Lords Chamber

Tuesday 18th November 2025

(began 1 month, 2 weeks ago)

Share Debate
Watch Live
Skip to latest contribution
This debate has concluded
14:37
None Portrait Oral questions: Publication of the final report of the Independent Review in Carer’s Allowance overpayments
-

My My Lord's My Lord's first My Lord's first oral My Lord's first oral question My Lord's first oral question.
14:37
14:38
14:38
14:39
14:40
14:40
14:41
14:41
Baroness Sherlock Portrait Baroness Sherlock, The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Labour)
-
-
Yeah. a long standing. The real the real difference is that Carer's Allowance, for example, unlike Universal Credit is not actually means tested. So it is it is a benefit which is there to recognise that somebody may not be able to work or not be able to work as much because they're caring. So the only the requirements are that you must be providing care for 35 hours a week to someone in receipt of a relevant DWP benefit. But also, you mustn't be in gainful employment, which we class as being 16 hours a week at the National Living Wage.

And you mustn't be a full time student. That means, for example, that people it's an individual benefit. There may be somebody, for example, a woman in a household where she has no independent income of her own, but there is income in the household. She can still travel Carer's allowance. Having said all of that, we have said we would like to look at the way this works. It turns out because unlike Universal Credit, which was built with a taper in mind and automatic earnings from the HMRC Carer's Allowance had none of that, either in the systems or the IT or anything else.

So we've begun to look at other ways to automate certain kinds of earnings coming over from HMRC. What would it take to do a taper. So we are looking at that, but I don't want to raise expectations too quickly. This is a significant piece of work to modernise the system and it will take some years, but we are looking take some years, but we are looking at it.
14:43
14:43
14:44
14:44
14:45
14:45
14:46
14:47
14:47
14:48
14:49
14:49
14:49
14:50
14:51
14:52
14:52
14:53
14:54
14:54
14:55
14:56
14:56
14:57
14:57
Lord Rogan Portrait Lord Rogan (Ulster Unionist Party)
-
-
Hello my Lords, it's the turn of the crossbenchers next and then I'll come to the conservative benches. Thank you.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords. You will recall the Prime Minister announcement earlier this Minister announcement earlier this year of 1.6 billion contract for falls in Belfast to supply air defence missiles to Ukraine, creating 200 jobs in Northern Ireland. The deal also included the Ireland. The deal also included the prospect of a further 500 million of additional work to be added in collaboration with the Ukrainian collaboration with the Ukrainian industry partner. Can the Minister provide the House with an update on progress, including how many new jobs have been delivered and whether the extra 200 million of

**** Possible New Speaker ****

whether the extra 200 million of work for Northern Ireland has been secured? Let me say to the the the noble

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Let me say to the the the noble Lord, one of one of the the the key points that the government has pursued is to ensure that the pursued is to ensure that the increase in defence expenditure is felt across the nations and regions. Northern Ireland has secured significant sums of money. Tallis, as he has mentioned, as well as as he has mentioned, as well as other other manufacturing, including small and medium sized businesses. It's a massive success story for Northern Ireland. story for Northern Ireland.

Northern Ireland plays a huge role in the defence and security of our nation. There are huge numbers of nation. There are huge numbers of jobs being being placed there and the huge amount of investment taking place as well.
14:59
14:59
14:59
15:00
15:01
15:01
15:02
15:02
15:02
15:03
15:04
15:04
15:04
15:05
15:05
15:06
15:07
15:08
15:08
15:08
15:09
15:10
15:10
15:11
15:11
15:12
15:13
15:13
15:14
15:15
15:16
15:17
15:17
15:18
15:19
15:19
15:20
15:20
15:21
15:21
15:23
None Portrait Urgent Question Repeat: Appointments process for the Chair of the Independent Football Regulator
-



**** Possible New Speaker ****

My My Lords. I think we are there. Questions

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I think we are there. Questions on an answer to an urgent question asked in the House of Commons on Wednesday the 12th of November, on
15:23
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay Portrait Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Conservative)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

Wednesday the 12th of November, on the independent football regulator. These three breaches of the appointments code aren't just about trust in government. UEFA and trust in government. UEFA and others have made clear that English teams participation in foreign competitions depends on the new regulator's independence. Mr. Cogan certainly appears to be very lucky he didn't originally apply to be chairman. He was allowed to apply after the deadline had passed. He withdrew from the process last November, so was not one of the ten people interviewed or three found Appointable.

He was reinserted in March by the Secretary of State, who, having previously made two donations to her Labour leadership campaign, something she says she doesn't know about. He was given his own interview within six hours. He was her preferred candidate. Subject I quote to number ten giving the green light. A note was sent to the Prime Minister, whose leadership and general election campaigns Mr. Cogan had also donated to, and the Prime Minister gave his approval. He now says he shouldn't have done that when this Urgent Question was taken in another place last week, the Secretary of State said this was not a prime ministerial appointment.

If that's the case, why did she send the Prime Minister a note asking for the green light? And the Prime Minister had agreed with Sir Magnus that he'd play no part in the appointment of the regulator. How can he play a part in exonerating the Secretary of State code?
15:24
15:26
15:26
15:27
15:27
15:28
15:28
15:29
15:29
15:30
15:31
15:31
15:32
15:32
15:33
15:34
15:34
15:35
15:36
15:37
15:37
15:37
15:38
15:38
15:39
15:39
15:40
15:40
15:40
15:41
15:41
15:41
15:41
15:42
15:42
15:42
15:42
15:42
15:42
15:43
15:43
15:43
15:43
15:44
15:44
15:44
15:44
15:44
15:44
15:44
15:45
Lord Hanson of Flint Portrait Lord Hanson of Flint, The Minister of State, Home Department (Labour)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords. I'm bound to say. I'm I remain confused as to the true purpose of the statement. The government the statement. The government announced a police reform white paper last year, but this has not yet materialised. We now see the government announcing the abolition of Police and crime commissioners. So I do ask why the government made this particular announcement now, ahead of the publication of the full details of their plans for police reform and more importantly, why is the Home Office fiddling about with PCCs rather than taking real action to reduce crime? Turning to the contents of the statement, the two main arguments deployed to support the abolition of Police and Crime commissioners.

The first is that the PCC model has led to the politicisation of the police, but the proposals in this statement are for oversight of police forces to be moved to the directly elected strategic mayors, or to local councils. Directly elected mayors are party political councillors, a party political. So the government's solution to the problem of the politicisation of the police is to move control from one elected politician to another elected politician. My argument is completely nonsensical. There is no world in which this policy leads to a decreased politicisation of the police.

And the other argument the government has forwarded is on accountability. The Minister, in her statement to the Other place, said that the PCC model has weakened local police accountability, but there is no evidence for that assertion. Nor did the the Home Secretary explain how the government's new model would rectify that. We know that where there will not be an elected mayor, the functions of oversight will be undertaken by policing and crime boards. So how will transferring the functions of PCCs to boards of councillors and bureaucrats increase accountability? Further to that point, the Minister said we have seen the benefits of the mayoral model, including greater collaboration, visible leadership and local innovation.

And yet here in London, under Sadiq Khan, knife crime is up 86%, closing five police front counters altogether and removing 24 seven station front counter from every borough. And the total crime rate has increased from 89.3 per 1000 people when he took office, to 106.4 per 1000 people for 2425. I would hardly call that a success story, I Lord Oates. The simple fact is that policing is not overly complicated to get right. It requires common sense, good leadership, and practical training.

We cannot pretend that everything is rosy, but embarking on some crusade to police reform will simply distract us from the real task at hand. The Home Office needs to focus on boosting police numbers, keeping front counters open, stopping officers from policing tweets and cutting crime. The British people feel the crime and disorder is certainly on the rise. So does the government seriously think that these changes will have a material impact on the daily lives of the British people? I look forward to what the noble Lord Minister has to say.
15:49
Baroness Doocey Portrait Baroness Doocey (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
Yes.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords Police and Crime. Commissioners were an innovative idea, but experience has shown idea, but experience has shown they've not delivered as intended. Instead, they've proved to be a costly and flawed experiment.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

costly and flawed experiment. So we welcome their abolition. However, I hope the. Minister will be able. To provide the House with rather

**** Possible New Speaker ****

more clarity. On what will replace them. We don't believe transferring.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

PCC powers to mayors is the answer, as this would concentrate even more power in single individuals with too little scrutiny or accountability. The proposal for a police and crime lead, described as akin to a deputy mayor for policing and crime, risks mayor for policing and crime, risks being a rebadged PCC unless the being a rebadged PCC unless the legislation is crystal clear. This role could again become a focal point for political leverage over point for political leverage over chief constables.

It must be made abundantly clear that chief abundantly clear that chief constables retain full operational independence, and that these new leads and boards will not have higher and higher powers. If not, we risk repeating the mistakes of the PCC model, drawing policing further into politics rather than strengthening impartial policing by consent the government sets, these boards will not be returned to the invisible committees of the past. But this assurance needs substance. How will they work and how will their work be accessible and visible to the public? The former Metropolitan Police Authority may offer some useful lessons, having served on that body for seven years, I can attest that no one could describe it as invisible.

Its meetings were in public, widely reported, and its scrutiny of senior police officers was robust. Will the Home Office carefully consider what worked in that model before finalising these new arrangements? I was particularly disappointed to learn from the Minister's statement in the House of Commons that the 100 million which could be saved in this Parliament by the abolition of PCC elections, will go to the Treasury rather than to frontline policing and overstretched police service, will find that a very difficult pill to swallow.

The Home Office says reforms to police governance will save at least £20 million a year, enough to fund 320 extra police constables. Can the Minister give a clear undertaking that this money will definitely be spent on recruiting those 320 extra police officers? Because saying something can happen is very different to saying something will happen? Finally, my Lords, rebuilding public trust in police goes far beyond governance. True accountability demands transparency. Will the government require police forces to publish data on officers under investigation for sexual or domestic abuse? And will it now act to bring police record keeping in England and Wales into line with Scotland and Northern Ireland, ending the discretionary destruction of police records as recommended by the Hillsborough Independent Panel.
15:52
Lord Hanson of Flint Portrait Lord Hanson of Flint, The Minister of State, Home Department (Labour)
-
-
Yes.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Opportunity to outline the government's plans with regard to government's plans with regard to police and crime commissioners. And I hope in doing so, I can answer the questions that have been raised the questions that have been raised by the noble Lady and by the noble Lord Davies of Gower. First of all, Lord Davies of Gower. First of all, let me just make a starting statement that we do anticipate doing this for efficiency reasons. doing this for efficiency reasons. There is a potential £100 million saving, as the noble Lady mentioned, 87 million of that 100 million is 87 million of that 100 million is the cancellation of elections.

They're currently funded centrally, which is why the resource goes to which is why the resource goes to the Treasury. But there's around a £20.3 million saving over the course £20.3 million saving over the course of the rest of this Parliament, which will be put into front line policing and which will fund around policing and which will fund around 320 additional officers, which is part of the 13,000 officers that part of the 13,000 officers that we're intending to put on the ground, either Especiales, PCC or as warranted officers over the as warranted officers over the course of this Parliament, of which 3000 have already been in place to 3000 have already been in place to date.

Now, in answer to the noble Lord Purvis question, there is a patchwork currently of patchwork currently of responsibilities for policing five existing mayors in London, Greater Manchester, West Yorkshire, South Yorkshire and North Yorkshire have policing powers. There are existing mayors in Merseyside, Derby, West Midlands and the West Country who don't have policing powers. There are new mayors coming on stream in Norfolk and Suffolk, Essex, Sussex, Cumbria, Hampshire and potentially in Cheshire and Lancashire who don't currently have policing powers. And there are other areas such as Humberside where there is, and Lincolnshire where there are police and crime commissioners, which overlap with mayors who have been elected directly on their areas.

That's a that's a really big patchwork. And what we're trying to do is to get as far as possible for the mayoral model to have the accountability for policing, as is the case in the five to date, where there is usually. But it's up to the mayor, a deputy mayor who's appointed to be responsible as the lead person for those statements. Now, I think that's a helpful thing to do. He's asked why we brought it forward now. We thought it was useful to give as much notice as possible that the cancellation of the elections would happen in 2028.

He's asked about the police and white paper. I can give him an assurance that police white paper will be produced before Christmas of this year, and will therefore be before both Houses of Parliament before Christmas of this year. But it is important that we give as much notice as possible once the decision has been taken, and we wanted to ensure that police and crime commissioners had an opportunity to reflect upon that. I think the noble Lord has mentioned, well, how does this help crime? Well, I think it gives a focus.

It gives a direction, it gives greater efficiency. But equally, it's not to be seen in a in a isolation we're dealing with, as he knows, every week, day, almost every day of this week, the police and crime bill, we've got 13,000 extra officers in place. We've got additional initiatives on shop theft. We've got a whole range of other proposals on anti-social behaviour, on knife crime, which are helping to deal with crime. He mentions London. London has the lowest murder rate this year, very high, still at 93 people being killed.

I'm not denying that, but it's the lowest rate for for many years and there is a push on trying to reduce crime across the board, which this will be part. Now, in answer to the noble Baroness Doocey, operational independence is absolutely critical. And that's one of the reasons, again, that we're trying to move away from this model, because there is still a temptation for police and crime commissioners to want to be the chief constable, as well as the police and crime budget setting individual.

And that operational independence, independence of political interference is absolutely vital. The police and crime boards that we're going to establish in areas where there's not a mayor will potentially have the same role with lots of senior councillors from an area being able to hold the chief constable to account and to set a budget, and that potentially the London model is is very appropriate for that because there is an opportunity for the lead councillors in an area, usually potentially the leaders of the local councils, to hold the Chief constable to account and to set a budget and to do so because remember, again, in local council areas, the budget settlement is a precept and the police precept is usually included in the rates bill, and the rates bill is held to account by the leader of the council, usually, and leaders of the council.

So I think there's there's scope there as a whole. I welcome the baroness's welcome for the abolition, and I hope that she'll work with us and we publish legislation as we have to, to implement this measure at some point in the future, that she will have the support and the ability to test those issues at this time. But I would say to all noble Lords that the first election had a turnout of 15%. The second election was slightly higher.

The third election was down on the second election of 24%. There's not necessarily an awareness, and I think anybody who lives in Greater Manchester knows who Andy Burnham is. Everybody who lives in my neck of the woods in Merseyside knows who. Steve Rotherham is. Now, look, I'm lucky know I'm lucky, I'm lucky. I'm being distracted by the noble Lord Swire who's a anxious to bounce. We have 20 minutes in this first part for the noble Lord Swire. He should know that by now.

He's bouncing away, trying to get in, but I. I will give him opportunity. I still have potentially up to eight minutes before this, 20 minutes for the House to answer questions. So everybody does know who Steve Rotherham is in the area. And he did put me off for the crucial moment there, but I forgive him for that and we'll continue. I would just say to the house generally this is a deficiency measure. It will focus policing, it will help support the government's crime mission and Safer streets mission.

And I commend it to the House.
15:59
16:00
16:01
16:02
16:02
Lord Hogan-Howe Portrait Lord Hogan-Howe (Crossbench)
-
-
I think.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The the right. Thing in. Removing PCC. That said, I think

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Removing PCC. That said, I think some of them were very good and sometimes they made some good decisions. Oh, interestingly, as decisions. Oh, interestingly, as PCC came along, we ended up with selections for chief constables with one applicant, the home with one applicant, the home candidate. And unsurprisingly, they ended up with people who agreed with them. So I'm afraid some with them. So I'm afraid some change was necessary. And I think that's a good idea. I'm less convinced entirely by the government's solution in one respect.

First of all, I think the move to mayors may be a good idea. move to mayors may be a good idea. I worry about the rest because it looks like the the Minister said that at the moment it's a patchwork. that at the moment it's a patchwork. I'm afraid the alternative solution to a mayor looks like a hotchpotch. And I including that the City of And I including that the City of London, who appear to be keeping their own committee for reasons which is entirely beyond me.

Why is which is entirely beyond me. Why is the City of London the smallest force in the country, need a committee that nobody else can committee that nobody else can manage? And finally, I'm not sure about the savings. I almost guarantee you that the council guarantee you that the council leaders who take on this responsibility will want their own people to support them. And they will. They will absorb that savings will. They will absorb that savings immediately. The government may want to look at what arrangements are going to go in place, and it's going to be any cap on the expenditure for the new governance, which frankly, has gone through the roof, because that's the saving that the Minister has just explained is going to be gained by the new arrangements.

the new arrangements.
16:04
Lord Hanson of Flint Portrait Lord Hanson of Flint, The Minister of State, Home Department (Labour)
-
-
Can I can I first of all echo what the noble Lord has said? This is not in any way directed at the performance of individual police and crime commissioners. There are many good people who have given a lot of commitments, a lot of time, and in many cases have made significant changes. But at the end of the day, we're looking at the governance model. And the governance model, in my view, needs to move towards that mayoral model and where we can do that, we will do that.

Now, the problem that we have, and this is the genuine problem, is that not every area at the moment is seeking to have a mayor. Not all the police authorities are coterminous with mayoral authorities. Those are issues we're going to have to look at downstream. But the general presumption is to try to build on the models that we have now in London, Greater Manchester and in the Yorkshires to ensure that we firm up that mayoral accountability. Now, there are other issues in the police white paper that, again, I've just confirmed to the noble Lord Davis will be produced before Christmas that look at efficiency and a range of matters to do with improvements of training.

Going back to the point that the noble Lord Swire has made, and looking at a whole range of issues, of how we can improve outputs and performance in policing. If the noble Lord will allow me, I will bring that back to this house before Christmas. But I

**** Possible New Speaker ****

have to at the moment not stray too much into that area. Lord Spellar Lord Mair.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Lord Spellar Lord Mair. Our Lords, as a superintendent. Some years ago.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Some years ago. I spent some time at the FBI Academy in. Quantico studying. The criminal justice. System in the USA.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

System in the USA. This is where the idea of. Police and crime commissioners.
16:06
16:07
16:08
16:09
16:10
16:10
16:11
16:12
16:13
16:13
Lord Hanson of Flint Portrait Lord Hanson of Flint, The Minister of State, Home Department (Labour)
-
-
Well. know who perhaps he can persuade. But but let me let me say to him again that the issue with Lincolnshire is going to be an interesting one, because there's a mayor for Lincolnshire and there's a Humberside Police force, which includes parts of the Morality of Lincolnshire, which includes Grimsby and Scunthorpe and the rest of Lincolnshire separately. So, so there's a, there's a, there's a little bit of discussion to be had there about how and what we settle on.

There is a police settlement coming up which again will be before Christmas in draft form, where the noble Lord can make representations again around the police settlement for his county. And we're trying to make sure that we do deal with rural policing as well as urban policing. And there's been a tremendous effort put in place to look at rural crime. Some of the measures that we've got in the police and crime bill deal specifically with rural crime. There are issues to do with livestock worrying, issues to do with equipment theft, issues to do with small villages being subject to great deal of shop theft and intimidation.

Those are things that are on the government's agenda. But the specific circumstances of Lincolnshire are ones that we're going to have to look at, given the model that we're trying to drive forward, where there are a mayor in Hull and a mayor in Lincolnshire with police forces that overlap both at the moment, that's for another day.
16:15
16:15
16:16
16:17
16:18
16:18
16:20
16:21
Lord Callanan Portrait Lord Callanan (Conservative)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

Territory. Bill before clause one, amendment one. Lord cannon. Thank you, my Lords. Hopefully we'll get off to a better start with the noble Lady learns the procedures, but I sympathise with the predicament. As my I moved to right to move amendment one standing in my name as my noble friend Baroness Noakes said at Second Reading, this bill is right up there in contention for the title of worst bill of this session. It is a surrender bill, and the government should be ashamed of having brought it before your Lordships' House.

And I think the sparsely populated Labour benches behind her. And congratulations to the three members who have turned up, I think illustrates just how unpopular it is on all sides. But we now begin the detailed scrutiny to seek to improve the bill and to see just how far the government is willing to move, if at all, to deliver a better deal for the British people. And of course, crucially for the Chagossians themselves. So turning to the amendments in this group, my amendment one would put a clear statement of the bill's purposes on the face of the bill.

In essence, it is a clear and, I believe, faithful description of the effects of the provisions of the bill. It delivers clarity. The bill does cede sovereignty over the islands. It does seek to dissolve the British Indian Ocean Territory after 200 years, and it does provide for the continued British administration of Diego Garcia. And it does limit the citizenship rights of the Chagossians. But the bill is strangely, completely silent on who shall have sovereignty over the Chagos Archipelago in the future, which is against the precedent that was set in previous bills, where territory has been conceded.

So by bringing this bill, the government is saying that presumably all of these changes are good things that they are most justly proud of. I concede, therefore, no reason why the government should resist this amendment on the grounds of fact. And I know the noble Baroness Thornhill seeks to be constructive in her work in your Lordships' House, so I'm sure she wouldn't resist an amendment that delivers essential legislative clarity simply for the sake of delivering an unamended bill at the end of the scrutiny process.

So, against this context, should the government oppose my amendment, we will be led to assume that the government is, in fact, embarrassed by the reality of their legislation being set out. In simple terms, if they are indeed proud of this bill, they will have no cause to be embarrassed and they should accept the amendment. So, looking at the other amendments to amendments eight and nine, in the name of my noble friend Lord Lilley, both these amendments put the government's fundamental motivations under scrutiny, and I certainly will not presume to make my noble friends argument for him before he has spoken to his amendments himself.

But the whole question of whether a court actually exists that could deliver a binding and enforceable judgement on the sovereignty of the Chagos Archipelago is essential to the fundamental purpose of this bill. I am not aware of such a court, and without such a court, the government's argument for the necessity of this bill falls apart. Because the fact is, my Lords, as we all know, this bill is not necessary or essential. It may have been framed as much by the international lawyer, friends of the Prime Minister and the Attorney General.

It may be the deep conviction of the Foreign Office officials, who seem determined to act against Britain's interests on this issue. It may indeed be the view of the noble Lords, the Attorney general, but it is ultimately, in fact, a political decision of this government. Minister should not hide behind legal advice. They should come to the House with a positive message of whatever benefits they think this bill provides to the British people and to the Chagossians that would that would normally be what happens in any other bill before this House.

So whilst we are debating the subject, I'm sure we will be of international law. I would like to ask the noble Baroness a question. I would like to draw her attention to a 1967 international agreement concerning the availability for defence purposes of the British Indian Ocean Territory. This is an agreement between the United Kingdom and the United States, in which we agreed that the British Indian Ocean Territory, and I quote, shall remain under United Kingdom sovereignty. So does the government accept that their proposals to cede sovereignty over the territory to Mauritius would involve a breach of their obligations in this treaty? They are always lecturing us on the importance of abiding by international agreements and international treaties.

I assume they would not wish to be in breach of an international treaty, so I would be grateful if the noble Lady can tell me what they are proposing to do about that international agreement. Turning to amendment 21, this amendment is designed to improve parliamentary scrutiny of the government's actions on Chagos by requiring a ministerial statement to Parliament. When the treaty comes into effect, we know that the Commons were in fact denied a substantive debate on ratification, despite long precedent under Craig requiring that debate should indeed be granted.

And we know that the government is likely to press ahead with the treaty irrespective of any opposition from these benches. But the government's conviction to deliver a deal that is good for no one but Mauritian taxpayers should not mean that we have less parliamentary scrutiny. In fact, as I have said before, if they are so proud of their record, then I am sure they would be delighted to come to Parliament to talk about exactly how they are pressing this issue. And finally, I've indicated my intention to oppose the motion at clause one stand part of the bill.

In my view, this is a bad bill that should rightly be consigned to the pile of other UN commenced legislation. If it lacked a commencement clause, I think that would be be to be a very sensible outcome. Just a second. Lastly, before I give way to the noble Lord, I'd like to give Ministers advance notice that I intend to regroup. Amendments 1464 84 and I believe my noble friend Lord Lilley will also add 25 for that on the subject of a referendum.

So we will take we will take them out of the next group and talk about them when we get to. I give way to the noble Lord.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

For the noble Lord giving way. Given this bill. Is to. Give effect to the treaty. I wonder.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I wonder. If the noble. Lord could say a little bit more, because he did not, in introducing

**** Possible New Speaker ****

his amendment of how his amendment interacts with article one of the treaty that Parliament has ratified? Well, the ratification does not come into effect. The government has said on a number of occasions until this legislation comes into effect.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

effect. It has been ratified. Parliament has ratified the treaty. It hasn't been brought into effect, but the been brought into effect, but the treaty has been ratified by Parliament, which states Mauritius is sovereign. And so that is the is sovereign. And so that is the treaty that the United Kingdom has entered into. And Parliament has ratified his. What's the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

ratified his. What's the interaction between the brackets? Two of. His. Amendment, which says that nothing in this act grants Mauritius has sovereignty. He's

**** Possible New Speaker ****

seeking to have an amendment in a bill which overrides treaty commitment that Parliament has ratified, is it not? It's a statement of fact that

**** Possible New Speaker ****

It's a statement of fact that this legislation gives up British sovereignty of the Chagos Archipelago. But it does not say Archipelago. But it does not say who should have sovereignty. The treaty is a separate matter. The treaty cannot come into effect

**** Possible New Speaker ****

treaty cannot come into effect until this legislation is approved, as I said. I'm grateful for this attempt because he's just factually wrong. The treaty has been ratified. That is now a treaty. His amendment is seeking to alter the treaty. Article one of the treaty, which Parliament has ratified, saying Mauritius is sovereign over the Chagos Archipelago in its entirety, including Diego Garcia. Is he seeking for Parliament now to try

**** Possible New Speaker ****

to change the treaty, which has been ratified by Parliament? I'm saying that.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'm saying that. We have every right to oppose this legislation. The legislation has come as a result of the treaty has come as a result of the treaty that the government have agreed. We oppose the treaty. We think it's unnecessary. We also oppose this legislation. We're entitled to put legislation. We're entitled to put forward amendments to it because, as the government have stated, legally, the treaty cannot the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

treaty cannot come into effect until this legislation is approved. That's correct.
16:30
16:30
Lord Lilley Portrait Lord Lilley (Conservative)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

amendment. I formally move it again. Member pose before clause one. Insert the new clause.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Printed on the marshalled list. My Lords. I'm speaking. I propose to speak

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'm speaking. I propose to speak to amendments eight and nine in my name. Amendment eight says the treaty shall not come into force until binding cases. A binding case in an international court requires us to cede sovereignty to change over the Chagos Islands. An

**** Possible New Speaker ****

amendment nine requires. The government. To spell out the government's legal position on why they believe

**** Possible New Speaker ****

such. A ruling. To be possible, let. Alone likely. The whole basis of the likely. The whole basis of the government's case is that, and I quote, without this deal, within quote, without this deal, within weeks we could face losing legal rulings and within just a few years rulings and within just a few years they would render the base inoperable. End quote. During the inoperable. End quote. During the Second Reading debate, that was the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

possibility of such a ruling was contested not just by me, but by. Several noble. Lords, on the basis that there

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Lords, on the basis that there is no international. Court which can rule against our sovereignty in

**** Possible New Speaker ****

can rule against our sovereignty in this area. Yet Ministers failed. To address. That issue and those arguments,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

That issue and those arguments, even the. Noble Lords who held the highest office in the FCO, the mandarins of our diplomatic corps who tenaciously defended this deal, failed to answer or address the question which court could reach a question which court could reach a binding judgement against us? Everyone acknowledges that the ruling court. The ruling of the International Court of Justice, was purely advisory, not binding on us. Secondly, it was based on resolutions of the UK General Assembly, which themselves are not legally binding and they've never been endorsed by the Security Council.

Third, when. Britain signed up to the ICJ, it specifically precluded disputes between the UK and present or past members of the Commonwealth, so the ruling. Was triply non-binding and the ECJ cannot rule against us on this dispute in future because it's a dispute with a Commonwealth country. Now, Ministers have chosen to ignore these arguments and not dispute them, though it's not clear that they were aware that the this situation, when they plunged into these negotiations, I rather suspect they weren't.

They've tacitly acknowledged the truth of these arguments by moving on to asserting that the tribunal of the United Nations Convention on the law of the sea could rule against Britain and in favour of Mauritius on the issue of sovereignty. But as the. Noble Lord Murray spelt out with forensic detail, the tribunal has no such power, and Britain has invoked article 28 of that treaty, which excludes military matters. So it's outside their wherewithal, even when there have been cases brought by the Philippines about artificial islands built in the South China Sea.

UNGA tribunal has ruled that it cannot rule on the sovereignty of the area around those artificial islands. That's not within its purview. Can rule whether the islands are artificial or real, whether they therefore have some territorial waters or not, but not whose they are and who they belong to. So we wonder why the government. Got into this position. They if the court has no power to rule on matters of sovereignty and the UK has exercised its right under article 28 of the convention, it just cannot do so.

So the government's silence on all these arguments must be deemed to be tacit acceptance that their true. Of course, if there is some court or some hidden clause in the agreements that none of us know about that override the points I've made, then amendment nine will be no problem to them, because they can implement it, and according to them, within weeks an adverse ruling will occur in a court which is binding on us. And since they've got quite a long time of before, they can complete even these processes, we'll get to know the answer to that conclusion.

Or alternatively, they could accept article amendment nine and spell out the basis, the legal basis on which they believe an international court and which international court and why, and on what grounds could find against us. But if they reject this amendment, we'll know they don't even believe their own case. We'll be forced to conclude that they are following, wittingly or unwittingly, the long standing view of the Foreign Office, which is that we should, and it was expressed very eloquently by the noble Lord Hannay in the Second Reading debate, that unless we accept even an advisory ruling, we will not be able to persuade other countries to accept legally binding rules.

Now, that is perhaps how diplomats think. But it ought not to be how this House thinks, and we ought to reject that doctrine and be very cautious about allowing ourselves to be driven along by long standing arguments of the Foreign Office. Thinking back, they were very keen on us giving up the Falklands to the Argentines. So it's perhaps no surprise to find that they're very keen nowadays on us giving up the Chagos to Mauritius. But none of them, and none of the great mandarins who spoke in the debate spelt out why we are legally obliged to do so.

It was all on the basis that the Foreign Office position would be easier to maintain logically, and would be more persuasive with governments that otherwise were recklessly following. Of course I how far back are you going to go in his sort of historic examination of British governments, I mean, is his position that the British government should never, ever cede sovereignty to any former colony. I mean, I'm thinking of Australia or South Africa or Canada, you know, how far is he going back in saying it's absolutely wrong to cede sovereignty? I think it's a shame if you want to go, if the Lord wants me to go back further, that we didn't follow the advice of Edmund Burke and reach an agreement with the American colonists to give them independence earlier on.

But we're not talking about giving independence to the inhabitants of the Chagos Islands. We're talking about giving the Chagos Islands to a country which has never ruled them, which is 2000km away. And to do that simply on the basis of long standing Foreign Office doctrine is surely unwise. So I hope the your Lordships' House will consider seriously these amendments, because if they're passed, we all know once and for all whether the government has a strong case or doesn't.

If they're rejected, we can be certain that they don't have a strong case for giving away these islands. Yeah, yeah. I wonder if you could correct some remarks he's been making about people whom he has given a Chinese name to. I'm not quite sure why he thinks that's so telling, because the arguments were advanced, were arguments that were drawn from the testimony of Sir Christopher Greenwood, the former British member of the. International Court of Justice. And I think that if he read Sir Christopher Greenwood's testimony, which is, of course, all available in the report from the International Agreements Committee of this House, which is being totally ignored by both himself and by the.

Noble Lord Lord Alli. He would see what the case is, which was set out very fully. It was not set out by the FCDO. It was set out

**** Possible New Speaker ****

by Sir Christopher Greenwood. Certainly. I'm very happy to mention that the noble Lord himself mentioned Lord Greenwood's testimony in his speech, but his primary reasoning speech, but his primary reasoning was that we should accept, and even purely advisory rulings of foreign courts, in order that we be able better to uphold the international better to uphold the international rules based international order. I would remind him that the chairman of the committee, which heard that evidence, said in the debate that though the committee was divided on
16:40
Lord Grocott Portrait Lord Grocott (Labour)
-
-
though the committee was divided on the evidence, it heard, he was inclined to agree with the arguments I had put forward. Our Lords, I'll just like to speak briefly to Lord Callaghan's amendment number one, I, I take it he wasn't entirely serious when he dreamt up this particular innovation, which is right at the start of of a bill. The purpose of the bill should be described as being presented in the way that the opposition would most the the opponents of the bill would find most attractive.

It's a novel constitutional idea. He's only included in his reasons for the purposes of the Act's things, which obviously he agrees with. He didn't, for example, include that the secures the base for the UK and the USA for the next hundred years, which there are arguments for and against, as there are with any piece of legislation. But to think you state at the beginning of a bill the purpose of the legislation being exactly what the opposition would like to, to, to, to see enacted is, is a novel and not a I mean, the only parallel I can think of is having with the sundry privatisation measures that were passed by the Thatcher government to say, as the purpose of these of this act is to sell off at knock down prices, the assets of the British people.

I mean, I don't know whether Lord Callaghan was in favour of that kind of constraint when he, when those legislation was, was going through. So I don't take it as being a serious amendment. And I'm sure he won't press it to a vote. It might be fun if he did, but we'll see anyway. But what I do want to say is that one part of it which is contentious and which, well, a lot of it's contentious, but the one part that I would certainly like to see hear more of from my noble friends on the front bench, would be the clause D here, where he talks about limiting the citizenship rights of the Chagossians.

I don't think the bill as it stands does do that. So I want to be clear about that. But I do think that it raises an issue which will come to later in the bill, which is of concern to a number of us here, which is what further rights to the Chagossians are appropriate, given the appalling way in which we all are agreed, in which they were treated, when they were basically thrown out of their own island, and in particular, my specific query, which, if my noble friend can't answer at the moment, I'd certainly like to hear it later on in a subsequent amendments, is I still can't understand why on Diego Garcia itself, the military requires the whole of the island without any other settlement on it, other than that that's required for military purposes.

I have asked that question of Ministers. The last time I asked my hon. Friend Stephen Doughty, the Minister, and he answered by saying it's impossible for that to take place, that is to have permanent settlement of Chagossians on Diego Garcia it. It's impossible for that to take place operationally. It is not suitable or appropriate. Now, I'm afraid I'm very fond of the Minister, but just saying something isn't suitable, appropriate or appropriate without any further clarification or explanation, as far as I'm concerned, isn't good enough.

The best I've got so far is to be told that operationally it's very difficult if you've got civilians alongside the military and and it's much more convenient to the military if, if they have it all to themselves. To which I can only say that repeatedly in all parts of the world, including, I might say, my former constituency, the civilian workers at the base quite happily live adjacent to the base and do a job which is mutually beneficial both to of benefit, both to the military and to the civilian workers.

And I think it would be a huge step forward to be able to say to the Chagossians, there may not be many who would want to do it, but those who would really like to settle in the land of their forefathers on Diego Garcia to be able to do that and work at the base, or, you know, if necessary, work in other activities as well. And I so far have not had a really good argument against this happening, and I hope that at some stage during the passage of this bill, my noble friends can provide me with one.

So I rise in support of the noble Lord Lord Callanan. And I think. Lord Grocott was being a little bit unfair on him.
16:45
Lord Bellingham Portrait Lord Bellingham (Conservative)
-
-
He said very.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Is an appalling bill, but he wants to stop. And so therefore he is also going to he's. Got an.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Got an. Amendment about clause one stand part. But I would like to speak on one point about the Chagossians, one point about the Chagossians, and I know we're going to come on to this later, but I would agree with the noble Lord 100% on that point. There are quite a few Sri

**** Possible New Speaker ****

point. There are quite a few Sri Lankan staff at Diego Garcia, and there's no. Reason why. We couldn't be put in place.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

We couldn't be put in place. Some world Bank. Scheme for. Chagossians Chagossians. From Mauritius and the Seychelles, from Crawley, from Seychelles, from Crawley, from London, rather than. Employing the American air base employing. Sri Lankans. And that should be the case.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

case. Of course. They didn't originally come from Diego Garcia. They lived in. The

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Diego Garcia. They lived in. The some of the islands in the outer archipelago because Diego Garcia. As I understand. It, was only. Sparsely populated historically.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Sparsely populated historically. But that was a very good point, and. We hope the. Minister will. Answer it. Well, I want to. Pick.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Pick. Up on the arguments put forward in my points. That Lord Lilley the noble Lord Lilley made in support of amendments eight and nine, which

**** Possible New Speaker ****

of amendments eight and nine, which I strongly support, because the Minister has said, in fact. Both this Minister. The defence.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Minister. Other Ministers have said that yes, these judgements are yes, these judgements are non-binding, but we might in the future get a binding judgement against us. But she's never really clarified that in any detail. So maybe today she could actually tell us what form those judgements could take. And indeed, on the absolute key point that noble Lord Lilley made regarding the the point about the ICJ that we were one of the strongest supporters of setting up the ICJ.

I've read some of the debates that took place at the time. We were one of the strongest supporters. But in our protocol to the UN resolution setting up the ICJ, as Lord Lilley pointed out, we absolutely made it crystal clear that the UK would never accept as binding jurisdiction. And I'm going to quote again, any dispute with the governments of any country which is or has been a member of a Commonwealth, and that to me could not be clearer and so could the Minister comment on that? And we're not legally bound ever.

Because of that protocol the UK signed. And it was it was far sighted, if I may say so, my Lords, because those diplomats in the Foreign Office and I've been privileged enough to serve two terms in Foreign Office, and I have the greatest admiration for the mandarins who have spoken in this debate so far at Second Reading. I don't agree with the noble Lord, Lord McLean, who isn't here at the moment, who was critical of the attitude and the advice they gave, because I think historically they have actually been very far sighted and very knew that there were going to be problems in the ICJ involving places like Cyprus involving Kenya, Malaya.

You can go on and on. Wherever was a colonial war that took place, any dispute over territory? And look in Africa and the lines that were drawn on the map in the scramble for Africa, there were bound to be disputes in the future, but we specifically excluded them from the protocol that we signed with the ICJ. So could the Minister comment on that? And the other point again, which the noble Lord Murray made very clear in the Second Reading debate, is on uncross again, we were a signatory, obviously, of a resolution that set this up.

But in the again, in the protocol, it was made quite clear not just by the UK, but in the actual protocol itself, that underpinned the resolution that it would not be able to rule on sovereignty. And that to me is pretty clear. And yet you have a place that the Minister made a very big issue about, and how are we going to be bound by it? That just isn't the case. The Minister elaborate on that. And finally, I'm right in saying, I think, am I not my Lords? And am I not noble Baroness, the Minister? But if indeed there was a judgement that was causing us a great deal of grief, it would have to go to the Security Council and it could be vetoed by the UK.

So that is the third part of the triple lock, which actually means that we are never going to be bound by any of these judgements. So I really would ask Minister to clarify that, because I think these amendments tabled by the noble Lord Lilley really go to the heart of this whole discussion. And I'm very, very supportive of them.
16:49
Baroness Foster of Aghadrumsee Portrait Baroness Foster of Aghadrumsee (Non-affiliated)
-
-
My Lords, I.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Declare my interest as a friend of the British Overseas Territories. of the British Overseas Territories. I support Lord Callanan in his efforts to bring clarity to the efforts to bring clarity to the Bill at the very beginning of the bill, and I particularly endorse the comments of Lord Lilley in the comments of Lord Lilley in relation to his amendments. And it was in the conversation about those was in the conversation about those amendments that the issue of self-determination came up.

And I know we're going to talk about know we're going to talk about self-determination in relation to amendments later on in this amendments later on in this Committee stage. However, the fundamental point about self-determination and the noble self-determination and the noble Lord Lord Grocott asked about would we ever cede British territory. Well, of course we have. When we've Well, of course we have. When we've had self-determination exercised. But in this case that is deemed to But in this case that is deemed to be.

And in Second Reading, the noble Lady, the Minister went through this in some detail because through this in some detail because I raised it. It's deemed not to be applicable to the British Indian Ocean Territory. And we all Ocean Territory. And we all received a letter today from 650 members of the Chagossian community here in the United Kingdom. And in that letter, they say the context of denying re denying the people concerned self-determination, while simultaneously paying a country that played a key role in denying that people self-determination in relation to their territory on the previous occasion.

More money that is required to resettle the people with the rightful claim to the territory in order to lease one of their islands, demonstrates extreme moral disorientation, and I completely agree with that. And the second point that Lord Grocott made, and I completely agree with him, is on resettlement. We all had heard in the Second Reading of this bill that, in actual fact, there had been an exercise looking at resettling Chagossians into the Chagos Islands back in 2015.

KPMG report it gives the details of the costs, and the then government decided not to proceed with that, based probably mostly on costs. But now the costs that we are paying to the Mauritian government is way far exceeding the costs of resettlement, and there is an opportunity to have some of the Chagossians, if they wish to, to resettle on Diego Garcia. It's it is the case in other British overseas territories that there are civilians on military bases. The Ascension Island comes to mind.

And so it could be the case that it happens in Diego Garcia as well. And we will touch on resettlement rights and the right to return in other amendments. But given that it was raised in this context, I just wanted to make those couple of points. But I am supportive of the amendments in this group.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, first of all, I'd like to start with my noble friend Lord
16:52
Lord Hannan of Kingsclere Portrait Lord Hannan of Kingsclere (Conservative)
-
-
to start with my noble friend Lord Callinan's amendment and the objection to it which was made by the noble Lord Lord Purvis of Tweed, which was that this was incompatible with the decision taken by Parliament. I'm just going to quote because I think it's helpful article 18 of the treaty, the agreement shall enter into force on the first day of the first month, following the date of receipt of the later note by which the parties notify each other that they have completed their respective internal requirements and procedures necessary for the entry into force of this agreement.

In other words, it cannot enter into force until both chambers of this Parliament have given their assent. Now, we've we've not made any bones about the fact that we don't like the treaty at all. I think it's a bit much to complain about my noble friend making this point in principle, then it does seem, of course, of course. Because

**** Possible New Speaker ****

you will recall. I had I had said it is not in

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I had I had said it is not in force. I said it has been ratified and it Parliament has ratified the and it Parliament has ratified the noble Lord. I'm not sure if the noble can intervene on an intervention, but I'm sure he can intervene on his noble friend in intervene on his noble friend in just a moment as a proxy to intervene on me. Parliament has ratified the treaty. The treaty is ratified the treaty. The treaty is not in force, but the treaty making is a prerogative power, and that is not parliamentary power.

I'm sure

**** Possible New Speaker ****

not parliamentary power. I'm sure the noble Lord would agree with that. I'll of course. Invite an intervention. I don't know what the rules are on intervening on it.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

rules are on intervening on it. I'm happy that my old friend gives way because I can, since the noble Lord intervened on me earlier, noble Lord intervened on me earlier, I've now had a chance to check the facts of the case. And unsurprisingly, he is completely wrong. Parliament has not ratified wrong. Parliament has not ratified the treaty because Parliament cannot ratify the treaty. Ratification of treaties under the Ratification of treaties under the Crag agreement is. The Crag legislation is a matter for the government using the royal government using the royal prerogative.

Parliament can delay the ratification, but it cannot prevent ratification. Whatever this prevent ratification. Whatever this House voted or whatever the House of Commons had voted, the government is entitled, under the royal prerogative to ratify the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

royal prerogative to ratify the treaty. In any case, I hope that's helpful to my noble friend. Extremely helpful. Thank you

**** Possible New Speaker ****

very much. Welcome, my noble friends. Intervention and of course the noble. Very much going to regret

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Very much going to regret getting involved in this. But I do think it's helpful to understand what this House has and hasn't done. what this House has and hasn't done. Both houses of Parliament have voted that the government should ratify this treaty. That is the ratify this treaty. That is the situation as it is. This debate is about making sure that we have the about making sure that we have the right legislation, right legislation, in order to enable us to enact the treaty.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

to enact the treaty. I think lots of positions will be endlessly stated on that, and I'm not going to take it any I'm not going to take it any further. Now. I don't see anyone changing their minds about that, but I would like to address the points made by the noble Lord Lord Grocott, who suggested that this was really about a reluctance ever to cede sovereignty and to to allow any colony to go its own way. I would say that one of the peculiar features of British rule overseas was the nature of its dissolution.

The British Empire, unlike most others, had a self dissolving quality because it had this democratic self-determination democratic self-determination principle that was adumbrated in this House and then exported. And this House and then exported. And there are very few imperial moments that ended so peacefully. Yes, there were tragic exceptions in Kenya, in Cyprus, in India, in Palestine, I suppose, Ireland, slightly different story because it was not treated as a colony, but as part of the the country itself, but that those were exceptional in most places in most Caribbean countries, in Malaya and whatnot.

Independence happened without a shot being fired in anger because there was this belief in self-determination. Indeed, quite often the the decolonising imperative, as my noble friend Lord Lily suggests, overrode self-determination. Noble Lords will. I'm sure some will actually remember that in 1956, Malta voted in a referendum by 76% to turn itself into three Westminster constituencies and become part of the United Kingdom. And it was turned down and soon after ended up not just independent, but outside NATO, outside the Commonwealth, and pursuing an extremely unhelpful line.

In fact, during the Maltese process of accession to the European Union, I discussed this with Dom Mintoff, who was still alive, who was a old and revered figure at that time, and he said, you know, I my wife is British. I was in the I love Britain. But how do you expect anyone to respond to being treated in that way? I mentioned Malta because actually there was a similar debate. It hasn't come up, I think, in any of our any of your Lordship's deliberations.

But there was a similar debate in Mauritius in the 1960s about whether one of the parties there about whether to adhere to the United Kingdom and to seek representation at the other end of this building. So the idea that this is really about some kind of grasping imperial power, refusing to let go, is wrong in the generality, and especially wrong in this case, because we are refusing to recognise the wishes of the people concerned. The only people who have ever formed a permanent population of the Chagos Archipelago between 1714 and the early 1970s.

Self-Determination does not always mean independence. Self-Determination means exactly that you can self-determine to be part of a larger bloc. When there was a referendum in Scotland in 2014, that was an act of self-determination, it didn't stop being self-determination because of the referendum result. That's what we mean by democracy. And what I fear is that self-determination, which is a core principle of the United Nations and a core principle of the legal order that we have defended since, well, even since the Atlantic Charter since 1941 is being overridden here for no good reason at all.

And this is the thing that makes me so frustrated every time I sit down to, to to draft what I want to say about these amendments, I start getting angry all over again about the utter needlessness of it all for the reasons that were set out by my noble friend, Lord Lily. We are surrendering to a to a case where there is no jurisdiction over us. And if Ministers think that that is wrong, I would love to hear the noble Lady, the Minister, explain why the government will not accept my noble friends amendments.

It seems to me what we're doing here is we're creating a hierarchy of norms, not by the importance, the intrinsic importance of their jurisdictional power, but on the on the basis of taste, on the basis of fashion. So the the principle of self-determination is ranked below the principle of general decolonise and and and and get out of the way fundamentally because of a transient public mood, because it's considered unfashionable to have flags with little Union Jacks in the top corner.

And that, I think, sets a very dangerous precedent. Now, it may be, I don't know, it may be that the the government will argue that the reason that we are following this non-binding resolution, which is not a legal judgement, is not because as my as my noble friend suggests, there's some hidden reason that we really do have to. But they may say, well, we have to give an example. You know, the the international order is in danger. Countries are throwing their weight around. Mass politics is prevailing.

The the whole post-war order is looking shaky. Even the United States, on which it rested is now asserting its interests without recourse to to treaties. And therefore we need to set a lead. And one hears that argument a lot. One hears it, for example, with relation to net zero, one hears it with relation to our membership of the European Convention on Human Rights. Or we may not need this. We didn't have a massive problem with human rights. But, you know, if we if we pull out, it'll be a terrible signal to the Serbs or the Ruthenes or somebody.

And similarly, I think there is a there is an element here. We we may not have needed to do this, but we need to, to, to, to overcompensate so as to set a good example to the Arapaho or the, the Ashanti or somebody. But my friends, my Lords, we are not setting a good example. We're doing the opposite. We're we're setting the precedent that a country that lobbies, hires a couple of good lawyers and gets together a coalition can, by majority vote, overrule the basic principle of countries being allowed to determine their own affairs, to live under their own laws and their own people according to their own choice.

We've recognised the existence of the Chagossian population as a unit. We did so when we consulted them about the marine conservation area. So we it's not a new idea that this is distinct nationality with a distinct identity. We did it when we amended the 1981 Nationality Act. And yet we're now overriding that principle in order to transfer sovereignty to a state that has never exercised it. And that really, frankly, never showed much interest in exercising it until some 15 years ago, as it began to get closer to China.

And I think that that is an extremely bad principle for international law because it elevates not the rule of law, not a disinterested forensic process, but rather the idea that a kind of majority vote of angry anticolonialist governments in the United Nations is supreme over the basic legal principles that should govern the international order. And that is, it seems to me, my Lords, the the international equivalent of an attainder Act, a simple vote

**** Possible New Speaker ****

rather than proper legal process. Yeah. Lord Bassam after after Lord

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Lord Bassam after after Lord Lord Hannan history lesson, I'm tempted to recount a little about

**** Possible New Speaker ****

tempted to recount a little about my time in Malta in the 1950s, or. My or my. Visit to Djibouti in 1965.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Visit to Djibouti in 1965. But I will I will. Resist. That. Temptation at. Least. At least, at least this evening.
17:03
17:04
17:04
17:04
Lord Murray of Blidworth Portrait Lord Murray of Blidworth (Conservative)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

Of the. Bill is in. Our clause one. If I could invite noble Lords.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

could invite noble Lords. To look at it. And clause one provides that in

**** Possible New Speaker ****

And clause one provides that in clause Subclause one of clause one, that the treaty is the treaty that was considered by Parliament, and Subclause two expressly provides that it only comes into force when

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the treaty comes into force. So do sections two and four of the bill. So the bill is.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

So the bill is. In visibly connected to the implementation of the treaty as the noble Baroness, the Minister will tell us, no doubt, in her closing speeches in all the groups that we speeches in all the groups that we have today. And this is reflected in the explanatory notes to the in the explanatory notes to the Bill. And I can commend to Lord Bill. And I can commend to Lord Purvis of Tweed paragraph 18 of the explanatory notes, which sets out in crystal clear detail.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

in crystal clear detail. That the entry into force of the treaty is, as defined in article 18. Being the first day of the month following the.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

following the. Date of. Receipt of the later note. So there is nothing in. The fact that this Parliament

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The fact that this Parliament has considered the treaty which. Precludes an amendment. Or the type advanced.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Or the type advanced. By my noble. Friend Lord Callanan, because it is. A statement of the purpose.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

A statement of the purpose. Of the Bill and statement clauses. Statements of purpose clauses have become something of a

**** Possible New Speaker ****

norm in legislation, and there is nothing wrong. As a matter of. Principle, with a statement being placed on the.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

being placed on the. Face of the. Bill and indeed the the purpose of the. Second part.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

look. At that.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

At that. It is, is to simply state, as a matter of. Fact. That nothing in the. Act grants or recognises Mauritius has or recognises Mauritius has sovereignty over the Chagos Archipelago, and that is a statement that is absolutely correct. I give way to the noble.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

correct. I give way to the noble. Lord. For the Lord to give way. I've listened carefully what he what he listened carefully what he what he said, as I always do. Well, the noble Lord agree that there is a distinction, however, between. Debating legislation which gives Debating legislation which gives effect to a treaty which had been effect to a treaty which had been agreed, and a ratification of it approved by Parliament, which this approved by Parliament, which this treaty has distinct to implementing legislation which seeks to alter

**** Possible New Speaker ****

legislation which seeks to alter the treaty that had been agreed is Yes. I am. Afraid no friend seeks to justify his interventions, but justify his interventions, but fails to do so because because of the way that the treaty is drafted and because of the way article 18 and because of the way article 18 operates, article 18 means that the treaty can only come into force when this legislation is when this legislation is implemented. And that is unusual. But it does have the effect of not allowing the noble Lord to make the allowing the noble Lord to make the point that he tries to make that the noble Lord Callaghan can't make this amendment because it is in some way in breach of the agreement that has already been signed by the government, because that agreement is not in force, a point that we've explored now in great detail.

And so and I'm sure the noble Baroness, the Minister, would agree with me on that point. Moving then to the other amendments in the group, I entirely support the amendments.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

In the name of my noble friend, Lord Lily, and I'm very grateful to the reference that he made, and the reference that he made, and that my noble friend Lord Bellingham made in relation to the points that I made at Second points that I made at Second Reading in respect of the non-recognition of the International Tribunal on the law International Tribunal on the law of the sea, I would just add one. of the sea, I would just add one.

Point in in furtherance of that, and that is that the International and that is that the International Court of Justice also has no power, Court of Justice also has no power, no jurisdiction to query the dispute over the Chagos. The noble dispute over the Chagos. The noble Lord Lord Hannay, who I am sad to see is not in his place, heavily relies on the evidence of Sir Christopher Greenwood, but he Christopher Greenwood, but he chooses to ignore evidence which doesn't favour his case, and a very powerful exposition of the contrary powerful exposition of the contrary case was put by Professor Richard Ekins KC, professor of constitutional law at Oxford, and constitutional law at Oxford, and he made clear that the International Court of Justice's jurisdiction specifically excludes any dispute with the government of any other country which is or has any other country which is or has been a member of the Commonwealth, and Mauritius's own acceptance of the ICJ's jurisdiction also excludes disputes with the government of any other country which is a member of the British Commonwealth of Nations.

If there had been any basis upon which Mauritius could have sought a binding ICJ judgement against the UK, it would have already done so. The fact is, no such basis exists or has ever existed, which is why Mauritius was forced to use the advisory opinion route to obtain that non-binding advisory opinion. Its bargaining position would have been far stronger if it had a binding ruling against the UK, but the fact is it's chosen to negotiate without seeking such a ruling, because it obviously knows that there is no way in which it can obtain such a binding ruling.

And for those reasons, my Lords, I strongly support the lock that's present in the noble Lord Lilley amendment, which means that only if there is a binding ruling should this treaty come into force, and therefore the Chagos Islands should remain in British possession and this act of strategic self-harm

**** Possible New Speaker ****

should be avoided? Yes. My Lords, just very briefly, I

**** Possible New Speaker ****

very much support amendments in. The name of the noble Lord Lilley. And once again, it raises the whole issue of why do our government sort of seem to jump as soon as some international court soon as some international court says something that isn't even binding, but is advisory? It just seems to me that the public need to
17:10
Baroness Hoey Portrait Baroness Hoey (Non-affiliated)
-
-
seems to me that the public need to know that we're actually selling out the people of the Chagos Islands, because of lawyers, have decided that an advisory court has, has, has said that we should do something. We should transfer the Chagos Islands to Mauritius. It's just something that I think more and more the public are beginning to realise that we are being ruled far, far, far too much by international law. That doesn't actually take into account morality to start with, and then the rights of people to self-determination.

So I really do think that these amendments get to the heart of what we're discussing. And then I just could would add my remarks to the noble Lord Grocott, who I'm very pleased that he talked about the way in which the Chagossian people could go back, because it's interesting that all those years during from the 1960s right through to 2025, the British government, who could have allowed people, British governments, could have allowed the Chagossians to go back, actually refused.

And yet, once we're passing them over, selling them, buying them, selling, actually spending a lot of money, once we once the islands belong to Mauritius, they're going to be allowed to be repopulated all about the island, obviously with the base, which I absolutely agree, there seems to be no reason why they couldn't, why Chagossians couldn't live peacefully and part of that island. And I really have not had either. The noble Lord said any real answer to why that couldn't happen. But you know, we did nothing as a British government over those years to allow Chagossians to go back.

And suddenly it's all right, because Mauritius is now going to be running it. And of course, we go into other amendments about whether we actually believe that Mauritius would allow those people to go back and what what way they're going to control Chagossians clearly, the issue here is self-determination, and I know we're going to go on to that. So I'll not say any more other than to say that I do would like to see a really, really response from the Minister, noble Lady, the Minister that actually answers some of the questions that have been raised in this debate.
17:12
Lord Weir of Ballyholme Portrait Lord Weir of Ballyholme (Democratic Unionist Party)
-
-
And briefly. was going to intervene with Lord Hannan in his speech, but we reached a point at which there was a triangulation of of interventions such that perhaps the only person who was not able to, for a brief period, contribute to Lord Hannan speech was actually Lord Hannan himself in relation to that. Look, I think it is the case that we need if we're to base this decision on the basis of where we stand in international law, then I think government has to explain and has to spell out much more clearly why they believe that there was going to be something imminently, an imminent binding ruling against us.

We have at present simply an advisory position which clearly, by its definition, does not hold any degree of legal weight. On that basis, Lord Lilley has highlighted, and I don't particularly want to reiterate all his points, how weak the legal position is, and indeed, it would be effectively impossible to force us into a position of a binding position. But I would very much support his amendment and we have heard has been mentioned, has been made, I think, by Lord Hannay earlier on of the opinion given to the committee on this subject, but it is essentially an opinion from a third party.

It may well be a very well informed third party, but what we have not heard is directly from the government itself. And so the government needs to explain that. And I think the suspicion of many of us is that in the absence of that. Watertight level of explanation, that silence from the government on this issue is a lack of confidence in the position, which suggests that this is going to be something which is binding on the UK. Now, it is undoubtedly the case that, as Lord Hannan indicated, in the absence of a binding legal position, then the position is that we should be looking towards the self-determination of the people, and self-determination is something which is more than simply independence, because it is clearly not self, it is not self-determination.

If you give people only one choice, self-determination is about that, that level of choice. And it is very clear that the Chagossian people do want to have that maintained link with the UK. The government at times, and some people in the Second Reading did dispute that and said, oh, there are other voices, other Chagossian voices who want to go a different path. Well, there's obviously a very good way to test that out, which is actually to pursue the self-determination of the of the people.

Now, Lord Hannan, in his remarks, made reference that part of the complication we'd seen, the subjugation of self-determination in terms of the hierarchy of principles to that of a signing up to a fashionable support for anti-colonialism. And he may well be right in terms of the motivation of of some people. But I would contend, first of all, I suppose that some of those nations which are keenest to jump on the bandwagon of anti-colonialist, do not have a particularly good record themselves, and indeed, particularly if we look to China, China is perhaps the most colonial nation on the face of the earth at present.

Now it is not the old 19th century. Send a gunboat and send an invading army. It's a lot more insidious than that. But there is no nation in this earth that is more colonial in terms of trying to spread its effective control over a range of third countries than China. And therefore, I do not believe that China indeed, many of the others that are lecturing us on this, are in a good position to be able to hand out lessons to the United Kingdom.

As Lord Hannan indicated, we have a much better record of decolonisation. And indeed, while there have been some problems, the UK did not have an Algeria or an Indochina, or indeed even a Mozambique in its in its past. As of the European countries had or indeed a Belgian Congo in that regard. So our record is much better than that. But it has to be said that from the perspective of if the driver is anti-colonialism, then this bill is not an this treaty is not driving even on that narrow definition, anti-colonialism.

Because if we are to be anti-colonialist, then surely the people that we should be serving are those people that we have colonised, and that is a Chagossians. And so it fails on every level, which is why I be very supportive of the amendments of Lord Callanan and Lord Lilley and others in this group. And I wait to hear a much more definitive answer from the government on the legal rationale behind why this has to be done.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I have amendments in this bill. I think they are last, but therefore I will not address but therefore I will not address them, and I will keep to the amendments in this group. It strayed into some of the wider
17:17
Lord Purvis of Tweed Portrait Lord Purvis of Tweed (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
strayed into some of the wider areas, but no doubt, since the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, is not seeking the guidance of the companion, which discourages groupings that have already been agreed, then we will no doubt be discussing all of the amendments in detail as we go. I also tabled my principle amendment later on without others being tabled, because I chose to respect the work of the International Relations Committee in carrying out its work now, and it may well have considerations in advance of Report stage for us to consider.

But I just want to have a short remarks with regards to the amendments by the noble Lord Lord Lilley and the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, the noble Lord. Lord Lily's amendment. I don't think in his introducing them and moving them, I don't think he presented any different arguments to that that he presented at Second Reading. I don't think there were any additional arguments that he made. Therefore, we've heard them before. There was some other noble Lords that had agreed with his argument.

The the only conclusion I can of of course, yes.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

From giving away if he regards the amendments clearly, he'll see that the difference is I'm saying that the difference is I'm saying suck it and see if you believe that

**** Possible New Speaker ****

there is a possibility of a court coming up with these judgements. weeks. They say. Let's see.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

They say. Let's see. Well. I understand that argument. And indeed he he did allude to that at the Second Reading debate. I understand the argument. I think it's one where it's a curious one when it comes to the fact that a treaty had been agreed. Now, if he was presenting this argument, let's was presenting this argument, let's say perhaps under the previous administration, during negotiations administration, during negotiations that may have held a degree of credibility. I didn't hear him at any stage during the previous administration post 2022, when he asked the government to abort the asked the government to abort the discussions or the negotiations.

Why is this important? It's Why is this important? It's important because he and others who agree with them are suggesting that the previous government perhaps did the previous government perhaps did not enter into good faith negotiations when those negotiations when those negotiations were based on ceding sovereignty in order to resolve legal considerations. That was the statement that the Foreign Secretary gave in November 2022. As I said at Second Reading, I am assuming just one moment. I am assuming he might be able to correct me in a moment.

I am assuming that the government would not have made that policy choice in November 2022, without there being advice from the Attorney General at

**** Possible New Speaker ****

now. Again, grateful. But as the noble gentleman is famous for his particularly particular illness, can I remind him that actually this statement in him that actually this statement in November 19th, 20, 2022, referred

**** Possible New Speaker ****

to the exercise of sovereignty, not the ceding of sovereignty? So presumably he's arguing.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

So presumably he's arguing. The joint sovereignty with it, because how would the how would you enter into another sovereign state on the exercise of sovereignty? If we were if we were going to retain it? I don't understand how that it? I don't understand how that could, could, could, could. What is he now saying that the previous government. This is interesting government. This is interesting because he's now saying that the previous government entered into

**** Possible New Speaker ****

negotiations without the intent of ceding sovereignty. My last intervention, I promise

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My last intervention, I promise

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My last intervention, I promise him. And and the House. But the the possibility was from reading it, and I had no inside knowledge and and I had no inside knowledge and was not in any way involved that they would either want consider the possibility of joint sovereignty, possibility of joint sovereignty, as has existed in certain parts of the world, or as the noble Lord Bellingham said on much better informed the possibility of retaining sovereignty of Diego Garcia, but ceding it elsewhere. So there are all sorts of possibilities none of us knew at the time.

And that's why I certainly didn't want those

**** Possible New Speaker ****

negotiations to take place, but I didn't. I wasn't involved at all. Part of the lack of involvement

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Part of the lack of involvement is raising in Parliament your objections at the time, the. But if objections at the time, the. But if there was negotiations were entered into to resolve the legal considerations, then I think that considerations, then I think that is the I think the statement in 2022 undermines his quite novel 2022 undermines his quite novel argument. Now it is the case that the previous government did enter into those negotiations, and I into those negotiations, and I believe that they entered into them in good faith, and they knew what the conclusions would be.

Now, the noble Lord Bellingham argument, which is, of course, correct with regards to the 2017 declaration by regards to the 2017 declaration by the United Kingdom government that it would the United Kingdom it would the United Kingdom government would be able to choose government would be able to choose not to adhere to any rulings by the I, c, j on the basis of a I, c, j on the basis of a Commonwealth country. If that dispute started after 1987, now it dispute started after 1987, now it is a moot point as to whether this dispute started.

Before then there were many arguments that. But it were many arguments that. But it would. But even if even if he is right, I am certain that the former attorney general, one of potentially 3 in 2022, would have advised the previous administration that regardless of that 2017 UK declaration, the ICJ would, as it's under its statute, refer to the General Assembly because that's what its purpose was, and there would be a resolution in the General Assembly. And that is the entire point of the fact that ICJ referred was considering it because it was referred to the ICJ by the General Assembly.

So this is I understand his argument, but we wouldn't be in a different place now, even if even if his argument was, I think, very robust with regards to the noble Lord, Lord Callinan's, and our little to and fro with regards to the the treaty, we have been told on many, many occasions that treaty making is a prerogative power. We've been told on many, many, many occasions by the noble Lord, Lord Callanan and his colleagues in the previous administration.

We we don't have that short memory in this House. We recall the Rwanda Bill and the Rwanda treaty. I recall the noble Lord Murray of Blidworth telling us that it was not our role to interfere in the prerogative power of governments making treaties, or indeed implementing them, or indeed changing them. And indeed, let me quote my Lords, we are not aware of any precedent for Parliament mandating the government in international negotiations conducted under the royal prerogative. The government were not prepared to accept such a significant shift.

That is ultimately what Lord Callinan's amendment are putting forward. That quote from Hansard is from the noble Lord, Lord Callinan, from the 24th of July 2018. He was insistent that it was not Parliament's role to interfere or to mandate a government in the negotiation of treaties under the royal prerogative. Now he was either wrong then and right now, or he was right then and wrong now. I'm sure he'll be able to say that when he

**** Possible New Speaker ****

sums up his debate. My Lords, this has been an
17:25
Baroness Chapman of Darlington Portrait Baroness Chapman of Darlington, Minister of State (Development) (Labour)
-
-
interesting debate, slightly more wide ranging, but that often happens on the first group of Committee stage. I understand that some of the issues raised, I'm sure we will return to in proper depth when we get to the relevant amendments, and I do look forward to that. But we've heard some interesting claims from the opposition. But it's the government's contention that none of the amendments in Group one are necessary, and I will explain why that is. Amendment one, tabled by Lord Callanan, is a necessary because it is clear what the purpose of the bill is.

It has been debated many times over. The bill implements in domestic law, as Lord Purvis has explained very clearly, those elements of the treaty between the United Kingdom and Mauritius concerning the Chagos Archipelago, which require such implementation. There are also elements of this amendment which are just not correct, which are just false, actually. And we'll have a further debate shortly, I'm sure. But it's incorrect to state that the bill seeks to limit Chagossian citizens citizenship rights. The bill will make it necessary that there are changes so that no new claims for British Overseas Territory citizenship can be made, but it also preserves the existing British Overseas Territory citizenship for those who hold it, and the bill preserves Chagossians rights to obtain British citizenship and the British citizenship of those who already hold it.

And we've been clear about this, and anything that suggests otherwise is helping, I think, to circulate misinformation. And that does no good. I think for anyone, least of all the Chagossians amendment eight. If accepted, we feel would jeopardise our national security and fundamentally goes against what this treaty and Bill do, which is to safeguard our national security. This amendment would prevent the UK from ratifying the treaty until an international court delivers a binding ruling. Now, in that scenario, and there is a very real risk of the deal collapsing.

And this the government views, would put the UK in a very weak negotiating position, far weaker than that which we started. Well, actually we didn't start negotiating. As many noble Lords have observed, there were 11 rounds of negotiation under the previous government. We have set out our legal rationale on multiple occasions. But for the avoidance of doubt, I will restate it here. The government acted to protect the Diego Garcia base because it faced an existential threat. The previous government knew this and that is why they started negotiations over three years ago and continued them for 11 rounds.

Under the previous government, Mauritius secured a string of legal and political victories against the UK. On amendment nine. The government has already published its legal reasoning for signing the deal, and has set this out clearly to Parliament on several occasions. Committees have heard expert testimony on these points, as the noble Lord Lord Hannay reminded us on amendment 21, a notice will be published in the London Gazette on the day the treaty enters into force. As is the usual practice, and we will consider the utility of whether a statement in Parliament at that point would be beneficial.

It may well be, and on clause stand part. Clause one sets out when the different sections of the bill come into force. Sections two and four commence at the same time that the treaty enters into force. Annexe 18 of the treaty states that the treaty enters into force on the first day of the first month, following the confirmation by both the UK government and the Government of Mauritius that they have ratified the treaty. Before the UK can ratify the treaty, we will need to do the following.

Passing both primary and secondary legislation. Updating the UK, US exchange of notes and having in place agreements related to the environment, maritime security and migration. So this clause provides the legal certainty and ensures that there is no ambiguity as to when British Indian Ocean Territory is no longer an overseas territory, or as to which laws will be saved. So, as mentioned earlier, the Secretary of State will publish a notice in the London Gazette when the treaty enters into force.

Now, I just want to give a little bit more detail because it's come up several times. Noble Lords have suggested that there is no legal risk here. And further, they've suggested that there never could be any legal question over this. That really does make me wonder what on earth the previous government were doing with officials. Time. Ministerial time. Officials from other governments, time when they set about negotiating for 11 rounds. They paused the negotiations when Lord Cameron was appointed foreign secretary and then restarted them again.

If there was no legal jeopardy whatsoever, what on earth was the previous government

**** Possible New Speaker ****

thinking when it set about that process? But on the question of what court. I'm grateful to the noble Lord,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'm grateful to the noble Lord, the Minister giving away, I ask a very clear question. From which very clear question. From which international court does she fear a damaging, binding judgement? She damaging, binding judgement? She won't tell us, she says. Apparently she doesn't know. But the last government must have known.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

government must have known. Forgive me, but I didn't say I didn't know. I'm just about to. Come on to answer that specific Come on to answer that specific question. I was just making a point about the inconsistency and frankly, ludicrousness of an opposition pretending that when it was in government, it did something which took up a great deal of time and took up a great deal of time and resource, but which it now contends it never, ever needed to do. Of course.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

Because we keep hearing this point that the last government negotiated over 11 rounds and went on negotiating was surely that does reveal something about the last government's steadfast determination to secure a good deal. determination to secure a good deal. If the government hadn't been able to get a deal, it would have eventually signed up to an

**** Possible New Speaker ****

eventually signed up to an agreement. I think they would have done. The risk of jumping further down the rabbit hole with the noble Lord. the rabbit hole with the noble Lord. My point was simply that to contend now today, that there was never any possibility of any legal jeopardy, as many noble Lords have seeked to do, does not correspond easily with the fact that the previous government did enter into negotiations, because if there was never a legal risk, why do that? That's the point I'm seeking to make.

I think that's a pretty straightforward point. But the noble Lord fairly asked me about binding judgements and courts. And I think these these are quite these are fair questions and I think I have responded to them previously, but I'm very happy to go into more detail today. That's what Committee stage is all about. So there are numerous avenues through which Mauritius could pursue a legally binding judgement, including under dispute provisions of treaties to which both states are part, are parties or further arbitral.

I'm going to get on to this. The noble Lords are very impatient this afternoon. This is Committee stage and we have time, and I'm in no hurry. I'm prepared to stay here as long as we need to get these things done. I'm speaking for myself. Other noble Lords may take different views on that particular point, but states are parties are further arbitral proceedings against the UK under annexe seven of the UN convention on the law of the sea, or enclose a judgement from such a tribunal would be legally binding on the UK, and I will come on to the points about the extent of those judgements and sovereignty and all of those issues as well.

Such cases could be brought rapidly and include provisional measures themselves legally binding, which could be introduced within weeks. The long standing legal view, long standing legal view of the United Kingdom is that the UK would not have a realistic prospect of successfully defending its legal position on sovereignty in such litigation. The other important element to note here is even if the UK chose to disregard any legal rulings which we could do, that's not something this government would want to do, but we could.

We rely on third countries in order to service the base, and the operability of the base depends on other states. Taking a view on such legal on such rulings. Now we control what we do. Of course, we cannot control what other states do, and if we need those states to agree with us and to ignore a legal ruling to, we may not be successful. And it may be that we then compromise the operability of the base. And that is a very real threat.

That's something that we were concerned about and are allies and partners, including in the United States, are concerned about. Two, the risk of a binding ruling relating to sovereignty from this type of tribunal is simply too great, given the importance of the base for national security. Some have pointed to the 2015 arbitration between the UK and Mauritius 2019, in which the tribunal was clear it did not have jurisdiction over the question of sovereignty. That is right.

But that was before the advisory opinion in 2019 and before the 2021 judgement of a special Chamber of the International Tribunal for the law of the sea, in a case about delimitation of the boundary between Mauritius and the Maldives, and in that case it was ruled that Mauritius's sovereignty was inferred from the ICJ's advisory determinations, and these have changed the legal landscape. I give way to the noble Lord.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'm very grateful to the noble Lady, the Minister. No doubt she will confirm that in those proceedings to which she has just referred, the United Kingdom was not a party and made no submissions.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

not a party and made no submissions. Said that we did. This was between Mauritius and the Maldives. between Mauritius and the Maldives. But the point is to make the case to noble Lords that the advisory to noble Lords that the advisory opinions advisory though they are, they stand to inform subsequent opinions of international tribunals. That is what happened in this case, and that is why I bring that as a and that is why I bring that as a supporting piece of argument for the government's case this afternoon, in order to help noble afternoon, in order to help noble Lords understand how we've got to where we are.

So while an arbitral where we are. So while an arbitral tribunal under enclose almost certainly would not address the question of sovereignty directly, question of sovereignty directly, it may reach decisions on related matters based on conclusions about matters based on conclusions about sovereignty. And we are concerned. Noble Lords, of course, can disagree. But the government's disagree. But the government's position is that we are concerned, and I do suggest that the previous government was concerned about this too. Otherwise, what was it doing? But we were concerned not just about the effects of a binding judgement on the UK, but also the legal effect on third countries and international organisations, which could give rise to real impacts to the operation of the base and delivery of all its nationality and security functions.

So I think whereas I don't expect there will be agreement on this, I think I think that what you cannot say is that the government hasn't fully considered all of the potential legal jeopardy that we would be placing ourselves in. And further, the disadvantage that allowing the sort of circuit and see that the noble Lord suggests we, we we the approach that he advocates, actually, that would leave us, we think, in a much weaker position when it comes to negotiating with Mauritius.

So, of course.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The noble Lady, the Minister on that point, I'm very grateful to her for giving way. So she said a moment ago that there was an existential threat to the base. And just so that I've understood clearly, is she saying that there clearly, is she saying that there was something in addition to the possibility of an adverse, unclosed judgement? Because, as she conceded judgement? Because, as she conceded a moment ago, unclosed has no sovereignty. I just looked up what it says on its website and it says it says on its website and it says we don't we don't do sovereignty issues.

That that issue was was tested with the case between the Philippines and China, when China Philippines and China, when China was was building those reefs over some contested land and unclothed said, this is nothing to do with us. said, this is nothing to do with us. We don't. So is there something else or is an adverse judgement from a body that cannot decide from a body that cannot decide sovereignty? In her view, an existential threat to the existence? Well, by definition, to the existence that it would it would make impossible the existence of that base.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

that base. I mean, I guess this is what do we mean by existential? I think you could still have a Diego Garcia could still have a Diego Garcia there could be something there, but it would be existential in as much it would be existential in as much as if the operability is compromised, then the base as it is today, which is a unique place, and today, which is a unique place, and it does things that we don't do anywhere else that would be compromised.

And to that extent then I would suggest that that is an existential threat to the operability of the base. So with that, noble Lords, I do hope that noble Lords who've presented their amendments are satisfied. But if not, we can return to this, these issues, of course, on report. Yes. Thank you.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'm very grateful. Could you answer my point about the UN Security Council and the UK's ability and the right to veto?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

ability and the right to veto? But we're not saying that this goes to Security Council. We're goes to Security Council. We're saying that there could be there could be further rulings. You know, could be further rulings. You know, this the security I mean, that's with respect I think that's a bit of a red herring. And there could of a red herring. And there could be rulings that affect how we are able to operate on the base. There able to operate on the base.

There could be votes at the General Assembly, which the noble Lord Lord Purvis, I think explained quite Purvis, I think explained quite well. So we're not you know, he's right. We could veto something Security Council, but we don't anticipate that that's not the legal threat that we're concerned about. It's a different legal about. It's a different legal threat to that. So with that, my Lords, if there are no further interventions, I would respectfully request that noble Lords consider withdrawing their amendments.
17:41
Lord Callanan Portrait Lord Callanan (Conservative)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

withdrawing their amendments. Well, let me personally thank the noble Lady for her replies. I think this has been an interesting think this has been an interesting debate, as she says, as normally the first debate goes in, in committee. It's fairly wide ranging. I'm sure we will return to many of these issues just before I address some of the other issues, just let me return briefly to to Lord Purvis. I think we've already made the point about Crag. That is not Parliament's role to ratify treaties.

Under Crag. Parliament has the right to delay them only, but the government still has the right to agree them. And I'm not questioning the government's right to agree treaties under the royal prerogative. I might like it. In fact, I really dislike it. But of course they have the right to do that. But the reality is that they have now presented us with a bill in Parliament to, with a with a bill to implement the treaty that they have agreed. We fundamentally disagree with that treaty.

So I think we have the perfect right under the bill that they have presented us with. The Table office have ruled our amendments in order. We have the right to to put them forward to to debate them and to vote on them if we, if we wish, particularly want to thank my noble friend Lord Lily for his excellent amendments in this group. I look forward to working with him throughout committee and Report stage. We should certainly return to the question of international law at Report stage.

I thought my noble friend Lord Hannan made some excellent arguments as well. I listened carefully to the noble Baroness's reply to my amendments, and I will look very carefully at her remarks before we return to the bill next year. At Report stage, however, there is one point that she has not addressed. Let me return and reiterate the point around this 1967 agreement with the United States. That was a treaty that has been presumably ratified, agreed under well, there wasn't a process in 1967, but whatever process we had then, does the noble Lady not think that is still valid?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

point. To respond to that? I'm very sorry for not including that in my
17:43
17:44
17:44
17:44
Lord Callanan Portrait Lord Callanan (Conservative)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

ratify with Mauritius. Yeah. I've heard that. But that wasn't, in fact a question that I asked. If in fact a question that I asked. If our original agreement is still in force, it is still an international treaty. It's presumably still lodged. I assume she's telling me that the US have not yet agreed to abrogate that treaty. So therefore, if we do concede the sovereignty of the BIOT, then we are in breach of that treaty. She wants to be

**** Possible New Speaker ****

talking to her noble friend, the attorney general, who's so keen. My point. National law all the time.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

National law all the time. My point is that we will be doing so with the consent of the other party to the treaty. Yeah.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

other party to the treaty. Yeah. I will again look at her hands, but I don't think she has answered the question yet. The other point I the question yet. The other point I want to make, I'm interested in go back to Lord purposes point. I back to Lord purposes point. I think he said at one stage he has proposed amendments, plural. I can only see one amendment unless there

**** Possible New Speaker ****

only see one amendment unless there is another one gone in recently that I haven't yet seen. No. I'm happy to clarify that there will be a second consequential. As I mentioned in my remarks, there's a principle amendment, and then there would be a there would be a

**** Possible New Speaker ****

consequential amendment for that. I'm sure he's looking forward to reading them and supporting them. No. I don't think the one that's

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I don't think the one that's there. I don't see much problem with it. But I will look at any other consequential in detail. I'm other consequential in detail. I'm grateful to the noble Lord for his clarification, but I'm slightly confused by the Liberal Democrats position. Their members in the position. Their members in the House of Commons thought this bill was so bad that they voted against was so bad that they voted against it in Third Reading. Yet the whole of the Liberal Democrat benches in this House have proposed only one, this House have proposed only one, if I might say fairly mild amendment, and certainly from the noble Lords remarks so far, and indeed how they voted on the original amendment, they seem fairly supportive of this treaty, which seems a strange position to be in, but I'm sure we will return to many of these issues in future rounds of debate.

But in the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

meantime, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment. Is it your Lordships pleasure that amendment one be withdrawn? Amendment by leave withdrawn? That Amendment by leave withdrawn? That brings us to clause one, amendment
17:46
Lord Lilley Portrait Lord Lilley (Conservative)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

two Lord Lilley. I. Speak in favour.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I. Speak in favour. Of.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Of. Amendments 1302, 1325 and 28. Two is an all purpose amendment saying that the treaty shall not come into force if the other clauses are incorporated in amendments, and the 13, 25 and 28 are called for both consultation in case of 13 and 28 and a referendum in the. In the latter case, the. The. The ruling of the advisory ruling of the International Court of Justice was based on, as I mentioned previously, a non-binding UN resolution about the process of decolonisation.

And that ruling explicitly says that a colonial state can sever part of a territory if it is freely expressed and genuine will of the people of the territory concerned that they be separated. The Chagossians cite the example of the Gilbert and Ellice Islands and the parallel between the Gilbert and Ellice Islands, and the situation of the Chagos versus Mauritius is striking. The. When the government. Consulted the people of Gilbert and Ellice Islands before the ceasing to be the colonial power, it found there was considerable opposition in the Ellice Islands to being lumped in with the Gilbert Islands, and the parallels between that and the Chagos Islands and Mauritius are very striking.

The Chagos Islands are 1339 miles away from Mauritius. Ellice Islands, just 800 miles away from the Gilbert Islands. The Chagos Islands have different ethnic mix. They're basically populated by people from the African continent, whereas that isn't the case. Mauritius. And likewise with Gilbert and Ellice Islands. One was Polynesian, one was Micronesian. The disparity of numbers is, if anything, even greater in the case of the Chagos Islands versus the Mauritius than it was in the Ellice and Gilbert Islands.

Anyway, after consulting the British government rightly decided they should test the views of the people concerned. They had a referendum, and the vote was for the people of Ellice Islands voted to separate from Gilbert Islands by 3799 votes to 293. So comparatively small number of people fewer in fact, than are the Chagossian peoples now largely a diaspora in UK, in Seychelles, Mauritius itself. But it surely is possible for us to consult with them and seek their views, ideally through a referendum.

The government may say why have a referendum? It's so difficult, we can't do it well. The Chagossians themselves have today, given the results of an opinion poll which they've carried out, which had £3,500 people responding out of roughly 10,000 potential respondents. That's a very high proportion. And of those 3500, an overwhelming proportion were against being lumped in with Mauritius. Now, the government may well say, well, it's still only a minority of the total population. Fair enough. Again, suck it and see.

Have a referendum of the total. Who would be the potential electors? Well, the inhabitants of the Chagossian nationals as defined in this bill. We've done that bit for the government. So that's already there. It's clearly possible over a period to consult them. If the Chagossians themselves can organise a poll like this fairly rapidly with such a high response rate. The government often argues that, well, the Chagossians are not really a people, and in any case they're no longer there.

But there are precedents in history for people being removed from a place in Lord Bach the Arcadians in Canada were shipped out of Canada because they were thought to be unreliable, French speaking Catholics, but subsequently allowed back and still are a distinctive community in that part of Canada. And obviously similar things have happened with the Chechens and with the Crimeans more recently in recently, in after the Second World War and in history. We all know the displacement suffered by the ancient Israelites.

So it's possible to say that people who have been removed from a territory still have a right to that territory, and should be consulted about the sovereignty of that territory. So these amendments seek to ensure that we do have a referendum failing which, if they can convince us that the government can convince us that it's impossible in some way to organise a referendum, then let's just have a really thorough and prolonged period of consultation. I'd like to hear more from the government, what they're doing now, having been provoked into it by the the amendment to the committal motion to ask the relevant select Committee of this House to carry out a consultation, how are they envisaging that being carried out? How are they going to define the Chagos consultation groups and so on? I think we would welcome.

Well, your Lordships' House would almost certainly welcome greater information about that process and how the government sees it happening. But if they don't satisfy us on this, I think we need to press ahead with these amendments 2013 and 28 on the consultation, though ideally, let's

**** Possible New Speaker ****

go ahead and have a referendum under amendment 25. Amendment proposed clause one,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Amendment proposed clause one, page one, line seven. Leave out subsection two and insert the words in the martial list.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I rise to propose amendment 29. In the name of the noble Lord, Lord Morrow, who is noble Lord, Lord Morrow, who is prevented by a family illness from being here. His amendment draws
17:54
Lord Hannan of Kingsclere Portrait Lord Hannan of Kingsclere (Conservative)
-
-
being here. His amendment draws attention to the contradiction between the principles in this bill and some of the UN resolutions dealing with, when it is valid to partition a territory. The legal case on which the government rests. I think we established this in the last round of amendments was fundamentally the UN resolution 1514, which was the basis of the Mauritian claim that it was it was wrong to have divided the territory at independence. Again, this is an extraordinary precedent to set the idea that if a territory, for reasons of administrative convenience, was at one time governed from somewhere else, that that creates a lasting claim would upend borders on every continent and in every archipelago.

It would mean that Aden and Somaliland are again governed from India. It would mean that the Cayman Islands are again governed from Jamaica. There are, you know, and and if we extend beyond British territories, it would mean that the Philippines were governed from Mexico, that Bolivia was again governed from my native Peru, which was the the seat of the viceroyalty. It would be an extraordinary principle. And indeed, when read in context, the UN obviously isn't arguing that if it did argue that it would have opposed the split of Czechoslovakia, it would have opposed the independence of Montenegro from Serbia and so on.

Of course, it doesn't argue that. And the three resolutions referred to by the noble Lord Lord Morrow essentially establish criteria where it is proper to divide a territory for reasons of geography, history, or ethnic distinction, or indeed nationality, a sense of of being a people and wanting to live in your own polity. And as we just heard from my noble friend Lord Lilley, that all of those criteria are plainly met, in this case, the Chagos Islands, when they were ceded by the French in in 1814, were ceded as a separate territory from Mauritius.

They are governed. They are they are populated by a different population, one that came from the west rather than from the east. The only reason that they were governed from Mauritius was not because they were part of Mauritius, but because there is nowhere among those sparse and beautiful atolls suitable for a seat of government. In that sense, it's similar to some of our continuing overseas territories in the Atlantic today, visited occasionally by a governor because there is no permanent seat there.

And so we come back, and I really think this is the the crux of the entire debate. I think this this is the key group of amendments. We come back to the question of consulting the people who have the most at stake, namely, the only people who have ever constituted a permanent population of that archipelago and their descendants. The people defined in this bill as the citizens of the BIOT. My noble friend Lord Lilley gave a very good example there.

The the consultation between the Ellice Islands and the Gilbert Islands. At the moment of independence, that they felt that they had not enough in common, one with another, to accept government from each other's hands. And so the Ellice Islands became the monarchy of Tuvalu, and the Gilbert Islands became the Republic of Kiribati. Actually, the distances here, the distances ethnically and geographically are much wider. And I don't think there is much doubt that if we had carried out a consultation in 1965, we would have had the same outcome as in the case cited by my noble friend.

Now why? Why does that suddenly stop being true now? Why does the passage of time invalidate that claim, now that there is this proposal to hand the Chagossian people to a nation that has never governed them, never seen them as part of their demos, that was very, very happy to renounce all claims in perpetuity and trouser a cash sum in exchange for doing so. And that has continued to treat the archipelago in essentially pecuniary terms. Why not test the proposition? Today I'm going to repeat a point made by my noble friend Lord Bellingham at Second Reading.

It is perfectly logistically feasible to conduct a referendum across scattered territories. Last year I voted for our former colleague, the noble Lord Lord Hague of Richmond, to be Chancellor of the University of Oxford. There was a poll that was conducted electronically across five continents, the alumni being dispersed in their tens of thousands. And there was a simple enough process that you establish the right of somebody to vote. You establish their identity, you show that they genuinely are an alumnus, and then you have the vote.

Now, we've established who would be eligible here, be the the the right of descent that conveys BIOT citizenship. I refuse to believe that it is logistically beyond us to consult the Chagossian people, and I can't speak for everyone on this side, but I'm pretty sure that if the Chagossian people voted overwhelmingly for Mauritian citizenship, opposition to this proposal would dissipate and people would accept it as a valid exercise of self-determination. But there is something more than perverse about acting in the name of decolonisation, when in fact taking a people against their will and transferring them to the sovereignty of a foreign state, a country whose Prime Minister at the time of the partition said is a territory which they never visit and of which they know little.

When I was a member of the European Parliament, Crawley was part of my constituency. I got to know some of the groups who the disparate groups who represent Chagossian fellow subjects. And I think it's fair to say that they did not always agree on every issue. For like many small communities, they had a broad diversity of opinions on a lot of subjects. But honestly, hand on heart, my Lords, I don't think I ever recall meeting any Chagossian in this country who wanted to be a citizen of Mauritius, and there are reasons for that, that the experience of Chagossians in Mauritius was not a happy one.

They were confined in slums. They were subjected to, in their eyes, to racism and to discrimination. And the idea that we are now placing this entire population against their will because of a non-binding opinion from a tribunal without jurisdiction, is a truly extraordinary and shameful moment. And so I think if there is only one issue on which we should stick, it's this fundamental principle of consultation. It's the basis of the whole world order, the Lockean concept of government, that sovereignty is vested in the people and comes upwards.

If the Chagossian people decide that they want to part ways with us, I'll accept the result with good grace. But if they want to go back as British overseas subjects and return to their archipelago to tend the graves of their long fathers to harvest their old coconut plantations, and to live once again in their old lands. Surely that is

**** Possible New Speaker ****

their most fundamental right as a people. Can I just follow my noble friend Lord Hannay? And on.
18:02
Lord Horam Portrait Lord Horam (Conservative)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

And on. This subject of consultation, because it really is quite shocking that.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

that. There is no mention in the agreement of any. Consultation with the Chagossians.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Chagossians. No mention at all. Indeed. As I said. At second. Reading, there's. Only one mention of Chagossians,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Only one mention of Chagossians, and it is not. A right that is put

**** Possible New Speaker ****

and it is not. A right that is put into the bill or into the agreement. It's the possibility that the. Mauritian government.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Mauritian government. May is now. Free to implement a program of resettlement. I.e. it's a permissive thing. It's not something which they

**** Possible New Speaker ****

It's not something which they have to do is. Simply permissive thing. So that is something which is really

**** Possible New Speaker ****

is something which is really amazing given the whole history which we're aware. Of, of. The treatment of the Chagossian

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The treatment of the Chagossian people, that they do not feature at. All in. The agreement or in the bill

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The agreement or in the bill itself. It's really quite amazing. And as it's as we now know, due to the parliamentary skill, as it were, the parliamentary skill, as it were, my noble friend Lord Callanan, we now have a possibility that there will be consultation under the auspices of a select Committee of the House of Lords, and that is very good news. But I think it's only fair that the government does, at this early stage, set out some idea it may have of how that consultation may proceed.

It may not be a referendum, but as my friend Lord Lilley says, at least some sort of consultation, it is not too difficult. Although there's a widespread diaspora with the Seychelles, with the UK, with Mauritius itself. It is a small number of people and it should be able to conduct that if they have a referendum or very, very easily. But certainly proper organised consultation fairly speedily. We don't necessarily wish to delay all this fairly speedily should be within the remit of the government.

I do hope they can say something during the course of this amendment discussion on that subject. amendments.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

37, 49. And 56. In this group which stand in my
18:04
Lord McCrea of Magherafelt and Cookstown Portrait Lord McCrea of Magherafelt and Cookstown (Democratic Unionist Party)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

In this group which stand in my name. These are no ordinary circumstances, as my noble Lords circumstances, as my noble Lords friends have alluded to, a group of Chagossians totalling more than 650. Contact me in writing and asked that I would consider some putting some amendments down and to explore them on the floor of this House. But the thought behind them is crystal clear. Whether the Chagossian people who were dispersed from their homeland should have a meaningful voice, clear legal recognition of their, of their identity, and a central place in determining the future of the Chagos Island.

Now, depressingly, it seems this government's already given their answer, and it is, in my opinion, shamefully no. For the avoidance of doubt, let me be frank in saying that to the government, I am unreservedly committed to speaking on behalf of the hundreds of Chagossians in the United Kingdom, some of whom have joined us today in the balconies above. Now they Diego Garcia. Military base and the British Indian Ocean Territory. Bill is a monumental tragedy for us of an agreement, one which declares Mauritius sovereign over the entire Chagos Islands, including the Diego Garcia, now part of the world in which Marissa has as much a historical claim as I do to the throne of France.

It is farcical. Parliament has been asked to legislate in support of that treaty, and the government do so consciously aware of core groups conspicuously absent from the foundation of the treaty. They Chagossians themselves. Allow me to be clear when I say the people most directly affected by this bill are not and have not been in the room. My Lords, the amendments I present seek only to ensure that any settlement affecting the Chagos Islands reflects the rights, identity and aspirations of the Chagossian people.

They do not ask for the unattainable. They want recognition, evidence and a proper assessment of what genuine peace and stability requires. Without these, the bill risks repeating historic injustices and undermining the very legitimacy it claims to secure. I do not gain anything from bringing such amendments before this House, but I am motivated by people and how that they can be best served. When I read through their correspondence and look at those people in the eye, some of whom had the privilege of meeting, I hope colleagues would know that it is why I do this.

For those who can speak in this chamber themselves, they need a voice. Amendment 37, in the first instance, addresses the Democratic representation. It would require the government to ensure that a Chagossian representative is appointed or elected to act as a liaison between the Chagossian community and Parliament. My Lords, this is not a radical proposal or proposition. It is, in fact, the bare minimum that we could expect for from a democratic state dealing with a displaced people whose fate is once determined without consultation.

The onus is on us as peers to defend all those British citizens, no matter how far away their home might be. I am conscious that the history of the islands has been repeated throughout the different stages of this bill, but for good reason. The impact of the forcible action being taken between action taken between 1967 and 73, overseeing the removal of entire population of islands, some 1500 to 2000 people has long lasting consequences on the families of that generation.

That removal, its circumstances and its consequences are not contested. Facts. They are recorded in the archives of this country, acknowledged in the Foreign Office documentation examined by parliamentary committees and recognised by numerous international bodies. The result was a community scattered and broken, separated by thousands of miles in some cases. And that is why it is essential that we consider the feelings of the Chagossian community. Now, in 2025, because the colossal failure to do so, all that those decades ago is the reason why we're here today.

My Lords, today, the largest Chagossian community in the world, resides here in the United Kingdom. Crawley Borough Council estimates that this home to approximately 3500 Chagossian around two thirds of the total UK Chagossian population. The community is sizeable and passionate, yet in spite of their size, there is no formal mechanism for their representation to Parliament. There is no statutory liaison, no committee, no structure within Whitehall to which this community can speak with an authoritative voice.

My Lords, in my opinion, this is untenable. It means that people who were displaced by past British policy have no guaranteed voice in shaping the policy that affects their future. How can we consciously abide that day? The Chagossian community remain permanently marginalised, spoken for but never spoken with and governed, but never genuinely consulted. These are British citizens, as British, as the people of Belfast, Cardiff, Edinburgh and London, ignored and sidelined in every conceivable form of representation and consultation, amendment 37 would remedy this democratic deficit.

It would ensure that this community had a recognised representative, not imposed, not chosen by government, but selected by the community itself, to liaise directly with Parliament and ensure that their views, concerns, aspirations are considered. And if we are to claim moral legitimacy in legislating over the Chagos Islands, we must begin by ensuring that they themselves are heard. Amendment 49 concerning civic identity and self-determination, would require the government to publish a report evaluating the credibility of any claim that the Chagossians share a civic identity with Mauritius without a self-determination vote.

Additionally, if it directed, the report considered the historical involvement of Mauritius in the removal of its Chagossian people. My Lords, this amendment is absolutely necessary because the bill and the treaty upon which it rests make a crucial and untested assumption that Mauritius is the rightful and natural representative of the Chagossian people. That is, assumption underpins the treaty's logic, the bill's purpose and the government's narrative. However, that is simply not the case, and this is the historical narrative that has been conjured up by those intent of pushing this forward at all costs.

Those of us who understand history as it will, will know that at the time of the 1965 Mauritian UK negotiations, the Chagossian population were still excluded from any involvement in discussion. Even after the displacement, Chagossians did not prosper under Mauritian administration. Many experienced poverty, discrimination. Lack of support as documented by innumerable NGO reports, parliamentary inquiries, human rights organisations, testimonies, some of which we have heard even today. When I was speaking to these, these Chagossians from Jocelyn families described life in Mauritius as one of hardship, neglect, not solidarity or cohesion.

The lives of these people have been shaped not only by geography, but by the trauma of displacement and the struggle to preserve a distinct cultural heritage in exile. I think of the many natives still alive today, some of whom wrote to me, including Jenny and Rosalyn and David and Christophe and Marie and Louis and many more, some of whom have joined us in Parliament today. The United Nations has repeatedly stressed that the Chagossian people must be recognised as central to any settlement.

In 20 24, 25, UN human rights experts stated plainly that the Chagossians had been excluded from the negotiations between the United Kingdom and Russia, and that the new agreement failed to guarantee their rights, including the right to participate meaningfully in decisions about sovereignty. It is ironic that many of those zealous cheerleaders of this deal are infatuated by notions of internationalism and international law. Yet when it comes to protecting the interests of British sovereign citizens, as emphasised by the UN, the call seems to fall on deaf ears.

My Lords, this amendment 49 simply obligates the government to gather evidence before taking irreversible decision. Membrane 56. This directly pertains to peace, stability and long term future of the US. UK Defence Facility and Diego Garcia in ensuring that the government will commit to the publication of a report that whether the goal of peace and legal certainty is better served by treaty or by granting self-determination and resettlement to Chagossian people as a self-governing British Overseas territory, it is not an understatement to say that this is a central strategic question of this bill.

It seems like this government is more concerned with appeasement of foreign states instead of maintenance of our alliances and protection of our sovereign British citizens. I would therefore, as I conclude, my amendment does not dictate the answer. Rather, it merely provokes the government into examining both options, both deciding or before deciding that one is unquestionably superior. My Lord, these three amendments share a single purpose to ensure that Parliament does not repeat the mistakes of the past. In the 1960s 70s, decisions were made about the Chagossians without consulting the people.

The result was displacement, injustice, and a lingering sense of betrayal. Today, as we consider transferring sovereignty, we have the opportunity to prevent a repeat of this injustice. Representation for this Chagossian community is of vital importance, and they have once again been excluded from the negotiating table. I repeat what I said at the start of the speech. I refuse to cede my unwavering support for this people in their request and their quest for representation, self-determination and respect. The Lords will be aware that I am a proud Ulsterman.

And last April, a delegation of Chagossians were welcomed in Northern Ireland on a visit to the province. I want to let them know that I understand what it feels like. That I understand what it feels and what it is like to feel ignored and sidelined. To have someone in government tell you that your identity is second class, that you cannot really be a full British citizen. I know what it's like to have fought for your rights to represent your people.

When a foreign state waged against you. I understand the struggle to be heard more than most. Parliament therefore has the responsibility to correct that course, and these

**** Possible New Speaker ****

amendments do not ask for much. My Lords, I rise to speak to
18:18
Baroness Meyer Portrait Baroness Meyer (Conservative)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I rise to speak to amendment 14 and 25, sorry, in support of amendments 14 and 25. My Lords, this treaty and the Bill that will enact it is bad for our country, bad for our security, and bad for the British taxpayers, as we have already discussed, it will leave Britain poorer, weaker and strategically exposed. But my Lords, this treaty is also bad for the Chagossian people. They have already suffered the terrible injustice of forced removal half a century ago.

This treaty compounds that injustice by offering no guaranteed right of return, no legally binding resettlement plan, and no meaningful protection of their rights. This is truly shameful for a government that claims to uphold human rights. It is an extraordinary moral failure as as Doctor Al Pinkerton, the Liberal Democrat spokesman, said in the Third Reading in the House of Commons of this bill, we cannot allow this bill to pass without ensuring that the Chagossian themselves are sovereign over their citizenship.

Their governance, governance of their island and the protect of return. The prospect of return. He is right, and I am actually surprised that no liberal Democrats in this House have put any amendment in support of a referendum to deny the Chagossians their right of self-determination, determination and their right to shape the future of their homeland is unworthy of a country that champions justice and fairness and democracy. This amendment would give them a chance, but it would also give us, as a nation that prides itself on a century old democracy, democracy, sorry, democratic.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

Of course I'm grateful. I. I just take the assumption that she hasn't read my amendment before her statement because under three two right to self-determination is there. So I just I'll take the there. So I just I'll take the assumption that she hasn't read it in her defence, can she just clarify what her referendum would clarify what her referendum would be? Would her referendum include the sovereignty and the possession and the inhabitation of the military base in Diego Garcia?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

military base in Diego Garcia? I presume that a referendum would actually ask the people what would actually ask the people what they want for their future, and self-determination.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

self-determination. So to clarify, it's the position of the opposition that the of the opposition that the referendum would also be for their for their able to be inhabitants on

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the military base. Do you want to say.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

If I may intervene on the. If the noble Lord would allow me, I'm intervening on the noble Lady because her speech.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

because her speech. Yes. But I allow my noble friend.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

very. Clear what they want. They had their own opinion poll on the subject that has been independently verified. 99.22% of people voted for it. So the noble Lord Lord Purvis of Tweed asked what would be the proposition. It is for a resettlement on the outer atolls under British jurisdiction, as British overseas citizens, in accordance with the plan that was set out in 2015, to which the noble Lady Baroness Foster referred earlier.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

And they seem to approve what

**** Possible New Speaker ****

And they seem to approve what we're saying. So basically, I mean this these amendments are for the this these amendments are for the issue of asking the Chagossian people to self the right to self-determination through a referendum. I have never met any Chagossian in my life, but I have Chagossian in my life, but I have received many letters from them over the past few days, and I do over the past few days, and I do feel it is my moral duty, and I think in any good conscience the think in any good conscience the government should also allow them self-determination.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

self-determination. I support all the amendments in
18:23
Baroness Hoey Portrait Baroness Hoey (Non-affiliated)
-
-
this group, but particularly I like amendment 64 because it actually goes to the the heart of the issue and is very simple and straightforward. We want a referendum, and I think the noble Lord Hannan answered the noble Lord from the front, who asked about what a referendum would mean. And I concur exactly with that, and I hope that that has satisfied the noble Lord on the front bench. I think sometimes it's useful when we're trying to get an argument for providing the people of the Chagos Islands with self-determination, to actually consider the arguments that are being put against that.

And there are two key arguments, my Lords, that the government seems to deploy for backing the Mauritius Treaty and the Bill, rather than a self-determination referendum, the provision of which I think would be technically very, very easy, not necessarily very easy, sorry, but very possible and would include all the triggers. The Chagossians not just obviously in the UK, but around the world. Now, the first argument the government has would seem to be that we are excused from the need to provide the Chagossians self-determination because we removed them from the Chagos Islands, and so they can no longer be offered self-determination, so long as so long as the governments say.

It was very wrong that that the Chagossians were removed. The government seems to think that the fact that they no longer live on their islands relieves us of the moral obligation to provide them with self-determination on their future. And for me, my Lords, this constitutes a pretty appalling logic that lays bare not only the complete moral failure of the current government, but the deployment of a rather dreadful logic in a way that really lets down, I believe, the people of our country, the United Kingdom, in a very humiliating fashion.

The Chagossians called this out themselves in a very powerful statement, which I'm sure the noble Lady the Minister will have read on self-determination that they issued yesterday. And I am going to quote from it, because I think it's really, really important. In recent years, they say there has been much repenting of colonialism within certain parts of the West, including the United Kingdom. The problem with colonialism is one of alienation in its conventional form. It is problematic because it alienates a people from the dignity of self-government of their home territory, but not from that territory.

They can continue to live on the territory that is their home, and nurture the hope that at some point they might be afforded the dignity of self-government. The coloniser, the colonialism to which we have been subjected. This is their statement, however, presented a far more extreme and unusual alienation because it alienated us not just from the dignity of a measure of self-government, but far more problematically from our territory, our home, by taking it from us. If the international community is serious in its commitment to Decolonise, then it cannot afford to accommodate either alienation to do so.

However, in the context of denying read, denying the people concerned self-determination while simultaneously paying a country that played a key role in denying that peoples self-determination in relation to their territory on the previous occasion. More money than is required to resettle the people with the rightful claim to the territory in order to lease one of their islands, demonstrates extreme moral disorientation. It continues in this context, the policy of the current government to state that what happened between 1968 and 1973 was deeply wrong, but then not lift a finger to put that right, even as they demonstrate that the resources are more than available to do so not only makes the condemnation of what happened between 1968 and 1973 completely hollow, but also necessarily has the effect of affirming the validity of what happened.

That was their statement, and I think every noble Lord should read it carefully. There are there is more in it. So if we put this another way, my Lord's attempts by His Majesty's Government to claim that the United Kingdom is relieved of any obligation to provide the people of the Chagos Islands self-determination in relation to their islands, because they are not living there, is just another way of saying that we are relieved of the responsibility for having prosecuted the most extreme form of colonialisation, because we prosecuted the most extreme form of colonialisation.

My Lords, it is plain, I think, for all to see, that if we are justifying ourselves in not providing self-determination, which we would do by at least asking people in a referendum if we're not providing self-determination to the Chagossians because we removed them from their islands, then we are suggesting that removing them from their islands validates this, as if the crime of their forced removal constitutes a source of validity. Rather than providing a source of validity for not providing self-determination to the people of the Chagos Islands.

This logic lays bare, I believe, the complete moral failure of the current government and the way in which it shames us as a nation. The other argument that the government effectively provides against affording the Chagossians a self-determination referendum, is implicit in their references to Chagossians who support the Mauritius Treaty, as if the Chagossians support it, such that providing the Chagossians self-determination is unnecessary because we already know what they want. My Lords, I do not doubt that there are some Chagossians, particularly some in Mauritius, who do support the Mauritius Treaty.

There has never been, in my view, or in my opinion, a self-determination referendum in which 100% of people voted in one way. What, however, is incontrovertible is that we have to engage with the fact that not only do we have some 650 Chagossians who have been involved here in the United Kingdom, that the survey of over 3000 Chagossians living in the UK, Mauritius and the Seychelles demonstrates over 99% opposition to being given. Just think about that being given away to the Republic of Mauritius and support for self-determination as a resettled British overseas territory like Anguilla or Montserrat.

99%. They don't want to be given away to Mauritius. They want to stay British. My Lords, 3000 Chagossians constitutes a very high percentage of the Chagossian population. And in this context, if one was going to say what the Chagossians want without having a formal self-determination referendum, it would make more sense to assume that they do not want to become part of the Republic of Mauritius. But however, my Lords, I'm not arguing that we should presume anything. I'm simply stating that the first responsibility of the UK government in this context must be to provide a self-determination referendum for the Chagossian people to find out what they want before proceeding any further with this bill or ratifying the treaty.

My Lords, at the Second Reading, the noble Lord, Lord Morrow, and I wish his family, the member of his family who's ill, to get well soon, and we miss him here today. But he said he made a very poignant point, which it's well worth reiterating today. He said that if the government decides to proceed with this bill, they will unwittingly make provision for an even more disturbing TV drama than Mr. Bates versus the Post office, Mr. Bates versus the Post office must constitute.

I believe, the most consequential political dramas of my lifetime, demonstrating the capacity of television drama. Actually, it wasn't the BBC, was it? No. No, no. The capacity of television drama to demonstrate more effectively to the general public than speeches ever can. The extent of a grave public wrong, generating huge pressure for upending the presenting injustice. And it's extraordinary that we should have a government now that I believe is so morally bankrupt that it should propose that we mark the 60th anniversary of our committing the great wrong of denying the people of the Chagos Islands self-determination by doing so once again.

The reason why we are here, and let's be very blunt, the reason why we're discussing this is, in my view, because of the influence of a cabal of lawyers operating between the Doughty Street Chambers and Matrix Chambers. They became so obsessed with the technical legal arguments with the rules based world about territorial integrity that I believe the government has been persuaded by them and has lost sight of the big moral picture and has let the country down. The chief protagonist.

Of course, I don't need to mention them again. Or of course, Philippe Sands and the Attorney general. And I do believe that this argument of the the legal issue, which I've already mentioned, is something that doesn't wash with me when it comes to something so important morally as what we're doing to the chagossian people and for the public to see just how this government has actually behaved in such a shameful way. I really do. I am very, very sorry that it's come to this, and I want to.

I hope that as a result of this discussion and this debate and the many other amendments that even at this late stage, the government might realise that they have gone too far, too quickly and are actually really doing down the Chagossian people. But more importantly, even the morality of the government and the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

way it's behaved. My Lords. I want to briefly speak to Group

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I want to briefly speak to Group two amendments as well. I rise to support a number of the amendments in the group, in particular those which call for a referendum for the citizens of the British Indian citizens of the British Indian Ocean Territory. That comes as no surprise, I'm sure, given my Second Reading speech and also amendment 37, in the name of Lord McCrea of Macclesfield, asking for Chagossian Macclesfield, asking for Chagossian representation to liaise with Parliament. An amendment 49, also Parliament.

An amendment 49, also in the name of Lord McCrea of Macclesfield, adding a new clause for the assessment of Chagossian for the assessment of Chagossian civic identity and civic identity and self-determination. My Lords, the treatment of Chagossians in 1965 is being exacerbated by their treatment today, by this government. I think that's that's a fact. We I think that's that's a fact. We have talked at length about the lack of consultation, the great lack of consultation, the great haste with which this treaty came about, and that has led to claim and counter-claim about how Chagossians feel about the transfer of sovereignty.

But surely, surely, my Lords, the simplest way to find out the answer is to hold a referendum amongst those who hold citizenship. And as I said in my Second Reading on this bill, geography is not political destiny. And I especially when actually the closest country to Diego Garcia is not even Mauritius. It's the Seychelles. And given the past treatment, I would imagine that taking the views of the Chagossian community is now the very, very least that this government should be doing up until now.

Chagossians living here in the UK have been pushed aside. As I said in my pushed aside. As I said in my Second Reading, even by their members of Parliament. And I think that that is astonishing. We're that that is astonishing. We're supposed to live in an open democracy where members of parliament are voted into the other place, and they are responsive to people who live in their people who live in their constituencies. And I think it's absolutely dreadful that despite absolutely dreadful that despite repeated requests to meet in person, they have been rejected and there's hardly any.

Now, as I said at hardly any. Now, as I said at Second Reading, if you're a member of Parliament, if you're going to vote through a government policy, the very least you should do with your constituents is have the wherewithal to meet with them and wherewithal to meet with them and explain why you have supported the position of the government. I don't think that that is rocket science. think that that is rocket science. absolutely.
18:36
18:37
Baroness Foster of Aghadrumsee Portrait Baroness Foster of Aghadrumsee (Non-affiliated)
-
-
number of months ago, but this is direct testimony from my Chagossian friends who have been very, very clear about a number of MPs who they contacted and they were not listened to, and a refusal to meet. So, I mean, treating our fellow Britons. And that's how I see my Chagossian friends with dignity and addressing their needs, I think is very important. And it certainly does not mean that we're challenging national security issues either. No, I think the two can and should exist together just because we have a marvellous asset in Diego Garcia, and I'm not suggesting otherwise for our national security needs and indeed national security needs of our friends and colleagues in the United States of America does not mean that we can't also have a conversation with Chagossian people about their rights and aspirations and needs.

I think the two can and should exist together. Indeed, I've already mentioned the KPMG report of 2015 on the feasibility of resettlement of BIOT indicated that there was no fundamental legal obstacles that would prevent a resettlement of BIOT to go ahead. That's a direct quote from KPMG report. Of course, that's what the government of the day should have done. They decided not to, citing cost concerns, but how cost effective and value for money does that not look today? When we consider the costs of this treaty and the money that we are going to be sending to the Mauritian governments, my Lords, despite what previous Mauritian administrations have said, the Chagos people are a distinct people on the basis of ethnicity, culture and religion and should be afforded respect by being asked how they view the transfer of sovereignty of their homeland.

And if this government turns its face as it appears it will against the referendum, they should pay heed to the referendum carried out by the Biot citizens, which many friends and colleagues in the House have referred to because a poll that they carried out shows a staggering 99.2% of Chagossians who were polled, supporting UK sovereignty over the Chagos Islands. Chagossians have had to resort to press releases to court, challenges to be heard, and it's now long past the time for government to step back and put in place a referendum to listen to their voices.

Yes.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I want to find out what. Would give way, she said. The

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Would give way, she said. The 92% or 92? 99.2% I got. I got it wrong. I said 99%. Could I ask her, does she think one of the reasons, does she think one of the reasons, or perhaps the reason the government won't even contemplate a referendum of the Chagossian people referendum of the Chagossian people is that they know that they would get the wrong answer, and therefore get the wrong answer, and therefore they would be even more morally treaty.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

treaty. Well, I want to pay tribute, actually, to my friends in the Chagossian community for raising Chagossian community for raising their voices, because their voices have been very loud. And as I say, they've had to find other means by which to raise their voices, whether that be through court challenges or through press releases. And I, I think that the government is well aware of how the number of Chagossians here feel about this. We have heard, as my noble friend has already alluded to, the fact that there are Mauritians the fact that there are Mauritians who are in favour of this deal, and I have no doubt there are those from Chagos background who live in Mauritius now who are in favour of Mauritius now who are in favour of the deal, and that's accepted.

But I believe that the greater number of those Chagossians are wanting to of those Chagossians are wanting to remain British citizens. Can I say in conclusion, I also support the amendment 37 in the name of Lord McCrea, which in the alternative to a referendum asks for a Chagossian representative to liaise with Parliament. And I know that there are other amendments coming up which look at ways to be creative about having the voice of Chagossians, including the noble Lord, Lord Purvis and and can I also commend Lord McCrea for mentioning individual names because we're talking about communities, but actually these are individuals who feel very passionately about their homeland.

And I think it's important that we remember that. And finally then amendment 49, which seeks an assessment of Chagossian civic identity and self-determination, again seeking to underline the distinct nature of the Chagossian people. I support that amendment as well. And I hope and I think this has been a good debate. But for me, it is really important to listen to the voices

**** Possible New Speaker ****

of the Chagossian people. Yes. Thank you. My Lords. It's a. Pleasure to follow the noble

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Pleasure to follow the noble Lady. She speaks with great sincerity and consistency in making sincerity and consistency in making her arguments, and I share many of her thoughts. I said in the earlier group that I am also awaiting the group that I am also awaiting the conclusions of the work of the International Relations and Defence Committee. I do hope that they will Committee. I do hope that they will be able to guide us with some of our thinking on this for Report stage after their consultations stage after their consultations with the with the community, my reference has been given to my hon.

Friends in the House of Commons who
18:42
Lord Purvis of Tweed Portrait Lord Purvis of Tweed (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
Friends in the House of Commons who have also for many years been consistent, that we should not be repeating the history of making decisions on behalf of the community without involving them. It is our long held view that that is the basis upon which we see going forward. One of the reasons why I intervened on the noble Lady and had the interaction with her noble friend, was that I think there's been some parts of the debate, especially that in the House of Commons, where perhaps seeking the consideration of the right to self-determination has been used as a little bit of a proxy for other considerations to try and either prevent a treaty or to prevent the restoration of rights, because, as the noble Lord had said on behalf of his noble friend, what we seem to be talking about is some form of limited sovereignty, some form of limited and partial right to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

self-determination. I'm grateful because I maintain I'm grateful. Thank you. I'm very grateful to noble Lord for giving way. The noble Lord for giving way. The proposal has come from the Chagossian population. That's what we mean by self-determination. It's we mean by self-determination. It's not for us to lay down whether they should have full sovereignty or partial sovereignty. It's for us to listen to what they want.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

listen to what they want. And which I agree with. And that is a clearer proposition than we've heard. As I said, that is a better heard. As I said, that is a better proposition than my view. Better is the wrong word. That is a more convincing proposition because of the origination. And the reality is that what how we define self-determination and the rights of the community going forward, where I think the debate has bled into previously, is that that has been used without that clarification, as a different political impetus with regard to political impetus with regard to the overall desirability or otherwise, to have a treaty with otherwise, to have a treaty with Mauritius.

And I think that is where I come to. I come to it where I come to. I come to it because the most vociferous of speeches that we've heard deny the speeches that we've heard deny the reality of what happened just last year. We can talk about the denial year. We can talk about the denial of rights, the noble Lord lady, I agreed with 90% of her speech. If we're talking about referendum statistics, about 90% of what she's saying about the right.

But we don't have to go back to the 1960s to look at the denial of rights. It was in January 2024 that Lord Cameron, as Foreign Secretary, restated government policy that there would be no right of resettlement. And that was whilst negotiations were carrying on on the basis of a treaty. So if if it is an argument to suggest that we wish to restore rights for resettlement and rights to self-determination, then I accede to that argument. But I think it should be in the acknowledgement that the previous government and this government were refusing and refused to do so in the absence of there being a treaty with Mauritius.

So the context that we're in now is that the first opportunity that we may have for limited right of resettlement and limited right of self acknowledgement of some form of self-determination is by virtue of a treaty. The Minister knows these benches do not consider them to go far enough, and we want to use these stages to see how we can go further. But I think it's worth recognising that the only opportunity that we have for some form of resettlement is by virtue of there being a treaty.

That treaty will supersede that of 1982. And I wanted to remind I'm not reminding committee because we've not been mentioned so far. The agreement between the United Kingdom and Mauritius concluded on the 7th of July, 1982. I wanted to quote something from the ICJ ruling which outlines part of the history, which is very difficult. I in the debate that we had on the treaty, I referenced this as very difficult reading that treaty between the United Kingdom and Mauritius from 1982 was for the payment of Chagossians of £4 million on an ex-gratia basis, with no admission of liability on the part of the United Kingdom in full and final settlement of all claims whatsoever for resettlement, and indeed under article two, any incidents, facts or situations, whether past, present or future, occurring in the course of events or arising out of the consequences of the events, would not be taken into consideration.

So that treaty signed in 1982 with denying the rights in perpetuity. So the significance of this treaty now is that we are we are changing that basis of our relationship with the government of Mauritius on the basis of the community. Paragraph 120 of the ruling goes into more detail. The sum of approximately £4 million paid by the United Kingdom was dispersed to 1344 islanders between 1983 and 1984, as a condition for collecting the funds, the Islanders were required to sign or place a thumbprint on a form renouncing the right to return to the Chagos Archipelago.

The form was a one page legal document written in English without a Creole translator translation. That is what we did in the 1980s, and that was reconfirmed in January 2024. We do have an opportunity, perhaps limited, but no, no less important, to restore some of the rights that have been denied to a community enshrined in the treaty in 1982, paid for by £4 million in what could well be a very flawed agreement then, and restated in 2024. I want all noble Lords in our debates going forward to to ensure that as we have our debate in the committee and Report stage, we are not using the rights of a community as a proxy for politics.

We're using it to try and restore some of the removal of rights so shamefully

**** Possible New Speaker ****

taken away 40 and two years ago. Well, my Lords, I firstly very

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Well, my Lords, I firstly very interested to hear all the contributions from noble Lords on this important debate on the consultation of the Chagossians, or rather the lack of consultation of rather the lack of consultation of the Chagossian. Some really powerful speeches, particularly from the noble Lords. Lord McCrea, he establishing, as he proposes in his amendment, I think it was 37, a permanent representative of the Chagossians would indeed be a very Chagossians would indeed be a very powerful thing, because I think everybody has agreed that we do need to give them a voice.

They need to give them a voice. They have not been properly consulted by the Foreign Office. And I'm happy to concede to noble Lord that we're to concede to noble Lord that we're not properly consulted by previous governments as well. And no legislative scrutiny will change legislative scrutiny will change that. The noble Lord postulated that it was a little bit like him
18:50
Lord Callanan Portrait Lord Callanan (Conservative)
-
-
that it was a little bit like him being offered the the the Dauphin of France, but given the distance from Northern Ireland to Paris, and given the distance from Mauritius to the Chagos, it would be more appropriate for him to be offered the monarchy of Azerbaijan rather than rather than Paris. But the Foreign Office does need to consult them properly, and that process might be helped if the community had a champion of their own. Amendment 49 speaks to an interesting question about a shared civic identity between the Chagossians and the Mauritians.

I think everybody's agreed that there really isn't one. This reminded me of the contribution of my noble friend Lord Biggar at Second Reading, and pure terms of identity and self-determination. It makes absolutely no sense that Mauritius and the Chagos Islands should be lumped together in this way, and it all stems from some bizarre decision by British imperial administrators many years ago, and has absolutely nothing to do with the interests of the Chagossians. So we all know that they have not been properly consulted, and that when I tabled an amendment to the motion that would have required a consultation before the bill could proceed, the government and Baroness Chapman did from the Dispatch Box raised concerns about the practicality of any such consultation.

In fact, she said in a meeting that we held with others afterwards that 30 days wasn't long enough. Fair enough. A reasonable point. But when I asked how long was long enough? Answer came there. None, because of course, the Foreign Office has no interest whatsoever in finding out doing a consultation, because I suspect, despite what she says, about there being different opinions among the community, she knows what answer that she would get because they would find it far too difficult a question.

So the Foreign Office has sidestepped it completely, entirely, and said that there is no self-determination right for the Chagossians in this case. This, in my view, is not an acceptable state of affairs. And we believe firmly that the government must consult the Chagossian community. It is great that the International Relations Committee is now doing so. But of course, given the time available, because the government would not agree to extend the time being taken for this bill any further, there is no substitute for a proper consultation and the Committee will do their best in the limited time that they have on the issue of a referendum, which I will return to later.

In the absence of a proper consultation of the Chagossian community in the lead up to the UK government's decision to reach agreement with Mauritius, we see this as a very reasonable step to ensure that they are not left out in the cold, as the future of the islands that they once called home is determined as it is handed over lock, stock and barrel to a nation that they know very little about. The government's treatment of the Chagossians is nothing less than shameful, and I believe that we have an opportunity to remedy that in some small way with these amendments, and there are many other things that I could say about these amendments, but I think I will I will leave it at that.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I do think that it's worth restating, and I think many of the contributions that we've of the contributions that we've heard this afternoon say this too. But this government deeply regrets the way that the Chagossians were removed from the Chagos Archipelago. removed from the Chagos Archipelago. And if I can just commend one speech in particular that we've heard in consideration of this group, it would be that of Lord group, it would be that of Lord McCrea, who I, I found that impactful, passionate speech that impactful, passionate speech that was sincere, sincerely given and heartfelt.

And I don't think that heartfelt. And I don't think that I'm going to make him happy this afternoon. But I do think that what afternoon. But I do think that what he said was sincerely felt. And I, he said was sincerely felt. And I, I do respect the way that he put his argument and many of the things that he said, we do remain committed to building a relationship with the Chagossian relationship with the Chagossian community that is built on respect and an acknowledgement of the and an acknowledgement of the wrongs of the past.

And I know, and I agree with much of what has been said. This House clearly feels very strongly about Chagossians and ensuring that their views are properly heard, and we have agreed that the International Relations and Defence Committee will undertake an important piece of work which will look at Chagossian views on the treaty, and I'm sure that we'll all read this with great interest, and we're looking forward to their report. But turning to the arguments that we've just debated on the matter of a referendum or some sort of consultation on the treaty for the Chagossians and amendments 13 and 28 and I, I think the noble Lord said he was regrouping.

14, 25, 64 and 84. Yes, that's right. They all relate in some way to either holding a referendum or some sort of consultation with Chagossians on the transfer of the Chagos Archipelago to Mauritius. The negotiations on the treaty, and I know that we've said this before, but I think it again, you know, there is going to be some repetition in argument on on these these issues that the negotiations on the treaty were between the United Kingdom and the government of Mauritius with our priority.

And there will be those and I accept this. There will be those that disagree with this priority. But the priority was to secure the full operation of the base on Diego Garcia, the Chagos Archipelago has no permanent population and has never been self-governing. And the question, therefore, of self-determination, self-determination for its population. The English courts have noting the conclusion of the ICJ in the 2019 advisory opinion. They have proceeded on the basis that the relevant right to self-determination in the context of Biot was that of Mauritius rather than of Chagossians.

Now that feels incredibly cold and hard to read from this Dispatch Box. But that is the situation legally as determined by English courts, and I don't think that it helps anybody, not least the Chagossians of somehow pretending that that is not the case. That is the situation we are in. We can regret that. We can argue about it. We can say that should not be the case. That is the legal reality. Both the English courts and the European Court of Human Rights have also considered in a series of judgements since the 1970s, the related but distinct question of an alleged right of abode or other rights that are said to flow from that.

On each occasion, the English courts and the European Court of Human Rights have ultimately dismissed the claims. The transfer of sovereignty, therefore, does not deprive Chagossians of any existing right, and this is a long standing legal position that previous UK governments have also adopted. Nevertheless, that's the yes, of course. Yes.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

And I thank the noble Lady, the Minister, and she's repeating what she said at Second Reading. And I she said at Second Reading. And I acknowledge that that is the case. And I said to her then that whilst the courts have taken a particular view in relation to this matter, does not rule out that Parliament does not rule out that Parliament can take a different view, given we believe in parliamentary democracy, we believe in parliamentary we believe in parliamentary sovereignty.

And given the way in which this community have been which this community have been treated for nearly for 60 years now, it's fair to say, do we not have a moral obligation to accord them the moral obligation to accord them the right to have a say, regardless of the fact that there have been court the fact that there have been court judgements in this? Can we not, as parliamentarians, indicate that we believe that the best way forward

**** Possible New Speaker ****

believe that the best way forward is to listen to their voices? Yes, I think we can. I don't think we can call it self-determination in the legally, legally applicable sense. But I do legally applicable sense. But I do agree, and I think Parliament agrees too, that we do deserve the Chagossians the respect of a Chagossians the respect of a different kind of relationship with the UK government. And we do need to make sure that we engage with them in a way that is respectful and meaningful.

Now, whether or not that means a referendum, I will, I will get on to. But I think she makes a very strong point about the importance of listening to the voices of Chagossians themselves. And however we might choose to do that. But so I've mentioned about this being a long standing legal position, but as I'm trying to to to explain, we do recognise the importance of these islands to the Chagossians and we, we are working hard to reflect this in our wider policies, not all of which are
19:00
Baroness Chapman of Darlington Portrait Baroness Chapman of Darlington, Minister of State (Development) (Labour)
-
-
reflected in the bill, because they don't require legislation. But don't require legislation. But given the treaty has been signed and the bill is reasonably well advanced in that it's been through advanced in that it's been through the other place, any formal consultation, I think the with with consultation, I think the with with great honesty and sincerity. I say this any formal consultation at this stage would not be honest or sufficiently meaningful. And I think that's what noble Lord Lord think that's what noble Lord Lord Purvis was, was gently trying to to point out to us as well, because point out to us as well, because that window, that window was open at one point and that window was open when the now opposition was in government, and they decided they never decided to consult the never decided to consult the Chagossians.

And we agree with the government as it was now the opposition, that there isn't actually a duty legally in this actually a duty legally in this situation to do that. But it is absolutely vital to respect the absolutely vital to respect the many different views within the Chagossian community, including Chagossian community, including several groups that welcome the deal. And as the statement. Yes, I

**** Possible New Speaker ****

give way. I don't want to get ahead of myself because amendment 80 seems myself because amendment 80 seems is a long way away. My appeal to the Minister is that. And if and if the Minister is that. And if and if the Mauritian government was here, I'd say exactly the same to them. I'd say exactly the same to them. Whilst the discussions on the treaty have concluded, it is obviously the case that there are ongoing discussions with the Mauritian government and it is not Mauritian government and it is not closed yet for there to be consideration of structures of representation that are currently representation that are currently not in the treaty nor currently in this bill.

So my appeal at this this bill. So my appeal at this early stage of committee would be for the Minister to retain an open mind on potential structures for mind on potential structures for further discussions when it comes to representation, including to representation, including perhaps a more firm position of how a community will be able to be

**** Possible New Speaker ****

a community will be able to be represented going forward. I think that that's constructive

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I think that that's constructive proposition, and I think that the government, I mean, we are very willing to engage in that kind of willing to engage in that kind of conversation. And I do note the amendment that the noble Lord has proposed, which we will come to later in our consideration. Perhaps not this evening, given our current rate of progress, however. I mean, I would just point noble Lords to the statement by Olivier Banko, leader of the largest Chagossian group, the CRG, which demonstrates, I think, that while there are different views amongst Chagossians, there is strong support for the agreement from a significant number in the community.

Amendment 37, tabled by Lord McCrea was, I thought, really interesting amendment. It seems to be trying in some respects, and I'm pretty sure this isn't exactly what he intended to replicate. That which our elected members of Parliament are there to do, which is to represent the views of their constituents, including in a number of cases, Chagossians. But I would perhaps draw attention to the all party parliamentary group, which I think does an excellent job liaising between Chagossians and Parliament.

And in addition, the government has established a Chagossian contact group, which has wide representation from Chagossian communities in the UK, but also in Mauritius, Seychelles and elsewhere to give Chagossians that formal role, which I think is what noble Lords are seeking that can shape decision making on the UK government's support for their community. And as Lord Purvis has again reminded us, I think he's going to seek to to to make sure that that group is able to be as effective as I know noble Lords would want it to be.

And the group met for the first time on the 2nd of September and will convene quarterly thereafter. And as Lord Coaker and I said in our letter to all peers, we're exploring opportunities for enhancement of that group, including increasing its transparency and its frequency. But we are clear that any decision is made about the contact group have got to be made in agreement with its existing members, and the government will be engaging with the group on these questions.

On amendments 29 and 32. Now, I forget if we're actually considering those or they've been regrouped. Were they? No. I think we are doing those table by Lord Morrow relating to the Unga resolutions. And I don't think that would be an especially constructive exercise. The treaty states expressly that it constitutes the full and final settlement of all claims by Mauritius in relation to the Chagos Archipelago, and it's hard to see how the proposed report would really add to that in relation to amendment 49, tabled by Lord McCrea.

There's never been a claim that all Chagossians share civic identity with Mauritius. And as I've already said and has been said numerous times, both in this chamber and in the other place, it's a diverse community with a wide range of views. Now, as I said at the beginning of this contribution, the government has prioritised the needs of security and securing the base on Diego Garcia. There are those I know and I've heard them who disagree with that. That being said, that doesn't mean that the government should do the very best job that we can of engaging with the Chagossian community and making sure that their their diverse range of views are reflected as best we can as we move forward on the functioning of the contact group, the trust fund and other issues.

And I, I will commit from the Dispatch Box that this government will do everything it can to make sure that that happens. And I hope that noble Lords will therefore seek to withdraw their amendments. seek to withdraw their amendments.
19:07
None Portrait
-

Yes, I.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

This amendment withdrawn. Amendment by leave withdrawn. We now move to amendment number three. now move to amendment number three. Lord Morrow. No. Not moved. Sorry.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Lord Morrow. No. Not moved. Sorry. In in Lord Morrow's absence, I should like to move the amendment. Standing in his name. In his name. Standing in his name. In his name. The two amendments, three and four, which are about the rights of which are about the rights of Chagossians to bear children in the archipelago, and about the rights of people born in the archipelago of people born in the archipelago to continued British overseas territory, and so as not to detain territory, and so as not to detain your lordships any longer than necessary.

I'll also speak to my amendment in this group, amendment 50, which is about registering marriages of Chagossians as British Indian Ocean Territory citizens, the noble Lady, the Minister just repeated that she deeply regrets the treatment of Chagossians over the decades. And I believe her. the decades. And I believe her. She's very obviously sincere and she said it on many previous occasions that our debate last occasions that our debate last month, she described it as appalling, as morally shameful. She said they'd been badly treated over said they'd been badly treated over many decades.

So I pose the question what is adequate restitution for this appalling treatment, which on all sides, we seem to agree, is indeed deeply shameful? What would constitute a way of making good a wrong in a way that is understood morally and legally? And of course, what we mean by restitution is restoring something. If you if you've taken something from someone, restitution
19:09
Lord Hannan of Kingsclere Portrait Lord Hannan of Kingsclere (Conservative)
-
-
means giving it back or compensating them to an equivalent compensating them to an equivalent value. Now all arguments end up, I'm afraid, in the same place. The restitution sought by Chagossians restitution sought by Chagossians for those 60 years was the right to for those 60 years was the right to return to the homeland from which they had been plucked and then dumped hundreds, or in some cases, dumped hundreds, or in some cases, thousands of miles away in strange new lands. And I just want you to new lands.

And I just want you to think for a moment, my Lords, about what a return would be like to what a return would be like to imagine the resettlement of the atolls around Diego Garcia, if not atolls around Diego Garcia, if not of the base itself, of the coconut groves coaxed back into order, groves coaxed back into order, their fronds trimmed, the children born in the islands, being taught born in the islands, being taught by their elders how to husk and split the coconuts villages on the shore, with their bright roofs rising above the takamaka and rising above the takamaka and banyan trees.

Imagine the old churches being reconstituted and the coral stone being used. All of that is what is being sought by our fellow subjects of Chagossian origin. As British Indian Ocean Territory citizens, and it's not available under any alternative plan. Mauritius recognises a right to settle in the island for Mauritians, under whom it includes Chagossians. But what's being proposed by Mauritius is the dissolution of BIOT citizenship into Mauritian citizenship or equivalent in the Seychelles, and now the equivalent for us? And this is something I have to say, my Lords, unprecedented.

I don't think we've ever done this before. Yes, of course, when we have transferred jurisdiction as a withdrawing colonial power, we have transferred citizenship. So you've become a Kenyan or whatever it is. But I can't think of any precedent of where you put somebody. You remove somebody's citizenship and instead give them citizenship of a country which to which they feel no loyalty at all. And as long as this wrong endures, as long as people feel that they do not have the nationality on their passport, that they feel in their hearts, there isn't going to be any stability.

The noble Lady, the Minister spoke in the last round about why we shouldn't reopen what what was defined by the courts as a final, full and binding settlement. Well, it won't be final, by the way, that that's that's what Mauritius agreed to in 1965, when it was paid to renounce all of its claims. One of those things, like the reparations are never full and final, but the, the the deprivation of Chagossians of the citizenship that they want and that they want for their children and that past governments legislated for.

We amended the 1981 Nationality Act in 2022, in order precisely to create this status is not going to result in a full and final settlement. On the contrary, there will be as much rejection of that new dispensation from the people most directly involved as there was recently from the Mauritians of the existing status quo. In fact, I wouldn't be at all surprised if the the part of the chagossian population that rejects the. Constitutes itself as a government in exile and begins to seek recognition.

The idea that we're doing all of this in order to to settle something quietly so that it all goes away, is I hope I'm wrong about this, but I suspect it'll be tested by events. We're going to look back and think, why did we not see this coming? So there is a way of going back to what was a plan as recently as 2015, looking at the places in the archipelago that can be resettled without prejudice to the base, allowing those people then to work in the civilian jobs, which are currently done mainly by Filipinos and Sri Lankans and so on.

On Diego Garcia itself, it could be that this whole round becomes what the Falklands War was to that archipelago, the beginning of an economic renaissance. As Britain begins to take an interest in its overseas position and begins to create economic opportunities for the people there, whether servicing the military facilities or in fishing or whatever it is. But none of that is going to happen if we simply declare that our Chagossian fellow citizens are really just misguided Mauritians, and that they have no more particular right to their ancestral homelands and to the graves of their ancestors than any other Mauritian citizen.

It is in your Lordships power to put a stop to this and not to ratify this treaty. As our national poet says, resist it, prevent it, let it not

**** Possible New Speaker ****

be so, lest child child's children cry against you. Well. Move the amendment.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Move the amendment. I'd like to move the amendment. Thank you. Okay. Amendment proposed clause one, page one, line proposed clause one, page one, line seven. Leave out subsection two and insert the words as printed on the marshalled list.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

marshalled list. My Lords. I'm going to speak to my

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'm going to speak to my amendments 45, 46 and 48. And following on really from the noble Lord Hannan, these are measures that would in some way perhaps help that would in some way perhaps help to make the Chagossian people feel that we had listened to their that we had listened to their genuine concerns. And I we've all of us who've been involved with the of us who've been involved with the Chagossians have been really seeing a lot of very written and spoken letters and speeches about what they went through and why these they went through and why these amendments in particular, would be something that could move things something that could move things forward for them.

Particularly, there were 95 Chagossians who've who've written who were born on the islands themselves, who are here. And these are men and women who lived very peaceful, self-sufficient lives on the islands, including Diego Garcia, until the day they were forced onto the ships and told they would never see their homeland again. And I think it is important that we, you know, for the for the public out there, perhaps, who have not grasped the detail of this, just to repeat some of the things that they have said and why these amendments might make a slight difference.

They all tell the same story. They describe being ordered to leave their homes with only what they could carry. Some recall arriving at the jetty to see their dogs and livestock taken from them, and killed before they were pushed onto the ship. Others remember family members separated, possessions thrown into the sea, and the moment the islands disappeared over the horizon, as one said, the day the world went dark. Now one native Islander, now in her 70s, said, we left our islands with nothing but our clothes.

They took our dogs from us, howling. We were pushed on to the boat and told we would never return. Our children and grandchildren still do not have the documents that say who we really are. And another one said they took my home and now they take my identity. My passport says nothing of where I come from. We want to remain British with the right to return to our islands. We do not want to become Mauritian. I should add my Lord Dannatt Chagossians living in Mauritius, report that more recently, Mauritian authorities have already begun to replace their recorded place of birth and in some cases, their birth dates, you know, and and and changing it to simply Mauritius.

So their birthplace, their identity and their history are being administratively erased. Amendment 45 passports and official documentations. Because Chagossians had lived for a long time with not anything that really recognises their origins, because their birthplace was depopulated, renamed and reclassified, and in administrative terms, their existence as a people was largely erased. So this amendment ensures that Chagossians can hold passports and documents affirming their historic identity and their connection to the Chagos Archipelago and the British Indian Ocean Territory.

That identity, let us not forget, was never surrendered voluntarily. It was severed by force. And as another Chagossian said, we want the papers that say who we are. We are Chagossians from the Chagos. That must not be erased. And yet under clause 2 to 4, if passed unamended, the United Kingdom would relinquish sovereignty over every island except Diego Garcia and the legal foundation for recognising Chagossian identity through official documentation would disappear. So this amendment helps with that. Amendment 46 is citizens rights, ship rights for children.

Exile produced a citizenship gap that now affects three generations. Had the Chagossians remained on their islands, their children would automatically hold British Overseas Territories citizenship today. But exile broke that line, leaving many Chagossian families undocumented or stateless for decades. And so this amendment would restore what displacement interrupted automatic botc and biot citizenship for children born in the United Kingdom to two Chagossian parents, and as another native, Chagossian Chagossian wrote, my children were born here, but they do not have the citizenship I would have given them if I had been allowed to live in my home.

This is injustice. Continuing to the next generation. An amendment 48 retention of Botc passports. Many Chagossians still hold a botc passport showing that they have a connection to to the British Indian overseas territory, and these are among their probably their most treasured possessions, because for many, they're the only official recognition that they belong to those islands. So if BIOT is dissolved for all islands except Diego Garcia, these passports will not be renewable and Chagossian identity will disappear again on paper, Miss Colin wrote one of the Chagossians do not take our passports from us again.

We lost our homes. Must we also lose our true identity? So this amendment would prevent that second erasure, my Lords and legal positions is even more troubling. Although I've gone on a great deal about the moral one, and I think it is hugely important. But nothing in the treaty with Mauritius, nothing in international law and nothing in the British Nationality Act that requires these nationality rights to be removed. The government is removing them by choice, not necessity. And under section 17 of the British Nationality Act 1981, inserted in 2022, a person with the Chagossian ancestor has the right to be registered as a botc and therefore as a British citizen.

The connection that matters in law is historic. Whether the ancestor was born in British Indian Overseas Territory or the islands designated as Biot in 1965, and so whether Biot exists today is irrelevant. Its abolition does not legally require the abolition of Chagossian nationality rights, only repealing section 17 does that, and this bill repeals it. My Lords, this has never happened before. There's no precedent in British nationality law for stripping a person of people of British nationality status when their territory is transferred.

In every previous case from Kenya 1963 to Saint Kitts and Nevis in 1983, people lost British territorial citizenship only because they gained a new citizenship of their own independent territory. Chagossians have no such citizenship to inherit. Had the transfer of the islands occurred after the registration window opened in 2022, the handover would have had no impact at all on Chagossian nationality rights, their status and their ability to transmit it to their children would have remained intact. So the government's justification that
19:22
Baroness Hoey Portrait Baroness Hoey (Non-affiliated)
-
-
Botc is tied to a continuing connection with the British territory is incompatible with the territory is incompatible with the very reason section 17 was created, and the purpose of that section was and the purpose of that section was historical restitution. Recognising that exile unjustly prevented Chagossians from passing citizenship to their children, and that injustice has not been remedied simply because the remedied simply because the territory is being transferred. My Lords, the International Court of Lords, the International Court of Justice in 2019 made clear that the people of a non-self-governing territory must be consulted on the territory must be consulted on the freely expressed and genuine will, must determine their future.

That did not happen in 1965, and it's not happening now. Mauritius speaks of completing decolonialization, of completing decolonialization, yet ignores the fundamental principle of decolonialization, which is the right of the people of which is the right of the people of the territory concerned to self-determination. The people of Chagos Archipelago, the only people Chagos Archipelago, the only people ever to live there, have not been consulted. They've not been given a referendum. They've expressed overwhelmingly that they do not overwhelmingly that they do not wish their identity, their citizenship rights or their homeland to be handed over without their consent.

As one native Islander, Mr. Joseph Lacey, wrote we want to be recognised as a people before it's too late. Every year more of our of us natives pass away. We want our rights returned while we are still alive. My Lords, these amendments do not seek advantage. They seek restoration. They do not create extraordinary rights. They correct extraordinary wrongs. They ensure that a people removed from their territory, in circumstances now acknowledged as unjust by everyone, is not erased again through the disappearance of its legal status, documentation and citizenship.

Many of the 95 surviving native islanders were children when they were taken from their homes. Some have died without justice. Those who remain asked for something profoundly simple let the world know who we are. Let our children have what was taken from us. Let us be Chagossians in law as well as memory. My Lords, this House should honour that request. I therefore commend amendments 45, 46

**** Possible New Speaker ****

and 48 to the House, and urge noble Lords to support them. Very good. Thank.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Very good. Thank. I get quite emotional.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I get quite emotional. I know, I know. You know.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I know, I know. You know. Are you not saying sorry? Let me

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Are you not saying sorry? Let me firstly thank my noble friend Lord Hannan of Kingsclere for moving amendment three on behalf of the noble Lord, Lord Morrow, and we all hope his family member gets well soon, and for the very powerful soon, and for the very powerful speech from the noble Lady Baroness Hoey on her amendments as well. And Hoey on her amendments as well. And these amendments all touch on the impact that the Bill will have on impact that the Bill will have on the citizenship rights of Chagossians.

Clause four will limit the rights of those descended from the rights of those descended from Chagos Islanders to gain British citizenship in several ways, and my citizenship in several ways, and my amendments in this group also seek to challenge the government's approach. It should be noted here approach. It should be noted here that settlements in the UK is not what many Chagossians want. Many what many Chagossians want. Many want to return to the archipelago and this is something that Ministers have discussed previously. That said, British citizenship should be an option for the Chagossians.

Given the responsibility that I think everybody here believes that we owe them thanks to our historic links, and I am afraid our record of mistreating their community. My amendment seven would prevent the citizenship provisions from coming into effect, with the treaty allowing more time for the government to consider their approach in domestic law. Alongside the treaty, it might also allow for greater consultation of the Chagossian community, who are ultimately the people who will be affected by clause four.

So I wonder in her reply, if the noble Baroness, the Minister, could confirm if the government have had any conversations whatsoever with Chagossians about the effect of clause four, and can she confirm whether substantive discussions on citizenship rights have been held with the Chagossian contact Group, which she claims have met on a couple of occasions? And what were the outcome of those discussions? I would also like to know whether Ministers have made any changes to their plans on citizenship rights, as a result of some of the concerns raised by the Chagossian community.

My amendment 39 probes the limitation of citizenship rights by birth year. Could the noble Baroness, the Minister, please explain why 2027 has been chosen as the cut off date? And what opportunity will there be for the Chagossian community to make a case for its extension, should circumstances require it? Another important issue with any cut off date for applications is communication. Have Ministers given any consideration to the procedure that should be followed to ensure that eligible Chagossians are contacted about their rights? I have also tabled amendment 40 to probe the requirement that a person must not have previously held must not have previously held British citizenship to be eligible under the changes made by clause four, we can understand why it would not be appropriate for a person who has had their citizenship revoked not to be citizenship revoked not to be eligible.

But why should a person who has given up their citizenship voluntarily be barred by this voluntarily be barred by this clause? So I hope the noble Lady in her closing remarks will be able to address these questions. address these questions.
19:28
Baroness Chapman of Darlington Portrait Baroness Chapman of Darlington, Minister of State (Development) (Labour)
-
-
I thank noble Lords for their speeches on this, and a host of amendments, as we've heard, have been tabled in relation to citizenship rights. And some of them come from a bit of a misunderstanding of what clause four of the bill does. So I hope that we can I can explain the detail of of what the bill will mean if it's not enough. I am very happy to to write to a letter and put it in the library on this, because it is it is detailed, it is a little bit complicated.

And if that would be helpful, then that would be something I'm happy to do. But let me, let me have a go at just explaining it all properly this evening and that that may suffice. So clause four makes provisions related to British nationality as a consequence of the dissolution of the British Indian Ocean Territory. These provisions are essential to ensure that the existing entitlements of Chagossians have, to British citizenship remain unchanged. This clause also amends the British Nationality Act 1981 to reflect that Biot will no longer be a British Overseas Territory, and as a result, no future claims to British Overseas Territory.

Citizenship can be made on the basis of a connection to Biot. This will not result in any change, however, to the existing British nationality status that any Chagossian currently holds. This remains protected. Any Chagossian who currently holds British Overseas Territory citizenship retains it. Current routes to British citizenship will also continue to exist, with their original expiry dates for application. This clause is a vital part of the bill in order to protect, protect Chagossians rights to continue to obtain British citizenship.

Seeking to delete the clause would be to, I think, play politics with this right. But turning specifically to the amendments tabled, amendment four is a good example of an amendment that I would gently say is is somewhat misconceived in its intent. Chagossians born on Chagos Archipelago already automatically hold British Overseas territory citizenship and British citizenship, so this amendment would therefore only seek to require the Secretary of State to bring forward legislation that would apply to anyone of any nationality born on the Chagos Archipelago.

Once it's no longer a British territory, and the government is clear that as Biot will no longer be an overseas territory, it will no longer be possible to make a new claim for British Overseas Territory citizenship. Instead, the bill preserves Chagossians ability to claim British citizenship. Whether a Chagossian has British Overseas Territory citizenship or not, and will have no bearing on their ability to claim British citizenship under their bespoke citizenship route. Lord Callanan through amendment 39 and I can't remember.

This is one of the ones that he said was probing or not, but this would remove the existing time limits on Chagossian descendants rights to apply for British nationality. The time limit reflected concerns that an open ended offer could result in an unlimited number of individuals. Without a close and continuing connection to the UK or an overseas territory acquiring rights to live in the UK indefinitely. A five year period was chosen for adults, in line with previous examples of time limited schemes in the UK and overseas, and was agreed as a reasonable period to allow Chagossian descendants to decide whether they wish to become British citizens.

Those under 18 were also given five years to apply, from the point that they became an adult or become an adult. This is a generous scheme, reflecting the unique and regrettable situation of Chagossians, and was welcomed by many when the government accepted the amendments to the then Nationality and Borders Bill in Nationality and Borders Bill in 2022. And so, to be clear, saying th support his previous government's decision? It came to balancing the rights of Chagossians with conventional time limits for citizenship schemes.

I, I think that he may have shifted his position and he he made a clear statement of that in his contribution. And he's entitled, of course, to do that. Amendment 40, tabled by Lord Callanan, also seeks to allow a wider range of former British nationals to reacquire British nationality without applying to the Home Secretary to resume their British nationality. This amendment would amend the existing limitation found throughout British nationality law that prevents those who've renounced British nationality from regaining it, without making an application for resumption at the Home Secretary's discretion.

So the current drafting in clause four preserves the status quo across all nationality routes, ensuring the Home Secretary can consider whether a person should be able to resume their citizenship. Amendment 41 seeks to ensure that Chagossians can apply for British citizenship indefinitely. The government believes it is right that British citizenship should be limited to those Chagossians with a close and continuing connection with the United Kingdom, and that it should only normally be passed on to the first generation born outside the UK.

Of course, if a Chagossian British citizen lives in the UK, his or her children born here would be British citizens. If children are born overseas to a British citizen by descent, the legislation contains sufficient provisions for child to be registered where a continuing connection with the United Kingdom is demonstrated, the time limit in current legislation reflected concerns that an open ended offer could result in an unlimited number of individuals. Without a close and continuing connection to the UK or an overseas territory, acquiring unfettered rights to live in the UK indefinitely.

Chagossians granted British citizenship and the free registration route protected by this bill are able to pass British citizenship on to their children. Amendment 42 would require the government to consult on a time scale for Chagossians to apply for British nationality under new section four A, and for the reasons mentioned in relation to other amendments 39 and 41, the government doesn't deem it desirable to change the current five year time limit, and amendment 43 seeks to amend the existing provisions and increase the time some Chagossians are able to apply to register as British citizens once they reach the age of 18, from five years to 12 years, we don't think it's necessary to extend the period to apply for those under the age of 18.

This would create create an imbalance between those who were under the age of 30 when the citizenship route opened, and those who were born during the current five year application period. Amendment 44 seeks to allow new British Overseas Territory citizens to be created through a connection to Biot. Once Biot is no longer an overseas territory. This would allow Chagossians who hold Botc to pass on that status for one further generation born outside an overseas territory. This would create an anomaly whereby individuals with no connection to an existing British overseas territory could acquire that status, and I appreciate that this is a bit involved and and complex, and that noble Lords may wish to come back to some of these issues in later stages, but I think it is helpful to lay it out in a quite detailed and technical way at this stage.

But as I say, I would be happy if it if it's helpful to to noble Lords to to get that into a letter and to to to share that if that is a more helpful format. But I hope in light of this, that noble

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Lords will agree to withdraw their amendments. I beg leave of the House to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I beg leave of the House to withdraw the amendment. Standing in the name of the noble Lord. Lord Maude.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Maude. Is it your pleasure to be withdrawn? Amendment by leave. Withdrawn. Amendment four Lord
19:37
None Portrait Deputy Chair of Committees. Baroness Garden of Frognal (Liberal Democrat)
-



**** Possible New Speaker ****

Withdrawn. Amendment four Lord Hannan not moved. Not moved. Sorry.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Sorry. My Lords, I beg to move, that the house be resumed, and we will the house be resumed, and we will then move to dinner. Break business. I would think that we will not

**** Possible New Speaker ****

return to the bill before 8:16 p.m. The question is house be resumed?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is house be resumed? As many as after that opinion will say content. Content the contrary, say content. Content the contrary, not content. The contents have it. My Lords, we'll just have a moment for the frontbenchers to change.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

for the frontbenchers to change. Well done. Because he did move.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yes, yes, yes.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yes, yes, yes.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yes, yes, yes. I'm just going this way. But. My Lords.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Repeat of a statement made in the House of Commons. China espionage Baroness Sanderson of

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Stoke on Trent. With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a statement on Chinese espionage targeting UK democratic institutions and government actions to counter the breadth of threats posed by China and by wider state actors. But before I begin, let me first pay tribute to the crew member of the Royal Fleet Auxiliary tide surge, who is missing off the coast of the Republic of Ireland. I know the whole the whole house will join me in sending our very best wishes to the ship's company and to their families back at home.

This tragic incident is a reminder of the sacrifice members of the armed forces make in the service of our country. Mr. speaker, earlier today, MI5 issued an espionage alert to members of this House, members of the Other place and parliamentary staff to warn them about ongoing targeting of our democratic institutions by Chinese actors. Before I set out the threat and what we're doing to meet it. Let me thank you, Mr. Speaker, for your support in issuing the alert and your tireless efforts to safeguard the security of this place and the people who serve within it.

I encourage all parliamentary colleagues to read the alert and to get in touch with the parliamentary security department if they have
19:40
None Portrait Statement: China Espionage and Government Security Response
-

any immediate concerns. Now, Mr. Speaker, our intelligence agencies have warned that China is attempting to recruit and cultivate individuals with access to sensitive information about Parliament and the UK government. MI5 have stated that this activity is being carried out by a group of Chinese intelligence officers, often mastering the use of covert companies or external head-hunters. It is not just parliamentarians who should be concerned by this. Parliamentary staff, economists, think tank employees, geopolitical consultants and government officials have all been targeted for their networks and access to politicians.

I urge all parliamentarians and their staff to be wary that China has a low threshold for what information is considered to be of value, and will gather individual pieces of information to build a wider picture. Let me speak plainly. This activity involves a covert and calculated attempt by a foreign power to interfere with our sovereign affairs in favour of its own interests, and this government will not tolerate it. It builds on a pattern of activity that we've seen from China, with cyber operations by China's state affiliated actors targeting parliamentary emails in 2021, and attempted foreign interference activity by Christine Lee in 2022 and other more recent cases, we will take all necessary measures to protect our national interests, our citizens and our democratic way of life, including working with our allies and partners.

Mr. speaker,
19:41
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent Portrait Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Labour)
-
-
the world has changed a great deal since I first stepped forward to serve our country almost 30 years serve our country almost 30 years ago. And while some things have changed, some things remain the same. And in the various roles I've same. And in the various roles I've held since then, I've always believed in the importance of being clear eyed about the nature of the threats that we face and the need threats that we face and the need to ensure the tools we use to respond to those threats are kept up to date.

This government's first up to date. This government's first duty is to protect our national security, and we will not hesitate security, and we will not hesitate to hold all state actors to account. On the 6th of November. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary spoke with her Chinese counterpart, Director Wang Yi. She was clear with the Foreign Minister that any with the Foreign Minister that any activity, any activity that threatens UK national security, particularly in relation to the UK's Parliament and democracy, will not be tolerated.

And today I am not be tolerated. And today I am setting out a comprehensive package of measures we are taking to disrupt and deter the threats posed disrupt and deter the threats posed by China, as well as by wider state actors, supported by Ministers from actors, supported by Ministers from across government and coordinated by myself. We are launching a counter political interference and espionage action plan. Mr. speaker, I will set out in detail to the House what that plan will entail.

First, we will strengthen the legislative tools available to government to disrupt the threat. We will introduce the elections Bill, which will include proposed measures to safeguard against covert political funding. This will include tougher risk assessment rules for donor recipients and enhanced enforcement powers for the Electoral Commission. And I can confirm we are also working on new powers to counter foreign interference, including a prescription type tool to disrupt proxy organisations, undermining our security, and an extension to maximum penalties for election interference.

Interference offences. Second, we are launching a series of proactive protective security campaigns coordinated through the Defending Democracy Task Force, working with the parliamentary security authorities. These will help all those who work in politics to recognise, resist and report suspicious state threat activity. Building on the guidance that was launched by the National Protective Security Authority in October. This would include tailored security briefings for the devolved governments and for political parties via the parliamentary parties panel by the end of this year, as well as new security guidance in January for all candidates taking part in devolved and local elections in May.

Third, we are building a campaign that uses all levers at the disposal of this government to degrade the ecosystem of proxy cover. Companies, organisations and individuals that are being used by foreign states to facilitate interference and espionage targeting our democratic institutions. The National Protective Security Authority. Building on that Think Before You Link campaign, will be strengthening their engagement with professional networking sites to make them a more hostile operating environment for foreign agents. Now, Mr. Speaker, as Security Minister, I am privileged to see the diligence of the security services, law enforcement and civil servants who work tirelessly to keep the UK safe day and night.

Noting China's low threshold for information gathering, this government is providing the resources needed to protect our national interests so I can announce that the government has committed to investing £170 million to renew the sovereign encrypted technology our officials use to do their vital work. This programme of work will help to ensure sensitive diplomatic, economic, trade, security, law enforcement and policy development arrangements are safeguarded from espionage by any state threat actor. I can also announce that this government has completed the removal of surveillance equipment manufactured by companies subject to the National Intelligence Law of the People's Republic of China.

From all sensitive sites we maintain in the UK and around the world. Moreover, we will invest £130 million next year through the Integrated Security Fund to build the UK's resilience against threat posed by states such as China, among other projects. This investment will build counter-terrorism, policing's ability to enforce the National Security Act and fund the National Cyber Security Centre and National Protective Security Authority's work supporting our most critical businesses to protect their intellectual property. Indeed, the National Protective Security Agency's work is an important reminder that China just doesn't pose threats to our democratic institutions, but also to other sectors.

Let me talk briefly about two other sectors in particular first, education. Education is one of the UK's most important global assets, and that is in part due to the UK's steadfast commitment to academic freedom and excellence. There is value for the UK in engagement with China on education. However, operating in today's uncertain international context presents many challenges for our great universities. It is because of their excellence that states like China are attempting to influence their independent research and interfere with activity on campus.

Ministers have already raised our concerns about this activity with their counterparts in Beijing, and the office for students has recently issued new guidance to help universities protect the freedoms their staff and students enjoy. But as risk as part of our ongoing commitment to work collectively to address these risks, I can announce that Ministers will host a closed event with vice Chancellors to discuss the risks posed by foreign interference and signpost to our plans to further increase the sector's resilience.

Second, Advanced Manufacturing and the Department for Business and Trade is working to strengthen and scale our new Economic Security Advisory Service to help businesses navigate economic security issues like espionage and intellectual property theft. The service is already engaging businesses in the advanced manufacturing sector, and as it matures to support other sectors of the economy, it will provide a new digital offer and assist businesses with complex economic security cases in navigating His Majesty's Government support. Mr. speaker, in October, I told the House that this government remained steadfast in our commitment to disrupting and holding state actors accountable for wide scale cyber espionage operations, and we stand ready to go further to disrupt, degrade and protect against this danger, against the dangerous and unrestrained offensive cyber ecosystem that China has allowed to take hold.

Earlier this year, the with international allies called out three technology companies based in China with a global malicious cyber campaign targeting critical networks. Just last week, we introduced the Cyber Security and Resilience Bill that will help to make critical sectors of the economy and the public sector a harder target from cyber attacks, including malicious cyber activity emanating from China's territory. The government will continue to take further action against China based actors involved in malicious cyber activity against the UK and our allies.

This will form part of a broader campaign that the UK is delivering to disrupt and degrade the dangerous cyber ecosystem that China has allowed to take hold within its territory. Now, Mr. Speaker, let me assure hon. Members that we will not shy away from using all the tools at our disposal, including sanctions, as necessary. Mr. speaker, our country has a long and proud history as a seafaring nation, trading around the world with those countries that share our way of life and those that do not.

China is the world's second largest economy and together with Hong Kong, is the UK's third largest trading partner. It is, in our long term strategic interest. To continue to engage with China. We must cooperate on on areas where our interests align climate, global health, trade, scientific research, illegal migration, serious and organised crime, to name just a few. But we will always, always challenge any country, including China, that attempts to interfere, influence or undermine the integrity of our democratic institutions.

And we will take all, all measures necessary to protect UK national security. That is why we have taken action today, and I am clear that further steps can and absolutely will be taken. Disrupting and deterring China's espionage activity wherever it takes place. Updating our security powers to keep pace with the threat, helping those who work in politics to recognise, resist and report the threat, and working with partners across the economy to strengthen their security against the threat. Mr. speaker, our strategy is not just to cooperate.

We will engage China where necessary, but we will always act to defend our interests and challenge where our values are threatened. I commend this

**** Possible New Speaker ****

statement to the House. I thank.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The noble Lady, the Minister, for repeating the statement.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

for repeating the statement. Made earlier today in the other place, with her own tone and place, with her own tone and emphasis. My Lord's recent political and media attention has focussed on the failed prosecution focussed on the failed prosecution of two British men accused of spying for China, one of whom spying for China, one of whom worked in the Houses of Parliament. The circumstances of that case The circumstances of that case remain opaque and the consequences unresolved. Looking beyond that unresolved.

Looking beyond that case, it is clear China presents a substantial threat to this country substantial threat to this country and our interests on multiple fronts. The government's own 2025 fronts. The government's own 2025 National Security Strategy recognises that China has, and I quote, the ability to undermine our security and that instances of China's espionage, interference in China's espionage, interference in our democracy and the undermining of our economic security have of our economic security have increased in recent years. Publicly documented cases of the intimidation of UK based Hong Kong activists, attempts to meddle in the United Kingdom parliament cyber attacks.

These are just some of the threats that China poses to us, and which the government needs to be clear and robust in response, but we also need to be proactive in order to prevent such malign actions from taking place in the first place. My Lord Chatham House has made it clear that China presents an intelligent challenge of unprecedented scale and ambition. It is not only the world's largest authoritarian regime, but an economic and technological superpower with the ability to undertake substantial operations in many theatres across the world.

The government have spoken in this statement today about a response to
19:52
Lord Keen of Elie Portrait Lord Keen of Elie (Conservative)
-
-
Chinese espionage and the removal of Chinese equipment from sensitive of Chinese equipment from sensitive sites, but what about a response to the risks posed by the development of a Chinese embassy, or more particularly, a Chinese intelligence facility in the intelligence facility in the immediate vicinity of some of the most sensitive communications channels in the country that also channels in the country that also requires to be addressed? It is clear that we need to be far more clear that we need to be far more proactive in how we deal with this threat, so that we are not reduced to responding to events and to to responding to events and to malign interference once it has occurred, we need to be able to stop it happening in the first stop it happening in the first place.

We're facing a world in which the influence of China is set which the influence of China is set to increase, alongside the scale of the threat that they pose to us, and prevention will be a much and prevention will be a much better approach in the long term. After completing its China audit earlier this year, the government committed to strengthening China expertise within the national expertise within the national security system, and that is a welcome commitment which goes some welcome commitment which goes some way in recognising the threat.

But experts are clear that capability needs to extend far beyond a relatively small circle of officials. The government must invest far more in helping politicians, civil servants, businesses, universities and the wider public to understand how the Chinese Communist Party seeks to advance its interests and how the United Kingdom should respond. I welcome that the Minister and the Other place set out some steps that the government are taking to do this, but I believe that there should be a far wider campaign to raise public awareness and to provide information to people in academia, in politics, in industry and other parts of our economy and our country, so that they can identify threats and take action proactively.

There have been many recent cases which have highlighted where this approach would have been beneficial in the past few weeks. Professor Michelle Skipworth of the University University, University College London, compared China's influence on teaching to and I quote, termites eating a house. She related how Chinese MSC students and then her own superiors at university colleges, Bartlett School of Environment, tried to get her to cut out references to abuses of human rights in China from a module she teaches on critical thinking in data analysis and indeed, the collapsed prosecution case I mentioned earlier involved a person who was a staffer in this very building.

My Lords, academics, politicians, civil servants and indeed we in your Lordships' House are now on the front line. And this has been identified by the security services. Indeed, the director general of MI5 warned in 2022 that China poses a whole system challenge that demands a profound whole of system response. This has to be an ongoing effort, facilitated by the government to ensure that threats are now identified and mitigated before they can fully manifest themselves. My Lords, I've painted a gloomy picture and with good cause, but we have some substantial advantages in the face of this challenge.

It is obvious that while China brings a wealth of resources to its intelligence campaigns, many of its attempts to influence politics and public life in the United Kingdom, and indeed other democracies are not terribly sophisticated. Furthermore, the Chinese Communist Party has few ideological supporters in the United Kingdom and therefore limited ground on which to thrive. If British officials, politicians, academics, business people and the wider public are more aware of that party's tactics, they will be better able to resist them.

But this is reliant on the government's strategy in this question and broadening broadening out to include all of those who are now in front line and not merely containing this within counterintelligence circles. This cannot be a one time response to a flurry of news reports or a failed prosecution. This has to come in the form of a new culture of security, which is aware of, alive to, and preventative of the subversive and malign action that China wishes to take against us.

I therefore want to ask the noble Baroness, the Minister, some questions on this point. What plans do the government have to work with partners in Europe and Asia to collect together expertise and resources in order to expand public awareness about China, in particular, what lessons are the government learning from Taiwan who are facing probably the greatest barrage of espionage and influence campaigns from China? What help can they give us in how we can deal with this? What work is the government doing to help people in this country identify and be aware of the risks that China poses to them as individuals, as well as to us as a collective.

Will the government publish a long term approach to engaging with China, and will they make clear both to Beijing and to the British public, what are our red lines actually are, and how we will ensure that they are enforced? My Lords, the British people need to be aware of the threats and aware of the actions that the government are taking to protect them. I hope that the noble Lady, the Minister, can use this opportunity to answer these points. I'm obliged, my Lords.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'd like to start off by joining the Minister and paying tribute to the crew member of the Royal Fleet the crew member of the Royal Fleet Auxiliary tide search off the coast of Ireland. And I'd also like to. This is my first opportunity to welcome the noble Lord Alton back to his place. He's very. He's been to his place. He's very. He's been missed. Yes, my Lord, I thank the the the noble Lady, the Minister, the the noble Lady, the Minister, for repeating this statement, which we broadly welcome it.

It seems to represent a change of gear, represent a change of gear, certainly a change of gear from the approach of the previous government. approach of the previous government. The ISC report in China in 2023 concluded that China had, quote, concluded that China had, quote, penetrated every sector of the UK economy, unquote. At last, this economy, unquote. At last, this seems to be taking being taken seriously. But clearly, with such a deep threat, there is an awful lot deep threat, there is an awful lot that needs to be done.

And some of that is reflected in this, in this statement. Now, any statement like this begs questions that can't be answered. So I'm going to try and
19:59
Lord Fox Portrait Lord Fox (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
answered. So I'm going to try and ask questions that can be publicly asked. And starting off with the point that the noble and learned Lord Keen raised around the failed prosecution of the two spies. Now there are a number of questions, many questions on this. And will the government launch an independent inquiry into the collapse of that case and ensure that there are lessons learned from this appalling episode of of of failure, of national security, my Lords, in in the other place, the Minister fully recognised that the government knows that China poses a series of threats to the UK national security.

Yet when it comes to putting China in the enhanced tier of the foreign influence registration scheme yet again, the Minister said no decision on China has been made. My Lords, what more has to be done in order for China to qualify to be put on this, this, this register, given the reluctance to enact Firs, what guidance is now being given to MPs, select committees and researchers on contacts with representatives of foreign of of Chinese governments and other other governments? The.

The statement also specifically calls for cooperation with China on scientific research. My Lords, I really believe that such engagement is extremely fraught and a huge amount of guidance and focus needs to be brought to this so that universities can safely engage in any cooperation. And clearly they have raised the flag on this. And and there is an awful lot of work to do. The statement talks about a low threshold of what information is considered to be valuable information.

So are there plans to discuss how to tighten or whether to tighten the vetting and ongoing monitoring of researchers and staff, and how they access and and deliver sensitive information? The statement also says that the government will strengthen the legislative tools available to disrupt the threat. Is this solely going to be the Cyber Security and Resilience bill, or is there another piece of legislation looming for this? It would be useful to know, and when will the elections bill be introduced? We really welcome this and remind your lordships that it's not specifically a China problem with Russia waging a hybrid war against us.

The sooner we can get this bill out and discuss, the better. My Lords, the removal of technology from sensitive sites is good news. But does the Minister accept that beyond the locations mentioned, there is much to be done to remove sensitive electronic components? Chinese manufactured electronic components that put at risk our national infrastructure? So who is accountable for spearheading a programme that that starts a programme of technology that has been manufactured from friends and not from China, which we know from this statement, does not have our best interests at heart.

And we should start with the electricity grid, and we should start with power generation as, as as as as a focus. My Lords, the the Economic Security Advisory Service for businesses are welcome is a welcome idea. To which department will it report and how will this fit in with other processes such as the National Security and Investment Act? My Lords, Chinese and Hong Kongers are having bounties levied on them, including here in the UK. So will the Minister confirm that the government will sanction those officials, those officials responsible for levying these bounties and provide a much clearer legislative protection against transnational repression? And predictably, my Lords, I'd like to raise the the China's new super embassy, as did the noble and learned Lord King.

Given everything in this statement, it should be unthinkable that the application that should succeed and and under no circumstance should a hub for this network of spies, the network of spies that the government has set out in this statement, that hub should not be built. When will the government rule out this embassy? And finally, can the Minister update your lordships on planned visits by Cabinet Ministers and the Prime Minister to the People's Republic of China?
20:04
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent Portrait Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Labour)
-
-
Yeah. paper, my Lords, I thank both noble Lords for their points and questions on this very serious matter and the tone in which they have both participated, as noble Lords have rightly acknowledged, matters of espionage, particularly those that relate to Parliament of the utmost importance to us in both houses and to the whole nation. They merit careful consideration by government. Decisive action by Ministers and appropriate scrutiny by Parliament. When it comes to China, we have been clear that we will cooperate where we can, but always challenge when we must.

Which is why today's message to all noble Lords from the Lords Speaker was so important. Our action today is about challenging behaviour by China, which this government will simply not tolerate. We know the high cost of inaction when it comes to national security measures. This comprehensive package will help us tackle economic, academic, cyber and espionage threats, which China presents. Its impact will be immediate and will not hesitate to further strengthen our protections as the threat evolves. I will now seek to address a number of the specific questions raised.

I will also reflect upon Hansard. Should there be any points that I miss my Lord Jordan will also appreciate that there's a number of points I'm talking about that our national security. So if I don't necessarily respond, then I will speak to both noble Lords outside the chamber about some of those issues. On the specifics that were raised before I do, the one thing I'd like to do is also add to my my genuine joy at

**** Possible New Speaker ****

seeing Lord Alton back in his place. Yeah. Not necessarily was I, when I discussed with him the the issues discussed with him the the issues that we're about to discuss, did I really think we'd be doing them, discussing them in your Lordships' House so quickly? But I am delighted he's here, probably to give me a hard time in terms of the give me a hard time in terms of the specifics that have been raised. I'm going to answer them broadly in I'm going to answer them broadly in order, but I think it would be helpful to to detail some more of helpful to to detail some more of what our plans are with regard to the Chinese embassy raised by both the Chinese embassy raised by both noble Lords.

It will it won't surprise your Lordships' House that I will repeat the same statement as I will repeat the same statement as was made in the other place today, and also that I have made before a final decision on the Chinese application for a new embassy will be made in due course by the Secretary of State for housing, Communities and Local Government. This is a quasi judicial decision, This is a quasi judicial decision, so I cannot comment on it in more detail. To reassure noble Lords, though, national security is the though, national security is the first duty of government and it has been the core priority throughout this process with regards to the threat posed by China, which was raised by both noble Lords, but specifically by the noble and learned Lord Lord Keen.

This government fully recognises that China poses a series of threats to UK national security, from cyber attacks, foreign interference and espionage targeting our democratic institution to transnational repression of Hong Kongers. Yet we are also alive to the fact that China presents the UK with opportunities as the world's second largest economy and the UK's third largest trading partner. Not engaging is no choice at all. We will therefore continue to develop a consistent and pragmatic approach to economic engagement without compromising our national security.

On the point raised by the noble Lord Lord Fox with regards to the Foreign Influence registration scheme, my Lords first only came into being in terms of its operational action on July 1st. No decision has yet been made in relation specifying China on the enhanced tier. The government has a range of capabilities to manage and mitigate threat emanating from foreign states. The Foreign Influence Registration School is one scheme, is one tool out of many, and we will keep decisions on when to use these tools under continuous review, any decisions will be brought before Parliament in the usual way in due course.

Adding countries to the enhanced tier requires the consideration of a broad range of interests, including, but not limited to, security considerations. It is important that we get this right with regards to the points around critical national infrastructure raised by both noble Lords. Last week, the Department for science, Innovation and Technology introduced the Cybersecurity and Resilience Bill to Parliament in the latest step towards strengthening our cyber defences across society. The bill will increase UK defences against cyber attacks, better protecting services the public rely on to go about their normal lives to switch on lights, turn on the taps to save water and know the NHS there is there to support them.

My Lords, it is clear that under the forthcoming legislation, the definition of critical national infrastructure will be amended to make sure that many of these areas are captured. With regards to some of the other points and national campaign of awareness. My Lords, I think there has been a great deal in the national media about issues pertaining to China, not least leading the news today because of this security alert. But the noble Lord makes a genuinely important point, and the noble and learned Lord makes an important point about ensuring that those people who are on the front line have the tools available to them.

I think that in part, it's about making sure that everyone receives the information that's relevant to them, which is why members of your Lordships' House receive specific information today. But we will continue to make sure that those people who need the information, whether it is about universities, as was made by the point made by the noble Lord Lord Fox, in terms of the tools available to them, which is why we're hosting a private and closed roundtable for vice Chancellors, but also the ongoing information that they'll receive through the office for students, as well as other entities will receive going forward.

There were several other questions, one of which I am I, just a few of which very quickly I will answer. I'm aware I'm over time in terms of our plans to work with allies and partners. Obviously these conversations are ongoing, especially with our Five Eyes partners, which is who we undertake undertook a significant chunk of the China audit with and on. Those conversations will be ongoing in terms of publishing a long term approach to engaging with China. My Lords, we need to look at all of these issues in the round.

Our national security strategy and our SDR both reference China, and we will continue to update your Lordships' House as and when events change and through the normal course of our actions. In terms of the elections Bill, when parliamentary time allows, but it will be sooner rather than later, I would expect my Lords and security vetting will continue to work with parliamentary authorities. I also think it would be very important at this point to make it clear that with regards to planned visits, those visits will continue.

Engagement with the Chinese state will continue. I think it's incredibly important. Even 12 days ago, the Foreign Secretary made our views clear on the issues that we have talked about today to the Chinese state. Conversations need to continue. We need to ensure that where we can cooperate, we do, and where we challenge we will. And just in terms of the collapse of the the Official Secrets Act case that is currently under investigation by the Jcn and the ISC, and we look forward to receiving their advice.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I'll. Try not. To outlive. The. Welcome that the noble Baroness extended to.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Baroness extended to. Me and the and the nice words that have been expressed by so many colleagues from all sides of the
20:13
Lord Alton of Liverpool Portrait Lord Alton of Liverpool (Crossbench)
-
-
House. My Lords, I. Hope the noble Baroness will forgive me if I press her further on the the enhanced tier of the Foreign Influence registration scheme, and also the point about academics that was raised earlier on, it will come as no surprise to those seven parliamentarians, of whom I'm one who've been sanctioned by the Chinese Communist Party to hear warnings about CCP operatives spying and laying the groundwork for subversive long term relationships with parliamentarians. But, my Lords, those sanctions are like nothing in comparison with the imprisonment of hundreds of pro-democracy advocates like Jemmy Lai in Hong Kong or the atrocities committed against Uyghur Muslims.

But nothing in comparison with the evidence which the Joint Committee on Human Rights, which I have the privilege to chair received during our inquiry into Transnational repression and published in our report of July 30th. We cited, for instance, the bounties of 1 million HKD on the heads of UK residents, including the courageous 20 year old Chloe Cheung. I've raised the intimidation of academics like Professor Michelle Skipworth, referred to by the noble and learned Lord Lord Keen, but also the case of Professor Laura Murphy, which was in the newspapers quite recently.

Laura Murphy works at Sheffield Hallam University. She gave evidence to our Joint Committee on Human Rights in our inquiry on supply chain transparency and modern day slavery. Both of those academics have experienced intimidation as a consequence, and when the noble Baroness has her meeting with vice Chancellors of universities, I hope that she will emphasise the dangers of becoming far too dependent on money pouring into our universities, which then starts to call the tune. During our hearings, my Lords, we received a large amount of evidence recommending the designation of China under the enhanced tier of the Foreign Influence Registration scheme.

We found words from the report China conducts the most comprehensive transnational repression campaign of any foreign state operating in the UK. Its omission from the enhanced tier risks undermining the credibility and coherence of Firs. We recommended that the government specify China under the enhanced tier of Firs, and in the light of these most recent revelations, my Lords, I hope that the noble Baroness will go back and talk to the right Hon. Dan Jarvis, who gave evidence to the committee, and really to try and speed up that consideration.

It's high time we did it. It's high time we reduced our dependency. It's high time we enhanced our resilience here. enhanced our resilience here.
20:15
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent Portrait Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Labour)
-
-
To reassure the noble Lord. I'm still delighted that he's back. My he asked some very, very important points. There's I can't go any further on the enhanced tier of Firs at this point, but the noble Lord will be very aware that before I joined the government, I ran Index on Censorship. So the issues related to Jemmy Lai. I've met Sebastian Lai, the issues about Xinjiang and transnational repression are issues that I campaigned on for for many years.

To be clear about some of the specifics that have been raised in terms of Sheffield Hallam, I think it would be given the what is going on, I have to be very careful because there's ongoing legal processes happening at Sheffield Hallam, but I want to recognise the admirable and tireless work of my noble friend Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws, whose statement whose name and is actually the name of the centre at the heart of this she her work to progress social justice and human rights, including as a patron of the centre for International Justice at Sheffield Hallam University, is at the heart of the allegations.

Any attempt by a foreign state to intimidate and coerce universities to limit free speech and academic freedoms in the UK will not be tolerated, and the government has made this clear to Beijing after learning of the case of Sheffield Hallam and other recent cases, the new office for students guidance makes it explicitly clear universities should not tolerate attempts by foreign states to suppress academic freedom. The noble Lord knows better than I about some of the actions that we have taken, both in terms of transnational repression and tackling it in the UK, and also the ongoing support that we are giving to Jemmy Lyon, the Lai family.

We will continue to do so. The genuine anguish that that family are currently experiencing because of this case is simply unacceptable. And to reassure the noble Lord that even while he was off, we continue to do our work and that my that the Foreign Secretary, my friend the Foreign Secretary, did raise the case of Jemmy Lai on the 6th of November with her counterpart. I will write him on the other points raised. the other points raised.
20:18
20:19
20:19
Lord Moore of Etchingham Portrait Lord Moore of Etchingham (Non-affiliated)
-
-
And like most.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Far. I welcome. The tone of the noble. Lady, the.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Lady, the. Minister in this matter, which I think is a change of tone. Because in.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The past. The so often the. Government has used the word cooperate, followed by the word has.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

has. Been used as. A. Way of degrading. The level of challenge. And I

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The level of challenge. And I hope that this will. Become this will be sorted out. Can I just ask

**** Possible New Speaker ****

will be sorted out. Can I just ask a few questions? However, I would very much support what's been said about universities and I must say. As having.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

As having. Pursued in particular Cambridge. University and particularly. Within Cambridge University, Jesus College, Cambridge, I found absolute reluctance to admit any

**** Possible New Speaker ****

error at all in this publicly or even privately. And years. And years of struggle about this,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

And years of struggle about this, which goes on. And I still don't hear any serious public statements by the governors of the vice Chancellors and so on on these Chancellors and so on on these matters. It's very, very cautious. I'm glad you're having the closed meeting will take place, but it needs to be publicly discussed. On the threat to individuals. Chloe has been mentioned, quite rightly, by the noble Leonard Lord and by Lord Alton, who I also welcome back.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

I've spoken, I know Chloe and I've spoken to her. She's shown me. Photographs of the goons who

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Photographs of the goons who actually follow her in this country, actually follow her in this country, and I would ask strongly that. And she's just one example. How much protection is the British state protection is the British state able to afford to these people? They are in real danger in this country, physical danger and of country, physical danger and of course, psychological threat. The government expresses in the government expresses in the statement its desire to, quote, degrade the ecosystem of proxy cover companies.

Now, what I'm going to say is not I'm not going to say is not I'm not actually quite accusing the bank. I'm going to mention of being a proxy cover company, but I would proxy cover company, but I would point about the enormous level of vested interests in China in this way, which lead to weakness. And way, which lead to weakness. And Britain's biggest bank, HSBC, is a major sinner in this respect, and HSBC famously closed down the accounts of three accounts of the accounts of three accounts of the League of Social Democrats in Hong Kong.

It's not without wishing to be too personal. It's not wildly encouraging to hear that George Osborne, he of the Golden era, is a candidate to be the new chairman of candidate to be the new chairman of HSBC. And I don't see if he were that, we would get a very rigorous attempt to clamp down on on Chinese illegitimate activities. So I asked the government whether even huge organisations like HSBC should be more carefully monitored. Finally, the UK China Transparency is working on some stuff which suggests because serious organised crime was mentioned as an area of cooperation.

But I would suggest that it might be also an area of challenge, because it seems that China is is involved in cooperation with serious organised crime in this country, and this needs to be properly investigated. And the overall point I would ask the government to I would very pleased the Minister would answer this. All these problems are identified. But what's the key to it all? And would the government agree with this proposition that what we have from China is what is sometimes called a whole system approach, which is better described as totalitarianism, and that is always operated by the power in all areas of Chinese life, business, academia, everything of the Chinese Communist Party.
20:23
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent Portrait Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Labour)
-
-
Can I thank the noble Lord? I'm not sure I'll be able to answer all of his questions, but I will reflect on Hansard and come back to him, and he may appreciate which ones I might not which ones. But with regards to the fundamental question, actually, which is about totalitarianism, but actually authoritarian versus democratic systems, which is what's at the heart of this. The national security strategy sets out authoritarian states intent to outcompete liberal democracies, including competition from China and its assertion of state power encompassing economic, industrial science and technology policy.

We firmly recognise that the UK and China have significant differences, including on economic values and freedoms. Hong Kong support for Russias illegal war in Ukraine and matters of national security. We engage confidently and pragmatically with China, including robustly raising these differences. Noble Lords highlighted my language earlier. We are clear we will cooperate with China where we can, but we will challenge where we must, and that will continue to be the case. And that includes on the issue of transnational repression.

I want to be very clear, my Lords, the UK government will not tolerate any attempts by foreign governments to coerce, intimidate, harass or harm their critics overseas, especially in the UK. We continually assess potential threats in the UK and take protection of individual rights, freedoms and safety and safety very seriously. Counter-Terrorism police offer training to all police forces where they believe this will be happening, and we will continue to do so. On the other point, I'll revert to the noble Lord.
20:25
Lord Tunnicliffe Portrait Lord Tunnicliffe (Labour)
-
-
I don't have time.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Referring to the failed. Case of. Activity by China, the my understanding of the situation is.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

understanding of the situation is. That the cost of the timing. Of the of the offences or alleged offences.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

alleged offences. It came under. The ambit, if. That's the right.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Term of the 1911 act. And the 1911 act. Has been broadly, as I

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Has been broadly, as I understand it, disapproved of by all. Parties. As I understand it, the Law

**** Possible New Speaker ****

As I understand it, the Law Commission drafted a better act and eventually the last government. But eventually the last government. But I, you know, all governments have been slow to find time to actually been slow to find time to actually enact this act. And I think it was enact this act. And I think it was enacted in 2022. The key question enacted in 2022. The key question is, is that new act viewed in the government in the light of the present threat situation, is it present threat situation, is it considered to be satisfactory for this particular area of crime, this particular area of crime, which is not about stealing? Plans labelled top secret? It's about picking up attitudes, distances and so on and influencing and so on.

So I would value it if the noble Lady, the Minister, could assure us that that that piece of legislation was actually. Satisfactorily in place. And if you could just extend a little what new legislation is expected to be enacted in the light of today's statement?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Can I thank my noble friend for his question? He's absolutely right.
20:27
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent Portrait Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Labour)
-
-
his question? He's absolutely right. The Official Secrets Act was, is and is considered to be somewhat out of date. 1911 suggests that maybe the world may have moved on slightly. The National Security Act actually came into force in 2023, which strengthens our legal powers and makes the UK a harder target for those states which seek to conduct hostile acts and provides a security services and law enforcement agencies with the tools they need to deter, detect and disrupt modern day state threats.

My Lords, the act passed with cross-party support in your Lordships' House. And it's important that on matters of national security, we embrace cross-party. There is a responsibility on all of us to make sure that national security remains at the heart of what we do with regards to future legislation. My Lords, there's there are two pieces of legislation that will become before your Lordships' House which touch on these issues or currently planned the elections Bill, which will be forthcoming, and the new Cyber Resilience Bill, which was introduced to your Lordships' House last week and was introduced to the other place last week and will be in front of your Lordships' House in due course.

Having said that, my Lords, these are matters of national security and we will continue to to monitor and and to reflect on current legislation to make sure that both our security services and everybody within this space has the legal framework in which they need to operate to make sure that we can do what we need to do when we need to do it.
20:29
20:30
None Portrait Legislation: Diego Garcia Military Base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill - committee stage (day 1) - part two
-



**** Possible New Speaker ****

House House to House to be House to be again House to be again in House to be again in committee on the Diego Garcia military base
20:30
20:31
None Portrait Amendment:5 Lord Hannan of Kingsclere (Conservative)
-

disquisition from my noble friend Baroness Noakes at Second Reading. Let me just say this, that even if we were to accept the government's figures, we are still faced with an immense imbalance in terms of where the money is going. I come back to the point that we were making just before dinner about the wrong, which everyone accepts was done to the Chagossians, and what restitution would look like. The noble Lady, the Minister said they'd been very badly treated well, badly treated or otherwise their compensation, if we measure it purely in financial terms, comes to a one off £40 million settlement for good, whereas even on the figures offered by the government, we are paying Mauritius £101 million every year for the next 99 years.

Who is the wronged party here? How is it that, having done this harm to population A by moving them, we then reward the population that is in fact making permanent their exile and deepening their sense of grievance. Let's never mind whether it's 3.1 billion or 35 billion or somewhere in between. My noble friend Lord Altrincham in in Second Reading, made the point that this is money being sent out of the country. We can argue about whether there is merit in government spending cash here to stimulate growth.

I personally am of the camp that it doesn't work. It's better to leave that money directed by people who are attached to it. They spend it more wisely and the growth impact is is much higher. But I will allow that there is some impact in in terms of stimulating the domestic economy. Even when a government spends something badly, there is none at all. When you just take a sum of money and send it several thousand miles away, which is what is being proposed here.

Now, the amendments that my that the noble Lord Lord Morrow calls for are about impact assessments and particularly impact assessments in terms of the financial consequences for the United States as well as for us. And I just want to tackle the view in the in the last few seconds that I've got that this is a great deal for the US, however inconvenient it is for us, we're left with the bill and they get to keep the base. Every pound that we are sending to Mauritius in order to lease the property that we currently own, is a pound that we're not spending on defence.

So pound taken away from NATO and from the Western alliance. And that's just the immediate and direct cost of what happens when you take a freehold and then decide to pay for it as a leasehold. There's then it seems to me an under-explored indirect cost, which is how have we now incentivised future Mauritian governments to monetise this territory? If they can get this sum of money out of us, why not lease other parts of the archipelago to other powers? Now the noble Lady, the Minister has said, well, of course they're not allowed to in the treaty, not for military purposes.

The treaty says they can't use use these things for defence purposes. I wonder down the line whether if Mauritius was indeed incentivised to make more money, whether leasing an island for supposedly civilian purposes, then very gradually was turned in a secret way by an unfriendly power into a more direct military instalment installation, is that something, realistically, that is then going to trigger a a military reaction from us? I mean, it seems to me the only way of ensuring that we don't have unfriendly neighbours in the Chagos Archipelago is not to have these islands being leased out in the first place.

And the best way of preventing the islands from being leased out is to hang onto them ourselves.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Lord Soames that. The noble Lord referred to the £40 million, which I assume he £40 million, which I assume he refers to the trust fund that's going to be set up. However, as he is fully aware, that's in the hands is fully aware, that's in the hands of the Mauritian government. Totally. And nobody from here who is a chagossian can access that

**** Possible New Speaker ****

is a chagossian can access that money. So is that not something that should be considered? Thank you. I'm very grateful to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you. I'm very grateful to the noble Lady for that important correction. And this would not be the first time that this has happened. The sums that were dispersed in the 1970s to Mauritius, supposedly to spend on the welfare supposedly to spend on the welfare of the Ilois exiles, the the community there were were were hung community there were were were hung onto were dispersed very late. Their value had been significantly eroded by inflation in the meantime. And indeed, it is little wonder that there should be bad feeling from a lot of Chagossians towards the Mauritian government given that the Mauritian government given that record.

So yes, it it does seem a bizarre thing that the noble Lady, the Baroness and I were on the same side, unusually in this house in the the 2016 referendum. So we we're familiar with the argument we're familiar with the argument that here is a little bit of your money back and we're spending it for you and you should be grateful. for you and you should be grateful. It was it was an unconvincing argument to the British people in 2016, and I think it will be an unconvincing argument to the British people and to the Chagossian portion of the of the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

British family in 2025. Well, a noble Lord. May wish to move the amendment

**** Possible New Speaker ****

May wish to move the amendment Amendment proposed clause one, page one, line seven. Leave out

**** Possible New Speaker ****

one, line seven. Leave out subsection two and insert the words as printed on the marshalled list. My Lords.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I. Refer to the amendment number 24 in my name. And can I thank the in my name. And can I thank the noble Ladies Minister for her remarks earlier in the debate? Commissioner, the House will not be detain you as long this time. The amendment I have put before you as amendment I have put before you as Lord Sandhurst tonight asks a simple and poignant question should the British taxpayer be compelled to fund a treaty that actively undermines our position on the undermines our position on the international stage and erodes British sovereignty? I believe the British sovereignty? I believe the answer is as simple as the question, and the answer is no.

Article 11 of the treaty places the United
20:38
Lord McCrea of Magherafelt and Cookstown Portrait Lord McCrea of Magherafelt and Cookstown (Democratic Unionist Party)
-
-
the treaty places the United Kingdom under financial obligations to Mauritius, including annual payments linked directly to the transfer of sovereignty we are being asked to underwrite, year after year, a settlement that has not been endorsed by the people most deeply affected. Indeed, the Foreign Affairs Committee in 2008 noted the profound poverty experienced by many Chagossians resettled in Mauritius and the United Kingdom government itself has recognised the hardship and suffering caused by their displacement in the years preceding My Lords, at a time when families across the United Kingdom are struggling with the cost of living, when public services are being stretched and defence spending is under pressure, the government is willing, under this treaty, obliged to transfer British funds overseas in exchange for the honour of relinquishing sovereignty over the territory.

That indeed hosts one of the most strategically important military bases in the world. My Lord, why would we pay for an island that we already own without the inclusion of this amendment? Our Lord, we will be in the extraordinary position of financing on an annual basis, a settlement which ultimately advances arguments that have repeatedly undermined British sovereignty. That is why this amendment, in my opinion, is undeniably crucial. It protects not only the taxpayer, but the constitutional integrity of this country, as well as relegating the overindulgent aspirations of American government, depriving them of even more British taxpayers money.

Let us also consider the native islanders. The Chagos people. Have we ever paused to consider how they might feel as this Parliament considers whether we should pay a foreign government to take control of a territory they have never had a stake in. All whilst ignoring the cry of the Chagos community in the UK. Beyond that, there is also the question of accountability. Once these payments begin, Parliament loses direct control over how they are to be spent. There is no binding mechanism in the treaty to ensure that the community will be benefited by these payments in a meaningful way.

This arrangement risks repeating the injustice of the past, where funds provided in earlier decades did not reach the displaced communities in Mauritius who were living in poverty. Surely we must learn from that history and not repeat it. That is essential. Therefore, I believe we should not rush into binding financial commitments when so many broader questions remain unsolved. Questions about self-determination, questions about defence cooperation, questions about the protection of strategic assets, and questions about long term political stability in a region where global competition is increasing and where the UK needs to be assertive and covenant confident.

My Lord, the British taxpayers should not foot the bill for decisions that diminish our sovereignty and overlook the rights of sovereign British citizens. And for these reasons, I commend my amendment to the House.
20:41
Baroness Hoey Portrait Baroness Hoey (Non-affiliated)
-
-
PQ. My Lords. I am. group and I want to move my amendment 23 which. But before I go into that, can I just say that I think the noble Lord Hannan and the noble Lord have put it very clearly just what a ridiculous point it is that we're actually we have a territory that is ours, and we're now paying to give it away. It's the whole thing is just such nonsense. And I, I understand that we all do the the security implications of Diego Garcia, but it just is inexplicable how this could not have been handled differently.

And I genuinely hope that some noble Lords listening might well be feeling that perhaps this definitely has is is not going to end what is going to end in tears. And can I just say also, I think it's very disappointing, particularly for the numbers of Chagossians who have sat there all evening while we had a break as well, to see so few people here from I mean, one backbencher from the Labour side, one crossbencher, no Lib Dems at all now apart from the front bench and a number of of a few more, I think there should have been from the conservative side.

So I am disappointed in that. And I think it I just think there should be a lot of people feeling a little bit ashamed at how some Chagossians can sit here all evening listening to their future being decided. With so few people listening, my Lords, my amendment is to require the Secretary of State to publish a report assessing the financial implications of the treaty for the United States of America and the United Kingdom, including the effect on NATO spending and the risk of global instability from uncontrolled leasing of islands.

Now, one of the main arguments that the government has advanced for the bill before us and the treaty which will be ratified, of course, if this bill gets royal assent, is that the Americans strongly support the treaty and that they believe it provides the legal certainty they desire. So the purpose of amendment 23, in my name is to probe the downsides, as well as any potential upsides, to ensure that His Majesty's Government can fully advise the Trump administration of both.

There are three critical risks respects in which I do not believe that the bill and treaty are in the interests of the United States. And indeed, I would go so far as to say that they're profoundly contrary to the interests of the United States. Now, it's plain, as we saw from the debate earlier, that the treaty will not be able to provide legal certainty because it's contrary to international law on self-determination and the islands precedent. And the legal issue is not going to go away because we have signed we will be signing a treaty if this bill goes through.

The points that I want to focus on, relate to the costs and international peace and stability. Firstly, I think we have to make the point about the cost is that this represents a hugely large sum that have given to the Republic of Mauritius, cannot be spent on UK defence. The key point is that we must assess the benefit arising from the United States not having to pay for the lease of the island from the perspective of the fact that under the current arrangements, we do not charge them anything to lease the islands either, and we do not charge ourselves for the islands because, of course, they are held under UK sovereignty.

So the Mauritius Treaty and the bill before us today, therefore, in entertaining those, the United States would acquiesce with an arrangement that means a lot of money goes to the Republic of Mauritius that could otherwise have been invested in NATO defence. In some ways. More troubling, though, is the fact that the provision of this huge sum for one island creates an incentive for the Republic of Mauritius to seek to lease other islands for similarly large amounts of money. We know that they cannot resettle the islands because they do not have the capacity to go to the islands, you know, to set their flag on them and have had to ask India to take them there for that purpose.

In the context where resettlement may not be a possibility, what the transfer of 60 islands of great geostrategic importance from a nuclear power with a navy to a small country that does not have the capacity to even get there under its own steam, achieves what it achieves, is to create a power vacuum in a very sensitive spot. Now, of course, the United Kingdom and the USA will remain on Diego Garcia. But crucially, and unlike at the present moment, without sovereignty over a single island, including Diego Garcia, such is the lure of a vacuum in power politics that even when the treaty has not been ratified and may never be ratified, other states have already started circling.

On the 30th of October, the Shipping Gazette published an article entitled India secures defence Foothold on Chagos Islands, and I quote from it India has reached an agreement with Mauritius to establish a satellite station in the Chagos Archipelago, a move seen as enhancing its strategic presence in the Indian Ocean, reported Fort Lauderdale's Maritime Executive. Indian media said the station will track satellites and serve as a regional monitoring asset, a term often associated with signals intelligence. The exact location is unclear, but is expected to be near the Diego Garcia US UK base.

This facility is likely to mirror India's installation on Agalega, probably not pronounced correctly. Another Mauritian island, which India has effectively annexed, Mauritius relies heavily on Indian support and functions as an offshore financial centre for India. Now, maybe we shouldn't need to worry too much about India, but then maybe we should. And my Lords, this is completely inevitable, just as it is completely inevitable that other powers will seek to gain access to other islands. I can't substantiate the report, but it was widely circulated that a large Chinese delegation arrived in Port Louis immediately after the 22nd of May, when the Mauritius Treaty was signed.

The provisions of this treaty invite international instability, where previously peace and concord have revealed that not only does this treaty not meet the interests of the United States by taking huge amounts of money away from defence, it actually uses that money to provoke global instability. In my view, where previously there was no instability. So the report prompts key questions both for the United States and for Parliament. Given that the Indian Mauritius Listening Post deal has apparently already been done, when did His Majesty's Government could ask the noble Lady, the Minister, when did His Majesty's Government provide its consent? Under paragraph paragraph three of annexe one to the treaty? And more importantly, why did it offer its consent? And I hope the noble Lady will be able to answer that.

The government had no business, in my view, doing so, because this treaty has not yet been ratified. Are we confronting a situation in which the Republic of Mauritius did this deal with India without seeking UK consent, in direct violation of annexe 3d one of the treaty? And of course, if they did act in this way, then they've already provided us with an object lesson in how the assurances provided by this treaty, such as they are, are in fact worthless, and, I think, make it very clear why we should not be ratifying the treaty.

It's hard to conceive of a treaty less in the interests of the United States than the Mauritius Treaty. There would be much better served if we were to afford the Chagossian self-determination, with the option of becoming part of Mauritius or becoming what they say they want a British overseas territory, and that would be a win win all round. The Chagos Islands has already been mentioned, could be resettled for less than the leasing bill to Mauritius for one island and in so doing, we would take the ship that we should take to try and right the appalling wrongs of 1968 and that to 1973, which government continues to say were appalling as the direct result of self-determination.

The arrangement would bring legal certainty, just as did the separation of the Ellice Islands from the Gilbert Islands, and, moreover, legal certainty would be provided in a context where all the islands, as a self-determined British overseas territory, would remain under British sovereignty, avoiding the power vacuum instability that has already been created by this Bill and the Mauritius Treaty. With all that, this means, in my view, for international peace and stability.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords. It is always. A pleasure to. Follow the hon. Lady, not least
20:50
Lord Weir of Ballyholme Portrait Lord Weir of Ballyholme (Democratic Unionist Party)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

Follow the hon. Lady, not least because in this group the amendment that I put down in at 59 comes from that I put down in at 59 comes from a similar position, I think, to Baroness Rawlings amendment 23, in that it is a probing amendment. And indeed, looking across the range of amendments within this group, there is a, I think, a considerable similarity between all of them. They all come from a similar spirit. And indeed, the amendment in this group has indeed, including mine, reflect, I suppose, two anxieties and concerns in particular with this bill.

First of all, the overall financial implications and concerns that have been raised in relation to that. The mine specifically looks at the financial implications. And secondly, given that a number of the amendments are seeking the the government to produce an assessment or report, I think there is a concern that we want to actually get to the get clarity and get full transparency from the government on a range of particularly financial matters. And my amendment deals with both of those.

On the issue of finance, we have already, I think, debated the issue of the transfer of sovereignty, which is proposed by the treaty and by the bill to Mauritius. And a number of us have expressed our deep opposition to that. But this is not simply a case of handing over sovereignty to Mauritius. We're not simply giving sovereignty to Mauritius. We are paying them to take the Chagos Islands off our hands. That, I think, in and of itself, shows the lot of the problems with the bill.

Now we have seen a range of assessments. We know the figures of the various amounts of payments that will be there in black and white. We have seen the assessments over the lifetime of this deal at different levels of of what this will overall cost the taxpayer. The government puts it at the lowest level with a GDP deflator at around about 3.4 billion. The actual cash terms I think is around about 13 billion. The opposition have indicated their assessment with inflation at 35 billion.

And I know in another place one of the other parties not represented in this House suggested that their assessment was that it would end up being around about 50 billion. So it's a very wide range of cost. But the one thing we can say with a level of certainty is indicated by Lord Hannan is that this is money which is flowing out of this country, which cannot directly benefit this country. And one of the things, particularly if we make a presumption, which I'll come to in a moment, that this is effectively defence spending, is that it's not simply money which cannot be used for the overall benefit of the UK, but also, particularly in defence terms, it is an opportunity cost that it is not simply something that is additional to the bill, but it is money which cannot be spent on other things.

Now, across the lifetime of this deal, whether you assess it at 3.4 billion, 35 billion or whatever, whatever figure you place on it, there are very real term consequences for defence. It may seem a relatively small amount compared to what we will spend over defence over that period, but to take an example, a few examples from a defence point of view, the type 26 frigate programme comes to about 8 billion. The Queen Elizabeth class carriers about 6.2 billion in total and for example, for a single F-35 fighter, it is about 35, sorry, is about £80 million.

So all those things are being taken away. Those are things which therefore whatever money is, is assessed as being the the current value of our of our contribution to Mauritius via this deal. That is all money which cannot be spent within this country. And it comes finally, I think to the point of this again, to try to seek a level of transparency. There is a level of dispute over how much we are spending and how we assess that. But there is also a lack of clarity from which budgets does that money come? Is this and I think there are three possibilities.

Is this in general, money coming out of the Foreign Office budget? Is it more particularly under that category, money which is going to be deducted and paid for from what would otherwise be overseas aid, or is this money coming from the defence budget? And the purpose of this amendment is to probe that and try and gain some clarity and transparency for the government, not simply about what we're spending, how much we're spending, but where it's coming from.
20:55
20:56
Lord Altrincham Portrait Lord Altrincham (Conservative)
-
-
this is a very, very large financial commitment to slip through under the prerogative. And it is a reasonable thing that we take a hard look at the contract itself in Parliament. And that's why my amendment suggests that it goes back to the House of Commons. The contract provides for two kinds of payments. It provides for 13 years of fixed payments, and those payments are for £2.3 billion. That's the easiest part of the contract to understand, if you wish to think of it in present value terms, it might be a little bit less than £2.3 billion, but nevertheless those payments are fixed and there's a schedule when they're paid, albeit that the government appears to have offered the Republic of Mauritius the possibility of accelerating those payments.

They take us to year 13 and then a year 14. The contract is linked to inflation, and from here on the payment, the payments are not just unknown. The payments are uncapped. And that is a remarkable thing for the for the government to offer from year 14, the payments increase with inflation and no one knows what that will be. And it could be very, very large. And therein lies the ambiguity in the approach to how much money is at stake in this is because the government is offering the republican Mauritius actually a remarkably valuable asset, which is exposure to UK inflation from year 14 to 99.

This is an almost unheard of contract and, incidentally, is the same kind of financing error the His Majesty's Treasury has made in linking so much of our gilt issuance to inflation, which itself has been the financial constraint on the Chancellor in recent months, which is because of our exposure to the linkers, which have all moved up with inflation. So it is an error that the Treasury has made before. And my first question would be, why is this contract linked to inflation? So taking a look at what that actually means and the numbers are important to the actual numbers that will be paid nominal numbers.

So let's not worry about the the inflation adjusted and present value calculation. Let's just think about actual numbers. These are numbers that will have to be funded by taxpayers in the future. If we go from year 14 and we imagine a world of 2% inflation for the rest of the century, the government will have to fund the Republic of Mauritius. Another £28 billion. That's a 2%. And at 3%, they'll be funding £50 billion. And at 4% it's £90 billion, and at 5% it's £174 billion.

So where do we go with these numbers? What does that really mean? And how can we how can we be comfortable with this kind of exposure? Well, the first, first question, first answer is that it's a very unusual kind of contract. It doesn't have any cap to it. It provides enormous exposure to the to the UK over time. But in terms of just rough numbers, what does that mean? Well, trading in in UK inflation through the gilt market indicates for the next 30 years that UK inflation will be around 3%.

So maybe at the lower end. But if you look at other examples of where as UK inflation been over the last 100 years, there really are no no suggestions. It's below 5% and it's more like 6 or 7. Remember it was over 10% only a couple of years ago and it was over 20% in the 1970s. So rolling forward at 100 years above 5% is probably a reasonable place to be. But let's just take it at the 3% kind of zone.

Very, very low, very benign for the government. And then we take one of these present value calculations. We find that that just are no scenarios in which this this contract is worth less than £15 billion. And at 15 billion, it's still uncapped. Which is to say, it's not as if it's been hedged or it's been financed out or it's been closed out in a in agreement with Mauritius. It still leaves the government with all the exposure. So it is a remarkable contract in that form.

And again, my second question would therefore, having touched on inflation, is did Her Majesty's Treasury agree the terms of this contract? And it's important for us to hear that, because it may have been negotiated by a couple of other ministries, and they may not be aware of the financial exposure in the contract. Now, the Minister, very helpfully in Second Reading, responded that to our question about the value of the contract by saying that the contracts value, the total, the total cost would be £3.4 billion.

This is the reference to the present value calculation in the explanatory memorandum, where the government calculates a present value of £3.4 billion. There really are no economic circumstances in which that can be true. But even if you're a believer in it, remember it's uncapped. So it's one of those. Hopi. Hopi things might be worth £3.4 billion, but the payments might still be very much greater in the future because we have uncapped exposure. And for that reason and reason why, I suggest that we take a little harder look at this contract.

There may be a difference between ministerial intent or government intent, government understanding and the contract. They're not necessarily quite in line. It could be that the government wishes to pay the Republic of Mauritius an amount of money in the zone of £3.4 billion. Clearly that's controversial, and some people don't believe there should be any payments. But let's just assume for a moment the government wishes to be paying an amount of that type. Unluckily, we made this point before, but it is important.

Unluckily, the contract does not reflect that. It is not a contract that reflects an economic agreement of that type. It's a contract that reflects a much, much higher level of expenditure by the UK towards Mauritius. And it's, you know, conclude by saying that on these terms, the contract as currently presented appears to have a kind of error in it. It's not quite what the government expects. It's not quite what the government thinks is happening. It's not quite what the government has justified.

And it is in some ways quite a reckless contract. It's something quite outside what the private sector could do. It's quite beyond what the private sector could hedge. You can only get hedging inflation at 30 years, which means that's the only extent to which you can even purchase protection from this contract. It means that economically, we're committing to something that is completely unusual in leases and in other contracts around the world, and the government will be left exposed. And therefore, on that basis, I would suggest that it does need one more check and one more check in Parliament, just on the financial terms of the contract, to be sure

**** Possible New Speaker ****

that it's what the government really expects and understands. Yeah. I'll speak.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

To amendment. 53 in my name and the name of the labelling Commons Lord Maude the labelling Commons Lord Maude hyphen abridgement, who unfortunately can't be here this evening. This is clearly a probing amendment. And to give the committee an opportunity to
21:04
Lord Craig of Radley Portrait Lord Craig of Radley (Crossbench)
-
-
committee an opportunity to consider implications for the UK of another possibility affecting article 11 economic partnership of the treaty. That possibility is within the 100 years plus of the treaty. The decay Garcia military base might become unusable due to natural causes, or because of a sea level rise triggered by global warming, while the loss of use would have military consequences due to the wording of the treaty, the UK's financial obligations to Mauritius would appear not to be affected.

As I mentioned at Second Reading, the treaty makes some assumptions about the steadfastness of the relationships between the countries concerned. But that aside, we help you to understand why, if only as a precautionary principle. No mention of this possibility in a functional failure of the base, or how it might be handled is covered in the treaty. I assume that this possibility was considered by His Majesty's Government of the United States, and their preparations for negotiation. And can the noble Lady, the Minister confirmed this was it decided, based on past historic records, the risk of an earthquake, tsunami or other natural causes was so remote that these need not be considered.

Indeed, in his response in the debate on the 30th of June, the noble Lord, the Minister, mentioned that like all small atoll islands, it is naturally dynamic. While not wishing to speculate on future erosion, he did say that scientific surveys had concluded that the overall natural land area of the island had decreased by less than a single percent over the last 50 years. But my Lord, what about sea level rise? There is a widespread presumption that sea levels will rise in the future.

The amount of rise, its timing and spread in the world's oceans is still speculative, but based on realistic IPCC global warming projections, estimates for the Chagos Atoll indicate rises that would impact on the functioning of the Diego Garcia base. These suggest that within 100 years of the treaty, the runway and hardstandings will not be covered, but some of the domestic and fuel storage areas could become submerged, either intermittently by diurnal tides or on a permanent basis.

There could also be difficulties with quay side berthing and the present availability of fresh water. This is but a resume of findings that were sent to FCDO officials in January, before the treaty was signed in May this year. A Lord Naseby the United States, having done their own assessment, believe that it will be possible gradually to strengthen the sea defences as necessary to maintain the base's operational capabilities. It would be helpful if the lady, the Minister, could indicate what assessments United States has made about sea levels.

Looking at the wording of the treaty, as I mentioned, a Second Reading, there will be the opportunity to assemble to resolve any issue about payment by the arrangements for settling disputes contained in it. But whatever arrangement might be acceptable, both parties today, it does not follow that the same consensus might be possible later due to changes in the individuals and their perceptions. Then it seems, therefore, to be good reason to have agreement with Mauritius now before ratifying the treaty.

How the eventuality the base becoming unusable would affect and

**** Possible New Speaker ****

article 11. Although I'd like to move. My Lords very briefly, I just

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords very briefly, I just wanted to rise to commend the noble and gallant Lord on his amendment. and gallant Lord on his amendment. I think it is an incredibly sensible amendment, one that shouldn't be contentious, because shouldn't be contentious, because if there are difficulties arising out of natural causes or disaster, out of natural causes or disaster, then it would be unthinkable for His Majesty's Government to help, to continue to pay large sums of to continue to pay large sums of money to the Government of Mauritius.

So I hope that that will Mauritius. So I hope that that will be taken on board. I just secondly wanted to refer to the treaty which wanted to refer to the treaty which at article 11 talks about the economic partnership between the United Kingdom and Mauritius. There's three parts to that. Firstly, the annual sum that has to be paid. And there's been lots of conversations around what that is and what it might amount to. The second is the trust fund, which has
21:09
21:10
Lord Callanan Portrait Lord Callanan (Conservative)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank. I know this has been I was going to say there's been an excellent debate, but it hasn't really been debate, but it hasn't really been much of a debate saying as nobody from the Labour side has bothered to get up and try and defend the government's actions on this, on this matter, not even from the Foreign Office trade union crowd on the Crossbenches. I've come along to justify the government's actions on this. I note from the media report that apparently the Mauritian AG is in London for discussions at the moment.

No doubt the celebrated, brilliantly successful negotiation would probably find that the Foreign Office have given him another 100 million today for his trouble of coming over here in the first place, but it wouldn't be right for me to begin my contributions without mentioning the excellent forensic speeches of my noble friend, Lord Altrincham and Baroness Noakes. At Second Reading. It seemed to me very convincing that increasingly the government have got their numbers wrong, and I look forward to the noble Lady attempting to explain her financial figures again.

I'm sure some nodes will argue. Maybe Lord Purvis will argue that this agreement has been made. Now there's nothing that we can do about it. They might say that an unfortunate oversight, but we can't change the agreement. But the treaty, as we've discussed on previous groupings, has not yet been ratified. This is not final. The government could still change its approach. It's unlikely, but it will. It will take political will. But of course, everything is possible. But now that we know that the treaty is not inevitable, and we now know that the overall cost expected when the agreement reached was wrong, I hope that Ministers will take the opportunity to reconsider in any other walk of life.

A decision maker faced with a significantly higher cost than expected, would reassess their position. Why are Ministers failing to take that responsible approach with taxpayers money? The Chancellor is going to get up the next week or the week after and tell us the company is bust. We need to raise taxes, we need to cut spending. But the FCDO seem to make no account of the extra costs when they're negotiating this agreement. My amendment 22 would require review of the overall financial cost of the agreement.

With such uncertainty about the overall costs, I think this is entirely reasonable amendment that would give greater transparency to taxpayers on how much of their money, over time will be sent to Mauritius. As we have said before, to fund tax cuts over there. We pay more tax over here, but the Mauritians will be able to cut their taxes with the money that we're very generously sending to them. As I said, on value for money, we've been told to expect spending cuts at the budget on the 26th of November, before the government cuts a single extra service for the British people.

Minister should first consider cutting the surrender deal with the Mauritian government. Most, in my view of the British public, would be aghast when presented with the fact that the government has surrendered territory to a foreign state and simultaneously somehow found itself paying them for the privilege. This is a clear failure, in my view, to deliver value for money to taxpayers, and my amendment 70 would require the government to make a statement explaining why it believes that each payment to Mauritius represents value for money.

My amendment 75 would require the publication of a schedule of expected payments to Mauritius, along with their dates. The government, it seems to me, should not resist measures that increase transparency on the financial elements of the agreement. I have to say I give a wry smile when when Lord Mair Lord Weir asked the noble Lady for the breakdown of the the cost of this agreement between the Mod budget and the FCDO budget. I hope he has more success than I've had in asking these questions, because I've asked it five times and she's refused to tell me how much is being paid out of the different budgets.

One we're beginning to suspect that she doesn't even know how much money they're handing over on behalf of this deal. So could I ask the additionally ask the noble Baroness, the Minister, what powers do Ministers have to ensure? The money that we hand over to Mauritius is spent? As agreed. Baroness foster, I think, has been particularly highlighting the issues of the trust fund supposedly set up for the for the benefit of Chagossians, but entirely within the control of Mauritius on how they spend it.

It's been well documented corruption cases in Mauritius. How do we know how that money is going to be able to be spent? I think we should be told, or Ministers should at least seek to find out. Finally, amendment 74 relates to a slightly separate question on the part of the UK Mauritius Agreement relating to the employment of Mauritians on the Diego Garcia military base. I tabled it to the noble Baroness. Some specific questions on the practical effect of the article of this agreement.

Can the noble Baroness confirm whether this article means that Mauritians will be prioritised for employment on the Diego Garcia military base over, for example, British citizens or Chagossians? And who ultimately would their employer be? And this, of course, also speaks to value for money. Can the noble Baroness confirm whether her department has made any assessment whatsoever of the impact of the provisions relating to employment of Mauritius, and how much that will contribute towards the cost of running the base?
21:15
Baroness Chapman of Darlington Portrait Baroness Chapman of Darlington, Minister of State (Development) (Labour)
-
-
My Lords. aspire to. But anyway, we're going to move to discussing the amendments to the bill that deal with the financial issues and payments to be made under the treaty. I mean, inevitably committee some other issues around the trust fund and the way that's managed. And these are really important questions. And security were also raised as part of these discussions. But if it's okay with noble Lords, I think it's probably better to deal with those when we reach the appropriate group so we can get it into sufficient depth at that time, when we deal with those specific amendments and a large number of the amendments in this group seek to deal with reviewing payments, including amendment 22, tabled by Lord Callanan, completely reject this amendment.

There's been much debate on this topic in both houses, and I must reiterate that the full costings of the agreement were published alongside the treaty and laid in both houses on the 22nd of May, 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. An explanation of the methodology for computing these costs was set out in the treaty's explanatory memorandum, and these figures have been verified by the government Actuary's Department and draw on long established methodology to account for long term projects.

This is the standard formula set out in the Green Book that the government has used on all long term projects since 2003, and noble Lords can have their view on whether they think that's the right thing, the wrong way of doing it. But I think consistency is essential in these matters. On amendments five, 23 and 30, once again, I must state that the full cost of the treaty have already been published. Additionally, we cannot provide an assessment of the financial implications for the United States.

That would be for the United States itself to publish and deliver. I would just observe, as Lord Browne of Ladyton informed us at Second Reading, their investment did stop once legal uncertainty emerged, and I am hoping that that will resume. Also, noble Lords ought to be aware. I think some are, that it is the United States that is responsible for the operating costs of the base, something that I, I have heard it said a couple of times, maybe even Lord Hannan said it in this debate.

I'm not quite sure he'll forgive me if he didn't, but that we're we're paying in the United States gets the benefit. Actually, they contribute far more than we do because they are responsible for the operating costs, which are considerable. I can assure noble Lords that the treaty contains robust security provisions, including the prohibition on foreign country forces on the outer islands, whether civilian or military. In addition, the UK has an effective veto on any construction or development across the islands, and that is why this has been supported by the United States and all of our Five Eyes partners.

And it is perfectly within the right of any noble Lord to reach their own security assessment and their own judgement about what should or should not be allowed, but the assessment of the white House and the assessment of every one of our Five Eyes partners is that they support this treaty. Amendment 24 is inconsistent with the treaty. An annual payment with Mauritius is a fundamental part of the agreement, and this principle and the amounts of those payments were published in full on the day of signature and in relation to amendment 52, Parliament has already agreed on the general principles of the bill.

It's passed Second Reading in both houses. It's passed other stages in the other place, and Parliament has not voted against ratification through the Crag process. This requirement for further approval from Parliament for the payments would ignore the thorough and correct process that the treaty and the Bill have already gone through, and risks undermining the treaty. Since non-payment by the UK is grounds for termination. Regarding amendment 53, I mean, this is an interesting one. I must admit. I have to stipulate that payments to Mauritius are a key element of the agreement, and this amendment would constrain the government in a hypothetical situation and could therefore force it to act against the UK's best interests in the future.

And whilst I genuinely do appreciate the noble Lord Craig for and Lord Hutton actually for the interest that they've shown in the environment surrounding the islands, I have to reassure them that the coastline of Diego Garcia, like all atoll islands as he has. As he knows, is naturally dynamic and well, we can't predict future erosion. Scientific studies have concluded that the overall land area of parts of the island, not shaped by military construction, decreased by less than a single percentage over the last 50 years.

And I would say if we're in a situation where Diego Garcia is sinking under the waves, we have a real problem on our hands and the cost to to adapt and deal with it would far exceed anything that we're paying to Mauritius for this bill. It would affect very many countries right across the world, and probably all of our island overseas territories. Amendment 59 is the treaty. The treaty is a key investment in our national security. The cost of the treaty will be

**** Possible New Speaker ****

split between the FCDO and Mod. I give way to the noble Lord. Sorry I hadn't seen. You here.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

You here. I meant to catch you before you went on to the next one. But the went on to the next one. But the point that I was particularly stressing was in the the agreement stressing was in the the agreement is about the Chagos Archipelago. We're interested in Diego Garcia. If Diego Garcia is not available, the treaty requires us to continue the treaty requires us to continue to pay Mauritius for the 100 years or whatever it is. And it seems to or whatever it is.

And it seems to me we are then paying for something we don't even have, let alone have we don't even have, let alone have the use of. And therefore, it seemed to me it would be sensible to have some. I'm surprised there to have some. I'm surprised there isn't in the treaty some arrangement to cope for this. And if not, how is it going to be

**** Possible New Speaker ****

if not, how is it going to be handled? I think my point is that we don't expect this to be a situation that we are going to be confronted with. In the case of Diego Garcia, with. In the case of Diego Garcia, and there will be, I'm sure, and there already have been adaptations there already have been adaptations made to to mitigate against this. I also would say that in the event that this does, this is a situation where sea levels rise to the extent that they would need to in order to make the the base unusable, the entire planet would be facing a very real threat that would confront us in many locations, including, you know, Montserrat, Saint Helena, Ascension, very many places.

We I think this would probably be one of the least of our problems in that situation. But, I mean, out of respect for the noble Lord and and the genuine concern that he has, and it's not an unreasonable question. I will reflect on it and try and come back to him with a more thorough response to this, because I can see that he does care about this, and he does want to know that the government has given this the proper consideration that he would expect.

So I will undertake to do that. Luckily, this is first day of Committee stage and we do have the opportunity to to allow ourselves to to have these further conversations on these issues. And of course.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

To continue to pay under the present agreement, even though there isn't a base available.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

there isn't a base available. I understand fully the nature of the noble Lords concern, and I the noble Lords concern, and I think he's he's explained it well and repeatedly. I understand it, and repeatedly. I understand it, and I have committed to coming back to him with a further response. I

**** Possible New Speaker ****

to him with a further response. I don't think I can do any more than that tonight. I wonder.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I wonder. Leaves that point, and I fully respect the noble Lords position in relation to the base not being available out of natural disasters, or as we used to call it when I was or as we used to call it when I was a solicitor, an act of God. What happens if the base becomes unusable, unusable because of an act of aggression by a bad actor in act of aggression by a bad actor in 50 years time, which we have no sight of at this moment in time, but it simply becomes unusable.

I but it simply becomes unusable. I think the point that's been made is if it becomes unusable for whatever reason, whether by act of God or by reason, whether by act of God or by act of aggression, are we still continuing to pay for base that we cannot use?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

cannot use? I mean, I simply can't answer that because it depends so much on the circumstances, wouldn't it? And on the, you know, who would be culpable. So I don't know. Let me let me think about that and come back to the noble Lady. I mean, I think it's it's very difficult in these situations to respond to hypotheticals. And I, you know, if she I could create a few hypotheticals and answer those specific questions. But I don't think that necessarily gets us anywhere.

And what she probably is after is something a little bit more concrete than that. So let me let me give that some further thought and see if I can come back to her with something that would be more satisfactory. I mean, I guess ultimately there would if there is some unavailability, then we have the option of breaching the terms of the agreement through non-payment, which would end the agreement. But let me make let me look into the legal basis for our legal position in that situation and make sure that we've got some clarity so that we can consider this further if we need to.

Is that okay with the the noble Lady? Great. On the issue of the split or how the the money will be found, I mean, the noble Lord opposite in his usual charming way, suggests that we haven't really thought about this. There will be some of the money will come from the FCDO, some will come from the MoD. It's all government money. It's all taxpayers money. I really don't understand the preoccupation with this. But, you know, we that split will be fair.

We are very used to paying for things jointly. We do it all the time on various things.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

This is not an unusual situation. I give way to the noble Lord. Of the noble. Tell us how much I think there's

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Tell us how much I think there's a difference between the money that is spent from her aid budget in the FCDO and the MoD. I don't know if FCDO and the MoD. I don't know if it is such a if it is such a simple, straightforward issue. I she keeps brushing the question aside. Why brushing the question aside. Why not just give us the figures? How much of it is coming from the Mod budget? How much of it is coming

**** Possible New Speaker ****

budget? How much of it is coming from the Oda budget, which is of course capped? No. It's not capped, actually. But so most of the money that the FCDO spends, not all, not all Oda money spends, not all, not all Oda money is spent by FCDO. The Mod spend Oda as well and not all money spent by as well and not all money spent by the FCDO is Oda. So the money so and you can only spend Oda on and you can only spend Oda on certain activities in certain places and to pay for a military places and to pay for a military base.

My reading of the OECD rules, I don't think the DAC would allow us to spend Oda on that purpose. us to spend Oda on that purpose. That doesn't mean we couldn't spend Oda in Mauritius if we wanted to, and we do have a very small program and we do have a very small program there at the moment. So I think, I hope that that helps. He may wish hope that that helps. He may wish to go away and read up on the DAC rules, that my assistant might assist him.

On answering this question.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I wasn't asking. I wasn't asking for an explanation of how the different split works between the Foreign Office money and Oda money. I was simply asking how much of the bill is spent for the Oda from the bill is spent for the Oda from the Foreign Office budget, and how much of it is spent from the Mod budget. I don't see what's so difficult

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I don't see what's so difficult But he did ask me about Oda. So you did ask. He did ask me about you did ask. He did ask me about Oda. So which is? Well, no, it's not because, well, it's not coming out of the Oda budget. That's my out of the Oda budget. That's my point. But that doesn't mean it isn't coming out of the FCDO budget, which is different. Does that help the noble Lord?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the noble Lord? Why don't you tell us how much? Because. I don't know how much

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Because. I don't know how much will be FCDO and how much will be Mod. It's not Oda, that's the bit that I'm responsible for, but it that I'm responsible for, but it doesn't. My point is, the noble Lord is that I don't fully understand. Perhaps if you could understand. Perhaps if you could tell me why it makes a difference to him, how much comes from FCDO and how much comes from Mod, I might be better able to assist him,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

but if he wishes to to explain why this is important when it isn't Oda. If that's his concern. Well.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Well. That's an interesting clarification that I haven't heard before, but is she telling us then that none of the money that's funding this agreement comes out of the Oda budget?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

You can't pay for a military base out of your development budget. So I haven't given way. I've had enough of this. I think I've been really I think the noble Lord is going to have to write. I think the going to have to write. I think the noble Lord should probably write to me and explain his question, because we're clearly just not really getting very far in this. I really getting very far in this. I mean, if the noble Lady on the backbench wants to have a go, I'd be very happy to try and answer.

If

**** Possible New Speaker ****

be very happy to try and answer. If way. Simply saying that she wants it in writing. I mean, unless I'm

**** Possible New Speaker ****

in writing. I mean, unless I'm particularly stupid. I thought it was a very simple question. I mean, I think the question was

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I mean, I think the question was how much it was going to be the Oda budget, which I've answered. I don't know how to answer that any don't know how to answer that any more. Clearly, the question about how much comes from FCDO, how much, how much comes from MoD. I mean, the Treasury will allocate us the Treasury will allocate us different amounts of money for different things. I don't quite understand why that makes a

**** Possible New Speaker ****

understand why that makes a difference to noble Lord, but. Will the. Minister give way? I know the Minister was maybe was not Minister was maybe was not attracted by the charms of the front bench. Or maybe I'll maybe say it differently. I suppose what we're trying to establish, first of all, is what is the percentage breakdown between FCDO and Mod and breakdown between FCDO and Mod and why it matters? Because if this is not additional money being, there will be a level of opportunity cost.

And so for example, if we are, for example, eating into the mod budget, what else? You know, there are other things that that money could be, could be spent on on that basis. And I appreciate, I think from what I've gathered at least, but it'd be useful if we got percentage terms on that regard, that what the Minister said, that it would appear that the bulk of the money will come from Mod because of restrictions. But again, if it could just be simply a percentage breakdown of of whatever money is paid over, what's the percentage coming from mod.

What's the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

percentage coming from the Foreign Office budget? Okay I will I will see if we can get that. I mean, I don't know that that's going to be consistent over time. I don't know whether the Treasury will want to be making Treasury will want to be making that clear from now on. And I mean, but I think the point about the mod side of this is, you know, the mod is deciding to buy itself some capability with this money. It's a significant investment, but it's significant investment, but it's not it's not beyond the realms of what Mod would spend on a what Mod would spend on a capability such as this is my understanding exactly how much comes from which department we can.

I mean, that will be published as we go along anyway, because these things are these things are things are these things are published in the ordinary run of things. I think the confusion in my mind, anyway, is coming from the mind, anyway, is coming from the sort of interchangeable use of Oda and FCDO, and they are clearly very different things. And, you know, I different things. And, you know, I look after the Oda budget, but the FCDO spends an awful lot more than FCDO spends an awful lot more than just Oda and the Mod spends Oda too, as does DESNZ, Department of Health, DEFRA and many other departments.

Does this. Does this help noble Lords? Are we getting somewhere? I think we okay, right on amendment 70, 74 and 75 together, all tabled by Lord Callanan. I just want to repeat that Parliament has already agreed the principles of the treaty and hasn't decided to vote against ratification. Any requirement for further approval from Parliament for the payments ignores the thorough and correct process which the treaty and Bill have already gone through, and risks undermining the treaty.

Since non-payment by the UK is a ground for termination. Secondly, regarding amendment 74, I must reassure noble Lords that there are no impacts on the cost of running the base from article ten. This article pertains to the normal contractual arrangements, with any preference being to the maximum extent practicable and consistent with existing policies, requirements, laws and regulations. Finally, regarding amendment 75, I must remind noble Lords that an annual payment to Mauritius is a fundamental part of the agreement and this principle and the amounts of those payments were published in full on the day of treaty signature.

And I hope in the light of this,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

noble Lords will withdraw their Lady. Lady for.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Lady for. Giving way. I did ask her a specific question about whether His Majesty's Government knew about the India, Mauritius, and if so, well,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

India, Mauritius, and if so, well, did they know or did they not? Of course we knew my understanding and I will correct understanding and I will correct this if I'm wrong about this, is that this predated negotiations, and that it actually refers to and that it actually refers to something on the island of Mauritius itself. But if I'm wrong about that, I will of course about that, I will of course correct the record and inform the noble Lady. I. I hope that the noble Lady.

I. I hope that the noble Lords withdraw their
21:35
None Portrait Deputy Chair of Committees.
-



**** Possible New Speaker ****

amendments. Lord Hain. With the house of submission. I
21:35
None Portrait Deputy Chair of Committees. Lord Beith (Liberal Democrat)
-



**** Possible New Speaker ****

With the house of submission. I beg leave to withdraw. Your Lordships President. Amendment be withdrawn.
21:35
None Portrait Amendment:6 Lord Callanan (Conservative)
-



**** Possible New Speaker ****

The amendment is by leave withdrawn. Amendment number six Lord Cunningham.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Lord Cunningham. My Lords, I rise to move. Amendment six, which is linked to amendment 79, in this group, amendment 79, in this group, amendment six would link this bill affect to the treaty. If we were to make this amendment the moment the treaty ceased to have effect. So then would this legislation, amendment 79, would require the government to publish a statement of their understanding of the legal status of the Chagos Archipelago, should the underlying treaty be terminated. The reason behind these amendments is that the wording of clause two, which would stand on the statute book, even if the treaty itself were revoked, is only clear that His Majesty is no longer sovereign over the Chagos Archipelago.

But it does not state that Mauritius will be sovereign over the Pelago. The Hong Kong Act was worded similarly and did not grant China sovereignty, merely revoking His Majesty's sovereignty. This means that the only document establishing Mauritian sovereignty over the islands is the UK Mauritius Agreement. So if that agreement were terminated, what would be the status of the islands? That is the question that we are putting to the government, interestingly, is not the case that we could not state on the face of the bill that Mauritius has sovereignty.

There is precedent for this, and it would perhaps state the position more clearly if noble Lords cast their mind back to the Heligoland-zanzibar treaty of 1890, which saw Britain cede sovereignty of Heligoland, a series of islands in the North Sea off Schleswig-Holstein in exchange for a free hand in respect of the independent Sultanate of Zanzibar. The Anglo-German agreement of 1890, which gave effect to that treaty, specifically stated in the schedule the sovereignty over the island of Heligoland, together with its dependencies, is ceded by Her Britannic Majesty to His Majesty, the Emperor of Germany.

So could the noble Baroness please explain why this bill follows the example of the 1985 act and not the, in my view, clearer precedent of the 1890 act. My noble friend Lord Lilley amendment 12 seeks to deliver clarity that the UK can regain sovereignty. That would be a better outcome than an explicit statement that Mauritius will have sovereignty in perpetuity. Whatever the government's position is on the legal status of the archipelago under this legislation, I believe either way, we deserve some clarity.

My amendment 77 also seeks to resolve a lack of legislative clarity that arises from the fact that this bill is implementing the more detailed treaty. The treaty provides for the creation of a joint commission, but we have precious little detail on the Commission. My amendment would require the UK government to set out the process that they intend to follow, alongside the Government of Mauritius, to establish the Commission. I'm sure that the government will resist the amendment, but I hope there will be an opportunity for the Minister to set out the government's expectations of the process, at least the process that will be followed.

Can you can the Minister say where the commission is expected to meet, when it is expected to meet, how often is expected to meet? Who is expected to be appointed to represent the UK government on the Commission? Will it be a political appointment? Will it be a civil servant and how will they be appointed? I assume we will have a senior representative. But if the Minister could tell us who or what it might be, then I think that would aid the House in its consideration of the bill.

These are all very important questions that should be answered before we proceed with the bill. So far, the government has sought to avoid debates, resisted consultation and prevented transparency. But I hope the noble Baroness, the Minister,
21:39
21:39
Baroness Goldie Portrait Baroness Goldie (Conservative)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

Rise to speak to. Amendment 89 in my name and to support the other amendments in the group in the name of my noble group in the name of my noble friend, Lord Callaghan. At Second Reading, I raised the broad issue of the royal prerogative and the noble Lord Keen of Elie. The Minister is aware of my perhaps inquisitive interest in this. That broad powers in clause three, and the specific reference to His Majesty's power to make orders in Council comes in at clause five, particularly clause five, one, subsection E, and that is powerful enough for the benefit of the chamber.

Just repeat what 511 says. It says His Majesty may, by Order in Council, make any provision that appears to His Majesty to be appropriate as a result of the treaty, and goes on to explain that that can be consequential, supplementary, incidental, transitional or saving in relation to this act or an order under that earlier paragraph. And I want to thank the Minister for her letter, which she very kindly sent to me yesterday, and in which she also alludes to this particular issue.

And she, in her letter, says that clause five of the Bill creates a new statutory power for His Majesty to make such provision by Orders in Council as he considers appropriate. As a result of the treaty. And it's really this which has led to my amendment number 89, because I'm just trying to seek clarification of this power. And in particular, I want to establish can that power be used by His Majesty, for example, to withdraw the United Kingdom as a party to the treaty and withhold any payment due to Mauritius? If Mauritius violates any terms of the treaty? So this is not a lengthy matter.

For discussion, I would ask the Minister in responding if she opposes my amendment, and I anticipate she may to be specific about the ground of objection. It may be, she says. I don't want the Secretary of State being mixed up in anything like this. That's just unnecessary and tiresome. And he's got enough on his plate without being burdened with all of that. On the other hand, she might consider this is an incompetent use of the royal prerogative, and I would be interested in understanding that better, but more alarmingly, would be if the noble Lady of the Minister saying to the chamber that she does not consider if Mauritius violates any terms of the treaty, that the UK is able to withdraw and cease payment, it's rather along the lines of the point being raised with the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig, who's not in his place.

But there is a basic issue about whether the thing is working or not. In his case, the thing's not working because the base has disappeared under the ocean. I used to think from doing decent passes, pass and contract law, that there was something called frustration of the contract with the underlying purpose disappeared. Then the contract evaporated that the noble Lady has undertaken to investigate that further, and we shall await that. But I really want to try and understand that if Mauritius violates the treaty, you know, what is the practical solution available to the UK, whether that's paying the money, coming out the treaty, taking whatever other remedial action is necessary.

So I shall

**** Possible New Speaker ****

look forward to the Minister's response. My Lords, just.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, just. Very briefly, in relation to Lord Callinan's amendment number 77 on the process for the establishment of the Joint Commission. And I think that this
21:43
21:44
Lord Lilley Portrait Lord Lilley (Conservative)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

leaseholders. Wish they had or proposed to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

acquire the freehold. They feel that as leaseholders they're. Very inferior position. They're

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Very inferior position. They're at the the the freeholder. Has the whip hand. And of course at the end of the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

And of course at the end of the lease, the freeholder like us. Not. Gets everything. Back and they lose everything

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Back and they lose everything potentially. This is the. First time I've. Ever heard. Of someone. Wanting to.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Wanting to. Swap freehold for leasehold and claiming. That there'll be more. Secure as.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

That there'll be more. Secure as. A result. Of course.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

They won't, and even less secure given the terms of. This. Agreement.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The the first. Amendment 11 relates.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Amendment 11 relates. To the renewables. The whether or not the leases. Renewable.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The. Lease is dealt with in

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The. Lease is dealt with in article. 13 of the treaty, which says it has a duration of 99 years. What happens at the.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

What happens at the. End of 99 years? Is it automatically renewable? No. Under article 13.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Under article 13. Five. The UK. Has a right. To first refusal for a further

**** Possible New Speaker ****

To first refusal for a further 40 years on the same terms as offered to. Any third state. So

**** Possible New Speaker ****

offered to. Any third state. So there we have it. Mauritius can offer.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The UK US base to a third state in 99 years time, and force. The.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

UK and USA to outbid some other. Bidding. Might be China might, India. Might be. Iran might be any other country

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Iran might be any other country with interest in the Indian Ocean. Around it. Saudi Arabia. There are lots of countries. That can afford and might like to have.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

to have. This base. We'd have to outbid.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Them in order to retain what had been maintained and. Invested in for the previous 99 years, and for the previous 99 years, and which I have no reason to suppose would not be valuable in the future.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Then, as it is now. Now. Leaseholders will of.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Course, know that normally over. The life of. The lease, your rights.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

And your value of. Your lease diminishes. And there

**** Possible New Speaker ****

comes a point where you will probably not want to invest. In your property. Because you won't be there for. Much longer, or.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Much longer, or. You won't. Get the full. Value of it. And there may well surely be the case here.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

surely be the case here. That well. Before 99 years. Are up. Seeing that we may not be able

**** Possible New Speaker ****

to keep it there, because it may be going to someone who. Outbid us for it. Will not.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Will not. Want to. Invest in it. And so the value of this lease, the value.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the value of this lease, the value. Of. Our right to use Diego Garcia. Will. Decline before the.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Decline before the. 99 years. Are up. We all know that in Hong Kong, the question of a 99 year lease. Made itself present a long time before the actual. Handover before the actual. Handover occurred. So my amendment 11 requests that the government seek additional guarantees about the additional guarantees about the renewal of the base, that it should be on the same or better terms as

**** Possible New Speaker ****

be on the same or better terms as previously, given the way the deal is in other respects. Stacked in. His favour, this should not be too difficult to negotiate. If we had negotiators that actually

**** Possible New Speaker ****

negotiated in Britain's interests and were not exponents. Of the art of the bad.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Of the art of the bad. Deal. Which they seem to be trying to do. On. This and many. Other areas. And it's also important.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

And it's also important. That when the government does look again at the terms of the look again at the terms of the lease, Parliament should be given a chance to look at these. Any guarantees that they secure about the renewal of the lease in the longer term. And that's written.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

longer term. And that's written. Into clause. Now, amendment. 12 deals with the termination.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Of the lease. My amendment 12 would correct. A major. Defect in the deal.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Defect in the deal. That the. Right the UK, has no right to terminate the agreement without terminate the agreement without losing the base. Indeed, it's an extraordinary deal. When you look extraordinary deal. When you look at article 15, it it says that at article 15, it it says that Mauritius has the right to terminate the deal. Nothing about us, the Americans having the right us, the Americans having the right to terminate the deal. Mauritius has the right to terminate the deal under two circumstances.

The first under two circumstances. The first is non-payment of rent or a threat. The first is non-payment of rent by us. Well, that would be in our purview to to ensure that that doesn't occur. But the other is that that's.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The exact wording, a. Serious threat to Mauritius

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Serious threat to Mauritius supreme national interest. Full stop. This means an armed attack or threat of an armed attack on the territory of Mauritius by the United Kingdom, or an armed attack United Kingdom, or an armed attack on the territory of Mauritius directly emanating from the base on directly emanating from the base on Diego Garcia, now, I think that means that the only serious threat to Mauritius supreme national interests would be those designated interests would be those designated after the full stop.

But it's not clear. And of course, they could go clear. And of course, they could go to some international tribunal and get a majority of their chance to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

vote that actually other supreme. National threats would apply. As well. As that. I don't. Know, it seems.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Know, it seems. term. I should say specifically, only.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I should say specifically, only. Circumstances are those to when it

**** Possible New Speaker ****

talks about something a threat, a. Direct attack on. Territory of Mauritius by

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Territory of Mauritius by Britain or America, or emanating from Diego Garcia. So presumably it could only emanate from Diego Garcia if it was from the envisaging some circumstances in which somebody else will be using or able to attack them from Diego Garcia. But either way, it gives them the right to terminate the agreement. But we. Have no right to terminate the agreement now. The noble and gallant Lord earlier pointed out there might well be circumstances we'd want to terminate it if, as a result of natural events, rising sea level geological disruption, we can no longer use the base.

We might want to terminate it, but unless I'm mistaken, I mean the Minister, who's always, I have to say, wonderfully helpful. I think she's a Minister in that sense, even though this is the most appalling bill she has to defend, will tell me if I am wrong and there is some

**** Possible New Speaker ****

clause that would enable, in these circumstances, us to stop payments. She earlier referred and. Said, well.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Said, well. We just have to abrogate the agreement and not pay. That's a sort of bit odd for a government sort of bit odd for a government which is so committed to obeying international law that they usually relish doing things which give us relish doing things which give us no benefit but cost us money, power or influence. But if that is the or influence. But if that is the only circumstance in which we could terminate it by ourselves breaking terminate it by ourselves breaking it, that's a rather odd situation, and there should surely be written into it.

Circumstances in which we can terminate, and when we do terminate, in some circumstances we'd like to know that was just the end of it. In others, whether it meant that it reverted to the status quo ante, if it's the result status quo ante, if it's the result of Mauritius having behaved in an appalling way, then surely we should be able to go back and say, well, at least the sovereignty of well, at least the sovereignty of Diego Garcia returns to Britain.

In fact, ideally the whole archipelago fact, ideally the whole archipelago pelago. But that's not written into the agreement, and I'd like to see them endeavouring to do so. So if amendment 12 is passed, it will correct a major defect in this bill, a major asymmetry in which almost throughout is a very asymmetrical bill, one that gives all the rights to Mauritius and none to us. And it's a particularly odd thing to do when we start off with all the cards in our hands.

One thing no one ever mentions in these discussions of international law and international agreements is the basic, most fundamental principle of reality in law, which is that possession is 9/10 of the law. We start off with possession. We start off with 9/10 of the law on our side. We should only change it if we think that that's a right and proper thing to do, in line with our interests and in line with our obligations. But here we're going from having 9/10 of the law on our side.

Indeed, I think 100% of the law on our side, since we haven't been able to find an international court that's capable of ruling otherwise to one where all the cards are handed over to the other side. And a basic asymmetry in the terms of the lease, both in terms of its renewability and its termination, are in the hands of Mauritius. And that's so strange. I hope that the Minister will agree that she's very willing to agree on other matters. She will go back and renegotiate.

She could do it even now, because, as we've learnt, the Attorney General of Mauritius is over here. Why is he over here? You see over here? Because he wants to change the terms. He just wants his thumb and give him some more money. Probably to get some more money. Indeed. We should have dealt with that in the. Oh yes, we should have dealt with that in the previous session on money. How much more money is he asking for? Because one understands there are debates in Mauritius saying they've done so well now they should reopen it and get a little more to.

get a little more to.
21:55
Baroness Chapman of Darlington Portrait Baroness Chapman of Darlington, Minister of State (Development) (Labour)
-
-
That last. I'm not sure he wants. comment. I mean, just to respond to Lord Lily's 9/10 is possession is 9/10 point. I mean, yes, but if you're if your asset is legally contested to the extent that your close ally is no longer investing in it, and your third party friends and allies are possibly unwilling to support the operability of that, then I would say that the thing that you have the possession of is an asset that's worth a lot less to you than one that has the legal certainty and the investment of your of the United States and the ability to operate it, because third parties will not be questioning the legal basis on which you hold that asset.

But we've been through this at some length already. So just turning to the amendments in this group, the various mechanisms surrounding termination and the extension of the treaty, we will deal with the issue of sovereignty and termination in a subsequent group. But on these amendments, six, 12, 79 and 89 about the implications of terminating the treaty, I should just remind the House that there are extremely limited grounds for termination once the treaty is in force, both of which are within the UK's control.

The first being that we don't pay the sums due under article 11 and the second being an armed attack or threat of one by the United Kingdom. So to answer the noble Lords point, it would be by the United Kingdom on Mauritius, or one which directly emanates from the base on Diego Garcia, which is of course to be operated by the United Kingdom and the United States together. It is in our interests that the grounds for termination are limited.

In this way, it means that Mauritius is unable to unilaterally terminate the agreement, except for in very specific circumstances. What these amendments would therefore do is force us to reopen negotiations on an area in which we've already secured the strongest terms, terms which have also been endorsed by our US allies. It's also highly unrealistic that Mauritius would agree to a reversion to British sovereignty in the event of termination. I think it's important that we we understand and we're clear about that on amendment 11.

Article 13 already sets out the basis on which we can extend the duration of the treaty, including our right of first refusal. The treaty will last for an initial 99 years, and may be extended for a further 40 years and beyond, by agreement between the UK and Mauritius. Even if no agreement is reached, the UK will have the right of first refusal on the use of Diego Garcia, which, if exercised, would prevent the use of the base by any other party.

I think I was asked it may have been by the noble Lord Lilley, it may have been somebody else about this issue, about exactly how that would work and on what terms. And I will get a full answer to that specific point. But for today, I'm relying on this issue of having the right of first refusal. Refusal. I will come back to noble Lords and clarify exactly what is meant by that. I welcome amendment 77, interest in the establishment of the Joint Commission, the precise structure of the Joint Commission is still being developed and will continue to be a point of negotiation between the UK, Mauritius and the US.

This includes the development of terms of reference on how the Joint Commission will function. However, the following principles have already been agreed to, as set out in annexe three of the treaty, and I think these do answer some of the points that were put, although because we are still negotiating, it is useful to get noble Lords response and understanding and views on some of these things. But the Joint Commission shall consist of one senior representative from each party as co-chair, and four additional representatives from each party.

The US shall have the right to introduce items for discussion in the Joint Commission, and to designate a representative to attend meetings to provide views and advice. The Joint Commission shall meet at least twice a year or more frequently on the request of either party, and all decisions of the Joint Commission shall be taken with the agreement of both parties. And whilst I welcome the opinions of noble Lords on the best means of keeping the House informed on the development of the Joint Commission, a statutory obligation to publish a statement would not be the most appropriate means of doing so, I don't think, although I will think about it a little bit more on this issue of prerogative and the law on Diego Garcia.

This does only apply to the law on Diego Garcia and I. We did have quite a complex exchange about this in one of our briefing conversations. The it doesn't apply to the operation of the treaty, so it wouldn't concern non-payment or any of those other issues. It is only about the, the the law as it as it applies to Diego Garcia. And I hope that's helpful and that noble Lords are able now to withdraw their amendments.
22:00
Lord Callanan Portrait Lord Callanan (Conservative)
-
-
Well, I think Lord Oates for their contributions. I thought, as usual, my good friend Lord Lilley made an excellent contribution to the debate, and I thank the noble Minister for her reply. I don't think she's answered all the questions that we asked, or certainly that I asked, and she answered some, but not all. But I was hoping. I mean, she sets out the legal position as it is in the treaty on the Commission, but she hasn't provided any more details on who will be the members of the commission, how they will do the appointments, etc.

so I'd be

**** Possible New Speaker ****

grateful if she would write to us with the details of that. The long term legal. Would never.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Deliberately not answer a question from the noble Lord. I have set out what's been agreed so far, and I've also explained that the Commission is subject to negotiation, and I will commit to negotiation, and I will commit to updating the house. I, I really don't see the I don't quite

**** Possible New Speaker ****

don't see the I don't quite understand the niggle in the noble Lords voice. Not being niggly. I'm just repeating the questions that I repeating the questions that I asked. But who will be the members of the committee? How will they be appointed? Will the questions that I ask them? She sets out the numbers which we could see from the original agreement, but she has not provided the further details that provided the further details that we asked. I did say that she'd answered some of the questions, but not all of them.

The long term legal status of the archipelago is supposedly the driving motivation behind the government's decision to seek this agreement with Mauritius. So I think that the questions that have been posed are it's entirely reasonable to seek clarity on the status of what would happen should the treaty be revoked. I also think we need clarity on the UK's right to withdraw from the treaty and withhold payments, in line with the withhold payments, in line with the amendments put forward by my noble friend Baroness Goldie, but I think that's all the information we're going to get out of the noble Lady tonight.

So in the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw my amendments.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Is it your lordships pleasure? The amendment be withdrawn? Amendment is by leave withdrawn.
22:03
22:03
None Portrait Amendment:10 Lord Lilley (Conservative)
-

Lord Lilley. The. My Amendment number ten deals with the issue of resettlement. This is a very sensitive issue, one that Chagossians feel very deeply about. But the article six of the agreement, which is entitled Resettlement of Chagossians, fails to give any right to Chagossians to resettle. The wording of article six is in the exercise of its sovereignty over the Chagos Archipelago. Mauritius is free to implement a program of resettlement on the islands of the Chagos Archipelago.

Other than Diego Garcia, such resettlement shall be implemented in conformity with the terms of the agreement and the laws of Mauritius. So let's be clear there's no right for Chagossians to resettle. There's no obligation on Mauritius to resettle the obligation, the Chagossians Mauritius is simply free to do resettlement, but doesn't specify that that resettlement has to be by Chagossians. They could resettle it with Mauritius, just as I used to work in Indonesia and they resettled Javanese in the various islands like Borneo and Sumatra.

So all we're doing is saying Mauritius can do what it likes, it can do or not do anything. That's to the benefit of Chagossians. It can give away their former lands and islands to other people, and we will. Effectively sanctify that through our agreement to article six. The. Back in 2015, the British government looked at the possibility of resettlement and they asked KPMG to do a study of how much it would cost and how feasible it was.

And a year later they came out with a report which stated that resettlement was possible of cost, certain sums depending on how much resettlement was done, if there was a pilot community of 150 people, that would cost, in those days 63 million current money, that would be about 80 to £90 million. There was a medium sized settlement, 500 people that would cost in today's money about £200 million. And if there was a large community, 1500 people, which is actually more than the population of Czechoslovakia of 1965, that would cost in today's money £570 million.

So these that is a large sum, but it's much smaller than the sums we are committed to pay Mauritius over the life of this deal. These are largely one off sums, whereas we're talking of paying Mauritius initially, well, an average of £110 million. Inflation adjusted plus some lump sums in the early period, and some bringing forward of of money in the early period. So we could certainly start a pilot community of Chagossians back in the Chagos Islands for a fraction of what we're otherwise committed to spend on this agreement.

So I can understand why Chagossians feel really let down and sold out, that we're prepared to pay so much money to Mauritius and to designate none of that to their potential resettlement. We pretend to, by having this clause entitled resettlement Chagossians, but it actually gives no guarantee that the money will be spent in this way. Now, the agreement, the the study by KPMG looks into the practicalities. The reason it costs money, of course, is you all have to rebuild facilities and some of the islands.

There were a church in the hospital and buildings and so on which have fallen into rack and ruin. They'd have to be re-established and there has to be transport facilities for the envisaged resettled communities to link up with each other in the outside world. But again, I point out, these are not huge sums. This is not impossible. It's something that many in the Chagossian community, both in the UK and in Mauritius even more, and in the Seychelles and elsewhere, would like to undertake.

But they are not going to be able to undertake it unless Mauritius says so. And one gets the feeling that Mauritius is not terribly well disposed to the idea, otherwise they would not have negotiated such harsh terms in article six, which imposes no obligation on them to do so. So I asked Ministers to think again about this and go back to the Mauritians and say, I'm sorry. We have, as they will by then, have done, discussed, consulted with the emissions, with the Chagossians.

We found how eager many of them are to resettle many more art, have the right of return, and visit the graves of their ancestors, the places where they were born, the churches where they worshipped. And we feel they should be given that right. And if we're going to settle a trust fund on you, we want to be sure it's going to be used for those purposes, as well as perhaps a chunk of the money we're paying you in rent. And I hope the Minister will look at that in a positive way, given her evidence.

Sympathy for the Chagossians, and tell us that there's going to be a little hint of something more positive in terms of news we can
22:09
None Portrait Deputy Chair of Committees. Viscount Stansgate (Labour)
-



**** Possible New Speaker ****

give the Chagossian community. Yeah. I presume. The Lord is moving his amendment.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The Lord is moving his amendment. I am amendment. Proposed clause one,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I am amendment. Proposed clause one, line one. Page one, line seven. At end. Insert the words as printed. On. The marshalled list.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The marshalled list. Raised briefly to support the amendments by Lord Lilley and Lord Callanan in this section. I think Callanan in this section. I think on the issue of resettlement, what we have in the treaty, I think, may be described as less than useless. be described as less than useless. And why I say that is because the certain extent it confers a right certain extent it confers a right which is already there, but actually underlines it in such a way and denies others that that.

way and denies others that that. Right. And what I mean by that is the treaty explicitly says there's a right for Mauritius to resettle a right for Mauritius to resettle people. Well, if we have handed over sovereignty to Mauritius, then implicitly they have a right to resettle on the other islands anyway. But actually what it does very much underline on the one hand that Mauritius is completely in control, is completely in the control, is completely in the driving seat. And the lack of reference to the Chagossians, reference to the Chagossians, because, yes, they may choose to allow some Chagossians back, but they may choose also to deny them.

There is no specific right for the Chagossians. And if we are, as we have mentioned across the chamber, to try to rectify some of the many ills that we have done to the Chagossian people over the years, having at least some level of right of return, I think, is the bare minimum that we should be looking for here. Now. I think the concern is that from the point of view of Mauritius will take the implications of this as being, first of all, if they are allowing back some Chagossians, it will be the hand-picked Chagossians who have played ball with the Mauritius government.

If you're a good boy or a good girl, yes, you're allowed back. If, however, you've been part of the awkward squad, well, actually you have a much lesser chance of being resettled on the
22:11
22:12
Lord Hannan of Kingsclere Portrait Lord Hannan of Kingsclere (Conservative)
-
-
Lord Lilian, the noble Lord Lord Weir. If the Chagos Islands had remained inhabited, this issue of sovereignty would not have arisen, because they would have been the same category as Gibraltar or the Falklands, or any other group with a permanent population, any other territory. The permanent population that had expressed its right to self-determination. Now, you could argue that if you like, that would solve our problem in terms of the base. Equally, you could argue that it's the obvious way of making restitution.

It is the way of giving back what was taken. But if you flip that around and look at it from the point of view of Mauritius, isn't that precisely why you wouldn't want to have a chagossian population or an exclusively chagossian population in a doughnut in the outer atolls around Diego Garcia? The last thing you would want is to risk a Chagossian secessionist movement, because the people who'd return to their ancestral homes had made very clear that they felt no loyalty to the state of Mauritius, that they didn't want to be part of it in most cases, with Lord Weir says, with a few exceptions, therefore, that that you would be you would have every incentive to settle the place with your own citizens or with others so that there were at least a majority.

Of course.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yes. I think. Lord Hannan for his remarks. Would you agree with me as well? Picking up, I think Lord Lily's Picking up, I think Lord Lily's point, and I do have a subsequent amendment which is on the supplementary list, so we may get supplementary list, so we may get to it at some point. It's not it's not listed on today's Order Paper that what makes this additionally that what makes this additionally worse? The lack of provision for resettlement of Chagossians is we actually have it may not be actually have it may not be necessarily a perfect blueprint, but actually we have a blueprint of how this can be achieved through how this can be achieved through the KPMG report in 2015.

So it's not as if we are doing this against a vacuum. We're not only actually are ignoring the right of Chagossians to return, but actually Chagossians to return, but actually completely ignoring the pathway to which this can happen.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

which this can happen. The noble Lord makes an extremely good point. If you see this purely in fiscal terms, it's this purely in fiscal terms, it's an obviously disastrous thing to spend. Depending on whether we take the government's figures or my noble friend Lady Noakes's figures either six times or 60 times as much as in the KPMG report, simply much as in the KPMG report, simply to give to another country. So here is a way we keep hearing from the is a way we keep hearing from the Chancellor of the Exchequer that growth is her priority and so on.

Here is a very good way of making a saving like that, by just not giving money away for territory that we already have, and instead using a much smaller fraction of that sum to make restitution to the people who were removed. And it it ticks every box. One I mentioned earlier that the Falkland Islands were paradoxically saved by the experience of war because it led to investment. It led to the fishing and hydrocarbons being exploited around the coasts, and it led to employment opportunities and better transport links.

If we had a settled chagossian population around the base, they would be the obvious people to work as the contractors in the base. Instead of having to import all these Filipinos from Singapore by air, we developing there. It need not be a long term burden to the British taxpayer, but even if it does end up costing us something, it'll be a fraction of what we're paying now. So there is the the vision, my Lords, of having the Chagossians back among the Frangipani and the Bougainvillaea and the churches growing again with the coral stone and the crash of the the surf, and all of them being loyal to the crown, and therefore putting utterly beyond question the issue of who has the sovereignty over the archipelago.
22:16
Baroness Foster of Aghadrumsee Portrait Baroness Foster of Aghadrumsee (Non-affiliated)
-
-
My Lord, I think possibly article six is the most misnamed article in this treaty. Resettlement of Chagossians, which it tells us Mauritius is free to implement a program of resettlement of of the Chagos Archipelago, excluding Diego Garcia. My Lord, I'm very thankful to live in a democracy where I'm free to do all manner of things. Sometimes I choose not to do all manner of things for various reasons, and I'm quite sure Mauritius will take the same view in relation to resettlement of Chagossians in the outer islands.

There's no right of resettlement or indeed return in in the treaty. I have a later amendment which is on the second Marshall list, which deals with this. But, you know, according to the treaty, there's no right of return, there's no right of resettlement. So we need to be very clear on that. And I think that is morally wrong. The language in this bill under the amendments deal with what I think is a failure of negotiation, to be honest, because I don't think it would have been beyond the wit of man to have had a right of return at the very least, if not a right of resettlement in the treaty, perhaps with the Mauritian AG here in London, what better time to have a discussion about the right of return and the right of resettlement for Chagossian people? And then amendment 72, in the alternative, seeks to have some accountability for the current aspiration in the treaty.

In other words, after it's implemented, to look back and see what is actually happening in relation to the right of resettlement, and that will give some transparency to why the wording in the treaty has been chosen. And again, to get to the purpose of the article. But I would just say, in conclusion, I strongly support both of these amendments. It is wrong not to have a right of return and a right of resettlement in the treaty. And the way in which it's presented in the treaty is wrong also.
22:19
Lord Callanan Portrait Lord Callanan (Conservative)
-
-
Well, let me firstly thank my noble friend Lord Lily for leading on this group, the Chagossian community overwhelmingly wants to see a scheme for the resettlement of the archipelago, reversing the forced removal of the islanders in the late 1960s. As we know, many Chagossians living in Mauritius feel they are treated even now as second class citizens and this should not be unacceptable situation and we will probe the treatment of the Chagossians in Mauritius more fully when we debate amendments relating to the trust fund.

But for many Chagossians, they still want to return, understandably, to their homeland. The treaty is clear, sadly, that Mauritius shall be free to arrange for resettlement of Chagossians on all islands of the archipelago except for Diego Garcia, but it is not clear in the treaty what in fact this might look like. Nor is it clear how likely resettlement actually is in practice. My amendment 72 is a very simple one. It merely requires the government to publish the findings of a review of all discussions between the UK and Mauritius in respect of the resettlement of the islands.

The resettlement under the treaty would be for the islands, of course, other than Diego Garcia. So this is not something that should undermine the operations of the base, given the fact that we cannot see why the government would be unwilling to share details of their discussions with the Mauritians on resettlement. So let me ask the noble Baroness, the Minister, if she could please set out clearly how often resettlement was discussed with the Mauritian government during the negotiations ahead of the treaty, and what is her department's assessment of the likelihood that Mauritius will establish a scheme for resettlement of the islands? Would the UK support a resettlement effort financially? Could some of the existing funds that were given to Mauritius be used for resettlement? And if not, what is the estimated risk that the Mauritian government would refuse to undertake a resettlement on cost grounds? In essence, our question to the government is what does this treaty mean for the Chagossian communities hope of resettlement? If, in the Foreign Office's view, this treaty effectively kills any hope of resettlement, does the noble Baroness, the Minister, not accept that the government should manage the expectations of Chagossians and be very clear and transparent with them, that that is what they have agreed? We hope to have to.

We want to end the lack of transparency around the bill, and I hope that the Minister will be able

**** Possible New Speaker ****

to do that today. But can I start by agreeing with the noble Lord that transparency the noble Lord that transparency and frankness with the Chagossian community is absolutely vital, which is why I have resisted some which is why I have resisted some of the discussions around consultations and referendums, because I think when this is a state to state negotiation, to give the impression that a consultation or a referendum can elicit change on a treaty that's already been negotiated, I think that is wrong.

negotiated, I think that is wrong. And on his question about how often we've discussed resettlement, we've discussed resettlement, resettlement has been discussed throughout, repeatedly, of course it has. It's a very, very important it has. It's a very, very important part of the negotiation that we've had with Chagos, with the government of Mauritius and the operation of the trust fund. I think we're coming to some amendments on that in the next amendments on that in the next group. But there is some news that group.

But there is some news that will be coming from Mauritius shortly around exactly how that will be operated. And I think that will be operated. And I think that that will be a reassurance, be reassuring for noble Lords, and I hope that we get that very, very hope that we get that very, very soon so that we can include that as part of our considerations. I mean, I would just point out that resettlement now is non-existent. It's just, you know, it's it's not been possible. They haven't even been having sort of heritage visits since Covid.

The last government didn't get around to, to sorting them out. So it's you know, having said all that, it's it's it's good that the Conservative Party is now turning some attention to this and response to it was either Lord Lilley or Lord Hannan who said, oh, but, you know, consider if the islands had not been depopulated. But I would just point out that if the islands had not been depopulated, there wouldn't be a depopulated, there wouldn't be a base, we wouldn't have a treaty.

They probably would have been returned to Mauritius along the returned to Mauritius along the part of as part of decolonisation, and there would be Mauritian now anyway. So I, I'm a bit at a loss anyway. So I, I'm a bit at a loss to know who is going to tell me now what he was getting at going.
22:23
Baroness Chapman of Darlington Portrait Baroness Chapman of Darlington, Minister of State (Development) (Labour)
-
-
For to the noble Lady, the Minister. Forgive me, but I'm not sure that's quite true. I don't think the Americans did want the entire archipelago voided of population. They were satisfied with just having Diego Garcia. We went on, she and I were not born, but our predecessors went ahead and volunteered this complete evacuation. And that was the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

beginning of all of our problems. That's what happened. And that cannot be undone. And we are in a situation now where clearly there isn't a prospect of resettlement on Diego Garcia. And I'm glad that that hasn't explicitly come up in this debate. But there is now the possibility of resettlement on the other islands, resettlement on the other islands, and there is now the prospect of visits to Diego Garcia in a way visits to Diego Garcia in a way that hasn't happened.

As I say, for some years, but specifically on the some years, but specifically on the amendments in this group, amendments ten and 72, I don't think don't think they're necessary. think don't think they're necessary. But I should explain why that is. And it's because under the terms of the agreement, Mauritius is already free to develop a program of resettlement on islands other than resettlement on islands other than Diego Garcia. It'll be for Mauritius to decide if they take this forward. We've already committed to making a ministerial statement in both houses, providing statement in both houses, providing a factual update on eligibility for resettlement.

The agreement gives resettlement. The agreement gives Mauritius the opportunity to develop a program of resettlement on its own terms, without requiring the UK taxpayer to pick up the bill. And we know that this would be considerable because of the KPMG report. And in addition, regarding our sorry, I'll give way to the noble Lady.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

If our governments over the past 30, 40 years refused to allow to 30, 40 years refused to allow to get in, to get in, to go back. How does she think? Why does she think does she think? Why does she think the Mauritian government will ever allow them? And what if they say allow them? And what if they say absolutely no? Have we any say, can we do anything?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

It's for the Mauritian government to make that decision, I can understand. The noble Lady can understand. The noble Lady skepticism, especially given our reluctance to undertake this reluctance to undertake this because to to serve citizens living in such a remote place with so few in such a remote place with so few services is a is a considerable thing to do, which is why we're very careful, mindful of the very careful, mindful of the warnings that we've heard about not wanting to give a false hope or false impression, or make this false impression, or make this sound straightforward.

That's that guides us all. I think, in our discussions of this, it is, of discussions of this, it is, of course, an incredible, incredibly difficult prospect and very, very difficult prospect and very, very expensive. There is the trust fund, how that would operate and whether that would enable some of this to that would enable some of this to happen, I don't know. This is going to be for the Government of Mauritius to determine, and we are completely clear about that. We might the noble Lady might not wish that to be so, but I would just point out that the UK government for over 50 years has prevented, you know, has made it absolutely clear that we would not, for security reasons and for financial reasons, facilitate return to the islands.

So it is important, I think, in relation to amendment 72, that negotiations between states, between the UK and Mauritius on this matter, which is it is sensitive and I completely accept that, that they can take place in confidence and publishing the records of confidential negotiations like this would be, I would say, damaging to trust in the UK. Keeping matters confidential in the future. And that doesn't just relate to our negotiations with Mauritius. It obviously would relate to the prospect of our negotiations with other states on other equally or more sensitive matters in the future.

So with that, I would ask that noble Lords consider withdrawing their amendments. amendments.
22:28
22:29
22:29
22:30
22:31
Lord Callanan Portrait Lord Callanan (Conservative)
-
-
agreement with these, with his amendment being incorporated in my grouping? So clearly there was an expectation that that would happen now. Okay. The Chief Whip decided this afternoon that he didn't want to do that. That is right to do that. But as the noble Lord has also acknowledged, it is my right on the floor of the House that he group the amendments, which is what I am doing, it seems to me to be a bit of a silly and pointless debate. I'm tempted to quote the late Lady Thatcher in a discussion on referendums, when she argued that they are a practice only to be referred to on constitutional issues.

I think that still holds as a good rule of thumb, where there is a chance that a model of governance is fundamentally altered. Politicians may take a direct democratic approach. Despite our reservations, the Chagos Archipelago is about to undergo the most foundational change in its terms of governance. We are giving away sovereignty over the islands. In what is another step in a long story of Britain sadly failing the Chagossians, the vast majority of whom, in a survey released today, do not want to be to have Mauritius in control of their sovereignty.

We would not cede sovereignty over a part of these islands to another state without consultation, and in fact, it is unlikely that it would happen without a referendum. So why does this principle not hold for the Chagossians? That is the question we are putting to the government with these amendments. Now, I'm sure that the government has not, in fact, applied different principles to different peoples out of pure negligence. No, the reason why the government will not agree to a referendum on this trajectory altering decision is because at heart, they know that this is a dud deal.

The government knows that it is selling the chagossian people down the river, all to continue their policy of blind adherence to the opinions of the Attorney General and international lawyers. It knows that it has not taken the necessary steps to ensure that this is what's best for both the British and Chagossian populations. It knows that if given the choice, the Chagossian people would almost certainly choose for the archipelago to remain British. A poll conducted by the friends of the British Overseas Territories and endorsed by Whitestone Insight, found that 99% of the 3389 Chagossians who responded to the poll were in favour of the archipelago remaining British.

It is simple the Chagossian community overwhelmingly oppose this bill, and that is why the government have not consulted them properly, because they do not want to receive an answer that they don't like. And that is why the government will, of course, also suspect resist a referendum of the chagossian. Now, it's also puzzling that other noble Lords, and sadly not many of them are in the chamber at this late hour, have not tabled their own amendment on a referendum, certain of the Foreign Office contingent that normally over there were in favour of two amendments on our referendum on our EU membership, but it seems that they're not in favour in a single one for the Chagossians and the Liberal Democrats.

Their foreign affairs spokesman, Al Pinkerton, was very clear on his party's support for a referendum. He said that the Liberal Democrats stood for Chagossian sovereignty over their own citizenship and protection of their rights. He said, and I quote, that this bill fails the Chagossian people because it continues the injustice of taking decisions about the Chagos Islands without the consent of those most affected. So these referendums that we are proposing here would actually ask for the consent of those most affected.

This was, he said, to be remedied through a referendum of the Chagossian people themselves. And I was sad to see that there wasn't any Liberal Democrat amendment on a referendum that prompted me to put my amendments down for debate, and I'm grateful to my noble friend, Lord Lily, for

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Sure. I'm grateful for the noble Lord. He absolutely put his amendment He absolutely put his amendment down. At first I thought I would do him the courtesy of listen to how effective he was going to be making effective he was going to be making his argument. So far, I'm finding it the shorter he speaks, the more persuasive he is.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

persuasive he is. It's not my fault if the Liberal Democrats don't want to be consistent on this. The point here consistent on this. The point here is that in the other place, colleagues of the noble Lords to my left have argued for a referendum. And in your Lordships' House they And in your Lordships' House they have done nothing, just two amendments, one of which is consequential. When we debated consequential. When we debated ratification, the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, withdrew his amendments to the motion without a division.

And the motion without a division. And I think that speaks a thousand volumes. So it seems to me that it refers falls to my noble friends on refers falls to my noble friends on these benches to stand up for the Chagossians and ask for the
22:35
22:36
Lord Lilley Portrait Lord Lilley (Conservative)
-
-
marshalled list. Bless you. Thank you. I rise to support the amendment by my noble friend Lord Callaghan. Callaghan, as well as my own amendment also calling for a referendum. The government has given and the Mauritians, and indeed to some extent, the advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice has given priority to maintaining what they think of as territorial integrity over the right of self-determination. That shouldn't be the case, and international law, the right of self-determination of a group within a decolonised area has a right, has priority over the so-called territorial integrity.

And it's very regrettable that that hasn't yet been conceded. I very much hope that this will be an area where there is widespread support across the house. When at Report stage, we come as no doubt we will to vote on the subject. I'm very much hope that the Liberal Democrats will support a vote requiring a referendum among the Chagossian people over the right to self-determination. So far, they, and indeed they did do so, we are told in the Commons, and they were so moved by it.

I thought it's such an important issue. They voted against this whole bill at Third Reading. So far, the amendments they've put down cannot really be said to be amendments that would require a referendum. The amendment number 80, put down by the noble Lord Purvis. Requires the establishment. No, requires. Sorry. The Minister of Calm must engage with the government of the Republic of Mauritius with a view to establishing a joint parliamentary commission. We're getting sort of.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

together. I wonder if it might make.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I wonder if it might make. A lot about his amendment first, and then he can tell me where I'm wrong because I'm informing the House. The having engaged with the Mauritian authorities to set up this joint commission, having this joint commission, having perhaps persuaded them to do so, the Minister of the Crown must propose that the Commission's responsibilities should include evaluating the recognition, protection of chagossian rights, including the right to return and the right to self-determination.

So it's all we've got to seek the Mauritians agreement, setting up a commission. We've then got to propose to the commission that it propose to the commission that it do certain things, evaluate the recognition and protection of recognition and protection of chagossian rights. And those rights would include the right to return of self-determination. But there's absolutely no obligation in this committee in this amendment if we committee in this amendment if we accept it, that will require the House to support a referendum.

Indeed, it's extremely unlikely that this convoluted chain of events would lead in such a recommendation. Be the final sentence of the whole amendment is if the commission described above is established within five years of the commencement of the treaty. So it's not even envisaged that the Commission may get going for several years. And that's probably realistic in not imagining such a thing. So I'm looking forward to a serious liberal amendment, or support for serious amendments by myself and my noble friend.

That will require an referendum. And I give way to the noble Lord. Now he knows more about what his amendment says.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

First of all, I apologize the noble Lord calendar to intervening on when he was moving a motion, on when he was moving a motion, amendment. I'm flattered by being so courted by the noble Lord Callanan and the noble Lord Lily. Callanan and the noble Lord Lily. Historians would be aware that the Rough Wooing was not entirely successful in my border area, but I would like to ask the noble Lord. I'm sure he'll be able to clarify. I'm sure he'll be able to clarify.

The House of Commons voted on an amendment for a referendum. He is amendment for a referendum. He is aware of that. It was amendment nine, the amendment that the House nine, the amendment that the House of Commons voted on, tabled by my colleagues, would have required the government to seek to undertake government to seek to undertake negotiations with Mauritius on a chagossian right of return to the Chagos Islands and on a referendum Chagos Islands and on a referendum on self-determination. Parliament has voted on this already.

The has voted on this already. The division was 319 votes against 83, division was 319 votes against 83, and the Conservatives did not

**** Possible New Speaker ****

support that division. Why? An intervention on me? I'm afraid I can't tell you. I did read the debate and it wasn't clear that there was much focus on the Liberal amendment, which he's read out part of it, but it covered lots of other things, and they probably thought

**** Possible New Speaker ****

it was a bit wishy washy. I don't think that's quite

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I don't think that's quite acceptable. Amendment nine was voted on and included everything voted on and included everything that he asked of me. Why did the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Conservatives not support it? I don't know, I'm not an official representative of the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Conservative Party. I'm a Liberal. Democrat supporter of New York's. I am not an official

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I am not an official representative of the Conservative Party. I'm flattered that he thinks that I control both the Parliament, that I control both the Parliament, the Conservative Party in the Commons and in this place. I don't do either. I haven't had any do either. I haven't had any ministerial role since about the year 2000, but I may give the year 2000, but I may give the impression of having power and influence beyond that which I really do. And I'm flattered that he should think so.

No, I would like to see the Liberal Democrats support us. We know if they do support us. We know if they do support us, we'll win. Pardon? But support us, we'll win. Pardon? But it seems that they're unlikely to do so. It's made clear because of course, they've done a deal with course, they've done a deal with the government. They're never going to defeat the government on issues of substance, because if they do, they won't get as many peerages next time as they want.

Now, let's be quite clear about this. And it's as shoddy as that, I suspect underneath. But I hope I'm wrong. Of course not. I will be wrong, I often am, but in that case, that's a wonderful thing, and we may be able to achieve something for the in the shape of getting a amendment. Not now, obviously, because we're in the Committee stage, but at the Report stage, which has the support of the majority of people in this House. And if we do, if we carry it out, I think the odds are that the Chagossian people will declare that they don't want to be incorporated in Mauritius, and they would prefer to remain citizens of British Indian Ocean territories and British subjects.

And in that case, I think we should honour and support their decision when that's taken. So I look forward to a Damascene conversion on the part of Damascene conversion on the part of Liberal Party to this amendment.
22:44
Baroness Hoey Portrait Baroness Hoey (Non-affiliated)
-
-
I just want to say something on the referendum. I do think that it's very important that we're having almost another debate on the referendum, having had, I think I moved Lord Callaghan and movement or didn't move it, but I spoke to his original amendment earlier, and I think this reinforces that, you know, this actually is a probably the one of the most important aspects of the bill in terms of a referendum, because it is fair, it's needed.

And the Chagossians really want it. And I'm not really interested. When the noble Lord Purvis said, what happened in the the other place on the amendment, on the referendum, because it wasn't in the manifesto, as far as I'm concerned, and we here in this House should be able to make up our own minds on on something. And certainly we shouldn't be stopped from opposing moving things in the bill. Just because the other place decided this is a, you know, it's just so anti-democratic.

I'm just amazed that the Labour Labour backbenchers are going along with this. I mean, they're not here. Does that mean they don't actually really support the bill, but they're having to sort of be loyal? I mean, it is a shocking bill. It is, as I think the noble Lord said at the beginning. And I think the noble Baroness Goldie said in her Second Reading speech, this must rate and it is quite difficult because there's been so many awful bills, but this must rate as the worst bill that Labour has brought forward.

They just cannot justify it. And I really would say that these amendments tonight are actually very, very important. And I hope that when we come back to Report stage, many more members will have actually read what has gone on on this debate and recognised that that is the right thing to do to support a referendum. thing to do to support a referendum.
22:46
None Portrait
-

I thank noble Lords for their comments on this. I feel like we have discussed the issue of a referendum fairly comprehensively, as the noble Lady suggested, but just to respond to Lord Lily's point about, I mean, he was pointing the finger at the Lib Dems and accusing them of inconsistency. I mean, I have to say, I don't always see eye to eye with the noble Lord. I don't always see eye to eye with the Liberal Democrats. But if you want consistency on this issue, I don't think you could do much better than the noble Lord.

And to name his colleague Sarah Ludford, Baroness Ludford as well, I think that she has championed the the rights of Chagossians for very many years. And I frankly have never heard a peep out of the noble gentleman opposite on this topic. And many of his colleagues on the rights of Chagossians, resettlement or anything else to do with the Chagos Islands. So if you want consistency, if you want consistency, if that's what we're after, then actually I think the Liberal Democrats, to be fair, have been pretty consistent on this issue for very many years now.

But on the issue of a referendum, I just need to remind the House that the negotiations on the treaty were between the UK and Mauritius, with our priority being to secure the full operation of the base on Diego Garcia. The Chagos Archipelago has no permanent population, has never been self-governing, no question of self-determination for its population has therefore can arise. And this has been tested in the English courts. As we said in our earlier debate. And this has happened in a series of judgments ever since the 1970s, the transfer of sovereignty doesn't deprive the Chagossians of any existing right at a time for a referendum or some kind of formal, legally or legal basis of consultation would have been prior to this point, maybe even prior or during some of the 11 rounds of negotiation that the previous government undertook, despite the fact that they clearly now think there is absolutely no legal risk whatsoever to the the security of the islands.

And I do think it's really important that we don't allow the Chagossian community to have the impression that a consultation or a referendum held now would in any way be able to affect a treaty that has already been agreed between two governments, and that has been we have been instructed to ratify by votes in both houses. And this bill has been through all its processes in the other place. And with that, I hope

**** Possible New Speaker ****

that noble Lords decide to withdraw their amendments. Well, the noble Lady will not be

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Well, the noble Lady will not be surprised. I'm not convinced by her arguments. I'm sure this is something that we will return to at later stages of the bill. But in the meantime, I beg leave to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

withdraw my amendment. Is it your lordships pleasure? The amendment be withdrawn? Amendment is by leave withdrawn. Amendment is by leave withdrawn. Amendment 15. Lord Callanan.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Amendment 15. Lord Callanan. My Lord, is now 10:48 p.m. There has not many members remaining in the House. The next grouping of amendments is very long. It's really important issue. So I would

**** Possible New Speaker ****

really important issue. So I would invite the government to propose the dissolution of the House at this stage. We're happy.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

We're happy. To have my Lord. I mean, we're very happy to continue. As I said earlier, I mean, the grouping, the earlier, I mean, the grouping, the grouping was done very late, and I've been instructed that we have
22:50
22:51
Lord Purvis of Tweed Portrait Lord Purvis of Tweed (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
is very clearly in the companion, which is debriefing after groupings have been published, which is to be discouraged because, as a consequence of the Procedure Committee in 2022, which outlined perfectly clear why it is an effective discourtesy to the House. Now this has happened, sometimes there are consequences to these discourtesies as a result of the companion indicating that there should be discouraged, and that is when there are colleagues who are are under the understanding that we will reach certain targets of the groups, then that is adhered to.

Now it is up to all colleagues offering due respect to other colleagues who take part in these groupings to both. And I've been watching the clock on a number of occasions when colleagues have gone far beyond what has been considered also a courtesy to the committee and the companion. There are consequences for how we conduct our debates. One of the consequences is we should adhere to what we were understanding to consider the next group.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I actually move that this house

**** Possible New Speaker ****

do now resume. The. Noble Lady had moved that

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The. Noble Lady had moved that the house do now resume. I will take advice as to whether it's debatable, but otherwise it is debatable, but otherwise it is debatable in which case the motion now stands before the house and has

**** Possible New Speaker ****

now stands before the house and has been moved. I mean, I wish to propose the noble Lady in this suggestion noble Lady in this suggestion because I think we've made some good progress this evening. We've had some good debates, and we're
22:52
22:53
22:54
None Portrait
-

My Lords. The question has been put, but the House do now resume, and I must put this question to the House, as many that opinion will say, content and to the contrary, not content. Not content. I think. Not content. I think the not contents have it.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Content. Not content. Content not content.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Content not content. Well. It is not normally the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Well. It is not normally the case to have a vote on a Committee stage, but if there is no agreement, I'll just taking the advice that may be oh well, the advice is, is may be oh well, the advice is, is that whether or not it normally happens, the question has been put. happens, the question has been put. There is no agreement as to the voices being called, and therefore the matter will be settled by a division. I will take advice as to whether I conduct the division from whether I conduct the division from the Woolsack, in which case I.

In

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Return. To move that the house be resumed.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

resumed. The question is that the House be now resumed, as many other opinion say. Content. Contrary, not opinion say. Content. Contrary, not content. The contents. The contents have it.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

So what do you mean? Yes.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

So what do you mean? Yes. About the house. I beg to move

**** Possible New Speaker ****

About the house. I beg to move that house now. Adjourn. No, no.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Sorry. No, no. The question was put. Down. Question. Sit down.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Sit down.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

No, that's not adjourning.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The division. My Lords, the house resumed, and

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, the house resumed, and the question has been put. And a the question has been put. And a motion needs to be made as to the motion needs to be made as to the way to proceed. And if necessary, a vote will be held. But I need vote will be held. But I need someone to move. A motion that that someone to move. A motion that that is votable on.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

She she's she's she's she's. That's That's a That's a great That's a great question. I I wonder what.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Would it be helpful if I move that the House do now adjourn? No,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

no. Just move. Lord Hanson of Flint.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Just move. Lord Hanson of Flint. I have now returned to the table, and I will sit and I will await a motion.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

That the House resume. And we agree that. I just take the portion of.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I just take the portion of. And I'm going to put the question that the House do now adjourn, as many of our opinions adjourn, as many of our opinions say contempt that the House will now resume, that opinion will say

**** Possible New Speaker ****

now resume, that opinion will say content, not content. I think the not contents have it. No.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

No. I think the not contents have it. Not content. Let's continue. Yeah. I thought the House had

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thought the House had adjourned. No. The committee adjourned before. I have returned to the table and

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I have returned to the table and the committee is now in session. I have put the question. I think the have put the question. I think the not contents have it. If anyone wishes to press it to a vote, it is possible to have a vote in a committee. But I ask members to think carefully about whether

**** Possible New Speaker ****

that's what they wish to do. At the moment, I think they're not content to have it. Can I just say. Obviously we're not going to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Obviously we're not going to have a vote now, but it would be helpful for those of us who were not aligned in this House to have not aligned in this House to have more communication than we've had to date in relation to these to date in relation to these matters. Because there seems to be quite a few of us.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

If I may say to the noble Lady, communication with regard to the grouping also. It wasn't applied to all equally either. So I have sympathy with the point, the noble Lady. But perhaps if we continue Lady. But perhaps if we continue with this group now, we might conclude this evening in a in an amicable way.
23:00
23:01
Lord Callanan Portrait Lord Callanan (Conservative)
-
-
treaty is clear that Mauritius shall have the duty to conserve and protect the environment, in protect the environment, in particular in respect of the marine protected area. It also commits the UK to provide support and assistance to Mauritius in the establishment and management of its marine Protected Area in the Chagos Archipelago, the protection of the environment in the Chagos Archipelago is a real concern to many who care about the future of the islands, especially the Chagossians themselves. It is right Chagossians themselves.

It is right that the treaty includes protections for the environment, especially marine wildlife around the islands. But we still need the islands. But we still need clarity from the government. For example, the noble Baroness, the Minister, told the House at Second Minister, told the House at Second Reading that fishing rights would be limited to traditional sustainable fishing connected with sustainable fishing connected with any resettlement of the islands. So could she tell the House how the UK government would hold Mauritius to government would hold Mauritius to account if it in fact breached that commitment, bearing in mind it doesn't have any way whatsoever of enforcing those requirements.

It has no fishery protection vessels that can reach the Chagos, and the aircraft that it has. A single one doesn't reach the islands either. The transfer of sovereignty must not lead to a reduction in not lead to a reduction in environmental protections. So can the noble Baroness Lister confirm whether the Foreign Office has assessed the possible impact of transferred sovereignty on those protections? Finally, what levers exist through the Joint Commission to ensure the environment on and around the environment? The islands is protected? And would Parliament be notified if the Mauritian government were to breach the environmental provisions of the treaty? And it is not just the Chagossians, but many ecologists and environmentalist who will have concerns about these protections.

A Minister should answer those concerns before we proceed to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Report stage. And I presume that Overlord is moving. The amendment proposed clause one, page one, line seven,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

clause one, page one, line seven, and insert the words as printed on the marshalled list. My Lords. Well, I'm going to
23:03
Baroness Hoey Portrait Baroness Hoey (Non-affiliated)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords. Well, I'm going to move amendment 60, 65 and 68 on overall on the protection and overall on the protection and preservation of native and migratory bird species, protection against illegal fishing, and generally. Some. An amendment on marine conservation. Now these are all amendments that Chagossians themselves support and want to see His Majesty's implementing. I just want to deal, first of all, with the protection and preservation of native and migratory bird species.

This amendment represents not just an environmental concern, but a power that, as the indigenous people of the Chagos Islands, they wish to be able to exercise these kinds of powers themselves. It sets out the kind of responsible stewardship they want to provide to their own homeland. But because of this bill and clause 2 to 4 extinguishes their right to self-government in the islands from which they were forcibly removed by a Labour government. My Lords, the Chagos Archipelago is one of the most important seabird sanctuaries on earth.

It supports some of the largest and least disturbed tropical seabird colonies remaining anywhere in the world, and scientific surveys by the British Indian Ocean Territory, the Zoological Society, the Chagos Conservation Trust confirm that it holds globally significant populations of species that are in decline elsewhere. And I could go through and name a number of the breeds that are very, very rare. Red footed boobies breed in very large numbers. We've got tens of thousands of brown noddies, white terns, sooty terns and wedge tailed shearwaters nesting successfully on the uninhabited islands that remain free of invasive predators.

The seabirds are not simply wildlife, they are the ecological engine of the entire archipelago, getting it guano from the large seabird colonies enriched coastal waters, increasing nitrogen and phosphorus levels that in turn fuel reef productivity. Peer reviewed research published in nature shows that reef fish biomass adjacent to healthy seabird colonies can be up to five times higher than the reefs where seabirds have been lost, and protecting sea. Seabirds is therefore central to protecting the coral reefs, the lagoon ecosystems and the wider marine food web.

My Lord, there are not risks. These are not hypothetical, hypothetical risks. There are documented threats to the species of global conservation concern coming from the rats, which can wipe out entire colonies. Light pollution, disorients fledglings. Human disturbance can cause nesting failures, a whole range of things, and the amendment is would create a clear duty to safeguard this irreplaceable natural heritage. It's the kind of environmental care and responsible stewardship that the Chagossians themselves wish to bring to their homeland.

If they're allowed to be back and have self-determination. And if this bill passes in its current form, we will transfer the Chagos Islands to the Republic of Mauritius, a country that is 1337 miles away and that does not even have the capacity, I said earlier, to reach the islands without assistance from India, we will deny the Chagossian people the opportunity to govern these vital ecological assets. It shows, I think, really what is at stake, that the Chagossian people are asking what needs to be done and what they will lose if we proceed with gross 2 to 4, and we shouldn't be denying them this.

As far as the amendment on birds are concerned, the Second Amendment, concerned, the Second Amendment, 8065 is one which is looking at the position to do with fishing. I'm sorry. Sorry 65 is to do with introducing a waste management and coastal protection system for the Chagos Archipelago. And this this is one, again, that I'm sure noble Lords would agree with because the ecological consequences are serious and well documented of the risks about ghost nets ensnaring endangered green and hawksbill turtles, as well as red footed boobies.

I've already mentioned brown noddies and reef sharks, and when these nets become caught on the reef crest, they break the coral colonies and accelerate degradation. So it is a most significant protected marine area, covering more than 640,000km², including a very large share of the remaining high quality coral reefs in the Indian Ocean. Seabird driven nutrient cycles, which sustain high fish biomass on adjacent reefs, are disrupted when plastics and fishing gear interfere with nesting colonies, and the Chagos. The Chagossian people know this better than anyone, because they've told us that keeping their coastline clean is a matter of identity, stewardship and and duty, and they want to remove the waste that arrives from other nations, and they want to prevent further debris entering their waters.

And that's an essential part of to them of caring for their homeland. So this this amendment is not merely about waste, it's about justice. It's about whether this House at the moment denying the Chagossian people any act of self-determination, will also deny them the ability to protect the beaches, reefs and nesting grounds of their homeland. So I hope that this amendment will be supported by noble Lords and then amendment 68, which is protection against illegal fishing. The Secretary of State must establish a system of patrols and monitoring to prevent illegal fishing within Chagos territorial waters and the surrounding marine protected areas.

This would require the Secretary of State to establish a clear system of patrols and monitoring within the Chagos territorial waters and the surrounding marine protected area. It's it's just exactly what the Chagossian community have said they want to do for themselves. If clause 2 to 4 of this bill was not going through and the United Kingdom was relinquishing sovereignty, the evidence of illegal fishing in these waters is real and well documented. The Chagos Marine Protected Area spans more than 640,000km², an area the size of France.

It's formally designated as a fully no take zone, and yet its remoteness has made it a target for illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing. Satellite monitoring, vessel tracking systems and analysis by global monitoring groups such as Global Fishing Watch have on multiple occasions detected foreign longliners operating close to and in some instances within the waters. Enforcement records maintained by the British Indian Ocean Territory Administration confirmed that vessels have been intercepted while illegally targeting tuna, sharks and other species. Past patrols have confiscated shark fins, prohibited gear and longlines, providing clear physical evidence of illegal extraction.

The ecological consequences are profound. Illegal fishing undermines the conservation objectives of one of the world's most important marine protected areas, and and every scientific assessment of Chagos ecosystems concludes that maintaining strong enforcement is essential to preserve its uniquely intact reefs, fish biomass, and biodiversity, and there are still many people in the Chagossian community from their history and heritage who understand this intimately. And they have said that protecting the fish stocks is as important to them as protecting their beaches and nesting sites, and they want to be able to participate in patrols, to support monitoring and to take responsibility for safeguarding the marine life that their parents and grandparents depended upon.

They see illegal fishing not only as a threat to biodiversity, but as a threat to their future ability to sustain themselves when they go back to their islands. But of course, also under the United Nations Convention on the law of the sea, which, of course, we've been discussing in terms of the advice that it gave, article 61 requires coastal states to conserve living resources. Article 62 obliges them to ensure proper management and enforcement, and article 73 grants the authority and responsibility to board, inspect, arrest and detain vessels engaged in illegal fishing.

International Tribunals Tribunal for the law of the sea have confirmed that these articles require states to maintain, monitoring, to regulate and, crucially, to enforce. At present, there is no statutory duty in domestic law requiring the UK to maintain controls or monitoring in Biot, and this amendment would fill that gap and bring legislation into proper alignment with other international obligations, which noble Lords are very keen always to comply with. Now, the government may argue that Mauritius can meet these responsibilities after transfer, but the United Kingdom remains the coastal and administrative power today, and its treaty obligations exist today, and we cannot be satisfied by assuming they cannot be satisfied by assuming that another state will meet them.

So, my Lords, these amendments, all are very, very sensible amendments which, if passed, would at least give the to the Chagossians the feeling that the United Kingdom did care about the island overall, about the fishing, about the bird life, and about the marine life generally. So I hope that noble Lords, perhaps when they look carefully at this, will actually agree to these amendments. And of course we will, if not be bringing them, we will be bringing them back at Report stage.

bringing them back at Report stage. because.
23:13
Lord Lilley Portrait Lord Lilley (Conservative)
-
-
It's not.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Going to speak on these amendments because I thought there were other people far more qualified who do so. But I did serve on the your Lordships' House Committee on Environment and Committee on Environment and Climate Change. When we produce the report on the Biodiversity report on the Biodiversity Agreement in Montreal, and the committee reported in July to 2023, committee reported in July to 2023, and that commitment, the Montreal and that commitment, the Montreal Treaty requires Britain to, as I Treaty requires Britain to, as I recall, protect 30% of its marine areas by 2030.

It's called the 3030 areas by 2030. It's called the 3030 agreement. And we were very proud and mentioned, I think, with pride in that report, that the largest in that report, that the largest single area of sea that was being protected was the British Indian protected was the British Indian Overseas Territories, sea. And we accepted tacitly that it was Britain's responsibility to protect that. And it was very important that. And it was very important area of biodiversity for the world as a whole.

And it's our responsibility. But it now seems responsibility. But it now seems that we've handed that over to Mauritius. But Mauritius has no means of policing that area. It has no boats that can cover that distance and that area, and no aeroplanes that can do so. I doubt whether we had permanent boats stationed there, but if there were problems we could we have the capacity to send both sea or airborne reconnaissance aircraft to make sure that things were properly being respected.

Now I wonder, therefore, if this treaty that we're now legislating to implement is in contravention of our commitments under the Montreal Biodiversity Treaty, are we abandoning commitments we then made and leaving them effectively unpoliced now another treaty was passed, which we didn't investigate and which was investigated by another committee of this House. The it was I can't even remember the name of the treaty, but it was effectively a treaty about areas of the sea which are outside national jurisdiction.

And that would seem that that now covers the Biot or does it? And I hope the Minister would tell us which of these two treaties is it covered by? Is it covered by the old one, which we had responsibility for? And we've now given up that responsibility despite our international obligations under international law, which are normally sacrosanct, or are they under another treaty, which means that they're now dealt with as if they're beyond national jurisdiction? These are clearly very important matters.

It's a shame that we're discussing, at this time of night, when people are far better informed than me, could bring their expertise and knowledge to bear. But since they're not here, I raise these questions and I hope the Minister will be able to respond to them.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'm happy to respond. The situation, as I understand it, is that the the Mauritian Marine that the the Mauritian Marine Protected Area, and there's been detail published of that. I think it was only last week. It may have it was only last week. It may have been the week before will be new treaty. It will be lodged at the UN
23:17
Baroness Chapman of Darlington Portrait Baroness Chapman of Darlington, Minister of State (Development) (Labour)
-
-
treaty. It will be lodged at the UN in a similar way that ours was. And it won't be a badge issue. We'll be I think we're considering that next week actually, in this house. So we can get into that a bit more detail now that the noble Lord is back into these issues after a bit of a break, but the PB and J, because this wouldn't be a biodiversity beyond national jurisdiction. This would be the responsibility of the Mauritians. So it would be covered by the new treaty.

And I can talk about that a little bit more now. So amendments 15 and 66, these amendments would prevent clauses 2 to 4 of the bill coming into force until the UK government has published a report on how it intends to preserve the Chagos Marine Protected Area, the MPA will be for the Mauritian government to implement, and they've already announced the creation of the MPA. And once the treaty enters into force, they will do that. Once this treaty enters into force, no commercial fishing whatsoever will be allowed in any part of the marine protected area.

Low levels of artisanal subsistence fishing for resettled Chagossians will be allowed in certain limited areas and will be compatible with nature conservation. The UK will continue to support Mauritius in the establishment of this marine protected area, and in protecting the globally significant ecosystems of the Chagos Archipelago. Amendments 38 and 65. Whilst I appreciate and understand the noble Baroness Cass commitment to sustaining the unique and pristine environment around the archipelago, recycling systems and waste management systems on the outer islands would be a matter for Mauritius to deliver on Diego Garcia itself.

Waste management is currently undertaken by the US and monitored by the UK to ensure compliance with environmental standards, and this would continue following entry into force of the agreement, with no identified need to change current processes. Amendment 60. Whilst Mauritius will be responsible for the environment throughout the Chagos Archipelago, the UK will continue to provide support to protect migratory bird species within the agreement under the International Organisations Exchange of Letters, the UK and Mauritius will, for instance, agree a separate arrangement to maintain the listed Ramsar wetlands site on Diego Garcia, which provides a unique protected habitat for migratory migratory birds, and further protections will be a matter for Mauritius.

Amendment 16 and 68. Mauritius will be responsible for the environment throughout the Chagos Archipelago, including enforcement. On the 3rd of November, the Mauritian government announced the creation of the Chagos Archipelago Marine Protected Area. They have confirmed already that no commercial fishing will be allowed in any part of the MPA. They will, however, allow low levels of artisanal subsistence subsistence fishing for resettled Chagossians in certain limited areas, which will be compatible with nature conservation. The UK has agreed to cooperate with Mauritius on maritime security and provide assistance in the establishment and management of the MPA.

As part of the Diego Garcia treaty. The terms of this cooperation and assistance will be agreed in a separate process, which is already underway. Amendment 73. This amendment is completely unnecessary. We've been clear on this. The UK has not and will not make any financial payment to the Mauritian government to establish a new MPA in the waters surrounding the Chagos Archipelago. The UK has agreed to provide support and assistance in the establishment and management of the MPA as part of the Diego Garcia treaty protecting the vital military base on Diego Garcia.

The terms of this support and assistance will be agreed in a separate process, which is already underway. Amendment 76. This amendment is no longer required on the 3rd of November. Mauritius, as I've said, announced the creation of its MPA once the treaty enters into force. And similarly, the points about artisanal fishing apply to that amendment as well. And with that, my Lords, I hope that amendments can be withdrawn.
23:21
Lord Callanan Portrait Lord Callanan (Conservative)
-
-
My Lord, I thank the noble Lady for her answers. But I think the the debate reflects the complexity of the environmental provisions. As my noble friend has said, it's a shame that we couldn't have had a more reasonable time where there could have been more participants in the debate, but clearly the government doesn't wish to to do that. The this is not a niche issue. Protecting the unique and biodiverse environment on and around the islands is of international significance.

The Chagossians, the scientific community and many others want to see the Chagos Islands unique ecosystem protected, and it would be an abrogation of the government's responsibilities if they were to press ahead with this deal without first securing the appropriate assurances from Mauritius. Obviously delighted that Mauritius have announced the Marine protected Area, and I'm sure we're all really pleased to see that. But I think the the key point was the one raised by my noble friend, which is a matter of enforcement. Mauritius is a small island.

They have very few resources. There are thousands of miles away from the Chagos Islands. The fishing, the the waters surrounding the Chagos are rich in fishing and biodiversity. And I'm sure in a few years time we will probably see them being exploited, not for any lack of willingness on behalf of the Mauritians, but simply because they are completely unable to enforce the provisions. And I think that would be a shame for one of the most unique environments in the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

world. But in the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw my amendments. Is it your lordships pleasure? The amendment be withdrawn? The amendment be withdrawn? Amendment is by leave withdrawn. Amendment 16 already debated or

**** Possible New Speaker ****

moved. My Lords, I beg to move that the House be resumed.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

House be resumed. The question is that the House do now resume as many that opinion will say. Content. Contrary, not will say. Content. Contrary, not

**** Possible New Speaker ****

content. The contents have it. The House do now adjourn.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The House do now adjourn.
This debate has concluded
Return to start of debate - Return to top of page