans support it. The noble Lord, Lord Kerr, is right. We can say, “Well, the Americans said this” or “The Americans said that”. I am going to quote this, because I think it is really important. The US Secretary of State, Marco Rubio, said that
“the United States welcomed the historic agreement between the United Kingdom and the Republic of Mauritius on the future of … the Chagos Archipelago … this agreement secures the long-term, stable and effective operation of the joint US-UK military facility at Diego Garcia. This is a critical asset for regional and global security … We value both parties’ dedication. The US looks forward to our continued joint work to ensure the success of our shared operations”.
That does not mean, as the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, supported by the noble Lords, Lord Kerr and Lord Ahmad, and many others, said, there are not challenges to that and what it actually means in practice. But it is a pretty fundamental starting point for the UK Government to be able to directly quote US Secretary of State Rubio saying that the US supports what this Government are doing and taking forward. I lay that on the table as the context for trying to answer some of the points and considerations that have been made.
Some of the points and comments—I say to the noble Lords, Lord Morrow, Lord Weir and others, and even to an extent to the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey—are perhaps better dealt with in some of the other groups, particularly on the rights of the Chagossians. My noble friend Lady Chapman has answered on this at great length and will continue to do so as we move forward. That context is really important for the debate and the discussion we are having.
I will try to deal with some of the amendments. It will take a little while and I hope that noble Lords will bear with me. Amendment 18 from the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, seeks to prevent the presence of non-UK and non-US civilian personnel in the Chagos Archipelago. The treaty gives the UK control over these matters. The security provisions were, as I have said, designed and tested at the highest level of the US security establishment, which supported us in proceeding with the deal.
On Amendment 34 from the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, let me be clear: the entire treaty is designed to preserve the UK’s ability to take the necessary steps to preserve the long-term, secure and effective operation of the base. Article 3(2)(c) states clearly that the UK has
“the full responsibility for the defence and security of Diego Garcia”.
Mauritius and other states should have no doubt—this is the importance of comments made here—about our willingness to exercise our responsibilities in a manner that ensures the long-term, secure and effective operation of the base.
Baroness Goldie (Con)
Forgive me for being slightly behind the curve; I was trying to follow the sections in the annex. The Minister referred to Annex 1(11), in particular the definition of “unrestricted”. That paragraph states that
“‘unrestricted’ means not requiring permission or notification, subject to the standing authorisations and notifications separately agreed between the Parties to meet the requirements of international or domestic Mauritian law or current practice”.
For the sake of clarification, what are these “standing authorisations and notifications”?
Lord Coaker (Lab)
If I am wrong on this, I will write to the noble Baroness and put a copy in the Library so that all Members can access it. My understanding is that the crucial bit of Annex 1(11)(c) is
“‘unrestricted’ means not requiring permission or notification”.
The phrase,
“the standing authorisations and notifications separately agreed between the Parties”,
refers to things contained within the treaty. I will write to the noble Baroness to clarify that. I am grateful to her for pointing it out.
The fundamental point I am trying to make—which I think the noble Baroness and the noble Lord, Lord Ahmad, made—is that we have an obligation under the treaty to notify Mauritius of activities emanating from the base but we do not have to seek its permission. “Expeditiously” notifying does not mean notifying before we take any agreed action. Those were the points that I thought the noble Baroness was making, but I will certainly seek to clarify exactly where that takes us with Annex 1(11)(c). I will write to the noble Baroness and provide a copy to others. I thank her for raising that.
The treaty specifically confers on the UK the unrestricted ability to
“control the conduct and deployment of armed operations and lethal capabilities”
in respect of Diego Garcia. Given that there is no question over operational freedom on Diego Garcia, it is unclear what necessary derogations the noble Lord, Lord Kempsell, is seeking. The annex gives the UK the extensive rights that we would need in such a situation.
The noble Lord, Lord Kempsell, raised reporting restrictions. His Majesty’s Armed Forces and the intelligence services routinely produce reports for the Prime Minister on all types of security matters. I reassure the noble Lord, and other noble Lords, that this will include operational issues arising on the Diego Garcia base. There is no requirement for this to be made a statutory obligation, as Amendment 81E seeks to do. Additionally, Amendment 81F would represent an unusual interference with the prerogative to conduct international affairs and to make or unmake treaties. Noble Lords will understand that there is often a need for confidentiality in international discussions.
The clock is flashing away and the Whip is getting jumpy next to me. I shall have a look at Hansard and I shall write to noble Lords in the debate with anything that I have not covered and any questions that have not been answered and make sure that the amendments that I have not responded to are responded to. I shall send the letter to noble Lords in the debate. Let me be clear: I shall write to noble Lords about two or three of the amendments that I have not covered, copy the letter to noble Lords and put a copy in the Library. I hope that that is acceptable to everyone.
I thank noble Lords for a really interesting and important debate on the security provisions of the treaty and ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Callanan (Con)
My Lords, the issue of national security is clearly one of the most important concerns that have been raised about this treaty. The continued and effective operation of the military base is paramount, and Ministers must ensure that they have the powers that they need to protect the security of the base. I listened very carefully to the reassurances provided by the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, who I know has tremendous respect across the House for his commitment to defence and foreign affairs. I thank him for that.
I could raise a lot of points, but I shall not raise a number of them now because I will want to have a close look at Hansard for the reassurances that he was able to provide. I will make one point on the famous definition of the word “expeditiously”. I listened carefully, and the Minister quoted at length the opinion of the International Relations and Defence Committee, which of course was fascinating. I am not sure that he told us what the Government’s view was of the meaning of that word: as they will be applying it in practice, I think that would be more relevant. But, again, I shall look carefully at his remarks and we would welcome any further reassurances—although the Minister gave a very detailed exposition—that he can provide in writing. I am sure that my noble friend Lady Goldie, who made an excellent contribution, would also welcome any further reassurances that the Minister can provide in writing. The details of this issue are particularly important, beyond the political rhetoric that we are all involved in. This concerns one of the most fundamental aspects of our national security.
Having said all that, I seek leave to withdraw my amendment.
Lord Callanan
(2A) Sections 2 to 4 of this Act come into force only when the Secretary of State has—(a) sought to undertake negotiations with the Government of Mauritius to guarantee that the application of Annex 2 will oblige (where the UK Government so requests) the Mauritian Government to take responsibility for all asylum claimants and illegal entrants in the Chagos Archipelago including Diego Garcia and accept the transfer of all claimants to Mauritian custody, and(b) laid before both Houses of Parliament a report on progress on establishing such negotiations with the Government of Mauritius and the outcome of any negotiations that have taken place.(2B) Within two months of the report being laid under paragraph (2A)(b), a Minister must table substantive motions in the House of Commons and the House of Lords on the contents of the report.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is intended to prevent the UK being responsible for asylum claims resulting from illegal entrants into the Chagos Archipelago.
Lord Callanan (Con)
My Lords, this amendment seeks to prevent the United Kingdom being responsible for asylum seekers and refugees arriving in the Chagos Archipelago.
In moving this amendment, it is important that I remind the Committee of the background to this issue. In October 2021, a group of Tamil speakers who were apparently seeking to travel to Canada, bizarrely, by boat, foundered in the Indian Ocean and were escorted to Diego Garcia. These were the first people to claim asylum on Diego Garcia, they were kept on the island for several years and, in October 2024, the Government confirmed plans to relocate them to the UK for their legal claims to be processed. At the time, the Government said that this was to provide the asylum seekers with “greater safety and well-being”.
On 3 December 2024, it was reported in the Guardian—and of course I always believe everything that is reported in the Guardian—that lawyers and those campaigning for the asylum seekers to be relocated called their arrival in the UK a “big day for justice”. One of those interviewed by that newspaper—and we always believe what the Guardian says—was quoted as saying:
“We cannot believe we are finally in the UK … We feel we have reached paradise”.
My amendment seeks to probe the approach that would be taken to any future arrivals on the Chagos Archipelago. Will they be handed to Mauritius, to which the Government want to hand over sovereignty, or will they be handled by the British Government under this treaty? Has the Minister’s department made an assessment of the risk of the Tamils’ arrivals being transferred to the UK, opening another front in our fight to tackle illegal immigration? I do not expect the numbers to be great—I hope that they will not be great—but we need an answer on this important subject.
I also welcome Amendments 27 and 36 in this group, tabled in the names of my noble friend Lord Lilley and the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, respectively. This is clearly something that noble Lords across the Committee are concerned about. I cannot imagine that this subject was not discussed with Mauritius during the negotiations, but I look forward to the Minister giving us some clarity on this issue and telling us whether these factors were in fact discussed with Mauritius. I beg to move.
Baroness Hoey (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I will speak to my Amendment 36, which, as the noble Lord mentioned, relates to asylum seekers who arrive on Diego Garcia, or anywhere on the Chagos Islands. Its purpose is very simple: it ensures that, if any person fleeing danger or persecution lands on those shores, they will not be subjected to unlawful detention, denial of due process, or the kinds of conditions that a British judge has already found to be in breach of international law.
I got a very nice personal letter from a native Chagossian, saying:
“We were exiled from our islands once, but we must not watch new injustice happen on our shores again. Anyone who arrives in our homeland must be treated with dignity. No one should suffer in the Chagos as we once did … As a native islander, I insist that any asylum seeker reaching the Chagos must have their rights respected. We were once denied justice. We cannot allow injustice to happen again in our name”.
Of course, the background has already been mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Callanan—that in late 2021 more than 60 Sri Lankan Tamils were intercepted at sea and brought to Diego Garcia after their vessel was found in distress. Those individuals, many of whom intended to seek asylum in Canada, were accommodated for almost three years in a fenced compound on the island. This was not a temporary holding area; it became a long-term camp. The conditions are a matter of judicial record. The British Indian Ocean Territory Supreme Court found that the asylum seekers were effectively held in unlawful detention. The acting judge described the camp as
“a prison in all but name”
and said it was unsurprising that the individuals felt they were being punished. Evidence presented to the court documented leaking tents, rodent infestation, extreme heat, restricted movement, repeated incidents of self-harm and at least one mass suicide attempt. Some were warned that leaving the compound would expose them to the risk of being shot on security grounds. Those words are not mine—they were the court’s findings.
We also now know, again from the court’s judgment, that progress on their protection claims was impeded because of political factors, including concerns within the Home Office about the Government’s Rwanda policy. Rwanda seems to get mentioned everywhere. The effect of that delay was that these individuals were kept in a camp, in extreme conditions, for far longer than should ever have been contemplated. Most have now been brought to the United Kingdom, as has been said. I think that my noble and learned friend Lord Hermer was involved in that before he became Attorney-General. The Government described this as a one-off transfer and said that Diego Garcia would not be used again for long-term processing, but it remains the case that nothing in statute today prevents a future commissioner, Minister or Government using the islands in exactly the same way, should another vessel arrive. That is why this amendment is necessary; it gives effect to what the United Kingdom is already legally bound to do and ensures that any transfer to Mauritius or any other state happens only under an agreement that guarantees humane treatment, full rights of appeal and compliance with international law. These are not new standards; they are the minimum standards that the United Kingdom already owes to any asylum seeker, regardless of geography.
This amendment also speaks to something deeply felt by the Chagossians. The Chagossian people know what it is to be held without rights; they know what it is to have decisions made about their lives thousands of miles away; and they know what it is to be told they have no voice in decisions taken on their own islands. They have told us repeatedly that they do not want Diego Garcia, or any part of the Chagos Archipelago, to become a place where other vulnerable people suffer in silence.
There is also a simple and moral point. The only civilians permitted to remain long-term on the islands in the past decade were not the native Chagossians but asylum seekers confined in a manner that a British judge found to be unlawful. That fact alone should give the Committee pause for reflection. It was perfectly okay for asylum seekers to be on Diego Garcia but not the original Chagos people.
This amendment seeks to ensure that asylum seekers under Mauritian jurisdiction must have binding guarantees for monitoring, appeal rights, independent oversight and humanitarian standards. The Chagossian community has raised serious concerns about the treatment of vulnerable people already in Mauritius. These concerns cannot be dismissed and certainly cannot be ignored. The Government now intend that asylum seekers arriving in Chagos should be sent there.
This amendment does not oppose the transfer of asylum seekers. It does not dictate the policy of future Governments; it simply ensures that the mistakes made between 2021 and 2024 can never be repeated on British responsibility. It ensures that any person arriving on those islands is processed humanely, lawfully and with respect for their basic rights. For the Chagossians, who were themselves displaced without rights, this is not an abstract principle. It is an affirmation that the islands they still regard as home will not again be a theatre for human suffering. It is a modest and necessary amendment, which is fully consistent with our international obligations and our national values. I therefore commend it to the Committee and urge noble Lords to support it.
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
My Lords, Amendments 19 and 27 from the noble Lords, Lord Callanan and Lord Lilley, now in his place, seek to ensure that Mauritius will be responsible for any illegal migrants who may arrive at Diego Garcia. These are important amendments, and it is helpful that they have been tabled to allow us to clarify this point. I can reassure both noble Lords that the treaty already ensures Mauritian responsibility and closes a potential—as they correctly identify—illegal migration route to the UK. Mauritius, as the sovereign state and as specifically referenced under Annex 2 of the treaty, has jurisdiction over irregular migration to the Chagos Archipelago, including Diego Garcia.
To the extent that the noble Lords, Lord Callanan and Lord Lilley, through their amendments are seeking clarity on the arrangements with Mauritius to put that responsibility into practice, I can assure them that the UK Government are already in the process of agreeing with Mauritius the separate arrangements referenced in Annex 2 paragraph 10 of the treaty, to assist and facilitate in that exercise of Mauritian jurisdiction. These are ongoing negotiations on which I will not provide a running commentary; suffice to say that there will be no need to force the Government to provide a report on the negotiations.
Amendment 36 from the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, is another helpful amendment. It seeks to ensure that any arrangement entered into with Mauritius regarding migrants ensures the humane treatment, full rights of appeal and compliance with international law of any asylum seeker or refugee. It is an important amendment, and I can confirm that the Government will, of course, ensure that any arrangement we enter into will comply with applicable international law and our domestic obligations. For that reason, I think that the amendment is unnecessary, but I thank her for tabling it and allowing us to make that clear. I hope that noble Lords will not press their amendments.
Lord Callanan (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for her clarification, and to the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, for her contribution to this important debate. We know how strongly the British public feel on illegal immigration. It would have been outrageous if we handed over the territory yet retained responsibility for dealing with any illegal immigration.
I will look carefully at the words that the Minister used in her response in Hansard, but it seems as though she has provided the reassurances we are seeking that no illegal arrivals in the Chagos Archipelago will be able to make a claim in the UK for asylum now that sovereignty has been handed over. She used the famous government expression “I am not going to provide a running commentary”, which often means “I am not going to say”. Nobody is asking her to provide a running commentary; we just wanted a clarification on the issues or any outcome of the discussions. If there is a resolution to the discussions before we get to Report, I hope she will update us in writing. Apart from that, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Migration: Settlement Pathway
(1 day, 2 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
My Lords, this is the second set of changes to immigration policy announced this year, on top of the Bill we have just passed, and the changes to the asylum system; it is fair to say the Government are feeling the pressure. But, as with the asylum Statement last week, I welcome many of these measures announced by the Home Secretary.
The Government are proposing a scheme whereby the default length of time for settlement is 10 years and, depending upon a person’s situation and circumstances, time will be either added or subtracted from those 10 years, meaning some people will qualify for indefinite leave to remain much sooner, and some much later. I am particularly supportive of those who receive benefits for more than 12 months having to wait for 20 years before qualifying for settlement. But this does raise the question of the degree to which foreign nationals are able to access public funds. It would be useful for the Minister to specify how this particular route would work. Surely, where a person is on a settlement route but not yet received settlement, they should not be able to receive any public funds.
I am interested in understanding how the Government have made the decision on the number of years they propose for each settlement pathway, as some seem to be rather odd. For example, the proposal is for a person who can speak English to degree level to be offered a nine-year path to settlement, while those who volunteer will be able to qualify between five and seven years. I understand that the volunteering pathway is subject to consultation, but what reasoning do the Government have for requiring a person who has degree-level English to wait for longer than a person who has done some volunteering? Furthermore, how will the Government ensure that the volunteering pathway does not lead to abuses of the system?
One concern I have about these proposals is about the settlement periods for illegal migrants. The consultation document states that illegal entry will add “up to 20 years” to the baseline qualifying period. It then says:
“We are consulting on whether this should be 5, 10, 15 or as high as 20 years”.
I ask the Minister why the Government need to consult on this. Why can they not make a decision themselves? Are the Government considering allowing scope for discretion?
On this, it somewhat beggars belief that the Home Office is actually considering permitting those who arrive illegally to still be able to qualify for indefinite leave to remain. I know I have made this point before, but I will keep making it until the Government absorb it and listen: there should be absolutely no route to settlement for those who enter illegally. Any person who commits a criminal offence by entering the UK without valid leave to enter and remain should be deported and never permitted to receive settlement. I look forward very much to what the Minister has to say in response.
Lord German (LD)
My Lords, we recognise the issues facing communities and immigrants across the country, and we agree that faith must be restored to the immigration and asylum system, which requires changes to policy. We appreciate the commitment to maintaining the five-year pathway to settlement for partners of British citizens and British nationals overseas from Hong Kong, honouring our unique responsibilities to them. However, we are concerned that this overhaul overlooks key failures of past Governments.
Prior to Brexit and the removal of nearly all safe and legal routes, this country had a more rational and controlled approach to immigration. It is regrettable that the Government have not made quicker progress towards building stronger links with Europe in their work on getting control of our immigration policy.
Changes to settlement must be made giving due regard to the economy and public services, and with fairness to individuals. We are concerned about the chilling effect this policy and rhetoric could have on the economy. The UK is fast becoming a less competitive place for science and innovation. However, and moreover, the NHS is heavily reliant on non-British national staff.
The policy statement sets out that debt would limit an individual’s eligibility for settlement. What does that mean? Perhaps the Minister could tell us. Does it include credit cards or a mortgage? When consideration is being given to preventing access to public funds for those with settlement? What is the position of the state pension, which an individual would have contributed to over the years that they have been in the UK? If you take your pension, does that mean that you would no longer be eligible for that final route?
The Statement explicitly targets the cohort of lower-qualified workers who entered via the health and care visa, proposing they should wait 15 years before earning settlement, extending the pathway beyond the new 10-year baseline. Would that lead to a situation where care workers would be incentivised to volunteer in their community rather than work extra hours as a care worker? This proposal unfairly targets low earners and our carers. Why are carers not to be considered public service workers? What are we saying about the value of care? Care is a fundamental need in our society, especially as we are an ageing population.
Further, these proposals raise serious questions about those who are most vulnerable. The Government have committed to keeping some immediate short-route pathways for victims of domestic violence and abuse. Will the Minister explicitly reassure the House and survivors that these changes will not have the adverse, and perhaps unintended, impact of locking those survivors into abusive relationships?
The care sector in the UK is facing chronic staffing shortages, putting immense pressure on families and the wider social care system. Given that the Home Secretary has proposed that public service workers could qualify after five years, what assessment has been made of the risk that some essential public service workers will leave the UK? That was shared by the nurses’ union. What credible plan are the Government making to develop domestic talent in the health and care sector, especially in the short timescale that is available to them?
The Ukrainian people continue to resist Russia’s war of aggression, and many families who have sought refuge in the UK face further uncertainty over their visa status, causing significant instability. Will the Home Office and the Minister consider establishing a pathway to indefinite leave to remain for Ukrainians who have integrated into life in the UK and wish to remain long-term?
How does this policy relate to the family unit? It would seem that we could have a situation where people within the same family unit are on different routes to settlement because of their individual salaries on the one hand and caring responsibilities on the other—for example, a husband on a three-year route and a wife on a 10-year route. How might this disproportionately impact women, who often work less as a result of childcare?
The Home Secretary stated in the other place that fairness is central to these immigration changes. Is it fair to change the rules for an individual who has come to the UK on a legal route, with certain expectations, and move the goalposts midway through their route to settlement? While no one disputes that people coming to the UK should integrate, how will the Home Secretary and the Home Office ensure that the new mandatory measures, such as making sustained national insurance contributions above the personal allowance threshold and demonstrating English language proficiency to A-level standard or more, do not impose unworkable red tape on people who have come here legally?
Finally, how will these arrangements and changes be implemented? Will some of it be in primary legislation? Will some of it be in secondary legislation? Will some of it just be changes to the Immigration Rules? I understand that it is a tricky and detailed answer that I am expecting from the Minister, but if he cannot give me the exact details now about the legislative route for these proposals, perhaps he might like to write to me on these matters. I appreciate that I have asked a significant number of questions, but I hope that I can get answers to some of them.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Hanson of Flint) (Lab)
I am grateful for the opportunity to answer questions in this House on the Statement made by my right honourable friend the Home Secretary.
Let me start by saying to the noble Lord, Lord Davies, that the Government are not feeling the pressure on this issue. The Government are responding, as any sensible Government would, to some of the challenges we have inherited after 14 years of his Government. There was a large build-up in a range of asylum issues, and they did not tackle the issue of earned settlement that we are looking at now. The last change on earned settlement was in 2006, and this is the most fundamental change in over 40 years. Settlement is a privilege, not a right. We are trying to have a discussion, so I would welcome formal consultation from both noble Lords on the points they have made. We are trying to solve some of the problems and challenges for the future.
The noble Lord, Lord Davies, talked about issues to do with the different years of earned entitlement, up and down. We have made judgments on that, but it is open to consultation. He can make representations, if he thinks any of the decisions that we have come to in the initial document are wrong. We will look at his representations on those issues. We have settled on degree-level English as being an important benchmark. For the core narrative and the four main criteria, the English requirement is A-level standard, which is the B2 test of the common European framework. I think that is reasonable.
The noble Lord, Lord Davies, mentioned illegal entry. We have set very high bars on the punitive elements of additional years before any consideration can be given. Again, that is open to consultation. There may be circumstances where somebody has arrived illegally who we wish to examine, and that is part of the reason for the discussion. All the areas the noble Lord has mentioned are subject to consultation, and I would certainly welcome his views.
I can tell the noble Lord, Lord German, that the anticipation is that most of this will be done via the Immigration Rules. The process, as set out in the Statement that my right honourable friend the Home Secretary made on 20 November, is that a consultation will be open until 12 February 2026, and we would hope to try to make some changes with effect from the next financial year, in April. Again, that will be subject to consultation and parliamentary consideration.
The noble Lord mentioned what the debt would look like for individuals. The three types of debt that we are looking at in the consultation are any outstanding litigation debt, tax debt or National Health Service debt. It would not be debt on a personal basis; effectively, we will be examining state debts. Whether pensions would be included is for the consultation. We are looking at issues such as jobseeker’s allowance and child benefit, but it would be open to discussion. I would welcome the noble Lord’s contribution to that.
The noble Lord mentioned the situation with health and care visas. There is considerable growth in this area, arguably because people are living longer and require more care. In 2028, we anticipate an additional 210,000 care workers coming to the UK, with the potential for long-term settlement. We are trying to ensure that we raise the level of training and are looking into recruiting UK-based citizens into that work. There will always be a need to examine that route, which is why we will maintain it, but there is a much longer period for final settlement.
The noble Lord, Lord German, mentioned Ukraine. We would not have anticipated the Ukraine scheme four or five years ago, but it is in place because we responded to a humanitarian need in what I and the Ukrainian Government hope is a temporary circumstance. The Ukraine route has never been a route to permanent settlement. It has now been further extended for around 18 months. We will keep it under review. Self-evidently, Russia is still present in Ukraine and bloodshed is still going on. The Ukrainian Government have our support in dealing with that, which is why we have maintained and extended the scheme into the future. The Ukrainian Government do not wish this to be a permanent route, so it will be kept under review. It is a separate scheme for Ukrainian citizens who have come to the United Kingdom for the moment.
The noble Lord mentioned family routes and the potential for different family timescales. That area is potentially subject to consultation. We want to look at it so that we do not necessarily disadvantage families. I cannot read my writing, but I have written “transitional”. I will examine the noble Lord’s comments in Hansard and write to him shortly, because I have forgotten exactly why I have written it down.
We are taking this measure because there are currently 70 routes, 40 of them leading to settlement. Between 2026 and 2030, we estimate that between 1.3 million and 2.2 million citizens, under the current scheme, will be able to have a period of settlement. We need to take action. The immigration White Paper published in May 2025 set out that we will increase the default qualifying period for settlement from five to 10 years. We have put down some core criteria: the lack of a criminal record, the ability to speak English to A-level standard, three to five years of national insurance contributions and having no debt, as I defined to the noble Lord a moment ago. We wish to put those core issues as a base but, on top of that, we have put positives and negatives in terms of earned entitlement. We are doing that to ensure that citizenship is part of a commitment and is focused on no recourse to public funds, speaking English to degree level and other matters that I have outlined to the House.
I hope the House will not just look at the two Statements but participate in the consultation. At the end of that consultation in February, we will undoubtedly bring to both Houses a package that will be subject to parliamentary approval and that this House and the House of Commons can examine and question in detail.
Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)
What worries me most about this is what it will do to our society. I do not like the concept of a much larger group of second-class people in our country with restrictions on what they can do, under a sort of surveillance state, for much longer periods of time. I suspect it will be divisive in our society. I particularly dislike the idea that it might be divisive in families. This White Paper says that
“a person admitted as the dependant of an economic migrant will not necessarily enjoy the same qualifying period for settlement as their partner. It may be shorter or longer, according to their particular circumstances”.
We are seriously envisaging telling couples that they must choose between living in the country that they chose to come to and hope to settle in for the rest of their lives and living with a person they have married and hope to stay with for the rest of their lives. That is a pretty cruel choice.
I have great sympathy with the noble Lord, Lord Hanson, having to deal with such nasty news. My question to him is about what he has just said about transitional arrangements. A particularly unpleasant aspect of all this is retrospection. I agree with what has been said about that. Somebody who has been here for four and a half years, who chose to come here on the understanding that after five years his permanent settlement as a citizen of this country would be adjudicated—perhaps he is married, has children and has thought about careers, schooling and all that on the basis of certainty five years ahead—now knows that he may have to wait another 15 years. What are the transitional arrangements that
“may be designed to ease the impact of policy change, especially for individuals or groups already afforded permissions by the previous system”?
I do not know what that means. The consultation that is starting will consider that:
“Without any transitional arrangements, the earned settlement policy will affect people already in the system, who are not already settled when relevant Immigration Rules come into force”.
Quite—but what is the idea inside the Home Office? Is it that there should be a limited degree of retrospection? Should those who have been here for four years be treated more generously than those who have just turned up?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Kerr of Kinlochard, for reminding me why I wrote down “transitional” in relation to the comments by the noble Lord, Lord German. I hope that, following my explanation, he can avoid another missive from me off the back of this.
I will start by saying something that I hope is positive. Nobody who has settled status now will have it unpicked by these arrangements. Some political parties have suggested that that might be the case. This Labour Government are not one of them. We have said that we will look at the pathway to settlement for those already on that pathway who have not yet been granted settled status. That means that in the consultation we will look at the transitional arrangements for those individuals. I hope that those who have views will put them to the Home Office, because we have to determine what we do for those who, as the noble Lord said, may be four and a half years down a settled status route when they expected five years and now the proposal, subject to consultation, is potentially the 10-year period in the immigration White Paper. That route is subject to discussion and consultation.
France and Italy both have a 10-year period. The noble Lord shakes his head, but we think what we have undertaken is the right thing to do. We are not out of step with some European partner countries on this, but I give him and the noble Lord, Lord German, the assurance that the points he has raised about transition will be examined as part of that consultation, and representations are welcome.
Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)
I am not disagreeing with the noble Lord at all; he is completely correct about France. I am just sad that one of the defining features of this country—something we used to be proud of—is slipping. I agree that the change does not take us out of line with a lot of our neighbours, but it is nevertheless undesirable for our society.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I believe in an open, integrated, multicultural society where people are respected and valued for the work they do. That is nothing against the many thousands of people who, for example, work in this building, in hospitals or in teaching and bring great skills to this country. However, the question for the Government is: how do we manage future migration issues and future earned entitlement to settlement? We are looking to put some core guidelines around that and some alternatives which improve the earned entitlement, or penalise it by giving a further, longer period. That is reasonable, but it is subject to consultation, and I welcome the noble Lord’s views outside the Chamber.
Baroness Ludford (LD)
My Lords, my noble friend Lord German raised many of the puzzling issues in this consultation, and the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, pointed out the divisive and unsettling elements. With all the love I have of France, we have historically done better than France in building a multicultural, multi-ethnic society, as the Minister’s last remarks conveyed. I would not necessarily say that we should emulate everything Frane has done.
I have a particular question about the introduction to the document, which says that the consultation
“proposes that benefits should not be available to those who have settled status”.
I assume that does not cover those who have EU settled status, because that would be a breach of the withdrawal agreement. Even some with pre-settled status can access some benefits. I am sure the Minister will reassure me on this.
The document shows evidence of having been put together rather quickly. The Minister clarified that
“they must have no debt in this country”
means that they must have no debt to this country. There is infelicitous phrasing in the document—it does not stop someone from having a mortgage, student fees, or whatever.
On the theme of divisiveness, raised by the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, earlier settlement would be available to “high taxpayers” and people
“who have worked at a certain level of seniority in our public services”.
Good luck to them, but middle and lower earning workers are also very valuable. I do not really see why their worth to this country and their earning settlement should be measured in terms of what they pay HMRC. That is peculiar, to be honest.
I really do not understand the twists and turns in this. The Government have adopted the language of some opposition parties about illegal entrants. They say they accept the refugee convention, but they actually do not, because it is not illegal to enter this country in order to claim asylum. We have said this time and again, and the Labour Party said it in opposition in this House. If you accept that someone has a right to stay in this country, why then make hurdles about when they are allowed to settle, integrate and become a fully-fledged member of our society? I do not understand the discrepancy between those two things. I had better shut up because I can see that other noble Lords want to get in, but I have that specific question about EU settled status.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Baroness. She knows that we have had a lot of discussion around EU settled status. I can confirm to her that the EU settlement scheme is out of scope, as is the Windrush scheme. For British overseas nationals—those from Hong Kong—their visas will receive a five-year reduction, effectively maintaining their five-year route to settlement. Those with settled status will be able to keep it without any change. These are reasonable responses to the many European Union citizens, those of the Windrush generation and those from Hong Kong who have come to this country to live, work and integrate. We are looking to put down some basic discussion points for consultation on how we manage settled status when we have potentially 1.3 million to 2.2 million people coming to settled status between 2026 and 2030, on current estimates. That figure will only grow unless we take the action we are trying to take today.
The noble Baroness mentioned a number of points; they are all up for consultation. The high salary issue means that an individual who is a higher taxpayer or employed in specific public roles would also result in a reduction in the additional time required. That is an important recognition of the contribution that people make to the United Kingdom. All of those points are up for discussion in the consultation. Given that the time is relatively limited, I want to make sure we can take other questions, so I will answer the right reverend Prelate’s next.
The Lord Bishop of Winchester
My Lords, I will keep my question brief because I want to give time to the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett. One of the most encouraging developments in foreign policy in this country in recent years has been the growing recognition of the evil of the denial of freedom of religion or belief across the world, leading to widespread persecution of faith communities, Christians not least among them, as we have tragically seen in these last days in Nigeria. The UK has become a recognised global leader in advocacy for this oft-overlooked right.
Does the Minister accept that denial of freedom of religion or belief is a significant driver of migration? It is certainly so in the case of a significant number who arrive illegally, who, according to the Statement,
“could see settlement take up to 30 years”.
Does the Minister agree that we need consistency in the development of foreign and domestic policy, especially in this area but also in upstream causes and drivers of migration, to ensure that very vulnerable individuals are afforded the protection and assistance they so badly need?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I am grateful to the right reverend Prelate for giving me the opportunity to say to the House that there is a real difference between asylum, refugee status and immigration. This Statement concerns the transition of citizens who have come here through an immigration route to work to having earned settled status.
Last week, we discussed another Statement on asylum claims. Persecution for religious faith would be a ground to seek asylum. We have also had a policy statement on how individuals can claim asylum. Some people will come here illegally, which is why I said to the noble Lord, Lord Davies, that that is not an automatic barrier. However, it is certainly a significant barrier and how that person has arrived can be examined. For those asylum claims, we will meet our obligations under the international refugee convention and our human rights obligations, and those claims will be based on an individual’s personal circumstances.
The key point of the Statement we made earlier in the week is that, instead of five years, it would now be a two and a half year period. If the circumstances of the individual are reassessed after two and a half years, the persecution in the native country may not be what it was two and a half years ago. It may be, in which case the asylum claim would still be processed.
The key to asylum claims is to process them quickly to determine whether an asylum claim is genuine. If so, we allow status. If that happens, they will fall under the routes of this particular Statement. If it is not a proper asylum claim, they will face removal from the country. That is a two-stage operation. This is not just around people who are coming on small boats; these are people who are coming on work visas who wish to have long-term settled status. Here, we are just putting some more guard-rails around that settled status so that we can ensure that individuals have contributed and, on the four key issues, are citizens that deserve the right and privilege of being British citizens as part of their consideration.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, the Statement says:
“Fairness is the most fundamental of British values”.
Is it fair that people who have uprooted their lives, moved their children here and made their lives here should suddenly find the rug pulled out from underneath their life plans? In responding to the noble Lords, Lord Kerr and Lord German, the Minister said that there might be transitional arrangements and that they are consulting on all this. But that means that people who might have been here for four and a half years are facing massive levels of uncertainty about where their life is now. Is that fair?
I look at the overall fairness of the plans and think about a potential example of someone who is either already here now or comes in the future—a carer or maybe a nurse in a care home. The five years are kept for nurses working in public service, but what about those working in a privately owned facility? She might have to wait 15 years for indefinite leave to remain. What happens if, after 10 years’ service, she injures her back and needs a period of rehabilitation before she returns to work? What happens to her child, after 15 years, when they are unlikely still to be dependent? Perhaps they push to remain dependent to be able to stay in the country that is the only one they actually remember. Is all that fair?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
Let me answer the first point. The announcements were made on 20 November. The consultation closes on 12 February, and the intention is to try to bring in proposals shortly after that. That is a three-month or four-month interregnum of uncertainty, which I accept is there. It is important that we make the policy statements that we have made and allow for consultation. The points that have been made across the House will undoubtedly be put in the consultation as a whole, and we will reflect on that in relation to any points made.
The noble Baroness asks, “Is it fair?”. It has to be fair if we want to ensure community cohesion and that people recognise that there is a society where people come but have an earned right, not an automatic citizenship privilege. I think that is fair for the British citizens who are here now. There are many political parties—I do not accuse the noble Lord of this—that would go much further, removing people from this country who have settled status and doing things like that. We have to address some real issues. It is never easy in government—it is difficult in government—but I am not going to go down the road of some political parties. We have to find a way to ensure that the fairness that is appropriate for the system is generated in the rules that we are consulting on now.
Baroness Pinnock (LD)
My Lords, I have a very simple and practical question for the Minister to end with. During his remarks about the Statement, he has said that gaining settled status would require a degree in English or an A-level in English. Can the Minister explain how that will be assessed? Will it be both written and spoken? Does he therefore expect the existing residents of the country to achieve the same levels?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
The test is the B2 test, which is under the common European framework. We currently have a B1 test, which is slightly lower. The B2 test is a recognised under the common European framework, and that would be the test that is taking place.
Again, there are no residual changes being made to those with existing settled status and to those, such as myself, who were born in this country but whose English may sometimes not be up to the standard that some people would wish. It is important that that test is in place, and I hope the noble Baroness will support it in consultation.
Diego Garcia Military Base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill
(1 day, 2 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Morrow
(2A) Sections 2 to 4 do not come into force until the Secretary of State has produced a report setting out any reasons for rejecting any remedies otherwise than this Treaty for resolving challenges to the United Kingdom’s sovereignty of the Chagos Archipelago.”
Lord Morrow (DUP)
My Lords, Amendment 20J in my name proposes that Clauses 2 to 4 do not come into force until the Secretary of State has produced a report setting out the reasons for rejecting the alternative legal remedies to those set out in the Mauritius treaty for resolving challenges to the United Kingdom’s sovereignty of the Chagos Archipelago.
At the heart of the Government’s justification for proceeding with the Bill to bring the Mauritius treaty into force is the non-binding judgment of the International Court of Justice from 2019. The Government have, I think, acknowledged that it is not binding but have sought to ensure that, if it is ignored, binding judgments will quickly arise and other countries upon which we depend to run the base would then refuse to help. The Government have not clearly explained what these feared judgments are and why they would be binding. I invite the Minister to do so in detail and to tell the Committee which countries we depend on to run the islands, which we think would then refuse key services and what those services are.
However, in this amendment, I want to probe a different approach. The Government tell us that this is a critical Bill because its passage will facilitate the coming into force of the Mauritius treaty. The treaty is vital because the United States has told the UK Government that it is unhappy about having a major US base on Diego Garcia when the sovereignty of Garcia is contested. Furthermore, it has paused investment on Diego Garcia, which will not recommence until the legal standing of the Chagos Islands has been resolved.
It is crucial that this matter is resolved, because the security—not just of the United States but of the United Kingdom and the West—depends on full US investment in Diego Garcia. In this context, the reason why the Bill and the treaty, which will come into force if it becomes an Act of Parliament, are vital is because they set out the only route to legal certainty for the standing of the US military base. However, this solution does not provide the only way forward to secure legal certainty, and there are alternative ways forward that would better secure legal certainty than the Bill and the treaty. It is the purpose of my amendment to ask the Government to consider these alternatives.
The problem with the Government’s approach in claiming that the treaty constitutes the only legal way forward is that it is the product of a non-binding legal judgment that was a response to the disagreement between two parties—the Republic of Mauritius and the United Kingdom. The Chagossians were not a party to the case because at that time they did not have international personality. Had they been a party then, the judgment would have dealt with a wider range of issues and considered a wider range of ways forward.
Lord Hannan of Kingsclere (Con)
My Lords, I support the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Morrow. I thank the Ministers for the patience and courtesy that they have displayed all evening. The two Ministers and the Whip know that they are among my favourite Peers, not just my favourite Government Front-Benchers, and they have been very patient and good-humoured.
I take issue with the idea that this is a done deal. That is an argument that has run through a lot of the debates and this seems to be the apt amendment on which to take it on. We have been told repeatedly—including by the noble Baroness, Lady Chapman, last week, and again just before dinner by the noble Lord, Lord Kerr of Kinlochard—that the treaty has been signed and been passed by the CRaG process and that therefore all this is, as it were, dancing after the music, and we would be exposing ourselves to a much more dangerous situation if we now try to hold it up.
I ask the Committee to ponder the possibility that the CRaG process has not in fact been a full democratic exercise. There has been no vote. Everything was rushed through from Second Reading in one day—there was no Report stage. I have never been a Member of the other place, unlike some of your Lordships present, but, as I understand it, you have a vote in the CRaG process by moving an amendment or a resolution and then voting for it. Looking online, I see that there is such an amendment, standing in the name of my right honourable friend the Leader of the Opposition and others, signed by 107 Members of the other place, from six political parties. I concede that that is not nearly as big a deal as it would have been a decade ago—there has been something of a splintering of parties. As yet, there has been no vote on it.
I mention this because the idea that therefore we have no option except to tweak statements at the margin and polish the edges of this, and cannot look for substantive changes, is fundamentally at odds with what was promised when the CRaG process was brought in. If the treaty was rushed through without debate in another place, surely the only proper scrutiny and the only proper chance of amendment is in this Chamber. Therefore, I hope that noble Lords on all sides will feel uninhibited when it comes to moving and, in due course, voting on substantive amendments. This is the one realistic opportunity that we have to make the points that would be made by the people from the Chagos Islands watching us now if they had a voice in our counsels.
Lord Callanan (Con)
My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Hannan, reminds us, this amendment gets to the core of the criticisms that have been levelled against the Government’s approach to this Bill so far. As my noble friend Lord Lilley pointed out numerous times during the debates on the first day in Committee, it is very difficult to see which court could have delivered a binding judgment against the UK on the question of sovereignty over the Chagos Archipelago. Yet it is the repeated contention of the Government that this treaty is somehow essential to deliver legal certainty.
The question remains of which court could have delivered a binding judgment that would have threatened that legal certainty and the security of the military base. I hope that the Government can finally provide us with an answer. If they cannot answer that question then the argument that this treaty and this Bill were both necessary falls apart. Indeed, the argument that the treaty and the Bill are needed urgently also falls apart, and we should consider whether the Government should take a more circumspect approach. That is what the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Morrow, suggests.
If this treaty is necessary, Ministers must surely have considered other options before coming to this agreement with Mauritius. Perhaps the Minister can tell the Committee what consideration was given to resettlement of the Chagos Archipelago by Chagossians, for example. What would the cost have been for that? What is the difference between that cost figure and the true cost associated with this treaty? I say “true cost” because the Government’s initial claims on costs have now been thoroughly discredited.
There were lots of options that should have been considered, so perhaps the noble Baroness can tell us what options were in fact considered. I understand that these are specific questions about the process followed by Ministers before agreeing to the treaty with Mauritius, so if the noble Baroness cannot say with certainty what potential approaches were considered, perhaps she could write to us to confirm the details.
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Baroness Chapman of Darlington) (Lab)
In relation to Amendment 20J, the House has dedicated at least 15 hours to debating the Government’s rationale for entering this treaty. It has been subject to two reports, by the International Agreements Committee and the International Relations and Defence Committee. Three separate committees—the IAC, the IRDC and the Foreign Affairs Committee—have held evidence sessions and questioned the Minister for the Overseas Territories.
The Government have been consistently clear throughout. The legal case was compelling and there was no credible alternative. A policy of hanging tough, which I assume the noble Lord has in mind, would have been a real gift to our adversaries. As we have stated on numerous occasions, the continued operation of the base was under threat. Courts were already making decisions which undermined our position. If a long-term deal had not been reached, further wide-ranging litigation was likely, with no realistic prospect of the UK successfully defending its legal position on sovereignty in such cases.
Legally binding provisional measures from the courts could have come within weeks, affecting, for example, our ability to patrol the waters around Diego Garcia. Both the IRDC and the IAC recognise that the treaty provides legal certainty for the base. I hope the noble Lord will withdraw his amendment.
Lord Morrow (DUP)
My Lords, I thank all those who have spoken in this debate. I have noticed that no one has spoken against the amendment, other than the Minister who brought her explanation and reason. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Lord Morrow
(2A) Sections 2 to 4 do not come into force until the Secretary of State has produced a report assessing the ability of the Government of Mauritius to govern the Chagos Archipelago under the terms of the Treaty and the implications for international peace and stability of transferring sovereignty.”
Lord Morrow (DUP)
My Lords, there has been lot of talk about the rules-based international order in recent years, largely in response to the concern that the reality to which it testifies looks considerably less certain in the context of the development of what some scholars are now calling Cold War II. The truth, however, is that international relations has never been a strictly rule-based order, in the sense that it has approximated life in the domestic context. On the other hand, informed by social conventions that testify to the common humanity of all the people of the earth, international relations has never approximated to international anarchy. There have always been rules, and yet they have been different from the domestic sense because of the absence of a world state with all the sanctions of domestic government.
In this context, those rules have to accommodate considerations of power in a way that we do not see domestically. Sound thinking about international relations has never been just about rules abstracted from considerations of power any more than it has been about power abstracted from rules.
We can get into real difficulty if we lose sight of questions of power. One critical way in which international relations has conventionally had regard for questions of power arises from the point at which a new sovereign state, whether arising from the break-up of an existing state, decolonisation, or some other kind of reconfiguration of territorial integrity, is recognised by other sovereign states. This act of recognition conveys on the state sovereignty as the international personality. It involves those states saying that they recognise the right of the other state to exist, with its territorial integrity, and the right of that state to make the laws to which it is subject in relation to that territorial integrity.
This process is mutual in the sense that if state A will not recognise state B, then state B usually will not recognise state A until state A recognises it. One of the critical questions facing a sovereign state in determining whether it recognises another state is whether it recognises its full territorial integrity and right to make the laws of that territorial integrity, together with an assessment of its physical capacity to govern that territorial integrity.
Baroness Hoey (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I will say a few words in support of the noble Lord’s amendment, which seems really sensible: we should not have been paying to give away British territory without a full and proper assessment of who was going to take it over. This all boils down to whether we trust Mauritius. My feeling is that, while I have probably a great deal of respect for Mauritian people, I am not sure that the Government of Mauritius is one that we would genuinely want to trust in the way that this whole treaty is doing.
I also detect a feeling among the Government and perhaps Whips that, really, we are all wasting our time here: “What on earth are we doing spending all this time?” As the noble Lord, Lord Hannan, said, we have seen how little time was spent on this and how quickly it came through once the election was over and the new Government were in place. Suddenly, this all was happening. That is why it is important that, even if there are very few people here, we consider all these issues. In the long term, this will all be recorded. There will be a time in the future when many people look back and say, “Oh, perhaps we should have considered that more when it came”.
I do not believe that Mauritius has treated Chagossians who live in Mauritius very well. Yes, there are a few who have done obviously very well and are now out cajoling and saying how wonderful it is that Mauritius is going to take over the islands, but the reality is that they have not been treated well. You need to just talk to any of the Chagossians who are here to discover what has been going on. That was when there was some kind of input from our Government; what on earth is going to happen when the British Government no longer have any say in what is happening in Mauritius?
We need a proper, detailed assessment of the ability of the Government in Mauritius to not just look after the welfare of Chagossians who are there, and in the future, but to look after the whole archipelago and obey the terms of the treaty. The treaty may not be tough enough, but, at the very least, we want to make sure that, if there is one, they carry through their side of it. I just have a real feeling that, once this is all signed and sealed, so many people will forget about what has happened and the Mauritian Government will have an easy time doing anything they want, and mostly not doing things that they should be doing to preserve those wonderful islands and the people who should be allowed to go back there. So I support this amendment.
Lord Callanan (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Morrow, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, for their contributions on the noble Lord’s Amendment 20K, which, much like his Amendment 20J in the previous group, asks a specific question of the Government, which I think gets to the heart of the process that was apparently followed by Ministers in reaching agreement on the terms of the treaty.
Clearly, Ministers will have had to consider other issues beyond the claim, which we have debated at length, that the sovereignty of the archipelago was somehow threatened by a binding legal judgment. The long-term security and effective management of the archipelago will, if the Government get their way, be delivered by the Government of Mauritius. We surely cannot have decided to pass that responsibility over to the Mauritian Government without first assessing their ability to manage the islands that we are, well, not giving t them but paying them to take. Would the Minister consider publishing the details of the Government’s assessment of Mauritius’s ability to manage and protect the islands effectively?
In an earlier group, we debated Mauritius’s responsibility for illegal migrants arriving on the islands, but this is just one of the relevant administrative questions that should have been considered by Ministers before an agreement was reached with the Mauritian Government. For example, was the fact that Mauritius does not even have a navy considered a relevant fact when the UK Government formed a view of the Mauritian Government’s ability to manage the islands?
The Mauritian National Coast Guard consists of one offshore patrol vessel, two midshore patrol vessels and 10 fast interceptor boats. As has been said repeatedly, the Chagos Archipelago is approximately 1,250 miles away from Mauritius. Do the UK Government feel that Mauritius’s coastguard is adequately equipped to deal with the challenges it will face as a result of this treaty? Can the Minister confirm whether her department have had any discussions whatever with the Mauritians about increasing their coastguard’s resources in light of their responsibility for the archipelago? If they even had a boat that could reach the distance, that would be a step forward. Will this be monitored by the UK Government on an ongoing basis and raised appropriately through the joint commission, or will we just say that we have handed the islands over and it is now the Mauritians’ responsibility, when we know from all available evidence that they have no capacity whatever to do any of that management?
The Mauritian coastguard’s role is not only important for the Mauritian Government’s access to and administration of the islands. The coastguard will, presumably, play a role in establishing and maintaining the marine protected area that the Minister has told us at great length that they are establishing. What discussions have Ministers had with their Mauritian counterparts to fully understand their plans to protect this important marine protected area? It does not have any boats that can even reach the islands, never mind protect the islands from any access by foreign vessels. Can the Minister confirm whether the UK Government are satisfied that the Mauritian Government have or are about to acquire the capabilities needed to maintain the protected area? When this was debated on the previous day of Committee, the Minister said:
“The MPA will be for the Mauritian Government to implement”.—[Official Report, 18/11/25; col. 801.]
I am sure it will, but have we not given any thought whatever to their ability to implement that?
We understand that this would be the responsibility of the Mauritian Government if the Bill goes through, but does the Minister think that there is any responsibility whatever for the UK Government to ensure that those nations with whom we make agreements are able to practically fulfil their obligations before we then sign a treaty? It is essential that we should have some clarity on this process that Ministers have followed in establishing that Mauritius has not just committed to the terms of the treaty but is in a position to be able to honour the terms of the treaty if and when it finally comes into force. I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
My Lords, Amendment 20K, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Morrow, seeks to oblige the Government to publish a report on the ability of Mauritius to govern the Chagos Archipelago and on the implications of the treaty for international peace and stability. The IRDC concluded that the treaty gave the UK legal clarity on which it could capitalise to enhance defence co-operation and that it was a platform for reinforcing operational links with key regional partners, allowing the UK to position itself as a credible contributor to regional stability grounded in the rule of law. Under the treaty, the UK retains full operational control over Diego Garcia. There are robust provisions in place to protect the security of the base. The treaty is the best way to ensure the continued operation of the joint UK-US base and therefore to protect international peace and security. I hope that the noble Lord will withdraw his amendment.
Lord Callanan (Con)
The Minister has not even attempted to address any of the questions that we have asked.
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
I am very happy if the noble Lord would like to ask me a specific question that I have not already answered in previous groups. Would the noble Lord like to do that?
Lord Callanan (Con)
Will the Minister comment on the ability of the Mauritian coastguard actually to enforce the marine protected area, for instance?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
I suggest that the noble Lord looks at the ways in which marine protected areas are generally enforced. It is not, as he seems to imagine, by patrolling in vessels around the ocean, checking on things. That is not how these things work. But I will gladly send him some information about that.
Lord Morrow (DUP)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, and the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, for their contributions. Having listened to the Minister, I am wondering whether she will get time to reflect on this debate and on what has been asked and what has been said. Perhaps, if she does, she will write to us and put her reply in the Library, for the availability of every Peer in this House. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Lord Hannan of Kingsclere
(2A) Sections 2 to 4 do not come into force until the Secretary of State has produced a report assessing the potential implications for other British Overseas Territories that would arise from this Act and the Treaty.”
Lord Hannan of Kingsclere (Con)
My Lord, I beg leave to propose my Amendments 20L, 20N and 20P. In the interests of brevity and immediacy, I will speak only on Amendment 20L, because I have covered the others in previous groups. This is the amendment that requires the Secretary of State to look at the impact of this treaty on other British Overseas Territories and the implications for their sovereignty.
Of course, we are always told in these situations by whoever is in government, “Oh, it’s a unique situation, you can’t compare”. On one level, that is a truism. Of course, all these situations are unique, yet I think it would be extremely naive not to consider the possibility that they will be fallen upon hungrily by people who want a change to the status quo. The idea that even now there are not politicians and lawyers in Buenos Aires or Madrid looking at the implications of this deal and saying, “How can we press this into the parallel arguments that we have for claims over British Overseas Territories?” is utterly fanciful.
They may already be putting out feelers to British lawyers, who seem very happy to work against the interests of the Crown on these questions. The representative of Mauritius in this case gave an interview in which he gloried in the fact that he lived in a country where you could humiliate the Government. If he is not available, perhaps by then the Attorney-General will no longer be in politics, or indeed perhaps the Prime Minister. They also both have long records of working on cases of this kind.
I suspect that the briefs that will be put in front of them will make the claim that Britain has now, in practice, for all that there was no jurisdiction, for all that it was an advisory ruling, for all that Commonwealth disputes were excluded, conceded this extraordinary and perilous precedent that, if a territory was at one time or another ruled from somewhere else, that establishes the basis of a sovereignty claim. I do not think it is completely fanciful for these elements in foreign countries to feel that they will be dealing with sympathetic elements within the United Kingdom.
Indeed, they have had experience of that. If we think of the experience of our relations with Argentina prior to the war in 1982, we can understand why the Argentines felt that Britain was going to move on the subject. We had the 1968 Anglo-Argentine memorandum, which expressly talked about sovereignty being on the agenda. We then had the persistent proposals throughout the 1970s for the leaseback arrangement, and then the withdrawal of HMS “Endurance”. Argentina is a country I know well, and indeed I have had the privilege of visiting the Falkland Islands as well. To this day, I am often told by Argentine politicians that Margaret Thatcher led them on to the punch—that Britain deliberately looked as though it was preparing to withdraw from the islands in order to provoke this conflict. I think that is nonsense. None the less, you can understand why they think that there are sympathetic elements here.
Similarly, if we look at relations between Britain and Madrid in the run-up to the Córdoba agreement over Gibraltar, the 1990s were a time of constant proposals from this side for some kind of joint sovereignty. It was only a referendum of the Gibraltarian people that put a stop to that process. By the way, it was a referendum that official Britain detested and for a long time did not reconcile itself to and ignored, until it became politically impossible and a new dispensation was reached. So, yes, this will be looked at in Buenos Aires and Madrid.
It will be looked at, I am sure, by those in Nicosia. They will think that there is an extremely close parallel there, in the sense that this is a military installation rather than an ethnically separate population. Again, they will say “This was ruled from somewhere else and we have a claim”. When I was a Member of the European Parliament, I would often get petitions and resolutions from Greek Cypriot MEPs raising the issue of the base.
What all these claims have in common is that final resolutions are never treated as final by the other party, any more than the final and binding resolution was with Mauritius in 1965. I do not want to bore noble Lords on this, but I feel it bears repetition. Mauritius trousered a large sum of money in exchange for perpetually renouncing any claim over the Chagos Islands.
In fact, there are very few British Overseas Territories that have not at some point been ruled from somewhere else. In addition to the ones I have mentioned, I was listing just now which ones have at some point had some other seat of government. Cayman, Bermuda, the British Virgin Islands, the Turks and Caicos, St Helena and Montserrat were all, at some point or another, ruled by someone else. All of them will be looking at this as a precedent and a claim.
What all our overseas territories have in common is that they are all content with their present status. The British Empire was unusual in the peaceful and voluntary nature of the way it was relinquished: not completely, not universally—there were tragic exceptions in Cyprus, India and Kenya—but they were the exceptions. They were not the rule. Decolonisation in Malaysia was a perfectly peaceful process, for example. The only argument was about whether the British should stay longer to defeat the Communist insurgents. It was a generally peaceful process in the Caribbean and in most of Africa, so the places that have stayed are the places that wanted to stay, and they made that very clear, in the cases of the Falkland Islands and Gibraltar in quite recent memory, with overwhelming referendums. It seems to me that they will now be looking to those referendums as their one shield: the only thing that potentially distinguishes them. But of course they will be vulnerable to the argument that, if we are treating Mauritius rather than the Chagos Islands as the unit, why should we not treat all of Cyprus as the unit, since that was once partitioned in a similar way at the time of independence? They will all be extremely alarmed by that precedent.
It seems to me there is only one way of reassuring these countries, which is to allow a referendum of the Chagossians, dispersed and scattered as they may be. Then, if the Chagossians vote in favour, it does not matter. We would not be setting any precedent. We would be following the principle of self-determination. If the Chagossians vote to be Mauritian, that is of no concern to Gibraltarians or Falkland Islanders or anyone else, because the principle of self-determination would be upheld. But at least let us give them the vote.
We are privileged in this country to be custodians, stewards, of a largely maritime sovereign area. If we put together the oceans around our overseas territories, they are about the same size as India. We are in charge of some of the richest and most important marine environments, and that is our real string of pearls. The pearls are there because in every case they want to be on the string. Let us not set the precedent of tearing one of those pearls off and hurling it away in defiance of the wishes of the people most involved. I beg to move.
Lord Jay of Ewelme (CB)
My Lords, in his remarks, the noble Lord, Lord Hannan, has tried to pre-empt the comments that I was about to make. I remember well the Falklands War in 1982. I remember many negotiations with Spain about Gibraltar. I remember the struggles with China over Hong Kong. I remember discussions about the future of the Cayman Islands and the British Virgin Islands—both of which I have visited—as well as discussions about the future of St Helena, Ascension, Tristan da Cunha, Anguilla and the sovereign territories in Cyprus. In each case, the discussions took place on the basis of the interests of each sovereign territory concerned and I believe that that will remain the case. I cannot see why this treaty over the British Indian Ocean islands and the Chagos Islands will affect the discussions that we will have with our other overseas territories about their futures. I think that the situation will remain as it has been in the past, so I do not feel that I can support this amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Hannan.
Lord Bellingham (Con)
My Lords, I certainly do support the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Hannan. I will be very brief. The amendment on which I want to focus is not one regarding referenda and consulting the Chagossian people, even though that is very important. Amendment 20L simply states—and I would be surprised if the Government could not accept this—that the Secretary of State needs to come up with a report
“assessing the potential implications for other British Overseas Territories that would arise from this Act and the Treaty”.
What is wrong with that amendment? Nothing. It would cost the Foreign Office a certain amount of time and effort to put together a report but, in the context of what has been said—at Second Reading, in the debate that we had on the treaty, on the first and second day in Committee—it is not asking a lot.
The noble Lord, Lord Jay, was looking specifically at the interests of the citizens in those different territories. He has a huge amount of knowledge, wisdom and experience, and what he said made a huge amount of sense. What he perhaps did not address is the signals that this Bill, if it becomes an Act, and the treaty, will send to other countries. The noble Lord, Lord Hannan, made some specific points about Argentina—where we know that the dispute will not go anywhere; it will go on and on—as well as Gibraltar. I will also mention one other territory that could well—
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
I hesitate to interrupt, but I think we need to remind ourselves before it gets repeated again that we have just done a deal on Gibraltar with Spain. That has been welcomed by the Government in Gibraltar and that situation is no longer as is being implied by the noble Lord.
Lord Bellingham (Con)
I understand that, but circumstances can change and this may well be seen as a precedent in the future.
I want to mention one other territory: Anguilla. As the Minister will know, Anguilla went through a period of huge unrest to resist becoming part of St Kitts and Nevis. The consequence was that a UK battalion of the Parachute Regiment had to deploy to Anguilla to control the unrest that took place. This is a small but incredibly proud territory that wanted to remain British. In the past few years, there have been a number of attempts by St Kitts and Nevis to reopen the whole issue of Anguilla.
There will be consequences of this treaty going through, which could be to some extent alleviated if the Government would accept this very simple amendment, Amendment 20L. This is the amendment in this group that concerns me most. I do not think that it is asking a great deal of the Government to put this in the Bill. This would be a very important signal in the Bill that those other territories would be properly considered.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
My Lords, I want to say a few words. I have been rather sparing in the Committee debate today, but the noble Lord, Lord Hannan, has prompted me to speak.
I have been a passionate supporter of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association, I have served on this Parliament’s executive committee of the CPA UK and I have had the great privilege of visiting a great number of Commonwealth nations in all parts of the world, including early this year Malaysia. We have to be very careful, particularly perhaps in this House of Parliament, when we debate a process that has been very difficult on decolonisation. We have to be very cautious with how we approach it and very mindful of the language that we use.
We had 12 years of the Malayan Emergency and I have met the relatives of those who were affected by that. There is not a Commonwealth country that does not have difficult stories, on many occasions. We are still living with this today. I would counsel anybody that, yes, of course, we are free to make any contributions, but we have to be very mindful.
The noble Lord, Lord Bellingham, whom I greatly respect, indicated that perhaps the precedent was this deal. Now, there may be circumstances where a bad deal might be seen by other people as some form of precedent, but I do not think that that is the point that is being made in this group. The point that I hear being made in this group is that the very point of principle that we opened negotiations to cede sovereignty is the precedent. Well, that decision was made in 2022. If we are to see the consequences of decisions taken by a British Government to recognise that negotiations should take place to cede sovereignty, then we have had three years of knowing what the consequences of that will be. I have heard nothing from anybody on this group saying that they have seen the consequences of that decision taken by the previous Administration in November 2022.
Lord Lilley (Con)
My Lords, I want primarily—perhaps later—to talk about my Amendments 20Q and 20U, but I will say something about my noble friend Lord Hannan’s Amendment 20L to emphasise one particular precedent he mentioned in passing but seems the most compelling and dangerous. Indeed, in line with the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, I have been rather cautious about discussing this because I did not want to put ideas into people’s heads, but, for two reasons, I will go ahead and talk about it now. First, there is no better way to keep a secret than to pronounce it in the House of Lords; and secondly, as my noble friend Lord Hannan said, there are lawyers in every country looking to see whether this is a precedent that they could use to right some past wrong or to change some past circumstance which they would like changed.
The most compelling comparison is between what we are doing now and the reasons given for doing it and the independence of Cyprus, where we severed off the sovereign bases. They were part of a whole. The territorial integrity of Cyprus was divided between the sovereign bases and the rest. That is exactly what we are accused of doing in the case of the Chagos Islands. It is actually much more true in the case of Cyprus than in that of the Chagos Islands, because Cyprus was always governed as one unit by us whereas the Chagos Islands had separate laws, even if they were transmitted from somebody resident in Mauritius. Therefore, if we are saying that there is compelling reason for us to say we cannot separate the Chagos Islands from Mauritius, of which it has never been part, then surely there are compelling reasons why we should never have separated the sovereign base territories from the rest of Cyprus.
Those bases are hugely important. They played a role time and again in recent disputes and interventions, and in the prospect of interventions in the Middle East. We have been able to help fly from them and intercept missiles from Iran coming towards Israel. In previous conflicts, we used the bases there. They of value not only to us but to the whole of NATO. If we put them at risk by saying to the world that we have no right to have separated them then we would be doing something very foolish.
The only difference I can think of—I am offering a solution to this dilemma, because I do not want the issue of the sovereign bases to be opened up in a dangerous way—is that the decisions in Cyprus were taken before the United Nations General Assembly resolution on which the advisory opinion of the ICJ was based, and therefore it did not apply to them. Of course, advisory opinions are not actually binding—they are wrongly taken as being binding but they are not—but do they apply retrospectively? In many cases when courts rule, they say, “This has always been the case; we’ve only just now ruled it”.
I would like to hear how the Minister proposes to defend the sovereign bases in Cyprus from this precedent. She is obviously not doing this willingly; she is obviously unwilling and she is a wonderful Minister, but she has been given a tough job to do. I would like to hear some justification for this. I do not know whether the precedent in Committee allows me to sit down now and stand up later to deal with my amendments, but assuming I can do that, I will.
Lord Weir of Ballyholme (DUP)
My Lords, I will briefly make two points. First, on behalf of my noble friend Lord McCrea, who has had to leave for a family wedding, I will speak to Amendment 57, which principally brings to the Committee’s attention the role of British legal firms in this issue.
We have been critical in this House of the current and, to some extent, the previous Government. Those criticisms are not entirely without merit on the issue of sovereignty. There has also been further British involvement in any number of aspects, the four most significant legal interventions being two cases in connection with UNCLOS; one relating to the advisory opinion of the ICJ; and one on the drafting of the UN security resolution. In each of these four cases, the Mauritius Government used British firms as their legal representation in order to further their aims. In effect, British firms acted on behalf of a foreign Government to challenge British sovereignty, British defence rights and the wishes of British citizens. We cannot do anything about what happened in the past, but I suppose the amendment queries whether there is an appropriate way forward in terms of that level of support for Mauritius. Raising my noble friend Lord McCrea’s amendment gives the Government an opportunity to respond to it.
I want to deal briefly with the wider point. We do not always see eye to eye, but I agree with at least one phrase that the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, used: he said that we have to be careful about words, and words matter. One of the major concerns, as highlighted by the noble Lord, Lord Hannan, and others, might be described as the precedent and the ripple effect. It is undoubtedly the case that in the past we as a nation have made mistakes in dealing with overseas territories. In particular, we have sent out the wrong signals on both the Falklands and Gibraltar. It is probably the case that some, at different points within Governments in the past, would have been quite happy to see those territories dispatched to another sovereign territory on that basis. They can best speak for themselves but, fortunately enough, in each case we have drawn back from what might be described as a fatal mistake. The danger with this is that it crosses the line in handing over that level of sovereignty.
Mention has been made of a range of overseas territories. The one thing that largely unites them is that whatever discussions we have had with different Governments, about whatever level of co-operation, they have ultimately respected the self-determination and the inhabitants’ will for sovereignty. That is what at times has drawn us back. I think this goes beyond that and moves towards a situation regarding the wishes of the Chagossian people and their right to self-determination—and that self-determination may, because we do not know definitively, express itself in them saying, “We want to be part of Mauritius”. If that is their self-determination, so be it. I think it is unlikely to be the case; nevertheless, so be it. The concern is the signal that this sends out to the outside world.
The Minister mentioned the arrangements as regards Gibraltar. I think there has been work ongoing with both this Government and the previous Government to try to find arrangements that are in the best interests of Gibraltar. I entirely acknowledge that, while it is sometimes easy to criticise when looking from outside, the Gibraltar Government themselves have been supportive of those actions and have backed the moves made so far.
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
It is really important that there is not a dispute with regards to Gibraltar. There is an arrangement that is agreed with Spain and it is not in question at all, in any sense.
Lord Weir of Ballyholme (DUP)
Absolutely. I have taken the Minister and the Government to task on a range of things, but this may be one issue on which we are in vigorous agreement. I do not question the Government’s bona fides as regards Gibraltar or the Falkland Islands. I know there is a strong commitment to both. I fully acknowledge that and believe it would be the case under a future Government, but this is not a concern over the attitude of this Government or other UK Governments over the ripple effect. It is the danger of what message will be sent out; as the noble Lord, Lord Hannan, said, there is a ripple effect towards Madrid and Buenos Aires, which might take a very different approach in future.
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
I am really sorry, but we have an agreement with Spain. The matter is settled. Madrid takes the same view that London takes; it is the same view that the Government of Gibraltar take. It is settled, and it is beyond unhelpful for noble Lords—unintentionally, I realise, as this is a relatively recent development—to suggest in any way that that is not the case.
Lord Weir of Ballyholme (DUP)
I am not querying that. What I am saying is from experience and from having spoken directly to Gibraltarians in relation to this. They know that a very good agreement may have been done with this Government, but Spanish Governments down the years have sometimes tended to blow hot and cold as regards Gibraltar.
Lord Weir of Ballyholme (DUP)
Yes, but part of the problem is that sometimes in this country we fall into a trap where we see agreements as final settlements. There are sometimes other Governments who either see them as a process or, while they may be fully committed to them, cannot say whether a future Government would feel bound in their attitude towards them.
I appreciate that we have it in black and white as regards Gibraltar and I do not doubt the actions taken by the Government. I fully support them, beyond any question mark of doubt, but we have been told by Gibraltarians that sometimes what happens in Madrid can run contrary to what happens in the border provinces with Gibraltar, which want to have a much stronger relationship. Depending on what attitude they want to take, they can turn hot and cold on the relationship. I have no doubt that the Government have done a very good job in nailing down that agreement but, again, I just express the concern for a future situation—perhaps it is more pertinent for Buenos Aires, which down the years has had a much more volatile approach to some of these issues—over the signals that we inadvertently send by way of this to other Governments. I have no question over the bona fides of either this Government or future UK Governments in relation to that.
Baroness Ludford (LD)
Does the noble Lord accept that perhaps a closer analogy is where a party has one position when it is in government but a completely different one when it is in opposition, which is true of His Majesty’s Opposition towards this treaty with Mauritius?
Lord Weir of Ballyholme (DUP)
That is true of a party that votes against it at Third Reading in the House of Commons and then seems largely supportive of the deal here. So, yes, that could be a perfectly good opportunity, but that can be applied in several parts of the body politic.
Baroness Hoey (Non-Afl)
I am getting rather tired of this Front-Bench thing about what the last Government did. The reality is that the last Government did not sign any treaty. They may have been talking. They could have talked and talked, but they did not sign a treaty. This Government came in and signed a treaty.
Lord Weir of Ballyholme (DUP)
I do not hold a brief for either the Government or the main Opposition. I am happy for them to spell it out. Undoubtedly, what the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, has said is correct, but rather than essentially being in a position where we look to see where the lines of accountability and blame should lie, we should ultimately be focusing on ensuring that we support the self-determination of the Chagossian people. That is the fatal flaw with this agreement.
Lord Sentamu (CB)
My Lords, I just want us to remind ourselves of the history of the British Empire and how Macmillan suddenly said: there are now winds of change and, if we resist, we may lose something very good. Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II created this wonderful thing called the Commonwealth. She put in a lot of effort and energy, and those countries that were once ruled are now part of the Commonwealth, and what is interesting is that in most of those countries the national language is English. So there can be a transition that does not destroy a lot of goodness nor give the impression that those territories where the sovereign is still His Majesty the King will simply look at this and say, “They did it, so we can”. You will find that politically, in Jamaica and other places, the Crown has made it very clear that this is a decision of those nations. If they wanted to become independent, that is their decision. They are not going to force themselves on anybody.
I thought the treaty that was entered into with Mauritius was to create a long-term use of Diego Garcia and the archipelago. If we did not, the challenge was soon going to come because of what happened at the United Nations. We would have found ourselves with a big challenge. Even China was interested in challenging British sovereignty, but now a treaty has been signed and has secured this.
Another good thing on which I want to congratulate the Government is that they did not simply sign a treaty so that this base can be used for 99 years. Because sovereignty is now being transferred, they also provided a trust fund for the Chagossians to be better looked after than when the British had sovereignty over the place. This is a win-win situation for the Chagossians and for Britain. We now have security of the base for a 99-year lease. That is quite a long time. I do not think you and I will be here in 99 years, but those who are here may say we did a good thing at the time. As for the fear of the noble Lord, Lord Hannan, of what other places may do, it is their right to do whatever they want to do.
Lord Lilley (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful for the opportunity also to speak to my Amendments 20U and 20Q. Amendment 20U would provide that the Bill shall not come into force until the Secretary of State has published
“a report on how the Treaty may increase any political or legal risks”—
that is what we have been told underlie it—
“related to … reliance on third countries required to service the base … risks of litigation from Mauritius regarding the base in Diego Garcia in the International Court of Justice”—
and I hope this will include some explanation of the Government’s reactions to the Mauritian declarations of 23 September 1968 which, as I understand it, mirrored our determination that the ICJ should not have jurisdiction on disputes between previous and current Commonwealth states and ourselves; Mauritius likewise said that any such disputes should be settled reciprocally. Finally, the report should include the
“risks of litigation in an arbitral tribunal under Annex VII of UN Convention on the Law of the Sea”.
The Minister said a little while ago that we spent many hours discussing the reasons or rationale behind the decision to cede sovereignty. In fact, we have spent many hours dragging out from the Government an explanation of their decision to do so. It is pretty clear that the decision came first, and their justification has been cobbled together in response to each successive challenge that has been put forward to it. The more it has been challenged, the more tenuous the rationale has become. It has been spread out like an elastic band and has become thinner and more transparent. It is very clear that, if we keep on this process, it will eventually break and then the Government will be without any rationale at all.
The Government first suggested that the ICJ decision was purely advisory but Mauritius might come back and somehow get a definitive ruling out of the ICJ. However, that was then abandoned because, of course, we had the specific opt-out when we signed up to the ICJ that it would not be able to consider disputes between ourselves and present or previous Commonwealth countries. One thing has puzzled me. Looking back through the record, I have never seen Ministers refer in words to that opt-out. They have tacitly acknowledged it, because they move on to talking about the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. Likewise, when we have heard from the great mandarins of the Foreign Office, none of them has ever explicitly let past their lips—if I have read the transcript correctly—the existence of this opt-out. That is a great mystery. When people do not say something, one wants to know why, particularly when they tacitly admit it.
Oh dear, I hope I have not caused the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, to leave in disgust. We were hoping he would be able to break this omertà that has forbidden him and his colleagues ever to mention this.
My suspicion—of course it is no more than a suspicion, and the person who could have set that right has left the Chamber—is that the Permanent Secretaries in the Foreign Office and the other mandarins who have spoken in defence of the Government on this never actually told Ministers about this opt-out and they do not like to admit that. Ministers do not like to admit that they did not know about it, because that looks pretty difficult. Maybe in the course of debate we will find that that is an unworthy consideration and they were told explicitly at the beginning there was no possibility of the ICJ reaching a binding judgment on the sovereignty of the Chagos. They tacitly accept that is the case and move on to the possibility of a judgment coming from the tribunal set up under the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea.
My amendment would force the Government to be more explicit about that. What precedents are there for this tribunal ruling on sovereignty? The noble Baroness said that she thought it was very unlikely—I think that was her phrase—that the tribunal would directly rule on sovereignty. I think she is more than right on that, because there are no precedents I can find for it ruling on sovereignty. But then she said that it might rule on other things and sort of assume sovereignty. I would like some examples of that sort of thing happening, if it is a sufficiently big risk for us to be doing this nefarious deed of ceding sovereignty over the Chagos Islands. We have not had that up to now.
The tenuous justification moves on to say that there may be a ruling that would somehow assume sovereignty, but what negative effects would that have? It would apparently put the base at risk, because of its reliance on being supplied from other countries. From which other countries is the Diego Garcia base supplied, and in what way, and how would that be put at risk? Is it supplied from Aden? Would the Suez Canal be closed to British shipping if it was thought to be supplying the base? Would we get labour from mainland Africa to help run the base? Would the Philippines refuse to send Filipino workers to help run the base? When we are given such a tenuous reason, at the end of a long chain of tenuous arguments, we need some substance to it. This amendment would require the Government to give that.
Amendment 20Q would provide that the Bill would come into force only
“when the Secretary of State has published a report into the governance of the Chagos Archipelago under the Treaty, including local administration and democracy”.
The Minister has said that there was never any settled population in the Chagos Islands, nor any system of local administration. I am sure that was said in good faith, and I can well understand that the detailed history of the Chagos Archipelago is not something most of us have studied, but a letter has now been sent to the Minister, and to the committee that has been asked to consult with the Chagossians, pointing out that, in the absence of the British, who sort of came and went, the inhabitants of the Chagos Islands elected a chief to help with the governance and local administration of the islands. Therefore, the settled inhabitants did have a local administration in the past, and we want to know what is going to replace it in future.
We know that Mauritius, while it has no obligation to, will be able to resettle the islands. It may, of course, settle them with Mauritians, not Chagossians. Either way, what system of administration will there be, and will it be democratic or autocratic? I think we should know. My Amendment 20Q would require the Government to spell that out, and to acknowledge and accept that it was a mistake to say that there has never been any system of local administration, when clearly there has.
Lord Callanan (Con)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Hannan of Kingsclere for leading this debate. He set out a very strong argument for his amendments in this group, as did my noble friend Lord Lilley and the noble Lord, Lord McCrea of Magherafelt and Cookstown.
Amendment 20L, in the name of my noble friend Lord Hannan, is a very helpful amendment in Committee, as it affords the Committee the opportunity to debate the impact of the Government’s decision on the Chagos Archipelago on other overseas territories. While I accept that there are, of course, legal arguments here, we believe that they should be explored fully. I want to focus on the impact of the UK Government’s treatment of the Chagossians, and on our reputation among other overseas territories, which look to the UK for steadfast support and security. How do residents, and descendants of the residents, of other overseas territories feel now that the Government have caved in to pressure from their international lawyer friends on the question of the Chagos Islands?
As my noble friend Lord Hannan observed, the British Indian Ocean Territory is not the only overseas territory subject to legal claims by foreign states. Does the Minister accept that the behaviour of our Government on this issue will have ramifications for the level of trust in the UK held by residents of other overseas territories? We should be standing up for our overseas territories and protecting those who live on them, not caving in to activist international lawyers. In my view, it really is that simple. Can the Minister confirm that the UK Government are not considering ceding sovereignty over any other British Overseas Territories? Will she rule out such a move in future? We want residents of the overseas territories to feel secure, and I hope that the Minister’s words in response to this group will help to give them that security.
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
My Lords, a large number of the amendments that have been tabled seek to mandate the Government to renegotiate the treaty with Mauritius on various points. The noble Lord told me this on many occasions in the last Parliament, so I am sure that he understands the point that I am about to make: treaty-making and international negotiations are a matter for the Government, in exercise of the royal prerogative. It is simply not practical for that to become a matter where Parliament seeks to direct this or that isolated element of what can be intense, dynamic and sometimes difficult negotiations. In this case, I can assure the Committee that the Government have thoroughly considered all aspects of the treaty that the UK has entered into and used all their efforts throughout to achieve the best possible deal for the UK. These requests to reopen negotiations on different points are not realistic and would make the UK appear an unreliable counterparty on the international stage. This treaty has gone through a rigorous assessment and been agreed at the highest levels of the US security establishment.
Our reasons for rejecting Amendment 20U are, essentially, those that I set out earlier in relation to Amendment 20J, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Morrow. I do not intend to repeat them.
Amendment 20L was tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Hannan. I enjoy the noble Lord’s contributions. His speeches are as entertaining as they are, unfortunately, inaccurate and misleading sometimes. My grandfather fought in Malaya, in the Green Howards, and so it was an unfortunate example that the noble Lord chose to resort to—but I forgive him for this, because he puts so much into his speeches. I assure him and other noble Lords that this deal has been welcomed by both Gibraltar and the Falklands Islands. As the noble Lord, Lord Jay, said, their Governments have both stated that there is no read-across to them, and we should respect what they have to say.
Through Amendment 20M, the noble Lord, Lord Hannan, seems to be suggesting that the Government have not complied with the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act in respect of the treaty. I respectfully disagree with him on this. The treaty was laid in Parliament on the day that it was signed, under the process set out in the Act. CRaG requires that a treaty is laid in both Houses for 21 joint sitting days before it may be ratified. The period expired on 3 July 2025, with neither House resolving against ratification. During that 21-day period, two committees in this House held evidence sessions, including with the Minister for Overseas Territories, and produced reports, which we have responded to. There was a debate and a vote on the Motion from the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, against ratification, which this Government defeated. As a matter of practice, the UK Government do not ratify treaties until the necessary implementing legislation is in place, and that is what the Government are currently doing with the Bill.
Amendments 20P and 20Q appear to misunderstand the archipelago. I feel uncomfortable making this point, as it feels very cold, harsh and legalistic, particularly given the testimonies, many of which we have heard directly from Chagossians in their accounts of what happened in the late 1960s and early 1970s. I do not feel comfortable repeating it but this is the legal situation as it is, and it is important to be clear. The archipelago has never had a permanent population. The islands have not been inhabited since the population was removed in the late 1960s and early 1970s. As such, there is no “economy” of the Chagos Archipelago. Once the treaty enters into force, Mauritius will be sovereign and will have jurisdiction over the regulation of commercial activities unrelated to the operation of the base throughout the archipelago, subject to the constraints of the treaty. On the exclusive economic zone around the archipelago, Mauritius has announced its intention to establish a marine protected area and, importantly, there will be no commercial fishing allowed. It will be for Mauritius to decide how any resettlement will work, including in respect of governance of the islands.
Amendment 57, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord McCrea, and spoken to on his behalf, cannot be accepted. The UK’s legal services industry and the English Bar are internationally recognised for their expertise. That includes expertise in public international law, and UK-qualified lawyers act for states all around the world on various matters, facilitating the peaceful settlement of disputes. The standing of UK legal expertise should be a matter of pride for this House, not a tool for manipulation by politicians to achieve narrow and short-term advantage. An attempt to place a prohibition on who can utilise our world-leading legal services would undermine access to legal representation—an important element of the rule of law. It is wholly inappropriate for the Government to dictate who can be represented by whom. It risks undermining our standing on the world stage.
I hesitate to repeat the debate we had last week, but I say to the noble Lord, Lord Lilley, that, had there been no legal risk to our position, why did the United States stop investment in the base at that point? It was because it was sufficiently concerned about the legal risk. Had there been no basis whatever for our concerns on legality, why on earth did the previous Government even begin to negotiate, accepting that they did not manage to conclude a deal? Our view is that there was sufficient legal risk. The noble Lord disagrees, as is his right, but the fact is that the principle of this treaty, and the necessity for it, has been through the appropriate process. It has been voted on in this place and we have voted that this treaty should be ratified. We have already taken that decision in this Chamber. This legislation is about making the necessary changes to UK domestic law to enable us to sign, fully ratify and implement.
Lord Lilley (Con)
I am grateful to the noble Baroness for giving way, but I ask her to respond to the point I made: why, even now, does she refuse to let pass her lips any recognition that there was never any possibility of the ICJ reaching a legally binding decision that would affect us, because of our opt-out from the power of the ICJ to decide on disputes between ourselves and Mauritius? UNCLOS is a different matter, but would she let those words pass her lips?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
My Lords, I accept that about the ICJ, but the point is that other countries will act on an advisory opinion even if we choose to ignore it. We have not chosen to ignore it. That is a judgment call. Partly, that is because we think that, by negotiating now, we negotiate from a stronger position than we would have had we waited for other, binding judgments. Those judgments can come from any treaty to which both parties are signed up. That is why we feel—and not everyone has to agree with the Government on this—that there is sufficient legal question that we needed to act and to negotiate. If they are honest with themselves—there is a lack of former Ministers who were responsible for this arguing the point that the noble Lord makes; they argue other points but not this one—there was sufficient legal jeopardy for the previous Government to enter into this process. I hope noble Lords will withdraw their amendments.
Lord Hannan of Kingsclere (Con)
I am grateful to the Minister for dealing so comprehensively with all those points, and to all noble Lords who contributed: the noble Baronesses, Lady Hoey and Lady Ludford, my noble friends Lord Bellingham and Lord Lilley, the noble Lords, Lord Weir and Lord Purvis, and the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Sentamu.
On finality, almost all treaties are said to be final at the time but they are not always treated as final by one or both parties. The treaty of Utrecht was pretty final. It said that Spain would have first refusal if Britain ever left, but it was pretty final about granting sovereignty. I absolutely agree, as the Minister says, that Spain has now agreed to a permanent settlement, but it is one of many, and experience tells us that incoming Governments do not always regard treaties signed by their predecessors as final. Indeed, the treaty we signed when Mauritius became independent and renounced all claim to the Chagos Islands was said to be permanent at the time, so I am less reassured than I think she hoped I might have been.
Let me put it the other way around: the way to make these treaties final is to stop inviting people, through our behaviour, to reopen them—to refuse to countenance it. The French had a very similar issue in the Comoros; they just refused to countenance it. I cannot see any other country doing what we are doing now. Indeed, I am afraid to say I cannot see any British Government other than this one having done it.
I do not want to get into the whole history of the Malayan emergency, but there is a wonderful record that, when Malaysia became independent, one of the first acts of the new Government was to give some very valuable land containing the house called Carcosa Seri Negara—a very fine house—to Britain in perpetuity as sovereign British territory. It became the seat of the high commission in Kuala Lumpur in recognition of all the things that we had done together. A young anti-colonialist Minister said, “But if we give them the best land in KL, no one will believe that we fought for our independence”, and there was a rather awkward moment around the Cabinet table because, of course, they did not: we were in Malaya supporting a democratic Government against a communist insurgency. We would have left much earlier had we not had the requests of that Government to remain and support them. That is getting slightly off topic so, with your Lordships’ permission, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Lord Hannan of Kingsclere
(2A) Sections 2 to 4 do not come into force until the Secretary of State has produced a report assessing the impact of Article 6 of the Treaty and the transfer of sovereignty under this Act on Chagossian civic identity.”
Lord Hannan of Kingsclere (Con)
My Lords, nationality has two distinct meanings: it is what it says on our passports, but it is also what we feel. The second of those, the sense of identity and belonging, of being a link in a chain between past and future generations, can be unconnected to territory.
Perhaps the supreme example of nationality that exists in the heart is the State of Israel. History affords few stories like it: a people who for 2,000 years were stateless and scattered but never lost the aspiration of statehood—“Next year in Jerusalem”. Then, one day, quite extraordinarily and almost providentially, they fulfilled it. The British Government recognised a claim of nationality based on cultural, ethnic and religious homogeneity, even though it had been unrelated to territory since time immemorial.
Baroness Hoey (Non-Afl)
My Lords, my Amendment 50B is very clear and simple, and nothing to do with security on Diego Garcia or the details of the treaty between Mauritius and the United Kingdom. It is simple: it is for our Government to recognise the Chagossian people in the law of the United Kingdom as an indigenous people of the Chagos Archipelago.
I raise this because so many of the Chagossians we have met and know are men and women who have lived on these islands, who were baptised in the island chapels, who fished, who tended their gardens, who raised children and buried their dead there. They are the indigenous people of the Chagos Archipelago. It is important that what they have asked for, that they are recognised by our country, is agreed to.
The need for this amendment arises because even now, more than half a century after their removal, the Chagossian people are still being told by Ministers that they never existed as a permanent population, that their islands were never self-governing in any meaningful sense and that there is therefore no question of self-determination. Only last week, on the first day in Committee, the Minister, the noble Baroness, Lady Chapman, repeated that claim, saying:
“The Chagos Archipelago has no permanent population nor has ever been self-governing. No question of self-determination for its population can therefore arise”.—[Official Report, 18/11/25; col. 795.]
That statement is not true. It is contradicted by every serious historical study, by the records in the National Archives, by the findings of the International Court of Justice, by the judgment of our own courts and most importantly by the lived memory of the men and women who have written to and met us and live all over in the diaspora.
The noble Lord, Lord Hannan, said that he would not go into the history, but it is important when we are discussing a people that we understand the history. Archival records from the 19th and 20th centuries list births, marriages and burials across multiple generations on Peros Banhos, Salomon and Diego Garcia. Parish registers from Notre Dame de L’Assomption on Diego Garcia record entire family lines. Children were born there, married there and died there. The High Court in the Bancoult judgments accepted that the Chagossians were a settled people. The International Court of Justice—one of the reasons we have this treaty—in its 2019 advisory opinion recognised the Chagossians as the people of the territory with a right to self-determination. Research and documents from various academics have shown that there is at least 150 to 170 years of continuous multigenerational residence.
That is what an indigenous people is; that is what a permanent population is. Yet the Government continue to repeat a narrative first invented back in 1968, when the Foreign Office issued internal instructions to describe the Chagossians in public as temporary contract workers to avoid United Nations scrutiny. Those instructions are still in the archives and still legible. They show unequivocally that the United Kingdom knew the truth then, and it should know the truth now. It is time for this Parliament in discussing this treaty to put the truth into law.
The Minister also claimed that the islands were never self-governing but, as every historian of the archipelago now agrees, the islands were in practice run not by resident British administrators, who were almost never present, but by the Chagossians themselves. Families organised communal work, maintained chapels and community buildings and settled disputes. Testimony from multiple surviving islanders shows that respected elders served as local leaders.
One of the older Chagossian families that has been mentioned before in Committee, the Mandarin family of Peros Banhos, has given oral testimony that their ancestor, Jean Charles Mandarin, a blacksmith serving the whole island, was nominated by the community to act as a local headman in the long absence of any resident British authority. His leadership was even recorded in a scholarly Brill volume on the dispossession of the Chagos Islands, describing him as “a thorn in the flesh of the administration”. His grandson, Fernand Mandarin, born on Peros Banhos, later led the Chagossian Social Committee, represented his people at the United Nations and wrote one of the most detailed oral histories of island life. Today, his descendants continue that leadership in ongoing legal actions before the High Court. How can the Minister stand in this Chamber and say there was no permanent population and no self-organisation when the evidence is so overwhelmingly clear?
The amendment puts this right. It recognises in law what the world’s historians, courts and international institutions have already recognised: that the Chagossians are the indigenous people of the Chagos Islands. The amendment clearly defines them as those born on the islands
“prior to their depopulation between 1968 and 1973”
and their direct descendants. It requires the Secretary of State, when exercising any function under the Bill, to have regard to their identity, cultural integrity and rights.
The amendment is necessary, because the Bill does exactly the opposite with Clauses 2 to 4, which would abolish the British Indian Ocean Territory for every island except Diego Garcia, stripping away the only remaining statutory recognition of the Chagossian people’s historic and legal connection to their homeland. It would remove the very provisions in the British Nationality Act through which they are currently recognised in law. It would hand their homeland to another state without any act of self-determination, despite the clear findings of the International Court of Justice that the Chagossian people are entitled to that right.
We now know what that means in practice. Mauritian authorities have already begun issuing new birth certificates to Chagossians, in which the place of birth is rewritten as Mauritius, erasing all mention of the islands. That is actually happening. I have seen some of that documentary proof.
The recognition in the amendment would prevent that erasure. It does not settle the question of sovereignty, prejudge the right of return or determine citizenship policy, but it ensures that the people who lived on these islands for generations, who were removed without consent and who have been fighting to preserve their identity ever since cannot be written out of their own history or out of our legislation.
One native islander wrote:
“We want our name to exist before we die. We want to be seen as the people of our islands, not as shadows erased from paper.”
Another wrote:
“They took our homes. They took our animals. They took our graves. Please, do not let them take our identity in law.”
Another important one says:
“The Minister says we were never a people. I lived my whole childhood on Peros Banhos. My father and mother were born there. How can she say we were not there?”
The world knows that there was a people in the Chagos Islands. The archives know, the courts know, the UN knows, the historians know and the survivors who still bear witness know. Only this Bill seems to pretend otherwise. I believe that recognition is the minimum moral duty owed to a people who were removed from their homeland, denied their rights and then told that their existence did not matter.
The amendment affirms that they did exist, they do exist and they will continue to exist in the law of this country. I know that a group of Chagossians have written to the Minister in the last few days questioning why she made such a statement. I hope that she will be able to give them some support tonight and say that she recognises their existence and that they should be recognised in the law of the United Kingdom. The amendment does not affect anything to do with security, which seems to be and rightly, perhaps, is the real reason for what the Government are doing. This does not affect one single bit of anything to do with the security of the Chagos Islands, so I hope that the Minister will go back and accept the amendment on Report.
Lord Morrow (DUP)
My Lords, Amendment 81 in my name is in some key senses the most important of all the amendments that I have tabled in Committee. The purpose of Amendment 81 is to probe the question of what will happen to the Chagossian people if the Bill receives Royal Assent and the Mauritius treaty comes into force. The logic that underpins the Government’s position is that Chagossians are, from the civic perspective—the perspective of their citizenship—Mauritian.
Of course, this will not change their ethnicity, but it will extinguish a critical dimension of their identity, which, while in a very real sense it was suspended as a result of the gross injustices that were committed against them in 1968 and 1973, has not been extinguished. Although the splitting of the Chagos Islands from Mauritius in 1965 was imposed on the Chagossians, it bestowed on them a civic identity apart from Mauritius that they were pleased to receive and enjoyed while living on their islands from 1965 until their forced expulsion.
Lord Callanan (Con)
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Morrow, for his Amendment 81 that he has just talked about, which rightly puts the focus of our debate on the citizens of the Chagos Islands, the Chagossian community themselves. It has so far been a disappointing aspect of this Committee to hear the Government dismiss the rights of the Chagossian community. Throughout the process of agreeing the treaty, it is clear that the Chagossians have not been properly consulted. In fact, the Government’s official view—I think the noble Baroness has repeated it again this evening—is that there is no relevant claim of self-determination in respect of the Chagos Archipelago.
I also welcome Amendment 50B in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey. The resettlement of the Chagos Islands under the treaty is an option, not a requirement, and it is increasingly clear that it is possible that the Mauritians will simply ignore it and not take any steps whatever to achieve resettlement of the Chagossians.
The amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, would certainly help put pressure on the UK Government and, in turn, the Mauritian Government to use the provisions of the treaty in respect of resettlement and allow those Chagossians who wish to to return to the outer islands.
On a separate but related note, I am of course pleased that the International Relations and Defence Committee has launched its relatively short piece of work to finally hear the views of the Chagossian community, but I think there are some serious procedural flaws in its survey. There seems to be no control of who can submit views: I am sure the relevant Chinese bots are already on the subject of submitting the survey forms, and there are already concerning reports of Mauritian government officials actually filling in the forms on behalf of Chagossians in Mauritius. But, when the results are in and we have the report of the committee, I hope the Minister will commit to considering it carefully before we proceed to the next stage of the Bill.
We obviously understand that there may be limited time between the committee’s publication of its report and Report stage, so the Government may not have the time to consider and table their own amendments to reflect the views of the Chagossian community as expressed in the—valid, hopefully—responses to the committee. Should that be the case, we would ask the Government to engage constructively with others in this House on amendments before Report so that we can put the needs and welfare of the Chagossian community front and centre as we progress with the Bill. I hope that the Minister will be able to give that assurance today.
As the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Morrow, seeks to do, we need to step up and support the Chagossian community, who have been mistreated for far too long.
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
My Lords, Amendment 20M, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Hannan, requests that the treaty does not come into force until the publication of
“a report assessing the impact of Article 6 of the Treaty”.
As I and other Ministers have said on numerous occasions, it will be for Mauritius to establish a programme of resettlement once the treaty enters into force. It is not sensible, or a good use of taxpayers’ money, to be reporting on something that will not be in our gift to achieve.
The Government are increasing our support to Chagossians living in the UK through new and existing projects. These include Chagossian-led community projects in Crawley and elsewhere, education and English language support, and have involved the creation of a number of FCDO-funded full-time jobs for Chagossians.
Amendment 81, from the noble Lord, Lord Morrow, requests a report of the forecast impact of the treaty on Chagossians. The Government have already released the public sector equality duty report relating to the treaty, which addresses all the issues around an equalities impact assessment. This, in addition to the IRDC’s current review, should support understanding of the impacts to the Chagossian community.
I understand, respect and appreciate the noble Lord’s support for the Chagossian community, but I must also speak to the many different views within the Chagossian community, including several groups that welcome the deal. I think that this will perhaps be surfaced as a result of the work that the IRDC is doing, and I obviously commit to reflecting on it as the Bill proceeds.
Amendment 50B, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, seeks to recognise in the domestic law of the UK that the Chagossians are the indigenous people of the Chagos Archipelago. I hear absolutely what she says about lived memory and the persuasive way that she puts that across. But the unfortunate fact—and I think it is unfortunate—is that both the English courts and the European Court of Human Rights have considered in a series of judgments since the 1970s the related questions of a claimed right of abode or other rights said to flow from the rights that she seeks to gain for the Chagossians through her amendment. On each occasion, the English courts and the European Court of Human Rights have ultimately dismissed the claims.
Had that not been the case—the noble Baroness clearly wishes that that had not been the case; it is her strongly held view and I can see why she feels so—the Government would perhaps have had to take a very different course, because the rights would have held a different weight in law. However, the situation is that history has taken us to a position where, much as we do not like it and it goes against some of the things that we feel and what we may even argue is the moral case, the legal situation is, I am afraid, as it is.
Baroness Hoey (Non-Afl)
Will the Minister just give me a short, simple answer to why the United Kingdom Government will not recognise the Chagossian people as an indigenous people?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
The legal situation is as I have described. The noble Baroness may wish that that were not the case, but the legal position is as it is, and the Government do not intend to amend the Bill in order to change that legal position.
The Earl of Leicester (Con)
That legal position is guidance; it is not law.
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
There have been legal judgments in English courts and elsewhere that have established that the right that the noble Baroness’s amendment seeks to grant to the Chagossian people does not currently exist in law. It is not guidance. Those are decisions of English courts. I hope that, with that, the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Hannan of Kingsclere (Con)
I thank the Minister. I also thank the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, and the noble Lord, Lord Morrow, who were diligent and eloquent in their defence of the dispossessed Chagossians. Sometimes people approach the story of Britain overseas as a kind of morality play where Britain plays the villain, the Alan Rickman of the global drama. We heard a hint of it, I think, from the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, in the previous round. Every disengagement was somehow disagreeable. Here, the disagreeable thing is pulling out in a way that disregards the wishes of the people who have been most injured. I was grateful to the Minister for making the clarification on birth certificates. She is doing enormously well defending this position, I have to say. With that, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Lord Lilley
(2A) Sections 2 to 4 of this Act come into force only when the Secretary of State has produced a report on the economic partnership under Article 11 of the Treaty and a motion to take note of the report has been approved by resolution of both Houses of Parliament.”
Lord Lilley (Con)
My Amendment 20S seeks to get the Secretary of State to produce a report on the so-called economic partnership between the United Kingdom and Mauritius, which is set up under Article 11 of the treaty. Parliament should have an opportunity to take note of that and debate it in both Houses.
The reason that is important, apart from the fact that the control of money is the supreme function of Parliament, is that the economic partnership article, Article 11, in the agreement, is very strange. It says:
“In consideration of this Agreement, the United Kingdom agrees … a. to pay Mauritius an annual sum; … b. to capitalise a Trust Fund for the benefit of Chagossians as established by Mauritius; and … c. to grant multi-year funding as part of a development framework for projects to be undertaken by Mauritius across twenty-five (25) years. … The arrangements for such payments, including amounts and modalities shall be agreed separately”.
It then says that this is a “full and final settlement” of the financial aspects of ceding sovereignty of the Chagos Archipelago to Mauritius.
Now, to call this a partnership is a very strange thing. We give them money annually. We give them more money for the benefit of the Chagossians. We give them yet more money for the benefit of the Mauritians. Where is the partnership in all this? If this partnership were ever to be introduced, I hope that Ministers would feel obliged or, out of their natural desire to be helpful, would seek to explain to us why this is a partnership rather than a kind of surrender where we give up the money, we give up the territory and we let them decide—even the trust fund that we set up for the benefit of the Chagossians is “as established by Mauritius”. So the Mauritians are going to determine how this trust fund is used and spent; the Chagossians will have no say in it and will probably get precious little benefit from it.
I hope the Minister will let us in on the secret. What is the quid pro quo in all this? Normally, any partnership means that there are two sides to it. I used to be a partner in a firm, and we were partners; we all benefited from each other. We did not have one side being partners and the other side getting all the benefits. I am genuinely mystified about this. Was it just that this was signed up for when the Government were suffering a fit of generosity? Perhaps the coffers were overflowing with funds. They could not think what to do but give some away to Mauritius for this, some away to a trust fund for that, then more away to Mauritius for 25 years. Where is it all coming from? Perhaps the Minister will enlighten us. I beg to move.
Baroness Goldie (Con)
My Lords, I did not expect to participate in this, but I was having a conversation earlier with my noble friend Lord Minto, who is very knowledgeable about corporate finance. He posed the question: is there anything in this whole arrangement that would stop Mauritius capitalising on the revenue stream that they have coming to them and selling that off to someone else?
Lord Callanan (Con)
I am sorry that my noble friend Lord Kempsell is not here to move his amendment, which I thought was a particularly good one.
We debated some of the financial aspects of the treaty on the first day in Committee. The Minister at that time asked to delay her remarks on those amendments to the appropriate group. I assume this is the group that she was referring to, so we all look forward to the fuller answer on the finances that she promised then.
The core contention of the Government is that the deal costs an average of £101 million a year and the present net value of payments under the treaty is therefore £3.4 billion. This has been challenged by my noble friends Lady Noakes and Lord Altrincham, but the Minister, rather than engaging in the substance of those challenges, has relied on the Government’s published figures and refused to explain why she believes those figures accurately reflect the cost of the deal.
The Minister has relied on the approval of the Government Actuary’s Department and simply argued that consistency was essential. These are typical deflections that, no doubt, many Ministers have used in previous cases, but they do not address the concerns of my noble friends. We know that the payments are front-loaded at £165 million for the first three years, and then £120 million for the next 10 years. After that point, it is index-linked. As my noble friend Lady Noakes set out at Second Reading, that will see the cash payments hitting more than £650 million a year by the end of the 99 years, depending, of course, on what indexation you use. With all those additional considerations, it is our contention that the true cost of the deal is not £3.4 billion, as claimed by Ministers, but something more like £35 billion.
So the question lands: why would the Government seek to play this down? If they are so delighted with the deal—if it is such a good deal for the British public that they keep claiming that they deliver for, as all government policies should surely be—then surely they would want to be open about the true cost of things. They brag about spending on every other area; they take every amount of money per year, cumulatively add it all up and then put it in a press release and brag to the British people about what a great amount they are spending in every area except for this one. Does the Minister think it is better that the country should know the full costings before the treaty comes into effect, or would she prefer that the UK tie itself into these vast annual payments first, before admitting what the true cost of the deal actually is?
We are clear that the British people deserve to know what their Government are signing up for. Ministers should engage with the detailed costings laid out by my noble friends Lady Noakes and Lord Altrincham, and the points made by my noble friend Lord Lilley, rather than hiding behind their pre-prepared lines. If they have nothing to hide, what is wrong with producing a report that we can all see and study and get checked by independent financial experts? Once Ministers have admitted the true cost of the deal, then they can start justifying the so-called benefits of the treaty against what the true cost actually is. I do not think that people would be impressed by arguments justifying that figure, but Ministers should do the decent thing and justify the real numbers openly and in public.
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
Noble Lords will recall that we debated the financial elements of the treaty in some detail last week, and I genuinely do not think that further debate is going to persuade anybody of anything this evening and probably is not a good use of time at this stage. However, I respect that the noble Lords, Lord Lilley and Lord Kempsell, who was not here to speak to his amendment, have tabled further amendments, so I am happy to put their minds at rest about the matter to the best of my ability this evening.
Noble Lords already know that the Government published full details of the financial payment on the day that the treaty was signed. These details are in the finance exchange of letters, which is included in the treaty in the version laid in the House and published on the government website. The details are also set out in the accompanying Explanatory Memorandum, which was also laid before the House and published on the government website. It is plain to see how much the treaty is costing. The breakdown on page 10 of the Explanatory Memorandum is particularly straightforward for anyone who might desire further information about what will be paid in each year of the treaty. Indeed, the clarity with which the information was presented by the Government was welcomed by the Office for Statistics Regulation, which confirmed that it was consistent with the principles of intelligent transparency.
Therefore, there is no requirement for any additional report on the financial costs, either before the Bill comes into force, as the noble Lord, Lord Lilley, proposes, or before each payment, as is suggested in the other amendment.
The quid pro quo I was asked about is that we get a unique military asset shared with our closest ally on a legally secure basis. The noble Lord, Lord Callanan, asks why I rely on government figures and the answer is because I am representing the Government. With that, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Baroness Goldie (Con)
Before the Minister sits down, the particular question I pose—and I am not being polemical; I think there is an issue—is: what actually stops Mauritius, contractually, from commercially transferring this revenue stream in a capitalised form to another purchaser?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
I think the noble Baroness is asking me what a sovereign country would do with some money that it gets as part of payment from this treaty. I am not sure what the problem would be with Mauritius investing that money in something that then provided it with a return, which it could then use to support public services or anything else in Mauritius. I am not sure if I have properly understood exactly what the noble Baroness is concerned about. I would be happy to engage further—
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
Okay, that might be a good idea. I hope that the noble Lord can withdraw his amendment on that basis.
Lord Lilley
(2A) Sections 2 to 4 of this Act do not come into force until the duties in section (Joint UK–Mauritius Parliamentary Commission) have been discharged.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment, connected with another in the name of Lord Lilley, seeks to ensure that the sections 2 to 4 of the Act only come into force once the Secretary of State has sought to establish a Joint UK-Mauritius Parliamentary Commission.
Lord Lilley (Con)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 20T and 81K. Amendment 20T just requires that Amendment 81K would happen before the treaty, or parts of it, comes into force.
Amendment 81K proposes setting up a parliamentary commission between the United Kingdom and Mauritius. The proposal is that we seek to agree with Mauritius that this parliamentary commission should reflect equal representation from the Parliaments of the United Kingdom—this Parliament—and the Republic of Mauritius, which one hopes would be acceptable to the Mauritians as fairly rational in these circumstances. More important, what is the function of this commission? It should be to ensure,
“the recognition and protection of Chagossian rights, including but not limited to … ensuring a right of return … ensuring the right to self-determination via a referendum of all Chagossians on the question of sovereignty is held by the UK”,
and
“access to compensation, resettlement, or other forms of support”.
The Minister has repeated again today this extraordinary affirmation that there is no Chagossian people and never has been—that there has never been any permanent population of the Chagos Islands. I can see why the Minister can say that there no longer is, because we shamefully removed them. But to rely on the fact that we removed them and therefore they are not permanent, when all of us now think it was monstrous that this was done with no possibility of return at the time, and that we should be setting this right, now that we are trying to sort the aftermath of decolonisation, as it is seen, is to my mind extraordinary. How can there have been no permanent population in the past if there are churches, graveyards, signs of habitation, work, agriculture and fishing on several of the islands? Above all, how can we pretend that there never has been any Chagossian population and, at the same time, grant British citizenship to those who can demonstrate that they are descended from Chagossians?
The Minister cannot have it both ways. She cannot say that there has never been anyone there and that we are now recognising that those who have been there, or are descended from them, have the right to British citizenship. It is there in the treaty. I know that when she mentioned this she said it with obvious distaste and embarrassment, but that distaste and embarrassment should have been sorted out with her officials before she got round to saying it again in this Chamber. It is very insulting to the Chagossian people to say that they have never existed.
Given that the Chagossian people have existed, and that we recognise that it was wrong to remove them without in any way trying to provide them with some prospect of undoing that wrong, surely we should, through the parliamentary commission that I propose in this amendment, discuss with the Mauritians, if sovereignty is handed over to them, at least giving Chagossians the right of return and the right of self-determination via a referendum, along with access to compensation, resettlement or other forms of support. If we do that then at least we will go a small way to undoing the wrong that was done in the late 1960s—I think it extended into the 1970s—which all of us now recognise.
It is clearly important that we have some kind of parliamentary commission overseeing this, because the treaty does not do these things. It could allow the resettlement to be extended to Mauritians and not be given to Chagossians, and it could result in the fund that we set up not being paid out to Chagossians—certainly not to Chagossians who have been in the United Kingdom, but solely to Chagossians who now live in Mauritius. It is only right and proper that we have some parliamentary oversight from both sides—from Mauritius as well as from the UK—to ensure this is all properly done. I am sure this proposition is so reasonable that such a reasonable Minister as we have on the Front Bench cannot fail to agree with it. I beg to move.
The Earl of Leicester (Con)
I want to add to my noble friend’s words. I will not read the whole letter, but this is a copy of the letter to the Minister from the Chagossian people. They write that the Minister’s words
“cut deeply. They erase our history, our dignity, and the truth of who we are. They echo the very language used to justify our people’s deportation between 1968 and 1973. And they are demonstrably false … For more than a century before our exile, the Chagos Islands were home to a multigenerational, settled population. This is not our opinion. It is documented in church registers of births, marriages, and burials across Peros Banhos, Salomon and Diego Garcia; colonial-era records describing communities with homes, chapels, gardens and workplaces; judgments of the UK High Court in the Bancoult cases; the International Court of Justice; United Nations resolutions; academic research stretching across decades. We were not transient workers. We were a Creole-speaking people, rooted in our islands, with our own traditions, our own culture, and our own community life. To say that our homeland had ‘no permanent population’ is simply untrue … You also stated the islands had ‘never been self-governing’. Chagossians have never claimed to have operated a Westminster-style system. But for generations, in the long absence of resident British administrators, our islands were organised and cared for by local leaders from within our own community”.
This has been confirmed in academic work. Misley Mandarin, who lives here in London now with his family, finishes,
“We ask you not for sympathy, but for recognition. Not for pity, but for accuracy. Not for charity, but for truth. We deserve self-determination. We want to stay British and return to our islands as British citizens”.
Lord Callanan (Con)
My Lords, Amendments 20T and 81K, in the name of my noble friend Lord Lilley, seek to achieve a similar objective to Amendments 80 and 82. Given the similarity of the two pairs of amendments, I was slightly surprised to see the noble Lord, Lord Purvis of Tweed, degroup his amendments. We could have had a very satisfactory debate with the original grouping, but of course I fully respect the noble Lord’s right to degroup his amendments. I am slightly surprised, because he criticised me for doing something similar last week, but it is, of course, only right that noble Lords should be able to debate their amendments in the groupings that most suit them.
I am pleased that my noble friend Lord Lilley has the right to self-determination, as confirmed by a referendum of the Chagossians, in his amendment. This is an important point that I am sure many noble Lords will agree with.
Amendment 20T would also delay the implementation of the key parts of this Bill until some progress has been made on establishing the joint parliamentary commission. It seems to me that too many core parts of the treaty are not tied to deadlines or quantifiable outcomes. As a result, it would be hard to monitor whether Mauritius, and indeed the UK, are fulfilling their obligations under the treaty in a timely manner. My noble friend Lord Lilley’s amendment helpfully ties the joint parliamentary commission to the coming into effect of the Act, forcing Ministers and their Mauritian counterparts to get on with the job so that the commission can play an important role from the very beginning of the treaty’s effect. It is a very sensible proposal.
I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response on whether the Government will agree that establishing a joint parliamentary commission would be a useful tool going forward.
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
My Lords, as the noble Lord opposite has indicated, it is slightly surprising that the four amendments on establishing a joint UK-Mauritius parliamentary commission or committee have been degrouped. Members are well within their rights to do this and I am glad at least that this time noble Lords have had sufficient notice of what is happening.
I am sensitive to the sentiment of these amendments. I take them to come from a genuine desire for greater parliamentary involvement in the scrutiny of the implementation of the treaty on specific areas that are of concern to the Committee. The Government have always said that they welcome scrutiny, and this remains the case. We are not opposed to the strengthening of links between the UK Parliament and that of Mauritius, although this would be a somewhat novel approach. I think it seems pretty likely that the noble Lord, Lord Lilley, took inspiration from the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, on this occasion.
There is a question of proportionality and the proper extent of the remit of such a parliamentary commission. Out of respect for the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, I propose to discuss this in much more detail when we reach the debate on Amendment 80, which he has tabled. I hope that is acceptable to the noble Lord. I will be very happy to meet with him and other noble Lords to discuss this proposal, and specifically the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, in more detail. I hope that, with that, the noble Lord will withdraw his amendment.
Lord Callanan (Con)
My Lords, the amendments in this group relate to issues around the ceding of sovereignty over the Chagos Archipelago to Mauritius. I asked a question on the previous day of Committee about the drafting of this Bill and why it does not mention Mauritius. I wonder whether the Minister has had time to think about that and will be able to give your Lordships’ Committee an answer today. As I mentioned then, there are some previous examples of similar legislation that actually named the state that is gaining sovereignty, so I am keen to know why the precedent was not followed in this case.
My Amendment 33 simply seeks to remove two unnecessary subsections from the Bill. If we remove Clause 3(1) and (2), as my amendment would, we will be left with the simple statement that
“His Majesty has under his prerogative the like powers to make laws for Diego Garcia as His Majesty had before commencement for the British Indian Ocean Territory”.
With that simple statement, the Bill would assert His Majesty’s powers sufficiently and he could use those powers to ensure the continuity of law from the British Indian Ocean Territory to Diego Garcia. Given that these powers are under the prerogative, we cannot understand why a statutory provision is necessary to ensure the continuity of law following the ceding of sovereignty.
Furthermore, if the Bill passes in its current drafting and a future Parliament were to repeal this clause, what would the effect be on His Majesty’s prerogative powers? I understand that the Government’s intention is not to undermine the prerogative with the Bill—that is clear from Clause 5(4)—but why have they not included an identical provision in Clause 3? If the Government are merely confirming His Majesty’s prerogative powers, should the drafting not be simpler, so as not to risk limiting the prerogative?
Lord Lansley (Con)
My Lords, noble Lords have not had the opportunity to hear from me on the Bill previously. I apologise for not having intruded on previous debates, but I have listened to many of them.
I tabled Amendments 51A, 51B and 51C in pursuance of my continuing interest, over a number of years, in the exercise of prerogative powers and their relationship to parliamentary scrutiny. The combined effect of these three amendments would mean that any Order in Council that exercises a Henry VIII power—that is, to amend, repeal or revoke an Act—would be subject to affirmative procedure, instead of negative as proposed in the Bill, and that any other order, in other words not a Henry VIII power, would be subject to the negative procedure instead of no procedure.
These amendments reflect, and are in accordance with, the recommendations of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, which, in its 37th report on 13 November, said of the Henry VIII power in paragraph 17 that
“the Government has failed to provide a full explanation as to why the power … is subject to the negative procedure … We recommend that this power should be subject to the affirmative procedure”.
In relation to orders that are not of a Henry VIII power character, the committee went on to say:
“We recommend that the power in clause 5(1) when used to do anything other than amend, repeal or revoke an Act should be subject to the negative procedure”.
So my three amendments are intended precisely to deliver the recommendations of the DPRRC.
The Constitution Committee, in its 14th report, also drew attention to the provisions of Clause 5. It observed that Orders in Council that are made in relation to treaties are commonly made by way of the prerogative power—because treaties are made by the prerogative power—and with limited parliamentary scrutiny as a consequence. However, the committee did not dissent from the DPRRC’s recommendations in this case.
Orders in Council in relation to the British Indian Ocean Territories have historically been made by virtue of the prerogative. The terms of this agreement with Mauritius mean that that precedent no longer applies. Article 1 of the agreement recognises—or confers, depending on how you view it—sovereignty over the Chagos Archipelago, including Diego Garcia, to Mauritius. Therefore, the basis for the exercise of the prerogative power—in other words, the exercise of sovereignty over the territory—is no longer applicable. I shall go on to explain why I therefore disagree with my noble friend on the Front Bench in his argument for Amendment 33.
These provisions provide for the continuation of the law in Diego Garcia. This is in accordance with the agreement in relation to Article 9 on jurisdiction. It follows in my view that the future exercise of the prerogative is sanctioned by this legislation in relation to Diego Garcia and that, as a result, any Orders in Council made should be regarded as statutory orders and, as such, subject to parliamentary scrutiny. The Government have accepted that the orders that have Henry VIII powers should require a parliamentary procedure. They do not, however, provide for a parliamentary procedure for other Orders in Council.
Paragraph 48 of the Explanatory Notes says that this measure is in subsection (5) of Clause 5—in fact it is in subsection (6). The notes say that
“the intention is to maintain a clear distinction between prerogative and statutory orders”.
That is to be achieved, according to the Explanatory Notes, by stating that these powers are not exercised in pursuance of the Statutory Instruments Act 1946. This is a very curious place that we have arrived at, since the Government are disapplying the Statutory Instruments Act while at the same time requiring that Orders in Council that are made that have a Henry VIII power attached to them require parliamentary scrutiny and are therefore statutory orders.
Let me be clear about the argument behind my three amendments. The prerogative stems from the exercise of a sovereign jurisdiction, which in relation to the United Kingdom is exercised by the sovereign in Parliament. In other dominions where His Majesty is sovereign, other forms of sovereign powers may subsist, but this treaty and agreement with Mauritius states baldly, in Article 1, that His Majesty is not sovereign in Diego Garcia. No prerogative power can exist without being dependent on this legislation.
Subsection (6)(b), in excluding this legislation from the interpretation under the Statutory Instruments Act 1946, is incorrect. On Report, and in response to this debate, I will be asking Ministers to think very carefully about two things. First, I hope positively, I ask them to change the procedures for the parliamentary scrutiny of Orders in Council so that Henry VIII powers are dealt with by an affirmative procedure, and, secondly, that Orders in Council for any other purpose are dealt with by a negative procedure. I ask them also to think very carefully about the terms of Clause 5(6), which incorrectly seeks to disapply the Statutory Instruments Act 1946.
It follows from my argument that I do not agree with my noble friend on Amendment 33, and I am afraid that I do not agree with my noble friend Lord Lilley in relation to his Amendment 51BA. He goes further than the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee would in applying an affirmative procedure to Orders in Council that are not for a Henry VIII purpose. Neither can I support other opposition to clauses standing part, but I expect that my noble friend was rightly seeking to probe the meaning of Clauses 2, 3 and 5. Of course, if one were to remove them, one would effectively repudiate the treaty. That may or may not be his intention, but I do not propose to speak to the opposition to those clauses standing part.
Lord Lilley (Con)
My Lords, I am persuaded by the argument of the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, that his amendments are somewhat narrower but much more justified than my broader amendment. When the appropriate moment comes, I will not press my amendment and leave his standing.
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
In response to the desire of the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, that we are clearer in the Bill about what it does, I have read it a couple of times and honestly do not think that it could not be any clearer. It is a Bill to enact an agreement between the United Kingdom and the Republic of Mauritius concerning the Chagos Archipelago. I think that is sufficient, and if he does not, I am not sure what he is getting at.
The Government rejects Amendment 33 on the basis that the provision in question is not redundant. It is needed to ensure the secure and effective operation of the base. It ensures clarity on which law will apply through the jurisdiction that the UK will exercise under the treaty. Legal continuity and certainty for operations on the base once the British Indian Ocean Territory is dissolved is far from unnecessary.
Let me explain why we have Clause 3. This clause saves the law of BIOT, and law which relates to BIOT, as the law of Diego Garcia and law which relates to Diego Garcia. This has been done as the default, to ensure the continued effective running of the base on Diego Garcia and to make sure that there is no legal gap. Detailed work is being carried out to establish where technical amendments may be needed to this preserved law to reflect the new status of Diego Garcia. Diego Garcia is defined in Clause 3 as the whole area that the UK can exercise jurisdiction over, as covered in the treaty. This includes the island of Diego Garcia and the 12 nautical miles surrounding it. Preserving the existing prerogative power to legislate for Diego Garcia means that we can continue to operate the base and its legal architecture in much the same way that we do today, and it gives the maximum flexibility for the future.
Amendment 51, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, seems to be based on a misapprehension. As I mentioned in my response to the amendments related to Clause 3, His Majesty has a prerogative power to legislate for BIOT at present and Clause 3 preserves this power. It does not allow him to make laws for other parts of the realm about BIOT or Diego Garcia. If the noble Lord reads that clause of the Bill again, he will see that I am right about that.
The statutory power in Clause 5 is necessary to enable amendments to Acts and statutory instruments which form part of the law of Diego Garcia and amendments to legislation which forms part of the law of other jurisdictions—the UK Crown dependencies and the other OTs. These other jurisdictions have laws which refer to BIOT or treat it as one of the overseas territories. Amendments to those laws may be necessary to reflect the new status of Diego Garcia.
I see that the noble Lord, Lord Lansley—as is becoming classic in his contributions on these occasions—has read the report from the DPRRC. His Amendments 51A, 51B and 51C appear to seek to implement its recommendations. Amendment 51BA, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Lilley, appears to be less consistent with the recommendations—I think he has recognised that in his remarks—in that it would impose the affirmative procedure in respect not just of Orders in Council, which amend primary legislation, but of those which amend secondary legislation. Without showing too much leg so late at night, we are still considering these suggestions and we will return to them on Report. With that, I hope noble Lords will not press their amendments.
Lord Callanan (Con)
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, and others who contributed to this group. I am grateful to the noble Baroness for her reply to my amendments. I appreciate that they are technical and relate to the prerogative, but they are important none the less.
In essence, we seek to understand whether the Government believe that Clauses 3 and 5 will limit the prerogative in any way because as we see from the drafting of the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010, which we discussed earlier, this has effectively ended the Government’s adherence to the original Ponsonby rule. Statute is so often deficient when compared with convention. As in the case of the prerogative, statute should not limit the prerogative without very careful consideration.
I am grateful to the Minister for her reply. Given the complexity of these issues, I hope she will write to us to set out the impact of the Bill on the prerogative before we proceed to Report. In the meantime, I will, of course, study her reply in Hansard. Obviously, we reserve the right to return to any unresolved issues on Report.
Baroness Hoey
“Demographic study of the Chagossian peopleThe Secretary of State must produce a report projecting the population growth of the Chagossian people over the next 30 years, including their global diaspora, and the impact of this Act upon that projected growth, and assess the implications for international recognition of their national identity.”
Baroness Hoey (Non-Afl)
My Lords, as some comments were made on the previous day in Committee about how few Members there were on the Government Benches, I thought it might be nice to say how pleased I am to see so many tonight. I am sorry that the Lib Dems still have not produced many people, but anyway: it is very nice to see so many people.
Amendment 47 is a stand-alone amendment, which again does not really affect the security aspects of Diego Garcia or the treaty in the sense of changing it hugely. It asks the Secretary of State to
“produce a report projecting the population growth of the Chagossian people over the next 30 years, including their global diaspora, and the impact of this Act upon that projected growth, and assess the implications for international recognition of their national identity”.
One of the Government’s recent arguments for the treaty and the Bill is that the Americans want it. They have explained that the United States is troubled about having a military base on an island with contested sovereignty, and that it has said that until matters are resolved and there is legal certainty, it will not invest in the base. That is probably précising the argument. The Government argue that the treaty and the Bill will deliver the requisite legal certainty. The argument is based on the assumption, if this Bill becomes an Act and the Mauritius treaty can then be ratified, that all the legal uncertainties will be put to bed.
It is my contention in moving Amendment 47 that if this Act passes and the Mauritius treaty is ratified—two things I very much hope will still not happen—all that will happen is that one legal uncertainty will be replaced by another, and the Americans will have made no progress towards getting that certainty. Instead of the uncertainty arising from the Republic of Mauritius contesting United Kingdom sovereignty over the islands, we will be presented with the uncertainty that arises from the Chagossian people contesting the Republic of Mauritius’s sovereignty. I get the sense that, in removing the basis for Chagossians living in the United Kingdom to continue to enjoy British Overseas Territory citizenship after the passage of this Act, there is a desire to try to collapse Chagossian civic identity into British civic identity, to the extent that Chagossians reside in the UK, so that distinctive Chagossian civic identity disappears.
The truth, however, is that the identity of the Chagossian community in exile will not go away, resting as it does principally across three states: the United Kingdom, Mauritius and the Seychelles. The number of Chagossians is increasing and they are becoming more animated in their commitment to securing self-determination as a people defined, even in exile, by their relationship to their islands.
There is a sense that, until this point, the impact of the Chagossian identity in international relations has been somewhat muted, in that their desire is not to be returned to their islands to become a sovereign, independent state. The Chagossians who issued the statement of self-determination, who have written to us and whom we have met, were very clear on this point. Since they see themselves as connected to the UK, there has never been a need hitherto for them to assert their identity and seek international personality to claim the islands. This will change completely if the islands are transferred to the Republic of Mauritius. Even while the United Kingdom has shamefully failed to resettle the islands, they have remained under British sovereignty, which over 99% of well over 3,000 Chagossians are recorded as saying that they want. Obviously, they do not want things as they are at present, but to be resettled.
In this context, the contention of my amendment is that the Government and the United States of America need to think carefully about what is likely to happen to the Chagossians as a people in exile. I believe that, rather than allowing themselves to be absorbed into other countries, they will continue increasing in number and adopting an ever-stronger and more resilient identity, and that in times to come we will look back on this Bill and this treaty, if it goes through, as something that has made even more uncertainty over Diego Garcia. I beg to move.
Lord Hannan of Kingsclere (Con)
My Lords, I support the amendment moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey. It would be interesting not only to look at the future projections of the population of Chagossians but to have a proper, full-on demographic study of this unique people. We heard it asserted again by the Minister, in a very embarrassed and regretful tone, that there was no population and the people do not really exist, “This may not be my view but it is the view of the courts”, and so on. It is worth spending a moment reminding ourselves of who these people are, some of whom—to remind noble Lords opposite who have just turned up—are observing this debate.
There was a unique inheritance in the Chagos Archipelago. The population came from both directions: largely from Africa—from Madagascar, which has its own unique demographics, east Africa and Mozambique—as indentured labourers from the Indian subcontinent, from Bihar, Tamil Nadu, Bengal and Ceylon to some degree, and a little bit from France. This is reflected in a unique linguistic tradition. I have listened, over many years representing the part of Sussex where most British Chagossians live, to the Bourbonnais Creole. There is a kind of French spoken throughout the Indian Ocean, in the Seychelles and in Mauritius, but Chagossian French is clearly distinct. It is not simply a dialect of Mauritian French. There are very different words. For example, a boat is a “pirog” rather than a “bato”, and a net is a “lagoni” rather than a “rezou”. My apologies to any watching Chagossians for my pronunciation. There is a unique and distinctive oral tradition, rich in nautical metaphors and especially in longing, melancholy and a sense of exile.
In the grey and unpromising streets of Crawley—I mean no disrespect to Crawley, which is part of my old patch—people have worked to keep alive these old folkways and traditions. They are focused on the sense of longing and return. There are ritual incantations that mention the villages now lost. There are special celebrations and meals marking what was taken away. A sense of exile can become a central part of your identity as a people. We have seen it happen many times. I invite noble Lords to recall the words of Psalm 137:
“If I forget thee, O Jerusalem, Let my right hand forget her cunning …let my tongue cleave to the roof of my mouth, If I remember thee not”.
With every passing year, it becomes a stronger part of your identity as a people.
All this is by way of saying that the idea that once this treaty is signed and a couple of signatures are exchanged, the people of Chagos will forget their identity, blend happily into the Mauritian population and become just one more exiled group with no more prospect of returning home is an utter fantasy. We will have replaced a legalistic dispute with a much more visceral one, which will carry on for as long as there are people who still remember the noise of the surf and swell of the archipelago. Those people will press every future Government for their right to return not as Mauritian citizens but as what they are asking for now, Chagossians under British sovereignty. Eventually, they will get a Government who honour their wish.
The Earl of Leicester (Con)
My Lords, in this amendment, we are talking about a democratic study of the Chagossian people. However, I want to speak about a matter that has been mentioned briefly by my noble friend Lord Callanan and that goes to the very heart of democratic integrity and the dignity of an entire people.
I wish to address a survey issued by the House of Lords International Relations and Defence Committee that aims to capture
“Chagossian views on the Agreement with Mauritius concerning the Chagos Archipelago”.
This survey cannot be relied on. It is methodologically flawed, structurally careless, open to manipulation and in several aspects dangerously misleading. The Chagossian people, who have endured decades of dispossession, displacement and injustice, deserve far better than an instrument that falls short at every level.
First, on the technical design, the survey is hosted on Microsoft Forms, a rudimentary platform that any undergraduate research supervisor would reject for a project involving even minimal verification. There are no safeguards against duplicate submissions, no protection against cyber manipulation, no identity checks and no mechanism whatever to confirm whether a respondent is actually Chagossian. For a survey that concerns sovereignty, citizenship, resettlement and the legacy of one of the gravest forced removals in modern British history, this is astonishing. It leaves the process exposed to interference by anyone, anywhere, with any motive.
Unfortunately, that is not a theoretical risk. The survey still has a week to run, and we already have deeply troubling reports from Mauritius. There are claims, supported by video evidence which I have seen and direct testimonials, that Mauritian officials and intermediaries have been filling out the survey on behalf of Chagossians who cannot read English, cannot understand the political implications and cannot write their own responses.
Even more seriously, multiple Chagossians have told us that they oppose the agreement with Mauritius yet believe that they have been marked down as supporting it in this survey. If this is true, then a foreign Government are, in effect, interfering with a House of Lords committee’s evidence-gathering process. Not only does this compromise the validity of the survey but it threatens the independence and integrity of Parliament itself. Let us be absolutely clear: this is not a consultation but contamination.
Let me take your Lordships through some of the survey questions. It begins with text that states that:
“A new law implementing the Agreement is currently being debated … and members of the House of Lords want to hear … opinions … before voting on it”.
What it does not say—and very much ought to—is that this agreement is not yet in force, that ratification is required and that Parliament can still reject it. The omission is misleading and may lead many to believe the treaty is inevitable. When you are asking a displaced people about the fate of their homeland, clarity is not optional; it is essential.
The survey repeatedly instructs respondents not to provide any identifying information. At the same time, it allows anyone in the world to submit answers as many times as they like, with no checks. There is no way to confirm whether responses come from Chagossians, non-Chagossians, organised political activists or even automated submissions. I have personally seen a text message from a high-ranking Mauritius official stating:
“My guys in the Mauritian Government are”—
I will change the wording—very worried.
“They are planning for civil unrest when they cancel the tax cuts”.
It is clear what the Mauritians want. For a consultation that claims to express Chagossian views, this alone renders the entire exercise invalid.
Lord Callanan (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, for moving this amendment, my noble friend Lord Hannan for his excellent speech and my noble friend Lord Leicester, who also made some very good points.
Amendment 47, from the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, gets to the core of a problem that the Government have so far avoided. When we originally considered passing a Motion requiring the Government to consult the Chagossians, which the Government were totally against, Ministers resisted it, not only because they felt that a consultation might be subject to judicial review but because the challenge of defining the Chagossian community presented challenges.
We have heard throughout our debates on the treaty that the UK Government have mistreated the Chagossians, not least through their forced removal from the Chagos Archipelago. The Government have gone some way to recognising this through the establishment of the trust fund. Does the Minister consider the creation of the trust fund for the Chagossians as the end of the matter, or will her department continue to look at further ways to support the displaced Chagossian community?
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to produce a report projecting the population growth of the Chagossian people over the next 30 years and to assess the implications of the outcome of the report for recognition of their identity. If we are to properly support the Chagossian community, as we believe we should, it is important that the UK Government make a proper effort to understand the community, its growth over time and where Chagossians have chosen to live. Will the Minister take this on board and look closely at ways in which the UK Government can improve their understanding of the Chagossian community? I look forward to hearing her response.
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
My Lords, I have said repeatedly throughout these deliberations that the Government are very interested in thinking about different ways of working alongside the Chagossian community on these issues. That applies to Amendment 47 as well.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, asks the Government in her amendment to produce a report consisting of a demographic study of the Chagossian community. I am going to have to disappoint her this evening. It will not be possible to produce a useful report, at a cost to taxpayers, in time for it to do anything of consequence alongside this treaty. It is not a bad idea to have a report such as this, for many of the reasons that have been described. I would not be against it. What I am saying is that the responsibility for conducting the study does not belong in this Bill, but that does not mean it is a bad thing to do in principle. The noble Baroness will know, as we have heard most recently from the noble Earl, Lord Leicester, about the IDRC leading a report into the Chagossians, which I hope will be published soon. I hope that all these things will help to mitigate some of the noble Baroness’s concerns.
I saw that Jeremy Corbyn had also written to the noble Lord, Lord De Mauley, wo chairs the IRDC, which is responsible for the survey. It is not something that the Government are responsible for. We are looking forward to the results. We were asked what weight we put on the survey. It is for the committee to determine that. I am sure that it will take on board the comments that have been made by those who are concerned about how the survey has been conducted. I know that some Chagossians would be completely unable to access a survey such as this, for reasons of literacy or access to the means by which the survey is being conducted. I am sure that the committee will want to reflect on that. We certainly will when we receive its report. I look forward to it and hope that it is useful in assisting us to understand the complexity of opinion that exists within Chagossian communities.
On the substantive point that the noble Baroness raises, such a piece of work may well be useful, but I am not able this evening to commit the Government to commissioning it. With that, I hope that noble Lords will not press their amendments.
Baroness Hoey (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for that rather thoughtful answer. I note that she did not rule out what I said—that the Americans would still be seeing uncertainty in the future. I think that we will see that whatever happens in this Bill. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Lord Lilley
“Review: impact on nuclear treatiesWithin three months of the day on which this Act is passed, the Secretary of State must publish a review of the impact of this Act on the ability of the United Kingdom and Mauritius to comply with international treaties relating to nuclear weapons.”
Lord Lilley (Con)
My Lords, we are approaching the home straight now, which is good news. A lot of noble Lords have joined the debate at this stage. They will know that the Government attach great importance to adherence to international law. They will probably be aware that we have established that the International Court of Justice has no jurisdiction over disagreements between Commonwealth states and therefore none on our dispute with Mauritius about sovereignty, and that we have established that the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea has no power to rule on sovereignty.
However, there is a treaty which does apply to Mauritius and which no one disputes the existence or authority of, and that is the Pelindaba treaty. It was never mentioned in the early stages of the Government’s declarations about their need to cede sovereignty to Mauritius or their claim that doing so would increase the security of the base. But the Pelindaba treaty is one which the countries of Africa—and that includes Mauritius—signed, creating a nuclear-free zone. I do not think anyone disputes that if the Chagos Archipelago is recognised as part of Mauritius then the Pelindaba treaty will apply to the Chagos Archipelago, and therefore to the Diego Garcia base. It is significant that the Pelindaba treaty says it should be a nuclear-free zone and that therefore Diego Garcia will be nuclear-free.
It is important that we establish what that means. Does it mean that no nuclear weapons can ever be stored, based or transited through Diego Garcia? If so, does the United States know about this? What is their reaction to it? It is less clear whether or not it means that nuclear-powered vessels can use the facilities of Diego Garcia. My noble friend Lady Goldie’s amendment would make that clear, and her amendment is at least as important as mine in seeking to establish the truth of this.
Baroness Goldie (Con)
My Lords, my Amendment 88 in this group is very much in a similar vein to my earlier amendments, although I see I do not have the presence of my newly acquired fan—the noble Lord, Lord Kerr of Kinlochard—to encourage me. I seek reassurance that the
“unrestricted access, basing and overflight”
provisions in Annex 1(1)(a) of the agreement includes the right of the UK to allow nuclear-propelled vessels and nuclear-armed vessels and aircraft to enter the sea and airspace of Diego Garcia.
Although not in the amendment, the annexe of the treaty referred to also specifically covers the United States of America, and, for the avoidance of doubt, I include it in the confirmation I seek from the Secretary of State in this amendment. Again, I am asking that this be confirmed by the Secretary of State before the Bill can come into force. In this respect, I am perhaps baring my teeth more than my noble friend Lord Lilley, which is a rather unusual situation.
As my noble friend Lord Lilley pointed out, Mauritius is a party to the Pelindaba treaty, which establishes the African continent as a nuclear-weapon-free zone. This prohibits the research, development, manufacture, stockpiling, acquisition, testing, possession, control or stationing of nuclear weapons in any signatory state. Article 7 of the Mauritius treaty states that both Mauritius and the United Kingdom confirm that no
“existing international obligations or arrangements … conflict with the provisions of this Agreement, and that nothing in this Agreement shall affect the status of existing international obligations or arrangements except as expressly provided for in this Agreement”.
Annex 1 of the treaty states that the United Kingdom retains
“unrestricted ability to … control the … deployment of armed operations and lethal capabilities”.
Nuclear weapons are lethal capabilities. So Britain and the United States must, as per the terms of the treaty, have an unrestricted ability, surely, to house nuclear weapons or to dock nuclear submarines at the base on Diego Garcia should we choose to do so. Yet that would appear to require an express provision in this treaty, and I cannot find it.
Article 7(3) appears to seek to allay those concerns, but I would welcome an absolute clarification from the Minister. Will Mauritius’s membership of the Pelindaba treaty prevent us basing Vanguard-class submarines or, in the future, nuclear-armed aircraft, or the United States stationing any nuclear weapons at the base on Diego Garcia? That is a question that I require answered. This cannot be left in doubt—hence my requirement that the Secretary of State publish a statement to confirm the matters I have raised before this Bill comes into force, so that everyone is clear about what the UK and the US can or, perhaps more alarmingly, cannot do. As my noble friend Lord Lilley commented, although they are not directly covered by the Pelindaba treaty, my amendment also makes reference to nuclear-propelled vessels and, for the avoidance of doubt, I seek reassurance that Mauritius would not take exception to that. I look forward to the Minister’s response.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Lord Coaker) (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Lilley, and the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, for their amendments. I appreciate that they have questions about how the treaty protects the full operation of the base, and I want to reassure them that the treaty enables the continued operation of the base to its full capability. The treaty and the Bill we are debating today will have zero impact on the day-to-day business on Diego Garcia. Importantly, it will not reduce our ability to deploy the full range of advanced military capabilities to Diego Garcia. I am putting some of this on the record, and the noble Baroness, as a former Defence Minister, will know the careful calibration of the language that I am using: I am putting it on the record so that we are all clear.
As I say, noble Lords will understand that I pick my words with care in this particular context. I cannot and will not discuss operational matters on the Floor of this place, but I am confident that the Chamber would not necessarily want me to. The long-standing UK position of neither confirming nor denying the location or presence of nuclear weapons must stand. But let us talk about the hypothetical. The amendments from the noble Lord, Lord Lilley, and the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, concern the application of the Pelindaba treaty. Mauritius is a signatory, as the noble Lord, Lord Lilley, and the noble Baroness said, to the treaty. The UK is not a signatory to the treaty but is a signatory to Protocols 1 and 2. I can confirm to the Chamber that the Governments of the UK and Mauritius are both satisfied that the Diego Garcia treaty is compatible with these existing obligations.
I also remind colleagues, because this is important—again, I think the noble Lord, Lord Lilley, if I remember rightly from his remarks, and, indeed, the noble Baroness raised this—that we are not alone in the matter. The Government of the United States have also tested all aspects of the Diego Garcia treaty in depth and at the highest levels of the security establishment. They, too, are satisfied that it protects the full operation of the base. Indeed, when I was talking about the earlier amendments in answer to that, I quoted the remarks of Secretary of State Marco Rubio and his comments about being satisfied with the treaty in every aspect.
Amendments 63 and 88 therefore are not necessary. We do not need a review of the impacts of nuclear treaties on the future operation of the base, as the noble Lord, Lord Lilley, has proposed, because the future operation of the base has been protected. I say to the noble Baroness that we do not need to reopen paragraph 1.a of Annex 1 to the treaty, as has been suggested, because this already provides for unrestricted—that is the key word—access for UK and US vessels to enter the sea of Diego Garcia. Paragraph 1.b.i provides for unrestricted ability to control the conduct and deployment of lethal capabilities.
Baroness Goldie (Con)
I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. I do of course understand the sensitivity of not discussing operational activity in a public domain. However, if I revert to the Minister’s understandable reliance on what I described at Second Reading as that “huge protection” in Article 1, that is explicitly in contradiction with Article 7(1). Article 7(1) says expressly with reference to international obligations or arrangements that, if they are not to be obtempered or agreed to, that must be provided for in this agreement. That is the dilemma that is perplexing my noble friend Lord Lilley and myself. We seem to have on the face of this treaty a self-evident contradiction.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
I understand the point that the noble Baroness is making. What I am saying to her is that the Government of Mauritius, the Government of the UK and the Government of the US see no contradiction in what the treaty says, and explicitly lays out, in respect of the ability of Diego Garcia to operate in the way that it has always done, with the lethal capabilities as outlined elsewhere in the Bill.
I hope that is helpful to the noble Lord, Lord Lilley, and the noble Baroness as reassurance that the situation will stay the same as it is now. As I have said, all those three parties to that treaty are confident that that remains the case.
I will say, however, that, although resisting the amendments, I am grateful that they were tabled. They are really important amendments to have made in order for the Government to have put on the record important elements of the treaty and the Bill. We have been able to clarify for the Chamber, and for those who read our proceedings, that the position that we would all want to see will continue with respect to Diego Garcia and that the full capabilities will be maintained.
Let me be absolutely clear: the full operational use of the base is protected to ensure that the base is able to continue in every way that it always has done. I hope that is helpful. On the basis of the reassurances that I have made and the comments that I have put on the record, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Lilley, will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Lilley (Con)
That is very helpful and I entirely respect what the Minister says. He is a man of obvious integrity and commitment to the defence of this country. I am comforted that he is speaking for the Government, and therefore that the Government will maintain the freedom to use the Diego Garcia base to its full capabilities. I am not persuaded that that is necessarily in line with the Pelindaba treaty. That does not worry me so much. It may worry the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hermer, or any future Lord Hermer in Mauritius, but let us hope that they will be ignored. So I will, of course, withdraw my amendment.
Lord Purvis of Tweed
“UK–Mauritius Inter-parliamentary Committee(1) Upon the passage of this Act, a Minister of the Crown must engage with the Government of the Republic of Mauritius with a view to establishing a UK-Mauritius Inter-parliamentary Committee to oversee the implementation and operation of the Treaty.(2) In undertaking the engagement required by subsection (1), the Minister of the Crown must make representations that the composition of the Inter-parliamentary Committee should reflect equal representation from the parliaments of the United Kingdom and the Republic of Mauritius, and that its purpose should be to promote mutual understanding of the provisions of the Treaty through dialogue and debate, including consideration of the operation of the Joint Commission established under Article 12 of the Treaty.(3) The Minister of the Crown must further propose that the Inter-parliamentary Committee’s responsibilities include—(a) monitoring and assessing the implementation and operation of the Treaty;(b) evaluating the recognition and protection of Chagossian rights, including but not limited to—(i) the right of return,(ii) the right to self-determination, and(iii) access to compensation, resettlement, or other forms of support;(c) considering the welfare, integration, and general needs of Chagossians residing in the United Kingdom;(d) assessing progress made in negotiations between the Governments of the United Kingdom and Mauritius relating to the rights of Chagossians; and(e) reviewing any financial arrangements made under the Treaty, including those supporting resettlement, welfare, or the development of the Chagossian community.(4) If the Inter-parliamentary Committee described in subsection (1) is established, within five years of the commencement of the Treaty the Inter-parliamentary Committee must be invited to conduct a review of the operation and effectiveness of the Treaty arrangements.”
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
My Lords, I shall speak also to Amendment 82, which is consequential upon Amendment 80. As the Minister referred to before, Amendment 80 had attracted some flattering imitation yesterday, but nevertheless I hope that we might be able to see progress on what I would consider to be a serious proposal to address some of the concerns that have been raised very sincerely. As the noble Lord, Lord Jay, said earlier, we have a lot of history to make good, and I agree.
This has been an unusual Committee stage of a Bill in many respects. Perhaps it is because this legislation and the treaty that it is connected to will have, unlike some other legislation that we often might consider to be indirect, a direct impact on people’s lives. They are a defined but diverse group of individuals who have been in touch with many noble Lords. Therefore, I believe that we have an obligation to treat this seriously. In Committee, there have been many passionate, but also proper and probing, questions on how the terms of the treaty will operate and how UK interests will also continue to be represented. We have just heard that from the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, and we heard it earlier from the noble Lord, Lord Ahmad.
Amendment 80 in my name is a proposition for an ongoing inter-parliamentary committee for the duration of the treaty. The Minister mentioned before that she felt it was perhaps a novel response. It is not entirely novel; there are precedents which I have based this on. There have been quite frequently free trade agreements that had parliamentary committees associated with them. There is the EFTA agreement, which the UK had been part of. There was the AWEPA for our African partners in parliaments, which we had been part of. There is doubt from many about how critical parts of the treaty negotiated by this Government will be handled, both by the UK and the Mauritian Governments, and operate through the commission.
We have heard many references today to the deeply flawed Constitutional Reform and Governance Act. It was fascinating for me to listen to this debate, because this House in 2021 passed a Motion—it happened to be in my name—about the ability for Parliament to have a straight up-and-down vote on treaties. The House passed an amendment to the then Trade Bill which stated that negotiating objectives or before-treaty negotiations would have to be presented to both Houses, and the House of Commons would have an opportunity to vote on those. I believe that those aspects would have been beneficial for this treaty. I think the noble Lord, Lord Hannan, forgot that he voted against that, so I am happy to remind him, just for the record, that on the latter part—on the first part, he was not in the House—in one of his very first votes in this House, he was against what he has been arguing so passionately for today.
Lord Hannan of Kingsclere (Con)
My point is that there has not been a vote in the other place, so the only proper chance is here.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
No, the case that the noble Lord was making passionately was about the faults in the CRaG process, and I agree with him about that. It is just that if he had not had his view, with his noble friends, in 2021, we would have had the enhanced processes for treaty scrutiny.
However, we are we are because the current Government were supportive of changing the CRaG process for up-down votes on treaties, and now they are against. The Opposition, who had been against then, are now in favour of it. It probably has to do with whoever is sitting on the government side of the House, rather than the opposition side, but we are where we are now. The issue is how we go forward, to some extent. That is not denying that there is still Report stage, and there will still be divisions potentially, but I wanted to flag at this stage, in Committee, the proposal to try to address some of the major concerns.
Before briefly addressing that specific part of the amendment, I want to put something on record, as there have been quite a few allusions today to the notion that the negotiations on this treaty were halted by the previous Administration. In a letter to the Foreign Affairs Committee from the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Chipping Norton, on 5 April 2024—just seven weeks before the Dissolution of Parliament—he reaffirmed that negotiations were ongoing and that questions on the future administration of the islands were subject to the ongoing bilateral negotiations between the UK and Mauritius. He also said in the letter:
“We will continue to update Chagossians as negotiations progress”.
The negotiations were ongoing at the time of the election. It is worth stating that on the record, because there has been quite a bit of misleading information today. It is interesting that the Foreign Affairs Committee had been making the case since 2008 for a strong moral case for resettlement. That was denied again in the letter from the Foreign Secretary in April 2024.
We have a moral duty to try to ensure that, whatever circumstances arise from the parliamentary proceedings, we have a mechanism by which we allow the Chagossian community to be represented. Through Amendment 80, my proposal is for an inter-parliamentary committee, with MPs from the Republic of Mauritius and MPs from the UK forming a committee for the duration of the treaty. We know, and I agree with much of what has been said today, that trust is low to non-existent among many in the Chagossian community and suspicion is very high. I acknowledge all of that. A means by which that can perhaps be addressed as the treaty is implemented, if it is brought into force, is one where UK and Mauritian parliamentarians, through dialogue, debate and mutual understanding, can observe and scrutinise their respective Executives. Back in their Parliaments, they can scrutinise how the treaty is operating, the implementation of the treaty, whether rights of return are being implemented, the right to self-determination as understood in customary international law, and access to compensation, resettlement and other forms of support.
The commission in the treaty is executive but this would add a parliamentary oversight function, which I believe would be of value. I hope that the amendment will receive cross-party support. I am open to discussing its particular wording, but I hope that the principle will receive support. We owe a moral duty to that community for ongoing representations to address their concerns and suspicions. I therefore beg to move Amendment 80.
Lord Callanan (Con)
My Lords, this is the last group of amendments in Committee. I am delighted to see so many noble Lords opposite taking a close interest in the Bill and what it will do to the Chagossian people. I am delighted that they are taking an interest in what their Government are finally doing to the Chagossians.
I have already spoken to my noble friend Lord Lilley’s amendments, which are similar in drafting to those of the noble Lord, Lord Purvis of Tweed. I must say that I prefer my noble friend’s amendments to his Amendments 80 and 82, principally because they include reference to a referendum of the Chagossians. My noble friend the Earl of Leicester has talked about how deficient the current survey being undertaken by the International Agreements Committee is. I think that we could greatly improve on that, but the best mechanism would be simply to hold a referendum of the Chagossians asking them whether they approve of this treaty.
I know that the Liberal Democrats were previously very supportive of a referendum, but, despite criticising the position of my party, this amendment implies that they may not now be so supportive. I hope to see information to the contrary from the noble Lord, Lord Purvis. His amendment also differs from my noble friend Lord Lilley’s, in that it would apparently come into force after the treaty, whereas that of my noble friend would come into operation beforehand, which seems much more appropriate. I am of course happy to take up the offer of the noble Lord to discuss the wording of amendments because, as is so often the case in your Lordships’ House, we bring about improvements to a Bill only if we work together. I am certainly prepared, from my point of view, to work with him on the drafting of these amendments. I hope my noble friend Lord Lilley would be involved as well, so we can get them into a form where we can support them on Report and ask the Government to move on this.
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, for the considered and balanced contribution that he has made throughout the Bill but particularly on his Amendment 80. The amendment is interesting, and I understand the effect that he is seeking to achieve. It is a welcome addition to our debate today. As I said to the noble Lord, Lord Lilley, earlier, I will also take Amendment 81K into consideration in the comments that I am about to make.
The proposal put forward by the noble Lord is a novel one. I could not recall any examples of where there have been joint committees set up between different legislatures in this way, but the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, mentioned some, and I will reflect on those to see whether there is anything we can glean from them that might be useful.
The noble Lord, Lord Purvis, has made some changes to his amendment, but, unfortunately, we still cannot accept it in its current form today. The structure is not something that the treaty with Mauritius was drafted to contemplate. Of course, there is nothing to prevent parliamentarians in the UK engaging with their equivalents in Mauritius on these matters, but we do not see this as being a matter for domestic legislation in the way that we are considering it at the moment because, obviously, that does not have any effect on what the Mauritians themselves do.
Some elements in the noble Lord’s proposed scope for a joint parliamentary commission seem to be very much for the UK alone, so we could look at them. The Government are committed to building a relationship with the Chagossian community that is based on respect. As noble Lords will be aware, we have established a Chagossian contact group to give Chagossians a formal role that shapes decision-making on the UK Government’s support for their community. We are also providing additional support to build the capacity of community groups so that more are eligible for grants.
There are two elements in the amendment that are an issue for the Government and that we will disagree on at the moment, and those are the right to self-determination and compensation. On self-determination, we have been over this several times in this House and in the other place. To put it simply and plainly, in legal terms no question of self-determination applies. The English courts, noting the conclusion of the ICJ in the 2019 advisory opinion, have proceeded on the basis that the relevant right to self-determination in the context of BIOT was that of Mauritius. On compensation, again it is legally the case that the UK paid compensation to the Chagossians in the 1980s and the English courts in a series of judgments and the European Court of Human Rights have ruled that this settled the claims definitively.
Having said all that, I recognise and understand the noble Lord’s intentions and his determination with this amendment. He has been consistent about arguing along these lines throughout our consideration of this Bill, and I suggest that we meet to discuss his amendment in more detail to see if we can find a way to move this forward ahead of Report. With that, I hope that for today he would be happy to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
My Lords, I am glad there are so many witnesses who saw my ability to bring the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, and the Minister together with some form of consensus at the end of this Committee. I am grateful for both the noble Lord’s and the Minister’s responses. She will know that I have been keen to see the areas where we can move towards formalisation and a degree of statutory underpinning for some structures of ongoing representation, because this is a special case. Even if it was novel—I am sure officials will now be studying all the examples I have given; by the time we get to Report I will try to find some more—I believe it is justified, given the circumstances are in. I am grateful for the willingness to discuss this. There are ongoing debates on the particular aspects the Minister said she had difficulty with. I will happily give way to the noble Lord.
Lord Callanan (Con)
I was just going to give him another example, not at British level but at the European level. There is of course the ACP-EU Joint Parliamentary Assembly, which has Members of the European Parliament and all the representatives of the African, Caribbean and Pacific countries.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
I am grateful. We have even got some good elements of Brexit incorporated in this debate as well, so we are on a roll. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw, on the basis that we will be returning to this to have what I hope will be constructive discussions with the Minister.