Live Debate: Lords Chamber

Debate: UK and Republic of Mauritius agreement concerning the Chagos Archipelago, including the Diego Garcia military base, and (if necessary) associated report from the Lords International Agreements Committee

**** Possible New Speaker ****

There There are There are three There are three motions There are three motions to There are three motions to be

15:22

Lord Callanan (Conservative)

- -

debated together, and agreement between the UK and Mauritius on the Chagos Archipelago.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I rise to move the motion standing in my name on the order paper. Let me start by saying how paper. Let me start by saying how much I am looking forward to hearing the maiden speech this afternoon of my noble friend, Baroness Prentice. And with more sadness, the valedictory speech of my noble valedictory speech of my noble friend Lord Boswell. Before I speak friend Lord Boswell. Before I speak to the motion I think it's worth reflecting for a moment on the fairly remarkable fact that this fairly remarkable fact that this debate today is actually the only opportunity that parliament will have two express its view on this have two express its view on this treaty, under the procedure established by the Constitutional established by the Constitutional reform and governance act.

Whilst that actor placed Parliament's role in treaty ratification on the statute book, by convention Parliament has had a role in the Parliament has had a role in the ratification of treaties now for over a century. Under the Ponsonby over a century. Under the Ponsonby rule, the House of Commons should be given the opportunity to debate a substantive motion on a treaty when substantive motion on a treaty when it is laid before Parliament, where there is a former request in the normal channels.

This precedent was confirmed by The Right Honourable Chris Bryant MP, the Minister taking the crag act through the House of Commons in 2010. During the committee stage on 19 January he confirmed, "The government would always make sure that where a debate and a vote were requested they would be made available within the allotted time, or if they were not we would extend the time in order to extend that provision". Like so many of our conventions, this is yet another that has been chucked in the dustbin by this government who have in fact refused to allow time for a substantive motion in the other place on this very important treaty.

I wonder if it is such a good deal, one wonders why the government are so reluctant to allow MPs to even discuss it. It is therefore only this House who will be able to send a message to the government on this treaty. I know noble Lords rightly think long and hard before disagreeing with the other place, but it looks as though we don't need to concern ourselves with such precedents on this occasion. What we are discussing today is frankly an astonishing act of national self- harm.

Let us be under no illusion, the deal the government have agreed to is a strategic capitulation. We are preparing to hand over sovereign British territory, territory that has been under continuous British control for over two centuries, and as if that were not embarrassing enough the British taxpayer is being asked to pay £30 billion for this privilege. The British Indian Ocean Territory, in particular Diego Garcia, is of immense geopolitical importance. It is a key to our defence and intelligence interests in a region increasingly contested by authoritarian powers.

And yet, astonishingly the government is now preparing to seed sovereignty to Mauritius. The island of Mauritius is 2,000 km away from the Chagos Islands, and they have never exercised any jurisdiction over the territory. Yet they now stand to gain significant influence in our vital defence and foreign security policies. This is not pragmatic foreign policy, it is a surrender orchestrated by international lawyers and signed off by a Prime Minister who seems to be incapable of acting in the true interests of Britain abroad.

The government's approach to the Chagos Archipelago is not rooted in strategic perpetuation, nor the long-term stability of the region. It seems to be given by a relentless desire to virtue signal on the world stage at the behest of activist lawyers who have no intention of putting Britain's interests first. The government's motivations are ideological driven and the Prime Minister in my view is been strategically reckless. Prime Minister's have tried to make the case that this agreement is somehow legally necessary.

But it now becomes increasingly clear, not least through some of the evidence given to your Lordships international agreements committee that there are in fact a range of views from senior lawyers on this views from senior lawyers on this matter. I know noble friends Lord Wilson will address more of the legal aspects in his speech later. For now I will merely say this government seems to almost constantly hide behind legal advice, but at some point Ministers must take responsibility for the decisions they've made.

We should stand firm, defend our territory and interests, and ultimately our credibility on the international stage. When trying to justify this treaty, Labour Ministers have consistently tried to claim that they were merely completing a process begun by the last government. This is simply not the case. After initial discussions between officials in December 2023, when my noble friend Lord Cameron was Foreign Secretary, talks on this matter were put on hold after it was concluded this would not be ideal in which British national interests would be served.

Indeed, Lord Cameron at the time told the foreign affairs Select Committee, "We face a very insecure and dangerous world and there is a need to maintain our security and strengthen our alliances to protect ourselves, and we should think of Diego Garcia in that context". That was our approach. Pragmatism, realism and responsibility. Not the current government's program of virtue signalling and posturing. I know my noble friend is Lord Ahmad was very close to this issue as a Minister in the FCDO, I'm pleased he will contribute to the debate later today.

One of the most astonishing things about this deal is the fact that British taxpayers are paying for it. Paying to surrender sovereignty, paying to embarrass ourselves on the international stage. Given the state of the public finances, I should have thought this alone would be a red line for this government. Securely given their recent difficulties getting there backbenchers to cut any spending at all. The Minister insists we have no money to pay for disability benefits, and until the latest U- turn not enough money for Winter Fuel Payment's for pensioners.

The government have somehow found the means to shell out £30 billion for the pleasure of giving away reddish territory. This is the equivalent of 1.5 black holes, or it could finance 5,500 more nurses a year every year. The Mauritian finance Minister has helpfully told us what Mauritius are going to do with their fortunate windfall. They are apparently going to cut taxes and pay off the national debt, and good luck to them. We know that some of the cashews being taken from the Ministry of Defence funds, but some of it is also coming from the already severely reduced ODA budget.

Although so far the government have refused to tell exactly how much. Last week during Oral Questions members from all parts of the House expressed their concerns about the effect of reductions in ODA on things like infant vaccinations. So this indeed is another one of the tough choices the government keeps telling us they are having to make. The Exchequer is making cuts in the UK to fund tax reductions in Mauritius. The long-suffering taxpayer should not suffer the consequences of Labour's dramatically bad negotiating skills.

The fact that this territory is being ceded is frankly obscene, the fact we are paying for it makes it a farce. I'm sure the noble Lord the Minister in his concluding remarks will say that we are being The Opposition for the sake of being the opposition. But before he finishes scribbling down his response might I remind him that this agreement is just as unpopular on his own benches. The greatly respected noble Lord West, sadly not in his place today, has rightly and powerfully criticised the government for their decision to seed our territory in this way.

The noble Lord said, "For reasons that are difficult to fathom the government risks jeopardising both of these assets as it apparently remains determined to cede sovereignty of the Chagos Islands the home of our vital Diego Gosia military base to Mauritius, surrendering sovereignty to the Chagos Islands would be an irresponsible and that we put our strategic interests and the interests of our closest allies in interests of our closest allies in What this underscores What this underscores is What this underscores is known simply a party political matter, but a national matter and one in which many people are agreed is a national disgrace.

We cannot overlook the fact that any deal so roundly criticised, some of the very few words of welcome have come from China. In contrast to what the PM told the House of Commons, this of course is hardly a surprise. One of the so-called judges that reduce the original ICJ advisory opinion was a Chinese, supporter of the Russian invasion of Ukraine. Such as is love of international law. China's ambassador to Mauritius told guests at the Chinese embassy at the end of May that her government offered "massive congratulations on the deal " and that China fully supports Mauritius's attempts to safeguard their sovereignty.

She confirmed measures would soon join Bejing Belt and Road Initiative. Course they are. We are bending over backwards to appease the Chinese Communist Party judge when of course we know China itself pays no heed whatsoever to any judgements on its policy in the South China Sea's war over Hong Kong. When China starts welcoming British defence of foreign policy doesn't this suggest that somehow something in that policy is perhaps not quite in our national interest? Because we can't ignore the growing threat that the Chinese Communist Party poses to our national security, to global stability, and in many cases to its own.

From industrial scale espionage and economic coercion abroad to the systematic repression of Uighurs and the dismantling of freedoms in Hong Kong and at home. China's actions increasingly defy the norms of a rules-based international order. It's deepening partnerships with autocratic regimes and its facility to democratic values only compound these risks. It is this regime that had been one of the few to support the British Government decision on this matter. In this context, is it not just ill-advised but actively against our national interest to cede control, even indirectly, of sovereign British territory to any arrangement that can open the door to increased Chinese influence.

We should not be blind to the geopolitical consequences of our decisions. One of the many concerning aspects of this treaty is annex one, part two. This requires the UK to "expeditiously inform Mauritius of any armed attack on a state directly emanating from the base on Diego Garcia". Already of course lawyers are debating whether this means we must inform Mauritius in advance of any attack. And I wonder whether, how this would have worked last week if the US had wished to use Diego Garcia for their actions in Iran.

Perhaps that's why they didn't ask the question. How would any notification be kept confidential if the motion government disagreed, at the very least I suspect this interpretation of that particular clause will provide plenty more lucrative work for its international lawyer cheerleaders. Under another clause we also have to provide notification to Mauritius of " any access basing and overflight for non-UK and non-US aircraft and vessels" that provision states that we can only give permission " upon notification to Mauritius".

Again that can be interpreted as needing to get permission in advance. Has the government given any thought whatsoever to how these clauses will work in a potentially fast moving international crisis? I suspect they haven't. There is another group I haven't spoken about but their views are one of the most important factors the government should take into account. They are the costume people who have been treated disgracefully in this ongoing saga. disgracefully in this ongoing saga. -- The trigger -- the Chagos people.

The government may have closed their ears to these people, your Lordship's House has the opportunity to say today that we at least are listening to them. When the noble Lord the Minister response to our debate I hope you will be able to hurl us what consultation the government have undertaken with them. I understand the Foreign Secretary had never met any of them until after the treaty was concluded. Therefore will the government consider holding a referendum of the Chagossians before ratifying the treaty.

Finally among any other concerning aspects of the treaty that is the issue of the current marine protected area. This currently includes for fish and is one of the largest and most important in the world, and over 640,000 km. It is a blue jewel in our crown as it were. We have no idea what will happen to that in the future. We do however have the words of the Mauritian fisheries minister. He said earlier this year " what stops me tomorrow to say that I'm going to give fish and licences for any fishing trawler company or any vessel to go to any part of Chagos.

The fish and to bring the catch to be landed at our port. We have the authority, the moral authority, legal authority, legitimate authority to fish in our exclusive economic zone ". There will be a tremendous economic incentive for a relatively pure country such as Mauritius to exploit the fishing opportunities in those areas. -- Relatively poor. What is before us today is not a strategic in balancing not a moral reckoning. It is a self-inflicted blow to Britain's global standing will stop this agreement amounts to a retreat, a surrender of sovereign territory, that serves as a linchpin of advance architecture at a time when authoritarian threats are rising and alliances matter more than ever.

Handing control to a government that aligns itself ever more closely with Beijing, regime that actively undermines international norms, and our national interests, is not only unwise, it is positively dangerous. To compound the error but is taxpayers being made to foot the bill. This whole affair has been a gross folly. There is no staging again here, a credible guarantee for the future of Diego Garcia and no reassurance for our allies. Is that we send a message to adversaries and allies alike that British sovereignty is indeed negotiable.

It is computation and we must reject

**** Possible New Speaker ****

it. -- It is capitulation. The question is that this motion

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is that this motion be agreed to. First of all I thank the Minister

**** Possible New Speaker ****

First of all I thank the Minister for open way where we have had discussions since the agreement was discussions since the agreement was laid before Parliament and put on record my thanks to Baroness Chapman for her willingness to host for her willingness to host briefings in the department also. But I commend the international agreement committee and the international relations and events committee of this House for their committee of this House for their work and the extremely helpful work and the extremely helpful findings and recommendations that they have made.

So far they haven't been referred to but no doubt we will hear more in the next will hear more in the next contribution. I will reiterate what I have said on many previous occasions, that the clerks and particular the International particular the International Agreements Committee so Parliament with distinction, they do carry out with distinction, they do carry out a vital role for this House but it is for Parliament as a whole. I look is for Parliament as a whole. I look forward to the contributions of my noble friends Baroness Ludford and noble friends Baroness Ludford and Lord Alderdice, with experience and perspective that they bring and thank my noble friends on the respective committees for their consideration.

I am looking forward to Baroness Prentis 's maiden speech and I also thank Lord Boswell for his many years of very distinguished service, in particular as chair of the House as European Union Committee stop I have to say that I

15:40

Lord Purvis of Tweed (Liberal Democrat)

- -

congratulate them both on securing the family handover with such the family handover with such eloquent position today. If the usual channels file and one thing they have succeeded in another for they have succeeded in another for this debate. I want to consider three mains areas in my remarks. First the circumstances of what led us to this debate today, secondly us to this debate today, secondly the treaty itself and the issues it raises and why there needs to be further consideration of some of further consideration of some of them.

And third what we as House should do going forward including why the motion in my name has been tabled, and should I hope we tabled, and should I hope we supported. We are here today because of the decision by the previous Conservative government on third Conservative government on third November, 2022, to " begin negotiations on the life of negotiations on the life of sovereignty over the British into -- Indian territory, Chagos Archipelago Indian territory, Chagos Archipelago It specifically referred to " taking into account relevant legal proceedings and the intention to proceedings and the intention to secure and agreement on the basis of international law to resolve all international law to resolve all outstanding issues including those relating to the form inhabitants of the Chagos Archipelago ".

That statement which now apparently is obscene, dangerous, self-harm, a surrender, was by noble Lord Lord Hannan 's government. This was a major change of policy so if the benches on my right are in doubt about this, it was a change of policy because the position was " an eye quote from a written answer, from the previous government, "there are no current plans for discussions with the government of motions on the future of the Chagos Islands". On March trajectory, weeks before the policy change, I quote " the UK has no doubt about it sovereignty over the British Indian Ocean Territory and on Mauritius I quote "we do not recognise its claim however we stand by our, and first made in 1965 to cede sovereignty when it is no longer needed ".

Since the government still needed it for defence purposes, but made the decision in November that year to open negotiations to seek sovereignty, the change of policy significant. The treaty is a consequence of now completing the previous Conservative government's policy. Some who agreed with them disagree with our. But that does not change the fact that the Conservatives made a major change of policy to cede sovereignty and to do it under the context of the International Court of Justice decisions.

This was also a major legal decision, as up to change of policy in 2022, 870, the government relied on their previous argument of 1965 agreement to separate the archipelago was held to be legally binding by the UN Convention of the law of the seas, an arbitrary tribunal. This was therefore reversed and the relevant legal proceedings referred to was the process of the ICJ who had responded to the request by the noted nations General Assembly for a determination on the lawfulness of decolonisation and had reported the advisory opinion in 2019.

We know that it was found in the opinion that decolonisation was not completed lawfully and the General Assembly responded to the advisory opinion by adopting resolution 73 and the General Assembly responded to the advisory opinion by adopting resolution 73.295 on 22nd of May and the General Assembly responded to the advisory opinion by adopting resolution 73.295 on 22nd of May 2019. In this debate some noble Lords may delve deeper into previous history, they may challenge the ICJ opinion. Which I'm sure noble Lords have dreadfully.

It gives a clear factual history and some of it I have to be frank makes very uncomfortable reading. Others may appoint on the ICJ mechanisms and the opinion and the associated General Assembly resolutions, it is their right to do so, but none of that will change the fact of the November 2022 decision of the Conservative government. So we have established previous government decided to have nice in principle the case for the exercise of sovereignty by Mauritius over the archipelago and have pursued this over many rounds of discussions on the terms of bilateral relations going forward, on how defence and security interests would be maintained.

We may hear in the debate that because as a result of African 11 attempts there was no agreement. But that was not changing the view of the principal of ceded sovereignty, that was no agreement on the actual terms. There's a difference. So we have settled that and we can now turn to the terms before considering the position we should take on them. The question of does a deal with efficiencies negate principle of sovereignty, well no assets recognised. The issues are the imprecations of it, its application, and the protection of Chagossian rights under it.

One implication presented is whether the treaty raises questions on other overseas territories. The IAC addressed this in paragraph 26 and that the agreement would not have any direct read across. The asset implication is the question as to whether this limits our security or defence. The committee concluded none of it witnesses heard contested the view that the treaty will not force along as it remains in force materially change the ability of the UK and the US to operate the base at Diego Garcia.

We now know the United States agrees. Maintaining protection of the marine protection of the marine In 2010 the UK declared 614,000 m of water around the territory, some of the most bio on the planet. I know the committee welcomed the assurance that we will work closely with the Mauritian government to establish a well resourced marine patrolled area. The committee added we consider a vital and appropriate portion of the annual development grant funding is allocated towards projects to support the new MPA.

I hope the government agrees with that. It makes the case for more financial scrutiny, and I agree. Colleagues on my right it's worth putting on record, because the noble Lord forgot to, when he was a Minister it was his department with the largest dispersal of overseas aid to Mauritius. We thank him for his work. It is also the case that the financial provisions of this are of a larger scale. And it is necessary for further clarity and details on this.

The government should have been and should now be more transparent, including the basis for establishing funds in article 11. But a critical part now is the recognition and restoration of rights to the diverse Chagossian community. I note 11 June call from Human Rights Council for the agreement to be renegotiated because it doesn't respect the rights of the Chagossians. I also note the committee's conclusion was that the UK should not be bound by this, but we should acknowledge the years in fact the generations where the community has been denied rights and from forced removal in the 1970s to the denial of resettlement in the 2000's.

We Comac that community and apology and restoration of rights. As was noted in a roundtable event hosted by the IRGC, in 2024, representatives from the community in Mauritius expressed dissatisfaction with the consultation as part of the UK and Mauritian governments. They were frustrated by the exclusion from the negotiations. Paragraph 46 of the report concluded with the regrettable perception that it has some basis in reality, that over many years though interests of the many years though interests of the Chagossians of being relegated to the broader concerns of the UK.

And there was more that could be done for the base. The agreement does not provide a clear route to the settlement for Chagossians in the archipelago. And it called on the government to engage with Mauritius to establish a program for resettlement of the islands, including four members of the community currently based in the UK. Paragraph 49 called on the government to clarify what oversight and accountability mechanisms would be put in place to ensure transparency and the equitable and effective allocation of funds. In particular it sought clarification for how Chagossians will be consulted in administration of the fund, and whether those based in the UK will benefit.

I agree with all of those. And indeed, I agree with the committee to -- letter to the Foreign Secretary, "More meaningful engagement would build greater trust and lend legitimacy to the final arrangements". My motion therefore would require the government to fulfil recommendations of the IRC, and also the requests of number four, five and six of the IRGC latitude Foreign Secretary, to enhance Chagossian engagement. By establishing a formal consultation mechanism and meaningful inclusion in decision-making, and how resettlement will be provided for just may be provided for.

I would request the transparency and accountability. I hope both the government and the Conservative opposition will support this motion. Because if this is our last opportunity for this House on this treaty I hope we can at least agree for further protections of the community to be outlined before the government ratifies. We have therefore established the previous government agreed in principle to see the exercise of sovereignty in a manner consistent with international law, we have also seen there are areas under this government where more scrutiny is needed on the terms for the inclusion of that seeding.

The question is how we proceed. We heard plenty of fire and brimstone from the noble Lord, and Andy seemed rather incensed. He sought to give the impression that all routes for the Conservatives to secure a debate in the House of Commons have been exhausted, he blamed the failure of the usual challenges and government intransigence. That's not entirely true, because the Conservatives during the scrutiny period had two opportunities to secure Time in the House of Commons, under their own.

We know through the library note on guidance of the crag, if government does not provide time that can be done in opposition time. So yes, there were coattails to hide behind when it came to the government not providing time. But I'm afraid the noble Lord must have had that meeting with his colleagues in the Commons when they said this wasn't important enough to be used in their time, during the scrutiny period in the House of Commons. I think all of us must have sympathy with him.

I can imagine how he was not too happy when they said it would be for the unelected house to take this up. Students of political history will no this would have been an impossible course of action. The Conservatives would never use the unelected house to limit the prerogative power to make treaties and to refuse ratifications. Don't take my word for it, take theirs. In a debate on the Rwanda treaty we debated Lord Goldsmith's motion for conditions on ratification. The noble Lord Wolfson sought to give me and everyone else very respectful and lengthy legal advice as to why we definitely should not have a motion to delay ratification of a treaty.

I look forward to his altered legal advice later. Winding altered legal advice later. Winding that debate, the noble Lord sharp called Lord Goldsmith's motion constitutionally "Unnecessary and misguided". Presumably this far wider motion by his colleague is necessary and well informed. Setting aside the amnesia epidemic sweeping debentures on my right, in all seriousness, though I thank them for the announcement that on 3 June in this house a fatal motion had been laid and that they would vote on it, I can only commend him and Lord Callanan for being brave.

They have reversed Conservative policy for generations, never to have fatal motions in this house. They have reversed policy, generation after generation, not to seek to interfere with the prerogative powers. This major constitutional moment today is not gone unnoticed. But we do have an opportunity to restore some of the rights that have been denied a community which we should all be ashamed of. We do have the ability of honouring a commitment given by James Cleverly in November 2022, that we would abide by international law and we would cede sovereignty.

But we also have an opportunity to ensure at this stage that we do it right. Therefore we honour our commitments, we assure rights, we provide clarity, and we hope the government can do this before ratification. Therefore I beg to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

move the motion in my name. I rise to move the motion

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I rise to move the motion standing in my name on the Order Paper, which invites the House to take note of the recent report of take note of the recent report of the international agreements committee, which I have the honour of chairing. I also look forward to the maiden speech from Baroness Prentis and my good friend Lord Boswell, his valedictory address. The international agreements committee examined this agreement as thoroughly as time allowed. Lord Callanan in his opening observations made the point there are deficiencies in the Constitutional reform and governance act, I agree with him on that, there are with him on that, there are deficiencies.

We have a review from my committee at the moment in place to look at those deficiencies, and to look at those deficiencies, and ultimately to invite us to help queue them. On one of those is the queue them. On one of those is the time that's allowed for the time that's allowed for the committee to consider the treaties. 21 sitting days, we asked for an 21 sitting days, we asked for an extension to the sitting days we are allocated to scrutinise this agreement in view of the significant national interest involved.

This request was denied without request was denied without explanation. This raises an issue in relation to the operation of the Constitutional reform and governance act, and we will come back to that. To some extent, the time problem was mitigated by the fact that the international relation and Defence Committee opened their own inquiry, and by agreement held an opening of evidence sessions. I found that committee, the chair members and clerk for their contribution. I also thank members of the international agreements committee, and number of

15:56

Lord Goldsmith (Labour)

- -

whom are going to speak today, for their information and wisdom. I turn to our key takeaways. The house will to our key takeaways. The house will know that the Chagos Archipelago is located in the middle of the Indian located in the middle of the Indian Ocean, consisting of a thousand small islands. On the largest of small islands. On the largest of them, Diego Garcia, the UK operates a joint military base with the US, a a joint military base with the US, a vital strategic asset.

During the time when Mauritius was a colony of the UK the islands were administered the UK the islands were administered as part of the UK -- as part of Mauritius, they were separated prior to its independence in the mid- to its independence in the mid- 1970s. It is that separation which is the crux of the legal dispute about sovereignty between Mauritius and the UK, which has been running and the UK, which has been running for many years. As a direct result of demolition campaign, the International Court of Justice gave an advisory opinion in 2019 which found the UK's assertion of sovereignty over the Chagos Islands was unlawful.

The agreement we are considering intends to resolve the sovereignty dispute one central and secure the long-term future of the secure the long-term future of the military base. Our report supports the contention of the government that the agreement does secure UK and US operations at the base of Diego Garcia, but the arrangements by which the UK is arranged to operate the bus is -- the bases find limited. Our committee concluded that while the agreement is not perfect, and I will speak to the limitations in the moment, if an agreement were not reached Mauritius would likely resume its campaign to obtain a legally binding judgement on sovereignty against the UK.

We heard expert evidence from Sir Chris Greenwood, one of the UK's pre- eminent practitioners of international law, a former judge in the International Court of Justice, nominated by the UK onto that court, to the effect that any international court in his opinion which came to examine the sovereignty dispute would likely find in favour of Mauritius. Such an outcome would clearly represent a risk to the future of the military base, and thus UK national interests of security. Let me briefly discuss the committees review taking into account the advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice in 2019.

After this discussion I want to outline the reports findings on the interests of the Chagossian people, rightly referred to by the noble Lord and others, the protection of the marine environment and financial arrangements under the treaty. All issues raised and touched on by the committee's report. First a word on the government's justification for the agreement, particularly in view of the national security interests the UK has in Diego Garcia. Sir Christopher Greenwood told our committee that while the 2019 ICJ opinion was only advisory it is "A very authoritative guide to the legal opposition".

He added that, "In reality it would be very difficult for any state to ignore and almost -- and almost unanimous opinion of the international court". The consequence of this ruling has already been seen in the rulings of international bodies. Members who read our report would have noted the copy of the UN official world map on page 11 which shows the Chagos Islands as the territory of Mauritius. Similarly, a 2021 ruling of the International Tribunal on the rule of the sea decided that following the ICJ advisory opinion it had jurisdiction to determine the maritime boundary between Mauritius and the Maldives on the basis that Mauritius was sovereign over the Chagos Archipelago.

We heard evidence that there were legal avenues by which Mauritius would be able to bring a sovereignty dispute before an international tribunal. There is therefore a clear risk that Mauritius could succeed in obtaining a legally binding judgement on sovereignty against the UK. The issue of whether the base is secure against negotiation is an important one, given the centrality of the base at Diego Garcia for the UK's national security interests. I made the point about possibility that it might even have been used last week in the US attacks on Iran.

The base was described to us in evidence as a vital security asset. It sits at a strategic location in the centre of the Indian Ocean, the location offers air cover into the Gulf, the Middle East, South Asia and East Africa, and thus retention and of crucial shipping lanes in the region among other security concerns. Nothing in our inquiry, we look hard at this point so far as we could, contradicted the governance view that the agreement would prevent the UK or US retaining full control over operations on Diego Garcia.

Nothing would prevent that in the agreement. The US government also welcomed the agreement, a further sign the agreement would not constrain Our enquiry did consider the operations of China but we did not hear any credible threat of the civil of the upper operations took, the room rent. We do have a note in our report that there is no guarantee that the agreement will be extended at the end of the term. I turned to the interests of the two got in people which we looked at.

The past treatment of the two got in people has left a deeply regrettable legacy which is acknowledged in the preamble to the agreement. The agreement makes minimal provisions to support Chagossians. It simply states that Mauritius is free to implement a programme of resettlement on the islands of the Chagos Archipelago other than Diego Garcia. But does in fact do nothing to secure the right to return the Chagossian community. At the December roundtable event, our colleagues on the international Defence Committee raised in a most concerned that Augustine's had been excluded from consultation by both the British and Mauritian government and that any engagement felt tokenistic and superficial.

And lacking in meaningful engagement and follow-up. The emission of meaningful conversation is meaningful conversation is regrettable. We note that the section that has basis in reality over many years, the interests of the Chagossians have been subordinated to the national- security interests of the United Kingdom. Our committee is of the view that more should have been done to secure the rights of the costumes in this process, for example by prioritising Chagossians for employments at the base of Diego Garcia.

Our report therefore calls on the government to engage with Mauritius established a programme of resettlement on the islands including four members of the Chagossian community based in the UK. I turned to another topic, protection of the marine environment as has been referred to. We had compelling evidence from Doctor Brian Wilson who is the scientific adviser to the Chagos trust and a research fellow at the University of Oxford about the importance and uniqueness of the marine environment around the Chagos Archipelago. He told us it is one of the most important reef wildernesses on the planet.

To date the UK has been conserving and protecting this area with its own marine protected area. This is the first such marine protected area to change sovereignty. The UK experience has demonstrated that maintaining and enforcing a protected area of this size is challenging. Mauritius therefore has enormous task ahead of therefore has enormous task ahead of it. As such our report welcomes the government's assurance that it will work closely with Mauritius to establish a well protected marine environment, including by apportioning an appropriate amount from the annual development fund established under the agreement to support these activities.

That leads me to the question of the financial terms. We have heard that the burden to the taxpayer under this agreement is high. These costs amount to a total of £3.4 billion over the In addition to the annual cost of leasing the base, this figure also includes a one-off payment to capitalise a trust fund for the benefit of the Chagossian community and an annual development fund to contribute to products to support the welfare and development of Mauritius people. There is little detail in the agreement as to how these funds will be administered or audited.

Or if there exists criteria for the allocation. Greater clarity on this is needed. So our report calls on the government to clarify what oversight and accountability mechanisms will be put in place to ensure transparency and the equitable and effective allocation of those funds. In particular, we would like our fixation on how to costumes will be consulted in the administration of the trust fund and build like to know whether Chagossians based in the UK will Chagossians based in the UK will benefit from this fund.

My Lords, the summary of our committee's work is that we agree with the government securing the long-term use of the base of Diego Garcia is of the highest importance. I strongly suspect that is the view of the in this House. We had nothing to undermine the government contention that this agreement achieves that goal, for so long as the agreement remains in force. Taking account of the agreements limitations to which we draw attention, our report concludes that if the agreement is not ratified, if a future government attempted to go on was international pressure, to transfer sovereignty over the Chagos Archipelago there is over the Chagos Archipelago there is a risk that there is a legally binding judgement on sovereignty against the UK.

In the circumstances despite its imperfections, we consider that the agreement was the safest way to secure the oppression of the base at Diego Garcia.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord. This is a follow the noble Lord. This is a timely and important debate and we have already had a variety of views, and I also look forward to the speeches by my noble friend Baroness

16:06

Baroness Goldie (Conservative)

- -

speeches by my noble friend Baroness Prentis and the noble Lord, the noble Lord Lord Boswell. I want to look at this deal through the prism of defence and security and it is these issues that I shall address. You don't live as I do across the fast lane that houses our UK nuclear deterrent and not have a honed understanding of the importance of sovereignty and indeed while the more serious arguments for me and the Scottish independent debate favouring the union was how independence would create a vulnerable Scotland stripped of influence in the geopolitical stage with a little some would say reasonable defence capability.

It was having sovereign control over that UK defence capability which gives strength, authority and signals to adversaries don't meddle with us, because you can't huddle with us. And that is what sovereignty means -- you can't Underpins everything we do in defence which is why when I was a Defence Minister I was clear that whatever was being discussed about Diego Garcia and for whatever reasons, our defence and security interests must remain paramount. , and others warned in the policy exchange report that seeding the Chagos Islands to Mauritius would be an irresponsible act which would put our strategic interests at the interests of our closest allies in danger.

These are powerful words. And since the last government commenced exploratory discussions the global tensions have increased in the geopolitical situation has deteriorated and it is now unprecedentedly unpredictable. My noble friend Lord Cameron of Chipping Norton made clear of his concerns to the Select Committee in the other place in early 2024. In the last government did not sign off a deal. The risk was too high. My Lords, the two committees of this house, the International Agreements Committee and the International Relations and Defence Committee, have published very informative reports on this deal and these two committees certainly deserve our thanks.

This agreement still requires to clear Parliament and I hope this debate will help the government to better understand why in relation to defence and security red lights are flashing all over the red lights are flashing all over the place. It is regrettable that as has already made mentioned, request for the international agreements committee, made the Foreign Secretary for more time for parliamentary scrutiny was refused without reasons being given. An issue of such prime importance as a global defence and security in this turbulent world, that is weak.

And why was the government so afraid of scrutiny? Perhaps the answer can be found within the two reports to found within the two reports to which I referred. Both confirm that there was a difference of legal opinion about whether or not the UK government was under any obligation to act. The international relations and Defence Committee cut to the chase, and the chairman's letter to the Foreign Secretary stated " while we heard differing legal interpretations of whether the UK was required to transfer sovereignty, both the preceding and current governments were involved in negotiations with Mauritius and the decision to proceed was ultimately political".

There we have it, political not a legally based decision. The government is not obliged to transfer sovereignty. And the government did not require the sign a deal. Our essential interest can still be protected by opposing this. Why does this matter? Let me quote again from the letter. "Witnesses were unanimous in their view that Diego Garcia holds a pivotal strategic role for the United Kingdom and the United States and that it is critical for a broader Western security strategy in broader Western security strategy in -- Diego Garcia was described as a pivot point between the Middle East and the Indo-Pacific underpinning critical US naval and air operations.

My Lords, which country is dominant in the Indian Ocean? China. Which country appears to be the new best friend of Mauritius in the Indian Ocean? Again, it is China. And are there any countries which explicitly approve of this deal? Yes, Russia and China. This is a dangerous deal. It should be ditched. Because not all all the most carefully drafted text in the world can't substitute for sovereignty. Even the wisdom of Solomon himself could not have achieved that.

Lord Callanan already referred to the cost of this, it is largely going to be by an already stretched defence budget that the government is scrabbling around to government is scrabbling around to find every penny, and that is what defence is being asked to do, to pay for the bravely weakened defence and security position which the government has created. I support the motion in the name of my noble

**** Possible New Speaker ****

friend Callaghan. As I start, can I say that I look

16:12

Lord Alderdice (Liberal Democrat)

- -

**** Possible New Speaker ****

As I start, can I say that I look forward to the maiden speech of forward to the maiden speech of Baroness Prentis and the speech of Lord Boswell. As a resident of Frankford, a small village not far from either Banbury or... I have a personal interest in handing on of the button of Parliamentary responsibly and I expressed personal appreciation of both of them. Turning to the motions before us, as a member of your Lordships select committee, on international relations, have with my committee colleagues spent some considerable time trying to understand the background to the issues, the process of negotiation, both by the previous Conservative government and the current Labour government, and the implementation of the agreement reached with the government on Mauritius which the international community has agreed be the sovereign government.

In a short time, available to me, I will try to deal with the key issues that were raised by the international nations and Defence Committee in their letter to the Foreign Secretary. In defence I would first ask the noble Lord the Minister whether each time the Diego Garcia base is used, particularly by our colleagues, in the US, as a base for an aggressive military operation, will we be asked for permission as the leaseholder? And how will the government deal with requests for such military attacks on others if we are not happy with them, considering that our agreement may well be regarded by those attacked as our participation in such a military venture? The same of course applies in a slightly different way to the government of Mauritius, and if the Minister can say what he thinks about that, that will be extremely helpful.

Other noble Lords have observed the enormous importance of the precious marine environment in which the Chagos Islands set. And I would wish to be somewhat further reassured by the noble Lord the Minister that His Majesty's Government will be intimately involved in the monitoring of the conduct of the marine environment there in collaboration with the government of Mauritius. However, my main focus is and has to be on the Chagossian people. They have not been well treated over the years by the United Kingdom.

It is not at all clear to me that it was necessary to remove them all from the whole of the archipelago in the first place. Can I be assured that His Majesty's Government will explore the possibilities of employing at least some took -- some Chagossians to access employment opportunities. It has been the case with other parts of the world, why not here? And if it is not possible the government must surely provide a detailed written justification for their exclusion for resettlement in their own home islands, and also contribute to their own welfare and well-being as a community.

I say as a community but the Chagossians as we know are not all of one view about their future. And that is a challenge in terms of assessing what they want but it is not a reason why they should not be a formal consulted mechanism with the various groups in the two -- in the sugar soon facility as well as a mechanism to monitor the fermentation of the agreement and to ensure that meaningful inclusion in decisions I asked the Minister to give a sympathetic consideration to the motion proposed by my noble friend which gives His Majesty's government a route to fulfilling a moral obligation and responsibility to the Chagossian people.

Finally, it has been suggested that the government is paying to seek sovereignty but surely this is not the situation. We have agreed, the government has said, to sovereignty but once that is done, there would be no further rights. So what the government it seems to me has been doing, is trying to negotiate as the previous Conservative government tried to negotiate, a leasehold for the continued use of the islands for military purposes. One question military purposes.

One question about that funding, and perhaps the most important, is whether or not there is a properly thought through and objective oversight of the funding that is being made available, considerable funding being made available to provide for the future of the Chagossian people. It should not simply be left to the government in Mauritius to decide that, we need to try to ensure that the Chagossian people have a say on that money, too.

16:17

Lord Hannay of Chiswick (Crossbench)

- -

Today's debate is an odd one for two reasons, and there is one point on which I agree with introductory remarks. Firstly, because happy outcome of last July's general elections been different, it is highly possible that the noble Lord and one of his colleagues would have been standing at the Dispatch Box defending an agreement similar to the one we are debating now. How else can one construe the 11 rounds of negotiations that the government of which he is a member conducted with the government of Mauritius before that election and following the ruling of the court of justice and the overwhelming vote in the UN general assembly that the UK should negotiate in a sense.

And because the noble Lord putdown the proposition he has introduced calling for the agreement not to be ratified, even though neither of the two committees examining the agreement, the international agreements committee of which I have the honour to be a member, and the international relations and defence committee, had even begun to take evidence on the text of the agreement, let alone put such evidence in the public domain. Now the reports of these two committees are available to the House and they provide no justification at all for the resolution that the noble Lord has put before us.

That surely demonstrates a contempt for the two committees which is deplorable. Some will say, well that is just politics, but it should not be so if the work of our committees is to be taken seriously by the House. Now that lacuna has been filled and the reported evidence on which it has been based has been published and is available to the House, as has the extremely valuable letter from the International relations committee, it should become available so late in the day which is a matter for profound apology but given the 21 working days we had to conduct our enquiry, of quite a complex agreement, it was inevitable once the government had already, at an earlier stage turned down a request to an extension, the committee said the evidence of three distinguished international lawyers, wireless evidence was not unanimous, two out of the three, they were very clear that the agreement reached was necessary if the UK was to avoid a legally binding at some point in the future, in addition to the advisory opinion already rendered by the ICJ.

It was also particularly striking that he was so clear that it would be incompatible, I repeat the word, incompatible with the policy expressed so frequently at the Dispatch Box by both the outgoing governments and the incoming one, that the UK's support the rules- based international order if the UK could then find it inconvenient to do so on this occasion. For what it is worth, that is my own opinion, too, at a time when the rules-based orders under such severe attack, it would be especially damaging if one of its principal supporters were to choose opportunism over principle.

None of the evidence we received supported the view which has been expressed, that this agreement and anyway undermines the legal basis for the UK's sovereignty over Gibraltar, the Falkland Islands and the sovereign areas of Cyprus. In conclusion, I would urge members to vote against the motion tabled by the noble Lord and to take note of the report from the International relations committee which clears the way for ratification of the agreement reported on, that is consistent with our national security interests and with our respect for international law, and if I may just before concluding, could I say how sorry I am to be speaking before the noble Lady because I would have wished to congratulate her on her maiden speech and also to be speaking before the noble Lord who was my boss on the European Union committee for many years and was a completely outstanding chairman of that committee, for whose work I think we should all express great gratitude

**** Possible New Speaker ****

today. It is an honour to follow the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

It is an honour to follow the noble Lord and I would like to begin by thanking the staff officials and indeed, members across this House indeed, members across this House who have welcomed me so kindly to my place. I would like to thank my sponsors, who have supported me

16:22

Baroness Prentis of Banbury (Conservative)

- -

sponsors, who have supported me since I was his pupil 30 years ago and Lord Cameron, my constituency neighbour whose core during a radio interview in 2014 for more professional women to stand as MPs, was heard by me loud and clear while I was washing up in my kitchen at home. I confess, I have long loved this end of the building. In my first job as a government lawyer I was frequently sent with heavy bundles copied 10 times, bound in white ribbon for the Law Lords, my noble kinsman enjoyed in many ways, the most fulfilling time of his career here as chairman of the European Scrutiny Committee through the Brexiteers.

I spent a great deal of my time as a Minister engaging, sometimes productively, but always pleasantly with noble Lord's whom it transpires take a great interest in agricultural and legal policy. I am in many ways, my father's daughter. We, as many noble Lord snow, farm near Banbury and my sisters and I have stayed with in a few miles of home and brought about children there. The valley has formed the backdrop of my life and my husband, a proud Yorkshire and was prepared to make it his home.

I was very pleased to serve as Minister for farming and I had to the schemes we put in place to support environmentally friendly food production would be the legacy I looked back on. I am concerned by the situation now. Possibly because my home life is so geographically settled and bound by the rhythms of the rural and church, I have always worked away. My work life has been centred on public and international law, almost all in the government legal department.

Government lawyers are a committed and able band and it was an honour to oversee the work as Attorney-General. As a family, we enjoy learning languages and our oldest daughter was doing just that in Ukraine before the full scale invasion, luckily we got her home and we also brought a young woman who came to live with us and now was a much loved part of our family. After the election last summer, I knew that I wanted to continue with the work I had been doing in government to support Ukraine.

So I have been training lawyers in the law relating to war crimes. The Ukrainians have over 170,000 open files of crimes alleged to have been committed by Russian soldiers. But they are carrying out these prosecutions during an active war and it is unprecedented. As is the enthusiasm for which they have taken steps to ensure fairness in proceedings. I have in fact, spent over half of my time training those who are conducting the defence of the Russian soldiers. They are spinning what they describe as a web of accountability with thought and precision and I will of course continue to help where I can.

And they want our help. They see us in the UK for what we are, historical leaders in the field of international law and lucky, far more than we realise to have judges we can trust. They value our dedication to proper process and to individual rights. And so should we, international law should not be seen as a threat to our national interest. In fact, particularly in the environmental space, it regulates the interactions between nations pretty well. Of course, we must abide by whatever rules we have agreed to adhere to and if we really feel national interest is not being served, we are free to walk away.

These decisions should be seen as what they are, fundamentally political rather than legal. While domestic law changes and evolves over time, treaty laws are rather different. Treaties must be precise and clear if they are to be useful. If the government wishes to persuade this House that this treaty represents a good deal for the UK, not to mention value for money, then we will need greater transparency. We will need to how and why the figures were arrived at. We will need assurances that the various legal regimes including an undefined international law, Mauritian environmental law, and the termination clause definition of serious threat to Mauritius national interests can all work together.

We will need to know how all of this is to be enforced. We will need assurances that the Chagossians are to be consulted about their future. We will need to be sure that the precious marine protection area is cared for in the longer term. Most importantly, we need to be certain in an ever more dangerous world that the base can continue to be used for its primary purpose, which is of course, to keep us safe. My Lords, I am very grateful for your indulgence of the piece of family history which is playing out before you.

I am thrilled to be here.

16:28

Lord Boswell of Aynho (Non-affiliated)

- -

I am delighted to participate in this debate and thus to pay my final. I would like to congratulate final. I would like to congratulate my noble Kings woman on the maiden speech is just delivered. For its skill and elegance. For full disclosure, I myself should declare to the House that she is my daughter. While our careers have not always taken the same path, Oxford against Cambridge for example, we do tend to take similar positions and our relationship does cast an interest and varied stance on debates to come shortly on qualification inheritance in this House.

I shall not delight on that further, not least because I am minded of the wisdom of the noble Lord who once remarked that valedictory is should be shorter. I want to say at the beginning, that I have grown increasingly attracted to traditions attached to this House and Parliament in general. This is not out of reference, though I happened to be a fellow of the learned society, but because they counterbalance short-term political pressures and media activity.

My own first political memory was as a very small child meeting the Lord who served on the agricultural board with my father, had been a cabinet Minister in the First World War, and let this House during the 1945, post-1945 government. Later as a schoolboy, I went to the gallery of another place and I was privileged to spot Churchill, then in his last term, at my current age, take a seat and listening. More widely, I am a child of the television age, as my family were very early adopters and I remember highlights of the London Olympics of 1948.

The post war decade was identified by the development of nuclear-weapons. And I took what I hope remains a precocious interest in civil defence Our wartime generation grew up during the long withdrawal from Empire, of which the remaining fragment is the subject of today's debate. Our record as a nation in this process over the last 80 years, has not been wholly blameless. It is right to be as rigourous and transparent as we can in analysing it.

I want now to thank all those professionals who have guided me on my way. Including, initially, the civil servants who are colleagues of mine -- were colleagues of mine when I was approached on the farm by the noble Lord, and drafted in, as I hope, a respectable Spad to help meet milk quotas, and other officials who served me when I meant on -- went on to ministerial posts. In particular, in relation to parliamentary staff, I would like to single out those involved with the committee office here.

As has been mentioned, I found myself chairing the European affairs committee for seven years, nearly dissected by the Brexit referendum. Here, I was greatly assisted not merely by the staff, but of course, by the expertise and collegiality of my colleagues of all parts of the House. Now it is fashionable to follow conspiracy theories, and to assume that whoever politicians have in their sights at the moment are to blame for our current ills, when the reality is, as a nation, we are wrestling with the pressures of democracy at the expense of growth.

More widely, we should reflect on the perils of political authoring and the wilful selection of enemies. Whether it is on a class, regional, ethnic or demographic basis, because I still think we have to work through disagreements together as one nation. We should also be aware that constant pressure to regulate more may reflect indirectly the last agency we have ourselves to some extent surrendered. Whatever we can do to empower local initiatives and interests and communities behind issues facing us as a nation, and the world, should be actively considered.

To conclude with two final points, first spring summer terms of service of the European committee. I recognise that there is little indignation to rerun Brexit, but I do welcome efforts being made to re-establish closer relations. Our committee broke much fresh ground after the vote in drawing attention to outstanding problems, not merely on the trade side, but also involving constitutional matters, including the problem of the Irish land border, the status of the Crown dependencies, and of course the British Overseas Territories.

Now, almost 5 years since the implementation of the Withdrawal Agreement, I notice that mutual residences use are about to recur. To judge by the experience of Switzerland, closer association with the EU will involve virtually continuous renegotiation. I would add here that it is important to emphasise the teaching of modern foreign languages, not confined to Europe. To be in a negotiating room, of which I had a little experience, or equally or more importantly, in the margins of that negotiating room, and to drop the occasional well judged phrase into the mix does engender a certain empathy, or at least wary respect.

To be completely au fait, as our diplomats are, is of course very consequential. I also think that we should sometimes lift our horizon from bare texts and competence to wider issues and passions worldwide. To mention two sports in which I have always taken an interest, Formula 1 and the Premiership, they have a wide popular domestic and international appeal. As a nation, we are rather good at them. In conclusion, a word about the rule of law. I defer to my noble kinsman's expertise in this area, and that of other noble lords.

We should not allow this debate to become polarised or a proxy for other political debates. We need to get stuck in to achieve negotiating improvements when circumstances change, and we need to make use of the margin of appreciation when we need to. We need to put more attention, as a legislator and the government, on the subject. But there are continuing merit in the rules-based international order, because those who break the rules or merely threatened to do so may one day find that they have suddenly excluded themselves from the order which underpins their growth and

**** Possible New Speaker ****

continuing prosperity. I have been here quite a long

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I have been here quite a long time, and this is a first for me, to find myself following a maiden find myself following a maiden speech and a valedictory speech, and my father and daughter, and if I am my father and daughter, and if I am to do justice to tribute to the two speeches, I would use up most of the time allocated for me to talk about time allocated for me to talk about the Chagos Islands. But it is very easy to say that the contribution from Baroness Prentice was easy on

16:37

Lord Grocott (Labour)

- -

from Baroness Prentice was easy on the year, not always the case with lawyers, it was fluent and persuasive, and it is easy to say to her, as I do, that we look forward to further contributions from her. And as far as Lord Turnbull's is concerned, again, it is very easy to pay tribute to his long career here, and we have overlap from time to time, both Houses, in both Houses and on both sides of both Houses, he has been highly respected modest, understated, thorough, fluent, he has a political career of which he can be proud, and whilst we will miss him not being here, my word is at his retirement.

Now, to the Chagos Islands, I just want to say this, that the central proposition in today's debate, namely that sovereignty of the Chega should be transferred from the UK to Mauritius is one that I strongly support. It should have been done years ago, back in the 1960s, when no fewer than 11 countries in Africa achieved their independence, but it was strange that Lord Callaghan's remarks were as though we were doing people a favour by giving them their independence, as though we were still good old Britain ruling the waves.

Each year in delay in the transfer of sovereignty has made the problem of the Chagos Islands and debates ever more complex, and I congratulate the Government finally dealing with the challenge. I particularly welcome the fact that the treaty, in its preamble, encourages the importance of, and I quote, "recognising the wrongs of the past." It goes on to say that we should be conscious of the past treatments of the Chagossians, which has left a deeply regrettable legacy. In these few words, there is contained a lot of human misery, and frankly, a shameful episode in British colonial history.

So, I make no apology for spending some moments reminding the House as the extent of the injustice that was perpetrated on the Chagossians, and which is now acknowledged in the treaty. The context, as ever, is important. The 1960s were a period where the dangers of the Cold War were probably at their most acute. It was, after all, the decade of the Cuban missile crisis. So, it is perhaps not surprising that, in 1966, the UK and the US signed an agreement to develop a based on the strategically valuable island of diagonal Garcia.

-- Diego Garcia. What happens next is barely believable. In short, the native Chagossians were expelled from their own country, never to return. The cruelty, there is no other word for it, began in 1967, when a number of Chagossians who have left their island temporarily for holidays or medical treatment were simply barred from returning home. By 1973, all 1,700 of them had been expelled and relocated. This was a profound injustice perpetrated by British government. Not on some data back in the mists of time, but in the lifetime of many others here today.

So, whilst I am happy with what is in them treaty, I am sorry it does not do more to right the wrongs of the past. Failure to do this is laid out clearly in Article 6, which says, "In the exercise of its sovereignty of the Chagos Archipelago, Mauritius is free to implement a programme of resettlement on the islands other than Diego Garcia." So, the message of Article 6 to the ousted people and their descendants who lived on Diego Garcia is this, you can go back to any of the islands, but you can't go back for 100 years at least to the island from which you were so brutally expelled.

So, I ask the Minister, whilst we all understand the importance of the base to our military and defence, is there really no way at all, let's say for a number of Chagossians who might wish to be employed on Diego Garcia, to be allowed back to live there? I know it is not a perfect solution, but at least it is a step in the right direction. It is the question I asked the Minister, my honourable friend, during the committee meeting two weeks ago.

He said, in reply, "That's a question I have often been asked, but it is impossible for that to take place on Diego Garcia operationally, it is not suitable or appropriate." To say that a course of action is not suitable or appropriate is pretty thin rule, by way of answer to a question. I know, of course, there are many good reasons for ministers to be circumspect when it comes to matters of national security, but I asked my noble friend on the front bench, when he replies, if he would provide more information about why the base is not suitable or appropriate.

Is it really not possible to provide some accommodation on part of Diego Garcia to enable those Chagossians, probably a small number, who wish to return home, maybe to access civilian employment on the base? And if we are told it is not suitable for security reasons, for civilians to live close to sensitive military installations, the answer is surely this, it happens in Britain and in many parts of the world, all over the world, in fact, when civilians and the military live in close proximity to their mutual advantage, and with no problems whatsoever.

So, I welcome the fact that the issue of sovereignty is at last being addressed. But it is surely possible for more to be done, to go some way towards compensating for the injustices of the past, in the way that I have suggested. Much of which is contained in a long letter sent to the Foreign Secretary from the defence and Foreign Affairs Committee. At the very least, given that we will have involvement with these islands for 99 more years at least, I hope that a continuous dialogue can take place with the Chagossians for their benefit and four hours.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I rise, and in doing so, and my

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I rise, and in doing so, and my formal warm welcome to my noble friend, Baroness Prentice, and congratulate her on her excellent congratulate her on her excellent maiden speech. The poignancy of the moment made even greater by the speech by my noble friend, Lord speech by my noble friend, Lord Boswell, who we shall miss not only for his contributions to your Lordships' House, but on a personal note, for his valuable advice and insight he has provided to me when I insight he has provided to me when I joined the House, which seems like a long time ago now, back in 2011.

May I also focus on the concerns I also focus on the concerns outlined by the noble Lord Goldsmith outlined by the noble Lord Goldsmith in his speech. I have been before him as a minister, before, in the committee, and I know the scrutiny that the committee does, under quite challenging timescales, and those of

16:44

Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Conservative)

- -

challenging timescales, and those of my noble friend, Baroness Prentice, about the absolute need for added scrutiny and transparency on this treaty. I want to focus on my own insights and experiences, not just as the OTs minister, I served in that capacity for two years, but at times as the troubleshooter for successive governments and Prime Ministers in meeting with key Prime Ministers, and Prime Minister Jugnauth Mauritius was one such individual. But the legal context, and I just wanted to Johnny briefly, the ICJ advisory opinion from 2019 was not binding.

I say to my noble friend, Lord Purvis, I did read the The general summary, I was there when the vote was taken, it was not pleasant seeing the votes as they were totted but again the General assembly vote was not binding. Finally, the decision which was between Mauritius and the Maldives, equally was not binding in the UK, indeed the treaty itself confirms this to be the case. We have heard repeatedly this deal was necessary at times to avert binding legal action.

Therefore, can I have the noble Lord the Minister in light of the context I have provided, what court would Mauritius have gone to if the UK had not agreed this deal? Furthermore, could the Minister confirm that any non-compliance within the courts related, or for the implementation of international treaties and the tribunal would ultimately, as my understanding go, before the UN Security Council then of course in that instance, the UK would retrain a veto option, and as such, as stated, this is and I quote, a political decision, a view shared by the international relations Defence Committee.

Turning to security guarantees, I remember my last meeting with the Prime Minister, the former Prime Minister of Mauritius, and the final line I asked him, was can you provide the security assurances I need? And I refer to them now, and ISP Minister specifically, what specific publications are prevented for Mauritius to take a separate agreement with 1/3 country or indeed installations beyond the agreed exclusion waters? Will this be seen as a breach of the treaty? Secondly, on the issue of renewal, the treaty seems to lack a mechanism or procedure for the extension of 40 years.

What specific decisions in the treaty deal with this? We refer to the unrestricted access for the UK and US in relation to Diego Garcia, including flights and maritime, we welcome this, but it also states that Mauritius must be notified if there is 1/3 country access required. Annex one, subsection B7 reads, unrestricted ability to permit access for non-UK and non-USA aircraft and vessels upon, that is a crucial word, notification to Mauritius. What about our obligations to our NATO partners? Can joint exercises with our key partners, for example Australia? The words suggest to me that this is in advance.

Surely, this needs the government to think again. Beyond that Diego Garcia, annex 13 a, four undersea or flight access says it requires notification to Mauritius again, as this before or after the event? This require notification also in the same in annex IIIB requires to new location upgrades to equipment. Again, how does this satisfy security issues for the UK? The purpose of me asking these questions, I get what the government is doing and I assure noble Lord, when discussions part and successive governments previously, it was done in good faith but without prejudice.

We wanted to ensure the security and the long-term security of our interests and I know the government has that in mind but it is important that we not only have this debate, of some of the questions I have asked and other noble Lord's have asked and will ask, subsequently are answered, we await not just to the Chagossian people go to our interests, not just in the Indian

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Ocean but in the world as a whole, security matters, and we must put security first. I join with others in sending

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I join with others in sending best wishes and to the Baroness Hooper shown by her speech she has a thoroughly professional mind which will bring great value to our council and we are lucky to have council and we are lucky to have her. As for the Lord I have known for years, in and out of government I found he was a rock of common I found he was a rock of common sense, particularly on Brexit where nonsense is talked.

I shall be sad

16:50

Lord Howell of Guildford (Conservative)

- -

nonsense is talked. I shall be sad he is going and all I can say is, enjoy your retirement and don't spend time trying to write a life of Johnson. I am going to use my minutes on the security aspects of the whole project. To my mind there are some important aspects in the present state of the world. The position of the Chagos Islands as it has been debated strongly, and is covered in our thorough international agreements committee report which the noble Lord so excellently chaired and introduced us to in this debate.

I had the honour of being on the committee and Diane sorry that for legal reasons that I don't fully understand, Chagos has virtually no say in their Chagos has virtually no say in their future. I understand that Mauritius, it is 202,000 kilometres away and with Australia that was preferred by some but it is too late for that kind of solution. That did not come on the table at all. As for security, in this very dangerous time, the issue comes down to leasehold or freehold.

Are we safer hanging on to the constantly changing freehold as it will be from various courts around the world, for the prospect of continued rulings against us, or are we better off somehow with a long lease which in theory, should be safe but can have new conditions applied. Look what happened in the case of Hong Kong, we should never forget that. That is not even putting the whole questioning because with the lease option comes the most enormous bill.

And I would like the Minister to explain just what that bill is, the memorandum talks about 3.5 billion in today's money, to something called the so-called green book methodology. But when my honourable friend rightly and robustly raises these issues and question them, he mentions the question of 30 billion. So 10 times the size of the other. I have never had a debate like this before, I have been in these houses for 59 years and I have never heard such a cavalier approach by a such a cavalier approach by a government.

It is essential if there is approval from this House or anybody, the Minister makes clear what the implications are. The sums are vast, think what we could do with them here at home. No doubt Mauritius will make good use of these colossal sums of money, they might even lend us some back because we needed. Certainly, this needs clarifying. It cannot stand on the complicated situation. The immediate security considerations are much clearer and more pressing. The immediate area we are talking about is either side of the line which roughly bisects the Indian Ocean and is teeming with activity by the so- called counter aligned nations, notably China, most of our seaborne trade and 80% of all world seaborne trade has to cross that line.

It is just about the middle of it, China is building ports all around and of course it is not as an exaggeration. Disruption of sea trade, especially for us, would be devastating. It has been christened as Europe's nightmare. The red sea is virtually closed already and as has been discussed, this is again on the table as well. They must be turning in their graves. This is all the more so when agents already shut off. That is where we must be.

The government seems to be set on this change in status of what has become the crossroads of the world. Let us pray and hope it proves worth it and makes us stronger and not weaker in

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the storms ahead. Can I start by echoing the words of those who will say and have said of those who will say and have said what a pleasure it was to be in the chamber to witness her maiden chamber to witness her maiden speech. The issue of the treaty relating to the Chagos Islands and the potential transfer of the

16:55

Lord Houghton of Richmond (Crossbench)

- -

the potential transfer of the sovereignty of those islands to Mauritius has received much parliamentary scrutiny in committee over the past three months. That scrutiny has thrown up issues which many people are justifiably passionate about. The plight of the Chagossians, the protection of the marine environment, and concern about a treaty that will cost us a lot of money to surrender the benefits of sovereignty. My principal interest is the one I have deemed overwriting important one, it is the role that Diego Garcia plays in our strategic relationship with the United States of America.

On a personal level, I am very familiar with the UK base on Diego Garcia, it was part of my overseas command responsibilities when I was Chief of joint operations, I have visited the base and I know from my time as chief of defence, the critical role that the base plays an exercising UK sovereignty and therefore, justifying the UK position as part of the legal chain that authorises deployed forces in the United States, the freedoms they need, to prosecute offensive operations. It is not an understatement to say that in sovereign power, enabling freedoms needed to use the base in accordance with international humanitarian law, represents an enormous contribution to the defence element of the special relationship.

My primary concern therefore, is to help ensure the treaty is ratified, and represents the best ways of preserving those freedoms. Superficially, I am reassured, after all, the treaty has been subject to detailed scrutiny by both the UK and US government and enjoys the support of our partners and many other interested parties. Yet I have some lingering doubts which I at least want to place on the record. My doubts often to concerns which relate to forms of warfare, what is political warfare and the other is a form of legal warfare simply referred to as warfare.

Political warfare is best described as a non- military effort to coerce or intimidate a country or an individual into actions that benefit the perpetrator. The form of political warfare I envisage that is relevant to this treaty, our actions by a hostile power to coerce or intimidate key individuals in the international criminal justice system or individuals in key positions and relevant governments. Warfare refers to the strategic use of legal proceedings to achieve a political or military objective effectively using the law as a weapon.

A number of witnesses to the international relations and Defence Committee proffered the view that the need to enter into this treaty in the first place was primarily proctored by successful warfare, which culminated in the advisory opinion of the international hall of justice that has been referred to already. My worry therefore, emanates from the concern that this treaty might in the relatively near future, full file of future political legal warfare acting in concert. In this context I have two principal concerns.

The first relates to the worry that the transfer of sovereignty of Diego Garcia to Mauritius will bring it under the provisions of the African nuclear weapons Free zone Treaty, designed to keep the area free of nuclear power or armed submarines. Currently, Diego Garcia sits outside of the treaty provisions but is there not a significant danger this exemption will come under legal scrutiny and challenge as soon as this treaty is ratified? My second concern as I think, perhaps more substantive, it relates to the issue of sovereign responsibility.

The treaty as currently drafted to me, masks and incompatibility. It clearly states that on treaty ratification, the sovereignty of the Chagos Islands passes to Mauritius but it also implies that the administrative authority to agree the United States the freedom to operate the Diego Garcia base the military operations, is retained by the United Kingdom. My concern here, though I am not, is that a country cannot aggregate alienate, or transfer its sovereign responsibilities under international humanitarian law.

So will not the prosecutors, simply start to exploit the view that the international humanitarian law negates a bilateral agreement and that the UK is no longer the relevant administrative authority when it comes to agreeing military action by our principal ally. I sincerely hope that my concerns are either ill judged or misplaced I would like the Minister to reassure the House that these concerns have been fully considered. A final and completely unrelated concern which my friend separately thought should be raised, although the risk may be small, as potentially the greatest existential threat to the Diego Garcia base, and it is not from hostile activity, but from rising seawater, tsunamis, or earthquake.

The airfield at the base is barely a metre above sea level, does the treaty allow for early termination in the event that natural causes render the base inoperable. 100 years is a long time to be paying for something which cannot be used. The Minister's

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I am sorry to hear the valedictory speech from my noble

17:02

Lord Blencathra (Conservative)

- -

valedictory speech from my noble friend, magnificent though it was. I had the privilege of serving with my noble friend in the Commons for all of his 23 years there, and he was a careful, thoughtful, intellectual and caring politician then, which we have all seen in this House since 2010. But what a unique date. Valedictory speech from dad, and a superb maiden speech in one of his daughters, Baroness Prentis. I did not know it in the Commons, but I know from her excellent legal qualifications, and time as eternal -- Attorney-General.

She had the common sense to oppose HS2, and she and others will be proved right as this shambles continues to stagger out of control. I look forward to hearing more of her contributions to this House. This is an appalling deal, an agreement which sells out the United Kingdom, the Chagossians, our wonderful marine protected areas, and we are paying a fortune to a country with no political interest in it. The Government says it has to do a deal with Mauritius, since the UK would soon be forced to surrender the Chagos Islands to Mauritius, if the International Court of Justice ruled against us in a binding agreement.

But that is simply not the case. Mauritius cannot secure a judgement establishing it is sovereign over the Chagos Islands. The UK has not acquired consent is dispute with Mauritius being adjudicated. The International Court of Justice has no jurisdiction to adjudicate this dispute, and it's 2019 advisory opinion did not establish that Mauritius was sovereign. The Government fears an international tribunal of the law of the sea, which has no jurisdiction over questions of sovereignty over territory, nor presuppose also assume -- or assume that it is settled that Mauritius is indeed sovereign, rather than the UK.

It is typical of the FCO to anticipate and plan for failure. Article 1 is incompatible with the position of UK law, which is that the UK has been sovereign over Chagos Islands since 1814, including in 1965. The last government, when negotiating Mauritius, yes, went many rounds without agreement, and I am certain if we were still in government we would take another 11 rounds and still not sign off on this appalling deal. We all know how this comes about with the foreign office, they have a long history of selling off our assets.

They gave up South Yemen and the Houthis are now in charge. In 1980, the FCO was simply negotiating the full glare islands in Argentina, leading directly to the Falklands war. In 2001, the FCO had secret talks with Spain over sovereignty of Gibraltar, until Gibraltar stop it with a referendum where over 90% voted to remain British. Why did the Foreign Secretary do it? I can hear the Foreign Secretary saying that the last government were endlessly negotiating a failed to close a deal.

The International Court of Justice is bound to demand that we hand them over. So we can avoid being in default by doing a deal now. Of course, we have to make a small payment to them for keeping Diego Garcia, but it will be a small price to pay for a remarkable foreign policy achievement. I can imagine that being said, and in 30 years time, we will have the record to prove it. For a brand-new Foreign Secretary, it was easy to FCDO officials to con him into selling off the Chagos Islands.

But I bet they did not explain to him that we have to tell Mauritius any time the US wants to undertake a combat mission from Diego Garcia. Unlike most of my noble friends, I am not worried about the security situation, because the United States will certainly never tell us well in advance if they are going to use Diego Garcia for any foreign operation. They give us one hour's warning about bombing Iran, because they simply don't trust us, and they will certainly not trust us on any operations from Diego Garcia, because they know the Chinese will threaten to withdraw within seconds.

Nor did they tell us that the Chagos Islands' marine protected area of 640,000 km, the largest in the world, is rich in vulnerable species, with 66,000 km of the finest coral reefs in the world. Under British control, there is a complete ban on all fishing, but we know that as soon the Chinese fishing fleets get in there, which they will do, they will be stripped bare within 5 to 10 years, because that is what the Chinese do with every fishing ground they invade and destroy.

In conclusion, we are paying Mauritius billions to jeopardise our security and destroy one of the finest marine protected areas in the world. A brilliant Foreign Office deal, the best sell- May I first join everybody else in congratulating both the noble Baroness Prentis and her kinsman, or father, whichever way you would rather have it, on their speeches, because I think it is a great occasion, and we shall miss the

17:08

Lord Robathan (Conservative)

- -

noble Lord, Lord Boswell. I have noble Lord, Lord Boswell. I have even spoken for him, and he still spoke to me after I spoke for him in his constituency. I should say that I find this issue very, very I find this issue very, very depressing. We are seeing our depressing. We are seeing our country, and our country's interests undermined by human rights lawyers. We have, obviously, the Prime We have, obviously, the Prime Minister, we have Lord Hermer, and we have Philippe Sands, who I think we have Philippe Sands, who I think somebody will correct me, all served in the same Chambers at the bar.

I must say to the noble Lord Goldsmith, for whom I have a very high regard, he is a very good high regard, he is a very good chairman of the committee when I was on it, I think to use Philippe Sands on it, I think to use Philippe Sands as an interviewer -- interviewee is as an interviewer -- interviewee is slightly strange, since he was a paid council by the British Government. I think that is right, Government. I think that is right, he can correct me if I am wrong.

We have heard from the noble Lord Houghton about lawfare. I think this Houghton about lawfare. I think this is lawfare. It really is lawfare. If I might quote Christopher Greenwood, who I don't know at all, but he said here, according to the International Agreements Committee the consequence of not ratifying the agreement are that it completely undermines our position that we RSAP that wishes to promote the rule of law in the international sphere. He is an excellent lawyer, but he had of course been with the court for a dozen years or so, which does slightly sometimes make you think in a particular way.

Now, any court, the International Court of Justice is one, is actually a servant of the members of the court, and I think I am right in saying that, of the 15 members, one was Somali, one was Russian and one was Chinese. Somebody correct me if that is wrong. I would also like to quote, because I think it is rather important, about the security of the UK, which we have heard about from the Nobel laureate. Last week, we had the delayed report of the National Security Strategy, issued by this Government.

May I quote the Foreign Secretary, who said, "We want to make the UK harder target for our enemies." He said, "We have to have a clear idea of how we engage with major powers like China. We must protect our national security and protect our economic interests ." In the actual report, it states, if anybody is any -- under any illusions about this, in page 39, "Instances of China's espionage, interference in our democracy, and the undermine of our security have increased in recent years.

Our national security is responsible for confronting the threats." I don't consider that China is an enemy. But it certainly isn't an ally, either. I think we have to be open eyed about this. We might, for instance, consider the treaty we have with China over Hong Kong, and how well they have stuck to those in support. -- Those principles. We then had, I must say, an extraordinary attack on the Conservative government by the noble Lord. I was sitting next to the noble Lord Cameron not a moment ago, and he said, that is not the case.

Let us talk to the people who were

**** Possible New Speaker ****

there. Of course. All I can refer back to is

**** Possible New Speaker ****

All I can refer back to is Hansard, on the statement of James Cleverly. I am afraid the noble Lord should withdraw saying that I'm should withdraw saying that I'm incorrect. I quoted the ministerial statement from the Foreign Secretary.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

We heard Lord Ahmed and Lord Cameron earlier say entirely Cameron earlier say entirely different things. So, one last point I wish to make, which is about the I wish to make, which is about the marine protected area. Environmental matters are, of course, extremely important to, I think, the whole important to, I think, the whole world now. Could the Minister tell us, when he comes to sum up, how Mauritius will protect the reefs? Mauritius will protect the reefs? Because we don't have enough votes Because we don't have enough votes to do it, and what boats do they have to do it? And finally, on the treaty, we talked about, or I have treaty, we talked about, or I have mentioned, the treaty of Hong Kong.

How about international with the Budapest convention, I think it was called, where Russia agreed to respect the treaties of Ukraine? Treaties are marvellous, but they are not always held to by the people

**** Possible New Speaker ****

are not always held to by the people who sign them. I apologise for not getting up in the right order.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thought it was you. Diego Garcia is exceptionally

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Diego Garcia is exceptionally important to Western security, and the UK and the US are right to want to continue to have access to it. to continue to have access to it. But the importance of that base does But the importance of that base does rest on the ability of the two governments to be able to operate without hindrance. Sovereignty without hindrance. Sovereignty becomes important if the parties to the agreement failed to agree on its

17:13

Baroness Neville-Jones (Conservative)

- -

the agreement failed to agree on its implementation, and I think that is where the real world worry is. I wanted devote a moment or two devote a moment or 2 to the question of how the agreement is likely to pan out. Other noble lords have commented that the agreement has many shortcomings. So many, indeed, that it is hard to see that the implementation will be smooth. There are areas where there is insignificant detail, and there areas where there is clearly going to be disagreements.

Already, the Mauritian government show signs of going back on some of the central provisions, like the rental to be paid, and indeed the basic purpose of the marine protected area. So, I begin to ask myself the question, does one have, do we have a good- faith partner? I wonder. Others have remarked on the shameful treatment of the British Chagossian's, and I think that is a whole separate area of problems, where something better can still be done.

So, the provisions of the agreement are, I think, the most worrying, those that impinge upon the operation of the base itself. The openings given by the agreement of the Mauritian government to enter into dispute or interfere with decisions on, for instance, things like the equipment of the base in the agreement, it is frankly naive to think that an obligation to inform the Mauritian government of certain operations well before or after the event, I don't frankly think that is the issue, but before the event would be extraordinary, but to think that the obligation to pass on information of this kind doesn't affect the security of the operation, I think it is quite obvious that that increases the level of security.

Government says the Americans support the deal. I wonder if they have decided that it is not worth arguing at this stage. It is not clear to me that this agreement, and I don't mean any agreement, I am talking about this agreement, that this agreement puts us in a situation for the long-term. I do wonder whether, as technology moves on, as international politics move on, whether we may not, in the end, find that, far from being an important part of our general armoury, that Diego Garcia becomes

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I was beginning to think I had turned into my namesake and I was turned into my namesake and I was turned into my namesake and I was walking through the looking glass because the speech that began this debate was one from someone who had been part of the Department in the been part of the Department in the previous government. His attempts to knock back everything that had been achieved by that, was really quite

17:16

Baroness Liddell of Coatdyke (Labour)

- -

achieved by that, was really quite remarkable. But still, I would like to take this opportunity to complement the Baroness and the Lord on those quite historic speeches, one entering the House, the other leaving the House, and I missed Lord Boswell, he kept me out of trouble when I first became a member of the House by keeping me on the straight and narrow in the library. I did not really focus much on Diego Garcia until I joined the Commonwealth office and I had to be brought up to speed fairly quickly on how critically important that involvement in Diego Garcia was as we looked forward to the challenges and the problems that may lie ahead.

I went to Australia and Australia certainly understood the critical nature of the base and how important it had become, not just for the southern hemisphere, it had always been important to them, but it was important to many more countries as well. And that idea of a US and UK amalgamation on the island has really brought great benefits to the security of this country because the operation there is pretty unique and it gives extra clout whenever there are challenges against our piece.

Our allies, not just in the communities of the US, Australia, Canada, New Zealand, and indeed ourselves, but also India, Japan, South Korea, strongly support the deal. And the former Prime Minister of Australia who is now the Australian ambassador to Washington and an expert on China, has said that this is a good outcome for Mauritius and for Australia, the UK, and our collective security interests. India called the agreement on Mauritius sovereignty a milestone achievement and a positive development for the region.

Had they delayed any longer from the 11 meetings that the previous government had had, we could have lost this critical asset. Patience was wearing thin in Mauritius. It took just two further meetings to resolve the issue and if the Mauritius had finally lost patience, we could have lost this vital asset. And we also managed to get in a conclusion that was positively welcomed by Gibraltar who has similar concerns about their future role and I think that is a very important way of summing it up.

The chief Minister said, I am very clear that there is no aspect of this decision, the advisory opinion of the treaty which has any negative read across to Gibraltar. I take very much on board, the criticism that there has been of how the Chagossians have been cheap -- treated. I think it is a good idea of the government to finance a trust fund for Mauritius to use in support of the to go see in community, even down to supporting visits for Chagos Islands to the including Diego Garcia, it is sensible and caring and we cannot redo what happened in the past but we can express our understanding of the pain and suffering that many Chagossians went through.

The government wants to build positive relationships with the Chagossian community, built on respect and an acknowledgement of the wrongs of the past. The Mauritian PM has also reconfirmed his commitment to supporting the creation of a marine protected area creation of a marine protected area around the archipelago, Diego Garcia is not like the Isle of Man close to the close of the UK, it is 1250 miles from Mauritius. So it is good that we have that commitment. Had we not moved when we did, and this was mentioned by some of our distinguished legal colleagues, courts were already making decisions that could have undermined our goals and they could have been looking at legally binding provisions affecting the waters around Diego Garcia, much to the delight of our enemies.

The unique capabilities we have built in Diego Garcia could have been lost and we could have had no way of preventing potential enemies setting up installations on nearby islands or carrying out joint exercises. That is one of the key things that has come out of this arrangement and I commend it to the House.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, the most damaging blow to any country's international to any country's international reputation as a justified charge of hypocrisy. The United Kingdom stands hypocrisy. The United Kingdom stands for the rule of law in all circumstances. We lose credibility when we seek exceptions to this

17:22

Lord McDonald of Salford (Crossbench)

- -

when we seek exceptions to this principle for ourselves. Opponents of the Chagossian agreement claim that the International Court of Justice has no jurisdiction so the UK can safely ignore its rulings. They point out that in February 2019, by CJ handed down an advisory opinion. However, although we may choose to ignore it, other bodies of United Nations cannot. They are bound by it. We have already seen that with the judgement of 2021. As we weigh the merits of the agreement, we need also to take account of the history of the archipelago which came to the UK with the rest of the colony of Mauritius in the Treaty of Paris of 1814.

Although Mauritius and Chagossian are about 2,000 miles apart, the historic link is strong, perpetuated by the UK as colonial power. Administratively, it suited our predecessors to treat all British possessions in the Indian Ocean as one colony. At the start of the era of decolonisation, the UN set out the rules of the road. In December 1960, the General assembly decided that the colonial power could not break up a colony as it was leaving. We ignored that ruling when we decided in 1965 that Chagossian be detached from the rest of Mauritius at independence which happened in 1968.

Over the next five decades we did all we could to avoid a case going to the ICJ. We lost the key vote in the general assembly in 2017 by 94 votes to 15. Once we were in the arbitration, we could not in my view, ignore the outcome. The evidence overwhelmingly suggests that trying to invoke protections we had written into the rules decades before persuaded nobody but ourselves. Opponents disliked the expense of the deal. Well, we are paying the going rate of the tenant base and the wider Indian Ocean.

Something more than the French in Djibouti, but we are getting more formal. Diego Garcia is the best defensive real estate in the whole Indian Ocean. Even though £101 million per year is a lot, it is a lot less than the Americans pay to run the base. It is a joint base and we are paying our way in the joint effort. Opponents claim that this boosts China's presence in the Indian Ocean. The reverse is true. Mauritius is one of only two of 55 members of the African Union not to be part of China's belt initiative.

And while 3% of Mauritius's population is ethnically Chinese, 67% is ethnically Indian. Our partner in Delhi looms in than invasion. Opponents and supporters agree on one thing. More needs to be done to alleviate the plight of the Chagossians. Over generations, they have been treated monstrously. Forcibly transplanted to the archipelago to tend plantations in the 20th century and then forcibly removed in the 1960s and 70s to make way. We must make amends. The agreement goes partly to doing that.

And for the first time, the agreement allows Mauritius to resettle the out islands. Confronted by a charge of double standards, some opponents of this agreement shrug their shoulders. They think they can get away with it. Tough it out. But that is what the powerful and unprincipled do. That is what Russia does. Neither the Biden nor Trump administrations endorsed such a cavalier approach. In effect, they both told us we had a problem and asked us to solve it. This agreement does precisely that.

It gives the UK and our American allies a secure presence in the archipelago for the next 140 years. It enhances our security and restores our reputation as a country respecting international law even when inconvenient and costly. I agree with the noble Lord, the chair of my committee, the national agreements committee. That agreement deserves the support of your Lordships House.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The speakers list appears to be almost as fictional as the agreement almost as fictional as the agreement we are discussing, your Lordships we are discussing, your Lordships will forgive me for coming up earlier than I thought I was. The international courts advisory opinion is clearly based on its

17:27

Lord Mancroft (Conservative)

- -

conclusion of the serenity of the Mauritius and the Chagos Islands is immiscible, they must now be returned to Mauritius and the noble Lord has just given us some history on that. But my reading of it is slightly different. The Chagos Islands were never part of Mauritius, though jointly administered from Mauritius and in part directly from London, from the time they came under British control. Joint administration is not the same as collective serenity. Whilst no two examples are ever the same, there are similar examples.

The Turks and Caicos islands were annexed to Jamaica in 1873 and administered as a Jamaican dependency until 1962 when Jamaica was granted independence, at which point takes and Caicos became a colony administered from the Bahamas in exactly the same way the Chagos Islands has been ministered from Mauritius. When independence was gained, no one suggested takes and Caicos were part of Jamaica or the Bahamas and they remained a colony with full independence. The Cayman Islands have a similar history, uninhabited until occupied by Europeans and under British control from 1670.

They were administered as a crime quality until Jamaican independence -- crown colony. At no point to Jamaica or anyone else attempt to argue that these were part of Jamaica. Whatever the International Court of Justice may say, it is very difficult not to conclude that the opinion is based on the misunderstanding of the facts. Mauritius has never had serenity over the Chagos Islands while they may have been jointly administered, they have always been completely separate entities. Now that the Chagos Islands are of importance to the United Kingdom and to the United States, this seems to be agreed by all parties and there is clearly their value because beautiful and environmentally valuable though they undoubtedly are, they have little or no economic value.

It is therefore as a base from which to conduct naval and air operations and as a communication hub that they must be valued. For some, pretty uninhabitable islands in the middle of the Indian Ocean, they seem to be quite valuable. ICJ opinion is that the UK should return them to Mauritius, although Mauritius has never owned them, but it says nothing about the UK giving Mauritius eye watering sums of money. Of course, in return for giving them eye watering sums of money, we are buying a lease.

Much has been made of the approval of this deal, but that is not at all surprising. The UK has bought a very expensive lease to which the United States do not see to be contributing to require an airbase largely for American use. It is a great deal to the United States but less so for us. There is of course, a better way of doing this but unsurprisingly it is commercially ignorant and this government does not seem to have thought of it. The British generation government have agreed that a 99 year lease of Diego Garcia is apparently three a 99 year lease of Diego Garcia is apparently 3.4 billion.

Everyone else thinks the real figure is 30 billion and is my noble friend said a few minutes ago, I think we need some clarity because that is an extraordinary stretch of figures. Let's assume that the government figure was reached using the wonky pocket calculator, either way it is going to make the Governing is always a question of priorities. In this case, the Government has decided that paying a great deal of money is the priority. The Prime Minister and the Attorney General, both lawyers, but of demonstrably poor political judgement, have decided that settling a legal dispute in a faraway court between people of whom we know nothing takes priority over the interests of the British people, for whom this is not a good deal.

I think they have got their priorities wrong. Surely, a better solution is to sell the Chagos Islands to Mauritius for whatever the market deems a fair price for the freehold, which would obviously be rather greater than the leasehold value. And if the Americans want their base, let them negotiate a new lease with the Mauritian government who will, in any case, looking for a big mortgage to fund their freehold purchase. Isn't President Trump, his lifetime of expertise in property, the right man to do that deal? Thus, the Russian government will get the Chagos Islands, the Americans will get to keep Diego Garcia, and the British taxpayer doesn't get fleeced again, and may even make a book or two, which would be a nice change.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

That way, everyone is a winner. It is always a pleasure to follow

**** Possible New Speaker ****

It is always a pleasure to follow my noble friend. The issue of the my noble friend. The issue of the need for a legal underpinning -- and legal underpinning of the Chagos treaty has been the subject of numerous excellent monographs by a numerous excellent monographs by a team of authors, led by the professor of law and constitutional

17:33

Lord Murray of Blidworth (Conservative)

- -

professor of law and constitutional government at Oxford, and published by Policy Exchange. The noble Lord referred to the country being undermined by human rights lawyers. I can say to my noble friend that not all of them, including, of course, both Prof Ekins and myself. It is clear to my mind that the risk of an adverse judgement, and the real risk to the operation of the UK-US airfield at the Aidoo Glacier is overplayed by those who favour this treaty.

Mauritius cannot, as a matter of international, secure a binding judgement before an international tribunal, establishing it is sovereign over the Chagos Islands, because the United Kingdom is not required to assent to this adjudication by the International Court of Justice. Accordingly, the Government explains its position by saying that it anticipates that another tribunal, specifically the international tribunal of the law of the sea, which, I might add, has no jurisdiction over questions of sovereignty over territory, would presuppose that the ICJ's 2019 advisory opinion has settled that Mauritius is sovereign, and thus will proceed to exercises jurisdiction in relation to disputes about the law of the sea, on the premise that Mauritius, rather than the UK, is sovereign.

But there is not a word about sovereignty over the Chagos Islands in that opinion by the ICJ, and moreover, the elements of the opinion, adverse to the UK's administration of the islands, are advisory and not capable of finding the UK to change its decision, but that it had interrupted -- uninterrupted sovereignty of the islands for over 200 years. Thus, any supposition by the international tribunal would be erroneous in fact and law., The Fabled International Rules-based Order Lauded by the Noble Lord, Does Not in Fact Require this treaty that is put before Parliament.

I can greatly shorten my remarks, but otherwise quoting the Lord Blencathra. I share his concerns regarding the obligations that he has set out. I also share the concerns in respect of the treaty of pel indaba, in relation to the Treaty of nuclear weapons on African soil, raised by the noble Lord. The Government thus far have flippantly dismissed this concern, without explaining why it is so, and I would ask the noble Lord, the Minister to set out in detail why it is that Mauritius would not be in breach of their obligations under the treaty if there are nuclear weapons positioned in the Diego Garcia base.

My final point is this, the noble Lord, Lord Purvis of Tweed became very excited and suggest that my noble friend, Lord Cameron had laid a fatal motion. If only that was so. Unfortunately, even if the House is minded to pass my noble friend's motion this evening, it will, pursuant to section 20 of the CRAG Act 2010, merely require the noble Lord, the minister, or another Ministers of the Crown, to make a statement indicating that the Minister is of the opinion that the treaty should nevertheless be

**** Possible New Speaker ****

ratified, and explaining why. The noble Lord is a stickler for accuracy. I quoted Hansard come when accuracy. I quoted Hansard come when L Minto said that a fatal motion had

**** Possible New Speaker ****

been laid. Is an interesting point, as to whether my noble friend, Lord Minto, whether my noble friend, Lord Minto, was correct, but the reality... No, no, Lord Purvis, the reality is that, sadly, even if this motion is passed, it will not, sadly, kill passed, it will not, sadly, kill this treaty. My final question is this, can the noble Lord, the this, can the noble Lord, the Minister please confirm whether it is right that, as set out in the is right that, as set out in the Explanatory Notes, in accordance with Convention, given this is a with Convention, given this is a treaty to cede territory, and following, most recently, the following, most recently, the example of the concession of Hong Kong and Hong Kong Island in 1997, Kong and Hong Kong Island in 1997, he will repeat the assertion expressed in the Explanatory Notes expressed in the Explanatory Notes that the ratification of this treaty will await the completion of the passage of the proposed Bill to implement the measures in the treaty?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I rise to support the motion in the name of my noble and learned friend, Lord Goldsmith, to thank him friend, Lord Goldsmith, to thank him for his distinguished chairmanship of the committee, of which I of the committee, of which I happened to be a member, and to thank also the secretary at to that

17:38

Lord Boateng (Labour)

- -

thank also the secretary at to that committee -- Secretariat to that committee, for all the hard work they have put in to producing this report, under very challenging circumstances, in terms of time. They are to be congratulated, and the whole House owes them a debt of gratitude. The noble Lord, Lord Murray of Blidworth, disputes the sovereignty of Mauritius. He is entitled to do that. I happen to disagree with him. But I wonder, on what basis does he assert the sovereignty of the United Kingdom? Other than by force of arms? The same force of arms that is, as we speak, being utilised against the people of Ukraine.

So, we have to be very careful... Of course, I give way.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

In 1840. That was under duress. Let us be

**** Possible New Speaker ****

That was under duress. Let us be very, very clear. These islands are very, very clear. These islands are African islands. These islands are inhabited by African people, brought inhabited by African people, brought their as slaves in the economic interest of Britain and France. So, it ill beholds the noble Lord, or it ill beholds the noble Lord, or any of us, to presume a position of moral or ethical superiority, when it comes to the Chagos Islands. And it comes to the Chagos Islands.

And it must also be said, and I say so it must also be said, and I say so with great reluctance, to the noble Lord, the Lord Mancroft, for whom I Lord, the Lord Mancroft, for whom I have the most upmost respect, he have the most upmost respect, he describes the Chagossians as, "these are a people about whom we know are a people about whom we know nothing." They are a people about... Of course, I give way.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Of course, I give way. No, I was not referring to the Chagossians.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Chagossians. I am much obliged the noble Lord, because of course, we do know a great deal about the Chagossians. We know that they have been the victims of abuse and deceit over very many years. We know that they have been lied to. We know that they have been consistently mistreated, and as the committee report makes very clear, we accept that there is some basis in reality that, over many years, the interests of the Chagossians have been subordinated to the national-security interests of the United Kingdom and its allies.

That is an undisputed fact. I have the pleasure, as we all do, and as we all have had, of listening to the valedictory speech of the noble Lord, Lord Boswell, who many of us know, I entered the House, the other place at the same time as he did. His has been a period of service dedicated to the notion of humanity and decency. That is what we all try and uphold in this place, do we not? And we have a duty, as we consider this particular treaty, to uphold those values of humanity and decency, when it comes to the people of the Chagos Islands.

I am bound to say to the noble Lord, the minister, who has done so much for this country, and for its reputation in Africa and the wider world, that we really do need a greater degree of certainty that the Chagossians are in fact going to be treated better now than they have been in the past, because they have been promised compensation in the past, and they haven't had it. So, we do want to know that any procedures, any committees, any trust fund established under this treaty will established under this treaty will in fact be supervised in a way that ensures that the Chagossian is actually benefit from it, because in the past, others in Mauritius have benefited from it, the Chagossians haven't benefited from it, and certainly the Chagossians in this country and the Seychelles all too often have been left out of consideration altogether.

So, I do hope the noble Lord, the Minister will give us that assurance. If he does, we can welcome this treaty as an end to a period of colonial rule that hasn't always done this nation any credit at all. On the contrary, it has devalued our commitment to humanity and decency, and the people

**** Possible New Speaker ****

of Chagos are entitled to some redress for last. It is a great pleasure to follow

**** Possible New Speaker ****

It is a great pleasure to follow the noble Lord, and to agree with pretty well everything he has said, particularly the Nobel laureate's particularly the Nobel laureate's last comments about Britain's is record and what a stain this is an record and what a stain this is an our historical records. I was astonished that the noble Lord astonished that the noble Lord Callaghan spoke about Diego Garcia about being under British control for two centuries, as though that for two centuries, as though that should be a reason to continue to uphold the last colony in Africa.

It uphold the last colony in Africa. It slips the duress that Lord Boateng slips the duress that Lord Boateng referred to as worldwide. It has remained under British control after

17:44

Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (Green Party)

- -

remained under British control after the now Duke of Wellington's great great-great-grandfather when out in the battle of Waterloo, as a length of historical accident continuing. There is no reason for Britain to continue to hold land some 9,400 km as the crow flies from London. The age of colonial Britain should be over, and if we are to find a place in a new multilateral world, and show respect for the rule of law and principles of human rights, then abandoning claims to sovereignty is a step in the right direction.

I am going to focus on two points. Echoing the points made by Lord Grocott about the brutal and cruel removal of the people of the Chagos Islands, and the continuing betrayal by Britain, I was stressed to the noble Lord, Lord Purvis of Tweed, that there is no amnesia on this particular seat. I am proud that the Green Party has a long tradition of standing up the Chagossians. A quick search on the Internet finds many examples, but I will note one example of Caroline Lucas, my honourable friend formerly of the other place, who in 2017 was battling an early day motion which quote man's that the government fulfils its human rights obligations and allows the Chagossians to return home." This is a demand that should be continued.

My second focus is environmental, as Lord Goldsmith said in his very compounds of speech, and indeed, the excellent committee report, referencing an expert academic voice, this is one of the most important reef environments on the planet. We as a human species have done terrible damage to the oceans and the seas As we discussed earlier, with the threat of deeply mining, we could be giving even more damage to essential ecosystems on which our life depends but of which we know little. And one of the things that is worth saying about this huge area of relatively untouched environment, is not just its importance in its own right, but it is one of the last places where researchers can study a coral reef system and broken by human hands.

It provides the benchmark that when we are looking at other damage places, we can say that is what it should look like. We cannot afford to lose that. We know that Mauritius has promised to maintain environmental protections but, well they have promised, they have given verbal pledges. Let me finish my sentence. They have given verbal pledges, but verbal pledges do not stop illegal fishing fleets. They do not override economic pressures that might come on in the future. And this is one of the world's largest green zones, twice the size of the UK.

I think we need to stress that point. And it is also worth noting that even under UK jurisdiction, and with all of the existing and potential force associated with Diego Garcia and, enforcement has not been, trawlers have been caught operating illegally in the waters and have often evaded prosecution. There is also the fact, and I now come to direct questions, the US military base is a threat. In terms of spillages of oil, other environmental contamination, just the impact of humane existence are, so I would be interested if the noble of the Minister could comment on how we are going to ensure that the continuing base and our continuing place there's not going to do damage.

And finally, my final question to the Minister is regarding media access to Diego Garcia. I note that last year, the Garcia. I note that last year, the BBC noted in a report on the visit, to enter the island, you need a permit only granted to people with connections to the military facility or British authority that runs the territory. Journalists have historically been barred. The BBC had to push extremely hard to get into Diego Garcia for one special case.

What is intended to be a policy of openness and transparency in future?

17:49

Lord Altrincham (Conservative)

- -

I thank the noble of the Minister for listening so carefully to this very wide-ranging debate. I thank Lord Goldsmith for his report and for both reports which are so carefully written and judged, even if we might all disagree all members disagree on the conclusion that the government has reached, they are carefully presented. Both reports indicate that the government had discretion over this treaty, the agreements committee uses the word compromise which is a good way of looking at it.

And the Defence Committee uses the expression of a political choice. And discretion is very wide in a situation like this, discretion is such that the government could give territory without money. The government could give money without territory. And indeed, we might look at this from a financial standpoint in the context of many other development situations where we choose to make financial transfers for development, for defence, for friendship and other reasons, but in this case, the economic agreement with the Republic of Mauritius, in this case, the generosity that this government is making towards Mauritius, might come as a surprise to many citizens of this country.

Mauritius is not a country. The GDP per capita of Mauritius is comparable to Brazil and Mexico. And in terms of Commonwealth islands, beautiful islands with useful features, which we know are interesting to people from this country, in terms of Commonwealth islands like St Vincent and Jamaica and Fiji, Mauritius is quite a bit richer. Mauritius benefits from a low tax rate. They have tax of GDP around 20%, we are past 30% in this country. Good news for the citizens of Mauritius.

Good news, too, for UK non- dons and non-resident Indians who choose to make their tax residency in Mauritius with a low tax rate, Mauritius is running a deficit. But the useful thing for Mauritius is that the initial payment in this remarkable agreement, just the initial payment, cover the Mauritius deficit in full. But it gets better. Because depending on how the calculation is made for the overall cost of this agreement, depending on how the calculation is made, depending on how a future government chooses to settle out the cost, capitalise, pay it off, or however they needed, depending on how the future cost is calculated and settled, Mauritius may be able to repay some or all of its national repay some or all of its national debt.

Regardless of the merits of giving away territory, which we have heard about in this debate, regardless of the merits of giving away territory, the government at the moment should not be making payments of this kind. And that is because we are financing our own public expenditure. The money that we are going to be paying across Mauritius will not actually come from our taxpayers because our taxpayers are not even able to fund the government as it is currently spending within this country.

The money we will pass to Mauritius will be borrowed. It will be borrowed from people who are lending to the British Government, savers and pension funds. The people who lend money might be surprised that the money they are lending to Her Majesty's Treasury is going to be passed to the Republic of Mauritius. Maybe we should be a little clearer with them of what is going on. What we could do is we could ask the government to name one of the upcoming issues made by the British Government as a Chagos bond, and then when it comes up for repayment and redemption in 2049 2053, we will all be able to remember all about, we were borrowing money to pasture Mauritius.

The government at any one time has a variety of contingent financial liabilities, items we prefer to not be paid for now. A good one to compare this to would be the decommissioning of Northsea oil, this is the thing about removing the equipment in the Northsea. It will be extremely expensive, it is worth not paying for any time soon, but the difference is when we come to do that decommission, the money will be spent in the United Kingdom. It will create thousands of jobs, it will create a degree of economic demand within the UK and that is not the case when we pass money to Mauritius.

It specifically is not the case because within the agreement, we even prioritise economic activity for the benefit of Mauritius contracts, immersion employees, in the military base, so the priority of this is favour the other way round. This whole agreement speaks to a weakness in financial control and the amendment for the government and for Her Majesty's Treasury, we need better guardrails, better supervision of financial decisions of this type in Parliament.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I happily join in congratulating the Baroness Andrews remarkable maiden speech, and I expressed sadness at seeing the departure of her father who is a good friend and her father who is a good friend and late wives were very close friends. late wives were very close friends. It is with sadness that we bid goodbye to a remarkable goodbye to a remarkable parliamentarian. No agreement is perfect, and of course, there are perfect, and of course, there are proper concerns about disagreements proper concerns about disagreements which have been expressed by many colleagues this evening.

But there is no way in which the opposition frontbench can plausibly express those concerns and I join with the Lord in saying that after 11 rounds Lord in saying that after 11 rounds of negotiation and after the clear statement made by Sir James

17:55

Lord Anderson of Swansea (Labour)

- -

statement made by Sir James Cleverly, it is as clear as possible that had they not been a general elections, the Conservative government would have brought forward some agreement similar to the one which we now have, so it is opportunism on stilts for the Conservative frontbench now to say that they oppose with such vehemence this particular commitment, just as they did with the agreement on Gibraltar, knowing in the interest of Gibraltar far better than the chief Minister of Gibraltar.

Having said that, we are told that the government has abandoned sovereignty, sovereignty was always contested in any event. And of course, that was emphasised by the overwhelming majorities against us, 13 to one in the ICC, and in the United Nations general assembly, that shows that increasingly we are a last out in international in terms of sovereignty, as is by reaching disagreement, we are on the right side in terms of the rule of law and that will stand us in good stead in the future.

We cannot now be accused of hypocrisy. The motion of course, refers to the lack of consultation with the Chagossian community. In international law of course, self- determination is self-determination of the whole unit and we cannot somehow detach the islands from Mauritius for that purpose. But it is true that the way in which the Chagossian community were treated from the late 1960s on, is a major plot on our late colonial history and one we should in every possible way, now seek to remedy by, for example, promoting employment opportunities and Diego Garcia and pressing for settlements and the outer islands.

My only hesitation I have in relation to the Chagossians is that many tell me now, that they wish to return but of course, very few of the original Chagossians who remain, and I feel there is a sort of nostalgic romanticism about going back home and if they are not working on the base, which number well, somehow living with very basic infrastructure and the outer islands, living on fishing, having tasted the good life in the West, I fear that if many do return, they will not stay for long and many will in fact return to the countries where they are now resident.

On the environment, I share with colleagues, the concern about the degree of the capability of Mauritius to carry out the degree of protection of the environment which is necessary. I know much has been said about the national-security and it surely is important that the United States and the current president is content with their interests, or indeed settled by the agreements which have been made. It is hardly surprising that China has been mentioned, that of course, the current Mauritian government accept the benefits which come from China and there is a small Chinese community of long-standing on the island.

What is clear to those who know the island well, is that from independence under the Prime Minister's father, the great founder of the nation, all the leaders of the Prime Minister's of Mauritius, with one exception, a Franco who came to a deal with the previous Prime Minister on the electoral sharing, all prime Ministers came not from India but from a relatively small part of India and roughly, two thirds, over two thirds of the current people in Mauritius come out of Indian descent.

So if they were to be in the future, if there was some choice to be made between China and India, I am confident as can be, that Mauritius would come down in favour of India. Clearly, that Diego Garcia is of importance to us, there is clear evidence of, that the special relationship with the USA would, has been confirmed, and that the, I regret in passing, in finalising this rather opportunist motion, it is a deal, yes with floors, but basically in our floors, but basically in our

18:01

Baroness Hoey (Non-affiliated)

- -

May add my graduation as to the noble Baroness Prentis on her maiden speech. We had a formidable woman to your Lordships' House. There have been some very interesting speeches, and I particularly enjoyed and agreed with the noble Lord Blencathra and the noble Lord Murray. I think it has been said by a number of people that English sovereignty over the Chagos Islands isn't a legal decision. It is a political decision. The Government has decided to do this. I don't accept the advisory ruling of the International Court of Justice should have led to what is basically a surrender of British territory.

Much has been made of the fact that the Conservative government started these negotiations, but of course, it is not a Conservative government that signed the treaty, it is a Labor government. I am sure that if it had been a Conservative government a couple of years ago, when they did start to negotiate, who had signed a treaty, we would have had exactly the same kind of amendment being put down now by the then Opposition. Because the Government now says that if we had defied the IFS, then in the long- term, our hugely important occupation of Diego Garcia as a military base, and I think there is no one in this House who doesn't think it is usually important, that that would have been threatened.

I don't accept that, because what are we really saying? That we are going to just allow somebody to kind of tell is that we have to get out of the Chagos Islands? I mean, when we going to stand up for our own country? When are we going to say, sorry, international might be very important, but if it is not in our national interest, then we are not going to follow it. I am really getting rather fed up with these international bodies that we are then being told we have to follow, when actually, sometimes, it is very much not in our interest.

And then, of course, we are actually paying out millions of pounds to actually give away our own territory. It is rather mind-boggling, and I think the public out there, once all the legal niceties and the legal words and the lawyers have finished, do realise that we are actually selling out part of our own territory, and for what benefit? I want to just talk specifically about the Chagossians, the treatment the noble Lord Grocott said very clearly, the cruelty that we gave to those Chagossians, not back in colonial times, actually, but in the mid- '60s, when most of us here were alive.

That bit of... That was absolutely cruel, what we did. As one local Chagossian said to me just recently, "And now they are doing it again to me -- to us." The treaty may say that it is recognising the wrongs of the past, Mauritius has made much of the plight of the Chagossians, and in justifying surrendering the islands to Mauritius, the UK Government has congratulated itself on addressing the injustices done to the Chagossians. It is therefore quite astonishing that the treaty doesn't actually say that any provision or Chagossian's, other than a few who are based in Mauritius, and they are the only few who were very vaguely involved in any kind of negotiations, the rest of the Chagossians were not involved in any negotiations.

Article 6 provides for the possibility, and it is a possibility, of Mauritius in preventing a programme of resettlement on the islands. Incidentally, if we all cared so much about the Chagossians, why did none of our governments say they could go to any of the other islands, apart from Diego Garcia? It was raised many times in the House of Commons by, actually, a former leader of the Labour Party. Under Article 6, Mauritius is under no legal obligation to implement this program of resettlement.

As things stand, not a single Chagossian has the right to return to any of the islands, unless Mauritius, whose record, actually, of what they did to Chagossian's in Mauritius is rather something they should be ashamed of, allows them to return. And yes, we are paying £40 million into a trust fund in trust for the Chagossians, which sounds very good, but is a tiny fraction of the overall sum to be paid to Mauritius, and Mauritius is going to actually work. It is going to decide how it is spent.

We are not responsible for it. It is a very bad track record of using money given to it. 650,000, back in 1972, and it took a long time for them to actually pass it onto the Chagossians. Up to 1978. So, there must be real doubt as to the likelihood that this trust fund will be used, so I would ask the Minister, in winding up, to actually come back to tell us how we are going to ensure that that money will go to Chagossian's, and not just be spent on Mauritius.

And finally, could the noble Lord, the Minister say, why could we not have a referendum of the Chagossian people? Why could we not? Is it because we know the answer that would be given? They have no love for Mauritius, they don't want to go back to Mauritius, and those who are in Mauritius, there might be a few who have probably been paid off by the Mauritius government to say so, most of them are unhappy about this, and I think it is a shameful act of our Government, and I am very, very sad that it is a Labor government who are not actually doing anything, really, to make up for what was in the mid-'60s.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I was pleased to take part

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I was pleased to take part earlier in a historic Parliamentary earlier in a historic Parliamentary family events, and I warmly congratulate the noble lady, Baroness Prentis of Banbury on her

18:07

Baroness Ludford (Liberal Democrat)

- -

Baroness Prentis of Banbury on her maiden speech, and I sadly say au revoir but not adieu to her noble kinsman, Lord Boswell, who was a splendid chairman of the European Union Committee. My perspective on the subject of Chagos shape, membership of the Chagos All-Party Parliamentary Group, founded nearly 20 years ago. I believe that Her Majesty's Opposition is being utterly disingenuous and dishonest in condemning this treaty. We know that negotiations began in autumn 2022 under the auspices of Prime Minister Liz Truss and Foreign Secretary James Cleverly, and continued for nearly 2 years under the Conservative Government of Rishi Sunak, and were almost complete when Labour came into power.

How on earth can Lord Callanan claim that the treaty is a strategic capitulation and surrender? He says ministers must take responsibility for their choices. I think the Opposition must too. It is pretty offputting to see the Tories now adopt opposition to the treaty as a cause celebre, and apply a range of full arguments. I believe the International Agreements Committee, it balanced and sensible report, is correct in its conclusions, including that the future of the base on Diego Garcia would be under greater risk in the unlikely event of a future legal judgement in favour of Mauritius.

Just a word on that basis, I would want to be assured that the UK would not commit the United States to breach international there, as it did including the UK Government -- he UK Government did including with the use of Diego Garcia for extraordinary rendition after 9/11. I am sorry Lord Goldsmith is not now in his place, because he and I corresponded on this matter when I was an MEP in 2006. The committee heard from Sir Christopher Greenwood, former Judge of the International Court of Justice, and he told the committee that, following that opinion from the international, and the vote in the General Assembly on the general resolution, I think that it would be in Britain's interests to ratify this treaty.

He went on, "The consequences of not ratifying are that, first of all, it completely undermines our position that we are a state that wishes to promote the rule of law in international affairs. Secondly, the risks of it being tested out in some other context are very troubling indeed, and could lead to a result far less attractive than the one we have for this treaty." I would be in favour of the agreement. He recognised that the ICJ judgement advisory was not binding, but he said, "It is of course, a very authoritative guide to the legal position.

In reality, it be difficult for any state to ignore an almost unanimous opinion of the international court ." I think we all agree that what a Labor government did 60 years ago was disgraceful, in displacing the Chagossian's, and there has been a tangled web of deception ever since, under governments of all parties. The Chagossians have been treated with contempt and disdain. However, views among Chagossian's now of the new treaty are far from unanimous, and the majority support it, especially the Chagos refugee group, whose leader I listened to about six weeks ago.

That is the largest single group. They believe it is the only they will be able to return for visits and resettlement. Sir Christopher Greenwood said that Britain's standing to argue that Mauritius should be required to resettle Chagossians on the other islands, frankly, is somewhat undermined by the fact that the United Kingdom has consistently refused any suggestion of resettlement on the other islands. This is a position that the UK Government have reaffirmed relatively recently. Indeed, the noble Lord Kamall Lord Ahmad, in replying in 2022 to a question from replying in 2022 to a question from Baroness Whitaker, who is here this afternoon, he replied, saying, "In November 2016, the UK Government announced that resettlement of Chagossians could not be supported on the grounds of feasibility, defence and so interest and costs to the British taxpayer.

The remains no right." I think that was the Conservative position. So, it is deeply irresponsible for the Opposition to try and suggest that Opposition to try and suggest that that the Chagos agreement has any impact on other settlements such as the Falklands and Gibraltar. As my noble friend, Lord Purvis said, we do seek more clarity, as does the committee, about the implementation of the agreement, including on funding and resettlement, and I think it is important, before we vote this evening, that the Government gives assurances on the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

points raised by my noble friend. Can I congratulate Baroness Prentis of Banbury on a fine and Prentis of Banbury on a fine and exhilarating maiden speech? The noble lady was my MP until regime noble lady was my MP until regime change last year. So, I personally change last year. So, I personally welcome her to the House. We will certainly miss the noble Lord, Lord certainly miss the noble Lord, Lord Boswell. We will miss his consistent wisdom, especially for me on Brexit.

I wish him all the best into the I wish him all the best into the future. As a member of the International Relations and Defence International Relations and Defence Committee, I have been participating in our short inquiry into the transfer of sovereignty of the transfer of sovereignty of the

18:13

Baroness Crawley (Labour)

- -

transfer of sovereignty of the Chagos Archipelago to Mauritius. Our committee also had the pleasure of two meetings with members of the International Agreements Committee, chaired by my noble and learned friend, Lord Goldsmith, on the treaty, and at one, we heard evidence from Stephen Doughty, MP and Minister of at the FCDO. Our inquiry centred on the how the -- how the transfer of the Chagos Archipelago could affect the UK's strategic interests and obligations for specific areas.

The future of defence and security arrangements on this day go -- Diego Garcia, the rights of the Chagossian people, the environmental protection of the archipelago, described by one of our witnesses as the most important reef wilderness on the planet, and finally, the cost of the agreement. Before asking my noble friend, the Minister some questions on these areas are concerned, may I sake, for clarity, that I agree overall with this treaty, and support the Government's rationale in bringing it forward.

That wasn't always the case. I started out as something of a sceptic, hawkish about, as I saw it, current Chinese influence on Mauritius and the region, and wondering if settling the sovereignty issue now with Mauritius might increase and influence in future. However, the more my committee looked into the context of bringing the agreement forward, the more I realised it was a question of balancing any possible long-term future risk with the growing present risk that not settling the sovereignty question would bring for the UK and its relations internationally.

I also take the point of the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, and I know that Lord Macdonald -- the noble, Lord Macdonald, of the influence of India, as far as Mauritius is concerned. I believe that the treaty absolves the risk that increasingly international bodies, such as the ICJ and the UN, would bring against the UK, and in favour of Mauritius. On the vexed question of sovereignty and postcolonial behaviour. Therefore, putting the base on Diego Diego Garcia was described by the Minister in his evidence as the UK's vital contribution to the UK US security relationship.

Absolutely vital. It could not have gone on operating on territory that was seen as internationally questionable. Sorry, as internationally as questionable legally. The last Conservative government realised this legal ambiguity needed fixing and entered into negotiations, as we have heard, with Mauritius. Holding 11 meetings before the general election last year. The Labour government took on that work and the result is the treaty now waiting ratification. Finally, I wish to ask the Minister questions on our committee's for areas of concern.

The future of defence and security. The termination clause in the agreement could be exploited by a hostile power to pressurising Mauritius into ending the agreement prematurely before the 99 year period. How does the Minister answer such concerns. Can I ask him also what lessons can we learn from the historic and shameful abuse of the Chagossian people and what degree of transparency will there be in ring fenced funding by Chicco CM's fenced funding by Chicco CM's Mauritius going forward.

The track record is abysmal as far as we can tell. Can my noble friend the Minister also give us some more detail on the way in which the development grant is going to support Marine Conservation Zone and support Marine Conservation Zone and how we can be sure how it will be used for that purpose. And on cost, what can the Minister say to those critics of Karsten can he say how the overall cost of leasing Diego Garcia has been arrived at.

None of us will be around in 19 years time, except perhaps for the noble Lord the Minister who is forever young, but to see how all this pans out, I am convinced that the future of the Chagossians and the base is more secure, not less because of this treaty.

18:19

Lord Bellingham (Conservative)

- -

The noble Baroness was well reefed and is always wise and conscientious. Having worked with her in the other place I welcome her presence here and likewise it is sad to see that her father is standing down after an incredibly illustrious career. Almost exactly to the day 15 years ago I was appointed as the FCO officer. First thing I had on the first day was a briefing by the overseas territories director's on the Chagos Islands..

Although we discussed a study regarding Chicco CM is being resettled, and we looked at the marine protection policy, which was signed by David Miliband, I was briefed on some of the legalities on the situation. One of the points that has not been mentioned is that when the original grant of 70 was made to Mauritius at the time of treaty which gave Mauritius independence, Mauritius was paid S can some of money, 1.5 degrees pounds at the time, to actually forego any specific further claim on the Chagos Islands.

So that £1.5 million now would be worth about 40, 50 about 40, 50 million. I don't think I'm breaking any efficiency by repeating what they said. What would happen if the UK was taken to the ICJ or other committees. Unless we agree to be bound by any decision, then the decision would not be binding. If we did agree to be bound by it and we could of course agree to be bound by it, then I would refer the Minister to Chapter 14 of the UN Charter, which does authorise the UN Security Council to enforce those court judgements.

It's also subject to the veto from the 5Ps. I refer the Minister to the 1980 case of Nicaraguan with the United States. There was a non-binding decision against the US, but then the US to from the court, except on an at hoc basis. That I gather is still the case. There is another point that has not been mentioned. The join the UN, ratifying our membership in 1945. Then as decolonisation began 1945. Then as decolonisation began in the early 50s, in 1960 launcher protocol to the UN whereby we stated that we would not agree in future to be a party to any proceedings involving postcolonial disputes.

What good device that was from officials at the time. How pertinent of them to look at what future disputes might entail, including compensation from aggrieved individuals or boundary disputes. The advice I got at the time was that we had an incredible strong and moral legal case and if we did agree to be bound by the decision, we could also end up by going down the veto route. Above all else we did not have to agree to a case in binding on the UK.

I think a lot of this was about discretion and about putting our national interest first and I just feel strongly that at the time we were in a position whereby national interest would be put first by future governments. I except that events have moved on. A lot of people have talked about the 11 rounds of negotiations entered into by the previous Foreign Secretary, by the previous Foreign Secretary, but we couldn't reach an agreement and that indicates that they had a bottom line.

Lord Cameron has made it clear that his bottom line was twofold. One was a role for the Chagos Islands, whom we have heard from a number of noble lords that they have been treated disgracefully. So maybe looking again at resettlement scheme was one of these bottom lines. The other bottom line was why did we not go for a Sovereign Base Area? Lord Cameron made it clear that without a sovereign base area in perpetuity the UK government would have signed up with this.

In the case of Cyprus we signed up to a sovereign case.. -- Case.. Think of all the complications that would arise with that. Finally, on the money, if I was the Labour MP in a marginal constituency concerned about austerity, cuts to welfare and the health service, I look about the amount of money going into this. You're looking at about 25 million over a period. I would be concerned about value for money. On the basis that we do not have a sovereign area and as a result of the fact we are spending a huge amount of money on what we did not have two, I will be joining my noble friend in voting for his motion.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I am delighted to have listened

18:25

Lord Fuller (Conservative)

- -

to Baroness Prentis give an absolutely wonderful operation and to demonstrate how the one in, one out principal might be applied on out principal might be applied on Wednesday. A deal is not ideal until it has been done regardless of what has happen before July, we have to understand that Labour had a understand that Labour had a political choice. How easy it must have seemed on those warm evenings last summer amongst the opinion formers, sipping prosecco Sindos North London townhouses, you know the ones, where they have not the breakfast room into the kitchen, put in an American fridge and they have bifold doors onto the terrace.

They thought it was a good idea to paid to give up land and then ask permission to use it by our enemies. International law requires it. Craving approval from marine and maritime bodies that had no nexus over sovereignty and businesses pushing us around. What we see here is that the legal basis for giving up the Chagos Islands is not a judgement, but an advisory opinion. The government is playing by absurd rules that defy logic or commonsense on what aren't even rules anyway.

And I'm not a property lawyer, but I know that freehold is best, avoid restrictive covenants, possession is only 9/10 of the law and when you transfer lamb to somebody else, it is customary to be paid for it. In my career I've ensure that lawyers are on hand, but not on top. Land and real estate is about selling a dream, but labour's lawyers have brought a nightmare because we have fitted for centuries from strategic land held on both sides of the Suez Canal, in Cyprus as my noble friend Lord Bellingham has reminded us, and also in the Chagos.

By giving up one side of the series it would be unwise in any circumstance, but who would have anticipated that exposure be so quick as we contemplate the Middle East tinderbox. It's an indefensible move from those in charge of our defences. Giving up land is bad enough, not being paid for it makes it worst, but overheads of the Chagossians without their consent or consultation their land has been taken and passed around as chattel by a Prime Minister who claims to have the human rights as the golden thread that runs through his actions.

Double standards. In times like this, as my noble friend reminds us, playing millions -- paying billions when we don't have enough money to give our pensioners the winter fuel allowance beggars belief. Sharing military secrets is enough, but the activities relating to the military base complies with international law. That old chestnut again. When does this become a statement of the international law and when will the law be determined when we want to contemplate military action.

When the facts change, you need to alter your position and the last few months the Middle East have changed that. The government is acting as an enemy within. For those who are prepared to trade a mere advisory opinion into a legally binding reason that will tie our hands on the flimsy pretext that we might avoid criticism from the usual suspects, including our enemies. It kiss me no pleasure to say that if this still does get history will show that it was at this moment that show that it was at this moment that Labour showed even more how out of touch they are in saloon bars up and down our nation.

This is the moment when everybody will see that labour's values are not British values because it weakens ask. This deal weakens us nationally, economically, financially and militarily to please that nebulous cohort of arbitrators in foreign lands who think we may have gone mad. The noble Baroness says it's a good deal for the narration is an is right there. This deal, Labour has made choice. This is a dud.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

We are first of all joined in joyful congratulations to Baroness

18:30

Lord Weir of Ballyholme (Democratic Unionist Party)

- -

joyful congratulations to Baroness Blackwood Prentice on her maiden speech. There has been much made about what the previous government did and what it may have done had it been in government. Whilst it was an interesting debating point, it misses the focus of why we are here, which is to determine whether this is a good deal or not. I will say it's a bad deal for the United Kingdom and an even worse deal for ... ... And ... And indeed ...

And indeed the ... And indeed the fear ... And indeed the fear of ... And indeed the fear of what ... And indeed the fear of what may, the horizon. Despite the fact that I think even at the international agreement committee there was divided opinion about the threats legally to the United Kingdom. To use a boxing analogy have thrown in the towel before the bell has rung for the first round. Let us have no doubt, this is a political decision rather than a legal imperative.

We have language sovereignty to Mauritius and as others have indicated link lift rather than return because Mauritius has never had sovereignty over the Chagos Islands. We have given it to a country which is further away from the Chagos Islands than we are in -- from Minsk in Belarus. And a country that is developing close relationships with Russia and has strong relationships and a growing friendship with China. And I have no doubt that despite all the attempts at protections within this treaty, that we will see greater levels of Chinese influence in the Chagos Islands as infrastructure is put in and indeed as Mauritius is worked with.

It is undoubtedly the case as well that one of the worst political insults that can be thrown at any government is that they have sold out. That is not an accusation which I think can be levelled at this government. They have not sold out. They have not even given away the islands. I have actually paid Mauritius to take them off our hands. Whether or not you take the figure of 3.4 billion, or the cash figure of 13 billion, or the inflation estimate of 30 billion, the reality is the same that we are paying an extraordinary amount simply to hand over the sovereignty of the Chagos Islands to Mauritius.

It is a circumstance which this government has finally actually achieved in tax cuts, unfortunately it is not for the people of the United Kingdom but for the people of Mauritius. But that stance I think what is even worse, is the position it has left the Chagossians in themselves. The expert perhaps one thing that has united us all in this chamber today, in this debate, it is an acceptance of the historically the United Kingdom has treated that Augustine people from the 1960s onwards very badly.

-- The Chagossian people. That is only exacerbated by the state. I had the opportunity of leading with the delegation of Chagossian, putting me in a pub perhaps with the Foreign Secretary. I'm in before the deal was done, that perhaps puts me in a superior position to the Foreign Secretary and it's undoubtedly the case and the overwhelming fuse of the Chagossians that one that is sceptical and hostile of this deal. No doubt government will say and it has been quoted in this debate that not everyone united with the Chagos Islands has an identical view and I would perfectly offset that.

But it does seem to be that the voices are overwhelmingly against this deal, and I think there's a good day, as Lord Callaghan and Baroness Hoey and others have said, to test out what Chagossian opinion is and that is to properly give them a level of self- determination and a referendum giving them the level of choice, rather than simply notifying them afterwards of what the deal is. To quote in conclusion one to go soon -- to UK Parliament is our Parliament.

And it is time as a parliament we did stand up for the rights of the Chagossian people that we have for so many years ignored. That is why I think it is right that tonight we do take a stand and that is why I will be supporting Lord

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Callaghan's proposal tonight. The United Nations special

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The United Nations special committee on decolonisation, which

18:36

Lord Roberts of Belgravia (Conservative)

- -

has been a major driving force behind these attacks on the British in territories, was founded in 1961, and dedicated to erasing the phenomenon of non-self-governing territories. It had important work to do in the 1960s and 70s, the period of winds of change. And when Western colonial powers were decolonising much of the globe. But it has utterly failed to recognise that the world has changed and as has the nature of modern colonisation. "The process of decolonisation is not complete ".

The special committee threatens on its website, saying it is dedicated to completing this mandate. It then numbers the 17 territories that it has yet to force to decolonise. And these include the Falkland Islands, Gibraltar, Pitcairn Island, sent Elina, the British Virgin Islands, Montserrat, the Turks and Caicos and Anguilla, Bermuda and the Cayman Islands. The majority of the places in its sites therefore are British. Indeed English is the main language in 14 of them. Whether or not the overwhelming majority of people of those territories wish to remain British, which in vote after vote in places like Gibraltar and the Falklands remind us that they certainly do, is utterly immaterial in the eyes of the UN special committee on decolonisation.

One of whose free vice chairs is given and the other is from Indonesia, the country that occupies West Papua. There are 29 states represented on the special committee, including such bastions of democracy and human rights as China, Cuba, Iran, Russia, Syria and Venezuela. These are the countries that are denouncing Britain for colonialism in places like the Chagos Islands were for ever half-century there has been no permanent civilian population. China meanwhile has blocked the classification of Hong Kong Inner Mongolia, Macau, Tibet, and Xinjiang, as non-self-governing territories under the terms of reference of the United Nations committee even though of course they are all effectively run from Beijing.

Russia has blocked no fewer than 26 territories, such as Crimea, from being put on the list. Why does Britain put up with this glaring farce? For there is effectively an entire bureau of United Nations dedicated entirely to eradicating British Overseas Territory such as the Chagos Islands and once the Chagos handed over to Mauritius, the special committee will simply justify its own existence by moving onto the next British territory. My Lords, this is happening at a time when there are plenty of examples around the world of powers that have genuinely occupied and colonised countries.

I mentioned Russia and China in and Indonesia but tacky occupies northern Cyprus, India occupies Kashmir and Armenia occupies parts of Nagorno-Karabakh and so on and yet none of these appear on the United Nations committee's hit list. Imperialism was never solely a western pathology. Any more than wall slavery. The only powers the United Nations committee on decolonisation accuses our question except for Morocco and the Western Sahara. -- Are British. The UK split the Chagos Archipelago from Russia switch never owned them.

So what could be more imperialist today than handing over these islands against the wishes of their exiled inhabitants, to a foreign power over 1,300 miles away, one that never ruled them in the past? Could anything be more ruthless and more contemptuous of the principle of self-determination, whatever the utterly egregious United Nations committee on decolonisation might say? In a recent survey only 19% of British people said that the British Government stuck up for our national interests. This is shocking.

Hardly surprising if the present measure is anything to go by.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I'm pleased to have the opportunity to contribute to the opportunity to contribute to the debate today on that motion in the name of the noble Lord Lord Callanan and to take the opportunity to and to take the opportunity to force, to examine insofar as five minutes I can do, the principles minutes I can do, the principles that underpin the principles to this treaty. Before I do so let me treaty. Before I do so let me congratulate Baroness Prentis on an congratulate Baroness Prentis on an excellent maiden speech.

And having heard the response to the heard the response to the valedictory speech that was also excellent speech, it seems I must have missed out in the 13 years I have missed out in the 13 years I was in the other place, and the 15 years I have been in your Lordship's House because have never had the opportunity to be close to working opportunity to be close to working as many other noble Lords have. However, I know of his reputation and I want to take this opportunity and I want to take this opportunity to say thank you for his distinguished service and to both distinguished service and to both houses, and wish him a long and happy retirement.

The opposition happy retirement. The opposition have left knows don't on turned -- no stone unturned and no thesaurus and consulted in keeping execution on this agreement. It has been described as shameful, and a sell- out. Built upon by the Leader of the Opposition who went further suggesting the terms of this agreement represents " a series of snivelling capitulation is to left-

18:43

Lord Browne of Ladyton (Labour)

- -

wing activists who hate Britain and wing activists who hate Britain and are ashamed about history". She are ashamed about history". She seems to have neglected some of the more recent chapters, it was of more recent chapters, it was of course a Conservative government, one of which she served, cabinet labour which conducted 11 rounds of labour which conducted 11 rounds of negotiations with issues to resolve the legal status of the Chagos Archipelago including Diego Garcia. Archipelago including Diego Garcia.

This whole process... Written This whole process... Written statement that was made, on 3 statement that was made, on 3 November on 3 November 2022, there has been some to-ing and fro-ing has been some to-ing and fro-ing about what was actually in the statement so with your Lordships permission I will read the statement because it reveals quite a lot. What because it reveals quite a lot. What the statement says, its first paragraph following the meeting paragraph following the meeting between then Prime Minister, my my right honourable friend the member for south-west Norfolk and the Prime for south-west Norfolk and the Prime Minister at the assembly, the UK and Mauritius have decided to begin negotiations on the exercise of sovereignty over the British Indian Ocean Territory, the Chagos Archipelago.

Through negotiations taking into account relevant legal proceedings, it is our intention to secure an agreement on the basis of international law to resolve all outstanding issues. If the issue of sovereignty was never on the table in these previous to graduations, something belied by the statement from which I have just read, I think it's essential that the party opposite explains what negotiating aims were. Of what did these negotiations consist of the motion that week considered applies, sovereignty and financial recompense were off the table.

The question arises, what was on the table and a union flag and a sheet of paper? The parameters announced by the Foreign Secretary, from which I have already quoted, these 11 rounds of negotiations had produced an embryonic deal utterly unlike that which the government is now before Pollard. If that statement was so Pollard. If that statement was so wedded to the status quo, why did the initiate negotiations at all? Let alone go through 11 successive rounds? Is the report for the international agreement makes clear refusal to ratify this treaty in a further refusal to negotiate would " represent a greater risk the future of our base on Diego Garcia, giving the vanishingly small possibility that an international quote was found in our favour".

I know it's become fashionable to see international law as an a la carte menu. Much of our influence and authority rests on a rotation. As we think about the future of the base, and our role in the Indo-Pacific, I should like to engage the question of Chinese influence. As opposed to deal have suggested motion sovereignty over the islands the represented huge security risk if the Chinese bring the inference to the Chinese bring the inference to Presidents suggests that risk can be managed.

Kenny, we have a permanent presence of military training. As of April this year there has been an agreement regarding the Chinese agreement regarding the Chinese Kenny community. The is an explicit degree of Chinese influence that has not been precluded. This is not a Chinese Poor. It's judiciary is the second most robust in Africa in Djbouti. Try as I might I cannot find any evidence that Mauritius and China are becoming best friends. What I can find is lots of places where it is asserted that this is been claimed but there is no basis for it.

This has strong diplomatic ties with several countries and my research reports that the closest allies of the United Kingdom, allies of the United Kingdom, France, India and South Africa. In the other place the shadow Defence Secretary stigmatise this deal as representing a complete and utter failure. I believe this motion represents a failure to negotiate with reality. The treaty negotiated by this government shows control of Diego Garcia for the next century and beyond. We have an effective and beyond.

We have an effective veto and development indeed Chagos Archipelago within a buffer zones. I offer my full support in any other proceedings in your Lordships House.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I joined the ship Utz to the noble Lord law was well, who is chairing of the ripping committee I chairing of the ripping committee I greatly admired, and the tributes to greatly admired, and the tributes to an excellent Maiden speech. Like father, like daughter. I also thank the two committees for their advice.

18:48

Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (Crossbench)

- -

the two committees for their advice. I am going to risk the Rauf of the noble Lord by focusing on a couple of issues of which I know something, or used to know something. When I lived in Washington I learnt that it is very hard to exaggerate the importance the US attaches to the long runway, the deepwater wharf and the spectrum control which Diego Garcia providing a key strategic position. For the printed, Diego Garcia may be the most the important, certainly it is the most important that we bring to the security partnership.

So we have to ask ourselves what would America do if harassed by possibly legally binding provisional measures, if the procedures were taken under the law of the sea convention. Harassed and then in due course by binding findings we were to find ourselves in ever increasing global isolation. What would America do? The perceived need for security of tenure would drive the US to falling with the majority. Recognise Mauritius sovereignty and do a deal on the basis with Mauritius.

Of course they are delighted we have done the business for them and produce the treaty, that is why they welcome it so much. Second, the American factor makes it particularly baffling that the opposition should argue treaty opens a door for China. If they did, why would a Trump administration welcoming? Third, the same goes for India. The Indian government regularly expresses concern that the Chinese might contrive to use their 99 year lease with the Sri Lankans on a particular island to secure a deepwater Indian Ocean base.

They would be very alarmed if they thought China could get it, a better one ready-made Diego Garcia. But they do not. They also want this treaty because they think it lays that fear to rest. Mauritius has particularly close relations with India. Two thirds of Mauritians are of Indian descent, so not surprising. Callanan speculated about the possibility that Mauritius might join the Chinese Belt and Road economic partnership. Surely the interesting fact is that they are one of two African countries that have not joined the initiative.

Why would Mauritius enrage the Indians, with whom they are very close, I helping the Chinese, whom they distrust. What is it that the opposition knows that Washington does not know, India does not know and Mauritius does not know? The upper ricin -- the opposition second point, if narration sovereignty is point, if narration sovereignty is wrong, wrong for fundamental reasons as argued, surely it would be just as wrong if we paid less money? One can take a principled position, or one can haggle about the price, but it's quite hard to do both at the same time.

I recall from my Washington days that the US pays a substantial contribution to the Diego Garcia base, I can't remember the numbers, but I am jolly well short it is a great deal more than we are paying to Mauritius under the new treaty. And our payments are much the same, same order of magnitude as the French are painful magnitude as the French are painful Djbouti, a base 1/15 of the size, less well-placed and much harder to defend. The opposition winning officers are trying to negotiate this deal and new it would entail substantial payments, so it's hypocritical now to pretend otherwise.

They say they would have played their hand better and haggled harder. I wonder, would they really have found global isolation splendid? Would they really have been ready to see the US lose patience and to the direct deal with omissions? Really? I do not think so. I rather like Lord Purvis's motion and we admired the way he introduced it, but I hope the House will reject the oppositional motion. I'm afraid I think it is irresponsible. Past it, we would puzzle our friends and the world and particularly our friends in Washington and Mauritius, and to what purpose? I would like to see CRaG changed.

But voting against the treaty will not stop its ratification. To do so would be bad for the country and bad for the House, demonstrating responsibility and impotence.

18:54

Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Conservative)

- -

19:13

Lord Collins of Highbury, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office) (Labour)

- -

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I think this has been a really fascinating and interesting debate. fascinating and interesting debate. And just to reflect the noble Lords recent comments, of course this is a political judgement the government has had to make. It's a political judgement. And certainly it's one that the previous government also had to consider. And so... I personally think it's very sad that is that of being about political judgement it's become a partisan party political issue. Some of the comments that have been made by think of a regrettable because this government is absolutely, my noble friend or many of my noble friend's, Baroness Liddell summed it up, this government is absolutely, as was the previous government, absolutely committed to the security of this country and that is what this agreement...

And anyone who questions that, I don't think it's doing a service to this House or to politics generally. But can I just say, I would like to thank the International Agreements Committee for their report. I think it's a very thorough piece of work. But they do acknowledge that the treaty should be ratified. Before I go into the substance of the debate, I also want to wish the noble Lord Lord Boswell a very happy retirement. I have known the noble Lord., From when I first came into the House.

He and I have always worked together. Whether we were on opposition or on government side, we are absolutely focused and I think, can I also congratulate the noble Baroness Baroness Prentis of boundary for her excellent maiden speech. There was one common theme that both her father and she made which was the importance of the international rules-based order and the rule of law. And that's fundamentally what this debate is about. So I thank them for their contributions. Am really sorry Lord Boswell is retiring but he does deserve it.

But I know the noble Lady will be making extremely important contributions to this House about the importance of law and the rule of law, and the importance of judges and the people who supervise those laws. So I'm very grateful for their contribution. My Lords, on the My Lords, on 2 May, the Prime Minister signed the landmark agreement with Mauritius to secure the future of the strategically critical UK US military base on Diego Garcia. This is one of the most significant contributions to the transatlantic difference and secure partnership to date.

Key allies, and I know noble Lords have stressed this, key allies and international partners back the agreement, including the Five Eyes. India, Japan and South Korea, and that your signature general also welcomed the deal busted with the Commonwealth and the African Union -- the UN Secretary-General. This deal will protect the safety and security of the British people for generations. Making sure that the knotted kingdom retains unique important capabilities we need to deal with the range of threats in deal with the range of threats in The treaty was laid in the House for scrutiny for signature under the usual processes and can I reassure the noble Lord, and he knows I greatly admire his oratory, but before the treaty is ratified, the government will bring forward primary legislation, which will be scrutinised and debated in the usual way.

My Lords, this was a difficult decision and one we took after a great deal of consideration. Because this matters. The military base on this matters. The military base on Diego Garcia is a strategic asset and supports operations that keeps the British people save, enabling the rapid deployment across the Middle East, South Asia and Africa. Helping to combat some of the most challenging threats, including from terrorism and hostile states. It's unique strategic location creates real military advantage across the Indo-Pacific.

Some of its capabilities are likely secret. They include airfield and deepwater port facilities. These support are wide- ranging ANC operations, including birthing our nuclear submarines and sensitive satellite communications. In recent years facility on Diego Garcia as help to collect data used Garcia as help to collect data used to counter terrorism against high- value Islamic targets, this included information that was used to disrupt threats to our country and reduce the risk to coalition operations significantly. And the base Mexico contribution to the United Kingdom's important relationship as we have heard in this debate with the United States.

Our defence, security and intelligence relationships are deeply intertwined. Almost every operation from the base is with the United States. Operation from the base on Diego Garcia has been under threat. Under the previous government Mauritius obtained legal and political victories against the United Kingdom which created the immediate jeopardy facing the base. A comprehensive rejection of our arguments by 13 judges to one at that ICJ in 2019. The loss of the UN General Assembly by a margin of 116-6.

The maritime delimitation judgement handed down in 2021 by a special chamber of the International chamber for the law of the sea on the basis of motion sovereignty over the Chagos archipelago. Not UK sovereignty. Obligations placed on the British Indian Ocean to see specific activities and various procedural blockages of international organisations, including the comprehensive Nuclear Test Medal and organisations. So precedents were set. International political support fell away and can I just say to Lord Ahmad and Lord Wolfson, it is highly likely that further litigation would be brought quickly Mauritius against the United Kingdom, which is why the previous government committed to negotiate, in which we would have no realistic prospect of defending our position on sovereignty.

As the International Agreements Committee said in their report, the evidence they had confirmed that any international would be unlikely to find in favour of the United Kingdom in that circumstance the committee stated the future of the base will be at greater risk. Now, I think it is worth repeating. A number of noble Lord have already said this. The evidence of the eminent judge said Christopher Greenwood KC does bear out repeating here. The advisory opinion, as he says, is a very authoritative guide to the legal position.

In reality it will be very difficult for any state just to ignore and most unanimous position of the international Court 4. The serious consequences for the base operations cannot be overstated. Put simply, it would not be able to operate as it should, putting at risk our national security and prosperity. The impact could be felt extremely quickly. Legally binding visual measures could be issued within weeks of the case being brought, potentially affecting our ability to patrol the waters around the base and undermining the base.

As the International Agreements Committee have confirmed, a binding government against UK sovereignty would very likely have followed. This would give rise to real impacts on operation of the base and the delivery of all its national security functions. These impacts could include our ability to protect could include our ability to protect the electro spectrum, as the noble Lord skirt said from interference, to ensure access to the base by air and the, effectively to control the maritime area around the base.

When this government came to power. But when this government came to power, agreed that having the treaty now on our own terms was the only way to ensure the proper protections, including from malign influences. That would allow the base to operate as it has done well into the next century. We have negotiated to protect the United Kingdom and the base for decades to come. The national agreements committee agrees that the treaty is successful in protecting base operations.

Full control of Diego Garcia. This includes full control and management of the electromagnetic spectrum, which is key to our ability to counter hostile activities. I also point out to, or say to the noble Lord Lord Ahmad, a nautical buffer zones where nothing can be placed or built without UK consent. It means we can protect ourselves. It will prevent disruption, there will be also joint decision-making and no developments unless we agree.

Strict ban on foreign security forces and the outer islands, whether civilian or military, and binding obligations to ensure the bases never undermined. Protections within the treaty were designed and tested at the highest level of the US security establishment, including through interagency review processes under two US administrations. Both of whom supported the UK proceeding with the deal. Now, there has been some inaccurate reporting as we have heard in this debate about the apparent requirement of notifying Mauritius in advance of military operations.

Let me reassure the noble Lord who raise this first, it's a complete misunderstanding of the treaty. There is no such a requirement. The UK has agreed to inform Mauritius of military action, as is standard practice in most international basing arrangements. Yet this does not need to be in advance and no sensitive details of military activities would ever be passed on. I am sure that colleagues are noble Lords would have already noted that the International Agreements Committee tested this point in particular and agreed that the treaty did not oblige the UK to notify Mauritius in advance of operations.

An also the noble Lord asked about the terms of termination of the agreement. I think the noble Lord Lord Wolfson acknowledged that there are very limited conditions for termination. Firstly, if we don't pay or attack Mauritius. Also, the cost of the treaty have been published in four and laid in the House. The noble Lord Lord Callahan and the noble Lord Lord Howell have quoted the figure of 30-35 billion. I believe that figure is deliberately misleading and I think noble Lords will understand this point.

Is fundamentally wrong to present numbers that ignore the effects of nation and the changing value of money on the real cost of a deal that lasts 99 years. The average cost per year in today's money is £101 million and the net present value of payments under the treaty is 3.4 billion. This compares well to other international basing agreements. I think it was the noble Lord Lord McDonald of Salford first mentioned the fact that France has recently announced an 85 million that France has recently announced an 85 million deal per year with due beauty.

Diego Garcia is 15 times larger, more capable and more strategically located and can operate with complete operational freedom. That is before counting the waters surrounding the island and the additional buffer zones which I have just mentioned which cover a further 6,200 square kilometres of UK operational control. And the prohibition on hostile activity on the outer islands. The cost represents a fraction of the percentage of the total defence budget. Less than zero point 0.0 0.02%. This makes it possible for us to access, use and benefit from the most highly sophisticated and strategically important military facility in the world.

It upholds our end of the defence and partnership with our closest ally and that is the foundation of how we keep our country safe. My Lords, many noble Lord have confirmed the strength of feeling about the impact of the treaty on the Chicco CN's and I am absolutely sympathetic to that point, and certainly to the points raised by the committee and the noble Lord law Purvis in his motion. Metric Oceanus. The government has expressed deep regret over the way expressed deep regret over the way she goes Ian's -- Chagos Islands Chagos Islands were removed from the island.

But our priority was to secure the full operation of the base on Diego Garcia and that is what we have achieved. Nevertheless we recognise the importance of the islands to the Chagossians, as well as the different views within the community, many of whom did welcome the deal. The deal meets many of the request we have heard from Chagossians over recent years. For the first time since the 1960s a programme of resettlement can begin on the islands other than Diego Garcia.

We will work with Mauritius to initiate a new program of visits for Chagossians on the Chagos Archipelago, including Diego Garcia. The UK will capitalise a trust fund for the benefit of Mauritius in the region of £40 million. This is part of the financial package within the treaty. Separate that we will increase our support to Chagossians living in the United Kingdom through living in the United Kingdom through Whilst there is no permanent residency on Diego Garcia for security reasons, there are no restrictions on applications by Chagossians to be employed on Diego Garcia, and living on the island during that employment.

Chagossians have previously worked in the military base. But I do fully understand the strength of feeling on this subject. And the concerns that have been highlighted in the report of the international agreement, and the contents of the noble Lord Lord Kerr 's motion. Let me be clear. I would say to the House that ahead of ratification, this government will commit to making eight Ministerial Statement in both houses providing a factual update on eligibility for resettlement and the modalities of the trust fund.

This will enable further discussion in a proper manner in line with both I believe the committee's desire and that of the noble Lord Lord Cooper furthest. I hope in the light of this assurance that the noble Lord won't feel it necessary to push his motion to a vote. When it comes to that unique environment of the Chagos, both the United Kingdom and Mauritius have committed to protecting one of the world's most important maritime environments. As the United Nations oceans conference, this commitment was reaffirmed in a meeting between the motion Prime Minister and the Environment Secretary.

This discussed further cooperation on environmental protection across the archipelago, and the Martian plans for the creation of a new marine protected area. Under the agreement, the United Kingdom will continue to manage environmental protection on Diego Garcia which includes the important Ramsar wetland site. We've additionally agreed to support Mauritius in the establishment of marine protected areas and officials have already begun discussions with separation counterparts on what this will involve and how environmental standards can be made.

The noble Lord Lord Hamilton made a point about the coastline at Diego Garcia, like all small islands, at all islands, it is naturally dynamic, and I will not speculate about future erosion. But scientific surveys have concluded that the overall land area of part of the island not shaped by military construction decreased by less than a single percentage over the last 50 years. I think this has been a years. I think this has been a really important debate.

It has been really important because we have been absolutely focused on the security of this country. None of this has been a particularly easy and this was a difficult decision, not one we took lightly but one we had to make and handle carefully for all of our sakes. So lastly I want to underline how important the role of this landmark agreement has to play in our future, by securing strategically critical UK/US military base on Diego Garcia, well into next century. Important for the stability of the Indian Ocean region and beyond.

Important for our defence and security partnership with our closest ally, the United States. And important for our national security here, at home, in the United Kingdom as well. Thank you, my Lords.

19:35

Lord Callanan (Conservative)

- -

19:37

Division

division. I would advise the House when voting is open. Voting is now

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The The question The question is that the The question is that the motion

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is that the motion be agreed to. As many are of that opinion say, "Content", and of the contrary, "Not content". The contrary, "Not content". The contents will go to the right of the throne, not content to the left by

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The The question The question is The question is that

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is that the The question is that the motion

**** Possible New Speaker ****

They They have They have dated. They have dated. The They have dated. The contents,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

They have dated. The contents, 185. Not content, 205. The not 185. Not content, 205. The not My Lords, Motion to take note of the My Lords, Motion to take note of the agreement between the UK and Mauritius on the Chagos archipelago,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Lords Goldsmith. The House has spoken about the underlying circumstances, but the underlying circumstances, but the two points which emerged from the debate I very much appreciated, debate I very much appreciated, first of all, how many topics we have to cover. Environmental area, have to cover. Environmental area, security, law, history of the islands and so forth. That was all islands and so forth. That was all done, we scrutinise that in a very short period, 21 sitting days. I want to draw attention therefore want to draw attention therefore particularly to the work is done by the secretariat.

And going to name them because they deserve it. Cathy Adams, Sophie Adams and our clerk. They worked hard to produce this report covering all these areas and covering them very comprehensively. So for example when the question was raised, about the provision and the annex which says expeditiously, we looked at that, we have evidence on it, it's in the report. They deserve huge credit for that. Secondly, it huge credit for that. Secondly, it also demonstrates, and I suggest today is not the date to resolve it, but the act needs further looking at.

Thousand the other House has an at. Thousand the other House has an enormous job to do in scrutinising treaties the Executive enters into. The work is important, but time- consuming, so we will come back to consuming, so we will come back to that question and invite the South and the other place to consider what changes will be made. With those remarks I beg to move. remarks I beg to move.

19:50

Lord Goldsmith (Labour)

- -

The question is that the motion in the name of Lord Goldsmith is agree to. As many as are of that opinion, say, "Content". Of the contrary, "Not content". The contents have it. The resolution of the agreement between the UK and Mauritius and on the Chagos

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Archipelago, Lord Hope. In light of the position the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

In light of the position the Conservatives have taken. That was a

19:50

Lord Purvis of Tweed (Liberal Democrat)

- -

Conservatives have taken. That was a joke! In light of the Minister accepting the terms of my motion and the fact that this House and indeed Parliament will be returning to the serious issues, especially regarding the rights of the Chagossians, at

**** Possible New Speaker ****

this moment I will not move. Not moved. We move to next

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Not moved. We move to next business. I therefore give the House a few moments for speakers to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Questions

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Questions on Questions on the Questions on the statement Questions on the statement made in the House of Commons on Tuesday 24th of June in the UK's modern

19:52

Statement: The UK’s modern industrial strategy

Industrial Strategy.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I genuinely admired the intent of the Industrial Strategy. I think he the Industrial Strategy. I think he set is that it highlights are sensible. I like the aspiration to

19:53

Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Conservative)

- -

sensible. I like the aspiration to focus on all regions and nurture clusters. All of that is very good, but this is a list of aspirations, not a strategy. Strategy is a plan of action designed to achieve a long-term or overall aim and this is not that. All the aspirations in it are good and no one can argue with them but the economy and growth we need will not be delivered by this or by fine words or noble sentiments. Growth is not a slogan, it is a result.

The introduction says that the government's mission is to have strong and sustainable growth but the government continues to state the former for the latter. Despite the Chancellor's triumphant words, there was this dark difference. The Governor of the Bank of England has delivered a sobering report. Growth is slowing precisely because high taxes are biting deep into our economic foundations. The governors announcement is biting. British businesses rather than preparing for prosperity must now brace themselves for an economic slowdown this government's making.

The employment figures alone should show this. Unemployment has risen every single month since the government took office. This is not coincidence, it is consequence. Most telling is the collapse in our To EY the government has made the UK a less attractive place to do business than Oman, the Czech Republic and Saudi Arabia. Before the Chancellor's budget, a survey ranked the United Kingdom as the second most attractive place for investment in the world. That is our record and their record is destroying that competitive advantage in less than a year.

The human cost of these failures is becoming increasingly apparent. The British commerce have reveal that there are many redundancies and job cuts as a direct consequence of the government's decision to hike employers National Insurance contributions. A survey found that 13% have already wielded the axe was 90% sharpening it for future use. In times of global uncertainty businesses look to their own governmental stability and support. This government has piled domestic chaos on international volatility. They have created a perfect storm of their own making.

They speak eloquently of cutting energy costs whilst pursuing policies that guarantee the opposite outcome. Their obsession with net zero is punishing richest businesses. The introduction to the strategy, page 33 says, there can be no plan for economic stability or sustainable growth that doesn't include credible plan for net zero. That is nonsense. This is a choice and publishing elegant explanations about how they are going to alleviate the worst effects of their own policies is baffling. While pouring billions in subsidies into renewables they refuse to end the windfall tax on gas.

Term backs on lossy resources, preferring to import energy from a board, rather than harness the secure and reliable supplies need our own waters. The result is an energy policy that reads like a masterclass in economic self-harm and puts us at a disadvantage in a dangerous world. It would be remiss if I did not acknowledge credit where it is due. The commitment to free trade intervals offers a of hope. Recent agreement suggests that this government hasn't entirely abandoned the opportunities that Brexit provides, but we need comprehensive free trade deals are not the minor economic agreements that we currently have.

They promised to regulate, reduce I should say regulatory burdens reveals another layer of this government's duplicity. It sounds like turning businesses what they want to hear do the opposite. The Employment Rights Bill alone will impose five alone will impose 5 million of the governments own impact assessment numbers on British businesses and introduce a new agency which is regulated by any other name. How's that part of strategy to reduce regulatory strategy to reduce regulatory burdens? I suspect this 5 billion figure will represent only the tip of the iceberg.

The government has to factor into their calculations the true cost of empowering trade unions to constantly disrupt 's operations, making it riskier and more expensive to hire workers and of creating a labyrinth of legal obligations that will tie employers in Notts for years to come. Small businesses already struggling will find themselves drowning in compliance costs that will inevitably dwarf the 5 billion estimate. And young people seeking employment is worrying. The government is making it more expensive and riskier for employers to take a chance on inexperienced workers.

The Employment Rights Bill will price young people out of the job market. We have also witnessed a hat-trick of U-turns from the Prime Minister, including on welfare reform. We were told these measures were necessary to get people back into work. I suspect the government is not that interested. What is the point of an Industrial Strategy if there is no industry left and will the cost of this U-turn meanwhile taxes, or would the Minister rule out further tax rises today? The government has shown they do not understand how wealth is created and how economies grow.

You cannot tax your way to prosperity and you cannot regulate your way to competitiveness. And you certainly cannot lecture businesses about growth while systematically undermining conditions that make growth possible. Will they continue down the path at least two economic decline? The evidence is mounting, the damages spreading and time is running short.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, on these benches remember how powerfully business

20:00

Baroness Kramer (Liberal Democrat)

- -

remember how powerfully business welcomed the industrial strategy produced by Vince cable during the coalition years, and the shock and dismay with which they created the Conservative decision when they were then in government alone, first to weaken it and then eventually to scrap it. Such a strategy is vital to drive investment, jobs and prosperity and it was notable that the Conservatives not only scrap the Industrial Strategy, they sold off the investment bank. How different our energy position would be today if that had not happened.

They also readied the richest business bank for sale. I remember conversations with Sajid Javid and his relief that it was going to be done away with. It only survived because COVID struck an was needed to distribute COVID loans. It was pure ideology, private good, public bad. It seems there is a change of tone, but how this country would have benefited if that change has started a few years I will see some area where there is common ground and that is that raising employees NICs was the wrong way in which to start the revival of business and enterprise.

My Lords, we support core elements of the strategy, but we still have questions. My colleague, the Earl Russel, if he has the opportunity to speak today on this, we'll talk more about energy prices because we welcome the help from a wide range of energy intensive industries but why will we wait another two years to find out who will qualify? And what about the burden of electricity prices on service and hospitality? If the government wants to see a quantum growth in exports, surely the answer is to negotiate to rejoin the EU customs union? Everything else by comparison is frankly small beer.

But as the government notice today's FT article charting the decline in productivity, especially in London which is absolutely key to the economy, charting that decline since Brexit? Which played such a significant role with its impact on business investment and the opportunity to participate in supply chains. This government is keen on U-turns. So why not a U-turn that would actually bring money into the country and into the Treasury working to find our way back into the EU customs union? My Lords, if I was a business in real England in agriculture and farming I would be asking why the strategy has to little for me.

Especially in an area of food insecurity, climate change and terrace. Can the Minister elaborate and provide some reassurance? If I was a business looking for skills staff, I would welcome the funding boosts for skills but ask why not the fundamental reform of friendships that we need? And where is lifelong? Today's report of a sharp tropic entry-level job surely underscores that need -- sharp drop. And Canada replace here in the strategy. If I was a creative, reading the importance of data as an asset and in fact Industrial Strategy is quite good in the creative sector but in this area the importance of data as an asset, I would ask why the government has refused to strengthen copyright transparency rules to prevent the US from scraping intellectual policy without recompense and where is the logic and justice, particularly when data is identified so critical.

If I was an innovative small book list I would welcome the intent for the government to use its procurement to drive enterprise but I would ask why the rules mean that the government can then take my intellectual if I am a small business and on the grounds of transparency, give it free of charge to my competitors? This is an issue raised often by my colleague Baroness Bowles and it still needs an answer. And one issue in particular greats with me. The government has simply not grasped the need for access to finance for the whole breadth of small businesses, not just the priority sectors such as high-tech.

To build our communities, and to make sure good jobs and prospects are available everywhere, we cannot be in a position where small businesses grow only from retained earnings. We need a genuine community banking sector. The High Street banks and most automate finances is not interested in meeting that need. The British Business Bank has a small £150 million pot over the next two years to support community banking but it is minimal compared for example to the 300 billion in community bank financing that is the backbone of small business finance and growth in the United States.

And does the Minister understand that this is a missed opportunity? As I say, in so many ways we see this say, in so many ways we see this Industrial Strategy is a really positive and strong set forward but we won't be in full position to judge it until we see the practical support and solutions. So implementation and delivery arc. And frankly, by the time we have such clarity, I hope Lord Fox whose knowledge is so much greater than mine in this area will be back in his place on his benches and I can tell you he will expect answers.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Ungrateful to the noble Lord Lord Jack and Baroness Kramer for their contribution but I'm for bitterly disappointed by Lord Sharpe's remarks about the Industrial Strategy. He said that we should listen to business, I can safely say that we have. And let me quote some of the comments that businesses have said. This is from the Institute of said. This is from the Institute of directors. Industrial Strategy is an important step towards the development of a positive and development of a positive and coherent plan to drive growth and will enable businesses to see a

20:07

Lord Leong (Labour)

- -

sense of direction for the UK economy. For businesses to be able to plan for investment it is crucial to have a stable policy environment. The whole of government approach is very encouraging. Not least as it draws together new and existing stamps of activity in one cohesive strategy. This is from the UK whose chairman is Lord Harrington, one of noble Lord sharp's colleagues. They say the government has listened and the Secretary of State has acted decisively with a joint strategy, which reflects a wider commitment from the Prime Minister and Cabinet alike.

The strategy announced today sets out comprehensive and well funded plans to address all three of these structural failings. Clearly there is much to do, as we move towards implementation but this will send a message across country and around the world that Britain is back in business. And furthermore, the leaders of British Chamber of Commerce, CBI and the Federation of Small Businesses have said the Industrial Strategy marks a significant step forward and available opportunity for the business opportunity to really behind new vision, boosting confidence, sentiment and enthusiasm for investment.

From start-ups to small businesses, to large corporate, businesses need a more attractive stable environment that enables faster, easier and more certain investment decisions. We welcome the government's engagement with businesses across the UK, much of what we have shared has been heard and reflected in this strategy. While there is more to do we are ready to support the next steps and we encourage businesses nationwide to get high and the strategy and champion the United Kingdom is the best place to live, work, invest and do business.

The UK is a thriving global economy, founded on stability, fairness and the rule of law. And propelled by world leading sectors and companies. We have record of extraordinary research and innovation. We are champions of free trade and we continue to be a magnet for international talent and capital. In the recent decades, the pace and magnitude of global change has escalated. And the UK has been short of the dynamism it takes to stay ahead. The global trading environment has become more unpredictable, the fragility of the global supply chains more apparent.

And our economic competitors have been more assertive and destructive in promoting the national industries. British workers and families have paid the price to the cost-of-living crisis. More than ever, businesses are seeking out countries that can provide them with the confidence to invest and grow. As we set out the Plan for Change, the government's priority is to deliver strong, secure and sustainable economic growth. Modern Industrial Strategy is a 10-year plan to kickstart an error of economic prosperity, the central mission in our Plan for Change.

But investing in our comparative advantage in forging a new relationship between business and government. It is a new economic approach that brings together every bit of government to drive investment. It will create a more connected, high skilled and resilient economy where every person plays and business has a chance to flourish. Our plan will make it quicker and easier for businesses to invest, provide them with certainty and stability to make long-term positions and ensure that the benefit from the UK open to the world.

In order to do this, we are backing growth driving instructors whether UK is strong and potential for more growth. In vast manufacturing, defence, digital technologies, financial services, life science and professional and business services. With this globally competitive industries, spread across the nation, there is a potential to make the whole country more prosperous as they grow and become more successful. The deep partnerships developed with mayors and the devolved administrations support for city regions and clusters and investment in local networks.

Will enable the delivery of real growth to local communities. of real growth to local communities. A formal interest consultation which published last year identified a list of inputs from foundation industries including electricity networks, ports, constructions, steel, critical minerals, combo sites, materials and chemicals. They are important for unlocking growth in the key growth sectors. The Industrial Strategy will support the whole economy including businesses outside the eight growth driving sectors, with improved operating environment, long-term stability and greater dynamism.

Supporting growth sectors also benefits for the rest of the economy from innovation through technology diffusion. For example gains of AR innovation could add up to something like £47 billion a year for the UK in productivity gains. Regional growth is a core objective of the Industrial Strategy. Higher national growth and the success of the industrial, ISA will only come from unleashing the potential of places across the whole of that United came to. Industrial Strategy in our sector plans includes interventions which will grow our city regions and clusters and help them attract private investment.

This includes bringing together the sites with over 600 million for the strategic sites exhilarated, helping places, with support for the office of investment, national welfare and the British, wearing high potential innovation clusters to the 500 million local innovation partnership funds making a new 500 million mayoral recyclable growth fund available to invest in growth projects and much more. My Lords, access to finance we are unlocking billions innovative businesses especially for start-ups and scallops for increasing capacity to £25.6 billion.

This includes in dish and 4 billion for growth capital for Industrial Strategy sectors, bringing in billions in private capital. But investing to venture funds the BB will back the UK's growth. To conclude, I reiterate the words of my noble friend the Secretary of State. We are creating a prosperous, proud and after facing but self-reliant independent and high skilled nation. The country where opportunities, skills and wealth are spread fairly and where every person and every business have a chance to flourish.

That is what our modern Industrial Strategy will deliver. Our future in our hands, built in Britain, that is what the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

strategy will achieve. My Lords, if this government is

20:14

The Earl of Effingham (Conservative)

- -

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, if this government is pro-business as the statements says, pro-business as the statements says, why has initial public offering got to New York? Why are flute, Unilever ice cream and many others jumping ice cream and many others jumping ship? -- -- Revolut.

20:15

Lord Leong (Labour)

- -

Since we got into government, we have secured £100 billion of investment in this country. People are coming to invest in this country because they have confidence in the government. We have set out the infrastructure strategy, we have set up the Industrial Strategy, the trade strategy and hopefully very soon the small business strategy. This government is getting on with growing the economy and we will attract more and more investment.

20:15

Earl Russell (Liberal Democrat)

- -

On these benches we very much welcome this is the first Industrial Strategy since 2017 and we particularly welcome the concentration on energy resilience and energy security. It is absolutely right that clean energies included as one of the eight sectors, the green economy grew by 10.3% last year so we must work to strengthen the green economy in its broadest sense. Just on the plans to reduce the cost of energy to business, we welcome the reduction of levies in this area but can I reiterate my noble friend's point about why this can't be done before 2027, and asked the Minister specifically what more can be done to help the hospitality and leisure sectors and does the government have nice the need to remove levies from nice the need to remove levies from

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank the noble Lord for that and for his support of the energy

20:16

Lord Leong (Labour)

- -

and for his support of the energy schemes. We recognise the high laxity and the key challenges. We laxity and the key challenges. We want to provide support. That is why, the noble Lord mentioned the petition industrial competitive scheme which will/ prices by 20-25%. We will be conducting a consultation to find out some of these high to find out some of these high intensity businesses. In addition to that we have also got the network charge compensation scheme.

Some businesses will get an uplift from businesses will get an uplift from 60% to 90%. We are putting in place what we can for businesses with high intestacy electricity used to manage their businesses. their businesses.

20:18

Lord Cryer (Labour)

- -

Since Lord Sharpe talked about energy policy at such great length, could my noble friend confirm there are two elements in energy policy, the operation of it which are crucial. Both those elements which were undermined for 14 years under the previous government at the heart of the GB Energy bill or act as it is now, which includes £8.3 billion of investment which the board is free to put in any kind of energy generation it sees fit. It will not be the decision of ministers, it will be operationally free by the board to make that decision.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

When was the last Industrial Strategy publish, some eight years

20:18

Lord Leong (Labour)

- -

Strategy publish, some eight years ago. Since then we have had several prime ministers, several secretaries of state for business. This strategy is needed now because we are in a pretty unstable global trading pretty unstable global trading environment. Businesses want certainty and stability and this is what this government is offering them, but also they want a long-term plan and for as the government will stick to its guns. The UK's world leading capabilities makes it a prime destination for international businesses.

We are attracting forward.

20:19

Lord Lamont of Lerwick (Conservative)

- -

Over the years governments have introduced industrial strategies. I remember the industrial strategy of the Callaghan government, but I think sometimes governments think they have found the policy when they have found a phrase. Industrial policies have needed different funding parts and opportunities for lobbyists. I would like to ask the Minister, he used the phrase crowding in. Crowding in sounds wonderful, but how are the government or the agencies who administer the industrial policy going to do with this? They are subsidising money for investments that would have happened anyway.

Also is the risk going to be taken out of it? How do we avoid those two dangers that played Industrial Strategy in the past?

20:20

Lord Leong (Labour)

- -

I bet the noble Lord for that question and he makes several interesting observations. The reason why we have published this industrial strategy, as I mentioned earlier about the subgroup environment, but we have a clear goal, want to drive growth. Growth is number one. It's our number one mission of this government. We can achieve that only by better increased investment. This government has published investment strategies, but why is this one different? Past growth plans have often been felt by businesses as done for them.

So it looks as if the government knows best and this is what the Industrial Strategy is full. Whereas this Industrial Strategy, we have worked with them at every step of the way. We have had businesses with business representative organisations, we work with investors. It's not just the government strategy, but the whole of business strategy and that is a difference. The second difference is we have listened to the needs of businesses. The need for long-term certainty. Every Disney is I have spoken to one certainty, stability and they want also less regulation.

This is what the government is trying to solve through its strategy, to try to reduce regulation by 25%. This is a work in progress, but this is what we are aiming for. Hopefully with this strategy it is different from

**** Possible New Speaker ****

previous strategies. I would like to ask the noble Lord the Minister about the Lord the Minister about the apparently Cinderella areas of retail, hospitality and tourism, all retail, hospitality and tourism, all hip terribly hard the Chancellor's hip terribly hard the Chancellor's hikes. It's led to shop closures and hikes. It's led to shop closures and cafe closures in my home area of Wiltshire. There is barely a reference to their industrial reference to their industrial contribution into strategy.

Yet in the conservative and clear years

20:23

Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Conservative)

- -

there was an understanding of the innovation of the growth and jobs which retail and hospitality and tourism were responsible for, with minimal cost to the Exchequer. -- The Blair years. Can the Minister explain why they have been abandoned.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

We are not abandoning any industry or sector. This strategy industry or sector. This strategy industry or sector. This strategy identifies the top growing sectors.

20:24

Lord Leong (Labour)

- -

identifies the top growing sectors. It makes up 30% of the sectors but contribute 60% of the national economy. It is of a CD government's position to support them, but as far as retail, hospitality and others, we have other support plans in place. Whether it is through some of the business rates schemes we are supporting them. Let us not beat around the bush. Things are changing. People's shopping habits have changed, but at the same time we need to revitalise the high streets and hopefully when we publish the small business strategy in due course we will cover that, how we revitalise the High Street again but other hospitality sectors where there are cafe's, restaurants and pubs, there is picture out there.

Some pubs are closing, not just because we are in government. My local pub in my local village, My local pub in my local village, it's a small village pub, but a year ago, it was only a matter of time before it closed. It was sold to a young couple, they changed it and it is flourishing. We can't even get a table in that place. Pubs need to change. I speak for many businesses and so many of them... The whole landscape is changing, but we have to be responsive to that and we are not leaving any sectors behind.

The Industrial Strategy says we live in a world dominated by the rise of superstar firms whose success spills over to the wider economy. It seems over to the wider economy. It seems the government is adopting a trickle-down theory of business. But is this not assuming a future that looks like the past two decades, cheap abundant financing for firms who have often but through enormous who have often but through enormous sums of money, used to. Out of business to buy out genuine business to buy out genuine innovators, either swallowing up or squashing them, not to deliver useful products and services.

This useful products and services. This is an idea of the unicorn that favours valuation over value creation. This is the model that has creation. This is the model that has given us the unstable society we have today. Surely we cannot keep have today. Surely we cannot keep going the way we are now. It has got us to a disastrous point, which is us to a disastrous point, which is where we are now at. I do not quite agree with the noble Baroness.

Government has to make a choice and we have identified the top eight set is that we will support with this strategy. At the same time with the support, other industries benefit because there is a roll-on effect. Yes, we'd like to support every sector but we need to pick and choose and just like running your own business, you pick and choose who your customers are and you work with that. At the same time you still serve everybody. What this Industrial Strategy does is focuses on the a sectors, but there

**** Possible New Speaker ****

will be support through the various plans set out in the strategy. I strongly welcome this

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I strongly welcome this Industrial Strategy alongside the TUC and CBI. It's about a mission

20:27

Baroness O'Grady of Upper Holloway (Labour)

- -

for fair growth and delivering secure, skilled jobs in the parts of the country that need it most. I am also very conscious of the history of industrial policy. I remember when members of the party of the noble Lord's opposite were responsible in government for temporarily nationalising Rolls- Royce because it saw as absolutely key as a company to the defence sector and manufacturing. So making more things here in Britain matters. Also welcomed the focus on vocational training, but I would like to ask the Minister whether he could say more about the role of higher education, which traditionally in successful countries has a key role in supporting clusters that support innovation and better productivity in the country.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My noble friend as usual make such brilliant observations. She is such brilliant observations. She is spot-on. We have to focus on skills. This is another thing brought to my This is another thing brought to my attention every time I meet businesses in the UK and also businesses in the UK and also international businesses. You need to close the skills gap. We have a

20:29

Lord Leong (Labour)

- -

to close the skills gap. We have a skills gap that is missing in certain places and the strategy addresses that. We are investing in technical excellence colleges through the Further Education scheme. Businesses also work with the top universities and fund research. We attract international business because of the higher education expertise and professionalism we have in this country. Let me say more about these skills. We have just announced £275 million on skills investment over three years which forms a wider package made up of 75 millions government resource investment and 200 million of capital funding being made available from our new skills mission fund.

The Industrial Strategy, we are committed to investing over 100 million to boost engineering skills, which is made up of 75 million of resource funding and 25 million of capital funding from the skills mission called. The Department for trade and the Department for education has contributed to this and we are also investing a further £187 million to support the skills package, which the Prime Minister announced a few weeks ago. More details of the defence skills will be set up in a

**** Possible New Speaker ****

forthcoming defence strategy. If I may ask about Cinderella

20:30

Lord Lucas (Conservative)

- -

geographies. Coastal East Sussex is included in south-east England but the examples given of the south-east are the Solent and Oxford which are four hours away. How does a bit of England, which is not currently mentioned connected into the Industrial Strategy find purchase with this policy and documenting what would the noble Lord recommend as a strategy for coastal East Sussex in trying to make them part of the Industrial Strategy? And I also asked the noble Lord if he will draw to his noble colleagues the virtues of the British businesses along night UK in terms of wielding

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you for that. I will mention the alumni to my colleagues.

20:31

Lord Leong (Labour)

- -

mention the alumni to my colleagues. As far as coastal towns and rural areas, the National Strategy covers everything. This Industrial Strategy is not a place specific, it is based on sectors. For example, rural areas will also benefit from that. I will give you an example. As far as rural areas are concerned, clean energy in Cornwall, advancement factoring in Lincolnshire, agri-tech also in Lincolnshire, financial services in Norwich, life sciences. So we are across the country, not rural, not coastal, it applies right across the country.

Based on sectors. I know also computer games, it is very much up in the north, cover some rural areas as well. The government believes strongly that rural and coastal areas offer significant coastal areas offer significant potential for growth. Central to our economy. We are committed to improving the quality of life for people living and working in these areas. The government has recommitted £2.7 billion to support sustainable funding and nature recovery. This government is also confirm investment of over £1.9 billion over four years into broadband and 4G connectivity.

It is shameful, but we still can't get Wi-Fi across every part of this country. We are doing something about that. The government is

**** Possible New Speaker ****

putting into this sector. My Lords, can I welcome the Industrial

20:33

Baroness Young of Old Scone (Labour)

- -

Lords, can I welcome the Industrial Strategy, absolutely a vote for stability and sensible direction stability and sensible direction which is what British business and international investors have been looking for. I press the Minister on the task of increasing private investment funding. In the year 2000, 50% of UK pension funds were invested in the UK. It has reduced to single figures now. If the pension and other institutional investment funds don't act on the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

agreement entirely, the government consider mandating them? My noble

**** Possible New Speaker ****

consider mandating them? My noble friend makes a very interesting observation. As I said earlier, the

20:34

Lord Leong (Labour)

- -

observation. As I said earlier, the British businessman, we are actually putting more money into it and we are also encouraging private fund into the sector itself. We have to work with a private investment money in this country as well. So, there will be plans in place to attract private investment. Also, at the same time, we want to work jointly with the private investment in some of our key sectors. So that we can help grow the economy that my noble friend just mentioned.

20:34

Orders and regulations: Marking of Retail Goods Regulations 2025

My Lords, marking of retail goods regulations marking of retail goods regulations

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My My Lords, My Lords, I My Lords, I beg My Lords, I beg to

20:35

Baroness Hayman of Ullock, The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Labour)

- -

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I beg to move My Lords, I beg to move Marking of Retail Goods Regulation 2025 is of Retail Goods Regulation 2025 is laid before this House on June 5, be considered. This instrument will help ensure the security of food supply to Northern Ireland, and maintain consumer choice for the people of Northern Ireland. The purpose of this legislation is to deliver the UK government long- standing public commitment to safeguard the supply of retail goods into Northern Ireland, and protect the UK internal market by providing for a contingency power to introduce not for EU labelling, in Great Britain, if required.

It upholds commitments made under the Winter framework that were reiterated in safeguarding the union command paper. Both of which commanded broad support from across this house. It both facilitates the movement of goods throughout the UK while also protecting the bio security of the island of Ireland. Let me begin by setting out the background to this policy. The winter framework which replaced the original Northern Ireland Protocol was agreed between the United Kingdom and European Union in February in February 2023.

A key component of the wind sought framework to Northern Ireland movement scheme which simplifies the movement of goods from Great Britain to Northern Ireland. It removes the costly certification of controls that were necessary under the original Northern Ireland protocol. It allows for goods to be moved on the basis of UK food safety standards. To benefit from these arrangements, business operators must label retail goods in the scope of the scheme, not for you EU. These requirements have been introduced in phases with the final tranche of products coming into scope until I won, tomorrow.

From this date, a much larger group of retail goods will need to be labelled to be eligible to be moved via the scheme from Great Britain to Northern Ireland. Given the size of the retail market in Northern Ireland, which is approximately 3% of the entire UK market, certain businesses may decide that the cost of labelling their goods only to move into Northern Ireland is too great. They may choose not to label. Leading to product removal from the neither Lyle and market, known as the listing.

If an alternative route is not available. This would negatively impact Northern Ireland citizens that they not have access to the same range of food goods as the rest of the UK as they rightly deserve. We do not believe that this is an acceptable outcome. This brings me to the purpose of the regulations before us. This instrument provides a contingency power by which the environment Secretary can issue a notice to acquire certain products, that they be marked not for EU in order to be sold in Great Britain.

Before doing so, the Secretary of State will consider a range of evidence. This includes intelligence from stakeholders and a market monitoring data. The latter of which will highlight patterns in the distribution of retail goods throughout the UK internal market, and highlight anomalies and changes as they arise. By extending the labelling requirement to the much larger GB market for certain products, will take away the incentive for businesses to remove products from Northern Ireland. We will use the size of the whole of UK market is an economic incentive to label their goods.

This ensures continued product availability and consumer choice in Northern Ireland, and upholds the commitments that we made in the safeguarding the union command paper. In recognition that food labelling is a devolved matter, the Secretary of State will consult with Scottish and Welsh ministers before making a determination. He may also engage with the independent monitoring panel established through the safeguarding the union command paper for their use. The timing of this instrument is critical. With the final phase of labelling requirements under the scheme commencing on July 1, we must make this legislation out in order to provide a credible and timely mechanism to determine -- deter product listing, and at the ability to act should a serious effect on availability look likely.

I will now set out the fundamental elements of these regulations. After making a determination that supply of a specific retail good will or is likely to be seriously adversely affected as a result of the not for EU labelling requirement, the Secretary of State must issue a marking notice. This will specify which goods must be labelled in GB and from which date. The notice must also be published in the London and Edinburgh gazettes, as well as a written statement setting out the rationale.

We will support compliance by promoting and explaining the new requirement to businesses through various forums. The new labelling obligations fall on the relevant business operator. Who, first places the goods on the market in Great Britain. This is typically the manufacturer responsible for producing the product, so will have the greatest ability to affect its packaging. There will be exemptions that will apply for qualifying Northern Ireland goods, food for special medical purposes and small companies, in line with this government's commitment to support growth.

These regulations will also support our relationship with European Union. We and the EU through our common understanding published on May 19, following the UK EU summit, have confirmed we will jointly take forward a range of measures as part of our reset and relations including a UK EU SPS agreement. Once finalised, it will remove a broad and wide-ranging set of SPS and agri-food requirements walk goods and plants moving from Great Britain to Northern Ireland. We also expect that this may remove the need for businesses to label the majority of the goods as not for EU when moving them into Northern Ireland.

However, achieving such benefits relies on the UK being a reliable partner, which delivers on its existing commitments. To that end, we are clear that we must implement the arrangements for the Windsor framework in a full and fateful way, even when our ambition is that those arrangements may not be needed in the future. Therefore, this SI is vital to maximising compliance with labelling requirements in the meantime, meeting the expectations of the EU, and also encouraging the movement of goods into Northern Ireland.

To conclude, My Lords, our approach to this statutory instrument is a pragmatic and proportionate response to a genuine risk. This legislation will help protect consumer choice in Northern Ireland. It will support the continued flow of goods throughout the United Kingdom. It delivers on our commitments under the Windsor framework agreement and most importantly, safeguards Northern Ireland's place in the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

United Kingdom. The question is

**** Possible New Speaker ****

that this motion be agreed to. Can I think the noble lady and Minister for laying out the Minister for laying out the regulations in detail. She will not be surprised that she hasn't be surprised that she hasn't convinced me. I hope that in the short debate we have tonight, even though there is not much interest in

20:43

Baroness Hoey (Non-affiliated)

- -

though there is not much interest in the backbenches and even the conservative backbenches, it will get done in Hansard and people might read why many of us will be opposing this. One of the critical problems arising from the Northern Ireland Protocol was the way in which apart from the democratic aspect of disenfranchising people, and 300 areas, are threatened Northern Ireland's supply chain. This was said by many people, including noble laws in this House from the beginning. The Windsor framework was supposed to fix that.

Yet, the regulations we see before us today, come with explanatory notes that if you read them, recognise that the Windsor framework, quotes not for you provisions that come into effect tomorrow in a few hours time, threaten Northern Ireland's supply chain. I quote paragraph 5 511. A much greater range of products will be brought into scope of labelling requirements in July 2025, increasing the potential risk of product listing, therefore the government requires a means of intervention to manage this risk and determine businesses from the listing products by writing a credible threat of enforcement.

Sounds very good, and indeed, the chief executive officer of Marks & Spencer's describes the labelling as madness. The madness associated with it, My Lords, comes because of the pronounced way in which those of us who live in Northern Ireland can appreciate much better than those living in Great Britain. The rationale for the application of not for EU labels was to help protect the integrity of the EU single market, preventing goods produced in Great Britain from crossing the border into the Republic of Ireland.

EU territory. The problem however, is that these labels would generate huge cost to the UK economy, both in terms of packaging and in terms of threatening our supply chain, are completely useless. GB goods tended to be cheaper than comparable goods in the Republic of Ireland, so there is a long-standing tendency for people from the Republic of Ireland to do the shopping over the border. In Northern Ireland. Placing not for EU labels on GB goods really serves to highlight the fact that these are goods that are perfectly legal for people from the Republic of Ireland in the European Union to buy stop that they are likely to be cheaper than comparable goods back home.

Because they have been produced in an economy that benefits from the supply chain, due to economies of scale arising from being part of an economy of almost 70 million rather than 5 million. The feeble regulations before us today, and I really do think they are feeble, seek to address the threat to Northern Ireland supply chain. Not by calling out the central injustice arising from the attempt by the European Union to disturb the integrity of our sovereign state, in violation of international law, by means of cutting it into two through the imposition of a customs and international SPS border.

Not by pointing out the central absurdity that the provision of not for EU labels makes zero contribution to protecting the integrity of the EU single market, instead involved in the UK having to engage in an act of national self-harm, embracing the less additional packaging costs in relation to Northern Ireland that threaten our own supply chain. But by seeking to accommodate and make space for this injustice, and this space for this injustice, and this The regulation file McPhail for four reasons.

Paragraph 65 says that the legislation quotes and enables the Secretary of State to take quick action to prevent or reverse product delisting from the Northern Ireland market. Quite how these legislations will enable the market to prevent supply chain breakdown when they need to demonstrate a problem that merits the mandating of 'not for EU' labels is completely unclear. The critical point is that the government is saying that at least part of their purpose is to try to reverse supply chain breakdown after it has happened.

So if we think about that, UK citizens in Northern Ireland who have already been told we must make do with being disenfranchised in all those areas of law are now being told we must also make do with regular supply chain breakdown. We are supposed to be satisfied with the government promise that they would try to reverse it. I would respectfully suggest that any other self- respecting country in the world would not now down to the demands of other countries when doing so has the effect of not only agreeing to the partial disenfranchisement of their citizens, but also having to live with supply chain breakdown.

Whatever happened to the talk that came from so many people about Northern Ireland's privileged addition as a result of the Irish having to live with the constant threat of supply chain breakdown is a privilege we could do without and to which no part of the United Kingdom should be subject. Secondly, the mechanisms proposed by these regulations are highly dubious, involving government in trying to micromanage the flow of goods that come straight out of some kind of failed command economy playbook. The legislation smacks of desperation and looks more like the government trying to cover its back in relation to his legal obligations to have special regard to Northern Ireland's place in the UK customs territory as section 46 one to Northern Ireland's place in the UK customs territory as section 40 61B internal market act 2020 says.

Third, the solution failed and make no attempt to address supply chain rate down from GB firms employing up to 49 people. This is a really big deal because consumers depend on being able to access smaller companies, as well as larger companies, in order to enjoy diversity manager's. Often it's the smaller companies that meet the niche markets and it would seem that that isn't going to matter for consumer. LB no consumer choice in Northern Ireland. Of course these relations fail because they continued to pretend that 'not for EU' labelling is worth accommodating when they do nothing more than impose needless packaging cost on GB companies, threatening the Northern Ireland supply chain.

If you visit supermarkets on the Northern Ireland side of the border with the Republic of Ireland, you will find they contain significant numbers of cars from the Republic that take home with them lots of 'not for EU' labelled goods because there is no law against their purchase and they are, on average as I said, cheaper than comparable Republic of Ireland goods. My Lords, one of the most disturbing aspects of the regulation before a day into the manner in which the government sought to defend them in another place when they would debated their last Monday.

The honourable member Jim Alistair pointed out that there were regulations before us today, depending that they do on the failed methodologies of command economies were failed so the trade divergent that the government itself admits the relevant Explanatory Notes constitutes a clear and present danger would likely take place without any effective countervailing action. He further pointed out that this would constitute a major problem for the government because it would result in more trade diversion and the violation, the violation of the Windsor frameworks all -- own safeguard.

It safeguards article 16 if the application of this protocol is a serious economic, societal or environment of difficulties that are liable to persist or to division of trade, the union or the United kingdom may unilaterally take appropriate safeguard measures. In this provision, both parties at that time agreed that serious economic, society and environment or difficulties that are liable to persist provide grounds for the treaty Derek mechanism to be initiated, as does trade divergent. This means the Windsor framework was devised in terms that recognise that if there were difficulties with trade diversion as being inconsistent with the continuation of the agreement, certainly in its current form.

But the minister, and I wonder if the noble lady, the minister, will respond in the same terms. I imagine she will. When asked about trade diversion and asked about section 16, I think in terms quite astonishing, he dismissed the concern, stating the government would intervene. And I quote, only in the event of a massive distortion to trade. That completely abandoned article 16. There is no mention of massive division of trade. Clearly, a decision was taking not to raise the threshold of protection around trade divergent that there is around the other three protections in this way.

It uniquely stands as a protection against trade diversion per se. It's certainly not limited to massive trade diversion. It seems the government is now cherry picking the part of the Windsor framework but it likes and rejecting those that it doesn't like. It's quite happy to dismiss those parts that would enable it to protect its own citizens from the challenge of supply chain breakdown but I really doubt whether it would treat UK citizens in England in this matter. I got to the stage where I feel that the government now has a large majority and it's got a previous government who actually implemented all these issues, and no one is prepared to accept that they made a mistake, it was wrong, there were other ways.

Mutual enforcement, also to think of done instead of just listening to the Republican -- Republic of Ireland and the EU with a ring on about a hard border. I think the government has this very large majority of votes in the other place but I think it is genuinely completely lost any sense of moral authority that it once might've employed over this particular issue. I do hope the noble lady, the minister, even though she is bound by government policy will begin to recognise that we're not just spending all this time every time there is something to do with an SI in Northern Ireland, because it always the last business, we're not doing this just for fun.

We doing it because it does matter to people in Northern Ireland. It is making it difference, there is trade divergent and the government should be acting.

20:55

Lord Weir of Ballyholme (Democratic Unionist Party)

- -

It's a pleasure to follow and I also want to thank the noble Baroness the Minister for the meeting that she facilitated on this issue, and give us an opportunity to discuss some of the details. It is welcome that where having this debate this evening on a government motion because if it hadn't been a government motion, I'm sure ways would have been found to bring it to the chamber in any case. Because it is such a significant SI in terms of the Windsor framework, we've had a number of debates previously on these issues and no doubt we will have many more going forward until the Windsor framework is comprehensively dealt with.

The number of these SIs doesn't diminish or lessen the offence and damage to the union, to democracy and to the Northern Ireland economy that they reflect. It doesn't diminish our desire and wish to oppose them. We will go on opposing them for as long as necessary. As has been mentioned, tomorrow sees the further hardening of the Irish sea border. We've seen partial directives implemented, we now see these 'not for EU' labelling regulations Coming into force right across a large range of goods.

Far from the Irish sea border having disappeared as some told us a year or two ago, or having diminished in any way or been lessened, in fact it is hardening. I do detect that there is a growing sense of complacency. Not just in this place, not just in this parliament about this issue, but sadly, right across the but sadly, right across the political sphere. A sense of let's not talk about it too loudly, let's not point out some of the issues and difficulties.

There is a detachment from reality where politicians are putting forward, particularly government and their supporters, a certain version of reality. As the FSB pointed out in their report recently, the reality on the ground for traders and businesses is very different. We are in an inherently unstable situation politically, in my view. We had evidence we got two ago, our committee travelled, the select committee in which I sit, was in Belfast. We took evidence and some of the evidence that was given was quite startling in terms of the potential danger to the assembly.

Stability going forward about the continuing tensions around the Windsor framework will stop the way that it is a national solution to the problem, not a cross community solution. It's a nationalist solution. In a previous debate we were told that we can't have a unionist solution. Those days are gone. We're looking for a cross community solution. We are not looking for a nationalist solution or a unionist solution in that sense. The fact that the matter is that of course, unless there is violence on the streets of Northern Ireland, God forbid that there should be any time, there's never any excuse for violence or people taking the law into their own hand, but unless there is violence or a threat to the stability of the assembly and the institution, nobody takes a bit of notice.

But the day is coming, in my view, that the assembly will get more and more unstable because of the growing effects of the protocol. When that happens, people will ask how on earth did that happen? You only have to look around many politicians in Britain and the rest of the UK turn a blind eye. Here at the last minute on 30 June with these new regulations coming, these new Irish sea border hardening regulations coming into place, 'not for EU' labels being applied across a range of goods fruit, vegetable, fish, composite including chilled foods.

Previously it was only on meat and dairy. The government has chosen to bring forward these regulations this evening that no one, of course, since the 30th The government has chosen to bring forward these regulations this evening that no one, of course, since 30 September 2024 when they announced that they weren't going ahead with UK wide labelling, and they have of course known about the need the EU imposes on 'not for EU' labels for Northern Ireland. Why have they waited until now? Why do we have this last-minute decision to get these through on 30 June? My Lords, the regulations that we have in front of us represent a breach in the safeguarding of the union command.

This command people was referred to in paragraphs 117 and 118 of that command paper with a clear commitment of the government was to introduce UK wide not for EU labelling. They pointed out why it was necessary to avoid disruption of trade between the rest of the United kingdom and Northern Ireland. In the debate that took place at that time, when the Labor Party was still in opposition, they committed in opposition that they would safeguard the union command paper.

So why has the government reneged on that commitment? That commitment, don't let us forget, I'm condemning the government for reneging but of course the Conservative party when in office had this commitment in the safeguarding of union command paper but then delayed implementing it. It went out the consultation. We knew then and I set it at the time. I was derided at the time including in the unionist community because I said they won't going to do it. Their industry friends won't let them do it.

So it proved. This government actually formally reneged. This commitment along with other commitments in safeguarding the union was used to sell to the unionist people, to sell to the Democratic Unionist party, the necessity of backing this deal. Now that we're back, it's been reneged on. Some of us did express the fear at the time that this might happen. And insisted, we were successful in our insistence, deeply regrettable now, that all these things should be permitted first.

Don't take them at their word. Don't take the UK government Conservative or Labour, because in Northern Ireland politics we've been let down so often. Make sure we have it in permitted. But sure we have it in permitted. But It It is It is ineffective It is ineffective in It is ineffective in what It is ineffective in what it It is ineffective in what it does and what it purports to achieve. As Baroness Hoey said, people, all the time, to buy their goods in Northern Ireland supermarkets and we don't say a word about it.

It is so ludicrous that Asda has to apply, has to apply all of these labels at pain of being penalised with hefty fines if they don't. I even had supermarkets in the Irish Republic to sell their goods through. They don't have any supermarkets in the Irish Republic. They can only sell in the UK, only in Northern Ireland, yet they are forced to have all of this labelling and all of this regulation and compliance checks and lorries turned back as we heard in the evidence of Stormont from one of the representatives.

Even though we cannot sell outside Northern Ireland. Maybe people, from the south but they don't actively sell it in the Republic. Then of course we have the pointless nature of these regulations. Because we have had the May 19 Summit, the agreement, working towards an SPS agreement. We will wait and see what the detail of that is because one with thing we have learned over the years, don't take the face value, the words at face value about what might be agreed or not, or generalities.

Wait for the EU, not UK government spin, let's see what the EU legislation says. Because remember, that is the only thing that counts. It is EU legislation which is the law of the land in Northern Ireland, across all of these areas. All the rest of it is spin. All the rest of it is propaganda. When we see the EU text, then we will know what the reality is. But we were told the effect of is. But we were told the effect of the agreement, in the Commons, we will do away with the EU labelling.

When you listen to what the government is saying, they say many goods, many used the phrase tonight the majority of goods. It will be interesting to see how many will not be included. Will we have the situation where there will be EU labelling for some but not others? You can imagine companies trying to grapple with the complexity. They have been told it is for dairy, meat, fruit, veg, chilled products. Forget about all that, it will only be for certain items. Perhaps the Minister, the noble Baroness, when she sums up could clarify what she meant by the majority of goods in that case.

My Lords, the secondary legislation Scrutiny Committee has done a job of work in relation to these regulations. Has highlighted the costs to business, in some cases hundreds of millions of pounds. They have talked about the conditions whereby the Minister must issue a notice if it is to apply. But it is only if it can be proved that the delisting of goods being sent to Northern Ireland is the result only of the Not for EU label requirement. I would be very interested to know how that is going to be worked out in the time scale that the government says it has set out.

That is going to be a very tough examination. I'm sure there will be lots of issues. The time issue, distances have warned about the uncertainty of Southern demand for having Not for EU labels across the UK, and others Northern Ireland have expressed concern that the division may have already taken place, that people won't reinstate trade. The exemption for small businesses, undermines the whole scheme. Because there are many, many small businesses involved in this trade between Britain and Northern Ireland.

On the consultations, the committee pointed out that there was a consultation on the original scheme, but also mentioned, this was a UK wide scheme, the original scheme, it wasn't just for Northern Ireland. I think would be incumbent on the government to carry out a proper consultation. My Lords, I mentioned the SFB report, Federation of Small Businesses, who produced a

21:09

Lord Dodds of Duncairn (Democratic Unionist Party)

- -

report just this month. I would recommend every noble Lord and recommend every noble Lord and Baroness takes time to read that report, because it injects a dose of reality into what we are talking reality into what we are talking about when it comes to the Windsor Framework. We have set out many times our constitutional and times our constitutional and democratic objections to the Windsor democratic objections to the Windsor Framework, but this strikes a dagger through the heart of the trade and economic arguments for the Windsor economic arguments for the Windsor Framework.

Read it, and digester, and I hope the government ministers and I hope the government ministers will respond to the FSP. And come back to them with clear answers back to them with clear answers about the many, many issues of concern that their businesses are facing. Particularly things like facing. Particularly things like trade support services where hundreds of millions of pounds have hundreds of millions of pounds have been wasted. They report, businesses in Northern Ireland report in overwhelming numbers they have no overwhelming numbers they have no trust in it, they've been told contradictory advice, they can't get it written down, it is a joke,

21:09

Lord Empey (Ulster Unionist Party)

- -

it written down, it is a joke, according to one of the businesses. I think the government really does need to take these matters very

**** Possible New Speaker ****

need to take these matters very seriously indeed. My Lords, I think we need to have some think of the Minister's welfare. I'm quite sure she probably needs counselling, coming to these. I mean, we see the array of the benches beside us here at the degree of interest there is in this. But that should not undermine the significance of what we are discussing. We have been talking about the labels, labels cost money. It costs money to change the production line.

That can only end up with an increase to the customer. There is nobody else who's going to pay it. The amount of money that is being put into this whole performance, £200 million to erect border inspection posts, hundreds of millions of pounds on the trader scheme. That is going around the edges of it. But I think there needs to be some political reality about to be some political reality about this. Many years ago when we had We are paying for the mistakes that were made subsequent to the referendum.

Some people could see a mile away what was going to happen. Those in the other place who are so keen to get the exit done didn't give twopence about Northern Ireland. Just a nuisance, we will fix it later. Well, they are fixing it now because who could have believed a decade ago, that we would have bought extraction posts in the port of Belfast, the port of Warren point, that it would be unbelievable. But it was entirely predictable because United Kingdom conducted the worst statecraft negotiation with the European Union that I think has ever taken place in history.

Even the beginning, in the first page, they give away that before they even sat down at the table, they agreed what money they would pay. That's like saying " I'm going to buy your house, open Senate, but I will pay you so much for it ". Who would do that? What responsible government would do that? Then of course, the Irish question was brought up. That was separated out from trade and made a political commitment rather than being part of the negotiations.

Aw., And conducted, I believe, in a very secret way with people talking out of both sides of their mouth at once. So, that is how we got into this mess. It is nothing that is happening today. The menu ship might be unexpected but the principles are not unexpected. They were written on the ward, you can see them. I would have to say to do the Minister, she must realise how preposterous how all of this is. We have heard the situation with regard to the supermarket, Sainsbury's are in the same boat and they don't have any stores in the Republic.

A big supermarket like that. People come across, if you look at the car parks in Enniskillen, other places, they are thronged with people from the Republic and this is been going on for years. They are taking their toxic baked beans back to County Louth because enormous damage, the ripples will flow across the European Union, rattling cages. It is all absolute and complete nonsense and is costing a lot of money, and leaving a serious political and potential situation behind it. What we have, My Lords, is bureaucracy colliding with common sense.

I cannot believe that we can't do better. But there is one interesting point. This phrase keeps coming up again and again. Full and faithful implementation of the Protocol and Windsor Framework. It was actually in the Safeguarding the Union document. It was repeated by the Secretary of State when he came to your lordships Select Committee on Northern Ireland last week, the full and faithful implementation. The Minister has just rented out. The Minister has just rented out. The angle is this.

Because of the government's are deemed to have broken faith with the European Union, our own government or governments are doing their best to show that they are the well-behaved boys in the class. We are going to do exactly what is in that. And hope that we regain some concession at a later stage in the negotiations on the reset. Because, let's be fair, the reset is not going to have any impact on this whatsoever, for at least a year.

Even then, the small print will be the test as to whether there is any improvement or not. Now, I have asked the Minister in other the debates, and erase it again with Minister Thomas Simmons at the committee last week about the about negotiations for the agreement that are taking place next week here. What are we doing about that? How we got a shopping list, solutions? Have we got ideas we can put forward? We know the European Union will want to narrow the scope of that negotiation but it is an opportunity, it is in the agreement and should be worked upon.

It should be incorporated into our negotiations with regard to the decisions from May 19. So, I have to say My Lords, when we look at things like the FSB report referred to, Marks & Spencer's, our committee has had numerous pieces of evidence in the last few weeks, in fact, some of it has even been shocking, even to those of us who are reasonably familiar with these things, because we have been engaging with the people on the front line who are actually doing it, who are moving the goods, who are trying to sell the goods.

And the other thing that came up at our visit to the committee visit, which we haven't picked up on before, was fraud. There is a fraud being perpetrated here with regard to some of the activities, cross-border activities, and I hope that when we are finalising a report, we will highlight that. But it was something we hadn't been familiar with before. So, there is a whole lot of things going on out there that are significant. So, I hope that the Minister will confirm that she will talk to her colleagues about preparing a meaningful negotiation for the T NEA next year.

That through the joint committee, she will understand the shared preposterous proposals that we have here. Which are utterly and completely failing if we are trying to come, if the European is trying to protect us in the common market, what are they going to do, stop people at the border and taking the baked beans from them? Because they are buying them. It is such nonsense. I had that also, that you cannot possibly believe that this is going to have any economic benefit to anybody, except the people who make labels.

We have to be realistic All All coming All coming finally All coming finally to All coming finally to the All coming finally to the politics of this, and my party was never in favour of this, but people were told and a really hard sell was made. The border was gone, we have fixed it. That was told to the Hillsborough Council by the Secretary of State standing beside Sir Jeffrey Donaldson, and we now know that it was a complete falsehood. Many of us knew it at the time but it has come proved to be a complete false would.

The truth is that we have to be realistic and we have to be honest with people as to what's achievable and what's not. The only way this government is utterly, totally and completely committed to the full and faithful implementation of the Windsor framework. It's repeated that as its predecessor did, and is not going to change its tack. The only way we can move things forward, in my view, is to concentrate on negotiations that will take place in the next 12 months, including the renegotiation of the T and EA, and the negotiations of the so-called reset.

We need to inject some common sense and proportion into what's happening. The European Union has a perfect entitlement to protect its internal market, nobody can deny that. There has to be proportionality. What we have here is a nonsense. Where back to the situation where if people are bringing a tractor, a second-hand vehicle into Northern Ireland, we are back underneath the tractor looking for lumps of soil. That's what we were doing at the start of this and we're back doing that again.

This is the sort of nonsense that we have to deal with and I hope the minister will take those points

**** Possible New Speaker ****

on board. My Lords, I rise to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

on board. My Lords, I rise to stress my strong opposition which I think represents another indictment of EU imperialism tightening its

21:20

Lord McCrea of Magherafelt and Cookstown (Democratic Unionist Party)

- -

of EU imperialism tightening its grip around the neck of Northern Ireland. When then prime ministership sooner Rishi Sunak first came through, he held as a breakthrough and I quote, today's agreement delivers smooth trade within the whole of the United Kingdom to tax Northern Ireland's place in our union and safeguards sovereignty for the people of Northern Ireland. We have removed any sense of a border in the Irish Sea. If that were true that any pretense of a border in the Irish Sea had been removed, then, My Lords, we would not be here tonight debating these regulations.

In fact the opposite, the final framework of the Windsor regulations, and they represent a serious challenge for retail businesses and Northern Ireland. Federation of small businesses, the UK's biggest business organisation released a report on the Windsor framework realities this month and the findings were unmistakable and astounding. In the first instance, the report found that 34% of those experiencing difficulties or operating across the United Kingdom internal market reported that the ceased trade with the other region, in this case Northern Ireland, entirely rather than content to the framework regulations.

Additionally, the report quashed any notion that the Digital Market Act says have brought new found economic brought new found economic The idea that we're having the best of both worlds is at best fanciful, or as others like myself believe, utterly deceitful. I have no doubt that the usual suspects will tell us that we are so privileged to have the Windsor framework and these regulations, but nothing can be further from the truth. Additionally, the report quashed any notion that we would get this new prosperity.

There is no compelling evidence to indicate the dual market access has served the region better than the unmitigated access to the UK internal market. To those who wish to inflate or exacerbate the apparent merits of dual market access, I would draw their attention to the fact that 99% of respondents to the FSP survey were small and medium enterprise businesses who operate primarily within the UK internal market and the prestigious requirements needed to gain the so- called benefits.

The FSP's assessment of operational disruptions reporting that one in three businesses have already said they have faced disruption as a result of the framework and an expectation of future disruptions from a similarly large segment. The unsatisfied demand that the Windsor framework the not just impact businesses in Northern Ireland, My Lords, but is also based around the United Kingdom, many of which were former trading partners but have since been forced to withdraw from the region due to the impossibility of trading complexity.

One business owner base in Scotland said it is no longer worth trading with Northern Ireland, which is awful, and cuts out a lot of business and makes no sense as it is easier currently to trade with the USA and Australia. End of quote. The government's desire to appease the EU has gone so far that they're not content to call the trade and business from GB to Northern Ireland as they seek to enforce 'not for EU' labelling, rather this government has accepted its your role as EU consultants intent to come impose on the British people the demands and regulation of EU Empire.

Perhaps some noble Lord will have seen or heard last week's BBC interview with the chief executive of Marks & Spencer. He described the phase 3 labelling as bureaucratic madness, stating that over 1000 Marks & Spencer products destined for Northern Ireland would require 'not for EU' labelling. Another 400 would need to go through additional checks once arrived in Northern Ireland. My Lords, this 'not for EU' legislation is concerning not simply because it was created by 27 EU member states, but because it petitions the United Kingdom into two jurisdictions, Northern Ireland and great written.

It then claims governing authority over the former. That is a grotesque violation of the sovereignty of our nation and an insult in validation of British democracy. The 'not for EU' regulations remove the Irish Sea border and instead actively solidify and build upon it. Tonight's debate is reviewing the final stage of that Windsor framework 'not for EU' labelling as the government put before us the Marking of Retail Goods Regulations 2025. It's interesting that in the case of these regulations, the government has acknowledged that the trading complexity is that assist within Northern Ireland, and further than that, they appear to be fearful of how existing complexities may be engendered by the final stage of regulations on 1 July engendered by the final stage of regulations on 1 July 2025.

So much so that the insistence that these regulations must be on the statute book by the end of this month, which is precisely why We Are Here Venice evening. Yet it is not clear how these regulations will actually function properly. For these regulations to work in practice, the state would need to keep a constant watch over the flow of goods across countless product lines, stepping into control and adjust those whenever it sees fit. This is the kind of top-down micromanagement we might expect in some different economies, but not here in the United Kingdom.

We are a country that values pre-emphasise and trust businesses to get on with the job. We do not need the government to hold over every palate and crate created within our own UK internal market. That notion is ludicrous. Businesses rely on certainty. They need to be able to plan invest and move without constantly looking over their shoulders. These regulations would embed economic uncertainty into our system, empowering the Secretary of State to impose 'not for EU' labelling meaning that producers would be left wondering whether today they might wake up, or tomorrow they might wake up to find new labelling requirements suddenly forced upon them.

Even if the labels are applied, My Lords, there is no guarantee they will solve the problems they are created to address. How are businesses supposed to change packaging, reorganise supply chains and keep shelves stocked at the drop of a hat? In many cases, they simply won't be able to move fast enough. Nor will they be able to finance such a radical information. In particular, the innumerable SMEs operated by small teams would struggle. The government knows that the dire reality is that such an imposition would likely prompt the delisting of products and supply chain disruption.

In fact, the proposals contained within these marking regulation goods retail goods regulations effectively accept the supply chain disruption in Northern Ireland become a normal part of life. It is written in clear writing in the Explanatory Memorandum on the regulations. In which the conditions for the government helping to resolve supply chain breakdown, it evident that it has already happened. I introduced that the 'not for EU' labelling will be totally and wholly ineffective. As other noble Lord's have said, they only have to look at the current arrangements with the Republic of Ireland.

It's a well-known fact the consumers in the Republic of Ireland has historically travelled up to Northern Ireland and availed of the cheaper prices and greater product over city. Why cheaper prices and product over city might've declined under the Windsor framework, it is nonetheless still a fact that people living in the Republic of Ireland travel to Northern Ireland, purchase goods with 'not for EU' labelling on them and will return home to the Republic of Ireland without recourse for penalty. This should compound all other arguments for the inefficiency of the 'not for EU' system.

Let alone the aforementioned arguments. My Lords, I put on records to the house my opposition to these regulations and the oncoming economic hurdles that will arise following the implementation of these labelling is on July 1. It's clear that the marketing retail goods regulations is a smaller part of the Windsor framework and will not deliver the promise of removing the Irish Sea border. Instead, they serve as yet another example of continued EU appeasement where each government, as though colonial administrators for the EU Empire, carry out their duties unflinchingly to ensure that Northern Ireland is subjugated.

The regulations will not deliver smooth flow of trade or protect Northern Ireland's place in the union nor guard the sovereignty of Northern Ireland. The noble Lord Lord Frost remarked in this place the Windsor framework is leading this government and this country into deeper and more dangerous waters with every day that passed. waters with every day that passed. I wonder if the government hears those words. We've already had taken from us the power to legislate, and already have been made subject to over 700 new laws and over 300 different legal areas.

A younger generation has been robbed of the democracy that many of us have witnessed for years. One man, one vote, and they can only vote for some of the laws to which they are subject. Businesses have been cut off from their largest trading partner, now, even in spite of that fact, the government has decided to accept this position and build upon it. So, what is the solution? A trusted trader scheme which is very difficult to be accepted onto, and legislation such as these regulations before us tonight, which embed us further in the EU and stifle our businesses.

My Lords, the Windsor Framework has deprived Northern Ireland of democracy, broken the sovereignty of the United Kingdom, and isolated Northern Ireland economically. That is the cold, harsh reality of the Windsor Framework. It's operation, every day that it passes, is an act of national self-harm and the government urgently needs to reconsider its approach and embrace usual enforcement as the only viable solution. Depressingly, I am not filled with hope that this government actually is listening. It is ironic that we are debating these regulations on the same day that we debated the Chagos Islands debate, another sellout on the sovereignty of the Prime Minister.

What is clear to me tonight as this. This government cares little for the sovereignty, for the economy, for the rights of the people of Northern Ireland, or indeed, for those British Chagos Islands people who have lost out today. It is perhaps as I close, much unfortunate that exactly one day before we mark 109 years since the battle of the Somme, we are gathered here this evening to further discuss these dismantling on Northern Ireland sovereignty through the strengthening of the Windsor the strengthening of the Windsor Framework.

The men of the 36th Ulster Division gave so much for the King, a flag in the country, on July 1, 1916. They fought in France with courage and valour, spurred on their Ulster heritage. Rudyard Kipling said what answer from the north? One law, one land, one thrown full stop if England drives us forth, we shall not fall alone. In my opinion, the stench of EU policy has offended the good people of Northern Ireland long enough. We have articulated to this government and those who went before them and most earnest determination to resist the continued imposition of EU influence in this province.

Our problem is. And that is why I oppose these regulations.

21:35

Lord Weir of Ballyholme (Democratic Unionist Party)

- -

My Lords, I apologise to the Minister in advance, I suppose where else would I prefer to be on a Monday night other than he debating issues such as this? Can I say that these regulations appear to be a sticking plaster over the wounds that have been inflicted, particularly on the internal markets, by both the Protocol and Windsor Framework. I should say self-inflicted wounds by should say self-inflicted wounds by the government. Taking the best from the government's presentation, there is some attempt to slightly ameliorate some of the trade levels of disruption.

I say taken at face value. I think a lot of us have now come to realise that things can't necessarily mean be taken at face value. At the heart of this, has been highlighted, the current arrangements that are in place of those coming into place, purport to deal with what is effectively a fictitious issue. I also then imposing what is real harm. The need to protect the EU single markets, frankly, has been highlighted by Baroness Hoey, Lord Empey, Lord Dobbs, Lord McCrea.

It creates A- level of fiction. The reality is I suspect it is unlikely that there is going to be a special unit set up of the iris police to deal with the modern day Irish Bonnie and Clyde smuggling beef Lacerna across the border. -- Lasagne. We are not really dealing with a real issue. As highlighted by the FSB, the current arrangements are leading to very damaging impact in reality to the internal market.

34% of firms serving because they've already diverged, what is perhaps even more worrying is that in the same survey, it indicates that 41% of firms looking ahead are more pessimistic, and quite worried about what is coming and what are the major issues it is being put forward as labelling. I would say with the best will in the world, you would anticipate these criticisms from these benches and Baroness Hoey opposite. But the FSB is not coming from some ideological opponent of either the government or indeed, the EU, or indeed, ideologically as opposed to the protocol.

They are highlighting the very real concerns. I think it is also the case there is a number of floors within this legislation. Firstly, as was indicated, the previous promise by the previous government as supported by the then opposition was that if labelling was going to happen, it would be done on a full UK wide basis, that everybody would be treated equally. Yet it is clear now that we are in a position that what is imposed in Northern Ireland, at best, there will be some levels of exceptions where GB can be brought into it, so it is not universal.

Secondly, the circumstances in which it will be then, the government will then intervene to make it, to compel less. This seems to be, with respect to the regulation, quite a lot of wiggle room to the extent that the government on taking consultation, looking at various bodies could easily come to the conclusion that particular circumstances were not convenient to impose any form of labelling beyond the shores of Northern Ireland. Thirdly, I am interested, and again it would be interesting for the Minister to respond to this point, that within the regulations, it talks about what will be focused on is the impact on removal of retail goods or the threat of it from Northern Ireland.

What it doesn't specifically say, whether that removal is removal simply by way of specific GB goods or more widely. For example, if you take a consumer in Northern Ireland and they are getting very similar goods that are being either produced in the Irish Republic, the Czech Republic or France, that would seem on the face of it to satisfy the requirement that the Northern Ireland consumer is getting fairly similar goods. But that is creating A-level of further divergence within the UK market.

It is damaging GB firms. I would be interested in the government's interpretation of that. Fourthly, within the regulations, there is a clear exemption for firms from Great Britain that are small firms, that are less than 50. As anyone who has had difficulties with the consumer actually getting goods, is quite often not what is on the supermarket shelves. Quite often there are different alternatives. We are not faced, I suppose, with great empty shelves but often when you are trying to order something, to which there is a very occasional supply to Northern Ireland from a small firm, it will not solve those particular problems.

I think having highlighted the problems, we need to look very briefly at solutions. It is clear that what we need to see is more fundamental solutions than a sticking plaster approach. It is clear that I think the long-term solution should be mutual enforcement, as has been highlighted. They would be something I think both protects the EU single market in the UK internal market. In the short term, while we are awaiting that, the government should outline what steps it has genuinely taking in terms of engagement with the EU to fast track solutions.

We are told that because of the reset there is a much better relationship with Europe. But then what actions then is government taking to roll back your equity? Instead of putting forward regulations which extend labelling, what actions are being taken to actually reduce or remove the need for labelling? For instance, a key part of the reset agreement has been an acceptance of an SPS deal which would be dynamic alignment and indeed, we would be put in a situation where there is no distinction between goods produced in any part of the United Kingdom and the rest of the EU on food and SPS products.

The logic of that would be that whenever that is implemented, there would be no need for labelling of those goods. Yet we seem to be moving from a position in which there currently isn't a need for labelling on the sum goods. That is going to extend. If the government gets its way it is going to be removed again. That seems to be logical nonsense. The reality is, at the very least, the government should be taking action to say to the EU, working with the EU, to say actually, quite frankly, that is an illogical pathway to go.

At the very least, let us extend to prevent any further extension and removal of that. Secondly, if it is good enough for firms in Great Britain, small firms, not to require labelling because of the particular burden, and I can understand that on the small firms, that similarly should be applied to the situation as regard to that. We should see a blanket removal of labelling across the board. Again, that is something if there is goodwill with the EU, if the government is prepared to take those steps, that is something which, let's face it, if there is a lack of labels on small and medium enterprise products from whatever part of the United Kingdom, that is likely to damage even in theory the EU single market.

Those are the short sort of steps in the short term the government should be taking. As with everything, what will be judged on our experience of this is not good. We will see what is promised by government, we will see what is there directly in the legislation, but the real test would be what happens in practice. And to believe that this will be a significant step forward would be a triumph of hope over experience. Unfortunately, to date, in Northern Ireland, we have had too much experience to generate a great deal of hope.

21:44

Lord Morrow (Democratic Unionist Party)

- -

21:59

Lord Elliott of Ballinamallard (Ulster Unionist Party)

- -

stage. I do note that the minister won't comment that this won't support relations with the European Union. What about relationships within the United Kingdom between Great Britain and Northern Ireland? That is failing drastically. Failing so much that it is having a huge impact to small and medium businesses on the ground. We've heard a number of noble Lord mentioned the FSB Windsor framework realities report. They quoted some of the report so I won't do that, but what I will say is that the people that develop that report went out onto the ground and spoke to businesses impacted and found that those were the realities.

Those with a hard realities that it is impacting their businesses so significantly, and that is why this is a very poor piece of regulation. It's only adding to the impact of those individuals. The recent EU UK relationship or deal is just over a month old. I thought it would have stopped the like of this happening. But instead, it's going ahead. Why could we not put this off until the implementation of that new EU UK relationship? I have no idea.

Maybe the minister will help me out here as to why. I live in a border county and a number of major supermarkets. You think it'll stop people coming up from those border counties to buy those products that's a 'not for EU' Mac not a chance. The noble Baroness highlighted that earlier. They will continue to buy them, probably because they are cheaper, but the one impact is it will stop trade between the GB and Northern Ireland. Without a number of businesses say that they can't access goods from GB companies simply because it's either too much trouble or too costly to do so.

Finally, I'll leave one plea. That is, why can we not have practical common sense here? That is the one thing that I think would move above all else within this deal is if we had common sense and that would save a lot of businesses in both Northern Ireland and GB. Thank both Northern Ireland and GB. Thank

22:02

Baroness Suttie (Liberal Democrat)

- -

I would like to thank the Minister for her negotiations are trying to find practical solutions to these complex issues. I would like to thank Lord Empey on what I thought was an excellent assessment on why we are where we are. I think the rush to get a deal at any cost, we are now living through this. He was absolutely right, as was Lord Elliott, in his assessment of that. On a recent visit to Brussels with the European affairs committee, it was clear that European partners are welcoming this more pragmatic approach to finding solutions.

The relief of the change of tone coming from this government was palpable. Given the hour and the heat of the day and the rather over excessive air-conditioning in this chamber, I shall endeavour to keep my remarks extremely brief. Perhaps not surprisingly, I think the noble lords opposite will not be surprised that from these beaches, we support at least the intent behind these regulations, which give the government power to protect UK internal market and should assist in ensuring consumer choice in Northern Ireland.

It is important, as others have said, that there are not disincentives for GB businesses wanting to sell the goods to Northern Ireland and that red tape and bureaucracy are kept to a minimum. It is also, therefore, well, I believe, that there is an exemption for small businesses. In his concluding remarks on the debate, on these regulations in the House of Commons, Minister Daniel MP said the Secretary of State will conduct the first review after two years rather than the usual five, and it is contained in these regulations.

Minister in the House of Commons stated that, and I quote, this will allow for scrutiny of the policy in the context of the proposed SPS agreement. This suggests that the government are confident of having the SPS agreement in place well before that two year review. Can the Minister in her concluding remarks confirm that this is the case, and can she give a rough estimate of the timing for the SPS agreement? The Minister and House of Commons also suggested that these regulations will be much, these regulations we are debating this evening, will be much less necessary once the SPS agreement is in place.

Can the Minister say a little more hour in practical terms these regulations we are debating this evening will fit in with the proposed SPS agreement. Can she say a little bit more about that in her concluding remarks? Finally, following Lord we are comments in his speech earlier, can she confirm that in many ways these regulations that we are looking at is evening are a stopgap until the various agreements announced at the summit on May 19 are concluded.

22:05

Lord Blencathra (Conservative)

- -

My Lords, being here tonight reminded me of some of these wonderful days and House of Commons in the 1980s and 90s when we used to do Northern Ireland business on Wednesday, and business would go to 10 o'clock, 11, one, two, three in the morning for Tony Blair change the hours and we can no longer do it. I'm feeling reminiscing about that tonight. I think the noble lady, the Minister, for introducing these regulations, a statutory instrument that addresses the complex is issue as a result of the Windsor Framework agreement.

The regulations do aim to safeguard continuity of retail goods into Northern Ireland, enabling the Secretary of State to mandate Not for EU labelling, for certain goods sold in Great Britain but only in this response to clear evidence that the supply do Northern Ireland would otherwise be seriously disrupted, and noble also challenge that. Once again I find myself having considerable sympathy with many of the points made by my noble friends from Northern Ireland, particularly Lord Dobbs, Lord Empey, and noble Baroness Hoey.

I think Lord Empey made a key point. We are now dealing with minutia in some of the absurdity of these regulations which is the noble Lord, said, is like a sticking plaster. The real problem goes back to what was negotiated six or seven years ago. Then government or seven years ago. Then government caved in demand and we ended up with the Northern Ireland protocol, now the Windsor Framework. The noble Lord described it as one of the worst agreements ever negotiated by a government, he and his noble friends could possibly say that.

I, of course, couldn't possibly comment. Given the comparatively small size of the Northern Ireland retail market, we acknowledge that some businesses may delist products rather than carrying other costs of compliance. In this context, the contingency power trend by this instrument appears to be a proportionate tool aiming to protect supply chains and consumer choice in Northern Ireland. It would be utterly unacceptable that goods only for Northern Ireland were labelled because they would be delisted. It is slightly less absurd that we try to label them for the whole UK or certain other countries as well.

If they are label for everybody, I think there is less chance that we will do delist them for Northern Ireland. That is one of the hoops we have to go through now we are stuck with a Northern Ireland Radical or Windsor Framework. I lords, we don't oppose the regulations but I want to see clarity from the Minister on a number of points which are essential for ensuring that this policy is both proportionate and effective in practice. As an aside, was there somebody had a big shed in Northern Ireland and the cattle is to move to and fro between it? I'm surprised somebody doesn't open a huge supermarket a few yards inside Northern Ireland encourage everybody to come in for the shopping there.

That is not an official policy, but it seemed to me that it is bound to happen if it goods in Northern Ireland are so much cheaper. My Lords, to the Minister, first on the thresholds. Can the Minister outline what specific types of evidence will be required to trigger a notice. Second, with regard to the impact on business, while we welcome the exemption for small business, what practical support, whether financial or advisory, will be offered to those just above the threshold to mitigate undue burdens, particularly SME.

It's all very well being exempt at 15 but if you have 51 or 60 employees your court and the burden could be astronomical. My Lords, was quoted already but I the concerns raised by industry, and this should be carefully considered. The chief executive of Marks & Spencer described the current requirements as not for four EU labelling as bureaucratic madness. He highlighted costs for consumers and disruption to supply chains and said that more than 1000 M&S products will now require labelling for Northern Ireland and a further 400 subject to checks.

Such feedback underlines the importance of ensuring that any new burdens placed on retailers, especially those operating across the UK internal market, are generally proportionate and government support is made available when needed. We would be grateful if the noble lady can explain why he has got it wrong. Third, enforcement and consistency. Given that enforcement falls to local authorities across the country, what steps will be taken to make sure and assist consistent application of rules cross devolved nations. Fourth, public understanding.

The garment has a plan for a coordinated government communication strategy to ensure consumers both in great Britain and Northern Ireland understand what not for 30 label signifies. It does not reflect on the quality on the safety of the goods in question because they could be misconstrued. Finally, in future adaptability. As UK EU trade dynamics continue to evolve, how will these regulations be reviewed and if necessary, revised to reflect changes in market conditions on the operation of the Windsor Framework, and could the Minister confirm how soon Parliament will be updated following such a review.

My Lords, as all noble lords opposite and noble barrenness is pointed out, all these regulations are technically, they are far from trivial and I understand the points made by noble lords opposite. In their opinion, their fundamental sovereignty of Northern Ireland and the United Kingdom. The issues they seek to address go to the heart supply chain integrity, consumer protection and the delicate balance of the UK internal market. We welcome continue dialogue on the implementation of these powers and look forward to the Minister's reassurances on the Minister's reassurances on the points race.

22:11

Baroness Hayman of Ullock, The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Labour)

- -

Here here. bench. Can I start by thanking all of the noble also contribute to this evening's debate was such passion and energy. I would like to particularly thank Lord Empey for continuing considering the welfare so carefully. Obviously much that has been said today goes wider than the scope of the debates title, as other wider concerns have been raised. But I want to draw the attention of noble lords back to the need for this legislation to protect the supply of retail goods to Northern Ireland.

As we have said earlier, the legislation delivers on a key commitment of the safeguarding the union paper, and is colleagues know, this is what provided the basis for the return of the Northern Ireland Executive. I would like to do my best to address the points raised by noble lords. It is late, if I miss anything out, I will go to Hansard and respond further in writing. The delisting of goods and impact on business is a very strong theme.

Baroness Hoey rightly expressed her concerns about the potential delisting products into Northern Ireland. Lord Elliott talked about the impacts on business. Of course, I am aware of the comments that came recently from Marks & Spencer's. I would like to reassure noble lords of the government is engaging comprehensively with businesses right across the United Kingdom to understand their state of residence -- residence for 1 July. I would like to take the opportunity to say we do very much recognise the efforts and commitment of businesses that serve Northern Ireland.

It is also a strong expectation that long lead in time to prepare for the phasing in through the announcement of the changes back last October, legislation with us today, and the ongoing support being provided by government to adapt. This will deter businesses from removing goods for sale in Northern Ireland. However, in the event this appears likely, the government won't hesitate to act by introducing labelling in Great Britain in order to prevent this. Lord Weir asked a particular question around whether or not the SI applied only to GB goods.

Just to confirm, or products of that type that need to be labelled to be placed on the market in GB. It doesn't matter their origin, whether they are made in GB or imported from elsewhere. This is to help ensure that Northern Ireland is the save -- has the same range as the rest of the UK. I would like to assure Baroness Hoey that this is the power of last resort. Why officials continue to work closely with businesses, as I said, across the United Kingdom, to encourage them to to move goods to Northern Ireland, but if the evident says we need to take action, we won't hesitate to intervene.

The noble lady mentioned article 16 as did Lord Morrow. Triggering article 16, we are concerned this would be contrary to Northern Ireland having stable arrangements for trade both now and in the future. Lord Dobbs asked about the impacts of the policy on economic growth, and inflation. The policy is intended to have a negligible impact on the economic growth and inflation, and has been specifically designed to minimise any negative impacts such as price ranges or changes in availability through the targeting of legislation to balance achieving the policy objective with minimising economic objective with minimising economic impact.

Lord Dobbs also asked about, he suggested we had remembered our commitment to safeguarding union. What we have been clear about this we will deliver on those commitments in the command paper for the people of Northern Ireland. The statutory instrument will deliver on those commitments by ensuring that the government is able to introduce not for any labelling of certain goods may be at risk from being removed from the Northern Ireland market. The policy diverges from the proposed approach set out the command paper by empowering the sector Secretary of State to implement the requirement as a contingency measure when necessary, rather than on a mandatory basis.

rather than on a mandatory basis. This is because we feel we need a more evidenced driven approach to the issue of safeguarding the retail market in Northern Ireland. Baroness Couttie asked about the timing of the SPS agreement, as other lords mentioned. Just to let the noble lady know that we intend to start talk straight away, we want to remove barriers as soon as possible. It is a complex technical legal matter, as I'm sure the noble ladies aware, but our ambition is to have it done as soon as possible in order On the SPS agreement, I would suggest this is a new approach.

Based on the agreements, we expect the 'not for EU' goods to be reduced significantly in labelling. The statutory will review these obligations after two years rather than the usual five as has been noted by noble Lord's. Noble Lord Lord Dobbs set I mention the majority of goods. This is about the SPS agreement. I said we expect this may remove the agreement for businesses to label the majority of their goods as 'not for EU' when moving into Northern Ireland.

We would hope to remove as many of those as possible. I hope that's helped to clarify that. Noble Lord Lord Elliott asked about why we are making businesses implement 'not for EU' when we have confirmed the SPS agreement with the EU. Once the SPS agreement has been implemented, there will be opportunities to further smooth trade with the EU internal market system and as I said, we expect the number of goods to reduce significantly as a result of the agreement, but in order to achieve those benefits, we have to be seen as a reliable partner on delivering on existing commitments to the EU.

So to that end, we are clear that we have to implement the arrangements for the Windsor Framework in a faithful way, even where our ambition is that we will not make those arrangements in the future. The noble Lord Dodds asked about whites taken so long, we're moving away from the original intent has involved a lot of engagement with trade businesses, complex drafting and policy changes, and was taken the time because we wanted to get it as right as we possibly could.

The noble Lord MP asked about businesses passed on cost to consumers, to confirm again, this is the power of last resort and we will only introduce it where the evidence deems it necessary to safeguard the supply of retail goods into Northern Ireland and maintain consumer choice for the people of Northern Ireland and to protect the UK internal market. The noble Lord Lord Empey also mentioned the trade cooperation agreement. I have absolutely is and what he said but I think it's probably best if I speak to Mike and pick it up with him.

The noble Lord McRae asked about the government's response to the FSB report which is also mentioned by the noble Lord we are. I've listen to what's been said there and I will speak to the secretary for Northern Ireland on this because again, it comes under his remit. The noble Lord Lord McCrea asked about different types of evidence the Secretary of State would consider. We've established a robust marketing and monitoring project which draws from a range of qualitative and quantitative sources. Primarily this will be electronic point-of-sale data on retail goods, competency data on trade flows and businesses producing and selling goods in Northern Ireland.

The noble Lord McRae also asked about wider is no time frame for when 'not for EU' labelling will become a requirement in GB after notes of in published and it will be able to act quickly and it will be able to act quickly to prevent the listing. There is no set period of time included in the SI for businesses to make the changes should labelling be required. This will be specified in the marking notice because we respect our quickly changes can be permitted will vary depending on the type of products and we will also work with business understand what reasonable time frame would be on a case-by-case basis.

Finally, I'll come to some of the questions asked by the noble Lord Lord Blencathra. He asked about the evidence about triggering the SI power. There is no numeric threshold within the SI does it automatically come in noticing that the price may vary, as I mentioned. The assessment of whether supply seriously adverse affected could include but is not limited to the volume of the product to be delisted, the availability of alternatives, how many supermarkets are affected, as well as whether the product is essential to certain groups of people for health or cultural reasons and we would monitor the market.

The noble Lord also asked about a support for small businesses as defined in the companies act 2006 and they are exempt from these regulations, although not from labelling requirements with moving goods to Northern Ireland. We be doing a huge amount of work with small business in preparation for these regulations and others. They also asked about consistency in application of laws. Come branch of guidance will be provided to authorities ahead of required enforcement and will work with councils to ensure they have the necessary resources, including funding training to be able to undertake these responsibilities should a notice be issued.

On communications, the U On communications, the UK and European Union shows high standards on the production of food and drink and it's really important to be aware and understand that the 'not for EU' label does not denote a lower quality of goods than those produced in all four the EU. The label is a proportionate means of ensuring goods moved through the scheme are not sold onwards into the EU and we will make clear that this is the case in any communications that we issue around the frameworks.

We will however keep under review and issue any further practical medications if required. I think I would just like

**** Possible New Speaker ****

to conclude... And I thank the noble lady for, hence the responses noble lady for, hence the responses but could she just say something about the issues been raised by a number of us about the number of us about the ridiculousness of protecting the EU internal market when the 'not for EU' labels, hundreds and hundreds of EU' labels, hundreds and hundreds of people coming over every weekend buying 'not for EU' in Northern Ireland and taking them into the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Ireland and taking them into the Republic. It is a nonsense. As I mentioned, we are currently in discussions regarding an SPS agreement in order to be able to hopefully remove many of the requirements if things, if requirements if things, if discussions meet our ambitions. The EU has made it quite clear that we EU has made it quite clear that we are expected to meet our obligations under the Windsor Framework until under the Windsor Framework until the outcome is unknown.

At the moment, we don't know what these outcomes are and this was under outcomes are and this was under those obligations.. As I was saying, those obligations.. As I was saying, I think what I'd really like to say I think what I'd really like to say is that I am committed to common is that I am committed to common sense whenever possible. I think a lot of people are. I also would like to say that I do find regular meetings with our Northern Ireland colleagues extremely useful.

And I think that while making it clear that we believe this agreement is making important contribution to safeguarding Northern Ireland's place in the union, and it's something that we are deeply committed to as a government, I think we do need to continue to try to move together forward constructively because the EU reset is going to make big changes. I think it's important that those of us who have an interest in Northern Ireland understand the implications of Northern Ireland and that we can work together as we move forward.

I know we will never agree on everything, but I do think that's an

**** Possible New Speaker ****

important... Thank you, Minister. I just like to ask you, you mention the meetings you've had with the Northern Ireland peers. On the Northern Ireland peers. On the meetings you have had, could you list issues where you change your mind having listen to what the mind having listen to what the Northern Ireland peers have said? I'd like to hear that and that would

**** Possible New Speaker ****

maybe encourage us a little. I think what I would say is that it's think what I would say is that it's the same as anyone I have meetings with in discussion and I always listen. Listening to people does listen. Listening to people does actually have an impact on how you respond and how things are often altogether or drafted. I think to make a list of where one has changed their mind is a different thing

**** Possible New Speaker ****

their mind is a different thing altogether. I think I'll just say finally, I beg to move. The

**** Possible New Speaker ****

finally, I beg to move. The question is that this motion is agreed to. Can those who will say content. Not content? I think the content. Not content? I think the not content have it. The question not content have it. The question will be decided by division. I'll notify the house when voting is

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Voting Voting is Voting is now Voting is now open,

22:28

Division

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Voting is now open, clear Voting is now open, clear the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The The question The question is The question is this The question is this motion

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is this motion is agreed to. Those who are content? agreed to. Those who are content? Not content? He contends will go to Not content? He contends will go to the right of the bar or the left for

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The The question The question is The question is that The question is that this The question is that this motion

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My My Lords, My Lords, as My Lords, as it My Lords, as it appears My Lords, as it appears that fewer than 30 lords have voted, in fewer than 30 lords have voted, in accordance with standing order 56 I declare the question not decider and the debate thereon stands adjourned.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the debate thereon stands adjourned. -- Not decided. My Lords, I beg

**** Possible New Speaker ****

-- Not decided. My Lords, I beg to move the House now adjourns.

This debate has concluded

Return to start of debate - Return to top of page