Live Debate: Lords Chamber

Urgent Question Repeat: Implications for national security and the management of terrorist offenders following disruption to the Separation Centre regime

The government is. Carefully considering the findings of Jonathan Hall cases independent review into the operation of.

15:37

Lord Keen of Elie (Conservative)

- -

Separation centres, which was commissioned following the dreadful attack. At HMP Frankland in April this year. And we will publish Mr. Hall's report. Our response in due course. But also, I would add, in imminently when it comes to the regimes in our separation centres, members of your Lordships' House will be pleased to know that I've been to to see the centre at HMP Frankland and meet a number of the staff who are, I have to say, incredibly brave and professional public servants, and we are doing a number of operational improvements

**** Possible New Speaker ****

to improve their safety as well. My Lords. The. Finding by the High Court.

15:38

Lord Timpson, The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Labour)

- -

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The. Finding by the High Court. That any prisoner in England, whoever they may be, has been subjected to inhumane.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

subjected to inhumane. Or degrading. Treatment shames us all. My Lords, we all understand the need

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Lords, we all understand the need for separation centres for high. Risk terrorist offenders. But can. The noble Lords say what steps

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The noble Lords say what steps the government will now be taking in the light of the Abu judgement, to ensure that prisoners in to ensure that prisoners in separation centres are not so cut off from human contact as to endanger their mental health, and that all such prisoners have access to adequate, high quality psychiatric care as Abu did not.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The the separation centres protect the public from the most protect the public from the most serious offenders and the a small number of prisoners held in these centres, and the regime is the

15:39

Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (Liberal Democrat)

- -

centres, and the regime is the purpose of activity. Limited association and rehabilitation, and the noble Lord will know that that word rehabilitation is something that is really important to me and also what is what is very clear from having met the staff who work in separation centres is that they're not all classically trained prison officers. A number are psychiatrists, psychologists, experts in security and so on. And it's very much a team effort of what they do to make sure we run good regimes.

That has a real focus on rehabilitation. And also, if I could just add that I'm really looking forward to getting into more of the detail on Jonathan more of the detail on Jonathan Hall's report and also when it's published with the recommendations, because it's going to be very helpful to us as we look to the helpful to us as we look to the future about how we run these very system.

15:40

Lord Timpson, The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Labour)

- -

Does my noble friend agree with me that there is no inconsistency with having adequate separation in the context of of terrorism offenders and complying with our most basic and fundamental human rights obligations? And in the light of noble Lord Lord Marks question and crucially, the decision of Mr. Justice Sheldon last week, all we need to do, and I know my noble friend is is an expert in these matters, is to ensure that appropriate mental health provision is made for any offender, particularly those who are isolated for long periods in

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the day. I thank my noble friend. We're carefully considering the High carefully considering the High Court ruling on the Abu case, including considering appealing the decision, and our decisions are decision, and our decisions are based on risk and proportionality of our response. Of that risk is how we make our decisions and how we make our decisions and someone's mental health in throughout the whole justice system is something that is a very

15:40

Baroness Chakrabarti (Labour)

- -

is something that is a very important factor in how we manage everyone's risk, from whether they're on a first night or a first time in prison, to whether they have been in in the system for a very long time. And I am proud of so many of my colleagues who spend so much of their time in our prisons and also our probation staff too, who really go out of their way to support people with their mental health requirements. But also what is clear is the support that we give our NHS and health providers in our prisons is really important too.

We need to enable that. They have the right space and time to work with people who are often very vulnerable.

15:41

Lord Timpson, The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Labour)

- -

My Lords, there is a gaslighting quality about the High Court judgement that the public sector equality duty was breached because no consideration had been given to decisions which meant a cohort of prisoners, all Muslim, were treated in a particular way. This could, the judge said, have been perceived as a form of collective punishment against Muslims. My Lords, all inmates in the separation centre are Muslims. 75% of MI5's counterterrorist caseload are Islamist extremists and 63% of prisoners for terrorism related offences are Muslims.

When I visited HMP Frankland in 2022, a prison officer in the separation unit told me that they were perpetually, and I thought, dangerously constrained by the PTSD and human rights legislation. Will the government appeal this judgement and strenuously reassure prison governors that they can and must continue to use separation units to keep officers, prisoners units to keep officers, prisoners and the public safe? Yeah. and the public safe? Yeah.

15:42

Lord Farmer (Conservative)

- -

The. As I as I said to my noble friend, we're considering appealing the decision. And also what is important is that the staff who work in in our separation centres have the skills that they need to care for the people who are in that separation centre. But I also go back to the Jonathan Hall work that we commissioned him to do. And, you know, the the system is robust, but we always need to look for improvements. And that is why we've asked Mr.

Hall to look at all of our separation centres and the policies that we have to make sure

**** Possible New Speaker ****

that it is right for the future. My Lords. Does my noble. Friend

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords. Does my noble. Friend the. Minister agree with me? Sorry, does my noble friend, the Minister think that we are doing enough to

15:43

Lord Timpson, The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Labour)

- -

think that we are doing enough to keep our staff safe in our prisons, with increasingly violent prisoners

**** Possible New Speaker ****

challenging authority? What else is being done? My noble friend is right to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My noble friend is right to raise this question. One of the things that surprises me going around prisons now, compared to 25 around prisons now, compared to 25 years ago, is how much more violence there is on our wings, and violence there is on our wings, and that is probably a combination of the amount of drugs in our prisons and the number of people with severe mental health issues, but severe mental health issues, but also people serving very long sentences. But one of the things sentences.

But one of the things that we are doing is investing in protecting our staff, because, as my noble friend said, our staff do my noble friend said, our staff do an amazing job, often in very difficult and dangerous situations. So that's why we've invested £15 So that's why we've invested £15 million in 10,000 personal body armour, jackets and suits. And also

15:44

Baroness Ramsey of Wall Heath (Labour)

- -

armour, jackets and suits. And also we're getting 500 staff trained in how to use tasers. And every other week I speak to prison leaders. And last week I was talking to the governors of the long term high secure estate. And they were telling me how much, how much reassurance the staff have had from the fact that they're now getting protection.

15:44

Lord Timpson, The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Labour)

- -

Could I ask, could I ask the noble Lord, the Minister, whether or not the prison service has sufficient resources for the mental health issues they have to deal with?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'm not an expert in healthcare, but I'm an expert in prisons. And but I'm an expert in prisons. And what I see is prisoners getting incredible levels of support. But often in regimes that are that are running hot. So I my personal assessment is, is that prisoners assessment is, is that prisoners are getting very good care. But but within a system that is struggling. And so what we need to do is to And so what we need to do is to make sure we have a much more stable prison environment.

And that is why running prisons, when you literally have no space left is very, very difficult to to run everything, to get people out of everything, to get people out of their cells and to get the support that that people need. But I also think it's important to have the right facilities and some of the new prisons I've seen that we've built. The medical facilities are excellent and appropriate because we're dealing with people who are often very, very ill. Their life,

15:45

Baroness Butler-Sloss (Crossbench)

- -

the life expectancy of someone in a prison is much lower on average, than someone who hasn't been to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

prison. So we need to do all we can to support people with their mental health, but also their other health issues as well. My Lords, my.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, my. about. Increasing violence. In prisons. Is that as true in.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Is that as true in. Women's prisons. As it is. In men's prisons?

15:46

Lord Timpson, The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Labour)

- -

**** Possible New Speaker ****

In men's prisons? I don't know the exact facts. And I will write to the noble Baroness on the exact details on Baroness on the exact details on violence in women's prisons. But what I can tell you, there are two facts that I think are very, very worrying. The rate of self-harm in a women's prison compared to a men's prison is eight times higher, and 60% of women in prison have brain damage as a result of being hit. So we're dealing with some people with severe illnesses, and

**** Possible New Speaker ****

that is what we need to do to support them. My Lords, I'll give. A minute for people to.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Leave the chamber. If they want to before next

15:47

Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean (Labour)

- -

15:47

Lord Timpson, The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Labour)

- -

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Base in British Indian Ocean Darlington.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Darlington. I beg the House to again resolve itself into a committee upon the bill.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

bill. The question is that the House do now again resolve itself into a committee on the bill. As many as committee on the bill. As many as that opinion will say, content and the contrary, not contents.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The contents have it. In clause one, amendment 17.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

In clause one, amendment 17. Lord Callaghan. My Lords, I rise to propose the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I rise to propose the amendments in my name on this group. The trust fund set up for the Chagossians is absolutely central to this treaty. Under article 11, the Mauritians have been given the the Mauritians have been given the responsibility for administering the fund, which will be paid for,

15:48

Legislation: Diego Garcia Military Base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill - committee stage (day 2) - part one

the fund, which will be paid for, of course, by the UK, but we still do not have any clarity on how Mauritius will manage the fund, and we seem to have no say in it whatsoever. The reality of Mauritius past record is, of course, also a cause for concern, since the forced removal of the Chagossians from the archipelago, many Chagossians have lived on Mauritius and in the 1970s, as has been pointed out a number of times in the debate so far, the UK government paid £4 million into a

15:49

Lord Callanan (Conservative)

- -

trust fund for the benefit of registered Chagossians, so I'd be very interested to know the government's assessment of whether that trust fund has indeed been a that trust fund has indeed been a success. Does the government, in fact, have any concerns about the way Mauritius has managed that fund way Mauritius has managed that fund before we offer to donate cash for another one. If the government is another one. If the government is concerned about Mauritius's past actions in this area, what additional assurances have additional assurances have Ministers sought from the Mauritian government to prevent mismanagement, corruption or failure to properly corruption or failure to properly distribute funds in future? The domestic reality, of course, of this arrangement is also worrying.

this arrangement is also worrying. Many Britons will struggle to understand why we are transferring funds to a foreign government so that they can manage a trust fund on our behalf. Does this mean we are transferring funds without proper control over how those proper control over how those monies are spent? What powers will the UK have under the treaty to the UK have under the treaty to ensure that Mauritius is in fact fulfilling its responsibilities? These are all important questions. Many members have raised it in the debate so far that I believe Ministers should seek to answer Ministers should seek to answer either at the despatch box or on the face of the bill.

Turning to amendment 17, in my name and amendments 26 and 28, in the names of my noble friends Lord Lilley and Lord Hannan of Kingsclere, these relate to the employment of Chagossian citizens on the military base. The treaty makes provision for the employment of Mauritians on the base, and we debated issues related to that provision in an earlier group. The treaty sadly does not make any provision for the employment of Chagossians on the base. We already know how many Chagossians living on Mauritius feel as though they are treated like second class citizens.

Does the Minister agree that Chagossian should have similar protections for their employment on the military base? As Mauritians? Amendment 81, in the name of Lord Morrow, is also a very simple amendment that would provide for a report on the impact of the Treaty on British Indian Ocean Territory citizens, and I see no reason why Ministers would refuse to produce that report. The rights of our citizens are indeed, or should be central to the future of the islands, and we do need some necessary clarity on this matter.

If the government cannot commit to a report on the impact of the treaty, will the Minister at least give the House an assurance that her department will do everything in its power under the terms of the treaty, to ensure that our citizens are properly supported by Mauritius? I look forward to hearing the rest

**** Possible New Speaker ****

end. Amendment proposed clause one,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Amendment proposed clause one, page one, line seven at end in certain words is printed on the Marshall List.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Marshall List. Lord Saatchi. In this group I want to move amendments 20, 50 and want to move amendments 20, 50 and 81 A before I speak to my amendments. I want to also strongly support the amendment 55 in the name of my noble friend Lord Weir of Ballyholme. As a noble Lady of Ballyholme. As a noble Lady knows, I have asked several questions about the trust fund, which, as I understand it, will be totally in the control of the Mauritian government.

And as the noble Lady the Minister knows, I believe that that brings inherent problems, particularly as those Chagossians living here in the UK are often near or below the poverty line, and could well do with access to help and assistance. And to help and assistance. And amendment 55 seeks to probe the fairness of the payments to Mauritians and Chagossians. And I Mauritians and Chagossians. And I would go further and say that the Secretary of State should establish a Chagossian Advisory Council, comprised primarily of individuals of Chagossian descent, including members based here in the UK,

15:52

Baroness Foster of Aghadrumsee (Non-affiliated)

- -

members based here in the UK, Mauritius and Seychelles, and this council could then be consulted on all strategic program and spending decisions relating to the Trust Fund, ensuring that Chagossian communities are directly involved in shaping priorities and oversight that would promote transparency and the minutes of the Council meetings, and any recommendations or advice could also be published annually. Now, I know that that goes further, that the amendment than the amendment in the name of Lord Weir, but I'd be obliged to hear from the noble Lady on this issue, as it would deal with some of the issues around transparency and accountability as well.

On amendment 28, I'm not going to labour the points raised in this as we discussed some of this last week in committee, apart from to remind the House that the current provisions of the treaty do not grant a right for Chagossians to assess their homeland, but rather leaves it up to the Mauritian government as to whether this happens or not. To quote article six, the Mauritian government is free to implement a program of resettlement, and that falls far short of right to access the islands.

And that is what this amendment seeks to do. My Lords, moving on then, to amendment 58, which concerns the protection of Chagossian identity and birthplace. I put this amendment down at the request of the Chagossian community here in the UK, including many native islanders who were born on Diego Garcia and Salomon before their forced removal between 1968 and 1973. My Lords, this amendment is not theoretical and it's not precautionary. It actually responds to a real current, and I have to say, deeply troubling practice that is already happening.

And I think the House needs to be aware of the seriousness of this. We have now seen documentary evidence that Mauritian authorities have begun issuing birth certificates to Chagossians, in which the true place of birth has been removed and replaced with Mauritius. In each case, the names of islands such as Diego Garcia, Paris Banos or Solomon have been deleted from the official record. That's not an allegation, it's a matter of record. Chagossian families have shown us the documents and they've been verified by lawyers.

Native islanders born on Spanish and Diego Garcia are now being told by a government claiming future sovereignty over their homeland that they weren't born there at all. This pattern of altering official records is consistent with long standing concerns expressed by Chagossians, who lived in Mauritius, many of whom describe decades of discrimination, marginalisation and a complete lack of constitutional recognition as a distinct people. United Nations human rights experts have previously documented that Chagossians and Mauritius faced entrenched barriers to housing, to healthcare, to employment, and to political participation, and continue to experience de facto discrimination as an Afro descendant minority.

Indeed, I wonder, would the noble Lady, the Minister, care to look at the website of the Mauritian government, which is dedicated to the Chagos Archipelago? And there they refer to those who were forcibly removed from the islands in the 1960s as Mauritians, born and residing at the time in the Chagos Archipelago. Now, I've personally seen a passport of a chagossian who was deported from Diego Garcia to the Seychelles and in that case the birthplace originally recorded as Diego Garcia has been replaced with Mauritius.

I'm also informed by those directly affected that this practice followed political agreements involving the former Mauritian Prime Minister and the former Seychelles president, under which Chagossians living in Seychelles were required to have Mauritius entered on their documents, rather than the true place of their birth on the island. Now, whether these arrangements were informal or formal, the effect is the same. The birth place of Chagossian natives has been erased, replaced or falsified, and my Lord Goddard is an act of identity deletion.

And it's happening now, and the evidence is in front of us. I think the way to deal with this is this amendment. I believe it is essential that Chagossians were removed once their homes were demolished, their pets were killed, their possessions were thrown into the sea, and they were shipped to Mauritius and the Seychelles with no warning and no rights. And they lost their land, their livelihood and their future. What they ask for today, I believe, is very modest in comparison.

They ask for the one thing they still possess, and that is the truth of who they are and where they were born. And I have to say, I think this house really needs to take cognisance of that, because identity is not a technicality for a displaced person. It's absolutely everything. And it's the final surviving link to their home, to their lineage, to history and to dignity. Yet we now know not fair, not speculate, but know that the birthplace of Chagossian natives has been altered by an external authority, and there can be no more powerful demonstration of why this House must intervene.

And the government has repeatedly argued that decisions about the Chagos should respect international norms. And we've heard it many times in this House. An international law is absolutely clear on this point. Altering a displaced persons civil status records without their consent violates the principles laid down in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the UN Guiding Principles on International Internal Displacement, and the Fundamental Norms to Identity as recognised in Human Rights Jurisprudence. So, my Lords, this cannot go unchecked, and the amendment requires three simple, just and necessary things.

First of all, that the Secretary of State must intervene through diplomatic and international channels to ensure that the birthplace of Chagossian natives continues to be recognised accurately. Second of all, that all official documents, birth records, passports and identity papers must reflect the truth of a person's origins. And third, that Parliament must be informed annually of any attempts by any state to alter or erase this information. My Lords, Chagossians are one of the most dispossessed people in the modern British story.

They were removed without their consent. They were misrepresented in official papers. They were denied self-determination, and their history has often been told without them. And now, now even their birthplace is being overwritten. And we cannot we cannot allow that to happen. And I hope, my Lords, that this amendment 58 will gain support. Finally. Then, amendment 88 calls for a report within three months of this bill becoming law on the impact of the transfer of sovereignty, particularly on the preservation and the right to access sites of Chagossian heritage.

I think it's a very minimalist requirement. It's the very least we can do. And I would ask the noble Lady, the Minister, to give a sympathetic ear and due consideration to this

**** Possible New Speaker ****

amendment and indeed all of the other amendments I have spoken to. My Lord.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lord. My Lord, I just rise to speak very briefly in support of my noble friend Baroness Foster. Based on friend Baroness Foster. Based on insight and experience, there was the Chagossian package that we the Chagossian package that we negotiated. We being the previous government, it was a £40 million package over ten years, and part of the challenge that was faced by the previous government was on its previous government was on its administration and governance as to who would have a say on how those monies were spent.

Some of the delivery partners, for example, included the British Council for packages on English language training, and we also worked with universities, including Middlesex, in this respect on delivering again skill sets for Chagossian communities. There was also some communities. There was also some insight provided by local government governance on governance

16:02

Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Conservative)

- -

by local communities right here in the United Kingdom. But I share that insight and experience because it remained a big challenge as to how it would be administered. So in summing up, perhaps I could also ask the Minister specifically the 40 million Chagossian support package was administered as the noble Lady. The Minister will know by the FCDO, i.e. the UK government, in this £40 million which is now being proposed, it will shift. So the issue of accountability, and particularly for the Chagossian people, will be a vital component.

Secondly, I would also just ask the probing question as to the existing schemes which are already operational for memory and I'm going purely from memory. There was about 30 odd million which had been allocated. Will those schemes run to the end of their project period? And what's happened to that extra 10 million? Has it been reallocated to the 40 million which is now being proposed on the trust fund by

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the government? My Lords, I rise to move

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I rise to move amendment 38 and 38 be in my name and that of Lord Weir the amendment and that of Lord Weir the amendment for the House in my name, that this government should seek to ensure limited commercial and chartered limited commercial and chartered flights for British citizens to and from Diego Garcia, using the existing runway facilities is one of great importance. Like many colleagues have already mentioned colleagues have already mentioned that the very heart of this conversation ought to be the islanders themselves.

And my Lords, I was privileged to receive correspondence from many members of correspondence from many members of the community living in the United Kingdom, asking that they would Kingdom, asking that they would reflect their concerns on this issue. My Lords, I believe this is issue. My Lords, I believe this is a very modest but vital step towards addressing the historic injustice inflicted on the Chagos community and shall explain why the government should accept this government should accept this amendment and why the bill in its present form is not adequate.

present form is not adequate. Without it, noble Lords will be aware of the history of the British Indian Ocean Territory, and I do not intend to repeat it today. However, we must be continually mindful of what happened to the heavens of these islands in 1968 and 1973, then numbering around 2000, they were removed from their homes so that they could, they could see, could become the site for UK US military base. Since then, the government has repeatedly recognised that these are British Overseas Territory citizens, some native but many new descendants of deceased islanders who never returned and the government has provided certain support measures throughout the years or so they might contend.

Yes, in spite of this, my Lords, the failed to take into account the undeniable important right of the Chagossians to have any meaningful access to their former homeland. They have been denied what we consider an expectation to return home. At the end of the day, this amendment is about more than symbolic flights. It addresses infrastructure, reconnection and justice. It taps into the people on their campaign for representation. Throughout this long process, for Her Majesty's Government has continually left them very much outside in the cold.

This amendment would allow limited commercial or chartered traffic, especially for the science community in the United Kingdom. This is not a wholesale opening of the island, nor does it challenge the base operations. It simply permits members of the community, many of whom live in the United Kingdom, to visit, to reconnect and maintain their culture and family ties to the Chagos community. Those opposed against this amendment may argue that additional flights raise security and other major issues.

I respectfully suggest that this argument cannot be used to stonewall all access. Instead, this amendment demands a managed, limited and regular scheme. For example, scheduled charters once or twice a year under vetting with government oversight. This is entirely compatible with defence interests, and recognising the ties of this people as part of Britain's international human rights obligations. It permits family members to see where their parents were born, to grieve and remember to connect with their roots.

That matters more than any of us could ever know. That gives a constituent community a tangible and practical

16:07

Lord Hay of Ballyore (Democratic Unionist Party)

- -

link back to their homeland. Practically speaking, the government should include reporting government should include reporting requirements how many flights, which who operates them, what which who operates them, what capacity, what cost? We should ensure a transparent and accountable process. My Lords, I therefore urge the noble Lords to consider carefully this amendment. Without it, the Bill recedes with a tangible measure of access and tangible measure of access and leaves the Chagossian community with yet another broken promise. I with yet another broken promise.

I want to move quickly on to. Onto want to move quickly on to. Onto amendment 38 B in my name and that of Lord Weir's as well. My Lords, I of Lord Weir's as well. My Lords, I speak today on the amendment tabled in my name and Lord Weir. As it stands in its current form, the stands in its current form, the Bill fails to provide even the most basic protections for a community whose treatment by successive governments has been one of the most regrettable chapters in our most regrettable chapters in our modern history.

My Lords, the proposal in this amendment is proposal in this amendment is simple in nature and employment on the Diego Garcia military base must include fair and equal opportunities for the consumers. As British Indian Ocean Territory citizens, and that condition must be in line with UK labour standards. These conditions are the bare minimum we should expect for individual working under the authority of the United Kingdom, particularly in the case of British Chagossians who have just as much claim to be Britishness as we do.

Hello. The government likes to point out that the exclusions can apply for jobs, and the cashier. In reality, very had meaningful access to stable, fair employment on this island. Which of labour force is made up of contracted or subcontracted workers from elsewhere, where the Chagossians have been employed, concerns have been raised in relation to pay disparity, lack of unclear contractual safeguards without explicit protection and legislation, these equalities will simply continue unchecked and we cannot allow that to happen.

British overseas territory should reflect British values and that includes adherence to UK recognised labour standards. These standards cover fair pay if conditions, rest periods, paid leave and protection from discrimination. I completely disagree with the claim that a military base complements and creates a problem for workforce regulations. My Lord. Civilians work on UK and allied military installations right across the world. My Lords, this amendment is about treating the Chagossians community with fairness and basic justice as a chance for Parliament to ensure that the community be paid the highest price for Britain's historical decisions in the British Indian Ocean Territory is no longer marginalised from its own homeland.

My Lords, this amendment may not ensure self-determination nor the maintenance of sovereignty. Neither shall it be likely to affect the security of the region. But what it does seek to do is to put the Chagossians people first. If the government is serious about righting the past wrongs, surely it must begin by guaranteeing equal

**** Possible New Speaker ****

treatment in employment. Let me say at the. Outset that. I don't see the need. For the amendments that. We are discussing at the moment, but I do think that at the moment, but I do think that responding to and respecting the wishes and interests of the Chagossians as one of the most

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Chagossians as one of the most important and difficult issues. Facing the. Governments, both of the United Kingdom and of Mauritius, that.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Kingdom and of Mauritius, that. There is. There's a lot of history to make good here, and it's all the more good here, and it's all the more difficult in that there is no single Chagossian view for a

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Chagossian people in Britain, in Mauritius, in the Seychelles and elsewhere. And there are. Different views among and indeed

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Different views among and indeed within the different communities. I think it would be unwise to think think it would be unwise to think that there is an immediate or straightforward answer to meeting the wishes and interests of these the wishes and interests of these different communities. My guess is that this and future British and

16:12

Lord Jay of Ewelme (Crossbench)

- -

Mauritian governments will be dealing with these questions for quite some time to come. I think myself that it's sensible of the government to ask the International Relations and Defence Committee to look into the issue, and sensible for them to conduct a survey of

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Chagossian interests and wishes. This is not an easy task. And there.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Will be, and indeed already are, doubts expressed about the time and doubts expressed about the time and the scope of the Irc's work, and that, I fear, is inevitable. But I that, I fear, is inevitable. But I hope that the results of the ICRC survey and their report will give the Minister some firm ground on the Minister some firm ground on which to make her promise statement in due course discussions. Have I in due course discussions. Have I now been going on between the Mauritian and British governments about the way forward? I hope that about the way forward? I hope that one conclusion of these talks will be that the £40 million trust fund, be that the £40 million trust fund, to be administered by Mauritius, will be administered in the interests of all Chagossians and in interests of all Chagossians and in a way that reassures Chagossians wherever they are now that their wherever they are now that their views are properly heard and represented, there is understandable scepticism about understandable scepticism about this and it needs to be addressed.

I hope, too, that the government will recognise and indeed facilitate the right of return to, and resettlement on the Chagos and resettlement on the Chagos Outer Islands, and that here too there will be close and constructive cooperation between the British and Mauritian governments. My Lords, there's a lot of history to put right as far as the Chagossian community is concerned, in Britain and elsewhere, the government is, I know, fully conscious of that, and I'm sure future governments will be too.

Meanwhile, I hope that this bill will soon be approved, passed and implemented. My Lords.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I would certainly agree with the noble. Lord, Lord J. When he. Says that the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

When he. Says that the Chagossian people in the disparate are. Not united.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

On many issues, but one thing they are united on is their desire to have a number of employment to have a number of employment opportunities on Diego Garcia. And so I very much support the words of the noble Lord, Lord Callaghan, the noble Lord, Lord Callaghan, when I looked at this as a Minister, Foreign Office, one of the things that did stagger me was that the number of of people employed on that base from Sri Lanka, workers from India, from many other countries, and there were occasionally some Chagossians, but there was no comprehensive, well thought out framework for thought out framework for Chagossians, be they in Crawley or Mauritius or the Seychelles, for

16:15

Lord Bellingham (Conservative)

- -

actually looking at opportunities for employment in Diego Garcia. And it was almost as though there was a an underlying desire on the part of both the Mod and the Americans not to employ them on the basis probably, that they might well then have claimed other rights. And there was a lot of concern about whether there would be an issue about self-determination if they went there and settled there. But I think that the noble Lord, Lord Camden's amendment makes a great deal of sense, and I think this is one issue that the Chagossian people are fully agreed on, and we

**** Possible New Speaker ****

should absolutely support it. Yes. My Lord, I. Rise in relation to this group. Can I say.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Can I say. I suppose, picking up the remarks, first of all, of of Lord Jay? Yes. There is not perhaps a Jay? Yes. There is not perhaps a single unified position of every single Chagossian. Perhaps we should not be surprised at that. should not be surprised at that. Can we identify an issue in the United Kingdom, which there is a single view which every citizen of single view which every citizen of the United Kingdom holds? We may indeed have great difficulty in finding many issues within this finding many issues within this House in which every single one of us is on the exactly the same page.

us is on the exactly the same page. Of course, there would be a way to test that, which is is the case of test that, which is is the case of democratic self-determination. And that would have been the way to see where the majority of of opinion where the majority of of opinion lay within the Chagossian community. And it would not be beyond the wit And it would not be beyond the wit of any government to do that. But in turning to the amendments, particularly within this group, and

16:16

Lord Weir of Ballyholme (Democratic Unionist Party)

- -

16:25

Lord Hannan of Kingsclere (Conservative)

- -

16:35

Lord Morrow (Democratic Unionist Party)

- -

will be saying. But I think I better say more than just 1 or 2 lines in relation to it. And sitting down. I would. Like to say that even if one accepted, it was just £101 million every year for 99 years. And just consider this a proposition in its own terms, without regard for the preceding history. The contrast between this

**** Possible New Speaker ****

and a one off payment of £40 million to the casinos. Conveys the message.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Conveys the message. That while the Mauritians are important and worthy of respect, important and worthy of respect, the casinos are, by contrast, only worthy of, well, relatively worthy of, well, relatively speaking, a few crumbs from the table, which is deeply hurtful and table, which is deeply hurtful and insulting, my Lord. Secondly, in order to really understand the injustice presented by the injustice presented by the arrangements, however, it obviously needs to be seen in the context of needs to be seen in the context of history.

The casinos do not, nor for the most part regard themselves for the most part regard themselves as Mauritian. Now, I've heard what Lord Weir has said. I've heard what Lord Weir has said. I've heard what Lord Jay has said, and there are a Lord Jay has said, and there are a multiplicity of different views. Just as Lord Weir has rightly said Just as Lord Weir has rightly said right across this United Kingdom, there are a multiplicity of views there are a multiplicity of views on many, many issues.

So it's difficult maybe to get a concise, difficult maybe to get a concise, exact and one supporting view. But I will say those things anyway. In this context, the decision to also pay that country for the use of just one of the casino islands, a fantastically large sum of money, while they are just afforded £40 million compounds, the present injustice, my Lord, in order to appreciate the menacing nature of the way, this monetary injustice greatly compounds the underlying injustice, one must point out that the most resettlement set out by the KPMG report are significantly less than the monies.

It is now proposed that the Republic of Mauritius is paid in order for the UK to lease just one of the casinos islands. Finally, the funding for the casinos is also important because article 11 of the treaty undermines the UK government's argument for it by addressing casinos. Apart from the Mauritians, they are effectively saying that it is right to return the islands to the Republic of Mauritius because the pre November 8th, 1965 boundaries of the colony expressed the self-determination of the people of its territory, which imply that everyone can be happily, from a civic perspective, at least Mauritian.

In this context, however, there would be no need to address the casinos separately and allocate payment to them. In addressing the questions separately. The treaty effectively hoists itself on its own petard. Thank you.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I rise. To speak to the amendments in my name in this group, and to name in this group, and to associate my support with the amendments in the name of my noble amendments in the name of my noble friend Lord Hannan with his wonderfully, masterfully adumbrated list. Litany of development ideas, list. Litany of development ideas, and also those in the name of the noble Lady, Baroness Foster, Lord noble Lady, Baroness Foster, Lord Weir Lord Callanan and others. The theme before your Lordships' House theme before your Lordships' House in this group has surely been, as the noble Lord, Lord Weir put it, the noble Lord, Lord Weir put it, an attempt to understand the views, wishes, legitimate desires and wishes, legitimate desires and concerns of Chagossians themselves.

How is it possible to do so, my How is it possible to do so, my Lords, without a proper process for Lords, without a proper process for consultation of the Chagossian community? Much has already been said in your Lordships' House about

16:39

Lord Kempsell (Conservative)

- -

said in your Lordships' House about the inadequacy of the consultation process followed by the government that has brought us to this point in the design of the Bill and its policy. So my amendment 81 seeks to make the Chagossian contact Group, which is the government's official consultation forum, more robust. Indeed, it seeks to ensure that the Chagossian contact Group remains in existence throughout the entire lifetime of the treaty. Now, in all of the impenetrable fora, groups and organisations that there are within Whitehall, the Chagossian contact Group has been shrouded.

I think it's fair to say, in a little secrecy. I have repeatedly asked written questions to noble Ministers asking them about the operation of this consultation mechanism. We know that it did meet earlier this year. It was attended by a Minister. It's chaired by a deputy director in the FCDO and has a small secretariat. My amendment seeks to ensure that it does remain active and that Chagossians continue to be enfranchised to a greater extent than they have been thus far by the government.

Moving on to my amendment 81 G that pertains to the theme of resettlement, which has already been extensively mentioned in the debate. The government prayed in aid the notion of resettlement as one of its key motives for pursuing this policy, and it has taken the word of the Mauritian government. I think it is fair to say, on trust when it comes to the matter of resettlement, that is, to a certain extent to be expected in international negotiations and bilateral fora.

But there is no reason why the government should not take steps to ensure that the important issue of resettlement is continually checked on by Ministers in future. And that is why, in 81 G. I suggest that within 12 months of Royal Assent, the Secretary of State should publish a report made in connection with article six of the treaty as to its progress on resettlement. For the sake of timing, I will also speak to my amendment 23, which is grouped here on the Marine Protected Area.

With this amendment, I seek to ensure that the government takes external expertise and consultation of the kind that the noble Lord Lord Hannan mentioned from universities, from scientific experts who have deep concerns about the the potential administration of the marine protected area by the Mauritian authorities and the standards to which the those authorities will hold the administration of the MPA and its future designations, whether they will truly be in accordance with the standards that have thus far been set by the UK government, both in terms of environmental protection and the quality of expertise, scientific and otherwise, that is used in governing those those important regions for marine and broader conservation.

So my amendment 20 seeks to ensure that an independent panel is commissioned before those elements of the treaty come into force to provide a a serious and well thought out, independent view, away from the scientific advice that the UK government will take from its own resources, and to publish that advice so that the international community can see that the Mauritian government will be held to those international standards.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I rise to particularly support. Amendment 20, in the name of my noble friend.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

of my noble friend. Lord cannon, but more generally 26, in the name of Lord Lilley, who I know isn't in his place. 38 B and 78. Now this group is important because it seeks to remedy the way because it seeks to remedy the way in which the Bill will not only make the Chagossians stateless, but will prejudice their ability to financially provide for themselves and their families for today and tomorrow. Now, last week, last month, rather, I travelled to Hamburg on business and at dinner I sat next door, but one to a sat next door, but one to a gentleman who was involved in business in quite a substantial way business in quite a substantial way in Mauritius.

It didn't take long for my German colleagues to explain to him that I sat in your Lordships' House, upon which he Lordships' House, upon which he leant over and implored me, now begged me to do that deal. The begged me to do that deal. The Diego Garcia so in his words, so that our streets can be paved with

16:45

Lord Fuller (Conservative)

- -

that our streets can be paved with gold, his exact words and that comment only just a few weeks ago, gets to the heart of this, because the effect of this bill does nothing to advance the interests of Diego Garcia or the Chagossians. It's certainly not about advancing the British interest. No, it's sacrifice sacrifices, the rights of Chagossians whilst harming our own national security that flows both from Cyprus and Diego Garcia in a in combination, both of which bookend the Suez Canal and underpin our ability to trade globally and generate wealth in our islands.

My Lords, Mauritius has never had a claim on the Chagos. They are the same distance apart as we are to Gibraltar. They are only coupled together on the basis they were sort of generally in the same direction. And the 19th century desk clerk in the Foreign Office might as well deal with them both together. That's the truth. And this bill confects a link between the two places, and by advancing the self-interest of Mauritius over those of our own nation and those of our subjects in the British overseas Indian territories, we've seen sharp relief.

The cowardice of a Prime Minister who won't or can't stand up to his chums in the legal profession, who think it's a rather good idea to pay, to give up land and then ask permission from my enemies to use it. Having been kidded that international law requires it from a case in which the UK was not even a participant, citing approval from maritime and marine bodies that have no nexus over our sovereignty and have no business pushing us around. And I thank the library for pointing out so clearly that the legal basis for giving up the Chagos is not a judgement, but an advisory opinion.

The government is playing by absurd rules that defy logic or common sense and uneven rules. Anyway. So this deal is all about Mauritius, in an arrangement where we're going to pay billions to give away our land so we can pay off their debts and to pave their streets with gold when we don't even have enough money to pay our pensioners their winter fuel allowance. It beggars belief. And even at this stage, these amendments try to put lipstick on the pig, a reference to the domestic pigs that were formerly roamed freely on the island, on the islands of the Chagos Archipelago, before that base was established.

Because after 200 years of protection, the British Indian Ocean Territory will be ceded alongside limiting citizen rights, citizen rights of the Chagossians to a country in bed with our enemies. It's down to us to at least to ensure that the trust fund is going to be used to benefit all Chagossians to ensure that the Chagossians have a say in how it's spent to benefit our former subjects, and to ensure that the Chagossians and their issue aren't just eligible to be employed on the base on an equitable basis, but also they have preference for employment for them to play a role in protecting their ancestral home, in the hope that one day it may be returned to them.

Now, this short debate is named for the trust fund. So when we talk about the trust fund, the trust rather the trust that the British people have placed in this government to do the right thing has been unnecessarily and inexplicably squandered and abused. Back in June, the noble Lady, Lady Liddle told your lordships that this was a good deal for the Mauritians, who are truly getting something for nothing and being paid for the privilege. But being good for the Mauritians isn't the test.

The question is whether it's a good deal for the Chagossians, and whether this bill that weakens both them and us can at least safeguard an endowment that will be used for its intended purpose with the control and consent of those who will benefit from it. My Lords, to govern is to choose, and the Prime Minister has made a choice to stand with his learned North London trustco wing drinking friends, against the wishes of his plain talking pie and pint caucus in his wider party, and the wider interests of the British people and our kinsmen on the Chagos.

This is a bad bill, and we should fight it as hard as we can.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yes. My Lords, I wasn't sure if anybody else wanted to follow that last speech. I don't think I've ever seen the Prime Minister drink prosecco. But you prefer a pint, I think. Anyway, I thank noble Lords for their speeches in this. Quite for their speeches in this. Quite an important set of amendments, and I'd be very surprised if we didn't come back to some of these issues come back to some of these issues at report, because for all the nonsense we have just heard, there are actually some really very, very thoughtful and quite important considerations here.

And I think whoever it was that said, you know, whoever it was that said, you know, they might not agree with everything we're doing, but there is a shared view across the House is a shared view across the House that we need to do as best we can through this process. For the Chagossian communities. I think they put it very, very well. Amendment 1726 and seven B I'm Amendment 1726 and seven B I'm sorry, 78 the Chagossians are already entitled to work on the already entitled to work on the base and have done so.

There are a range of job opportunities on Diego Garcia open to Chagossians with

16:50

Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Labour)

- -

17:04

Lord Callanan (Conservative)

- -

their management of the fund, to ensure that the Chagossians are properly looked after and no longer treated as second class citizens. And I think I should apologise to my noble friend Lord Fuller for trying to apply a little bit of imaginary lipstick to his proverbial pig in this matter. I thought the point raised by Baroness Foster were particularly important and extremely serious, and I was very pleased to hear the assurances given to her by the Ministers. We should not allow the Chagossian people to be treated in this manner by Mauritius.

And this again speaks to our concerns on value for money. This agreement, whichever figures you take, is a major financial undertaking, costing the British taxpayer billions of pounds over the lifetime of the deal. Any situation where the fund is capitalised but not managed properly would surely be unacceptable, and we should make sure that there are powers to hold Mauritius to account should that happen. I hope my noble friend Lord Hannan in his excellent contribution, made some great points on how the Chagossians could be resettled in future and any of the many alternative occupations that they could do in such circumstances.

But if the noble Baroness is is not satisfied that the Minister, the government has the powers that it needs to to do that, then Ministers, I hope, will go back to the Mauritian government to ensure that we do have those stronger powers before the treaty takes effect. I also think the noble Lady is right that many of these matters will be returned to during the Report stage, but in the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

That the amendment be withdrawn. The amendment is. By leave withdrawn. Amendment 18

**** Possible New Speaker ****

By leave withdrawn. Amendment 18 Lord Callanan. My Lords, the amendments in this

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, the amendments in this group speak to perhaps the one of the most concerning parts of the treaty, although the last bit was treaty, although the last bit was also concerning the risk that this agreement will in fact undermine agreement will in fact undermine our security, given the large number of amendments in this group, I will speak to the amendments in I will speak to the amendments in my name, and I know that my noble friend Baroness Goldie will speak to her own amendments as well, and to her own amendments as well, and I certainly won't seek to pre-empt her arguments in my remarks, as the hon.

Friend is much more of an expert on defence matters than I will ever be. My amendment 18 is a will ever be. My amendment 18 is a commencement block that would prevent the main clauses of the bill from coming into effect until bill from coming into effect until the government has made a report on securing a guarantee that all securing a guarantee that all non-UK and non US civilian personnel stationed on the archipelago will benefit from the

17:07

Amdt. 18 Lord Callanan (Conservative)

archipelago will benefit from the provisions of annexe one. Annexe one protects the UK's unrestricted access to Diego Garcia C and S base. The treaty does make reference to some civilian activity, but we are seeking an assurance from the government that that part of the treaty in its entirety, applies to civilian stationed on Diego Garcia, and I hope the noble Lord, the Minister, will be able to give us that assurance. Amendment 67 speaks to one of the most fundamental questions that has already been the subject of much debate.

The treaty is clear that the UK must inform Mauritius of any armed attack on a third state, directly emanating from the base on Diego Garcia, using the magnificent word expeditiously. The dictionary definition of expeditiously, I say it expeditiously, is quickly and efficiently with speed. My dictionary tells me. And many, of course, have rightly asked the question of what expeditiously means in practice. My amendment 67 clarifies that the UK government must not inform Mauritius of any relevant armed attacks until the attack has ended, providing prior notification to Mauritius or indeed any third state not directly involved in the attack could risk the safety of British and American servicemen who are engaged in the relevant operation.

So could the Minister confirm that nothing in the treaty requires the UK government to give forewarning of any attack emanating from the military base? And if that is the case, then I'm sure they can accept the amendment. Additionally, my amendment includes a requirement not to notify Mauritius if notification would endanger the security of the base. Can the noble Lord, the Minister, confirm that nothing in the treaty will prevent the government from withholding notification? If notifying Mauritius would endanger the debate? The base.

And again, I know my noble friend Baroness Goldie will be going into additional details on these important issues. Amendment 69, in my name seeks to make a specific point on the location of specific equipment and installations on the base. It is, of course, essential that the security of the base is maintained, and it would not be acceptable, in our view, if the UK government were to endanger the security of equipment at the military base by notifying Mauritius, and so could the noble Lord when he replies to debate, please address those specific concerns.

In our view, it is essential that the UK government has the right to refuse notification when doing so would endanger the base itself or our

**** Possible New Speaker ****

personnel. Amendment. Proposed clause. One, page.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

One, page. One, line seven. At end, insert the words as printed on the marshalled list.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

marshalled list. My Lords, may I first of all, associate myself with the remarks of my noble friend Lord Callanan in of my noble friend Lord Callanan in relation to the amendments to which he spoke. I shall indeed be dealing with expeditiously, but I will try

**** Possible New Speaker ****

with expeditiously, but I will try and ensure that characterises my contribution, and. Perhaps. Influences this debate. I wish

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Influences this debate. I wish to speak to my amendments 83, 85, to speak to my amendments 83, 85, 86 and 87. At Second Reading, I raise the issue of the mismatch between the bill and the treaty it between the bill and the treaty it implements. And my main concern in this whole affair is our defence and security. The implications of and security. The implications of this bill on that. And I identified a range of areas where greater clarity is required. Now, I should clarity is required.

Now, I should say, before I begin speaking to my amendments, I have received a letter from the noble Baroness and letter from the noble Baroness and the noble Lord, the Ministers for which I thank them, and that sought to clarify some of the questions I

17:11

Baroness Goldie (Conservative)

- -

to clarify some of the questions I asked at Second Reading. The letter does bring a degree of clarification, but in other respects it leaves me with with questions, and I shall address these as I explain my amendments. Now, firstly, amendment 83 is simply a technical drafting amendment to accommodate my remaining amendments in this group, and it specifies that the commencement of the treaty cannot occur until the conditions outlined in my amendments have been satisfied. Amendment 85 relates to the specific notification requirements under annexe one, subsection one B, subsection eight of the treaty, and my amendment says that section, Institute of Form may not come into force until the Secretary of State has published a statement establishing that the notification in annexe one, subsection 1B8 of the treaty does not require the consent of Mauritius in response, and the provision of annexe one, to which this refers says.

In accordance with this agreement and with reference to article two five, annexe two five. In respect of Diego Garcia, Mauritius agree the United Kingdom shall have unrestricted ability to permit access, basing and overflight for Non-united Kingdom and Non-united States of America aircraft and vessels. Upon notification to Mauritius. Now, the amendment is to enable the Secretary of State to make explicit before sections 2 to 4 of the Bill can come into force, that the consent of Mauritius is not required for us to host third party forces on Diego Garcia.

Now, as I mentioned, I have the letter from the Ministers in which they helped clarify that permission from Mauritius is not required. But I also require the Minister to confirm that such notification is after the event. Because if it is not, if notification was required before the event, that implies consent is required or it implies intimation of an objection by Mauritius is possible. And that is why I seek clarification. My point, my Lords, is we cannot have a situation where Mauritius.

Mauritius is able in any way to object to which forces are present at the base, the operation of the base, including the matter of the basing of our allies, must be solely at the discretion of the United Kingdom. And I would appreciate if the noble Lady, the Minister, can give me an absolute guarantee that Mauritius will have no control whatsoever over basing and overflight of other countries forces. And it seems to me that, perhaps unusually, the role of the Minister and I are perhaps nearly at consensus in here.

And if that's the case, why would the Secretary of State be reluctant to publish a statement? Amendment 86 is another defence and Security amendment, and it states that sections 2 to 4 may not come into force and to the secular state has published a statement establishing that the obligation under annexe one, subsection two of the treaty, does not extend to aircraft and vessels which have landed or docked at the base for the purposes of maintenance or refuelling prior to the armed attack.

On the third state. Because annexe one two of the treaty is the provision that requires the United Kingdom to expeditiously inform Mauritius of any armed attack on a third state, and as we've discussed, much has been made of what is meant by expeditiously. And the Minister's letter to me stated that they are satisfied. This does not require the UK to seek the permission of Mauritius, nor for notification to be given prior to the event, and that is helpful. The International Agreements Committee of this House has also concluded that the interpret expeditiously to mean as soon as reasonably practicable in the circumstances.

Now, I believe that the Minister gives her interpretation in good faith. But what of Mauritius interpretation? Does the Minister know whether the Mauritian government shares this view now, if she does not currently know, and I quite accept, she may not. I'd be happy for her to write to me to confirm the point. We do need to know whether both governments are agreed upon the interpretation of expeditiously informed, and if it is the case that they are agreed on the interpretation of expeditiously informed them, my concerns are allayed.

But if they are not agreed, then this needs to be ironed out before this treaty is brought into legal effect. If Mauritius does not agree that we can inform them after attack, then I foresee a scenario whereby the United Kingdom or the United States launches an attack on a third party, inform Mauritius afterwards, and then Mauritius raises an objection, initiates the dispute mechanism. And my Lords, if I appear nitpicking here, it is because of the basis to operate securely and effectively as stated in the agreement, and I fully accept the beliefs and undertakings which the noble Lady, the Minister and her colleague, the noble Lord Lord Coaker, are giving, then these issues cannot be left for later discussion when incidents arise and a huddle of lawyers and diplomats try to work out what the treaty provisions actually mean, it would be a supreme irony if the treaty that is intended to remove legal uncertainty ends up perpetuating it now.

Secondly, the way the bass operates, ships and aircraft come and go, and there is a possibility, albeit small, that a British or American aircraft or vessel leaves the base and is then attacked to put under danger by a third state. And I want to be clear that if they have left the base and then perhaps engage in hostile activity against a third state or the assets of a third state, there is no obligation. The UK under annexe one to inform Mauritius.

Now, this was not clarified in the noble Lady. The Minister's letter, and I am asking that this be confirmed by the Secretary of State before the Bill can can come into force. Amendment 87 also relates to annexe one to the treaty, and the amendment is to enable the Secretary of State to make explicit before sections 2 to 4, the bill came into force, that this obligation to expeditiously inform Mauritius in the treaty does not extend to action taken by the UK to defend the base, in other words, to disable hostile aircraft, drones, ships or other devices which present a threat to the place.

Now, I think this is particularly relevant given the evolving threat presented by drones. We only have to look at the actions by the Houthis in the Red sea and their use of drones to target Western ships, to see what future threats the base might look like. And in order to adequately protect the base, the United Kingdom needs to be able to disable any such threats in any way possible. And if they had been launched by a third state and we shot them down, would this be considered an armed attack on a third state or not? Again, I would be grateful for clarification in this regard.

I also welcome amendments 20 D and 20 E from my noble friend Lord Kempsell. Both amendments addressed similar issues, namely the fact that Mauritius is to have a say on the presence of non-UK and non-US military personnel at the base. But if the treaty permits the operation of the base to continue as it does currently, which is what the government has claimed, then why should we have to consult with Mauritius in the presence of our allies at the base? I mean, surely whether French forces are welcome at the base is a matter for the United Kingdom, not Mauritius.

Similarly, why should Mauritius have any say over the placement of installations if those are related to the defence of the base? My Lords, I look forward to the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

response from the noble Lady, the Minister. My Lords, I rise again briefly,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I rise again briefly, but in total support of the amendments in my the name of my noble friend Lord Callanan and noble friend Lord Callanan and Baroness Goldie, both noble Lords, noble Lord Coaker and noble Lady Chapman, know that as someone, albeit in 2019, who was involved albeit in 2019, who was involved with direct negotiations, the one specific element above all else specific element above all else that I remained unconvinced of and still remain unconvinced of today, was the issue of the security was the issue of the security protections, which have been so eloquently just narrated by my eloquently just narrated by my noble friend Baroness Goldie and I.

Just, in associating myself with those amendments, just want to also those amendments, just want to also press ahead with the archipelago and the lay of the land beyond Diego Garcia, because drawing Diego Garcia, because drawing attention to annexe one three and within that subsection A, and I'm

17:20

Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Conservative)

- -

17:21

Lord Beamish (Labour)

- -

17:24

Lord Bellingham (Conservative)

- -

My Lords, I wish to speak to amendments 23 and 28 standing in my name on the Order Paper I have tabled these amendments because I want to probe whether the consequences of non-ratification are such that Non-ratification is now not an option. Furthermore, my Lords, I think it is important that we are clear about what we can and what we cannot do. The noble Baroness, the Minister, has told the House that the treaty is a done deal and that cannot be changed, and that the role of your Lordships' House in relation to it and the Bill before us today is really very limited.

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, has

17:25

Lord Morrow (Democratic Unionist Party)

- -

supported the government in this view, suggesting that going forward there is only scope for possibly there is only scope for possibly impacting the details of the implementation. It is clear that implementation. It is clear that while the Crag process did not prevent the government ratifying the treaty, that the treaty has the treaty, that the treaty has defined between the UK government and the Republic of Mauritius in and the Republic of Mauritius in terms that place not only a clear distinction between the act of signing and ratification, but also signing and ratification, but also unusual distance between the two in that the treaty cannot come into that the treaty cannot come into focus unless and until the bill before us today is passed, and before us today is passed, and clauses two transfers sovereignty.

clauses two transfers sovereignty. In this comment, the noble Lord Moray, on committee day one, I Moray, on committee day one, I think were important, he said, and I quote, because of the way the treaty is drafted and the way article 18 operates, the treaty can article 18 operates, the treaty can come into force only when this legislation is implemented, that is legislation is implemented, that is to say the least unusual. After this exchange, the noble Baroness helpfully further clarified the situation and said, and I quote, before the UK can ratify the treaty, we will need to do the following.

Pass both primary and secondary legislation. Despite the UK, UK, US exchange of notes and put in place agreements on the environment, maritime security and migration. In this context, my Lord, it is clear that while the treaty has been negotiated and cannot be changed without reopening negotiations, that it has been defined in terms to which both parties consented, which meant that what could be drawn from the act of signature on the 22nd of May was by definition inherently provisional and contingent.

It was signed, subject to recognition, that the act of signing did not bring the treaty into force, and that the treaty would not come into force unless and until the respected political processes of both countries had been properly honoured in this context, because the coming into force of the treaty depends on an Act of Parliament, this plainly is not a done deal in my estimation. Furthermore, as a legislator on its toes, we have to let the executive know that we understand that while, of course, having negotiated the treaty, they will encourage us to pass this legislation so that they can move to ratification.

We know this does not mean we have to pass this piece of legislation, any more than we have to pass any other piece of legislation. My Lords, if we reject this bill, the islands could not be given to Mauritius. If the government chose, it could then invoke the Parliament Act, which would delay things by some 13 months or thereabouts, in the context of which there is a good chance that common sense could prevail. The Republic of Mauritius could not object to this, because it signed up to the treaty knowing that it depended on domestic processes that in this case require the passing of legislation through a legislator that cannot be dictated to by the executive.

My Lords, I think it is really important that we are open, transparent and very honest about the opportunity that we have to stand up for the decisions and to say no to this treaty, because if we have the power to do so, then we have the responsibility to do so, which I think is of equal importance, or maybe more important, and having regard for this, we should not treat the Salisbury Convention as a one way street. Not only are we free to oppose this bill because no commitment to it was made in the Labour manifesto, at least I can't find it anyway.

But we have a responsibility to oppose it because it stands in direct contradiction of the relevant provisions in the July 2024 Labour general election manifesto, which commits the government to, and I quote, protecting the British Overseas Territories and Crown dependencies, including the Falklands and Gibraltar. Labour will always defend their sovereignty and right to self-determination. That statement was made by the Labour. It wasn't made by the Tories or any other crossbencher or anybody else in this House.

My Lords, it was the Labour Party that chose to make self-determination for British Overseas Territory an issue for their term in office. Not me, nor have I heard anyone else say that it is the standard in relation to all British Overseas territories that the government has chosen to uphold itself. The British Overseas Territory, in relation to which the imperative for the provision of self-determination referendum is plainly greatest in relation to the people of the islands, because they have been denied all government for self-government for over 50 years as a result of having been forcibly removed from their territory.

Is it is there that the self-determination deficit is uniquely total and the obligation to fulfil the self-determination obligation most pressing, while all the other overseas territories enjoy a measure of self-government and self, and usually self-government in most matters, apart from in defence, the questions have been denied it completely. My Lords, the extraordinary thing about this is that one reference was not a single reference was made to the way in which the Bill violates the Labour manifesto.

In another place, my Lords. This is perhaps not surprising, given that they were only afforded a few hours for Committee stage, did not bother with Report stage and dispatched Third Reading in less than a single hour. It was all done the same day. If you had a blink your eyes, you probably would have missed it. In this context, my Lords, I think that far from being a done deal, your Lordships' House not only has the power to reject this bill and thereby prevent treaty ratification, but a duty to do so out of respect for self-determination and indeed the Labour Party manifesto.

The best outcome would be that the UK Government and Republic of Mauritius would then recognise that this is not a treaty to ratify, and that they must seek an alternative solution that makes provision for self-determination for the people of islands. In conclusion, I very much look forward to listening to the noble Baroness. The Minister's response to these points. Having engaged with the question of the domestic processes in relation to the UK between signing and possible ratification, please could she inform the House? What are the domestic processes of the Republic of Mauritius in this regard? I would appreciate her commenting on that.

We are hearing that there is now some uncertainty on the Mauritian side, which perhaps she could comment on today. Could she also tell the House what secondary legislation must be brought before ratification if she is not able to do so today, please could she write to us ahead of Report stage, setting out the planned secondary legislation and what it will do? I would also value the Minister's comments in relation to my other amendment 28, and I look forward to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

you. My Lords. I rise specifically as

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords. I rise specifically as opposed to deal with amendments 58, 61 and 62, which are largely speaking, probing amendments. Perhaps we should set aside. I know Lord Morrow had raised the issue of Lord Morrow had raised the issue of whether the government has breached its manifesto or not. Far be it from me to suggest that, I mean, from me to suggest that, I mean, there's even some scurrilous rumours that there maybe even going to raise taxes. But I, I think that that would clearly not be the case.

And that will obviously be And that will obviously be disproved in the next few hours. Can I say that it's clear that myself and others have been very myself and others have been very critical of both the deal and the legislation and the approach that has been taken by the government? We've been critical on issues around the treatment of the Chagossian people, on issues around the right to self-determination, on the ceding of sovereignty. It seems

17:35

Lord Weir of Ballyholme (Democratic Unionist Party)

- -

the ceding of sovereignty. It seems to me that the response that government will offer in terms of a rationale is essentially to say, whatever the position is on those issues, and I appreciate the government will dispute the position that myself and others have put forward. They will say that the outweighing factor is the securing of our strategic defence within the area, and that if you like that, if that has got right, it means that trumps everything else. Which is why I think this group of amendments are so important, because it is actually to try and put that to the test and therefore my amendments, indeed, a number of the others are to try to seek assurances.

Now maybe use the word assurances. I'm reminded of a phrase that a friend of mine would use that when talking about clarification that he says, the purpose of clarification is often not to make things clear, but to put yourself in the clear. So instead, I will ask the the government for assurances on the issues of defence that what is being put forward, that if you like it, is that what it says on the tin is met by what is actually delivered in terms of assurances? And so I want to deal with three issues in terms of the amendments to which are interrelated.

First of all, I think I want to probe the position as regards the potential. We know that what has been secured directly on Diego Garcia itself, but the potential for the Mauritius government to enter into arrangements with third countries, to then have a movement in those those countries towards other islands by way of either a leasing arrangement or some other bit, which then descends into some form of military activity monitoring bases of that nature within that. Now, I appreciate, I think the Minister earlier on today and rightly, I think on an earlier oral question, indicated that it would be wrong to have speculation on potential future events.

But I would say that as regards this issue, it's not one that simply appears in a vacuum. We know that the Mauritius government has had relatively close relationships with Russia, for example, and has been in discussions with India, and indeed there are ongoing discussions in China. Indeed, it's reported, I think, that one of the islands, Peros Banhos, if I'm pronouncing that correctly, that there is discussions around a lease arrangement and it is clear that that Mauritius will look towards the Chagos Islands as an opportunity to work with a range of other governments to lever in what they have been given.

And specifically, I suppose the concern is as regards China, because what arrangements are being made between other jurisdictions in China have led on a military sense to a level of mission creep. We've seen, for example, these are beginning to happen. There are a number of examples, from Sri Lanka to Djibouti to the Solomon Islands. So I think we need to get a level of of belt and braces as to how we're going to prevent any level of development around that, that side of things.

Now, I know the Minister will respond in part by saying that there's provision within the treaty that if there is potentially any sort of military arrangements that Mauritius is then to seek is to notify the UK government and that effectively the UK government can say to no to those. But there are, I think, a couple of concerns simply in relation to that. And I look therefore with amendment 58 to see what practical measures and indeed we need to flush out in very clear cut terms what we can do.

The concerns are, of course, that that any notification by Mauritius might be post the event, we might see a situation in which something is, for example, leased to the Chinese, who then actually develop their own mission creep. And Mauritius turn around and simply say, well, actually this has been leased out to them. We don't know what's what they're doing. They've gone beyond that. And I think we'd need to actually tease out from the government what we would intend to do in practice, in a situation in which there was, for example, a listening station put on one of the islands, or indeed a range of other realistic possibilities, 61 and 62 deal with the the.

Sorry. Yes, sorry.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Very interesting what the noble Lord is saying. But under the treaty, it actually protects the treaty, it actually protects the outer islands in terms of development and in terms of development and in terms of Mauritius. It's one of only two African countries which is not in part of the Belt and Road

**** Possible New Speaker ****

part of the Belt and Road Initiative. Its main interlocutor isn't China, but India. Well, look again, we can pick which government I think is looking which government I think is looking to leverage additional influence within the area. I'm simply saying, within the area. I'm simply saying, particularly as regards China, they have a particular record of

**** Possible New Speaker ****

reaching agreements with with other countries to. Okay. I wonder if the noble Lord would

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I wonder if the noble Lord would confirm that although it's true, Mauritius is not a part of the Belt and Road Initiative. I mean, the and Road Initiative. I mean, the road thing wouldn't really work if you think about the geography. It was the first African country with which China signed a free trade agreement, and it has received a state visit from the president of China, which, given the population China, which, given the population of Mauritius, would suggest to me something a little bit more

**** Possible New Speaker ****

something a little bit more unspoken than just trade between those two territories. I think that what we're it is clear that the Chinese interests and indeed from other countries as well, which I think goes to the heart of why we're seeing this as a key strategic point of view, goes simply beyond a trading relationship. Because if this was simply trying to create trading relationships, but we know that Mauritius is, I think, around about 1.3 million people, much smaller than even my own beloved Northern Ireland.

On that, on that regard. And President XI is not beating down the doors for his state visit to to Belfast any time soon, as far as I'm aware. So it is actually about trying to ensure that whether it is China, whether it's India or anyone else, whatever the assurances that are there, what are the practical implications and what can we actually do to assure ourselves that there will not be a level of mission creep? Very briefly, as I suppose time is, is moving on.

6162 probe the position as regards airspace and as regards maritime assurances. And again, this has been sold particularly on the basis of not simply the British position but the US position. So I think we do need to see some level of, of, of joint assurance in relation to that. And I think there has been a concern, there has been some levels of suspicions, which again, I think the government I seek assurances can allay that the position of the Americans has been effectively to go along with this, this treaty.

There was, I think, a level of reluctance. It seemed it was reported initially that the Americans have given a level of lip service. And I think we want to get a much greater level of reassurance that they have bought into this, rather than simply acquiescing with something that one of their allies has asked for specifically. I think there are some has been highlighted by Baroness Goldie the restrictions that are there in terms of notification, which seems to undermine the security implications.

But if we look, for instance, on the basis of the of the airspace side of things, well, there is a 12 mile zone around Diego Garcia, but airspace around the rest of the Chagos Islands are simply with Mauritius on a maritime basis. We know that the treaty details again that the archipelago waters the territorial seas and the around the Chagos Islands are again all within the control of Mauritius, and that where there can be a level of restriction or interference on airspace or maritime boundaries.

I think that can also create a concern. So again, we seek to get the level of assurances from government that what is being proposed. And this is a question of a belt and braces, that is, there is actually going to provide the genuine level of of defence, because if so much else is potentially being sacrificed to bring about this deal, we need to make sure that we have something

**** Possible New Speaker ****

that is ironclad as regards our defences. To let the Americans be the judge of their own best interests. And they seem to be rather keen on this, this treaty and its this, this treaty and its ratification. The Secretary of State in Washington is also currently head of the National currently head of the National Security Council, called its conclusion a monumental achievement. conclusion a monumental achievement. He doesn't seem to be concerned that it might open the road to that it might open the road to Chinese influence.

Nor does the Indians, who are, of course, the close friends of the Mauritians and are as concerned as we are and as Americans are about Chinese Americans are about Chinese influence in the Indian Ocean. It's seen as the treaty is seen as a seen as the treaty is seen as a barrier to that, not an opening to that. I'd like to comment briefly

**** Possible New Speaker ****

on. I'm very grateful to him for giving way. Of course, the noble

17:45

Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (Crossbench)

- -

17:52

Baroness Hoey (Non-affiliated)

- -

very robustly to that. He stated and I quote, I want to say on that point that this is absolute nonsense. Is the Shadow Minister willing to provide any evidence that is going to take place, that this is going to take place. This treaty protects the security of the outer islands and expressly prohibits foreign forces building bases on them, something on which her government did not succeed in their negotiations. Well, what is this great protection which he has referred to? And you will find this noble Lords in paragraph three of the annexe to the Mauritius Treaty.

And it states, and I quote it in accordance with this agreement, in respect of the Chagos Archipelago beyond Diego Garcia, Mauritius agrees, except in point D, except in circumstances of necessity for a response to a humanitarian emergency or natural disaster. In instances where the United Kingdom or the United States of America is unable or unwilling to provide such a response, Mauritius and the United Kingdom shall jointly decide on authorisations permitting the presence of Non-united Kingdom, Non-united states or non Mauritian security forces, either civilian or military.

Well, I can't see anything there to validate the Minister's assertion that the treaty expressly prohibits foreign forces building bases on the islands, what it says is that they cannot do so without the agreement of the UK government. And my Lords, this, for me, presents two real concerns. First, and most importantly, there is nothing in the treaty to provide any kind of safeguard in relation to the leasing of islands for purposes other than security and defence, and this would leave the door wide open for other countries to seek to lease the islands, ostensibly for purposes other than security and defence.

The minister's argument in the other place that the suggestion that there was a problem was nonsense. It seems to me to be very well founded and and the extraordinary thing about these provisions, the fact that they relate to islands of immense geostrategic importance, and yet the protections in relation to them are effectively non-existence. That seems to me to be very complacent. There is nothing to stop a hostile country leasing an island and either combating either combining security and defence purposes with others in the hope of hiding the former, or indeed, on beginning with non security and defence purposes and then changing over to them, I would ask the noble Lady, the Minister, to tell me how that could be prevented.

What would happen if an island is leased for non security and defence purposes? And yet it subsequently subsequently becomes apparent that the island is being used for those purposes, that the countries dug in very well and has no intention of relinquishing relinquishing the islands. How could they be dislodged with the noble Lady? Like to respond to that? I, I find the suggestion from that Minister that there are no presenting difficulties quite alarming, and I do think it it suggests a certain kind of otherworldliness a high degree of, of of disconnection from what would be political reality.

The other difficulty, of course, is the completely opaque nature of the protection that is provided and the lack of parliamentary scrutiny. We at the moment, we have no knowledge about when or if approaches are made by the Republic of Mauritius to seek UK agreement for other countries to use other islands. And we need to know that my amendment 54 addresses this concern by requiring the Minister to develop regulations that state that, before the UK can agree to a proposal from the Republic of Mauritius made under paragraph three of the annexe to the treaty, that any island other than Diego Garcia be used for security and defence purposes by another country, that that proposal must be brought to Parliament and endorsed by a vote of both houses.

So would the noble Lady give me a reason why that should not happen? And could I also, just in ending ask at this stage, the point that was made in the debate and the fourth grouping about whether the government was asked to give its consent before the deal between Mauritius and India was done. I am not sure we got a response to that which was going to give India a defence presence and pursue. I really would like to know how much the government, how long the government knew before this happened.

Did they know and when

**** Possible New Speaker ****

amendment. I rise to move my amendment 81 J.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I rise to move my amendment 81 J. On behalf of all those who have written to me, urging this House to look again at the security look again at the security implications of this bill, the amendment requires the Secretary of State to consult the government of State to consult the government of the United States before taking any action that may affect the security environment of Chagos, or the environment of Chagos, or the operation of the facilities on Diego Garcia. Its simple, reasonable and I think essential.

reasonable and I think essential. Of course, the noble Lady may well say, of course we will be speaking say, of course we will be speaking always and at length to our closest always and at length to our closest ally. But what this amendment seeks to do is to put that on the face of the bill and on a mandatory footing, the bill and on a mandatory footing, because, of course, we are all aware Diego Garcia is not an ordinary base. It's the backbone of the US and UK operations in the Indian Ocean, the Middle East and

17:58

Baroness Foster of Aghadrumsee (Non-affiliated)

- -

Indian Ocean, the Middle East and East Africa. It's critical for surveillance, early warning, carrier support and global rapid deployment and hundreds of thousands of British and American personnel have depended on it for missions authorised by this country. But this bill does not actually have any statutory requirement even to consult with the ally who we seek to stay close to. Of course, it's not a passive observer, the US, it's a treaty partner, and it has kept these waters free from extremism, piracy and hostile influence for decades.

And therefore, my Lord, I think this is a very straightforward amendment. I'm not going to prolong the debate because I can see the whips getting very nervous. Unfortunately, this is a rather large group of amendments, but I did think that it was very important to move my

**** Possible New Speaker ****

amendment, and I hope that it will be considered by the House. My Lords, I'm more than happy to associate myself with the associate myself with the amendments tabled in the name of my noble friend Baroness Goldie. I think we started the group by think we started the group by saying that your Lordships' House would consider it expeditiously. So I will be very brief. My my full I will be very brief. My my full sympathy is with the the experience of the noble Lord, Lord Lord Kerr in these matters.

All I can say is he must be just speaking to different people in Washington, D.C. than I am when it comes to the D.C. than I am when it comes to the provisions of this of this treaty. It seems to me that occasionally we It seems to me that occasionally we do hear in your Lordships' House extreme criticisms of the government of the United States, and that's entirely justifiable and that's entirely justifiable from from noble Lords who take that position. But it is it's impossible, position.

But it is it's impossible, on the one hand, to criticise the position of the government of the United States or the way that it United States or the way that it conducts itself, and simultaneously, to suggest that the United Kingdom should resile from seeking to

18:00

Lord Kempsell (Conservative)

- -

should resile from seeking to renegotiate provisions in the treaty that are on further reflection and discussion in your Lordships' House, found to be wanting. There is no reason why the government of the United Kingdom should resile from seeking to renegotiate elements of this treaty which are deficient, as are being exposed in the debates. And I know that noble Lord, Lord Lord Morrow gave an interesting constitutional deposition on the the ins and outs of that process. But I will confine my comments only to my controversial amendments 81 and 20 F that do seek that renegotiation.

They they come from the position, and my full sympathy is with noble Ministers opposite who I who I really believe are trying to steer a very difficult issue and a very difficult bill into a safer port. Those amendments come from the, the, the, the, the factor that is incumbent upon your Lordships' House to look beyond the current security situation. The treaty and its annexe one are necessarily drafted in the context of the current security picture. But that security picture is dynamic, and it doesn't take much imagination for noble Ministers to imagine that there may come a time very soon when Ministers find themselves in a completely changed security scenario, for example, in the Indo Pacific and in the wider Pacific region.

What if, for example, a military superpower were to invade a neighbouring country and the requirements of the UK armed forces in their use of the base area and the wider contested issue of sovereignty over the Chagos Islands, changes dramatically from the position today. And that's why I support the amendments in the name of the noble Lady Baroness Goldie, on issues such as the notification of the Government of Mauritius on the third party armed forces being present, and on the placement of devices and installations.

And my amendment 20 F just seeks to take that a step further by looking into the future and saying, there may very well come a point at which Ministers feel the outbreak of hostilities more widely in the world, a pressure to derogate from the restrictive provisions of annexe A. So that is why I, I package it also with 81 F, which seeks to take, I understand the unusual move of placing a requirement on the government to notify Parliament should there be communications from the Government of Mauritius about the application of that annexe in future? It's an issue of such public concern.

It's a treaty that more broadly, outside of your Lordships' House, the public feel has been so poorly

**** Possible New Speaker ****

handled and drafted that these extraordinary provisions, I'm afraid, are required. Yeah, yes.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yeah, yes. My Lord. I won't detain you long, but I do want to just speak briefly but I do want to just speak briefly to amendments 20 D and F from my noble friend Lord Kempsell and amendment 87 from my noble friend Baroness Goldie. My Lords, we've witnessed in recent decades an witnessed in recent decades an extraordinary alchemy in the South China Seas. Whole islands are called from the vasty deep, summoned like Brigadoon into existence not by prayer, but by the existence not by prayer, but by the imperatives of Chinese geopolitics.

Reefs are dredged in to runways, Reefs are dredged in to runways, lagoons are refashioned into naval installations, artificial islands are planted thickly with radar, with missile systems and with airstrips, and it is all done in airstrips, and it is all done in the name of installing civilian infrastructure. None of these infrastructure. None of these installations, none of these airstrips, is openly avowed as a

18:03

Lord Hannan of Kingsclere (Conservative)

- -

airstrips, is openly avowed as a military unit. And so when we hear that in this treaty there is an effective British veto for any kind of defence installation, I would just ask you to consider my Lord said, no one is going to call it a defence installation. It's going to be done subtly, little by little, and it's going to be a much, much tougher proposition suddenly to object when we feel that a line has been crossed than at present, when we have the unquestioned sovereignty over the entirety of the archipelago.

I looked up because I didn't want to to to misquote the Secretary of State. I looked up just after my exchange with the noble Lord Lord Kerr of Kinlochard, what it was that the the US Secretary of State said on taking office in November of last year. He said that the deal poses a serious threat to our national security. Now, obviously, he has changed his tune. People are entitled to change their minds. I just invite you, my Lords, to ask why he might have changed his mind.

Is it that he saw a blinding figure on the road to Damascus and heard a voice saying, go into Damascus? Actually, I'm not going to, I think I think Marco Rubio has changed his religion at least twice. So, I mean, no, no disrespect to our most important ally. Or is it is it not more likely that he has been worked on by this government's officials

**** Possible New Speaker ****

by by? Of course. Quite clear that when he came into office, he had not received the security briefings from his own intelligence services. And possibly then he saw the importance of getting this deal and the permanency which it gives to both ourselves and the United States.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

ourselves and the United States. I think that's a it's a very good point. I think there is a divergence exactly as in this country between, if you like, the permanent apparat and the rest of the country, which would explain the country, which would explain why it is that my noble friend Lord Kempsell and the noble Lord Lord Kerr are speaking to very different Kerr are speaking to very different sets of people, as I think the the German ambassador to London in 1914 said to his French counterpart, you said to his French counterpart, you have in your information we have ours.

It does seem to me that there ours. It does seem to me that there is at least a debate in the United States about this. And you can see why, because there is there is a why, because there is there is a real prospect down the line. As my friend Lord Bellingham says, that a future Mauritian government may take a very different attitude towards the presence in the outer towards the presence in the outer atolls of unfriendly powers, powers unfriendly to us. We have no unfriendly to us.

We have no assurance that we will always be on friendly terms with that republic. And I would really just ask, of course, there's you know, the world is imperfect. I understand that the world is is sublunary. We're dealing with lesser evils, as is usually the case in politics. But when the noble Lady, the Minister has justified this treaty and and the treatment of the Chagossians, she's always done so by saying our priority was the security of the base. And I would just ask noble Lords on all sides to consider, how does this make us more secure in an imperfect world than we are at present? When we have un, when we have, we have obvious sovereignty over the entire region.

At the moment we have the great advantage of its isolation. There is no prospect of anybody taking a least island and putting any kind of listening infrastructure or anything else nearby. How does moving from where we are now to what is proposed in this treaty make us more secure, even if we set aside all of the wrongs being done to the Brits of Chagossian origin, that the noble Lord Lord Kerr, I thought was actually on to something when he said, what if the Americans were to change sides? I mean, but but I'm not sure that that quite makes the point, at least not to me that he intended.

I would just invite noble Lords to consider the wholly pecuniary terms in which Mauritius has considered this territory, not as part of its own demos, not as part of its own nation, but as an investment and as a way of raising money. As my noble friend said earlier, of paving its streets with gold, would it not be the ultimate humiliation if Mauritius were to trouser the sum of money that we're now paying it, and then turn around and sell the base to the United States? Where would that leave this government? I'd love to hear the noble Lady.

The minister's reply.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yes.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yes. No. First of all, can I thank all noble Lords who have contributed to what is a really contributed to what is a really important set of amendments? And can I also thank all noble Lords for the way in which they've put those amendments? There is clearly some disagreement between us, but some disagreement between us, but there is no disagreement over the fact that what every single person in the chamber is seeking to do is to ensure that we protect the security of the nation, and we protect the security of Diego protect the security of Diego Garcia and the importance of that, that base to us.

So I start from that point. There were a couple of that point. There were a couple of times when noble Lords reflected and pointed to where people had almost seemed to question that. I almost seemed to question that. I don't question that at all. I don't agree with everything that's been said, but I do agree with the right said, but I do agree with the right of challenge and the right of how we take this forward, because out of that comes better legislation

18:09

Lord Coaker (Labour)

- -

of that comes better legislation and more clarity. And whilst I don't agree with the need for some of the amendments, some of the comments that those amendments require to be made from the Dispatch Box are really important. So I wanted to set that context out for for noble Lords. I also just wanted to say, because I think it is important, I, I don't want to have a, a Report stage or a Second Reading debate again, but I think it is particularly important.

And Lord Kerr Lord Beamish and others have made have made this point. The government, whatever the rights and wrongs, and to take Lord Hannan point, what I Lord Hannan disagrees with the treaty and and that's fair. But for him to make that point, the government's point of view is that we're trying to bring stability and certainty to an uncertain situation. The noble Lord disagrees with that, as do a number of noble Lords. Lord Callanan disagrees with that. But certainly that's the government's view, the government's view, in answer to the point and the challenge that the noble Lord raised is that we are changing it because we are trying to bring certainty to an uncertain situation, and we believe we've done that, and we've made certain that we've secured one of the most important, if not the most important military base for ourselves in the United States.

Now, the noble doesn't accept that, doesn't agree with that. But that's the alternative proposition that the government is making. And I think it's really important, therefore, to say, in answer to the, the, the, the points that have been made by Lord Morrow and, and his colleague Lord Weir and others, that we would not have gone forward with this were it not for the fact that the Americans support it. I mean, Lord Kerr is right. We can say, well, the Americans said this, the Americans said that.

But I'm going to quote this because I think it is really important. We're talking about the US Secretary of State, Secretary Rubio, saying the US welcomes this is a direct quote. The US welcomes the historic agreement between the UK and Mauritius on the future of the Chagos Archipelago. This agreement secures the long term, stable and effective operation of the joint US, UK military facility at Diego Garcia, which is critical to global and regional security. We value both parties dedication.

The US looks forward to our continued joint work to ensure the success of our shared operations. Now, that doesn't mean, as a noble Baroness Baroness Goldie, supported by Lord Kerr Lord Ahmad and many others have made the point. That doesn't mean there aren't challenges to that. What does that actually mean in practice? But I do think and I say to your Lordships' House, it is a pretty fundamental starting point for the UK government to be able to directly quote from the US Secretary of State, Rubio, to say that they support what this government is to is doing and taking forward.

And I just lay that on the table as the context for trying to answer some of the points and considerations that have been made, some of the points and comments that have been made, I'd say to Lord Morrow, Lord Weir and others, and indeed even to an extent, some of the points that well made by the noble Baroness Hoey, perhaps better dealt with in some of the other groups and deal with it, particularly the rights of the Chagossians, which my noble friend Baroness Chapman has has answered at great length.

And we'll answer as we as we move forward. So I think that context is really important for for the debate and the discussion that, that we're having. Let me let me just try and deal with some of the amendments. It'll take a little while. I hope. You know, noble Lord Sewell, I'll bear with me a little bit in response to to the amendment by Lord Callanan, which seeks to prevent the present, amendment 18 seeks to prevent the presence of non-UK and non US civilian personnel in the Chagos Archipelago.

The treaty gives the UK control over these matters. The security provisions were, as I've said, designed and tested at the highest level of the US security establishment who supported us in proceeding with the deal. Amendment 34 by Baroness Goldie. Let me be clear. The entire treaty is designed to preserve the UK's ability ability to take the necessary steps to preserve the long term, secure and effective operation of the base. Article 32 C clearly states that the UK has full responsibility for the defence and security of Diego Garcia, and Mauritius and other states should have no doubt this is the importance of comments made here.

Should have no doubt about our willingness to exercise our responsibilities in a manner that ensures the long term, secure and effective operation of of the base. And I think that's in answer to the noble I mean, it's I noted the looking to the future. I mean, it's quite tricky that doing something to to to think about every single thing that may occur or you can do and this has been the history of nations, is to negotiate agreements, which you then try to hold people to account for and try to say, these are the the obligations that you've accepted and agreed to in a treaty and through international law.

You try to ensure that they abide by them. And so that would be one of the things that I'd say to both to Lord Hannan and to the noble Lord Lord Kempsell with respect to that. So, as I say to the noble Baroness, in answer to, we are seeking to try and ensure the long term, secure and effective operation of the base. I'll come to some of the other points that she made and Lord Ahmad made, particularly about about notification and permission in a little while on amendment 35 by Baroness Cox seeks to impose a statutory requirement for the Secretary of State for defence to ensure the continued operation of the base on Diego Garcia at all times.

It should be stressed that that the Defence Secretary is already performing these duties in any case to the to the full extent that he has within his power. Defence of the realm is one of the most fundamental tasks the noble Baroness knows, because she's done it as Lord Ahmed has. It's one of the fundamental tasks of any any government. And the amendment seeks to place duties on the Defence Secretary that more properly sit with the government as a whole, rather than just with the Defence Secretary.

In terms of trying to. It would also create statutory duties that displace the defence prerogative and would inhibit the government's freedom of manoeuvre and ability to take strategic decisions over the lifetime of the treaty. So subsection three is not required as article 14 of the treaty already sets out the dispute settlement mechanism for the treaty, including the role of the Joint Commission, and it's unnecessary, therefore, for a request to be made to establish one, can I say to the noble Baroness Baroness Hoey, who may I thought the point really well about seeking to ensure that Parliament approves any future defence or security use of the Chagos Chagos Archipelago by any country other than the UK or the United States.

Let me try. The government's argument is that with respect to annexe one three that deals with the Chagos Archipelago beyond Diego Garcia and sets out all of the obligations within that as to what can happen in that, what the reference to 3D is the key word that I would suggest to the noble Baroness. The argument I would make is the first word in 3D, which says, except it lays out one small but important area where it may be that there could be some move away from what is laid out in the rest of that treaty.

In other words, where there's a humanitarian emergency or natural disaster. And I think that would be the point I would make to the noble Baroness to why that that that her amendment is not necessary in those circumstances, although it gives me the chance to clarify that particular point to her regarding amendment 58 by Lord Weir that stipulates we produce a report alongside the US on the security scenarios regarding the leasing of the other islands. This is born from misinformation about the ability, I would say, to noble Lord Bach, the ability of China to establish a military base on another island in the Chagos Archipelago.

The provisions we've agreed under the treaty expressly prevents any particular action like this. And I'd say that to the treaty lays out that can't happen without without agreement. So and there are security review provisions are engaged by any proposal for development in the land territory of the Chagos Archipelago beyond Diego Garcia, and other provisions require UK consent to the presence of any UK security forces with reference to amendment 61 and 62, also by Lord Weir on the necessity for consulting the US Air Force and US Navy on the treaty.

These, as I said at the beginning of my remarks, all of this was tested and done with respect to the US and with their agreement. And the International Relations Defence Committee also noted that the agreement will allow for the continued military use of the island for the next 99 years, with the the option of extension on amendment 67, 68, sorry, 67, 86 and 87 from Lord Callanan Baroness Goldie the obligation to expeditiously inform Mauritius. And I think this is a really important point.

And let me just make the point that from to inform, Mauritius is engaged only if there is an armed attack on a third state directly emanating from the base. On Diego Garcia. The analysis of such a question is context specific, and it would not necessarily be wise or useful for the government to speculate on a hypothetical situation. But let me make this sense. I think this is really important. And you may, noble Baroness Baroness Goldie made the point. Lord Beamish made the point as well.

Lord Farmer did and Lord Weir did. We have stated, and I put on the record again, we have stated on numerous occasions, and I state again for clarity that the obligation to notify does not require us to notify Mauritius in advance of any armed attack. And no, no sensitive details of military activities would ever be passed on. No notifications will therefore present a risk to the operations of the base, and the International Agreements Committee agreed with our view that the notification requires the UK to inform Mauritius of an armed attack, not of a decision to launch such an attack, and I hope that clarification is helpful to to to noble Lords, they concluded.

They meant expeditiously. Sorry. They concluded that expeditiously meant as soon as reasonably practicable in the circumstances and in the case of a military attack, this would entail a consideration of the essential security concerns and the need for military plans to be kept secret. I hope that helps clarify some of the points the the, the noble Baroness and others raised. The deal will protect our national security for generations by ensuring the UK maintains vital capabilities to respond to threats in the Indian Ocean and beyond.

The base is a prime example of the unique transatlantic defence and security partnership that we have. Amendment 69 by Lord Callanan Lord Callanan seeks to ensure that the UK shall not notify Mauritius on the location of equipment in the Chagos Archipelago beyond Diego Garcia, notwithstanding the fact. Again, as my noble friend Lord Lord Beamish helpfully pointed out that this is directly in conflict with the provisions of the treaty and cannot be accepted. Is it is remiss of the law to propose a course of action should actually prevent us from being able to access and maintain equipment in the archipelago.

Cooperation with Mauritius on this front is mutually beneficial and additionally would not jeopardise equipment. Can I remind the House of the binding obligation on Mauritius under the treaty, not to undermine or jeopardise the operation of the base on amendment 83 and 85, again by the noble Baroness Goldie, supported by Lord Kerr and others, seeks clarity on whether annexe 1B8 requires the UK to seek the consent of Mauritius to permit access, basing and overflight to non UK non US aircraft and vessels to Diego Garcia.

Can I say I'm happy to assure the noble Baroness and other noble Lords who are concerned about this, that it does not. The treaty clearly distinguishes between notification and permission, and the noble Baroness can see the definition of unrestricted rights in annexe one, paragraph 11. I hope that's helpful. I think there's a real again, to clarify the distinction between notification and permission amendments 20 d and 2020 D, E and F table by law. Council again seek to oblige the government to reopen negotiations on certain aspects of the treaty in relation to 20 d the UK already has, under the treaty, unrestricted ability to authorise the installation, operation and repair of electronic systems on Diego Garcia and in the surrounding 12 nautical miles.

We also have the unrestricted ability to manage and develop the land and surrounding waters and seabed for defence purposes. This is clearly set out, if I could say to the noble Lord in annexe one, paragraph 1B5 and 1B9 respectively, paragraph three F concerns the placement of maritime installations in the buffer zone. This serves as a protective ring around Diego Garcia, where the UK has the ability to prevent activities that could jeopardise base operations. I hope that goes some way to reassure the noble Lord.

Amendment 20 e the UK already has unrestricted ability to control the deployment to Diego Garcia of all military, civilian and contractor personnel and again, clearly set out in annexe paragraph 1B3, annexe one, paragraph three D refers to activity in the Chagos Archipelago beyond Diego Garcia and the 12 nautical mile zone surrounding it. It requires UK consent to third parties to deploy security forces in the wider archipelago, again to Lord Kempsell. Council 20 F is seeking to oblige the government to renegotiate annexe one of the treaty.

The annexe provides for the UK's complete operational freedom of the base. It also places significant restrictions on the use of the outer islands to ensure that any resettlement activity does not carry security risks to the base. That was a point a number of noble Lords were concerned about and, I hope, offer some reassurance. These provisions have been discussed and approved at the highest levels, to say against the Lord Weir at the highest levels of the US security apparatus, and both the Iacc and the IDC have scrutinised those provisions.

The treaty specifically

**** Possible New Speaker ****

confers, of course. To the noble Lord, the Minister. Forgive me for being slightly behind the curve, but I was trying to follow the sections in the annexation. The noble Lord, the annexation. The noble Lord, the Minister, referred to the annexation to the treaty one, annexation to the treaty one, paragraph 11, and particularly the definition of unrestricted. As I definition of unrestricted. As I read that it states, unrestricted means not requiring permission or notification, subject to the standing authorisations and notifications separately agreed between the parties to meet the requirements of international or domestic Mauritian law for current practice.

So, for the sake of clarification, may I ask the noble clarification, may I ask the noble Lords Minister what are these standing authorisations and notifications?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

notifications? If I'm wrong on this, I'll write the noble Baroness and put a copy the noble Baroness and put a copy of that in the in the in the library so that all members can can access it. But I on my understanding of that paragraph, understanding of that paragraph, she says 11 see in the annexe unrestricted. The crucial bit is unrestricted. The crucial bit is means not requiring permission or notification. The standard authorisations and notifications authorisations and notifications separately agreed between the parties are things contained within the treaty.

But let me write to the the noble Baroness and clarify that that particular point. I'm grateful to her for for pointing out the fundamental point I'm trying to make is that we do not we we have an obligation under the treaty to notify Mauritius of activities emanating from from the treaty. What I what I think the crucial point that I thought the noble Baroness was making and the noble Lord Ahmad, we do not have to seek permission and expeditiously, expeditiously notifying does does not mean notifying before we take any agreed action.

And those are the points that I thought the noble Baroness was making. But I will certainly seek to clarify exactly where that takes us with the 11 C right to the noble Baroness and copy to others as well. To to do that I thank the noble Baroness for for raising that the on. Yes. The treaty specifically confers unrestricted ability on the UK to control the conduct and deployment of armed operations and lethal capabilities in respect of Diego Garcia, given that there is no question over operational freedom on Diego Garcia, it is unclear what derogation is necessarily that the noble Lord, Lord can cancel is seeking.

The annexe gives the UK extensive rights that we need in such a situation. Again on the reporting restrictions that the noble Lord raises His Majesty's Armed Forces and the intelligence services routinely produce reports for the Prime Minister on all types of security matters. And can I reassure the noble Lord and other noble Lords that this will include operational issues arising on the Diego Garcia base? There is no requirement for this to be made. A statutory obligation, as amendment 81 is seeking to do.

As Ac1 would represent an unusual interference with the prerogative to conduct international affairs and to make our and make treaties. Noble Lords will understand that there's often a need for confidentiality in international discussions. But my can I just say to noble Lords in finishing what what I have to say, given the the clock is flashing, these flashing away and the whips getting jumpy next to me, I will have a look at what see and if if again I will write to noble Lords in the debate with anything that I've not covered, and any questions that have not been answered, and make sure that the amendments that have not responded to are responded to.

I will put copy, try and send it to noble Lords in the debate here and and and seek to ask the noble Lord to withdraw the amendments. But let me just be clear. I will write to noble Lords about 2 or 3 of the amendments that I've not covered, copy it to noble Lords, and put a copy of that in the library. And I hope that that is is acceptable to to everyone. With respect to that, can I thank them for a really interesting and important debate on the security provisions of the treaty, and without asking noble to withdraw

**** Possible New Speaker ****

his amendment. Oh my Lord, the issue of of

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Oh my Lord, the issue of of national security is clearly one of the most important concerns that have been raised about this treaty, because the continued and effective operation of the military base is paramount, and Ministers must paramount, and Ministers must ensure that they have the powers that they need to protect the security of the base. And I security of the base. And I listened very carefully to the reassurances provided by the noble Lord Lord Coaker, who I know has tremendous respect across the House for his commitment to to defence and foreign affairs.

And I welcome and foreign affairs. And I welcome and thank him for that. Listen, there were a lot of points that I there were a lot of points that I could raise. I won't raise a number of them now, because I will want to have a close look at Hansard for the reassurances he's able to the reassurances he's able to provide. But just one point on the on this famous definition of the word expeditiously, I listened

18:31

Lord Callanan (Conservative)

- -

word expeditiously, I listened carefully and he quoted at length the opinion of the International Relations Committee, which of course is fascinating. I'm not sure he I'm not sure. He told us what the government's view was of the of the opinion of that of the meaning of that word, which is, of course, as they will be applying it in practice. I think it is more relevant. But again, I will I will look carefully at his his remarks, and I'd be, of course, welcome any reassurance, the further reassurances.

I know he did give a very detailed explanation, but further reassurances that he is able to provide in writing, and I'm sure my noble friend Baroness Goldie in her excellent contribution, would also welcome any further reassurances that the noble Lord would be able to provide in writing, because I think the details of this issue are particularly important quite beyond the the political rhetoric that we're all involved in. But the this does concern one of the most fundamental aspects of our national security.

But having said all that, I do seek to the leave of the House to withdraw the amendments that are in my name.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Is it your pleasure? This amendment is withdrawn. It is by leave withdrawn. Amendment 19 Lord Callanan.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Callanan. My Lords, I beg to move amendment nine in my name. This amendment seeks to prevent the amendment seeks to prevent the United Kingdom from being responsible for asylum seekers and responsible for asylum seekers and refugees arriving in the Chagos Archipelago. My Lords, in moving this amendment, I think it's this amendment, I think it's important to that. I remind the House of the background to this House of the background to this issue. In October 2021, a group of Tamil speakers who were apparently seeking to travel to Canada, seeking to travel to Canada, bizarrely by boat, foundered in the Indian Ocean and were then escorted to Diego Garcia.

These were the first people to claim asylum on first people to claim asylum on Diego Garcia. They were kept on the island for several years, and in October 2024 the government confirmed plans to relocate them to the UK for their legal claims to be

18:33

Amdt. 19 Lord Callanan (Conservative)

the UK for their legal claims to be processed. The government at the time said that this was to provide the asylum seekers with greater safety and well-being. On the 3rd of December 2024, it was reported in The Guardian. And of course, I always believe everything that is reported in the Guardian that lawyers and those campaigning for the asylum seekers to be relocated called their arrival in the UK quote, a big day for justice. One of those interviewed by that newspaper.

And we always believe what the Guardian says was quoted as saying we cannot believe we are finally in the UK. We have. We feel as though we have reached Paradise now. My Lords, my amendment seeks to probe the approach that will be taken to any future arrivals on the Chagos Archipelago. Will they be handled to Mauritius? Who the government wants to hand over sovereignty to? Or will it be handled by the British government under this treaty? I would also like to ask the noble Baroness, the Minister, whether her department have made an assessment of the risk of the Tamils arrivals being transferred to the UK, opening another front in our fight to tackle illegal immigration.

I don't expect the numbers to be great. I hope they won't be great, but I think we need an answer to this important subject. I also welcome amendments 27 and 36 in this group, tabled in the noble, in the names of my noble friend Lord Lilley and the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, respectively. This is clearly something which noble Lords across the House are concerned about. I cannot imagine that this hadn't been discussed with Mauritius during the negotiations, but I look forward to the Minister telling us in her reply, some giving us some clarity on this issue and whether these factors were in fact discussed with Mauritius.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My amendment proposed clause one, page one, line seven at end insert page one, line seven at end insert subject to subsection two a, the words is printed on the Marshall list.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

list. My Lords, I will move my amendment 36, which concerns, as has been already mentioned by the has been already mentioned by the noble Lord, that this concerns asylum seekers who arrive on Diego asylum seekers who arrive on Diego Garcia or anywhere in the Chagos Islands. Its and its purpose is Islands. Its and its purpose is very simple. It ensures that if any person fleeing danger or persecution lands on those shores, persecution lands on those shores, they won't be subjected to unlawful detention, denial of due process, or the kind of conditions that a British judge has already found to British judge has already found to be in breach of international law.

And I actually got a very nice personal letter from a native Chagossian saying we were exiled, exiled from our islands once, but exiled from our islands once, but we must not watch new injustice happen on our shores again. Anyone who arrives in our homeland must be

18:36

Baroness Hoey (Non-affiliated)

- -

who arrives in our homeland must be treated with dignity. No one should suffer in the Chagos as we once did. As a native Islander, I insist that any asylum seeker reaching the Chagos must have their rights respected. We were once denied justice. We cannot allow injustice to happen again in our name. And of course, the background has already been mentioned by the noble Lord Callanan that the late 2021, more than 60 Sri Lankan Tamils were intercepted at sea and brought to Diego Garcia after their vessel was found in distress, and those individuals, many of whom intended to seek asylum in Canada, were accommodated for almost three years in a fenced compound on the island.

This was not a temporary holding area. It became a long term camp. The conditions are a matter of judicial record. The British Indian Ocean Territory Supreme Court found that the asylum seekers were effectively held in unlawful detention. The acting judge described the camp as a prison in all but name, and said it was unsurprising that the individuals felt they were being punished. Evidence presented to the court documented leaking tents, rodent infestation, extreme heat restricted movement, repeated incidents of self-harm and at least one suicide mass suicide attempt.

Some were warned that if they left the compound, it would expose them to the risks of being shot on security grounds. Now those, my Lords, are not my words. Those are the court's findings. And we also know now, again from the court's judgement, that progress on their protection claims was impeded because of political factors, including concerns within the Home Office about the government's Rwanda policy. The Rwanda seems to get mentioned everywhere. The effect of of that delay was that these individuals were kept in a camp in extreme conditions, for far longer than should ever have been contemplated.

Most have now, as has been said, brought to the United Kingdom, I think. I think actually my noble friend the Lord Hermer was involved in that before. Of course, he was attorney general. The government described this as a one off transfer and said that Diego Garcia will not be used again for a long term processing. But my Lords, it remains the case that nothing in statute today prevents a future commissioner, a future Minister or a future government from using the islands in exactly the same way should another vessel arrive.

And that is why this amendment is necessary. It gives effect to what the United Kingdom is already legally bound to do so, and it ensures that any transfer to Mauritius or any other state happens only under an agreement that guarantees humane treatment, full rights of appeal, and compliance with international law. These are not new standards, they're the minimum standards the United Kingdom already owes to any asylum seeker, regardless of geography. And my Lord, this amendment also speaks to something which is deeply felt by Chagossians, because the Chagossian people know what it is to be held without rights.

They know what it is to have decisions made about their lives thousands of miles away. They know what it is to be told. They have no voice in decisions taken on their own islands, and they have told us that repeatedly that they do not want Diego Garcia or any part of the Chagos Islands to become a place where other vulnerable people suffer in silence. And there's also a simple and moral point. The only civilians permitted to remain long term on the islands in the past decade were not the native Chagossians themselves, but asylum seekers confined in a manor.

A British judge found to be unlawful, and that fact alone should give this house pause for for reflection, it was perfectly okay for asylum seekers to be on Diego Garcia, but not for the original Chagos Chagos people. So this amendment really wants to ensure that asylum seekers under Mauritius jurisdiction must contain binding guarantees, monitoring, appeal rights, independent oversight, humanitarian standards. The Chagossian community has raised serious concerns about the treatment of vulnerable people already in in Mauritius, and these concerns cannot be dismissed and they certainly cannot be ignored.

The government now intends that asylum seekers arriving in Chagos should be sent there. My Lords amendment does not oppose the transfer of asylum seekers. It does not dictate the policy of future governments. It simply ensures that the mistakes made between 2021 and 2024 can never be repeated on British responsibility. It ensures that any person arriving on those islands is processed humanely, lawfully and with respect for their basic rights. For the Chagossians, who were themselves displaced without rights. This is not an abstract principle.

It is an affirmation that the islands they still regard as home will not again be a theatre for human suffering. It's a modest amendment. It's a necessary amendment, and it's fully consistent with our international obligations and our national values. I therefore commend it to the House and urge noble Lords to support it.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

That's it. My Lords, amendments 19 and 27 from Lord Callanan and 19 and 27 from Lord Callanan and Lord Lilley, now in his place, seek to ensure that Mauritius will be responsible for any illegal migrants who may arrive at Diego Garcia. And these are important amendments. And I think it's very amendments. And I think it's very helpful, actually, that they've been tabled to allow us just to clarify this point, I can reassure clarify this point, I can reassure both noble Lords that this treaty already ensures Mauritian responsibility and closes a responsibility and closes a potential as they correctly identify illegal migration route to identify illegal migration route to the UK.

Mauritius as the sovereign state and as specifically referenced under annexe two of the referenced under annexe two of the treaty, has jurisdiction over irregular migration to the Chagos irregular migration to the Chagos Archipelago, including Diego Garcia, to the extent that Lord Callanan and Lord Lilley, through their

18:42

Baroness Chapman of Darlington, Minister of State (Development) (Labour)

- -

and Lord Lilley, through their amendments, are seeking clarity on the arrangements with Mauritius. To put that responsibility into practice, I can assure them that the UK government is already in the process of agreeing with Mauritius. The separate arrangements referenced in annexe two, paragraph ten of the treaty to assist and facilitate in that exercise of Mauritian jurisdiction. And these are ongoing negotiations. I'm not going to provide a running commentary, but suffice to say, this isn't going to be a need to force the government into providing a report onto the negotiations.

Baroness Hoey through amendment 36. I think this is a really helpful amendment as well, and seeks to ensure that any arrangement entered into with Mauritius regarding migrants ensures the humane treatment, full rights of appeal and compliance with international law of any asylum seeker or refugee. This is an important amendment and the government, I can confirm, will of course, ensure that any arrangement it enters into will comply with applicable international law and with its domestic obligations.

And for that reason, I think the amendment is unnecessary. But I do thank her for for tabling it and allowing us to make that clear. And with that, my Lords, I hope that noble Lords will

**** Possible New Speaker ****

withdraw their amendments. My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lady for her clarification, noble Lady for her clarification, and I'm also grateful to Baroness Hoey for her contribution to this important debate as well. We all important debate as well. We all know how strongly the British public feels on illegal immigration, public feels on illegal immigration, and I think it would have been outrageous if we'd handed over the territory, yet retained responsibility for dealing with any responsibility for dealing with any illegal immigration.

I shall look carefully at the words that the noble Lady used in her response in noble Lady used in her response in Hansard, but it does seem as though she has been able to provide the she has been able to provide the reassurances that we are seeking that no illegal arrivals in the Chagos Archipelago cannot make, Chagos Archipelago cannot make, will not will be able to make a claim in the UK for asylum. Now that sovereignty has been handed that sovereignty has been handed over.

I mean, she used the the famous government expression. I'm not going to provide a running commentary, which often means I'm not going to say, but nobody's asking her to provide a running

18:44

Lord Callanan (Conservative)

- -

commentary. We just want a clarification on the issues or any outcome of the discussions. So if there is a resolution to the discussions before we get to the Report stage, I hope she will update us in writing on that. But apart from that, I do beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Is it your lordships pleasure this amendment be withdrawn? It is by leave withdrawn. Amendment 20

**** Possible New Speaker ****

by leave withdrawn. Amendment 20 Lord Callanan not not moved. My Lords, I beg to move that the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I beg to move that the house be resumed, and we will then move to consider question. We will then move to consider question on an oral statement. We will not an oral statement. We will not return to the bill before 17. Sorry.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

725 the question is the House be resumed, as many of that opinion will say content the contrary not will say content the contrary not will say content the contrary not content. The contents have it. I content. The contents have it. I suggest a short pause while we change over for the next debate. change over for the next debate.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yes. I know. Yes. I know. There. Is Is a.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Is a. Question on a statement made in the House of Commons on Thursday, the 20th of November on settlement for migrants. My Lords, this is the.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

for migrants. My Lords, this is the. Second set of changes to immigration policy announced this year. And top of the bill we have year. And top of the bill we have just passed and the changes to the asylum system. So it is fair to say the government are feeling the the government are feeling the pressure. But as with the asylum statement last week, I do welcome many of these measures announced by many of these measures announced by the Home Secretary. The government are proposing a scheme whereby the default length of time for default length of time for settlement is ten years and depending upon a person's situation, circumstances, time will be either added or subtracted from those ten years, meaning some people will qualify for indefinite leave to remain much sooner and some much longer.

I am particularly supportive of those who receive benefits for more than 12 months, having to wait for 20 years before qualifying for settlement. But this does raise the question of the degree to which foreign nationals

18:48

Statement: A Fairer Pathway to Settlement (dinner break business at a convenient point around 7pm) Lord Davies of Gower (Conservative)

are able to access public funds. It would be useful for the noble Lord, the Minister, to specify how this particular route would work. Surely where a person is on a settlement where a person is on a settlement route but not yet received settlement, they should not be able to receive any public funds. I am to receive any public funds. I am interested in understanding how the government had made a decision on the number of years they propose the number of years they propose for each settlement pathway, as some seem to be rather odd.

For some seem to be rather odd. For example, the proposal is for a person who can speak English to degree level, be offered a nine degree level, be offered a nine year path to settlement, whilst those who volunteer will be able to qualify between 5 and 7 years. I qualify between 5 and 7 years. I understand the volunteering pathway is subject to consultation, but what reasoning does the government what reasoning does the government have for requiring a person who has degree level English to wait for longer than a person who has done some volunteering? Furthermore, how will the government ensure that the volunteering pathway does not lead to abuses of the system? One concern I do have about these proposals is about the the settlement period for illegal migrants.

The consultation document migrants. The consultation document states that illegal entry will add up to 20 years to the baseline qualifying period. It then says that we are consulting on whether this should be five, ten, 15 or as high as 20 years. So can I ask the noble Lord, the Minister, why they need to consult on this? Why can they not make a decision themselves? If the government is considering allowing the scope for discretion? And on this it is somewhat beggars belief that the Home Office is actually considering permitting those who arrive illegally to still be able to qualify for indefinite leave to remain.

I know I have made this point before, but I will keep making it until the government absorbs it and listens. There should be absolutely no room for settlement for those who enter illegally. Any person who commits a criminal offence by entering the UK without valid leave to enter and remain, should be deported and never permitted to receive settlement. So I look forward very

**** Possible New Speaker ****

much to what the noble Lord, the Minister, has to say in response to. My Lords, we recognise the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, we recognise the issues facing communities and immigrants across the country, and we agree that faith must be we agree that faith must be restored to the immigration and asylum system, which requires changes to policy. We appreciate changes to policy. We appreciate the commitment to maintaining the five year pathway to settlement for partners of British citizens and partners of British citizens and British nationals overseas from Hong Kong, honouring our unique Hong Kong, honouring our unique responsibilities to them.

However, we are concerned that this overhaul overlooks key failures of past overlooks key failures of past governments prior to Brexit and the removal of nearly all safe and legal routes, this country had a legal routes, this country had a more rational and controlled approach to immigration, and it's regrettable that the government regrettable that the government have not made quicker progress towards building stronger links with Europe in their work on with Europe in their work on getting control of our immigration policy, changes to settlement must

18:51

Lord German (Liberal Democrat)

- -

policy, changes to settlement must be made giving due regard to the economy and public services and with fairness to individuals. We are concerned about the chilling effect this policy and rhetoric could have on the economy. The UK is fast becoming a less competitive place for science and innovation, however, and moreover, the NHS is heavily reliant on non-British national staff. The policy statement sets out that debt would limit an individual's eligibility for settlement. What does that mean? Perhaps the noble Lord, the Minister could tell us.

Does it include credit cards or a mortgage? When consideration is being given to preventing access to public funds for those with settlement, what is the position of the state pension that an individual would have contributed to over the years they have been in the UK? If you take your pension, does that mean that you would no longer be eligible for that final route? The statement explicitly targets the cohort of lower qualified workers who entered via the health and care visa, proposing they should wait 15 years before earning settlement, extending the pathway beyond the new ten year baseline.

Would that lead to a situation where care workers would be incentivised to volunteer in their community, rather than work extra hours? As a care worker, this proposal unfairly targets low earners and our carers. Why are carers not to be considered public service workers? What are we saying about the value of care? Care is a fundamental need in our society, especially as we are an ageing population. And further, these proposals raise serious questions about those who are most vulnerable.

The government commits to keeping some immediate short route pathways for victims of domestic violence and abuse. Will the noble Lord, the Minister, explicitly reassure the House and survivors that these changes will not have the adverse and perhaps unintended impact of locking those survivors into abusive relationships? The care sector in the UK is facing chronic staffing shortages, putting immense pressure on families and the wider social care system. Given that the Home Secretary has proposed that public service workers could qualify after five years, what assessment has been made of the risk that some essential public service workers will leave the UK, and that's shared by the nurses union? And what credible plan is the government taking to develop domestic talent in the health and care sector, especially in the short time scale that's available to them? The Ukrainian people continue to resist Russia's war of aggression, and many families who have sought refuge in the UK face further uncertainty over their visa status, causing significant instability.

Will the Home Office ministry and will noble Lord, the Minister, consider establishing a pathway to indefinite leave to remain for Ukrainians who have integrated into life in the UK and wish to remain long term, how does this policy relate to the family unit? It would seem that we could have a situation where people within the same family unit are on different routes to settlement because of their individual salaries on the one hand, and caring responsibilities on the other.

For example, a husband on a three year route and a wife on a ten year route, for example. How might this disproportionately impact women who are often those who work less as a result of childcare? The Home Secretary stated, any other place that fairness is central to these immigration changes, I would ask, is it fair to change the rules for an individual who has come to the UK on a legal route, with certain expectations on their route to settlement in the UK? To have those goalposts changed midway through? While no one disputes that people coming to the UK should integrate, how will the Home Secretary ensure, and how will the Home Office ensure that the new mandatory measures, such as making sustained National Insurance contributions above the personal allowance threshold and demonstrating English language proficiency to A-level standard or more, do not impose unworkable red tape on people who have come here legally.

Finally, how will these arrangements and changes be implemented? Will some of it be in primary legislation? Will some of it be in secondary legislation, or will some of it be seen be changes to the immigration rules? Now, I understand that's a very tricky and detailed answer I'm expecting from the bill, the Minister, but perhaps he could if he can't give me the exact details now about the the legislative route for these proposals, he might like to write to me on these matters.

There are a significant number of questions which I've asked, but I do hope

**** Possible New Speaker ****

them. I'm grateful. For the opportunity to answer

**** Possible New Speaker ****

For the opportunity to answer questions in this House. On the statement made by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, let me Friend the Home Secretary, let me just start by saying to the noble Lord Davis that the government's not feeling the pressure on this issue. The government is responding, issue. The government is responding, as any sensible government would do, to some of the challenges that we have looked at, having inherited have looked at, having inherited those challenges after 14 years of his government, which has led to a his government, which has led to a large build up in a range of asylum issues in one hand, and has not tackled this issue that we're tackled this issue that we're looking at now in terms of urban settlement.

In another, the last change on urban settlement was in change on urban settlement was in 2006, and this is the most fundamental change in over 40 years. I'll just start by saying settlements is a privilege, not a right. And what we're trying to do is to put again, some discussion, all of which is open to consultation. So the points that both the noble Lord and indeed the

18:57

Lord Hanson of Flint, The Minister of State, Home Department (Labour)

- -

both the noble Lord and indeed the noble Lord German have made are things which I would welcome his formal consultation on. But what we're trying to do is solve some of the problems and some of the challenges for the future. He has let me deal, first of all, with the noble Lord Davis. He has talked about issues to do with the different years of earned entitlement up and down. Again, we've just made judgements on that, but that is again open to consultation.

He can make representations if he think any of the particular decisions that we've come to in the initial document are wrong. We will look at his representations on those issues. We have settled on degree level English as being an important benchmark, but for the core narrative that we have on the four main criteria, the English requirement is English to a level standard, which is the B2 test of the European Common European Framework, which I think is reasonable. Again, he's mentioned illegal entry.

We've set some very high bars on the punitive elements essentially of additional years before any consideration can be given. That again is open to consultation. But there may be circumstances where somebody has arrived illegally that we wish to examine. And that's part of the reason for the discussion on the consultation in all of these areas that the noble Lord has mentioned. It is subject to consultation, and I would certainly welcome his views. The noble Lord German. Let me start by saying to him that the anticipation is that most of this will be done via immigration rules.

The process to date, as set out in the statement, is that my right hon. Friend, the Home Secretary has made the statement on the 20th of November. There is a consultation open to the 12th of February, 2026, and we would hope to try to make some changes with effect from the next financial political year of April next year. But that will be again subject to both the consultation and parliamentary consideration. He has mentioned the issue of what would national debt look like and what the debt would look like in terms of individuals.

I can say to him that the three types of debt we're looking at in the consultation are any litigation debt that is outstanding, any tax debt that might be outstanding, and any National Health Service debt that is outstanding. It wouldn't be on a personal basis debt. It would be on those effectively state debts that were examined. In that case, the issues of pension and whether or not that would be included again, is for consultation. We're looking at issues like Jobseeker's Allowance, like child benefit, but it would be open to discussion and I would welcome the noble Lords contribution to that.

He's mentioned health and care visas and the situation with regard to health and care visas. This is an area where there's a considerable amount of growth in that. And that might be argued that it's because people are living longer and people are requiring more care. But we have in 2028, an anticipation of an additional 210,000 care workers coming to the UK with the potential for long term settlement. Now, again, what we're trying to do is to ensure that we raise the level of training.

We look at recruitment of of UK based citizens into that work, but there will always be a need to examine that route, and that's why we still maintain that route open. But it just means that in terms of final settlement, it is a much longer period. He's mentioned noble Lord German Ukraine. Let me say to him that the Ukraine scheme is one that, again, we wouldn't have anticipated 4 or 5 years ago, but it is in place now because we've noted and have responded to a humanitarian need in what I hope is, and which the Ukraine government also hopes is a temporary circumstance.

So the Ukraine route has never been a route to permanent settlement. It is now extended for around 18 months till further we keep that under review. Self-evidently, Russia is still present in Ukraine, there is still bloodshed going on and the Ukrainian government has our support in dealing with that issue, which is why we've maintained and extended the scheme time wise for the future. But the Ukraine government themselves don't wish this to be a permanent route. So that will be kept under review.

And it is a separate scheme for those citizens of Ukraine who have come to the United Kingdom. For the moment. He's mentioned family and the family roots and the potential for different family timescales to be present. That's an area again that is subject to potential consultation. We want to look at that so that we don't necessarily disadvantage families. And again, I can't read my own writing, but I think it says transitional on my writing. And if it does, I will examine his comments in answer and return to that in writing for him shortly, because I've forgotten exactly why I've written that down.

But I will. I will come back to that point in writing to him as a whole. I suppose for the house, we just have to say that the reason we're taking this is there are currently 70 routes, 40 leading to settlement between 2026 and 2030. We estimate between 1.3 and 2.2 million citizens can currently, under the current scheme, have a period of settlement. So we need to have taken action. And the Immigration White Paper, published in May 25th, has set out that we will increase the default qualifying period for settlement from 5 to 10 years.

We've put down some core criteria, and they are the lack of a criminal record, the ability to speak English to a level standard, the ability to have made 3 to 5 years National Insurance contributions and to have no debt, as I've defined to the noble Lord a moment ago, those are core issues that we wish to put as a base. But on top of that, we have put positives and negatives in terms of earned entitlement, and we're doing that to ensure that, as I've said, the citizenship is part of a commitment and it's focussed on the particular issues around no recourse to public funds about speaking English as a as a particular level of degree level, and about other matters that I've outlined to the House today.

So I hope that the House will not just look at the two statements, but also participate in the consultation. And at the end of that consultation in February, undoubtedly, we will bring back a package to both houses which will be subject to parliamentary approval, and which this House or the House of Commons can examine and question in detail.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords. Thank you. I think what worries

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you. I think what worries me most about this is what it will do to our society. I think that I don't like the concept of a much don't like the concept of a much larger group of people. Second class people in our country, with restrictions on what they can do under a sort of surveillance state under a sort of surveillance state for much longer periods of time. I suspect it'll be divisive in our society. I, I particularly dislike society.

I, I particularly dislike the idea that it might be divisive in families. Here we have a white in families. Here we have a white paper saying that a person admitted as a dependent of an economic as a dependent of an economic migrant will not necessarily enjoy the same qualifying period for settlement of their partner. It may

19:05

Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (Crossbench)

- -

settlement of their partner. It may be shorter or longer according to their particular circumstances. So we are seriously envisaging telling couples that they must choose between living in the country in which they they chose to come to and hoped to settle in for the rest of their lives, or living with the person they married and hope to stay with for the rest of their lives. That's a pretty cruel choice to bring about. But my question to the Lord Hanson I have great sympathy with Lord Hanson having to deal with such very nasty news.

I my question to him is about what he just said about transitional arrangements. A particularly unpleasant aspect of all this is retrospection. I agree with what's just been said about that. Somebody who's been here four and a half years, who chose to come here, and the understanding that after five years, his permanent settlement as a citizen of this country would be adjudicated and has. Perhaps Mary, perhaps his children have thought about careers and schooling and all that.

On the basis of that, there will be certainty. Five years ahead. He came four and a half years ago. He now knows it may be another 15 years that he has to wait. I. I'd like to know what are the transitional arrangements, which, I quote, may be designed to ease the impact of policy change, especially for individuals or groups already afforded permissions by the previous system? I don't know what that means. The consultation starting will.

Consider that without any transitional arrangements, the Urn settlement policy will affect people already in the system who are not already settled when the relevant immigration rules come into force. Quite. But what what is is the idea inside the Home Office? Is it that there should be? A limited degree of retrospection? Should it be that those who who have been here for four years should be treated more generously than those who've just turned up? That's my question.

Tolerance.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'm grateful for the noble Lord Kerr of Kinlochard for reminding me of the reason I had wrote Transitional Down in relation to the noble Lord German, and I hope that with my explanation, he can that with my explanation, he can avoid another missive letter from me on the back of this, the transitional arrangements that transitional arrangements that we've got. As he has said, let me start by saying some things which I hope is positive that nobody now is hope is positive that nobody now is settled status will have that settled status unpicked by these arrangements.

There are some political parties who have suggested that might be the case. This Labour government is not one of them. What we have said is that we will look at the pathway to settlement for those who are on that pathway already, but have not that pathway already, but have not yet been granted settled status, and that means we will, in the consultation, look at the issues of transitional arrangements for those individuals, and I would hope that individuals, and I would hope that those who have a view put that view to the Home Office.

We have to determine what we do for those who

19:09

Lord Hanson of Flint, The Minister of State, Home Department (Labour)

- -

determine what we do for those who are, as the noble Lord has said, maybe four and a half years down a settled status route where they expected five years. But now the proposal is potentially subject to consultation this ten year period that we've got in the immigration White Paper. So that is subject to discussion and consultation on that route. I would just say to the noble Lord that in looking at this, if you looked at France, France has a ten year period, Italy has a ten year period.

Well, the noble Lord shakes his head. We are looking at what we think is the right thing to do. That is what we have undertaken to do. And I'm just saying to him, it's not we're not out of step with some European partner countries on that. But I give him the assurance that the point he's raised about transitional will be examined. And this is the same for the noble Lord German. As part of that,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

consultation and representations are welcome. I'm not disagreeing with road at all. He's completely correct about all. He's completely correct about France, I think. And what I'm saying is, I'm sad that one of the saying is, I'm sad that one of the defining features of this country, something which we used to be proud of, is slipping. I agree that the change doesn't take us out of line with a lot of our neighbours, but with a lot of our neighbours, but the change is nevertheless undesirable for our society, in my view.

Well.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

view. Well. I believe in an open, integrated, multicultural society where people multicultural society where people are respected and valued for the work that they do, and that is not work that they do, and that is not to put anything against the many thousands of people who work in this building, who work in hospitals, who work across the hospitals, who work across the country, who work in teaching, and who bring great skills to this country. But the question for the country.

But the question for the government is how do we manage future migration issues and future future migration issues and future earned entitlement settlements? And what we're looking at is to put what we're looking at is to put some guidelines around that, which are some core guidelines. I've outlined some alternatives which outlined some alternatives which improve the earned entitlement or penalising an entitlement by giving a further longer period. And we think that is reasonable to do, but it is subject to consultation. And I welcome the noble Lords views

**** Possible New Speaker ****

outside of this chamber. My noble friend. Lord German raised many of the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Lord German raised many of the issues which are puzzling in this consultation. The noble Lord Lord consultation. The noble Lord Lord Kerr also added elements which are divisive and unsettling. And with all the love I have of France, I think we've done historically the noble Lord Dear Ministers last remarks really conveyed that we have done better in building a have done better in building a multicultural, multi-ethnic society than France has. And I wouldn't necessarily say that we want to emulate everything that they have done.

I have a particular question about where the introduction to the document says that the consultation document says that the consultation proposes that benefits benefit should not be available to those who have settled status. I'm who have settled status. I'm assuming that does not cover those who have EU settled status, because that would be a breach of the

19:12

Baroness Ludford (Liberal Democrat)

- -

that would be a breach of the withdrawal agreement. So I'm sure he's going to give me a reassurance. And indeed, even some with Pre-settled status can get access to some benefits. I think that's another area. This has shows evidence of having been put together rather quickly. He he Lords Minister clarified that they must have no debt in this country, means they must have no debt to this country. It's an Infelicitous phrasing in this document doesn't stop someone having a mortgage or student fees or whatever.

Anyway, my my one point, which I think is on the sort of divisive theme the noble Lord Lord Kerr, is that earlier settlement would be available to high, higher taxpayers, and people have worked at a certain level of seniority in public services. Well, you know, good luck to them. But middle and and lower earner workers are also very valuable. And I don't really see why their, their worth to this country should be, should be measured in terms of earning settlement as to what they pay HMRC.

I think that is peculiar to be honest, and I'm fundamentally of the view that I really don't understand the the twists and turns in this. The government has adopted the language of some opposition parties about illegal entrants. It says it agrees. It accepts the refugee convention, but actually it doesn't because it is not illegal to enter this country in order to claim asylum. And we have said this time and time again, and and the Labour Party said that in opposition in this House.

So if you've accepted someone has a right to stay in this country, why are you going to make hurdles about when they're allowed to settle and integrate and become a fully fledged member of our society? I do not understand the discrepancy between those two things. I better shut up because I can see other people want to get in. But I have that specific question about EU settled status.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'm grateful to the noble Baroness. She knows that we have Baroness. She knows that we have had a lot of discussion around EU settled status, and I can confirm to her today that the EU settlement to her today that the EU settlement scheme is out of scope, as indeed is the Windrush scheme, and for British overseas nationals, those British overseas nationals, those from from Hong Kong visas will receive a five year reduction, effectively maintaining their five effectively maintaining their five year route to settlement.

And those people with settled status will be able to keep that settled status able to keep that settled status without any change. Now, again, I think they are reasonable responses think they are reasonable responses to to the many European Union citizens who work and live in this country. So there are many people country. So there are many people from Windrush generation who've come to this country to work and to integrate, and to those people from integrate, and to those people from Hong Kong as well.

And that's why, again, what we're looking at is to

19:16

Lord Hanson of Flint, The Minister of State, Home Department (Labour)

- -

try to put down some basic discussion points for consultation on how we manage settle status when we have potentially 1.3 to 2.2 million people coming to settle status between 26 and 30 on current estimates. And that figure may only grow unless we take the action that we're trying to take today before us. Now, she mentions a number of points. They're all up for consultation. The high salary issue means that an individual is a higher tax payer, and being employed in specific public roles would also result in a reduction in the additional time that was required.

And that's an important recognition, I think, of the contribution that people are making to the United Kingdom. But I just say to her that all those points are for consultation, they're for discussion. And given that the time is is relatively limited, I want to make sure that we take other questions and I'll take the right reverend Prelate next.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

And I will keep my question brief. My Lords, because I wanted to give time to the noble Baroness, to give time to the noble Baroness, Baroness Bennett. My Lords, one of the most encouraging developments in this in foreign policy in this in this in foreign policy in this country in recent years has been the growing recognition of the evil, of the denial of freedom of religion or belief across the world, religion or belief across the world, leading to to widespread persecution of faith communities, Christians, not least amongst them, Christians, not least amongst them, as we've seen in this last days, tragically, in Nigeria and the UK has become a recognised global has become a recognised global leader in advocacy for this oft overlooked right.

So can I ask the noble Lord, the Minister, if he noble Lord, the Minister, if he accepts that the denial of freedom of religion or belief is a significant driver of migration? It significant driver of migration? It is certainly so in the case of a significant number who, and I quote, arrive illegally, who, according to arrive illegally, who, according to this statement, could see settlement take up to to 30 years. So so does he agree that we really So so does he agree that we really do need to consistency in the development of foreign and domestic

19:18

The Lord Bishop of Manchester (Bishops)

- -

development of foreign and domestic policy, especially in this area, but also in upstream causes and drivers of migration, to ensure that the very, very vulnerable individuals are afforded the protection and assurance assistance

**** Possible New Speaker ****

they so badly need. Right reverend because it gives me an opportunity to say to the

19:18

The Lord Bishop of Winchester (Bishops)

- -

me an opportunity to say to the House that there is a real difference between asylum, refugee status and immigration. And what we're looking at in this statement is the translation from citizens who come here through an immigration route to do work, to having earned settled status earlier this week, if it may have only been on yesterday. We we discussed and had a further statement in relation to the issues of asylum claims and persecution for religious faith would be grounds to seek asylum.

We have again had policy statements about how individuals can claim asylum. Some people will come here illegally, which is why I said to the noble Lord Davis earlier that that is not an automatic barrier, but it is certainly a significant barrier where it can be examined as to how that person has arrived. But for that asylum claim, we would meet our obligations in International refugee Convention under human rights, and those asylum claims will be based on an individual's personal circumstances. But the key point, and this is the key point of the statement we made earlier in the week, instead of five years, that would be now a two and a half year period where if the circumstances of the individual are reassessed after two and a half years, then the persecution in the native country may not be what it was two and a half years ago.

It may be, in which case their asylum claim is still being processed. The key to asylum claims is to process them quickly to determine whether an asylum claim is genuine, if so, to allow status. If that happens, then they will fall under the roots of this particular statement today. If they're not a proper asylum claim that they will face removal from the country. That is a two stage operation. But this is also around not people who are coming on small boats.

This is people who are coming on work visas who wish to seek to have long term settled status. And what we're doing here is, I think, just putting some more guardrails around that, that settle status so that we can ensure that individuals have contributed. And on the four key issues are citizens that deserve the right of privilege of being British citizens as part

**** Possible New Speaker ****

of their consideration. The statement.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The statement. Says that fairness is the most fundamental of British values. Is it fair that people who've uprooted it fair that people who've uprooted their lives, move their children here, made their lives here, should suddenly find the rug pulled out from underneath their life plans? Now, in responding to the noble Now, in responding to the noble Lords Kerr and German, the noble Lord, the Minister said, well, there might be transitional arrangements where consulting on

19:21

Lord Hanson of Flint, The Minister of State, Home Department (Labour)

- -

arrangements where consulting on all of this, but that means people who might have been here four and a half years are facing massive levels of uncertainty about where their life is now. Is that fair? their life is now. Is that fair? And to look at the overall fairness of the plans and think about a potential example of either someone potential example of either someone who's already here now or comes in the future, a carer, or maybe a nurse in a care home. Five years is nurse in a care home.

Five years is kept for nurses working in public service, but what about those working in a privately owned working in a privately owned facility? She might have to wait 15 years for indefinite leave to remain. What happens if, after ten remain. What happens if, after ten years service, she's injured her back and needs a period of rehabilitation before she returns rehabilitation before she returns to work? And what happens to her child after 15 years, unlikely to child after 15 years, unlikely to be still dependent, perhaps pushed to remain dependent, to be able to to remain dependent, to be able to stay in the country? That's the only one they actually remember.

Is all of that fair?

19:22

Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (Green Party)

- -

Let me answer the first point. The announcements that were made were made on November the 20th. The consultation closes on February the 12th, and the intention is to try to bring in proposals shortly after that. That is a sort of 3 or 4 month interregnum of uncertainty, which I accept is there. But I think that it is important that we make the policy statements that we've made allow for consultation, and the points that have been made across the House will undoubtedly be put in the consultation as a whole, and we will reflect on that in relation to any points made.

But I have to say, is it fair? The noble Lady says, well, I think it has to be fair that if we want to ensure that community cohesion and we want to ensure that people recognise that there is a society where people come but have an earned right, not a citizenship of privilege, automatic, then I think that is fair for the British citizens who are here now. And she has to note that there are many has to note that there are many political parties.

I don't accuse the noble Lord of this, but there are political parties who would go are political parties who would go much further and remove people from this country who have settled status and do those things that we status and do those things that we have to address some real issues. It is never easy in government, it is difficult in government, but I is difficult in government, but I am not going to go down the road of some political parties, and we have some political parties, and we have to find a way to ensure that the the fairness that I think is appropriate for the system is, is appropriate for the system is, is generated in the rules that were consulting on, on now.

consulting on, on now.

19:23

Lord Hanson of Flint, The Minister of State, Home Department (Labour)

- -

A very simple and practical question to for the the noble Lords Minister to end with. He has during this his remarks about the statement said that to gain settled status would require a degree level in English or an A-level degree in level in English. Could the noble Lord explain the Minister, explain how that will be assessed? Will it be both written and spoken? And does he therefore expect that existing residents of the country to achieve the same levels?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The the test, I can say to the noble Lady, is the B2 test, which is under common European framework. is under common European framework. We currently have a B1 test, which is a slightly lower, but it's a is a slightly lower, but it's a recognised test. B2 European Common European Framework. And that would

19:24

Baroness Pinnock (Liberal Democrat)

- -

European Framework. And that would be the test that is taking place. And again there is no residual changes being made to those with existing settled status and including those like myself, who were born in this country, but whose English may sometimes be not up to the standard that some people would wish. It's important that we have a test. That test is in place,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

and I hope the noble Lady will support it in consultation. Has to.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Has to. Be again in committee on the Diego Garcia military base and

19:25

Lord Hanson of Flint, The Minister of State, Home Department (Labour)

- -

British Indian Ocean Territory. Bill Baroness Chapman of Darlington.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The House to now resolve itself into a committee on consideration

**** Possible New Speaker ****

of the Bill. The question is that the House do now again resolve itself into a committee upon the Bill. As many as committee upon the Bill. As many as are of that opinion will say content, content, content, content, Amendment Amendment 20 a Baroness Foster not moved. Baroness amendments 20 C to 20 F Baroness amendments 20 C to 20 F Lord Kempsell not moved. Amendment

19:26

Legislation: Diego Garcia Military Base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill - committee stage (day 2) - part two

Lord Kempsell not moved. Amendment 20 G Lord Morrow moved, not moved. 20 H Lord Morrow not moved.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Amendment 20 J Lord Morrow. Thank you, my Lords. I wish to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you, my Lords. I wish to speak to amendment 20 J standing in speak to amendment 20 J standing in my name. 20 J. And my name proposes that sections 2 to 4 do not come that sections 2 to 4 do not come into force until the Secretary of State has produced a report setting out the reasons for rejecting the alternative legal remedies to those set out in the Mauritius Treaty for set out in the Mauritius Treaty for resolving challenges to the United Kingdom sovereignty and the Chagos Kingdom sovereignty and the Chagos Archipelago.

My Lords, the heart of the government's justification for the government's justification for proceeding with this bill to bring the Mauritius Treaty into force is the non-binding judgement of the the non-binding judgement of the International Court of Justice from 2019. The government has, I think, acknowledged that it is not binding, but has sought to ensure that it is but has sought to ensure that it is ignored. Binding judgement will quickly arise and other countries

19:27

Amdt. 20J Lord Morrow (Democratic Unionist Party)

quickly arise and other countries upon whom we depend to run the base would then refuse to help. The government has not explained government has not explained clearly what these judgements are and why they would be binding. I would invite the Minister to do so in detail, and to tell the House which countries we depend on to run the islands, which we think would then refuse key services, and what those services are. However, in this amendment, I want to probe a different approach.

My Lords, the government tells us that this is a critically important bill because its passage will facilitate the facing of the coming into force of the treaty. The treaty is vital because the United States has told the government, the US, the UK government first, what is it unhappy about having a major US base on Diego Garcia when the sovereignty of Garcia is contested? And furthermore, what is what it has paused investment on Diego Garcia and will not commence until the legal standing of the islands has been resolved? It is crucial that this matter is resolved because the security, not just of the United States, but of the United Kingdom and the West, depends on the full US investment in Diego Garcia.

In this context, the reason why the bill is before us today and the treaty that we will come, that will come into force if it becomes an Act of Parliament are vital, is because they set out the only route to legal certainty for the standing of the US military base. However, my Lords, I wanted to suggest that this solution does not provide the only way forward to secure legal certainty and indeed, that there are alternative ways forward that would much better secure legal certainty than this bill and treaty.

It is the purpose of my amendment to ask the government to consider these alternatives. The problems with the government's approach in claiming that the treaty constitutes the only legal way forward, is that it is the product of a non-binding legal judgement. That was a response to the disagreement between two parties, the Republic of Mauritius and the United Kingdom. The questions were not a party to the case, because at that time they did not have international personality. Had they been a party, then the judgement would have dealt with a wider range of issues and considered a wider range of ways forward.

If the court looks to at the difficulty, without full regard for the people because they were not fully represented, then it is clear that they could work on the basis that the territorial integrity of the November 1965 colony should not have been changed by the UK prior to decolonisation. However, given the Tuvalu Ellice Islands present, there is still a difficulty because of the caveat in the judgement which states that the separation was wrong unless based on the freely express and genuine will of the people of the territory concerned.

Close the quote. The detached territory was an island, and the people of the detached territory were by definition plainly no one other than the people of the islands. Moreover, if we factor into the equation first the fact that while the people did not live on the islands because we have wronged them twice and forcibly removed them from the islands between 1968 and 1973, and then refusing from 1973 until the present to return them to their islands.

They continue not only to live in countries that are members of the UN, but do so as a growing community in exile. Second, the fact that the biggest survey of question opinion covering over a third of Cassians living today, shows that more than 99% support for being resettled British Overseas and less than 1% wanting the islands, made part of the. And third, the precedent arising from the UK government offering the islands self-determination before the colonisation of the Gilbert and Ellice Islands.

It is plain that there is another legal way forward. Crucially, however, it is our duty to explore that alternative legal way forward, which is likely to provide a greater measure of legal certainty for the United States. Because if this bill becomes law and the treaty is implemented, the United States will just exchange one legal uncertainty for another instead of the legal certainty pertaining to Diego Garcia bias arising from the Republic of Mauritius claims sovereignty over the islands in defiance of the UK, we will be confronted by an alternative dispute.

You can see in people who are who are for reasons I will pick up when speaking on other amendments likely to obtain a form of international personality will instead claim sovereignty over the the islands in defiance of the claim of the Republic of Mauritius. My Lords, rather than alarm the opinions of legal certainty to be constrained by the circumstances of the Non-legally binding judgement, the government's approach going forward should be fully animated by appreciation of the following truths.

First, that it was just as wrong of us to split the colony that covered Mauritius and the islands before decolonisation without consulting the casinos, let alone providing them with self-determination. And that would have been to refuse to split the Gilbert and Ellice Islands before decolonisation. After having afforded Ellice Islands self-determination referendum in which they elected to separate second and final, it was profoundly wrong for us to forcibly remove the casinos from the islands. Between 1968 and 1973.

It was, and is profoundly wrong that from 1973 until today, we have refused to return the Chagos Islands to the decisions. In this context, the government should produce a report that considers all the legal ways forward in the context of which it is my submission that the one best equipped to provide unassailable legal certainty is to afford the casinos people a self-determination referendum and to implement its results. I beg to move.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Mr. clause one, page one, line seven at end, insert the words printed on the marshalled list.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

printed on the marshalled list. Amendment 20 J. My Lords, I'd like to support the noble.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the noble. Lord, Lord Morrow's amendment. And first of all, let me let me thank the Ministers for the thank the Ministers for the patience and courtesy that they've displayed all evening. The two Ministers and the whip know that they are among my favourite peers, they are among my favourite peers, not just among my favourite government frontbenchers. And they're being very patient and and good humoured. But I have to take good humoured. But I have to take issue with the idea that this is a done deal, which is an argument that has run through a lot of the that has run through a lot of the debates.

And this seems the the APT amendment on which to take it on. We were told we've been told repeatedly. We were told it by the noble Lady, Baroness Chapman last noble Lady, Baroness Chapman last week. We were told it again just before dinner by Lord Kerr of Kinlochard that the treaty has been signed. It's been passed by by the Crag process and therefore all this Crag process and therefore all this is, as it were, dancing after the music has stopped and we'd expose ourselves to a much more dangerous ourselves to a much more dangerous situation.

If we now try to hold it up. But I would just ask you to

19:36

Lord Hannan of Kingsclere (Conservative)

- -

up. But I would just ask you to ponder the possibility that the crag process has not, in fact, been a full democratic exercise. There's been no vote. Everything was rushed through from Second Reading in one day. There was no Report stage. And as I understand it, I've never been a member of the Other place, unlike some of your lordships present here. But as I understand it, the way in which you have a vote in the crag process is by moving an amendment or moving a resolution, and then voting for it.

And looking just now online, I see that there is such an amendment standing in the name of my right hon. Friend, the Leader of the Opposition and others, signed by 107 members of the Other place from six political parties, which I frankly concede is not nearly as big a deal as it would have been a decade ago. There's been something of a splintering of parties, but nonetheless, and as yet, there's been no vote on it. And I just mention this because the idea that therefore we really have no option except to to to tweak statements at the margin to polish the edges of this, that we can't look for substantive changes, I think is fundamentally at odds with what was promised when the crag process was brought in.

If the treaty was rushed through without debate in another place, then surely the only proper scrutiny and the only proper chance of amendment is in this chamber. And that's why I hope that noble Lords on all sides will feel uninhibited when it comes to moving and in due course, voting on substantive amendments, because this is the one, the one realistic opportunity that we have to make, the points that would be made by the the people from the Chagos Islands watching us now if they had a voice in our councils.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, this amendment, as Lord Hannan has reminded us, gets to the core of the criticisms that to the core of the criticisms that have been levelled against the government's approach to this bill so far. As my noble friend Lord so far. As my noble friend Lord Lilley pointed out numerous times during the debates on the first day of Committee stage, it is very of Committee stage, it is very difficult to see which court could actually have delivered a binding judgement against the UK on the question of sovereignty over the Chagos Archipelago.

Yet it is the repeated contention of the government that this treaty is somehow essential to deliver legal certainty. So the question remains which court could have delivered a binding judgement that would have threatened that legal certainty and secure the military base? And I secure the military base? And I hope the government will finally be able to provide us with an answer, because if they cannot answer that because if they cannot answer that question, then the argument that this treaty and this bill were both

19:38

Lord Callanan (Conservative)

- -

this treaty and this bill were both necessary falls apart. Indeed, the argument that the treaty and the bill are needed urgently also falls apart, and we should consider whether the government should in fact take a more circumspect approach. And that is what the noble Lords Lord Morrow amendment suggests. If this treaty is not necessary, then surely Ministers must have considered other options before coming to this agreement with Mauritius. So perhaps the noble Lord, the noble Baroness, the Minister can tell the Committee what consideration was given to resettlement of the Chagos Archipelago by Chagossian, for example.

What would the cost have been for that? And what is the difference between that cost figure and the true cost associated with this treaty? I say the true cost because the government's initial claims on costs have now been thoroughly discredited. There were lots of options that should have been considered. So perhaps the noble Baroness can tell us what options were in fact considered. I understand that these are specific questions about the process followed by Ministers before agreeing to the treaty with Mauritius.

And so if the noble Baroness, the Minister, cannot say with certainty what these potential approaches were considered, then perhaps you'll be able to write to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

us to confirm the details. Thank you. In relation to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you. In relation to amendment 20, J. This House has dedicated at least 15 hours debating the government's rationale debating the government's rationale for entering this treaty. It's been subject to two reports by the International Agreements Committee and the International Relations and Defence Committee, three separate committees, the IAC are Erdc and committees, the IAC are Erdc and the Foreign Affairs Committee have held evidence, sessions and questioned the Minister for the Overseas Territories. The Overseas Territories. The government has been consistently clear throughout the legal case was compelling and there was no compelling and there was no credible alternative.

A policy of hanging tough, which I assume the hanging tough, which I assume the noble Lord has in mind, would have been a real gift to our adversaries. As we've stated on numerous As we've stated on numerous occasions, the continued operation of the base was under threat. Courts were already making decisions which undermined our decisions which undermined our position. If a long term deal had not been reached. Further wide

19:41

Baroness Chapman of Darlington, Minister of State (Development) (Labour)

- -

not been reached. Further wide ranging litigation was likely, with no realistic prospect of the UK successfully defending its legal position on sovereignty. In such cases, legally binding provisional measures from the courts could have come within weeks, for example, affecting our ability to patrol the waters around Diego Garcia. Both the Erdc and the IAC recognised that the treaty provides legal certainty for the base, and I hope that noble Lords will withdraw

**** Possible New Speaker ****

their amendments. Lord, can I thank all those who have spoken in this debate, and I have noticed that no one has spoken against it other than the Minister against it other than the Minister who brought her explanation and

**** Possible New Speaker ****

who brought her explanation and reason. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment. Pleasure that this amendment be

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Pleasure that this amendment be withdrawn. Amendment is by leave withdrawn. Amendment 20 K Lord

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Morrow. A lot of talk about the rule based international order in recent based international order in recent years, largely in response to the concern that the reality to which it testifies is looking considerably less certain in the context of the development of what context of the development of what some scholars are now calling Cold War two. The truth, however, is that international relations has that international relations has never been a strictly rule based order in the sense that it has

19:42

Lord Morrow (Democratic Unionist Party)

- -

order in the sense that it has approximated life in the domestic context. On the other hand, informed by social conventions that testify to the common humanity of all the people of the earth, international relations has never approximated to international anarchy. There have always been rules, and yet, on the other hand, they have been different from the domestic sense because of the absence of a world state with all the sanctions of domestic

19:43

Amdt. 20K Lord Morrow (Democratic Unionist Party)

government. In this context, those rules have to accommodate rules have to accommodate considerations of power in a way that we do not see domestically sound. Thinking about international relations has never been just about rules abstracted from rules abstracted from considerations of power, any more than it has been about power obstructed, obstructed from rules. My Lords, we can get into real difficulty if we lose sight of difficulty if we lose sight of questions of power. One of the critical ways in which international relations has conventionally had regard for questions of power arises from the point at which a new sovereign point at which a new sovereign state, whether arising from the break up of an existing state de break up of an existing state de colonisation or some other kind of reconfiguration of territorial reconfiguration of territorial integrity, is recognised by other sovereign states, this act of sovereign states, this act of recognition conveys on the state sovereignty as the international personality.

It involves those personality. It involves those states saying that they recognise the right of the other state to exist, with its territorial integrity, and the right of that state to make the laws to which it is subject in relation to that territorial integrity. This process is mutual in the sense that if state A won't recognise state B, then state B usually won't recognise state A until state recognises it. One of the critical questions facing a sovereign state in determining whether or not it recognises another state is whether it recognises its full territorial integrity and right to make the laws of that territorial integrity, together with assessment of its physical capacity to govern that territorial integrity.

My Lords, if a new state emerges that seeks recognition from other states, a question that those states will want to ask in the context of the absence of a global executive legislation, judiciary is does that state have the capacity, the power to govern its territory if the state does not have that capacity to govern its territory, then it is likely to become to that extent, a failed state. Other countries that believe it is in their interest to uphold international peace and stability will question the appropriateness of recognising a state without the wherewithal for self-government.

They will fear the destabilising consequences of creating a failed state arising from the power, from the power vacuum left in its wake. My Lords. Of course, in some contexts there may be no alternative way of governing a territory such as the international community might determine that it is in its interests to try to build capacity to help the polity in question move from the territory of being a failed state to being a fully functional state. My Lords, I am not questioning for a moment the capacity of the Republic of Mauritius to provide effective government for its current territorial integrity.

But I have huge questions about the capacity of the Republic of Mauritius to govern the territorial integrity proposed by the Bill before us today. Furthermore, in the context of dealing with international relations, which is not just a question of rules but also of power, we cannot afford to abstract questions about colonial territorial integrity as legal principles obstructed from questions of power and capacity, any more than we can afford to abstract them from other important principles like self-determination without risk and international peace and security.

This bill, however, will facilitate the coming into force of a treaty that will extend the Republic of Mauritius to cover 60 additional islands located some 1330 miles away. Not only that, the islands are immense geostrategic significance and the treaty purposes that they are transferred from a country that has nuclear power with a navy to a country that does not even have a navy. Instead, this was brought home very forcibly by the publication of an article on the 11th of September by the news site Development Discourse.

It states, and I quote Mauritius Prime Minister Navinchandra Ramgoolam disclosed on Thursday that the nation chose an Indian vessel to hoist its national flag over the archipelago, including Diego Garcia. Addressing a joint press briefing with the Prime Minister Narendra modi. Ramgoolam asserted, we want to visit Chagos to put our flag there, including Diego Garcia. The British offered us a vessel, but we said we prepared one from India because symbolically it would be better.

My point here is not that we should be offended at the rejection of a British vessel, but rather my point was that it was so obvious that the Republican Mauritian did not have the capacity to even get to these islands, that our government offered a British vessel to take them there, as did the Indian government. My Lords, it can only seem right to transfer the islands on the basis of the principle of territorial integrity, obstructed from questions of power and capacity, and which is itself already a hopeless abstraction, even at the level of principle, to the extent that it has been obstructed from the critical principle of self-determination.

If we have lost our all sense of relations. International relations. The Lords. This is deeply troubling, especially given the fact that it is not the year 2000, but the year 2025. And we are now engaging with Cold War two. And the fact is that today, all 60 of these islands of immense geostrategic importance are under the sovereignty of a nuclear power with a navy. But if we pass this bill and enable the implementation of the Mauritius Treaty, every one of them will pass to the sovereignty of a country that cannot even get there under its own steam for a flag raising ceremony.

This, of course, incidentally, why article six of the treaty only references this in principle. Possibility of the resettlement of islands. It would be impossible if Mauritius to settle the islands, if it cannot even get there for the flag raising ceremony. Some might say don't worry, it'll be okay because the US base will remain on Diego Garcia. My Lords, if one was to make that assertion in defence of this arrangement, one would have to jump from operating on the basis of principle, abstracted from power to power, abstracted from principle.

Both postures are international relations disasters waiting to happen? In my opinion, yes. The US and British American forces would have power to engage with any other force that sought to come to one of the other islands if they wish to, but we would much rather not. Such an engagement could start a major war for so long as the islands remain unambiguously under British sovereignty, which they would if we granted the self-determination, and they elected to be, as the survey material suggests, they will overwhelmingly a British overseas territory.

They would be protected not only at the power level but at the principle level. And we desperately need both. As things stand, if we pass this bill, we will facilitate the coming into force of a treaty that will create a power vacuum in relation to at least 59 islands of immense geostrategic importance that threatens instability. This would be a catastrophic international

**** Possible New Speaker ****

relations error. My Lords, I beg to move. This clause one, page one, line seven at end, insert the words

**** Possible New Speaker ****

seven at end, insert the words printed on the marshalled list. Amendment 20 K. I just rise to say a few words

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I just rise to say a few words in support of the noble Lords Amendment, which to me seems really Amendment, which to me seems really sensible that we shouldn't have been selling or rather paying to been selling or rather paying to give away British territory without a full and proper assessment of who was actually going to take it over. was actually going to take it over. And I think this all boils down to do we actually trust Mauritius? And do we actually trust Mauritius? And my, my feeling is that while I have probably a great deal of respect probably a great deal of respect for Mauritian people, that I'm not sure that the government of Mauritius is a government, that we Mauritius is a government, that we would be genuinely wanting to trust in the way that this whole treaty in the way that this whole treaty is, is doing so.

And I detect also a kind of feeling amongst government, the government and government, the government and perhaps whips that, you know, really we're all wasting our time here. And what on earth are we

19:53

Baroness Hoey (Non-affiliated)

- -

doing spending all this time? And as the noble Lord Hannan said, you know, we've seen how little time was spent on this, how little how quickly it came through. Once the election had been called, once the election was over and the new government was in place, suddenly this all was was happening. You know, that's why I think it's really important that even if there are very few people here, that we actually consider all these issues, because in the long term, this will all be recorded.

And I think there will be a time in the future when many people will look back and say, oh, perhaps we should have considered that more when it came. So I do believe that that Mauritius I don't believe that that they have treated Chagossians who live in Mauritius very well. Yes, there are a few who have have, have, have done obviously very well and are now being, you know, out cajoling how wonderful it is that Mauritius is going to take over the islands.

But the reality is that they haven't been treated well and you just need to talk to any of the Chagossians who are here to discover what has been going on. And that was that was when there was some kind of input from our government. What on earth is going to happen when the British government has no longer any say in what's happening in Mauritius? So I think that we do need a really proper, detailed assessment on the ability of the government in Mauritius to not just look after the welfare of Chagossians who are there and in the future, but to look after the whole archipelago, to actually look after and obey the terms of the treaty.

The treaty may not be tough enough, but at the very least, we want to make sure that if there is a treaty that they they carry through their their side of it. And I just have a real feeling that once this is all signed and sealed, that so many people will forget about what has happened, and the Mauritian government will have an easy time in actually doing anything they want, and mostly not doing things that they should be doing to preserve those wonderful islands and the people who should be allowed to go back there.

So I

**** Possible New Speaker ****

support this amendment. My Lord. Let me firstly thank

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lord. Let me firstly thank the noble Lord Lord Morrow and Baroness Hoey for their contributions on Lord Morrow's contributions on Lord Morrow's amendment 20 K, which, much like his amendment 20 J in the previous his amendment 20 J in the previous group, asks a specific question of the government, which I think gets to the heart of the process. That was apparently followed by was apparently followed by Ministers in reaching agreement on the terms of the treaty. Clearly, the terms of the treaty.

Clearly, my Lords, Ministers will have had to consider other issues beyond the claim that we have debated at claim that we have debated at length that the sovereignty of the archipelago was somehow threatened by a binding legal judgement. The long term security and effective management of the archipelago will, if the government gets its way, be if the government gets its way, be delivered by the Government of Mauritius. We surely cannot have decided to pass that responsibility decided to pass that responsibility over to Mauritian government without first assessing their ability to actually manage the

19:56

Lord Callanan (Conservative)

- -

ability to actually manage the islands that we are not giving to them, paying them to take. So would the Minister consider publishing the details of the government's assessment of Mauritius ability to manage and protect the islands effectively? In an earlier group, we debated Mauritius responsibility for illegal migrants arriving on the islands, but this is just one of the relevant administrative questions that should have been considered before by Ministers before an agreement was reached with the Mauritian government, for example, was the fact that Mauritius does not even have a navy considered a relevant fact.

When the UK government formed a view of the Mauritian government's ability to manage the islands, the Mauritian Coast Guard, sorry, the Mauritian National Coast Guard consists of one offshore patrol vessel, two mid shore patrol adequately equipped to deal with the challenges they will face as a result of this treaty? And can the Minister confirm whether her department have had any discussions whatsoever with the Mauritians about increasing their Coast Guard's resources in light of their responsibility for the archipelago? If they even had a boat that could reach distance, that would be a step forward.

Is this something that would be monitored by the UK government on an ongoing basis and raised appropriately through the Joint Commission? Or will we just say we've handed the islands over? It's now the Mauritians responsibility when we know from all available evidence that they have no capacity whatsoever to actually do any of that management. Mauritian Coast Guard's role is not only important for the Mauritian government's access to and administration of the islands. The Coast Guard will presumably play a role in establishing and maintaining the marine protected area that the noble Lady has told us at great length, they are establishing what discussions have Ministers had with the Mauritian counterparts to fully understand their plans to protect this really important marine protected area.

They don't have any boats. They can even reach the islands, never mind protect the, the the islands from from any access from foreign vessels. Can the Minister confirm whether the UK government is satisfied that the Russian government does have the capabilities, or is about to acquire the capabilities needed to maintain the protected area? When this was debated on the previous day of Committee stage, the Minister said, quote, the MP will be for the Mauritian government to implement. I'm sure it will, but have we not even any thought whatsoever to their ability to actually implement that? We do understand that this would be the responsibility of the Mauritian government if this bill goes through, but does the Minister think that it's any responsibility whatsoever for the UK government to ensure that those nations with whom we make agreements are actually able to fulfil their obligations before we then sign a treaty, it is essential that we should have some clarity on this process that Ministers have followed, and establishing that Mauritius has not just committed to the terms of the treaty, but they are actually in the position to be able to honour the terms of the treaty when it finally, if it finally comes into force.

I look forward to the Minister's response.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords Amendment 20 K, tabled by Lord Morrow, seeks to oblige the government to publish a report on government to publish a report on the ability of Mauritius to govern the Chagos Chagos Archipelago and on the implications of the treaty for International Peace and Stability. The Erdc concluded that the treaty gave the UK legal clarity on which it could capitalise to enhance defence cooperation, and that it was a platform for reinforcing operational links with key regional partners, allowing the UK to partners, allowing the UK to position itself as a credible contributor to regional stability grounded in the rule of law.

Under the treaty, the UK retains full operational control over Diego operational control over Diego Garcia. There are robust provisions in place to protect the security of the base. The treaty is the best the base. The treaty is the best way to ensure the continued operation of the joint UK US base,

20:00

Baroness Chapman of Darlington, Minister of State (Development) (Labour)

- -

20:02

Lord Morrow (Democratic Unionist Party)

- -

on 20 L because I've covered, I think, the others in previous groups. This is the amendment that requires the Secretary of State to look at the impact of this treaty on other British overseas territories, and the implications for their sovereignty. Now, of course, we're always told in these situations by whoever is in government, oh, unique situation can't compare. And on one level that's a truism. I mean, of course, all of these situations are unique, and yet I think it would be extremely naive not to consider the possibility that they will be fallen upon hungrily by people who want a change to the status quo.

The idea that even now there are not politicians and lawyers in Buenos Aires or in Madrid looking

20:02

Amdt. 20L Lord Hannan of Kingsclere (Conservative)

20:11

Lord Jay of Ewelme (Crossbench)

- -

**** Possible New Speaker ****

sovereign territory. Concerned. And I do believe. That that. Will remain to be. The case. And I cannot. See why.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

See why. This particular treaty over the British Indian Ocean islands and the Chagos Islands will affect. The discussions we will have with our other overseas territories about their future. I think the situation will remain as it has been in the past, so I don't feel I could support this amendment from Lord Hannan.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Sir. I certainly do support the amendment by Lord Hannan. I just amendment by Lord Hannan. I just want to be very brief because the amendment I want to focus on aren't amendment I want to focus on aren't the ones regarding referenda and consulting for Chagossian people, even though that is very important. even though that is very important. But his specific amendment 20 L, which simply states, and I would be really surprised if a government can't accept this. It simply states that the Secretary of State needs that the Secretary of State needs to come up with a report assessing the potential implications for other British overseas territories that would arise from the Act of Treaty.

Now, what is wrong with that particular amendment? Nothing is going to cost the Foreign Office that amount of time and effort to put together a report. But I would suggest that in the context of suggest that in the context of what's been said at Second Reading on the debate we had on the treaty, on the first day in committee, the second day in committee, it really isn't asking a lot. And just on the isn't asking a lot. And just on the point that Lord Jay made that the noble law Lord Jay was looking specifically at the interests of

20:12

Lord Bellingham (Conservative)

- -

specifically at the interests of those citizens in those different territories. And he has a huge amount of knowledge and wisdom and experience. And what he said made a huge amount of sense. I think that maybe what he didn't address is that the signals that this, this bill, if it becomes an act and the treaty will send to other countries, and specifically the points that Lord Hannan made about Argentina, where we know that dispute is not going to go anywhere, it's going to go on and on.

And Gibraltar and I simply mention one other territory

**** Possible New Speaker ****

that that could well. Hesitate to interrupt. But I just think we need to just remind ourselves before it gets repeated ourselves before it gets repeated again, that we have just done a deal on Gibraltar with Spain, and that that has been welcomed by the that that has been welcomed by the government of Gibraltar. And and that situation is no longer the way it is being implied that it is by

**** Possible New Speaker ****

it is being implied that it is by the noble Lord. And but, but, but but circumstances can change, and this may well be seen as a precedent in the future. But I just want to mention one other territory, and mention one other territory, and that's Anguilla, because, as the Minister will know, Anguilla actually went through a period of actually went through a period of huge unrest to resist becoming part of Saint Kitts and Nevis. And the consequence was that you gave consequence was that you gave Italian of the Parachute Regiment, had to deploy to Anguilla to, in fact control the unrest that took place.

And this is a territory, a small territory that is incredibly proud but wanted to remain British. proud but wanted to remain British. But we know that the have in the past few years been a number of past few years been a number of attempts by Saint Kitts and Nevis to reopen the whole issue of Anguilla. And again, I think that Anguilla. And again, I think that there are going to be consequences from this treaty going through, which can be to some extent alleviated if a government accepts this very simple amendment.

So I'd ask Minister to to certainly, as far as I'm concerned, the amendment in this group that concerns me most is number 20 L. And I don't think it's asking a great deal, the government to actually put on the face of the bill this this is a very important signal that's going to be in the bill. If this goes through that those other territories are going to be properly considered.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

And I just wanted to say a few words. I've been rather sparing in words. I've been rather sparing in the committee today, today. But the noble Lord Lord Hannan, I think, noble Lord Lord Hannan, I think, has prompted me to do so. I feel as someone who has been a passionate supporter of the Commonwealth supporter of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association, has served on this Parliament's executive committee, the CPA UK, executive committee, the CPA UK, and had the great privilege of visiting a great number of Commonwealth nations in all parts Commonwealth nations in all parts of the world, including earlier this year to Malaysia.

I think we have to be very careful, particularly perhaps in this House of Parliament, when we debate the of Parliament, when we debate the process that has been very difficult on decolonisation. I difficult on decolonisation. I think we have to be very cautious with how we approach it and very with how we approach it and very mindful of the language that we use. 12 years of the Malayan Emergency, where still and I met those relatives of those that were

20:15

Lord Purvis of Tweed (Liberal Democrat)

- -

relatives of those that were affected by that. There is not a Commonwealth country, not a Commonwealth country, that does not have, on many occasions, difficult stories. And we are still living it today. And I counsel anybody. Yes, of course we are free to make any contributions, but I just think we have to be very mindful. The noble Lord Bellingham, who I respect very greatly, he indicated perhaps that the precedent was this deal. Now, there may be there may be circumstances that a bad deal might be seen by other people as some form of precedent.

I don't think that's the point that is being made in this group. The point that I hear being made in this group, that the very point of principle that we open negotiations to cede sovereignty is the precedent. Well, that was 2022. So if we are to see the consequences of decisions by a British government to recognise that negotiations should take place, to cede sovereignty, then we have three years of knowing what what the consequences of that would be. And I haven't heard anything from anybody in this group saying that they've seen the consequences of that decision taken by the previous

**** Possible New Speaker ****

administration in November 2022. My Lords, I want primarily, perhaps later, to talk about my amendments 22 and 20 PQ. But I do want to say something about no Lord Hannan amendment 20 L to emphasise Hannan amendment 20 L to emphasise one particular precedent, which he mentioned in passing, but does seem to me the most compelling and the to me the most compelling and the most dangerous precedent, and indeed, in line with the no. Lord Purvis, I've been rather cautious

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Purvis, I've been rather cautious about discussing this because I didn't want to put. Ideas into. People's heads, but for two

**** Possible New Speaker ****

People's heads, but for two reasons I'd go ahead and talk about it now. Firstly, there's no better way. To keep.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

A secret than to pronounce it in the. House of Lords. And secondly, because, as the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

And secondly, because, as the noble Lord Hannan said, there are laws in every country looking to see whether this is a precedent

**** Possible New Speaker ****

see whether this is a precedent which they can use to write some past wrong. Or.

20:18

Lord Lilley (Conservative)

- -

20:22

Lord Weir of Ballyholme (Democratic Unionist Party)

- -

20:31

Lord Sentamu (Crossbench)

- -

look at this and say, they did it so we can. I'm afraid you're going to find that politically, let's say Jamaica and other places. I think the Crown has made it very clear that actually this is a decision of those nations. If they wanted actually to become independent, it is their decision. They're not going to force themselves on anybody. And I thought that the treaty which was entered into with Mauritius was actually to create a Mauritius was actually to create a long term use of.

Diego Garcia and, and, and, and the archipelago, because if they didn't, the challenge was soon going to come because of what happened at the United Nations, we are going to find ourselves. There has been a big challenge. Even China was interested to challenge British sovereignty. Now that a treaty has been signed and secured, this, and also the good thing that I, I want to congratulate the government for, they didn't simply sign a treaty so that these bases can be used for 99 years, but also they provided a trust fund for the Chagos Chagossians to be able.

Because sovereignty is now being transferred, to be able to be looked after, but better than when the British actually had sovereignty over that particular place. So I think the this is a win win situation, both for the Chagossians as well as for Britain we now got security of those bases for some 99 years, and that's quite, quite a long time. I don't think you and I will be here 99 years, but those are going to be here. They did a good thing at the time.

So Lord Hannan, I think, is fear of what other places may do. It is their right to do whatever they

**** Possible New Speaker ****

want to do. I'm grateful. For the opportunity to talk to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

For the opportunity to talk to my amendments 22 and 20 PQ 20. You, my amendments 22 and 20 PQ 20. You, says the government, the actual not come into force until the Secretary come into force until the Secretary of State has published a report on how the treaty may increase any political or legal risks, because political or legal risks, because that's what we've been told underlie it, related to reliance on third countries required to service third countries required to service the base.

The risk of litigation from Mauritius regarding the base in Diego Garcia in the in Diego Garcia in the International Court of Justice, including, I hope, some explanation including, I hope, some explanation of the government's reactions to the Mauritian declarations of the 23rd of September 68, which effectively, as I understand it,

20:34

Lord Lilley (Conservative)

- -

mirrored our belief that the ICJ determination the ICJ should not have jurisdiction on disputes between Commonwealth states, current and previous Commonwealth states, and ourselves. And Mauritius likewise said any such dispute should be settled reciprocally. And finally, the risks of litigation in an arbitral tribunal under annexe seven of the UN convention of the law of the sea, now the noble Lord lady has said a little while ago that we spent many hours discussing the reasons. The rationale behind this decision to cede sovereignty.

In fact, we spent many hours dragging out from the government an explanation of their decision to do so. But it's pretty clear the decision came first and the justification has been cobbled together in response to each successive challenge that's been put forward to it. The more it's been challenged, the more tenuous the rationale has been. Come. It's been spread out, strung out like an elastic band and become thinner and more transparent. And it's very clear if we keep on this process, it will eventually break, and then the government will be without any rationale at all.

But first of all, the government suggested that the ICJ decision was purely advisory. Mauritius might come back and somehow get a definitive ruling out of the ICJ. Then that was abandoned because of course, we had the specific opt out. When we signed up to the ICJ that it would only be able to it would not be able to consider disputes between ourselves and Commonwealth countries. Or past or previous, present or previous Commonwealth countries. One thing has puzzled me, though looking back through the record, I've never seen Ministers actually refer in words to that opt out.

They've tacitly acknowledged it because they move on to talking about the UN declaration, the convention on the law of the sea. And likewise, when we've heard from the mandarins of the Foreign Office, none of them have ever explicitly let pass their lips as I've read the transcript correctly, the existence of this opt out. And that's a great mystery. When people don't say something, one wants to know why they don't say something, particularly when they tacitly admit it. Oh dear, I hope I haven't caused the noble Lord Kerr to leave in disgust.

We were hoping he would be able to break this omerta that has forbidden him and his colleagues ever to mention this. Now, my suspicion, of course, is no more than a suspicion. Now, of course, the person who could have set that right is gone. Is that the permanent Secretary of the Foreign Office and the other mandarins who've spoken in defence of the government on this, never actually told Ministers about this opt out, and they don't like to admit that a Ministers don't like to admit that they didn't know about it, because that looks pretty difficult.

But maybe in the course of this debate, we'll find that that is an unworthy consideration. They were told right explicitly at the beginning that there was no possibility that the ICJ reaching a binding judgement on the sovereignty of the Chagos now the. They tacitly accept that that is the case and move on to the possibility of a judgement coming from the tribunal set up under the UN convention on the law of the sea. My amendment will force the government to be more explicit about that.

What precedents are there for this tribunal ruling on sovereignty? The noble Lady said that she thought it was very unlikely. I think was her phrase that the tribunal would directly rule on sovereignty. And I think she's more than right in that, because there are no precedents I can find for it. Ruling on sovereignty. But then she said, well, it might rule on other things and sort of assume sovereignty. I'd like some examples of that sort of thing happening.

If it's a sufficiently big risk for us to be doing this nefarious deed of ceding sovereignty over the Chagos Islands, and we haven't had that up to now. The then. The tenuous justification moves on from there may be a ruling that would somehow assume

**** Possible New Speaker ****

sovereignty, but what negative effects would it have? It would apparently.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

It would apparently. Put at risk the the base because

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Put at risk the the base because of its reliance on being supplied from other countries. Which other from other countries. Which other countries? In what way is the Diego countries? In what way is the Diego Garcia base supplied that would be put at risk? Is it from Aden with put at risk? Is it from Aden with the Suez Canal be closed to British shipping? If it was thought to be shipping? If it was thought to be going to supply the base, do we get going to supply the base, do we get labour from mainland Africa to run the base with the Filipinos? Refuse to send Philippine workers to help run the base? When we're given such run the base? When we're given such a tenuous reason at the end of a long chain of tenuous arguments, I think we need some substance to it in this amendment requires the government to give that now.

Amendment 20 PQ. Says that the act will only come into force when the Secretary of State has published a report on the governance of the Chagos Archipelago under the treaty, including local administration and democracy. The noble Lady. The Minister has said that there wasn't ever any settled population in the Chagos and there wasn't any system of local administration. Now, I'm sure that was said in good faith, and I can well understand that the detailed history of Chagos Archipelago is not something most of us have studied, but there has now been a letter to the Minister and to the committee that's been asked to consult about, with Chagossians pointing out that actually the inhabitants of the Chagos did elect a chief to cover the help administer in the absence of the British, who sort of came and went, the governance and the local administration of the islands.

So there has been a local administration in the past of the settled inhabitants there. We want to know what's going to replace it in future. We know that Mauritius will be able to have no obligation to but be able to resettle the islands may, of course, settle them with Mauritians and not with Chagossians. But either way, what system of administration will there be? And will it be democratic? Or will it be autocratic? I think we should know, and my amendment 22 requires the government to spell that out and to acknowledge and accept that it was a mistake to say that there's never been any system of local administration, when

**** Possible New Speaker ****

clearly there has. Not. Well, firstly, let me thank

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Not. Well, firstly, let me thank my hon. Friend Lord Hannan of Kingsclere for leading this debate Kingsclere for leading this debate and certainly my view that he sets out a very strong argument for his amendments in this group, as did my noble friend Lord Lilley and the noble Lord Lord McCrea of Magherafelt and Cookstown. Magherafelt and Cookstown. Amendment 20 L in the name of my noble friend Lord Hannan is a very helpful amendment for Committee helpful amendment for Committee stage, as it affords the Committee the opportunity to debate the impact of the government's decision impact of the government's decision on the Chagos Archipelago on other overseas territories.

While I accept, of course, that there are accept, of course, that there are legal arguments here, that we believe that it should be explored fully, I want to focus on the impact of the UK government's treatment of the Chagossians on our reputation, among other overseas territories, who look to the UK for steadfast support and security, how

20:44

Lord Callanan (Conservative)

- -

steadfast support and security, how the residents and descendants of the residents of other overseas territories feel now that the government has caved in to pressure from their international lawyer friends on the question of the Chagos Islands, and as my noble friend Lord Hannan observed, the British Indian Ocean Territory is not the only overseas territory subject to legal claims by foreign states. So does the Minister accept that the behaviour of our government on this issue will have ramifications for the level of trust in the UK? The residents of other overseas territories have? We should be standing up for our overseas territories and protecting those who live on them, and not caving in to activist international lawyers.

In my view, it really is that simple. So can the noble Baroness, the Minister, confirm that the UK government is not considering ceding sovereignty over any other British overseas territories? And will she rule out such a move in future? We want residents of overseas territories to feel secure, and I hope that the Minister's words in response to this group will help to give them that security. Turning to amendment 20 N, I can be brief on this point because we have discussed it during the debate on the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act, of course, that we had at Second Reading and on the previous day of Committee stage.

The simple reality is, my Lords, that the statutory process under Crag 2010 and the procedural conventions of the two Houses of Parliament should afford the other place actually afford the other place less power to scrutinise treaties than does your Lordships' House, and this was never meant to be the case. It is a perverse outcome from an attempt to enshrine the Ponsonby Rule as it was in statute, and of course that has not worked. The government were supposed to have allowed a substantive debate on the other in the other place on the treaty, and I think it is appalling that they did not.

And it shows that for all their high minded talk of values before the general election, this government is unwilling to adhere to long established conventions on treaty scrutiny. I won't need to dwell on this any further, other than to remind the Minister that the Ponsonby Rule was established itself under a Labour government, and it's ironic that it is now a Labour government that has effectively killed it. Turning to Lord Lilley amendments, I agree with him that the government should provide more clarity on the plans for Mauritius administration of the islands and plans to manage the democracy there.

As we discussed in the previous group. Ministers must have done at least some work assessing Mauritius Plan Mauritius plans and capabilities in respect of the archipelago, and I hope that the noble Lord, the noble Baroness, the Minister, will be able to provide the House with a full answer to that. On the question of increased legal risk. My noble friend is absolutely right that the international law case is definitely not cut and dried, and there are agreements that confirm British sovereignty, and we don't understand why the government is ignoring those agreements.

So with that, I look forward to the Minister's response.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, a. Large number of these amendments which have been tabled, seek to mandate the government to renegotiate the treaty with Mauritius on various points, treaty Mauritius on various points, treaty making. And the noble Lord has told me this on many, many occasions in the last Parliament, so I'm sure he the last Parliament, so I'm sure he understands the point I'm about to make. But treaty making and international negotiations are a international negotiations are a matter for the government in exercise of the royal prerogative, and it's simply not practical for that to become a matter where Parliament seeks to direct this or that isolated element of what can that isolated element of what can be intense, dynamic and sometimes difficult negotiations.

In this difficult negotiations. In this case, I can assure the House that the government has thoroughly considered all aspects of the treaty which the UK has entered treaty which the UK has entered into, and has used all its efforts throughout to achieve the best possible deal for the UK. These possible deal for the UK. These requests to reopen negotiations on different points are just not

20:48

Baroness Chapman of Darlington, Minister of State (Development) (Labour)

- -

different points are just not realistic and would make the UK appear an unreliable counterparty on the international stage. This treaty has also gone through a rigorous assessment. It's been agreed at the highest levels of the US security establishment in relation to amendment 20. You are reasons for rejecting this amendment, essentially, are those that I set out earlier in relation to Lord Moraes amendment 20 J and I don't intend to repeat them now. Amendment 20 L tabled by Lord Hannan and I enjoy Lord Hannan contributions.

His speeches are unfortunately so entertaining as they are inaccurate and misleading sometimes. My grandfather fought in Malaya in the Green Howards, and I think that was quite an unusual and, well, unfortunate example that he chose to resort to. But I will forgive him for this because he does put so much into his speeches. But I can assure him and other noble Lords that this deal has been welcomed by both Gibraltar and the Falkland Islands. And, as Lord Jay said, their governments have both stated that there is no read across to them and we should respect what they have to say through amendment 20.

N Lord Hannan seems to be suggesting that the government has not complied with the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act in respect of the treaty, and I respectfully disagree with him about this. The treaty was laid in Parliament on the day that it was signed, under the process set out in the act, Crag requires that a treaty is laid in both houses for 21 joint sitting days before it may be ratified. The period expired on the 3rd of July 2025, with neither House resolving against ratification during that 21 day process period.

Two committees in this House held evidence sessions, including with the Minister for Overseas Territories, and produced reports which we have responded to. There was also a debate and vote on Lord Callinan's motion against ratification, which this government defeated. So, as a matter of practice, the UK government doesn't ratify treaties until the necessary implementing legislation is in place. And that is what the government is currently doing with this bill. Amendments 20 and 20 PQ appear to misunderstand the archipelago, and I feel uncomfortable making this point.

It feels very cold, it feels harsh, and it feels legalistic, particularly given the testimonies, many of which many of us have heard directly from Chagossians and the accounts of what happened in the late 60s and early 70s. And I completely accept that this does not sound. This is this is not I don't feel comfortable repeating this, but this is the legal situation as it is. And it's important to be clear that the archipelago has never had a permanent population, and the islands have not been inhabited since the population was removed in the late 60s and early 70s.

As such, there is no economy of the Chagos Archipelago, and once the treaty enters into force, Mauritius will be sovereign and will have jurisdiction over the regulation of commercial activities and related to the operation of the base throughout the archipelago, subject to the constraints of the treaty in respect of the Exclusive Economic zone around the archipelago, Mauritius have announced their intention to establish a marine protected area and importantly, there will be no commercial fishing allowed. It will also be for Mauritius to decide how any resettlement will work, including in respect of governance of the islands.

Amendment 57, tabled by Lord MacRae and moved on his behalf. I don't think that can be accepted. The UK's legal services industry and the English Bar are internationally recognised for their expertise. That includes expertise in public international law and UK Qualified Lawyers Act for states all around the world on various matters, facilitating a peaceful settlement of disputes. The standing of UK legal expertise should be a matter of pride for this House, and not a tool for manipulation by politicians to achieve narrow and short term advantage.

An attempt to place a prohibition on who is able to utilise our world leading legal services undermines access to legal representation, an important element of the rule of law. It's wholly inappropriate for the government to dictate who can be represented by whom, and it also risks undermining our standing on the world stage. Lord Lilley I you know, I really hesitate to get into repeating the whole debate that we had last week. I would just, I suppose what I would repeat would be that had there been no legal risk to our position.

One why did the United States stop investment in the base at that point? Because they were so sufficiently concerned about legal risk, and to have there been no basis whatsoever for our concerns on the legality? Why on earth did the previous government even begin to negotiate, accepting that they didn't manage to conclude a deal? Our view is there was sufficient legal risk. The noble Lord disagrees. That's perfectly his right to disagree. But the fact is that the principle of this treaty and the necessity for it has been through the appropriate process, it's been voted on in this place.

We have voted that this treaty should be ratified. We've already taken that decision in this chamber. This legislation is about making the necessary changes to UK domestic law to enable us to to actually to sign and to fully to ratify and to implement. So with that, my Lords, I hope that noble Lords will will intervene at the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

end. I thought they might. Yes. I grateful to the noble Lady for

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I grateful to the noble Lady for giving way, but I would ask her to respond to the point I made is why, respond to the point I made is why, even now she refuses to let pass her lips any recognition that there her lips any recognition that there was no possibility because of our opt out from the power of the ICJ opt out from the power of the ICJ to decide on disputes between ourselves and Mauritius, there was never any possibility the ICJ never any possibility the ICJ reaching a legally binding decision that would affect us is a different that would affect us is a different matter.

But would she let those words pass her lips?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

words pass her lips? Because about the ICJ? But the point is that other countries will act on an advisory opinion, even if act on an advisory opinion, even if we choose to, to ignore it, and we haven't chosen to ignore it. That is a judgement call. And partly that's because we think by negotiating now, we negotiate from a stronger position than we would a stronger position than we would had we waited for other binding judgements. And as for where those judgements can come from, they can judgements can come from, they can come from any treaty to which both parties are signed up to.

So that's parties are signed up to. So that's the reason that we feel, and not everyone has to agree with the government on this, but we feel that there is sufficient legal question that we needed to act and to negotiate. And I think if they're honest with themselves, and I do see a lack of former Ministers who are responsible for this, arguing the point that the noble Lord is making. They argue other points, but they don't argue this point, that there was sufficient legal jeopardy for the previous government to enter into this

**** Possible New Speaker ****

process, and I hope that noble Lords will withdraw their amendments. Very grateful to the noble Lady,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Very grateful to the noble Lady, the Minister, for dealing so comprehensively with all of those points. And I'm very grateful to all noble Lords who intervened to all noble Lords who intervened to the noble Lady's Baroness Hoey and Baroness Ludford, to my noble friends Lord Bellingham and Lord friends Lord Bellingham and Lord Lilley, and to the noble Lords Lord Weir, Sentamu and Purvis. Just two Weir, Sentamu and Purvis. Just two points, if I may. First, on the finality. All almost all treaties finality.

All almost all treaties are said to be final at the time, but they're not always treated as but they're not always treated as final by one or both parties. The Treaty of Utrecht was pretty final. Yes, it said, Spain has first Yes, it said, Spain has first refusal if Britain ever leaves. But it was pretty final about granting sovereignty. So I absolutely agree that the noble Lady, the Minister, says that Spain has now agreed to a says that Spain has now agreed to a permanent settlement, but it is one of many, and experience tells us that incoming governments do not that incoming governments do not always regard treaties signed by their predecessors as final.

Indeed,

20:57

Lord Hannan of Kingsclere (Conservative)

- -

their predecessors as final. Indeed, the treaty we signed when Mauritius became independent and renounced all claim to the Chagos Islands was said to be permanent at the time. So there is a less reassured than I think she she hopes I might have been by the the idea that there is, there is. I mean, let me put it the other way round. The way to make these treaties final is to stop inviting people through our behaviour to reopen, just to refuse to countenance it.

The French had a very similar issue in the Commonwealth. They just refused to countenance it. I can't see any other country doing what we're doing now, and indeed, I'm afraid to say I can't see any other British government than this one having done it. And one last point, I, I really don't want to get into the whole history of the Malayan Emergency, but there's a there's a wonderful anecdote that I not anecdote, a record that when Malaysia became independent, the one of the first acts of the new government was to give the some very valuable land containing the house called Carcosa Seri Negara, which was this very fine house to the to Britain in perpetuity as sovereign British territory, which became the seat of the High Commission in Kuala Lumpur.

In recognition of all the things that we'd done together and a young anti-colonialist Minister said, but if we give them the best land in KL, no one will believe that we fought for our independence. And there was a rather awkward moment around the Cabinet table because of course they didn't. We were in Malaya supporting a democratic government against a communist insurgency. We would have left much earlier, had we not had the requests of that government to remain and support it. But I think that's a getting

**** Possible New Speaker ****

slightly off topic. So with your Lordship's permission, I beg leave lordships. Pleasure the.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Pleasure the. Amendment be withdrawn? Amendment is by leave withdrawn. Amendment 20 M Lord Hannan of Amendment 20 M Lord Hannan of Kingsclere. Thank you very much. My Lords, nationality has two distinct Lords, nationality has two distinct meanings. It's what it says on our passports, but it's also what we feel. And the second of those, the sense of identity and belonging, the sense of being a link in a chain between past and future generations, can be unconnected to territory.

Perhaps the supreme example of that nationality that exists in the heart is the State of exists in the heart is the State of Israel. History affords few stories like it, but people who for 2000 like it, but people who for 2000 years are stateless and scattered, but who never lose the aspiration but who never lose the aspiration of statehood. Next year in Jerusalem and then one day, quite Jerusalem and then one day, quite extraordinarily providentially, we might almost say they fulfil it. And the British government And the British government recognised a claim of nationality based on cultural, ethnic and religious homogeneity, even though

21:00

Amdt. 20M Lord Hannan of Kingsclere (Conservative)

religious homogeneity, even though it had been unrelated to territory for time immemorial. Now, of course, in the case of the Chagos Islands, it is not immemorial. There are Chagossians alive today who can still remember the azure and indigo seas around the archipelago. For them, this is a very real and immediate issue, but the only way in which they maintain their nationality, sundered as they are from their ancestral homeland, is through what it now says on their passports that they have the identity of citizens of the British Indian Ocean territories.

And that's what risks being dissolved into wider nationalities in the Seychelles, in Mauritius, or indeed here. I mentioned last week that I had the honour of representing Crawley when I was a member of the European Parliament, and I never ceased to be impressed by the tenacity of Chagossians in this country when it came to preserving their folkways and their language, their their customs, their ancestral customs of cuisine and dress and so on. And also the melodious Bourbonnais Creole that they speak, in which I think is, is almost incomprehensible if you speak only standard French, but has a very beautiful sound.

And in fact we heard it not long ago on the streets of Port Louis, when some very brave Chagossians in Mauritius demonstrated against this deal, shouting in the Creole of their homeland, Chagos poor British making very clear, despite the dangers and disadvantages in that country, of asserting Chagossian sovereignty, making clear that they still felt themselves linked to the wider community of Chagossians around the world. I don't believe that ending the nationality, the technical, legal citizenship of British Indian Ocean territories will lead to people dissolving their innate sense of nationality.

Whatever happens to the islands, whoever ends up being settled there, I think it is inconceivable that it will be treated as a final settlement and that there will be no further disputes because the Chagossians, who feel themselves to be citizens of the Biot, will continue to regard themselves quite properly as the legal heirs and custodians of that territory, and they will continue to press their claim in the hope that a future British government might take it up on their behalf. They wouldn't be the first dispossessed people in history to do so, and they wouldn't be the last.

And by the way, they may very well be rewarded in the in hoping for a change of attitude with a future British government. And so I would just urge noble Lords to consider when we're told that this must be done because it stabilises the territory, it removes uncertainty, it removes doubt, it reassures our allies it isn't going to remove uncertainty. A dispute which was a rather a rather monetary one. Let's be honest, with a country that had very little emotional attachment to this archipelago is going to be replaced by a new dispute with people who do feel attached to it, who refuse to recognise Mauritian sovereignty, and who will urge this country to take up its ancestral responsibilities and to press their claim on their behalf.

And I hope that a future government will indeed act on that, since this one obviously isn't going to. But either way, let's not pretend that the issue is going to be quelled simply by the stroke of a pen. You can't efface people's sense of nationality and belonging by

**** Possible New Speaker ****

bureaucratic fiat. I beg to move. Amendment proposed.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Amendment proposed. Clause one, page one, line seven at end insert subject to subsection

**** Possible New Speaker ****

at end insert subject to subsection two A as printed on the bottle list. My Lords, I want to speak to my

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I want to speak to my amendment 50 B, which is very clear and very simple, and nothing to do and very simple, and nothing to do with security on Diego Garcia nothing to do with the details of nothing to do with the details of the treaty between Mauritius, the United Kingdom. And it's very simple. It is actually for our government to recognise the Chagossian people in law of the Chagossian people in law of the United Kingdom as an indigenous people of the Chagos Archipelago.

people of the Chagos Archipelago. And I'm raising this because so many of the again, the, the Chagossians that we've met and we Chagossians that we've met and we know there are men and women who have lived on these islands who have lived on these islands who were baptised in the island chapels, who fished, who tended their gardens, who raised children and gardens, who raised children and buried. The dead there. And they are the indigenous people of the Chagos Archipelago. And I think it is important that what they've asked for, which is that they are

21:05

Baroness Hoey (Non-affiliated)

- -

recognised by our country that is actually agreed to. My Lords, the need for this amendment arises need for this amendment arises because even now, more than half a century after the removal, the Chagossian people are still being Chagossian people are still being told by Ministers that they never existed as a permanent population, that their islands were never self-governing in any meaningful sense, and that there is therefore no question of self-determination. no question of self-determination. And only last week in committee, the noble Lady, the Minister, Baroness Chapman, repeated that Baroness Chapman, repeated that claim, saying and I quote The Chagos Archipelago has no permanent population and has never been self-governing, no question of self-determination therefore arises.

self-determination therefore arises. My Lords, that statement is really not true. It is contradicted by every serious historical study, by every serious historical study, by the records in the National Archives, by the findings of the International Court of Justice, by International Court of Justice, by the judgement of our own courts, and by, most importantly, the lived memory of the men and women who have written and who have met us, and who live all over in the and who live all over in the diaspora.

Arc. Archival records from the 19 20th centuries. I know that the noble Lord Hannan said. that the noble Lord Hannan said. You know, he wouldn't go into the history, but I think it's quite important when we're discussing a people that we actually understand the history and the records from the 19 20th centuries list births, marriages and burials across multiple generations on Solomon and Diego Garcia parish registers from Notre-dame-de-l'assomption Diego Garcia record entire family lines. Children were born there, married there, died there.

The High Court in the court judgements accepted that the Chagossians were a settled people. The International Court of Justice, which is one of the reasons we're actually having this this treaty, in its 2019 advisory opinion, recognised the Chagossians as the people of the territory with a right to self-determination. Academic research from various academics and documents have at least have shown that at least there's 150 to 170 years of continuous multi-generational residence. My Lords, that is what an indigenous people are.

That is what a permanent population is. And yet the government continues to repeat a narrative first invented back in 1968, of course, when the Foreign Office issued internal instructions to describe the Chagossians in public as temporary contract workers in order to avoid United Nations scrutiny. And those instructions are still in the archives, and they're still legible. And they show unequivocally that the United Kingdom knew the truth then, and it should know the truth now. And I really do believe that it's time for this Parliament in discussing, in this treaty to put the truth into law.

The Minister also claimed that the islands were never self-governing. But as every historian now agrees, of the archipelago, the islands were in practice not run by resident British administrators who were almost never present, but by the Chagossians themselves. Families organised communal work, maintained chapels and community buildings, and settled disputes. Testimony from multiple surviving islanders show that respected elders served as local leaders and one of the oldest Chagossian families that have been mentioned before in committee. The Mandarin family of Pera Spanos have given oral testimony that their ancestor Jean-Charles Mandarin, the blacksmith serving the whole island, was nominated by the community to act as a local headman in the long absence of any resident British authority.

His leadership was even recorded in a scholarly volume on the dispossession of the Chagos Islands, describing him as and I quote, a thorn in the flesh of the administration. His grandson Ferdinand Mandarin, born on Paros, later led the Chagossian Social Committee, represented his people at the United Nations, and wrote one of the most detailed oral histories of island life, and today his descendants continue that leadership in ongoing legal actions before the High Court. My Lords, how can a Minister stand in this chamber, a noble Minister, and say there was no permanent population and no self-organisation when the evidence is so overwhelmingly clear? So this amendment puts this right.

It recognises in law what the world's historians, courts and international institutions have already recognised that the Chagossians are the indigenous people of the Chagos Islands. It defines them clearly in the amendment as those born on the islands prior to the depopulation between 1968 and 1973 and their direct descendants, and it requires the Secretary of State, when exercising any function under this act, to have regard to their identity, their cultural integrity and their rights. This amendment is necessary because the bill before us does exactly the opposite, with clauses 2 to 4, which would abolish the British Indian Ocean territory for every island except Diego Garcia, stripping away the only remaining statutory recognition of the Chagossian people's historic and legal connection to their homeland, it would remove the very provisions in the British Nationality Act through which they are currently recognised in law, and it would hand their homeland to another state without any act of self-determination.

Despite the clear findings of the International Court of Justice that the Chagossian people are entitled to that right. And, my Lords, we know now what that means in practice. Mauritian authorities have already begun issuing new birth certificates to Chagossians, in which the place of birth is rewritten as Mauritius, erasing all mention of of the islands. That's actually happening now. And I've seen some of that documentary proof. So, my Lords, recognition this amendment would prevent that erasure. It doesn't settle the question of sovereignty.

It doesn't prejudge the right of return. It doesn't determine citizenship policy, but it ensures that the people who lived in these islands for generations, who were removed without consent, and who have been fighting to preserve their identity ever since, cannot be written out of their own history or out of our legislation. And one words of one native Islander who wrote saying, we want our name to exist before we die. We want to be seen as the people of our islands, not as shadows erased from paper.

Another wrote they took our homes. They took our animals, they took our graves. Please do not let them take our identity in law now. And another quite important one says, the Minister says we were never and never a people. I lived my whole childhood on. My father and mother were born there. How can she say we were not there? My Lords, the world knows that there was a people in Chagos Islands. The archives know, the courts know, and the UN knows, the historians know, and the survivors who still bear witness know.

Only this bill seems to pretend otherwise. And I believe that recognition is the minimum moral duty owed to a people who were removed from their homeland, denied their rights, and then told their existence did not matter. This amendment affirms that they did not exist. They do exist, and they will continue to exist in the law of this country. And I know that a group of Chagossians have written to the noble Lady in the last few days, really questioning why she could say such a statement.

So I really hope that she will be able to give them some support tonight to actually say that she does recognise their existence. She does recognise that they should be recognised in the law of the United Kingdom, and that she will go back and make sure that this amendment, which does not affect anything to do with, as I said, security, which seems to be, and rightly perhaps is the real reason for all of what this is, what the government is doing.

This does not affect one single bit of anything to do with security on the Chagos Islands. And my Lords, I hope that the noble Lady will accept this amendment at

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Report stage. Yes. My Lords, I wish to speak to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I wish to speak to amendment 81 in my name, which is in some key sense is the most important of all the Committee important of all the Committee stage amendments that I have tabled. My Lords, the purpose of amendment My Lords, the purpose of amendment 81 is to probe the question, what will happen to the people if this will happen to the people if this Bill receives Royal assent and the Mauritius Treaty comes into force? The logic that underpins the The logic that underpins the government's position is that questions are actually, from the civic perspective.

That is, the civic perspective. That is, the perspective of their citizenship. Mauritian. My Lords, of course, Mauritian. My Lords, of course, this will not change our ethnicity, but it will extinguish a critical dimension of their identity, which, while in a very real sense suspended as a result of the gross injustices that we committed against, that were committed

21:14

Lord Morrow (Democratic Unionist Party)

- -

against, that were committed against them in 1968 and 1973 has not been extinguished. Indeed, although the splitting of the islands from Mauritius in 1965 was imposed on the Chagossians, it actually bestowed upon them a civic identity, apart from other issues that they were pleased to receive, and which they enjoyed while living on their islands. From 1965 until their forced expulsion. Since their expulsion, this civic identity has been kept alive in the sense that the British Indian Ocean Territory has continued to exist.

My Lords, although they have shamefully been denied residency of their home jurisdiction, their home jurisdiction has endured in this context, they have been able to aspire to return to their islands and become the populated, largely self-governing British overseas territory that they want and desire to be. In order to understand the force of this, My Lords, we must always keep in mind the precedent of the UK government's conduct in relation to the Gilbert and Ellice Islands and what it means today, applied specifically to the point of civic identity and the disastrous casino casino, civic identity.

Consequences of the bill before us today and the Mauritius Treaty. My Lords, having read the debate from day one of the committee, I was pleased to see that the precedent provided by the Gilbert and Ellice Islands was mentioned, and it should have been following the publication of the statement of self-destruction the day before the commencement of the Committee stage debate. Although reference was made to the Gilbert and Ellice Islands precedent. I do think, my Lords, that it is worth hearing that it is direct from the casinos, as I seek to apply its significance to the question of civic identity.

By my by my amendment here today, I make no apology for quoting them as something at some length at Committee stage, after the way we have treated them. And I am glad to see that it's somewhere here with us in the gallery this evening. And I certainly welcome them. The relevant part of the casino statement on self-determination says, and I quote, in order to appreciate the acute moral failure and attending the present government's policy, it is important to consider what happened to another British colony that also comprised two sets of islands, separated by a great distance, the Gilbert and Ellice Islands.

The parallels are quite striking, while the distance between what were then called the Gilbert and Ellice Islands was just over 800 miles. The islands were populated by peoples of different dominant ethnicities, with one set of island Polynesians. The other mechanism, and the population of the former far greater than the latter. The distance between Mauritius and the Chagos Islands, which I have already said earlier, was 1339 miles. The dominant ethnicity of the former Indian, while the latter is black African, and the numbers disparity even more profound.

The Mauritian greatly outnumbered the casinos. When the British government talked of the Gilbert and Ellice Islands about the decolonisation, the representatives of the islands said they were nervous about the idea of being part of a sovereign, independent state comprising both of the Ellice Islands and the Great and the Gilbert Islands, not simply because they constituted different nations separated by great distances, but also because they were concerned that their voice would necessarily be lost in a polity dominated by the far larger number of residents of the Gilbert Islands.

The UK responded by providing a self-determination referendum for the people of the Ellice Islands, giving them the option to freely choose either to be part of the same unit as Gilbert Islands or to separate. They voted to separate from the Gilbert Islands, 3799 votes to 293. The UK honoured this by making provision for the colony to first be divided into two new colonies, and then two years later, for the Ellice Islands to become the independent monarchy of Tuvalu, while the following year the Gilbert Islands became the independent Republic of Kiribati.

Crucially then, they go on to state and I think it's important this should be said, had we been afforded the treatment. The judgement says that we should have been afforded before moving to detach, namely, quote, the freely expressed and genuine will of the people of the territory concerned in a self-determination referendum. Close quote. It is no more likely that the people of the islands would have self-determined to be part of Mauritius, a country 1339 nine miles, with which in 1965 we had virtually no contact than it was that the islands would have voted to remain, to remain joined to the Gilbert Islands.

My Lords, if we pass this bill and enable the treaty to come into force, then far from alleviating the great crimes we committed between 1968 and 1973, we will greatly compound them. We will create a situation in which, while the questions will, of course, continue to exist as people, we will have taken from them one of the last remaining supports that has underpinned them as a civic people, a small nation, we will make provision for their absorption into the countries where they live, becoming Mauritian citizens, British citizens and Seychelles citizens.

The existing foundation for their hopes as a civic nation. The existence of their jurisdiction will be extinguished, will add to our crimes against the people first the detachment of their islands without affording them the dignity of self-determination, which, ironically, would almost certainly have mandated detachment from Mauritius. Second, the forced removal of the peoples from their islands between 1968 and 1973. And thirdly, the ongoing crime of keeping them out of their jurisdiction from 73 until now, notwithstanding the fact that we are content to pay Mauritius more money to lease just one island that KPMG says it would take to resettle the islands.

The final insult the removal of the jurisdictional basis of their identity. My Lord, this is the critical point for the report proposed by the amendment. It seems to me that the Syrian people are very determined, sometimes being treated very badly rather than causing the offended party to retreat and give up can have the unintended consequence of provoking in the people concerned an even greater determination than before to stand up and say no. In that sense, what assessment has the government made of the potential impact of its policy to have the unintended consequences that rather than helping to cause a civic identity to melt away, what they are doing, may serve as a rallying call to the people? My Lord, it is not likely that in these circumstances they will seek to form another basis for their civic identity through the pursuit of some form of international personality at the UN level, and it is not likely that they will then challenge the Mauritian claim to the to the islands, simply exchanging one.

Legal uncertainty for the Americans with another. And finally, my Lord, I should also add, given the commitment, the British people to their to fair play and predisposition to support the weaker party, what assessment has made of the potential impact of such a development on British such a development on British

**** Possible New Speaker ****

public opinion? Thank you. Comments.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Comments. I thank the noble Lord Morrow for his amendment 81 that he's just talked about, which rightly puts talked about, which rightly puts the focus of our debate on the citizens of the Chagos Islands, the citizens of the Chagos Islands, the Chagossian community themselves. It has so far been a disappointing aspect of this committee to hear aspect of this committee to hear the government dismiss the rights of the Chagossian community throughout the process of agreeing throughout the process of agreeing the treaty, and it's clear that the Chagossians have not been properly consulted.

In fact, the government's official view, and I think noble Lady has repeated it again this evening, is that there again this evening, is that there is no relevant claim of self-determination in respect of self-determination in respect of the Chagos Archipelago. I also welcome amendment 50 B in the name of the noble Lady Baroness Hoey. The resettlement of the Chagos Islands under the treaty is an Islands under the treaty is an option, not a requirement, and it is becoming increasingly clear that it is possible that the Mauritians

21:24

Lord Callanan (Conservative)

- -

21:31

Baroness Chapman of Darlington, Minister of State (Development) (Labour)

- -

Could you just give me in a very short, simple answer to why the United Kingdom government will not recognise the Chagossian people as

**** Possible New Speaker ****

an indigenous people? The legal situation is as I've described, and she may wish that described, and she may wish that that were not the case, but the legal position is as it is, and the government doesn't intend to amend this, this bill, in order to change that legal position. And with that

**** Possible New Speaker ****

that legal position. And with that I give way to the noble Lord. I just that legal position is a

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I just that legal position is a legal guidance. It's guidance. It's not law. The legal. There have been legal

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The legal. There have been legal judgements in English courts and elsewhere that have established that the rights that the noble that the rights that the noble Ladies Amendment seeks to grant upon the Chagossian people do not currently exist in law. It's not currently exist in law. It's not guidance. Those are decisions of English courts. I hope that noble English courts. I hope that noble Lords with that are I feel able to withdraw their amendments.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank the noble Lady, the Minister, and let me first express my thanks to Baroness Hoey and to my thanks to Baroness Hoey and to the noble Lord, Lord Morrow, diligent and eloquent in their defence of the dispossessed. Chagossians. Sometimes people approach the story of Britain overseas as a kind of morality play, where Britain plays the villain, the kind of Alan Rickman of the global drama. We had a hint of it, I think, from Lord Purvis in the last round.

Every disengagement was somehow disagreeable. But actually here the disagreeable thing is pulling out in a way that disregards the wishes of the people who have been most injured. I was grateful to the noble Lady, the Minister, for making the clarification on birth certificates. She's doing enormously well defending this position, I have to say. But with that, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

21:33

Lord Hannan of Kingsclere (Conservative)

- -

Your lordships pleasure this amendment be withdrawn. The amendment is by leave withdrawn. Amendments 20 n and £0.20 Lord Hannan moved. Amendment 20 PQ Lord Lilley not moved. Amendment 20 r Lord Lilley. I believe that this should have been grouped with the second group starting with amendment 18, so it wasn't spoken to. Do you wish to speak to it now?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

No. Okay. Not moved. Not moved.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Amendment 20 S Lord Lilley. I would like to speak to my

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I would like to speak to my amendment 20 S because it seeks to get the Secretary of State to get the Secretary of State to produce a report on the economic partnership, so-called between the partnership, so-called between the United Kingdom and Mauritius, which is set up under article 11 of the is set up under article 11 of the treaty. And then the House should have an opportunity to take note of have an opportunity to take note of that. Debate it in both houses.

The reason that's important, apart from reason that's important, apart from the fact that control of money is the supreme function of Parliament, the supreme function of Parliament, is that the economic Partnership article, article 11, in this article, article 11, in this agreement is a very strange one. It says in consideration of this agreement, the United Kingdom agreement, the United Kingdom agrees a to pay Mauritius an annual sum, b to capitalise a trust fund

21:35

Amdt. 20S Lord Lilley (Conservative)

sum, b to capitalise a trust fund for the benefit of Chagossians as established by Mauritius, and c to grant multi-year funding as part of a development framework for projects undertaken by Mauritius across 25 years. And then the arrangements will be for such payments, including amounts of modalities, should be agreed separately and that this is a full and final settlement of the financial aspects of the C of the Chagos Archipelago. Now to call this a partnership is a very strange thing.

We give the money annually. We give them more money for the benefit of the Chagossians. We give them yet more money for the benefit of the Mauritians. Where's the partnership in all this? And I hope that when the Ministers, if this amendment were ever to be introduced, feel obliged or even just out of their natural desire to be helpful. They seek to explain to us. They can tell us why this is a partnership rather than a kind of surrender that we we give up the money.

We give up the territory. We let them decide. Even the trust fund that we set up for the benefit of the Chagos Chagossians as established by Mauritius. So the Mauritians are going to determine how this trust fund is used and spent, and the Chagossians will have no say in it, and probably will get precious little benefit from it. So I do hope that Ministers are going to let us in onto the secret. And what's the quid pro quo in all this? Because normally any partnership does mean that there are two sides to it used to be a partner in a firm and we were partners.

We all benefited from each other. We didn't have sort of one side being partners and the other getting all the benefits. So I'm genuinely mystified about this. And was it just that this was signed up when the government was suffering a fit of generosity? The coffers were overflowing with funds. They couldn't think what to do but give some away to Mauritius for this. And some away to the trust fund for that and more away to Mauritius for 25 years.

Where's it

**** Possible New Speaker ****

coming from? Perhaps the Minister will enlighten us. Lord Boateng his amendment.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Lord Boateng his amendment. Well, who knows, might be others who. Wish to speak. Oh, I am move my amendment. Yes. Of course.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Of course. Amendment proposed clause one, page one, line seven and insert page one, line seven and insert subject to subsection two A as subject to subsection two A as printed on the marshalled list. I my Lord, I didn't expect to my Lord, I didn't expect to participate in this, but I was having a conversation with my friend Earl of Minto earlier who's very knowledgeable about corporate finance, and he posed the question, is there anything in this whole arrangement which would stop Mauritius capitalising on the revenue stream which they have revenue stream which they have coming to them and selling that off to someone else?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

And.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

And. I'm sorry that my noble friend Lord Kempsell is not here to do his amendment, which I thought was a particularly good one. We debated some of the financial aspects of the treaty on the first day of committee, and the noble Lady at that time asked to delay her remarks on those amendments to the appropriate group. And I assume this is the group that she was referring to. So we all look forward to a fuller answer on the finances that she promised.

Then. The core contention of the government is that the deal costs

21:39

Baroness Goldie (Conservative)

- -

an average of £101 million a year, and the present net value of payments under the treaty is payments under the treaty is therefore 3.4 billion. This has been challenged by my noble friend Lady Noakes, Lord Altrincham. But Lady Noakes, Lord Altrincham. But the noble Baroness, the Minister, rather than engaging in the substance of those challenges, has substance of those challenges, has relied on the government's published figure and refused to explain why. She believes those figures accurately reflect the cost

21:39

Lord Callanan (Conservative)

- -

figures accurately reflect the cost of the deal. She has relied on the approval of the government's actuaries department, and simply actuaries department, and simply argued that consistency is essential. These are typical deflections that no doubt many deflections that no doubt many Ministers have used in previous cases, but they do not address the concerns of my noble friends. We concerns of my noble friends. We know that the payments are front loaded at 165 million for the first three years, and then 120 million three years, and then 120 million for the next ten years.

After that point, it is index linked, as my point, it is index linked, as my noble friend Baroness Noakes set out at Second Reading, that will see the cash payments hitting more see the cash payments hitting more than 650 million a year by the end of the 99 years, depending, of of the 99 years, depending, of course, on what indexation you use. With all those additional considerations, it is our contention that the true cost of contention that the true cost of the deal is not 3.4 billion claimed by Ministers, but something more like 35 billion.

So then the question lands why would the government seek to play this down if they are so delighted with the deal? If it is such a good deal for the British public that they keep claiming that it delivers for us all, government policies should surely be, then surely they would want to be open about the true cost, things they brag about spending on every other area they take, every every amount of money per year, cumulatively add it all up, and then put it in a press release and brag to the British people about what a great amount they're spending in every area except for this one.

Does the noble Baroness think it's better that the country should know the full costings before the Treasury come, before the treaty comes into effect? Or would you prefer that if a UK tied itself into these vast annual payments first, before admitting what the true cost of the deal actually is, we are clear that the British people deserve to know what their government is signing up for. Ministers should engage with the detailed costings laid out by my noble friends, Baroness Noakes and Lord Altrincham, and the point made by my noble friend Lord Lily.

Rather than hiding behind the pre-prepared lines if they have nothing to hide, what is wrong with producing can all see and study and get checked by independent experts? Because once Ministers have admitted the true cost of the deal, then they can start justifying the so-called benefits of the treaty against what the true cost actually is. I don't think that people would be impressed by arguments justifying that figure, but Ministers should do the decent thing and justify the real, real numbers openly and in public.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

noble Lords will recall that we did debate the financial elements of the treaty in some detail last of the treaty in some detail last week, and I don't genuinely think that further debate is going to persuade anybody of anything this persuade anybody of anything this evening, and probably isn't a good use of time at this stage, but I use of time at this stage, but I respect that Lord Lilley and Lord Kempsell, who wasn't here to move his amendment, have tabled further his amendment, have tabled further amendments, so I am happy to put their minds at rest about the their minds at rest about the matter to the best of my ability this evening.

My Lords already know that the government published full that the government published full details of the financial payments on the day that the treaty was signed, and these details are in the finance exchange of letters, which is included in the treaty, in the version laid in the House and published on the government website. The details are also set out in the The details are also set out in the accompanying explanatory memorandum, which was also laid before the House and published on the

21:43

Baroness Chapman of Darlington, Minister of State (Development) (Labour)

- -

House and published on the government website. It's plain to see noble Lords how much the treaty is costing the breakdown on page ten of the explanatory memorandum is particularly straightforward for anyone who might desire further information about what will be paid in each year of the treaty. Indeed, the clarity with which the information was presented by the government was welcomed by the office for Statistics Regulation, which confirmed that it was consistent with the principles of intelligent transparency. My Lords, therefore, there is no requirement for any additional report on the financial costs either before the bill comes into force, as Lord Lilley proposes, or before each payment as suggested in the other amendment.

The quid pro quo I was asked about is that we get a unique military asset shared with our closest ally on a legally secure basis, and Lord Callanan asks why I rely on government figures, and that will be because I am representing the government. And with that, I hope that noble Lords

**** Possible New Speaker ****

will feel able to withdraw their amendments. Minister sits down. The particular question I pose, and I'm not being polemical, I think there is an issue. What actually stops Mauritius from contractually, commercially transferring this revenue stream in a capitalised

**** Possible New Speaker ****

form to another purchaser? I in terms of I think what you're asking me is what sovereign country would do with some money that it's getting as part of that it's getting as part of payment for this treaty. And I, I'm not sure what the problem would be with Mauritius investing that money with Mauritius investing that money in something, which then provided it with a return, which it could then use to support public services then use to support public services or or anything else in Mauritius.

But I'm not sure if I properly understood exactly what it is the understood exactly what it is the noble Lady is concerned about. I'd be happy to engage in further. Yeah, sure. Okay, that might be a good idea. I hope that noble Lords can

**** Possible New Speaker ****

idea. I hope that noble Lords can withdraw their amendments on that basis. To withdraw.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

To withdraw. Lordships pleasure this amendment be withdrawn. The amendment is withdrawn. Amendment 22 from the supplementary Sheet. Lord Lilley.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I'd like to talk to 20 and 81. 22 just requires that 81 K effectively happened before the the treaty comes into force effectively treaty comes into force effectively or parts of it and 81 K proposes setting up a parliamentary commission between the United commission between the United Kingdom and Mauritius. And the proposal is that we should seek to agree with Mauritius that this agree with Mauritius that this parliamentary commission should reflect equal representation from the parliaments of the United Kingdom, from this Parliament and from the Republic of Mauritius, which one hopes would be acceptable to the missions as fairly rational to the missions as fairly rational in these circumstances.

More important is what's the function of

21:46

Amdt. 20T Lord Lilley (Conservative)

important is what's the function of this Commission? It should be to ensure the recognition and protection of chagossian rights, including, but not limited to, ensuring a right of return, ensuring the right of self-determination via a referendum of all Chagossians on the question of sovereignty, and that this should be held in the UK, and access to compensation, resettlement and other forms of support. Now the noble Lady, the Minister has repeated again today this extraordinary affirmation that there is no Chagossian people and never has been.

There's never been any permanent population of the Chagos Islands. I can see, she'd say, there no longer is because we shamefully removed them. But to sort of rely on the fact that we removed them, therefore they're not permanent. When all of us now think that it was monstrous that this was done with no possibility of return at the time, and that we should be trying to be setting this right now. We're trying to sort the aftermath of decolonisation, as it seem, is, to my mind, extraordinary.

How can there have been no permanent population in the past if there are churches, if there are graveyards, if there are the signs of habitation, work, agriculture and fishing on several of the islands. And above all, how can we pretend. There never has been any chagossian population? And at the same time grant British citizenship to those who can demonstrate that they're descended from Chagossians. The Minister cannot have it both ways. She cannot say there's never been anyone there, and that we're now recognising that those who have been there are descended from them, have the right to British citizenship.

It's there in the treaty. So I know that when she did mention this, she said it was obvious distaste and embarrassment. But I think the distaste and embarrassment should have been sorted out with her officials before she got round to saying it again in this chamber. It is very insulting to the Chagossian people to say that they've never existed, and given they have existed, given that we do recognise that it was wrong to remove them without in any way trying to compensate them, or well provide them some prospect of undoing that wrong, then surely we should, through this parliamentary commission that we're proposing in this amendment, discuss with the Mauritians if sovereignty is handed over to them, at least giving Chagossians the right of return and the right of self-determination via a referendum and access to compensation, resettlement or other forms of support.

And if we do that, then at least we're going a small way to undoing the wrong that was done in the late 60s. And I think it extends into the 70s, and which all of us now recognise, but it's clearly important that we have some kind of parliamentary commission overseeing this, because the treaty doesn't do these things. It could allow the resettlement to be extended to Mauritians and not given to Chagossians, and it could ensure could result in the fund that we set up not being paid out to Chagossians and certainly not to Chagossians who've been in the United Kingdom, but solely to Chagossian, say, who now live in Mauritius.

So it's only right and proper that we have some parliamentary oversight from both sides, from Mauritius as well as from the UK, to ensure that this is all properly done. And I'm sure so reasonable is this proposition that such a reasonable Minister as we have on the front bench, cannot move.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Amendment proposed clause one, page one, line seven at end insert page one, line seven at end insert sub subject to subsection two as

**** Possible New Speaker ****

printed on the Marshall List. And may I just add to my noble friend's words? And I have here and friend's words? And I have here and I won't read the whole letter, but this is a copy of the letter to the noble Baroness, the Minister, and noble Baroness, the Minister, and from the Chagossian people, and how they write those words. The they write those words. The minister's words cut deeply. They erase our history, our dignity, and erase our history, our dignity, and the truth of who we are.

They echo the very language used to justify our people's deportation. Between 1968 and 1973. And they are demonstrably false. For more than a demonstrably false. For more than a century before our exile, Chagos Islands were home to a multi-generational, settled multi-generational, settled population. This is not our opinion. It is documented in church registers of births, marriages and burials across Peros Banhos Salomon and Diego Garcia. Colonial era records describing communities with homes, chapels, gardens and

21:52

The Earl of Leicester (Conservative)

- -

homes, chapels, gardens and workplaces. Judgements of the UK High Court in the cases the International Court of Justice, United Nations resolutions and academic research stretching across decades, they write we are not transient workers. We are a Creole people speaking people rooted in our islands, with our own traditions, our own culture, and our own community life. To say that our homeland has no permanent population is simply untrue. And you also stated the islands have never been self-governing. Well, whilst the Chagossians have never claimed to operate a Westminster style system, they have for generations in the long absent absence of resident British administrators, our islands were organised and cared for by local leaders from within our within our own community, and this has been confirmed in academic work.

And they finish Measly Mandarin and his family, who live here in London. Now they finish, he finishes. We ask you not for sympathy, but for recognition, not for pity, but for accuracy, not for charity, but for truth. We deserve self-determination. We want to stay British and return to our islands

**** Possible New Speaker ****

as British citizens. My Lords, amendments 2020 and 81

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, amendments 2020 and 81 K. In the name of my noble friend Lord Lilley seek to achieve a similar objective to amendments 80 similar objective to amendments 80 and 82. So, given the similarity of the two pairs of amendments, I was slightly surprised to see the noble slightly surprised to see the noble Lord Lord Purvis of Tweed regroup his amendments. I think we could have had a very satisfactory debate have had a very satisfactory debate with the original grouping, but of course I fully respect the noble course I fully respect the noble Lord Purvis right to but slightly su because you criticise me for doing something very similar, of course, something very similar, of course, only right that the noble Lords should be able to debate their amendments in the groupings that most suit them on Lord Lilley amendments.

I am pleased that he has included the right to self-determination, as confirmed by self-determination, as confirmed by a referendum of the Chagossians in his amendment. This is an important point that I'm sure many noble point that I'm sure many noble Lords will surely agree with. Amendment 2020 would also delay the

21:54

Lord Callanan (Conservative)

- -

Amendment 2020 would also delay the implementation of the key parts of this bill until some progress has been made on establishing the Joint Parliamentary Commission. It seems to me that too many parts of the core parts of the treaty are not tied to deadlines or quantifiable outcomes. As a result, it would be hard to monitor whether Mauritius and indeed the UK are fulfilling their obligations under the treaty in a timely manner. Lord Lilley amendment helpfully ties with Joint Parliamentary Commission to the coming into effect of the act, forcing Ministers and the Mauritian counterparts to get on with the job so that the Commission can play an important role from the very beginning of the treaty's effect.

And I think it is a very sensible proposal. So I look forward to hearing the noble Minister's response to this, and as to whether the government will agree that establishing a joint parliamentary commission would be a useful tool

**** Possible New Speaker ****

going forward. My Lords, as the noble Lord

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, as the noble Lord opposite has indicated, it is slightly surprising that the four amendments on establishing a joint amendments on establishing a joint UK Mauritius Parliamentary Commission or Committee have been regrouped. I know that members are regrouped. I know that members are well within their rights to do this, and I am glad that at least this time this has been done, where time this has been done, where noble Lords have had sufficient notice that that's what's happening, and I am sensitive to the sentiment of these amendments, and I take of these amendments, and I take them to be a firm come from a genuine desire for greater parliamentary involvement in the parliamentary involvement in the scrutiny of the implementation of the treaty on specific areas that are of concern to the House.

And are of concern to the House. And the government has always said that it welcomes the scrutiny, and this it welcomes the scrutiny, and this remains the case. And we're not opposed to the strengthening of opposed to the strengthening of links between the UK Parliament and that of Mauritius, although this

21:56

Baroness Chapman of Darlington, Minister of State (Development) (Labour)

- -

that of Mauritius, although this would be a somewhat novel approach, I think it seems pretty likely that Lord Lilley took inspiration from the noble Lord Lord Purvis amendment on this occasion. And there is, I think, a question of proportionality and the proper extent of the remit of such a parliamentary commission. And I think out of respect for Lord Purvis, I propose to discuss this in much more detail when we reach the debate on amendment 80 that he's tabled.

And I hope that's acceptable to the noble Lord. And I'll be very happy to meet with him and noble Lords who wish to to discuss this proposal and specifically Lord Purvis amendment in more detail. And I hope with that, noble Lords will withdraw

**** Possible New Speaker ****

their amendments. Lordships can. Be withdrawn. The amendment is

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Be withdrawn. The amendment is finally withdrawn. Amendment 20. You Lord Lilley not moved. Not moved.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Not moved. Amendment 21 or not moved and 22 not moved. Question is that clause not moved. Question is that clause one stamp out of the bill? As many as are of that opinion will say content the contrary not content. The contents have it after clause The contents have it after clause one, amendment 23 Baroness Hoey not moved. Amendment 24 Lord McCrea not moved. Amendment 24 Lord McCrea not moved. Amendment 25 Lord Lilley not moved. Amendment 25 Lord Lilley not moved.

Amendments 26 and 27 Lord moved. Amendments 26 and 27 Lord Lilley not moved and 28 not moved Lilley not moved and 28 not moved 29 and 30 Lord Morrow not moved and 31 and 32 Lord Morrow not moved. 31 and 32 Lord Morrow not moved. The question is that clause two stand part of the bill. Lord Callanan.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Callanan. My Lords, the amendments in this group relate to issues around the ceding of sovereignty over the ceding of sovereignty over the Chagos Archipelago to Mauritius. I asked a question on the previous day of committee about the drafting of this bill and why it does not, in fact, mention Mauritius on the face of the bill. I wonder whether the noble Baroness, the Minister, has had time to think about that and is able to give your Lordships' House an answer today, as I mentioned.

Then, there are some previous examples of similar legislation that actually named the state that is gaining sovereignty. So I'm keen to know why that the president then was not followed in this case. My amendment 33 simply seeks to remove two unnecessary subsections from the bill. If we remove subsection one and subsection two from clause three as my amendment 33 does, we will be left with a simple statement that His Majesty has, under his prerogative, the like powers to make laws for Diego Garcia, as His Majesty had before commencement of

21:59

CL 2 S/P Lord Callanan (Conservative)

the British Indian Ocean for the British Indian Ocean Territory. And with that simple statement, the with that simple statement, the Bill asserts His Majesty's powers sufficiently, and he may use those powers to ensure the continuity of powers to ensure the continuity of law from the British Indian Ocean Territory to Diego Garcia. Given these powers are under the these powers are under the prerogative, we cannot understand why a statutory provision is necessary to ensure the continuity necessary to ensure the continuity of law.

Following the ceding of sovereignty. Furthermore, if this bill passes in its current drafting bill passes in its current drafting and a future Parliament were to repeal this clause, what would that be? The effect of that be on His be? The effect of that be on His Majesty's prerogative powers? I do understand that the government's intention is not to undermine the intention is not to undermine the prerogative with this bill. That is clear from subsection four of clause five. But why has the government not included an identical provision in clause three? If the government is merely confirming these His Majesty's confirming these His Majesty's prerogative powers, should the drafting of that not be simpler, so as not to list to risk actually limiting the prerogative? My amendment 51 is a probing amendment amendment 51 is a probing amendment which seeks to understand why Ministers have kept the drafting of clause five so broad.

In its clause five so broad. In its current form, the bill grants that quotes an order under this section may amend, repeal or revoke any legislation of any of His Majesty's Dominions passed or made before commencement. Why does this apply to any of His Majesty's Dominions? And this Bill is supposed to relate just to Diego Garcia. Specifically, does the noble Baroness agree that the language could in fact be tightened here? Turning to the amendments in the name of my noble friend Lord Lansley, in this group he is seeking to prevent an order in Council under this section from amending, repealing or revoking any legislation unless it has been approved by a resolution of each House.

My understanding of my noble friend Lord Lily's Amendment 51 be is that he is seeking to achieve a similar outcome. And yet again, I would be interested to hear my friend's arguments, and I certainly don't want to avoid pre-empting

**** Possible New Speaker ****

them at this stage. noble Lords have not had the opportunity to hear from.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

opportunity to hear from. Me on the. Bill previously. So I apologise for not. Having intruded on the previous.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Debates, but I've. Listened to very many of them. I tabled. Amendments that are in this

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Amendments that are in this group 51 A, 51 B and 51 C, really in. Pursuance of my continuing interest over a number of years on the exercise of prerogative powers in the relationship to parliamentary scrutiny, the effect of the three amendments that I've tabled would together mean that any tabled would together mean that any order in Council which exercises a Henry VIII power, that is, to amend, Henry VIII power, that is, to amend, repeal or revoke an act, would be subject to the affirmative procedure instead of negative as procedure instead of negative as proposed in the bill, and that any other order, i.e.

not a Henry VIII other order, i.e. not a Henry VIII power, would be subject to the negative procedure instead of to no negative procedure instead of to no procedure. These amendments reflect and are in accordance with the recommendations of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, who, in their 37th

22:02

Lord Lansley (Conservative)

- -

Committee, who, in their 37th report on the 13th of November, said of the Henry VIII power at paragraph 17, the government have failed to provide a full explanation as to why the power is subject to the negative procedure. We recommend that this power should be subject to the affirmative procedure they went on in relation to the those orders which are not of a Henry VIII power character, they said, we recommend that the power in clause 51, when used to do anything other than amend, repeal or revoke an act, should be subject to the negative procedure.

So my three amendments are intended precisely to deliver the recommendations of the DP. The Constitution Committee, in its 14th report, also drew attention to the provisions of clause five. They observed that for orders in Council, which are made in relation to treaties, are commonly made by way of the prerogative power. Because treaties are made by the prerogative power and with limited parliamentary scrutiny as a consequence, but they did not dissent from the DP recommendations in this case. So orders in Council.

In relation to the British Indian Ocean territories may have historically been made by virtue of the prerogative. The terms of this agreement with Mauritius mean that that precedent no longer applies. Article one of the agreement recognises or confers, depending upon how you view it. Sovereign recognises or confers sovereignty for over the Chagos Archipelago, including Diego Garcia, to Mauritius. Therefore, the basis for the exercise of the prerogative power, i.e. the exercise of sovereignty over the territory, is no longer applicable.

I shall go on to explain why. Therefore, I disagree with my noble friend on the on the front bench in relation to his argument for amendment 33. This act provides for the continuation of the law in Diego Garcia. This is in accordance with the agreement in relation to article nine on jurisdiction. It follows, in my view, that the future exercise of the prerogative is sanctioned by this Act of Parliament in relation to Diego Garcia, and that as a result, any Orders in Council made should be regarded as statutory orders and as such subject to parliamentary scrutiny.

The government have accepted that the orders which have Henry the Eight powers should require a parliamentary procedure. They do not, however, provide for a parliamentary procedure for other orders in Council. The explanatory notes assert that the government in subsection well, it says in paragraph 48 of explanatory notes it says subsection five of clause five. In fact, it's in subsection six of clause five. They say, and I quote, the intention is to maintain a clear distinction between prerogative and statutory orders.

This is to be achieved according to explanatory notes by stating that these powers are not exercised in pursuance of the Statutory Instruments Act 1946. This is a very curious place we've arrived at since the government is disapplying the Statutory Instruments Act, while at the same time requiring that Orders in Council that are made which have a Henry VIII power attached to them, do actually require a parliamentary scrutiny and are therefore, in my view, statutory orders. So can I just be clear about what the argument is for my three amendments? The prerogative stems from the exercise exercise of a sovereign jurisdiction, which, in relation to the United Kingdom, is exercised by the sovereign in Parliament, in other dominions where His Majesty is sovereign, other forms of sovereign powers may subsist.

But this treaty and agreement with Mauritius states baldly in article one that His Majesty is not sovereign. In Diego Garcia. So no prerogative power can exist without being dependent on this act. So in my view, subsection six be in excluding this act from the interpretation under the Statutory Instruments Act 1946 is incorrect at report. And in response to this debate, I'm therefore asking Ministers to think very carefully about two things. Firstly, and I hope positively that they will change the procedures for the for the parliamentary scrutiny of orders in Council so that Henry VIII powers are by an affirmative procedure, and secondly, that negative that orders in Council for any other purpose are by a negative procedure, and also that they think very carefully about the terms of subsection six of clause five, which I think incorrectly seeks to supply the Statutory Instruments Act 1946.

I think I afraid it follows from my argument that I don't agree with my noble friend on amendment 33. I'm afraid I don't agree with my noble friend Lord Lilley in relation to his amendment 51 be a because he goes further than the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee would do in applying an affirmative procedure to orders in Council, which are not for Henry VIII purpose, nor, nor, nor can I support other motions that clauses should not stamp up.

But I suspect my noble friend was quite rightly seeking to probe the meaning of clauses two, three and five. But of course, if one were to remove them, one would effectively repudiate the treaty. So I'm sure that's not that may or may not be his intention, but I don't propose to speak to those clause stand part amendments

**** Possible New Speaker ****

or motions. Just to say that I am persuaded

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Just to say that I am persuaded by Lord Lansley's argument that his amendments are somewhat narrower, amendments are somewhat narrower, but much more justified than my but much more justified than my broader amendment. So I will, in the appropriate moment comes withdraw my amendment and leave his

**** Possible New Speaker ****

withdraw my amendment and leave his standing. Thank you, my Lords. Just in

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you, my Lords. Just in response to Lord Callanan desire that we're clearer about what this that we're clearer about what this Bill does on the face of the bill. I've read this a couple of times now, and I honestly don't think it could be any clearer in that it does talk about the this is a bill to enact an agreement between the to enact an agreement between the United Kingdom and the Republic of Mauritius concerning the Chagos Archipelago. I think that is Archipelago.

I think that is sufficient. And I you know, if he doesn't, I I'm not really sure what it is he's getting at. Anyway, on it is he's getting at. Anyway, on amendment 33, the government rejects this amendment on the basis

22:10

Lord Lilley (Conservative)

- -

rejects this amendment on the basis that the provision in question is not redundant. It's needed to ensure the secure and effective operation of the base. It ensures clarity on which law will apply through the jurisdiction which the UK will exercise under the treaty. Legal continuity and certainty for operations on the base. Once the British Indian Ocean Territory is dissolved, is is far from

22:10

Baroness Chapman of Darlington, Minister of State (Development) (Labour)

- -

unnecessary. And let me just explain why we have clause three of explain why we have clause three of the bill. This clause saves the law of Biot and law, which relates to Biot as the law of Diego Garcia and law which relates to Diego Garcia, and this has been done as the and this has been done as the default to ensure the continued effective running of the base on Diego Garcia, and to make sure that Diego Garcia, and to make sure that there isn't a legal gap.

Detailed work is being carried out to establish where technical amendments may be needed to be preserved. Law to reflect the new preserved. Law to reflect the new status of Diego Garcia. Diego Garcia is defined in clause three as the whole area that the UK can exercise jurisdiction over, as covered in the treaty. This covered in the treaty. This includes the island of Diego Garcia and the 12 nautical miles surrounding it, preserving the surrounding it, preserving the existing prerogative power to Diego Garcia means that we can continue Garcia means that we can continue to operate the base and its legal architecture in much the same way architecture in much the same way that we do today, and gives the maximum flexibility for the future.

And in regard to amendment 51, And in regard to amendment 51, tabled by Lord Callanan, this seems to be based on a misapprehension. As I mentioned in my response to the amendments related to clause three, his Majesty has a prerogative power to legislate for Biot at present, and clause three preserves this power. It does not allow him to make laws for other parts of the realm about Biot or Diego Garcia. And I think the noble Lord reads that section of the bill again, and he'll see that I'm right about that.

The statutory power in clause five is is necessary to enable both amendments to Acts and Statutory Instruments, which form part of the law of Diego Garcia and amendments to legislation which forms part of the law for other jurisdictions. The UK Crown Dependencies and the other OTS. These other jurisdictions have laws which refer to Biot or treat it as one of the overseas territories. Amendments to those laws may be necessary to reflect the new status of Diego Garcia, and I do see that Lord Lansley is becoming a classic of his contributions that these these occasions has.

Read the report from the DP, RC and his amendments 51 A, B and C appear to me to be implementing their recommendations. 51, tabled by Lord Lilley, appears to be less consistent with the recommendations. I think he's recognised that in his final remarks in that it would impose the affirmative procedure, not just in respect of orders in Council, which amend primary legislation, but also to those which amend secondary secondary legislation, and without showing too much leg so late at night, we're going to still consider these suggestions and we're going to return to these at report.

And with that, I hope that noble Lords will withdraw their amendments.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Well, thank Lord Lansley and others who have contributed to this others who have contributed to this group. And I'm grateful to the noble Lady for her reply to these amendments. I appreciate that they are technical amendments which will are technical amendments which will lead to which relate to the prerogative, but I think they are important nonetheless. In essence, important nonetheless. In essence, we are seeking to understand whether the government believes clauses three and five will limit clauses three and five will limit the prerogative in any way, because, as we have seen from the drafting, for instance, as we discussed earlier, of the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010, this has effectively ended the government's adherence to the original Ponsonby rule.

Statute is so often deficient when compared to so often deficient when compared to convention, and, as in the case of the prerogative statute, should not limit the prerogative without very limit the prerogative without very careful consideration. So I am grateful to the Minister for her reply today. And given the reply today. And given the complexity of these issues, I hope that she would write to us to set out the impact of this bill on the

22:14

Lord Callanan (Conservative)

- -

22:17

Baroness Hoey (Non-affiliated)

- -

the government's recent arguments, of course, for the treaty and the bill before us is that the Americans want it. And they've explained that the United States is troubled about having a military base on an island with contested sovereignty, and that, they have said until matters are resolved and there's legal certainty, they won't invest in the base. I think that's probably pressing the argument. The government argues that the treaty and the bill will deliver the requisite legal certainty. The argument, based on the assumption that if this bill becomes an act and the Mauritius Treaty can then be ratified, that all the legal uncertainties will be put to bed, is my contention, my Lords, in moving amendment 47, that this if this act passes and the Mauritius treaty are ratified, two things I very much hope will still not happen, that all that will happen is that one legal uncertainty will be replaced by another legal uncertainty, and the Americans will have actually made no progress in getting that certainty.

Instead of the uncertainty arising from the Republic of Mauritius contesting United Kingdom sovereignty over the islands, we will be presented with the uncertainty that arises from the Chagossian people contesting the Republic of Mauritius, of Mauritius sovereignty. I get the sense that in removing the basis for Chagossians living in the United Kingdom to continue to enjoy British Overseas Territory citizenship after the passage of this act, that there is a desire to try to collapse Chagossian civic identity into British civic identity, to the extent that Chagossians residing in the UK, so that distinctive Chagossian civic identity disappears.

The truth, however, is that the Chagossian community in exile identity is not going to go away resting as it does principally across three states the United Kingdom, Mauritius and the Seychelles. The number of Chagossians is increasing and becoming more animated in its commitment to secure self-determination as a people defined even when in exile, by their relationship to their islands. There is a sense in up to this point, the impact of the Chagossian identity in international relations has been somewhat muted, in that the Chagossian desire is not that they are returned to their islands to become a sovereign, independent state.

The the Chagossians who've written to us and who we've met, who issued the statement of self-determination, were very clear on this point. In that sense, it's because they see themselves as connected to the UK. There has never hitherto been a need for them to assert their identity and to seek international personality, to claim the islands. This will change completely if the islands are transferred to the Republic of Mauritius, because even while the United Kingdom has shamefully failed to resettle the islands.

The islands have remained under British sovereignty, something that over 99% of well over 3000 Chagossians are recorded as saying they want, although obviously they don't want things as at present, but they want to be resettled. In this context, the contention of my amendment is that the government, and indeed the United States of America, need to think very carefully about what is likely to happen to the Chagossians as a people in exile going forward, rather than allowing themselves to be absorbed into other countries.

I believe that they will continue increasing in number and adopting an ever stronger and more resilient identity, and that in times to come, we will look back on this bill going through and this treaty, if it does go through as something which is actually made, even more uncertainty about Diego Garcia.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I presume the noble Lady's wishes to move her amendment. Yes. Amendment proposed after clause

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Amendment proposed after clause four insert the following new clause was printed on the Marsh of list. My Lords.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'd like to support the amendment moved by the noble Lady Baroness Hoey, and I think it would Baroness Hoey, and I think it would be interesting to look not only at the future projections of the population of Chagossians, but actually a proper, full on demographic study of this unique demographic study of this unique people, because we heard it asserted again in a very embarrassed and regretful tone by embarrassed and regretful tone by the noble Lady, the Minister, that there was no population, that the people don't really exist, that this may not be her view, but it's the view of the courts and so on.

I think it is worth just spending a moment on reminding ourselves of moment on reminding ourselves of who these people are, some of whom to remind the noble Lords opposite who have just turned up, are who have just turned up, are observing our debates as we discuss here. So first of all, there is a here. So first of all, there is a there is a unique inheritance, or there was in the Chagos Archipelago. there was in the Chagos Archipelago. The the population came from both directions, largely from Africa, from Madagascar, which of course has its own unique demographics,

22:22

Lord Hannan of Kingsclere (Conservative)

- -

has its own unique demographics, from East Africa, from Mozambique, but also indentured labourers from the Indian subcontinent, from Bihar, from Tamil Nadu, from Bengal, and to some degree from Ceylon, and of course, a little bit from France. And this is reflected in a unique linguistic tradition. I I've listened over many years representing the part of Sussex where most British Chagossians live, to the the Bourbonnais Creole. It's course it's spoken. It's a there is a kind of French spoken throughout the Indian Ocean, in the Seychelles, in Mauritius as well.

But Chagossian French is clearly distinct. It it is not simply a dialect of Mauritian French, so there are very different words. Boat, for example, is a pirogue rather than a battle as it is in Mauritian French. A net is a lagoon, not a Rizzo. Apologies to any watching Chagossians for my pronunciation. And there is a a unique and distinctive oral tradition, rich in nautical metaphors and rich especially in longing, in melancholy, in the sense of exile, in the grey and unpromising streets of Crawley.

No disrespect, Crawley, it was part of my old patch. People have worked to keep alive these old folk ways and old traditions, and they are focussed on the sense of longing and return. There are ritual incantations which mention the particular villages now lost. There are special celebrations and meals that mark what was taken away. And of course, a sense of exile can become a central part of your identity as a people. We've seen it happen many times.

I invite you, my Lords, to recall the words of Psalm 137 if I forget thee, O Jerusalem, may my right hand forget her cunning, and may my tongue cleave to the roof of my mouth. If I remember you not. It becomes, with every passing year, a stronger part of your identity as a people. And all of this is by way of saying that the idea that once this treaty is signed, that once a couple of signatures are exchanged, that the people of Chagos will forget their identity and will blend happily into the Mauritian population and will become just one more exiled group with with no more prospect of of of returning home, I think is an utter fantasy.

So we will have replaced a legalistic dispute with a much more visceral one, which will carry on for as long as there are people who still remember the noise of the surf and swell of the archipelago, and those people will press every future government for their right to return, not as Mauritian citizens, but what they're asking for now, as Chagossians, as Chagossians under British sovereignty. And eventually, my Lords, they will get a government that will honour their wish.

Yes, my Lords, I'm talking

**** Possible New Speaker ****

about in this amendment a. Democratic study of the Chagossian people. But I want to Chagossian people. But I want to speak about a matter that has been mentioned briefly by my noble friend Lord cannon, and that goes friend Lord cannon, and that goes to the very heart of democratic integrity and the dignity of an entire people. I wish to address entire people. I wish to address the survey issued by the House of Lords International Relations and Defence Committee, a survey that claims to capture Chagossian views on the agreement with Mauritius concerning the Chagos Archipelago.

concerning the Chagos Archipelago. This survey cannot be relied upon. It is methodologically flawed, It is methodologically flawed, structurally careless, open to manipulation and in several aspects dangerously misleading. The Chagossian people who have endured decades of dispossession, decades of dispossession, displacement and injustice deserve deserve far better than an instrument that falls short at

22:26

The Earl of Leicester (Conservative)

- -

instrument that falls short at every level. Firstly, the technical design. The survey is hosted on Microsoft Forms, a rudimentary platform that any undergraduate research supervisor would reject for a project involving even minimal verification. There are no safeguards against duplicate submissions, no protection under cyber manipulation, no identity checks, and no mechanism whatsoever to confirm whether a respondent is actually Chagossian. For a survey that concerns sovereignty, citizenship, resettlement and the legacy of one of the gravest forced removals in modern British history.

This is astonishing. It leaves the process exposed to interference by anyone, anywhere, with any motive. And unfortunately, that is not a theoretical theoretical risk. The survey still has a week to run, and we there are claims supported by video evidence, which I have seen, and direct testimonials that officials and intermediaries, Mauritian officials and intermediaries have been filling out the survey on behalf of Chagossians who cannot read English, cannot understand the political implications and cannot write their own responses.

Even more serious, multiple Chagossians have told us that they oppose the agreement with Mauritius, yet believe that they have actually been marked down as supporting it in this survey. This. If this is true, then a foreign government is effectively interfering with the House of Lords committee's evidence gathering process. Not only does this compromise the validity of the survey, it threatens the independence and integrity of Parliament itself. Let us be absolutely clear this is not a consultation, but contamination. Let me take your lordships through some of the survey questions.

The survey begins with text that states that a new law implementing the agreement is currently being debated, and that members of the House of Lords want to hear opinions before voting on it. What it does not say, and what it very much ought to say, is that this agreement is not yet in force. That ratification is required, and that Parliament can still reject it. The omission is misleading and may lead many to believe the treaty is inevitable. When you are asking a displaced people about the fate of their homeland, clarity is not optional.

It is essential. The survey repeatedly instructs respondents not to provide any identifying information. At the same time, the survey allows anyone in the world to submit answers as many times as they like, with no checks. There is no way to confirm whether responses come from Chagossians non Chagossians, organised political activists or even automated submissions. I've personally seen a text message from a high ranking Mauritius official stating my guys are in Mauritius. In the Mauritius government are. I'll change the wording.

Very worried. They are planning for civil unrest when they cancel the tax cuts. It is clear what the Mauritians want, but for a consultation that claims to express Chagossian views, this alone renders the entire exercise invalid. Though Creole and French translations of the questions are provided. The survey then insists that all answers must be written in English for people who can't write English, let alone speak it. This makes no sense. Many Chagossians, especially in Mauritius and the Seychelles, do not write English fluently.

They cannot meaningfully, meaningfully participate in a process that forbids them from using their own language or providing answers in the same language used to frame the questions. A consultation that effectively excludes the non-English speaking majority of the diaspora cannot claim to speak for the Chagossian people. Throughout the survey, simple grammatical errors appear multiple times. The repeated phrase please do not, do not provide any personal or identifying information is one example. The misspelling of Chagos Islands without capitalisation appears repeatedly.

These are not minor lapses. They show a lack of proofreading, a lack of quality control, and a lack of respect for the seriousness of the task. A community that has been displaced and silenced for decades should not be given a survey that looks rushed, inconsistent and poorly constructed. The survey closes on the 1st of December. This is a deadline that makes serious analysis impossible, and the committee must report by the 18th of December. That gives 12 working days in the busiest period of the year to read and analyse what could be thousands of unverified, multilingual responses.

The same committee has taken months to analyse witnesses and other inquiries. Now it proposes to process a global consultation in 12 days. This is not realistic. It is not credible. It absolutely suggests to me that the survey is a procedural box to be ticked, rather than a genuine attempt to listen. It misses the issues the Chagossians raised repeatedly, despite decades of the survey does not ask a single direct question about British nationality and citizenship. British Indian Ocean Territory status, rights of descendants, legal recognition and long term guarantees.

These issues are central to Chagossian life. Their total absence shows that Chagossian voices were not meaningfully involved in designing the consultation in the first place. You cannot claim to capture a people's views when you avoid the very questions they have been asking for years. My Lords, we must be clear this survey is insecure, unverifiable, exclusionary, misleading, incomplete, hurried, and now reportedly subject to foreign interference. It cannot be taken as a legitimate or accurate reflection of Chagossian opinion. It cannot guide policy.

It cannot guide legislation, and it certainly cannot be used to claim that the Chagossian people support a treaty that many do not. If Britain really, truly wishes to honour its responsibilities, then it must create a new process, one that is co-designed with the Chagossians secure. Linguistically accessible, accessible, transparent, verifiable and grounded in the dignity of the people who live it. Effects. Can I ask the noble Lady, the Minister, how much weight they will be attaching to this survey? And if, as I hope I've demonstrated, the survey is not worth the paper it's written on, will the Minister undertake a proper referendum amongst the Chagossian Islands and their diaspora? Finally, can I draw your lordships attention to page 120 of the Labour Party's election manifesto? Defending our security also means protecting the British Overseas Territories and Crown dependencies, including the Falklands and Gibraltar.

Labour will always defend their sovereignty and right to self-determination. Now I'll finish up. There's just an amazing lack of self-awareness of this government. So ideologically wedded are they to their perception of of post past colonial wrongs, that they don't see how this bill looks to the British voter? They're spending millions on this deal, giving these millions to Mauritius, a country with a hugely corrupt governing class. Whilst at home tomorrow, the Chancellor is going to raise taxes

**** Possible New Speaker ****

voters. Yeah, yeah, yeah.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

All laughing. But my Lord, thank you to Baroness Hoey for proposing this amendment to my noble friend Lord Hannan for his excellent speech, Hannan for his excellent speech, and the Earl of Leicester, who also made some very good points. Amendment 47, in the name of Amendment 47, in the name of Baroness Hoey, I think, gets to the core of a problem that the government have so far avoided when government have so far avoided when we originally considered passing a motion requiring the government to consult the Chagossians, which the consult the Chagossians, which the government were totally against, Ministers resisted it not only because they felt that a because they felt that a consultation may be subject to judicial review, but that the challenge of defining the Chagossian community presented challenges, and we have heard throughout our debates on the treaty that the UK government has treaty that the UK government has mistreated the Chagossians, not least through their forced removal from the Chagos Archipelago.

The from the Chagos Archipelago. The government have gone some way to recognising that fact through the establishment of the trust fund. So

22:35

Lord Callanan (Conservative)

- -

establishment of the trust fund. So I'd be interested to know whether the noble Baroness, the Minister, considers the creation of the trust Fund for the Chagossians to be the end of the matter, or will her department continue to look at further ways to support the displaced Chagossian community? This amendment would require the Secretary of State to produce a report projecting the population growth of the Chagossian people over the next 30 years, and assess the implications of the outcome of the report for recognition of their identity.

If we are to properly support the Chagossian community as we believe that we should, it is important that the UK government makes a proper effort to understand the community, its growth over time and where Chagossians have chosen to live. So will the noble Lady. Take this on board and look closely at ways that the UK government can improve its understanding of the Chagossian community. I look forward to hearing her responses.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Although, as I've said repeatedly throughout these deliberations, that the government is very interested in thinking about different ways that we can work alongside the Chagossian work alongside the Chagossian community on these issues, and that applies to amendment 47 as well, but specifically on this amendment tabled by Baroness Hoey. And she tabled by Baroness Hoey. And she asked the government to produce a report consisting of a demographic study of the Chagossian community. study of the Chagossian community.

And I am going to have to disappoint the noble Lady this evening, in that we just think it evening, in that we just think it won't be possible to produce the report, and that would be useful at report, and that would be useful at a cost to taxpayers in time for it to do anything of consequence. to do anything of consequence. Alongside this treaty. I do think, though, that it's not a bad idea to

22:37

Baroness Chapman of Darlington, Minister of State (Development) (Labour)

- -

though, that it's not a bad idea to have a report like this for many of the reasons that have been described for many, many reasons, I wouldn't be against it. What I'm saying is that the responsibility for conducting the study doesn't belong on the face of this bill, but that doesn't mean it's a bad thing to do. In principle, the noble Baroness will know, because we've heard from most recently, the Earl of Leicester, about the IDC's committee leading a report into Chagossians, which will be published soon, I hope, and that I hope that all these things sort of help to mitigate some of the noble Baroness concerns.

But I would the concerns about the the survey, I saw that Jeremy Corbyn had also written to Lord de Mauley, who chairs the Erdc, who are responsible for the survey. It's not something that the government is responsible for. We are looking forward to the results. And in terms of we were asked what weight we put to the survey. I think it's for the committee to determine what weight it puts, and I'm sure that they will take on board the, the, the comments that have been made by those who are concerned about the way that the survey is being conducted.

And I know that there are some Chagossians who would be completely unable to access a survey like this because reasons of literacy or access to the means by which the survey is being conducted. And I'm sure that the committee will want to reflect on that, and we certainly will when we receive their report. But I do look forward to it. I hope that it is useful in assisting us in understanding the complexity of opinion that exists within Chagossian communities, but on the substantive point that the noble Lady raises, I think that such a piece of work may well be useful, but I'm not able this evening to commit the government to commissioning such a piece of work, and I hope with that, noble Lords

**** Possible New Speaker ****

will withdraw their amendments. My Lord, I thank the noble Lady for that rather thoughtful answer. for that rather thoughtful answer. I note she didn't actually rule out what I had said, that the Americans what I had said, that the Americans would still be seeing uncertainty in the future, and I think we will

**** Possible New Speaker ****

see that whatever happens in in amendment. Is it your Lordships amendment

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Is it your Lordships amendment be withdrawn? Amendment is by leave withdrawn. Amendment 48 already not withdrawn. Amendment 48 already not moved. Amendment 49 already debated, not moved. Amendment 50 already not moved. Amendment 50 already debated. Not moved. Amendment 50 A already debated, not moved. already debated, not moved. Amendment 50 be debated, not moved. Amendment 51 already debated, not Amendment 51 already debated, not moved. Amendment 51 A debated, not moved. Amendment 51 be already moved. Amendment 51 be already debated.

Not moved. Amendment 51 be already debated, not moved.

22:40

Baroness Hoey (Non-affiliated)

- -

22:42

Lord Lilley (Conservative)

- -

mentioned in the early stages of the government's declarations about its need to cede sovereignty of Mauritius, or its claim that, by so doing it would increase the security of the base. But the Pelindaba treaty is one which the countries of Africa and that includes Mauritius, signed, creating a nuclear free zone. And I don't think anyone disputes that. If Chagos Archipelago is recognised as part of Mauritius, the Pelindaba treaty will apply to the Chagos Archipelago and therefore to the Diego, Mauritius.

Diego. Garcia base. Now that's a very significant fact because the Pelindaba treaty says that it should be a nuclear free zone, and so that therefore Diego Garcia will be nuclear free. And it's important that we establish what that means. Does it mean that no nuclear weapons can ever be stored based or transit through Diego Garcia? If so, does the United States know about this? Are they aware about this? What is their reaction to it? It's less clear whether or not it means that nuclear powered vessels can use the facilities of Diego Garcia.

But my noble friend. Baroness Goldie amendment will make that clear. And I think that's very important. Her important. Her amendment is at least as important as mine in establishing the truth of this. Because if we are saying that by handing over this base to Mauritius, we are increasing the security of the base, but it turns out that the use of the base will be compromised. That's a very important matter. And if it turns out that it will only not be compromised if Mauritius is tacitly going to break the treaty.

That's a very odd thing from a government which believes that you should never break a treaty, because treaties have the power of international law. And I'd like to know what the government is proposing about this. Are they saying we shall turn a blind eye? We shall just not mention to Mauritius that we are contravening their treaty obligations. And remember the Treaty of Pelindaba, with which noble Lords are doubtless very familiar, even though they weren't even the government apparently wasn't when first they entered into this agreement.

The treaty refuses the right to any signatory to Resile from any part of that treaty. Subsequently, you could result from the whole of it, but you can't resolve from part of it. And so the only way Mauritius could not extend the Pelindaba treaty to Diego Garcia, as far as I understand it, is if they resile from the Pelindaba treaty. So we need to know, are we going to require them to do so? Do the Americans want to require them to do so? Are the Americans happy that the treaty should apply but be regularly broken? This is an extremely important matter, which actually goes to the very heart of what the government's about.

Is it about the rigorous adherence to international law, even when it doesn't apply, and at the same time ignoring it when it does? Or is it actually about upholding Britain's interests, in which case handing over a base to a country, rendering it part of a nuclear free zone cannot be in the interests of ourselves, our

**** Possible New Speaker ****

allies or the defence of the West? Yeah, I take it I. Amendment

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yeah, I take it I. Amendment proposed after clause five insert the following new clause is printed on the marshalled list.

22:47

Baroness Goldie (Conservative)

- -

22:51

Lord Coaker, The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Labour)

- -

22:58

Lord Lilley (Conservative)

- -

moved. Amendment 70 already debated. Not moved. Amendment 71 has been withdrawn. Amendment 72 already debated, not moved. Amendment 73 already debated, not moved. Amendment 74 already debated, not moved. Amendment 75 already debated, not moved. Amendment 76 already debated. Not moved. Amendment 77 already debated. Not moved. Amendment 78 already debated. Not moved. Amendment 79 already debated. Not moved. Amendment 80 Lord Purvis of Tweed move.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Amendment 80 and speak to 82. As a consequence of it. Amendment 80, a consequence of it. Amendment 80, as the Minister referred to before, had attracted some flattering imitation yesterday. But nevertheless, I'm hoping that we might be able to see progress on might be able to see progress on what what I would consider to be a serious proposal to try and address serious proposal to try and address some of the concerns that have been raised very sincerely about. As the raised very sincerely about.

As the noble Lord Jay said earlier, we have a lot of history to make good, and I agree with that. This has and I agree with that. This has been a an unusual Committee stage of a bill in many respects. But of a bill in many respects. But perhaps it's because this legislation and the treaty that it legislation and the treaty that it is connected to will have, like unlike some other legislation, unlike some other legislation, which we often might consider to be indirect, this will have a direct

23:00

Amdt. 80 Lord Purvis of Tweed (Liberal Democrat)

indirect, this will have a direct impact on people's lives of a defined but diverse group of individuals who have been in touch with many noble Lords. And therefore, I believe that we have an obligation to seek treat this seriously. This debate in committee. There has been many passionate but also proper probing questions on how the terms of the treaty will operate and how UK interests will also continue to be represented. We've just heard that from the noble Lady Baroness Goldie, and we heard earlier from the noble Lord Lord Ahmad.

Amendment 80, in my name is a proposition for an ongoing Interparliamentary Committee for the duration of the treaty. The Minister referred mentioned before that she felt it was perhaps a novel response. It's not entirely novel. There are precedents which I've based this on. There have been quite frequently free trade agreements that had associated parliamentary committees associated with it. There is the FTA agreement that the UK had been part of. There was the Ahepa for our African Partners in Parliaments, which we had been part of.

There is doubt from many about how critical parts of the treaty negotiated by this government will be handled going forward, both by the UK and the Mauritian government, and operate through the Commission. We've heard many references today about the deeply flawed constitutional reform and Governance Act. It was fascinating for me to listen to this debate because. This House in 2021 passed a motion which happened to be in my name, of the ability for Parliament to have a straight up and down vote on treaties.

This House passed an amendment to the trade bill, which would state that negotiating objectives, or before treaty negotiations, would have to be presented to both houses and the House of Commons would have an opportunity to vote on those. I believe those aspects would have been beneficial for this treaty. I will, I think the noble Lord Hannan forgot that he voted against that. So I'm happy to remind him, just for the record, on the latter part. On the first part, he wasn't in the house, but one of his very just in the moment, one of his very first votes in this House was against what he's been arguing so passionately for today.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

There hasn't been a vote in the other place. So so the only the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

other place. So so the only the only proper chance is here. No, no, the the case that he was making passionately was about the making passionately was about the defaults in the crag process. And I agree with him about that. It's just that if he had not had his just that if he had not had his view with his noble friends in 2021, we would have had the enhanced processes for, for, for treaty processes for, for, for treaty scrutiny. But we are where we are because the current government was because the current government was supportive of changing the Crag process for up down votes on treaties, now they're against the treaties, now they're against the opposition who had been against then are now in favour of it.

I think it's probably got to do with think it's probably got to do with whoever's sitting on that side of the House, rather than that side of the House. But we are where we are the House. But we are where we are now, and the issue is how we go forward to some extent. And that's not denying the fact that there's not denying the fact that there's still Report stage and there'll still be divisions potentially. But I wanted to flag, at this stage at committee the proposal to try and address some of the the major address some of the the major concerns.

Now, I just before very briefly addressing that specific briefly addressing that specific part of the amendment, I also wanted just to put on record because there's been quite a bit of. Raising debates today, which alluded to the fact that the negotiations on this treaty were halted by the previous administration. In a letter to the Foreign Affairs Committee from Lord Cameron of Chipping Norton on the 5th of April, 2024, just seven weeks before dissolution, he wrote to the committee reaffirming that negotiations were ongoing and also that the questions to the future administration of the islands are subject to the ongoing bilateral negotiations between them between the UK and Mauritius.

He also said in the letter we will continue to update Chagossians as negotiations progress. The negotiations were ongoing at the time of the election, and it's worth stating that on the record, because there's been quite a bit of misleading information today. It's interesting the Foreign Affairs Committee had been making the case since 2008 for a strong moral case for resettlement. That was denied again, in the letter from the from the Foreign Secretary in April 2024.

So we do have a moral duty to try and ensure that whatever circumstances arise from the parliamentary proceedings, we have a mechanism by which we allow Chagossian community to be represented. Now, that is through amendment 80. And my proposal, which is a interparliamentary committee, which is MPs from the Republic of Mauritius and MPs from the UK forming a committee for the duration of the treaty. We know, and I agree with much of what's been said today. Trust is low to non-existent amongst many in the Chagossian community and suspicion is very high.

I acknowledge all of that and means by which that can perhaps be addressed as the treaty is implemented going forward, if it is brought into force, is by which parliamentarians, UK and Mauritian parliamentarians, through dialogue and debate and mutual understanding, can observe and also to scrutinise their respective executives back in their parliaments about how the treaty is operating, about how the implementation of the treaty, about rights of returns, whether or not they are being implemented, about the right to self-determination as understood in customary international law, and access to compensation, resettlement and other forms of support.

The Commission in the treaty is executive, but this adds a parliamentary oversight function, which I believe will be of value. I hope that the government, in fact, I hope that it will receive cross-party support. I am open to discuss the particular wording of the amendment, but the principle, I hope, should receive support. We do all a moral duty to a community for on going representation to address concerns and the suspicions, and

**** Possible New Speaker ****

therefore I move amendment 80. Amendment proposed after clause five, insert. The following new clause is printed on the Marshall List. Thank you.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

List. Thank you. My Lords. This is the last group of amendments at committee and delighted to see so many noble Lords opposite taking a close interest in this Bill and what it interest in this Bill and what it will do to the Chagossian people, delighted that they are taking an interest in what their government interest in what their government is doing to the Chagossians. I have already spoken to my noble friend Lord Lily's amendments, which are Lord Lily's amendments, which are very similar in drafting to the noble Lord, Lord Purvis of Tweed amendments.

I must say, I do prefer my noble friends amendments to amendments 80 and 82, principally because they include reference to a referendum of the Chagossians. And referendum of the Chagossians. And we talked and the Earl of Leicester talked about how deficient the current survey being undertaken by current survey being undertaken by the International Agreements Committee is, and I think we could greatly improve on that. But the

23:08

Lord Callanan (Conservative)

- -

greatly improve on that. But the best mechanism, of course, would be to simply just hold a referendum of the Chagossians asking them whether they approve of this treaty or not. I know, of course, that the Liberal Democrats were previously very supportive of referendum, but despite criticising the position of my party, this amendment implies that there may not now be so supportive. But I hope to see information to the contrary from the noble Lord. Lord Purvis amendment also differs from Lord Lily's in that his apparently comes into force after the treaty, whereas that of my noble friend Lord Lily would come into operation beforehand, which seems to me to be much more appropriate.

But of course, I'm happy to take up the offer of the noble Lord and to discuss the wording of amendments, because, as is so often the case in your Lordships' House, we only bring about improvements to Bill if we work together. And I'm certainly prepared, from my point of view, to work together with him on the drafting of these amendments. I hope my noble friend Lord Lily would be involved as well, and we can get them into a form where we can support them at Report stage and ask the government to move on this.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord Lord Purvis for the considered and Lord Purvis for the considered and balanced contribution that he's made throughout the Bill, but particularly on his amendment 80. particularly on his amendment 80. The amendment is interesting and I understand the effect that he is understand the effect that he is seeking to achieve. It's a welcome addition to our debate today. And as I said to the noble Lord Lord Lilley earlier, I will also take amendment 81 into consideration in amendment 81 into consideration in the comments that I'm about to make.

The proposal put forward by the noble Lord is a novel one, and I couldn't recall any examples of where there have been joint where there have been joint committees set up between different legislatures in this way, but Lord Purvis mentioned some, and I will reflect on those and see if there's anything we can glean from them anything we can glean from them that might be useful. Lord Purvis made some changes to his amendment, but still, unfortunately we can't

23:10

Baroness Chapman of Darlington, Minister of State (Development) (Labour)

- -

but still, unfortunately we can't accept them in their current form today. The structure isn't something that the treaty with Mauritius was was drafted to contemplate. Of course, there isn't anything to prevent parliamentarians in the UK engaging with their equivalents in Mauritius on these matters, but we don't see this as being a matter for domestic legislation in the way that we're considering it at the moment, because obviously that doesn't have any effect on what the Mauritians themselves do.

There are some elements of his proposed scope for the Joint Parliamentary Commission, which would be a problem which but no, actually that would seem to be very much for the UK alone. So they could be we could look at them. The government is committed to building a relationship with the Chagossian community that's built on respect. And as noble Lords will be aware, we've established a Chagossian contact group to give Chagossians a formal role that shapes decision making on the UK government's support for their community.

We're also providing additional support to build the capacity of community groups so that more are eligible for grants. But there are there's two elements of this today that are an issue for the government and that we're we are going to disagree on at the moment. And these are the right to self-determination and compensation on self-determination. We've been over this several times in this House and the other place. And just to put it simply and plainly, in legal terms, no question of self-determination applies.

And the English courts, noting the conclusion of the ICJ in the 2019 advisory opinion, have proceeded on the basis that the relevant right to self-determination in the context of Biot was that of Mauritius, and on compensation again, it's it's legally the case that the UK paid compensation to the Chagossians in the 80s. And as far as the English courts are concerned, in a series of judgements, and the European Court of Human Rights have ruled that this settled the claims definitively.

Having said all that, I do recognise and understand the noble Lords intentions and his determination actually, with this amendment, he's been consistent about arguing along these lines throughout our consideration of this bill. And what I'd like to suggest is that perhaps if he'd be happy that we could meet together to discuss his amendment in more detail, and just to see if there isn't a way that we can find to move this forward ahead of Report stage. And with that, I hope for today that he would be happy to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

withdraw his amendment. I'm glad that there are so many

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'm glad that there are so many witnesses that saw my ability to bring Lord Callanan and the Minister together with some form of consensus at the end of this consensus at the end of this committee. I'm grateful for both the noble Lord and the Minister's the noble Lord and the Minister's response. She will know that I have been keen to see the areas where we been keen to see the areas where we can move towards formalised and some degree of statutory underpinning for some structures of ongoing representation, because this is a special case, and even if this is a special case, and even if it was novel, and I'm sure officials will now be studying all of my examples that I've given, by the time that we get to Report stage, I'll try and find some more.

But even if it was novel, I believe it's justified given the circumstances that we're in. I'm grateful for the willingness to discuss. There are ongoing debates on the particular aspects that the on the particular aspects that the Minister had said that she had difficulty with. Just one moment, ongoing debates on the areas that

23:15

Lord Purvis of Tweed (Liberal Democrat)

- -

ongoing debates on the areas that the Minister said that she had difficulty with. And I'll happily give way to the noble Lord.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'm just going to give him another example, not a British level, but in the in the European level, there is, of course, the joint EU, ACP Parliamentary joint EU, ACP Parliamentary Assembly, which is a joint parliament of European Members of Parliament and all of the representatives of the African,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

representatives of the African, Caribbean and Pacific countries. We've even got some good

**** Possible New Speaker ****

We've even got some good elements of of Brexit incorporated in this debate as well. So we're on in this debate as well. So we're on a roll. But in the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw on the basis that leave to withdraw on the basis that we will be returning to this and to have what I hope will be Minister.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Minister. As you Lordships pleasure to be withdrawn. Amendment is by leave withdrawn. Amendment is by leave withdrawn. Amendment 81 already debated, not moved. Amendment 81 a already debated, not moved. already debated, not moved. Amendment 81 B has been withdrawn. Amendment 81 C ready debated. Not Amendment 81 C ready debated. Not moved. Sorry, my Lords, to tidy up. Amendment 81 D already debated, not Amendment 81 D already debated, not moved. Member 81 E already debated. Not moved 81 F already debated.

Not moved. Amendment 81 G already moved. Amendment 81 G already debated. Not moved. Amendment 81 H already debated. Not moved. already debated. Not moved. Amendment 81 J already debated. Not moved. Amendment 81 K already debated. Not moved. Amendment 82 already debated. Not moved. Member 80 three, four, five, six, seven, and eight and nine and 90. Already debated. Not moved. The question is to clause six stands part of the bill, as many of that opinion will say. Content. Contrary, not content.

The contents have it. The question is that this be the title of the bill, as many of that opinion will say. Content. Contrary, not content. The contents have it. My Lords, that concludes the business of the Committee and the House will now resume. My Lords, the Bill has been committed, been reported without amendment.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

House do now adjourn. The House do now adjourn. Oh,

14:00

Introduction(s): Baroness Gerada

House House of House of Lords House of Lords - House of Lords - 25 House of Lords - 25 November 2025.

This debate has concluded

Return to start of debate - Return to top of page