Lords Chamber

Monday 5th January 2026

(began 1 day, 16 hours ago)

Share Debate
Watch Live
Skip to latest contribution
14:35
14:36
14:36
14:37
None Portrait Oral questions: Support for parents to toilet train their children between 18 and 30 months
-

My Lords, I beg leave to ask the question. Standing in my name on the Order Paper.
14:37
14:37
14:37
14:38
14:39
14:39
14:39
14:40
14:40
14:41
14:41
14:42
14:42
14:43
14:44
14:44
14:45
14:45
14:45
14:46
14:46
14:47
14:47
14:48
14:48
14:49
14:49
14:50
14:51
14:51
14:52
14:53
14:53
14:54
14:55
14:56
14:56
14:57
14:57
14:58
14:58
None Portrait Oral questions: White House fact sheet on the Muslim Brotherhood as a foreign terrorist organisation
-

Godson. >> My Lords, I beg leave to ask. >> The question. Standing my name on the Order Paper.
14:58
14:58
14:59
14:59
15:00
15:00
15:01
15:01
15:01
15:02
15:03
15:03
15:04
15:05
15:05
15:06
15:06
15:07
15:08
15:08
15:09
15:09
15:09
15:10
15:11
15:11
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent Portrait Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Labour)
-
-
Yeah, yeah. >> And there I was going to wish you a happy New Year. And thank you for taking me on my first tour of for taking me on my first tour of this building. My Lords, this government does prioritise statements in your Lordships House. Noble Lord will be aware that that is not a government department that I actively engage with, but I will ensure that my colleagues directly respond to the noble Lords. And I'm sure this will not be the last time

**** Possible New Speaker ****

we discuss this issue in your Lordships' House. Sir. There's one that formerly was

**** Possible New Speaker ****

There's one that formerly was responsible for the standby agency advertising with one of our major advertising agencies and other advertising. Does I know the Minister realise? Of course she Minister realise? Of course she does, that whilst the social media is absolutely fundamental to anybody who wants to communicate, nevertheless, almost certainly a significant number of government communications must think about and look at the coverage in the other forms of media. And that is absolutely fundamental for basic

**** Possible New Speaker ****

communication. The noble raises a very, very important point. So the reality is important point. So the reality is that when we were undertaking the that when we were undertaking the emergency alert last year, we 92% of people were reached via social media. But that meant that 8% of media. But that meant that 8% of the population were not touched by social media. So paper, so physical social media. So paper, so physical paper. I am a very big fan of a traditional political leaflet, but also newspapers as well as traditional media remains a key part of our communication strategy, as it should.
15:13
15:13
15:15
15:15
15:15
15:16
15:17
15:17
15:18
15:18
15:21
15:21
Lord Craig of Radley Portrait Lord Craig of Radley (Crossbench)
-
-
I speak to amendments one and 38. >> I speak to amendments one and 38. In earlier debate on this bill, I raised the concern that the UK is raised the concern that the UK is required under article 11 of the treaty to continue to pay Mauritius, even where the military base on Diego Garcia become unusable. There seems no break or conditional clause that agrees any reason. Reasons the UK may cease these payments before the 99 year date is reached.

Article 15 does set out how Mauritius may react should UK cease payment, but this is the reason why Mauritius may terminate, not why UK may terminate the treaty. If UK were to persist in not honouring their obligation to pay, the treaty would perforce be terminated by Mauritius. But my Lords, for avoidance of doubt, would that mean that article one of the treaty is still applicable and sovereignty remains with Mauritius? Perhaps the node could confirm the government's view, and I have forewarned her of this question.

During committee on the 18th of November, the lady was in response to my earlier question about the base being no longer usable, said, and I quote, I will reflect on this and try to come back to him with a more thorough response, because I can see that he wants to know that the government have given this the proper consideration that he would expect, and I undertake to do that. If the noble Baroness has written, I regret, I have not as yet received this further information from her.

Fundamentally, does she feel that the environmental risk and other possible events, such as a major destructive attack on the base or even a decision by the United States that they have no further use for the base, are sufficiently remote and unlikely for the UK to accept this risk, or of a possible messy, even dishonourable, termination. Considerable sums of taxpayers money may be involved. I note that this is Report stage. I do not intend to do more than point out, without detail.

That experience tells us that much can and does change over time and when. Well, under the past 100 years, those have become friends or friends. Potential real have become foes. Weapon technology too, may well and has frequently changed, as has how operations are mounted and security maintained. America could decide that there is no need for the base for their operational reasons, or even should they cease to wish to act as a world police force and revert to isolationism.

Is there any legally binding agreement, indeed, between the UK and the United States, that they will continue their use of the base, or have need for its use for the 99 years duration of the treaty? Although I do not wish to suggest any lack of importance of the base to national and international security for present time, there is also the putative threat of sea rise this century, flooding the base due to global warming. My men, number one, suggest one feasible way to correct this apparent lack of foresight.

I shall listen with close interest to the noble Ladies response. But unless the government can reassure the House that this issue of non usability of the base has been fully considered and a reasonable solution adopted, I may seek the views of House. I beg to move. That clause.
15:25
Lord Houghton of Richmond Portrait Lord Houghton of Richmond (Crossbench)
-
-
One, page one, line seven. At >> One, page one, line seven. At the end, insert the words as printed on the Marshalled List. My Lords, I rise also to speak in Lords, I rise also to speak in support of amendment one, to which I attach my name, and to reinforce the arguments made by my gallant the arguments made by my gallant friend, the noble and gallant Lord Craig of Radley. This amendment is not moved by any wider purpose than common sense, and we trust the government will respond accordingly.

Currently, the bill makes no provision for the circumstances under which the requirement to pay an annual fee for the use of the Diego Garcia base is revisited in the event of the base becoming unusable for military purposes. My noble and gallant friend has already mentioned the potential risks to the utility of the base arising from an extreme environmental event. He has mentioned the future potential for a policy change by the United States, the potential, perhaps, for the technical obsolescence of the base to come about.

I would argue that the concerns regarding potential legal initiatives to constrain the use of the base, particular partial constraints deriving from nuclear exclusion agreements, or the question of Mauritius having to honour obligations as the sovereign power for the authorisation of offensive operations from the base should be added to those list of concerns. But I fear the greatest future concern should perhaps be the full or partial destruction of the base through military action by a hostile state. This might seem a surprising concern, given the extremely remote nature of this base, but I've been to the base.

I would argue quite strongly that the strategic importance of the base, combined with its entirely militaristic purpose and extreme remoteness from civilian life, all combined to make it a highly vulnerable, indeed a highly attractive target. The principal tenets for the use of force in warfare are distinction, military necessity, humanity, and proportionality. If you can pause for a moment to imagine the early stages of a global conflict when a desire for escalation dominance prompts a hostile nation to destroy a Western strategic asset as a proportionate response, with no risk of collateral damage to a civilian population, attracting relatively minor moral opprobrium but resulting in huge military benefit.

I cannot think of obviously better or more considered target than Diego Garcia. Many in the chamber may think my concerns are drawn from the world of fantasy or nightmare, but doesn't the last 72 hours give serious cause for concern regarding our ability to predict with certainty the next two years of geopolitics, let alone the next hundred? This treaty needs to cater far better for what the future might hold.
15:29
15:30
Lord Purvis of Tweed Portrait Lord Purvis of Tweed (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
Yes. >> Yes. >> Lords, I give very careful consideration. >> To the points raised in these

**** Possible New Speaker ****

To the points raised in these amendments by both noble and gallant Lords. They raise significant issues of which I am very sympathetic to, and I am also very keen to hear the Minister's response, given her commit commitment at committee, especially in relation to the consequences of article one of the treaty. As the noble, gallant Lord Lord Craig of Radley has indicated. There are, however, elements of the amendments which I am perhaps not entirely persuaded by, and that they are the conditions that are within the bailiwick of the Mauritian government that could, could arise the circumstances where we would seek to stop payments, and they are not covered by this amendment per se, but they would be covered in paragraph four of my amendment 50, which would introduce.

This has been much later on during our consideration today. But paragraph four of my amendment 50 would create the conditions where, if the Mauritian government, by its actions, are putting at risk what the consequences of our payments would be, then we have an ability of pausing the payments, or Parliament has an ability of pausing the payments. Then, if there are, for the reasons unspecified by amendment one, which are non-defense related, then there is the potential that UK funding for resettlement support the trust fund operations or Chagossian community specific support would be put at risk.

So I think it is worthwhile to to separate out the defence interests, as well as what the other elements of the treaties would be. And because these mechanisms are, in our view, are preferable in amendment 50, then we would find it difficult to support these particular amendments.
15:32
Lord Morrow Portrait Lord Morrow (Democratic Unionist Party)
-
-
I rise to speak to.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Amendment 26 standing in my name. The amendment states that section is 2 to 4 can only come into force is 2 to 4 can only come into force when the Secretary of State has assessed a the impact of the termination of all rights granted termination of all rights granted by the treaty to the United Kingdom with respect to the entire Chagos Archipelago, though through article 15 of the treaty, and b the impact 15 of the treaty, and b the impact of the arrangements in article 15 on the leverage opportunities at the Secretary of State's disposal in negotiating with Mauritius after ratification.

My Lords 51A of the Mauritius Treaty states that Mauritius can terminate the Mauritius Treaty in the event of, and I quote a failure by the United Kingdom to make payment as required by article 11. What this means is that a full payment is more than 20. If it is more than 22 days late, the entire Mauritius treaty is terminated, subject, of course, to the fact that sovereignty over the islands will be in the hands of Mauritius. In that event, we would lose absolutely everything.

And if the United States wanted to keep its Diego Garcia B, it would probably have to do so by force, while the United Kingdom could no doubt seek to achieve this, China, Russia and other countries could protest very loudly and have international law on their side. It would provide an excuse for any other power to try and take Diego Garcia, and could lead to a major war. Of course, the government can response by saying they this will not happen if we pay on time, and to assure that we will pay.

My Lords, while we are protected from this eventuality by the payment, by completely and always on article 51 places in the United Kingdom, by extension, the United States, in a formally intolerable weak position. My Lords, in order to understand the problems arising from the very weak footing on which the treaty places us for the purpose of negotiating with Mauritius going forward, we must appreciate the huge concerns about what happens in relation to the Chagos Islands beyond Diego Garcia.

Mauritius has a clear incentive arising from the income stream. We have promised to speak to seek additional income streams for leasing other islands or parts of islands. My Lords, and this government has sought to make much of the fact that we have a veto on the deployment of security and defence forces beyond Diego Garcia. But the problem is that the real threats do not announce themselves as the employment of security and defence forces, and are much more subtle, something that begins as a non-security and defence employment in relation to which we have no veto, can evolve into something very different.

An emergent risk in relation to which the treaty affords us no right of veto, but only a right to object. The right to object can only be resolved on a consensual basis within the joint committee between the UK and Mauritius, proposed by the Mauritius Treaty, and could no doubt take a long time if Mauritius wanted it to. It is there here that our complete lack of leverage provided by article 15 one A, is a particular cause for concern.

Mauritius could generally adopt very uncooperative approach on the joint Committee, knowing that if they resist one of our concerns and we counter by threatening to withhold payment subject to satisfactory resolution, this will simply serve to renounce all our remaining rights in relation to the Chagos Islands, giving them completely to Mauritius. Of course, if ever a deployment of non security and defence personnel from another country becomes an emerging risk, and one where in those concern effectively becomes security and defence personnel, the UK would have a right of veto.

The difficulty, however, is that by that stage they will be established in place if and if they do not want to leave, could only be removed by force, threatening war and international instability. Then, if we look at other categories of emerging risk in relation to which we only have powers to lodge objections on the joint committee, we are further confronted by the way in which the terms of the Mauritius Treaty Treaty, especially article 15 one A, are robust, of robust of leverage.

My Lords, these risks would all be avoided if the UK did the right thing and corrected the historic wrong of the forced removal of ions from their islands and afforded them self-determination. While it is plain that not all would vote to be a separate jurisdiction from Mauritius any more than everyone on the islands voted to become a separate jurisdiction from the Gilbert Islands, appalling suggests that a majority would vote to become a resettled, largely self-governing British overseas territory legitimately under British sovereignty.

In this event, none of the above difficulties would arise. Thank you.
15:38
Lord Callanan Portrait Lord Callanan (Conservative)
-
-
My Lords, as. >> My Lords, as. >> We begin our proceedings, a Report stage on this bill today, Report stage on this bill today, let me firstly reiterate our view as the official opposition, that the treaty that the government have agreed with Mauritius puts, in our view, the interests of the British people last. It is an abject surrender that we would never have agreed to. It was mentioned nowhere in the government's election manifesto, and it actually stands in stark contrast to their manifesto commitment to protect the British overseas territories.

The British people were not consulted on this treaty, my Lords, and yet it will see over £34 billion worth of taxpayers money paid to the Government of Mauritius over the lifetime of this treaty. That is a political decision by this government at a time when taxes are being hiked to the British public at an all time high. In stark contrast, the Mauritius Prime Minister said that the money from the Chagos deal will fund debt repayments and tax cuts as part of a budget package that will see 80% of Mauritian workers exempted from income tax.

But it is the it is, of course, not just the British people who have not been consulted, the Chagossians themselves, who have suffered so much over many years and have not had their voice heard in this process, the government have rightly. I am pleased to say, shares some more details about the Chagossian contract group which they have set up, but it really should not have taken forceful pressure from the opposition to deliver that transparency. And even with those details, the Chagossian people have not been formally consulted by the British government on this treaty, and we only have we have only to look at the recent report from the International Relations Committee on the opinion of Chagossians to know exactly what they think of this treaty.

In the other place. We oppose this bill at Third Reading, and we still oppose it. But of course, now that we are at Report stage, we will work constructively with noble Lords across the House to seek to improve the Bill today. Turning firstly to my amendment in this group, my amendment six would require the Secretary of State to seek to negotiate a right to extend the length of the treaty beyond 99 years before it can be ratified. Now, when we suggested this at Committee stage, the noble Baroness Minister explained that article 13 of the treaty establishes the process by which the treaty would be extended up to a limit of 40 years.

One of the problems with that process is that it would require a renegotiation, possibly including yet more additional payments, leaving the British taxpayer exposed to potentially even higher bills at the end of this period, Ministers tell us that the UK will have the right of first refusal of the terms offered to any third party for the use of Diego Garcia following the expiry or termination of the treaty. But how can the UK ensure that those terms are reasonable? We seek clarity from the government, therefore, on what happens at the end of this 99 year period and I hope the noble Baroness, the Minister, will be able this time to provide us more information on the government's understanding exactly of the workability of article 13 of the treaty.

My amendment 40 would require the government to clarify their understanding of the status of the Chagos Islands, should the treaty be terminated again at Committee stage. The noble Baroness, the Minister, emphasised that the circumstances in which Mauritius can terminate a treaty unilaterally are extremely limited, and we accept that. She also told the House that it is highly unrealistic that Mauritius would agree to a reversion to British sovereignty in the event of termination. That leaves open the question of who might agree to transfer of sovereignty with the government of Mauritius.

In a circumstance where Mauritius is sovereign and the treaty is no longer in effect, there is a risk. Is there a risk that the Mauritian government may choose to transfer sovereignty to a third party? What guarantees has the government sought from Mauritius on this? And again, I hope the noble Baroness, the Minister, will be able to provide us with some more detail on those points at this stage in our legislative process. I thank the noble Lords Lord Morrow for his excellent amendment in this group.

He is right to continue to press the government on this point, and we share his concerns about the position should the treaty be terminated. And I look forward to hearing the replies from the noble Lady, the Minister on these points. And finally, turning to the amendments in the name of the noble Lord and gallant Lord Craig of Radley, which has also been supported by the noble and gallant Lord Lord Houghton of Richmond, to well respected members of the House. It would be unconscionable for British taxpayers should be forced to continue to fund the Mauritian government under the terms of the treaty, in circumstances where the military base which the treaty relates to and secure has therefore become inoperable, and therefore we firmly support this amendment.

And should the noble Lord wish to test the opinion of the House on these, these benches would support him in that.
15:44
Lord Kerr of Kinlochard Portrait Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (Crossbench)
-
-
One criterion which the.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Mind as it considers the amendments before us, is whether they would prevent the government from ratifying the treaty. The bill we have to pass a bill before the we have to pass a bill before the treaty can be ratified, and some of these amendments would ensure that these amendments would ensure that ratification could not take place until there had been some until there had been some renegotiation or new negotiation. The House decided at the end of June that it wanted to ratify the treaty.

The House voted for ratification. Lord Callanan. Argue that it should not, but it chose to follow the advice of its International Agreements Committee and voted for ratification of the treaty. Some of the. I believe that consistent with the view we've held up to now, we should not today pass any amendments which would require renegotiation. I think that I believe that for a number of reasons. One is that we would make ourselves an international laughing stock, having spent all these years negotiating this treaty, having secured the strong support of the United States administration and our friends in Canada, Australia, New Zealand, India for this treaty, it would be very peculiar if we decided that, on second thoughts, we don't want to ratify this treaty, but we want to restart negotiations with Mauritius.

I don't know how our American friends would react. They can, as recent history shows, be impulsive. If it it it's conceivable that they might think the best way of securing the use of the base in Diego Garcia would be to switch sides and to decide that a deal between the United States and Mauritius would be better for the United States long term security than the deal that the British have negotiated with Mauritius. It's possible. It's not a risk I would wish to run.

I think we would make ourselves look very strange if we refuse to ratify the treaty. Now, the noble Lord, Lord Callahan's amendment Number six, would require us to renegotiate the treaty to insert a provision that treaty to insert a provision that it could be extended only after 99 years. It could be extended only on the same terms as now exists, or on terms more favourable to the British. Now, I don't know much about Mauritius, but I would have thought that no government in any country could agree that a treaty could be changed only on terms less advantageous to it.

It seems to me to be an absurd proposition that is being put forward here. But in general, my point, I hope, applies to a whole lot of amendments for which I would have much more sympathy, like the amendment tabled by the noble and gallant Lord Craig. I think he has a valid point, but his amendment says that that point has to be explored with the Mauritius government before the treaty can be ratified, and therefore I'm afraid I could not support it.

I'll just like very briefly, to speak to.
15:48
15:50
Baroness Chapman of Darlington Portrait Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Labour)
-
-
My Lords, I first of all, would just like to start by apologising to Lord Craig for not writing to him. But I do hope that I can answer the concerns that he he holds this afternoon. The amendments one and 38, tabled by Lord Craig of Radley, relate to the termination of the treaty based on environmental degradation of Diego Garcia Island. And as I as I'm sure the noble Lord will appreciate, given the importance of the base to both the UK and US national security, we and the US are working hard to make sure that the base is protected from environmental damage.

We have a programme to address coastal erosion and while we can't predict future erosion, specific studies have concluded that the overall land area of parts of the island, not shaped by military construction, decreased by less than a single percentage point over the last 50 years. But I know that's not really the point that he's making. He's using climate change and rising sea levels, but you could equally look to a significant pollution event or a meteor strike or something else could happen, is the point that he's making.

And has the government considered what it would do in the event of this as yet unpredicted and completely unpredictable situation which may arise, rendering the base unusable? That's the that's the the kernel of really what he's trying to get at now, for obvious reasons. We don't want to get into a debate about other future hypothetical scenarios, whether those relate to the base becoming unusable or no longer being needed. It's it's difficult to see happening. And the US, who have invested heavily in Diego Garcia don't want us to.

You know, they they agree that opening up circumstances in which we raise the possibility of the agreement with Mauritius being terminated early isn't helpful. But I do take the noble Lords point that when dealing with the treaty over such a long time period, we do need to at least be aware of the possibility that things can change. And that's why we've included in the treaty the Joint Commission, as a mechanism for agreeing between the UK, the US and Mauritius. Any developments relating to the base that we wish to raise should any of the hypothetical scenarios that I've referred to transpire? These are the sorts of issues that could be discussed in the Joint Commission and decisions taken based on all the circumstances at the time.

We've also included provision in the treaty for the matter to be raised up to prime ministerial level, if that were necessary. Using these mechanisms, the UK and Mauritius would, in close consultation with the United States, agree a way forward. Ultimately, there is provision in the treaty for it to be terminated on two grounds, both of which depend on action by the UK, one of which is a failure to make payments are failure to make payments and the UK, as noble Lords know, abides by its international obligations.

But in any particular case, the government of the day would need to consider its options in light of all the circumstances. Looking at the terms of the treaty, as well as wider international law. And it's this wider international law that we haven't discussed previously, and that I would like to encourage the noble Lord to consider. The noble Lord may wish to bear in mind that the international law of treaties permits the termination of a treaty, when it becomes impossible for the treaty to be performed as a result of the permanent disappearance or destruction of an object indispensable for the execution of that treaty.

So that's wider international law. That is not something that's held within this treaty itself. But I think that that I think that is helpful and hopefully does reassure the noble Lord of his concerns. And I hope that the noble Lord hope that he can see that we're taking steps that are necessary to prevent the base becoming unusable, but that in a hypothetical situation, however hard that might be for us to imagine today that there are processes in place established by the treaty to resolve these, using these, and based on the circumstances of the time, no doubt any future UK government would do what is in the best interests of the UK.

In the same vein, Lord Callanan Amendment number six discusses the ability to extend the agreement at the end of its initial 99 years, and I would like to assure noble, the noble Lord, that there is already provision in the treaty for the treaty to be extended by 40 years, and beyond that, with the agreement of both parties, and even if agreement is not reached, the UK has the right of first refusal. During that first 40 years after the initial period expires, meaning that no other country can use Diego Garcia without the UK being offered use first.

So I can't accept his amendment as it seeks to change a carefully negotiated aspect of the treaty. Similarly, I can't accept Lord Callanan amendment number 40, calling on the Secretary of State to publish a statement of the government's understanding of the legal status of the Chagos Archipelago should the agreement be terminated. The noble Lord is aware that the UK honours its international obligations and is committed to the treaty. The grounds for terminating the treaty are incredibly limited, as I've said, and entirely depend on the UK's actions.

I thought it might be helpful to noble Lord, Lord Craig in particular, just to outline a little bit more detail about the about the law of treaties and what that says, and that I'm relying on in my attempts to persuade him. This afternoon, article 61 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, which the UK and Mauritius are both parties to, provides that any party may invoke the impossibility of performing a treaty as a ground for terminating or withdrawing from it.

If the impossibility results from the permanent disappearance or destruction of an object indispensable for the execution of the treaty. If the impossibility is temporary, it may be invoked only as ground for suspending the operation of the treaty. Impossibility of performance may not be invoked by a party as a ground for terminating, withdrawing from, or suspending the operation of a treaty. If the impossibility is the result of a breach by that party, either of an obligation under the treaty or of any other international obligation owed to other party to the treaty.

And I think that that that does cover the situation that he refers to, which is sea level rise, but would also cover many of the other situations that we are able to, at this stage, envisage occurring in the future. And with that, I hope that noble Lords feel able to withdraw their amendments.
15:58
15:59
16:10
Lord Callanan Portrait Lord Callanan (Conservative)
-
-
My Lords, I rise to move. Amendment two standing in my name. Amendment two standing in my name. Throughout our debates on this bill, we have heard time and again from noble Lords across your Lordships House that the Chagossian people have not been properly consulted by the government, and that is a view on which I heartily agree. This should be formally consulted on the whole of the treaty, and I will come to that point when we address the amendments relating to a referendum of the Chagossian people.

My amendment two, however, sets out an absolute bare minimum of consultation which the government should surely undertake. This bill changes the Chagossian citizens rights. That is a fundamental change in their lives and will result in profound changes in the rights of those people. So could the noble Baroness, the Minister please set out what consultation the government intends to undertake before the provisions relating to Chagossians citizenship rights come into effect? And can she also confirm whether these provisions have been discussed with the Chagossian contact Group and what concerns, if any, were raised by the members of that contact group? Many Chagossians, of course, want to return to their homeland, and I have also tabled my amendment four to give the government the opportunity to go further than the treaty and actually take positive steps to ensure that Chagossians will actually be able to return to their homelands should they wish to.

My amendment five relates to illegal migration and asylum seekers. A committee, the noble Baroness, the Minister, helpfully clarified that Mauritius will be responsible for any illegal migrants who arrive at Diego Garcia. But the terms of annexe two of the treaty qualify the exercise of jurisdiction by Mauritius in respect of illegal migration, by stating that this only applies, and I quote provided such exercise of jurisdiction is in conformity with the requirements of the agreement. So could the noble Baroness the Minister please therefore explain the government's understanding of that qualification, and can she categorically rule out the possibility that the UK might be responsible for any illegal migrants or asylum seekers arriving in the future at the Chagos Islands, including Diego Garcia, as noble Lords will be aware, on the 8th of December 2025, the UN Committee for the Elimination of Racial Discrimination released a report that expressed deep concern about the UK's treaty with Mauritius.

I hope that Lord Kerr and Lord Hannay have taken the time to read that report. They're so keen to know what the UN thinks. We are told that the government's motivation for agreeing the treaty is to address the advisory judgements of international courts. So, therefore, could the noble Baroness, the Minister, please set out how the UK government intends to respond to the UN Committee? What steps will Ministers take to address the concerns and implement those conclusions? And finally, can the noble Baroness, the Minister, give the House an assurance that the government is satisfied that the treaty that they have agreed with the Mauritian government will prevent further legal uncertainty in future? They have spent all their time telling us that the reason for the treaty is to resolve any legal concerns, and yet additional ones have now been raised by the UN about this very agreement.

Turning to my amendment 45 and 46, in respect of the Chagossian Trust Fund Board, delighted that the government have now come forward with further detail on how the board will operate, greater transparency about the operation of the trust fund was one of the key requests that we made of the government last year, and we are pleased to have been able to secure this greater transparency for the Chagossians. The confirmation that Chagossians will have fair representation on the board in particular is, in my view, crucial, and it is vital that those board members champion the rights and interests of Chagossian people.

So can the noble Baroness, the Minister confirm that the Chagossians on the board will not be linked, either through employment or other means, to the Mauritian government, and can. She also confirmed that the fund will in fact be open to all Chagossians, including those who are not Mauritius citizens who wish to be Mauritian citizens or or resident or no resident in Mauritius. Finally, turning to the question of a referendum for the Chagossian people, this is something that has been debated at committee and I know it was also proposed in the other place throughout our debates.

The theme has come up time and time again, is the fact that the government have signally failed to consult the Chagossian people on any of this. The International Relations and Defence Committees short survey of the views of Chagossians and other reports that would be worthy of reading by Lord Hannay and Lord Kerr, bore out just how strongly the Chagossian feel about this bill. We on this side of the House are immensely grateful to that committee. I know they did not have much time to do their work, but they did it swiftly and they did it effectively on this survey, ably supported by their excellent clerk.

So I know worked very hard to complete that work in time. Incidentally, I would be interested in the government's response to that, and I think we've seen anything from them yet. That consultation by the Select Committee is clear that the Chagossian people are far from satisfied with the government's position. Underlying the imperative for the government to undertake its own consultation. I know it is the government's view that the Chagossians have no right to self-determination in law, and I also know how painful it was for the Chagossian people to hear the noble Baroness, the Minister, express that view from the Dispatch Box at Committee stage.

But the government's view on the legal position. It is clear that the Chagossians have, if not illegal, then at least a moral right to be consulted. The International Relations and Defence Committee found in their report that, and I quote, the legal position is widely regarded as morally, morally unsatisfactory. Given the distinct given the Chagossians distinct history. Indeed, at Committee stage the noble Baroness, the Minister herself said, and I quote. However, the situation is that history has taken us to a position where much as we do not like it, and it goes against some of the things that we feel, that we feel, and what we may even argue is the moral case.

The legal situation is, I am afraid, as it is the words of the noble Lady. My Lords, this Bill is, as we have said many times, a political choice. Ministers could have chosen not to do it, and they could have done the right thing. Ministers could have chosen not to consult the Chagossian people before they agreed this treaty. They could have held a referendum of the Chagossian people. And again, they chose not to. The government should stop hiding behind the decisions of international courts, or the potential decisions of international courts, and take ownership of the treaty that they themselves are responsible for.

They have chosen not to consult the Chagossians before proceeding. We disagree with that in the strongest possible terms, and we will support amendments that would deliver the referendum that the Chagossian people morally deserve. My Lords, I beg to move.
16:17
Lord De Mauley Portrait Lord De Mauley (Conservative)
-
-
Amendment proposed clause one, page one, line seven. After the words last inserted, insert the words as printed on the Marshall List. I thought it might help the List. I thought it might help the House if I were to provide a brief overview of the International Relations and Defence Committee's Relations and Defence Committee's recent report, which my noble friend Lord Callanan referred to on Chagossian views on the agreement concerning the Chagos Archipelago, and what I will cover, touches on many of the amendments in this group.

On the 11th of November last year, we were asked by the government and official Opposition Chief Whips to undertake a short piece of work on the impact of the Bill, including on the Chagossian community. A Committee stage the government also invited us to, and I quote the Minister, engage a range of Chagossians to ascertain their views on the implications of the Diego Garcia treaty and to produce a report. We accepted the invitation because we thought it important to allow Chagossians to have their say and believe that our previous work on the agreement meant that we were well placed to do so.

Time, however, was very much against us. Within about a month, we had to launch a mechanism to gather views from a globally dispersed population, allow Chagossians time to respond, and leave us sufficient time to analyse the responses and produce a report in time for the debate today. This time, pressure shaped how we designed and conducted this exercise, leading to our decision to conduct an online survey. Had circumstances allowed, we'd also have held a series of roundtable discussions directly with Chagossian community members and approach we used in our previous work on the agreement.

In the end, the online survey was an imperfect but the only practical option available given the constraints and was no substitute for a proper consultation or referendum. We recognise the challenges this would pose. Potential language barriers, limited digital access and reliance on people submitting responses in good faith. Throughout the process, we have sought to mitigate these, including through direct promotion of the survey among Chagossian community groups, providing translated versions in both French and Mauritian Creole, and adopting a post-collection data checking process to strengthen the robustness of our survey results.

Our survey received over 3000 responses from Chagossians in the United Kingdom, Mauritius, the Seychelles and beyond. This is an extraordinary response rate given the short time available, and shows a high level of engagement from the global Chagossian diaspora, which is believed to number about 10,000. Whilst we cannot claim to have provided a scientific measure of the collective will of the Chagossian people, the high volume of responses gives us confidence that the results provide meaningful insights into Chagossian perspectives on the agreement.

Before going into detail on our findings, it's worth saying that had successive United Kingdom governments conducted a more comprehensive engagement exercise with Chagossians during the negotiations, our survey would not have been necessary. Turning my Lords to our key findings, our survey revealed several strikingly consistent themes. First, a profound and enduring sense of injustice. Many Chagossians described the multi-generational hardships they and their families have experienced as a result of their forcible removal from the islands. Across responses, there was a powerful sense of the economic, cultural and emotional loss.

Many spoke of the need for meaningful compensation to address the injustices experienced, and of a deep desire to return to the islands, whether to visit or to live, and to reconnect with their homeland. Secondly, the survey revealed widespread distrust of the Mauritian government and a scepticism over its willingness and ability to meet Chagossian needs. Whilst not universal, this sentiment was strongest among UK based Chagossians, but was also shared by a significant number of respondents in Mauritius and the Seychelles.

Many highlighted previous ill treatment by the Mauritian government, and expressed concerns that Mauritian led resettlement, financial support and environmental stewardship would not reflect Chagossian priorities. Thirdly, Chagossians expressed a clear desire for greater agency, autonomy and voice in decisions that affect them and the future of the islands. Many felt sidelined by the negotiation process and lacked trust that the agreement would allow their needs to be met, despite the fact that self-determination was not a subject of the survey, it was raised frequently, particularly by UK based Chagossians, who felt strongly that the Chagossian people should have a decisive say over the sovereign status of the islands.

For me personally, my Lords, one of the starkest revelations from the survey is reported at paragraph 44. And I should say, before I refer to the detail before we, because we didn't want to raise false expectations, we deliberately asked no questions about sovereignty. Indeed, there was no mention of it at all in the survey document we published. However, a very substantial proportion of UK respondents, and indeed some from Mauritius, used the free text boxes to make the point strongly that they would prefer the archipelago to remain under British sovereignty.

What makes this so compelling, my Lords, is that this point is so consistently and clearly made, despite the really appalling treatment the British government has meted out to these people. If they would prefer British sovereignty in these circumstances. My Lords, what does it say about the government's decision to grant sovereignty to Mauritius? I'll come back to the government's recent statement later, but let me just say that what it contained was yet another example of the government, with Mauritius making decisions directly affecting Chagossians without involving them in those decisions.

Our survey also provided insights into Chagossian views on the technical aspects of the agreement on resettlement. Respondents asserted the importance of employment opportunities and infrastructure as key enablers for resettlement. The absence of healthcare, education, housing and other basic services were seen as significant obstacles. The exclusion of the island of Diego Garcia, the only island with any real infrastructure, was a particular source of frustration for some. On financial support mechanisms, respondents emphasised the need for direct financial support and for Chagossian led oversight of the £40 million trust fund established under the agreement.

Respondents were clear that meaningful financial support for the Chagossian community is not simply a matter of easing material hardship, but a moral obligation. Chagossians see financial payments as a way to deliver justice and provide redress. In this context, many felt that the £40 million allocated to the trust fund falls short of the scale of harm endured and does not represent adequate reparation. There was also scepticism that Chagossians living in the UK, but also those living elsewhere, would be able to benefit from the fund, given that it's to be administered from Mauritius on marine conservation.

Respondents advocated strongly for approaches that include Chagossian stewardship of marine resources, the importance of integrating traditional chagossian knowledge into modern conservation frameworks was also highlighted by Lords. We offer a cautious welcome to the government's statement of the 15th of December, which addresses some of these concerns, but by no means all. And I'm sure the remaining ones will surface in the debates to come. The statement confirms Chagossians stewardship of the trust fund, albeit with just one UK representative on the 12 member board, which in my personal opinion, gives the relative the likely relative distribution of the Chagossian diaspora does not seem fair.

It also clarifies resettlement criteria which will extend resettlement rights to Chagossians born on the islands and their children, but not their grandchildren, and confirms that Chagossians will be able to hold both British and Mauritian citizenship. Nevertheless, full scale resettlement remains a distant prospect, and heritage visits will continue to be a vital means for Chagossians to be able to re-establish a connection to the islands, and should therefore be reinstated without delay. It's also essential that the government continues to explore ways to increase support for Chagossians in the UK, and ensures that they, too, really can access the benefits benefits of the trust fund.

Finally, my Lords, I would like to thank my fellow committee members and all of the committee staff who worked really very hard to deliver this challenging piece of work against such a difficult time frame. Most importantly, the committee would like to thank the Chagossian people who engaged with our survey. We hope that in a small way, we provided them with a long overdue opportunity to have their voices heard.
16:26
Lord Hannan of Kingsclere Portrait Lord Hannan of Kingsclere (Conservative)
-
-
My Lords, I, I rise to move the amendments in the names. In the name of my noble friend Lord Lilley, who is detained by difficult transport situations in France, perhaps not the only person in that situation, and also in the interest of brevity, to move my own. So I'll be speaking to amendments 12, 13 and 16 and 11 in my law. My noble friend Lord Lily's name, and 24 and 25 in my own name. Some of them make Mauritius responsible for any outstanding reparations claims.

It seems odd that that needs to be said, but such is the asymmetry of this deal in every other regard, that it's worth setting out that it would be a very strange thing if Britain remained liable, despite having handed away the territory. Some of it asks for ratification to be delayed until after. We've heard from your Lordships International Relations and Defence Committee. But there are, again, in the interest of brevity, there are just three things that I want to talk about in this group.

The first is the timing of the ratification process. A judicial review was brought by some diaspora Mauritian diaspora Chagossian, some of them born on the Chagos Islands, some born in exile. It was brought on the 26th of October. There were lengthy and detailed arguments heard that day, and a judgement was initially expected the same day. Then we were told that the ruling would come the following week. Then we were told it would come before Christmas, and now we've been told it will come on the 12th of January So why, my Lords, are we breaking with precedent and convention and rushing ahead with Third Reading without the customary lapse of at least three days between Committee stage and Third Reading? It does seem to me unfortunate that we are creating the appearance of a collusion, where creating the appearance of rushing through the bill so that the judicial review will be in effect.

And that's something that could very easily be anticipated. We could very easily say Baroness Sanderson was talking about she'd never heard Prebuttal. Well, we could we? There'll be a lot of prebuttal and rebuttal in some fairly brutal battle, I suspect, in all of this process. But we could very easily anticipate that criticism simply by observing our normal timetables and and allowing a reasonable time to elapse. The second is the point referred to my by my noble friend Lord Callanan.

The decision on the 8th of December by the UN Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination. I'll just quote it. It called on both Mauritius and the UK to suspend ratification of the agreement and to engage immediately in a renewed dialogue to ensure the free, prior and informed consent of the Chagossian people. Now, given that the entire bill is premised on this government's exaggerated deference to non-binding opinions by courts which have no jurisdiction, that alone ought to have put an end to the entire business.

If we're so in hock to UN bodies without jurisdiction in this case, telling us what they think, and we treat that as final and binding, then why did we do so on the first? But we're not doing so on this. Which brings me to the third point. And the bulk of really what I want to talk about, which is exactly as that committee suggests, why are we not consulting in a meaningful way? The people most concerned, the only people who have ever constituted a permanent population of the Chagos Archipelago.

This should be an utterly uncontentious point. All of us, I hope, believe in the basics of democracy and self-determination. Every party here, according to its own principles, should be standing up for the rights of Chagossian people, my own party, because we believe in sovereignty and we we take seriously the security interests. The Liberal Democrats. The clue is in their name. Party that pioneered the spread of representative government and labour, which always argued for the spread of the franchise to include everybody, to include every group and to empower people who otherwise didn't have a voice.

And as I just see my my old friend Lady Jones leaving the room, I might add that there are also considerable ecological objections to handing the the maritime preservation or in fact, everyone really, other than 1 or 2 of the former permanent secretaries of the FCDO from whom we've heard earlier, should be in favour of asking the people most concerned. And I've never really heard in all the hours a strong argument to the contrary. The noble Lady the Minister is, my noble friend, reminded us.

Just worth quoting this again. She said history has taken us to a position where much as we do not like it, and it goes against some of the things that we feel, and what we may even argue is the moral case. The legal situation is, I'm afraid, as it is, well, for a whole bunch of reasons. I don't believe that the legal position is as it is, the I'm not going to make another Second Reading speech, but the jurisdiction of this court is expressly excluded from disputes between two Commonwealth countries and a number of the the premises on which the original decision was made have been subsequently falsified.

But even if all of that were true, what are we here for then? What's the point of having representative government in this country if we are simply channelling decisions by some overseas court? I mean, there's nothing deterministic about this. We have ABC and we can use it. And you, my Lords, can use it today by supporting the right of the Chagossians to have a voice in their own future. We just heard from my noble friend Lord de Mauley the extraordinary and touching loyalty of this population who were doing a write in option about British sovereignty when they were not asked in the consultation about the sovereignty issue, despite how they've been treated, despite the forcible removal of the population in the late 60s and early 70s, they would still rather return to their ancestral islands as British overseas subjects.

Let's at least apply the most basic principle of self-determination, on which the entire international order rests, and allow them a say. And if I'm wrong, and if they are happy to be numbered, as so many Mauritian citizens, then so be it. And I don't think there'd be a single voice raised against a deal of the kind proposed, if that were to be the case. But if, despite all the wrongs and grievances that they've suffered, the people most involved want to retain British sovereignty, should we not, at least in a structured and formal way, allow them to make that position clear in a referendum?
16:34
Baroness Foster of Aghadrumsee Portrait Baroness Foster of Aghadrumsee (Non-affiliated)
-
-
Yes. >> My Lords, I rise to move my amendment 32, which would require that referendum that we've heard that referendum that we've heard about already of the Chagossian people before any transfer of sovereignty of the British Indian Ocean territory took place. And I thank those noble Lords who have added their names to the amendment. And can I also thank Lord de Mauley for bringing us those results from his committee? I think that they have been very instructive to the debate here this afternoon.

The amendment at its heart is very simple, my Lords. It asks whether a people who were shamefully removed by force from their homeland and who have been denied a voice that the rest of us enjoy, should be finally allowed to speak for themselves. And I believe the answer to that question is yes. Absolutely. Now, the Chagossian community, of course, did not leave their islands by choice. They were removed by the British state and scattered across the world. And since that moment, decisions about their future have been taken over their heads in rooms to which they were not invited about a homeland they were forbidden to return to.

And if there was ever a community entitled to the clearest expression of self-determination, it is this one, my Lords, the noble Lord, the noble Lady. The Minister has argued that a referendum could not alter the terms of the treaty, but that is to misunderstand the purpose of this amendment, or indeed any other amendment which calls for the right of self-determination for the Chagossian community. The issue is not whether a referendum rewrites international law, but it is whether Parliament is prepared to authorise the transfer of sovereignty without the consent of the people most directly affected by it.

This House has both the historic right and the responsibility to insist that consent comes first. And we've already heard that the UN Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination published their opinion on the 8th of December. So that is something new in the international sphere, which we hear so much referred to in this House. They give their opinion on the process of this treaty and some of its contents, especially in relation to the explicit prevention on the return of the Chagossian people to their ancestral lands and Diego Garcia, and in relation to the process which the government has engaged in, the Committee said, and I quote, that a lack of meaningful participation of Chagossian people is affecting their rights and lands, and restricting the exercise of their right of self-determination.

Close quote. So the UN Committee clearly believes, despite all that, we've been told a Committee stage, that Chagossians have a right of self-determination, and I would be very much obliged to hear from the noble Lady, the Minister, on this specific point, when she responds later on. I also worry greatly that the proceed without consent from the Chagossian people would establish a deeply troubling precedent, and one that I know was already feared by other populations across our cherished overseas territories.

If sovereignty of one overseas territory can be transferred without the freely expressed will of its people, then no charity can be entirely reassured. Self-Determination cannot be conditional on convenience, nor on the balance of diplomatic pressure exerted on the UK by a coalition of our adversaries, either through an international court issuing a binding and non-binding advisory opinion, or indeed by other means in all other parts of our British Overseas Territories. There is a very simple principle which is acknowledged by everyone.

People get to decide their own future. But my Lords, the Chagossians are told that this principle does not apply to them because they're not a permanent population. That argument cannot possibly stand because it was our government that made them not a permanent population. The UK government ensured that they couldn't be to deny them. Then self-determination on that basis is to compound a historic injustice with a present one. Now, of course, the government will be aware that there is now a Chagossian government in exile denied a voice yet again by the government, who trumpets its respect for international law.

The Chagossians have now elected their own leader here in the United Kingdom, a government in exile, if you will. Surely our government must now acknowledge they have got it wrong in not seeking the views of Chagossians before handing away their homeland to Mauritius. What is striking is that the Chagossian community is united in a call for a referendum. The noble Lady, the Minister, will refer to a broad range of views within the Chagossian community on sovereignty. And that's absolutely true. But the community have consistently referred to the right to self-determination, whether they live in the UK or in the Maldives or in the Seychelles.

The Chagos Refuge Group, which seems to be the only group that the UK government engages with, has only ever called for self-determination. Similarly, the UK Chagossian groups, including Chagossian, Voices by Citizens and others have echoed that call across generations and across the diaspora. They are asking the same thing not special treatment, but equal treatment. Not a veto over foreign policy, but a voice for their own destiny. But my Lord, taking that wide range of views into account, in which the Minister in this place and in other places repeatedly repeats frequently, it is clear that this amendment does not dictate the outcome of a referendum.

It does not presume what the Chagossians will decide as the noble Lord. Lord Hannan has said, it simply says that they must be asked, and the answer must matter. If we're serious about self-determination, if we believe that it's a principle and not a slogan, then we cannot exempt the Chagossians from it. And I urge the House to support this amendment in a cross-party spirit and affirm that no people, especially ones so wronged so grievously by the UK government, should be denied the right to decide their own future.

In closing, I want to refer to amendment 33, referendum two, in the name of Lord Purvis of Tweed. And whilst I of course believe my amendment is a better one, Lord Purvis as it is a condition precedent to the treaty being implemented, I will also support referendum two, amendment 33 because, as we say in Ulster, half a loaf is better than no bread. And my Lords, despite that, I hope that noble Lords will support amendment 32.
16:41
Lord Craig of Radley Portrait Lord Craig of Radley (Crossbench)
-
-
Very good. >> Very good. >> My thank you. Thank you, my Lord. I regret I missed the opportunity I regret I missed the opportunity to add my name in support of the noble Baroness. Amendment number 32. It is remarkable and significant that there is sufficient interest in the Chagossian community after so many years since they and their forebears were evicted to form with due process, a government in exile, but already exchanged emails with a nominated First Minister, Mr.

Leslie Mandarin, the noble Lady. The Minister was perhaps too optimistically dismissive in committee when she suggested that there was insufficient Chagossian presence on the atoll to form or justify an independent authority. There are none there. They were evicted in the 1970s. There was also the recent finding of the UN Committee on the Elimination of Racial Racial Discrimination to consider, as the government considered whether this might influence the thinking and advisory findings of the International Court, which triggered this government's search for a long term arrangement for Diego Garcia as a military base.

I note, too, that the other neighbours for neighbours of the Chagos Archipelago, the Maldives, have raised seemingly legitimate human rights concerns about the government's methods of now rushing these matters through this House. The number of amendments before the House at Report stage is a reasonable measure. Of the many concerns that are held in this House, so the treaty has been agreed. I urge the government to proceed at a measured pace to allow these many concerns to be properly and fully considered.

Indeed, can the government reassure the House there is no set time limit for these national procedures to be considered, that if they were to be exceeded, it might invalidate the treaty as signed on the 26th of May, 2025.
16:43
Baroness Hoey Portrait Baroness Hoey (Non-affiliated)
-
-
My Lord, before I move my amendments 33 A and amendment 18, I totally support the noble Baroness Foster in her moving of amendment 32 and hope that noble Lords would accept that that is a really sensible way forward. So much has happened even since we started talking about this issue a while ago. We've heard about the committee report. I want to thank the noble Lord Morley for a very, very good report, which ends up saying what many of us have thought that overall, whether we can say every obviously not every Chagossian but Chagossians do feel that they want to stay as part of a British Islands archipelago.

And I want to say that we wouldn't actually be here if originally there'd been no force removal. Had the people of Chagos Islands then been afforded a self-determination referendum back in 1965, as were the Ellice Islands, prior to their detachment from the Gilbert Islands. And, you know, the the UN Committee of the Elimination of Racial Discrimination report is new. It's something that I don't understand why the government is pushing this so quickly, why, you know, why is it being rushed through? Why are we having a Report stage in a Third Reading all in the same week when there is so, so much controversy over this issue? It really does seem very, very strange.

And I know that people in this house always say, oh no, there's no such thing as conspiracy. But somehow I have to think that there might just be a little bit of conspiracy around about this whole issue. But as I say, I support totally 32 and I support the noble Lord Purvis 33 as well, because I think that I think sometimes it's better to have the what the bird in the hand is worth something if you can't get the two birds in the hand.

But I do hope that noble Lords will in fact vote for 32. Now, my amendment 33 is very. Just wanted to add a little amendment to the noble Lord Purvis, and he might want to just explain why he couldn't accept it, because it was simply adding to it the fact that there should be negotiated referendum of the Chagossian people. But I really want to deal with amendment 18, because this, to me, goes to the heart of the constitutional responsibility and the parliamentary integrity and respect for the rule of law.

But most importantly, it seeks to give respect to a people that have had precious little from any government over the years. The. At its heart, this amendment wants to do no more than give the court, our court, an opportunity to tell us if the Chagossians have rights we should be considering before we conclude this bill's passage. This amendment does not seek to determine the outcome of any court case. It does not trespass upon the independence of the judiciary. It does something far more modest and far more important.

It ensures that Parliament does not irrevocably legislate away rights, territory and legal status while alive. Judicial review directly concerning the lawfulness of the government's actions remains unresolved. The judicial review has been mentioned by the noble Lord Hannan Louis Misley Mandarin versus the foreign, Commonwealth Development Office. Concerns fundamental issues arising from the proposed transfer of sovereignty it's been brought to by the Chagossians themselves with help from various people, including Great British PAC people, the people whose lives, identity, nationality and future are directly affected by this bill.

The judgement as to whether the case can proceed was originally expected to be decided in October. Then it was moved to Lord Barber, then December, and we're now told that the judgement will not be handed down on the 12th until the 12th of January. Very strange then, that this is being rushed through the week before that judgement. By then, of course, if the government gets its way, the Bill will have completed its passage through Parliament. And if this bill proceeds without a pause, the court will be asked to rule on a situation that Parliament has already made irreversible.

That would risk rendering the judicial review academic not because the claim lacks merit, but because Parliament moved too fast. My Lords, that should trouble every member of this House, because we prided ourselves on acting as a constitutional long stop. We are not here merely to nod through government legislation, as has been said by the noble Lord Hampton, we are here to ensure that law is made carefully, proportionately and with full regard to legal process. It's a well established principle that Parliament should be slow to legislate in a manner that pre-empts or undermines live judicial proceedings.

Judicial proceedings, particularly where those proceedings concern the rights of a specific, identifiable group. This amendment does not block the bill. It does not frustrate government policy. It simply says this let us wait for the courts to speak before we switch on provisions that would distinguish extinguish British Indian Ocean Territory status for most of the archipelago, alter nationality law, and give effect to an irreversible transfer of sovereignty that is not obstruction. That is prudence, in my view. Now, the government may say it's confident in its legal position.

If that's so, then it's nothing to fear from waiting a matter of weeks for the judgement to be handed down, considered and reported to Parliament. And if the government is not prepared to wait, then, as I said earlier, we have to ask why the Chagossian people have already experienced what happens when decisions about their homeland are taken hastily without consultation. They were removed before the law could protect them. Their voices were ignored, their rights were treated as expendable, and this House now has a chance to show that we've learnt from that history.

This amendment does not take sides, even in the litigation. It respects the court, it respects Parliament and it respects the principle that irreversible legislation should not be rushed through while its legality is actively being test. I would therefore urge noble Lords to support this amendment not as a political gesture, but as a statement of the constitutional responsibility. Let us pause. Let us wait for the judgement and let us legislate with our eyes fully open. I commend this amendment to the House I.
16:50
Lord Morrow Portrait Lord Morrow (Democratic Unionist Party)
-
-
I wish to speak to the amendments which I have attached my name and in the grouping, and also name and in the grouping, and also to speak in support of amendment 32 to the amendments which I'm to the amendments which I'm speaking to are 23, 24, 25, 27, 52, 53 and 32. I will begin with amendment 24. Since Committee stage, there have been a number of critical developments. Some have already referred to those today. The rationale for this bill and the treaty to which it relates, was that there are essential, if we are to uphold the international rules based order.

And yet, on the 2nd of December, a key organ of the rules based international order, the UN Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, issued a formal decision, the substance of which I must put on the record. The decision, and I quote, calls upon Mauritius and the United Kingdom government of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to suspend the ratification of the bilateral agreement. Urges Mauritius and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to engage immediately with the Korean people to respect and guarantee their human rights.

Under the convention, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, including their right to return to their ancestral lands in Diego Garcia Island. Their right to self-determination, while ensuring the full and meaningful participation of people in all decision making processes impacting them and their land. Their culture rights, including their access to cultural and spiritual sites, and to preserve their cultural heritage and also their right to effective remedies and full repatriation, including restitution, compensation, rehabilitation.

Satisfaction and guarantees of non-repetition. Thus, my Lords, we are confronted not simply by an organ of the rules based international order criticising the Mauritius Treaty and the Bill before us today, but actually calling on the suspension of treaty ratification. It is particularly striking that this decision flatly contradicts what the noble Baroness, the Minister, said on the 18th of November, when she asserted that self-determination does not pertain to the people from the perspective of the rules based international order, it clearly does apply to them.

And that is why it is imperative that today we vote for amendment 32, although already eloquently spoken by Baroness Foster. My Lords, if the government is intent on continuing with ratification, then your Lordships House faces an immense responsibility because we constitute the one and other means by which ratification by can be suspended for 13 months if we refuse to give the bill a Third Reading in the intervening period, there can be time for a rethink, and the development of a response to the present presenting difficulty which, rather than obstructing and thereby distorting one principle of international law above all others, colonial territorial integrity places that principle in its proper relationship to self-determination.

Obviously, I hope that when the noble Baroness, the Minister, responds, she will indicate that the government will not pursue the treaty of ratification. But if she does not, the responsibility that we face will be very clear, quite apart from all the other problems with the treaty and the Bill, the fact that rather than upholding the is absolute in the sense that it is subject to self-determination, as the history of Czechoslovakia eloquently testifies, this point is greatly compounded in relation to territorial integrities that have been imposed by imperial powers, such as that pertaining to the colonial unit that covered Mauritius and the Chagos Islands prior to the 8th of November 1965.

In this regard, it is quite impossible to understand the great wrong done the people, if we only have regard to their forced removal. The root of the difficulty goes back to the decision to deny them the right of self-determination in 1965, which, if provided, would have made their forced removal between 1968 and 1973 unthinkable. In this context, my Lords, neither the advisory judgement nor anything else in international law states that it is wrong for the territorial integrity of a colonial unit to be changed prior to decolonisation.

If this change is made to give effect to the principle of self-determination. This point is eloquently demonstrated by the experience of the Gilbert and Ellice Islands, which provide what is arguably the most relevant comparator to Mauritius and the islands. When the Gilbert Islands and the islands were separated by 800 miles and comprised of different people groups, they were in this same colonial unit. When the government in the UK government proposed decolonisation, the representatives of the Ellice Islands strongly objected to the notion of a new independent sovereign state, consisting of the two sets of islands.

Because quite apart from the distance between them and the fact there were from different people groups, the population of Gilbert Islands was far greater than the such that the latter would be condemned to being permanently outvoted by what they regarded as another country. The UK government responded by suggesting a self-determination referendum, in which the options were a remaining part of the same jurisdiction as the Gilbert Islands, and B becoming a separate jurisdiction in their own right.

Well, Lord Swire not everyone supported separation. A very clear majority did, and the UK then detached the islands, creating a separate colony in 1976, which went into effect in to become the independent state. State of Tervola in 1978, while the Gilbert Islands became the independent state of Kiribati in 1979, the imperative of the provision of a self-determination referendum of the questions in 1965 was even greater than the pertaining the Gilbert and Ellice Islands, because the distance between Mauritius and the Chagos Islands were significantly greater, as was the population differential, the questions standing as far greater risk of being permanently outvoted by the Mauritians there was and is, however, an even greater imperative for the provision of a self-determination referendum for the questions which is testified by the definition of the presenting difficulty by the advisory opinion.

On page one, it states and I quote. Between 1814 and 1965, the archipelago was administered by the United Kingdom as a dependency on of the colony of Mauritius, my Lords. Therefore, the relationship between the islands was never on all fours with Mauritius and rather give effect to colonise colonies within a colony such that rather than being a full part of the colony of Mauritius, the islands were only ever dependency of the colony of Mauritius.

Being on all fours is central to being part of the same territorial integrity for the reasons set out by the UN resolutions set out in amendment 23, the absence of complete equality of citizenship demonstrates not the negation of colonialism but its presence. This, however, was completely absent, as demonstrated by the failure of the constitution of the Colony of Mauritius to make provision for the election of representatives of the islands to the Mauritian Legislative Council. All this, my Lord, sets out the very clear imperative for our voting in support of amendment 32 today.

This takes me neatly to into amendment 25. The Mauritius Treaty implies that the questions want to be part of Mauritius, such that change in the territorial integrity of the islands back to its pre-november 1965 days when the islands were a dependency of Mauritius, is the right and proper thing to do. There are, however, four major difficulties with this in the first sentence as a dependency of Mauritius rather than a full part of Mauritius, the questions were even at the happiest time of the relationship with Mauritius, a subject about.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

Why not? And the second instance. This

**** Possible New Speaker ****

And the second instance. This difficulty was greatly compounded by the willingness of the Mauritian by the willingness of the Mauritian Council of Ministers to accept £3 million in 1965 to become a party to the forced removal of the to the forced removal of the casinos, agreeing to receive them from the islands. Had they been part of the same people civilly, this would have been unthinkable and they would have fought for the rights of their brothers and sisters, not citizens.

Not to be

**** Possible New Speaker ****

subject to this indignity. May I gently remind all noble

**** Possible New Speaker ****

May I gently remind all noble Lords that arguments are deployed at Committee stage should not be repeated at length on report.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

repeated at length on report. My Lords, I rise to speak to in support of amendment 32, to which I
17:01
Baroness Meyer Portrait Baroness Meyer (Conservative)
-
-
support of amendment 32, to which I have added my name, giving the Chagossian people a say before their homeland is transferred to Mauritius is not an unreasonable demand. It is basic justice. At its heart lies the principle of self-determination embedded in international law and central to the United Kingdom's own foreign policy tradition. Article one of the United Nations Charter affirms the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples. It is the very principle the United Kingdom has relied upon in relation to the Falkland Islands and Gibraltar, where referenda were rightly held, and the will of the people to remain British was respected.

Self-Determination is not a modern invention, and it has been the Constitution and it has underpinned, sorry, the constitutional settlement of all Britain's overseas territory. There is no principled reason why it should not apply here. The Chagossians are a people. They have their own language, their own culture and traditions and a distinct identity that has endured despite expulsion. Above all, they have a profound and enduring connections to their islands. Despite their expulsion between 68 and 1973, they have remained a cohesive people, the majority of whom oppose the transfer of their island to Mauritius.

As Lord as the noble Lord Morley, so clearly indicated in his speech earlier. It is therefore extraordinary that a government which claims to champion human rights and the rule of law is asking this House to approve legislation that enables the most profound constitutional decision imaginable for the people the disposal of their homeland, without giving them any opportunity to vote on their future. As mentioned earlier, even the United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination has expressed serious concerns about the lack of consultation, calling for the ratification to be suspended and for the free, prior and informed consent of the Chagossian people to be secured.

This government speaks readily of historic injustice and reparation, and therefore asks the noble Lord, the noble Lady, I'm sorry, the Minister, why are those principles not applied to the Chagossian people, a people who were expelled from their homeland? This is an injustice. It is an old grievance. It is a living one. It shapes how this bill will be just judged not only by the Chagossian, but by the wider world. International law does not require the silencing of people.

On the contrary, it protects their right to determine their own future, but to hand over their islands, to extinguish their British Chagossian identity without first asking their opinion would be a terrible injustice, and it would not go unnoticed. It would be remembered by other people, not least those in British overseas territories, who look at this Parliament to uphold the principle of their future in their is theirs to decide. This amendment offers the House a chance to uphold that principle, to break the cycle of exclusion, and to begin a right to right, a historical wrong for the sake of the Chagossian and for the integrity of this House.

I urge other noble Lords to support this amendment. I would also like quickly to support Amendment Amendment 13, in the name of Lord Lily, which states that this act will only come into force once all outstanding legal actions, including appeals by the Chagossian people, have been determined. So this failure is bizarre. A judicial review challenging the exclusion of the Chagossian from meaningful consultation has been heard and were awaiting judgement. As many noble Lords before me mentioned, the arguments have concluded the ruling is imminent, possibly as soon as the 12th of January in a week's time.

Yet the government is pressing ahead regardless. This is not a technicality. It is vital democratic safeguard proceeding with legislation and a treaty ratification before the court has ruled, raises serious constitutional concerns. So may I ask the noble Lady, the Minister, why has this debate been tabled before the court ruling has been delivered? Why not wait a week? And why the usual three day rule between report and Third Reading has been ignored. Other noble noble Lords raises this point.

Does the government wish to conclude a treaty and lock in the transfer before the court has had its say, possibly in favour of Chagossian rights to self-determination? If this is not the intention of the government, then it must explain its actions to this House.
17:07
Lord Bellingham Portrait Lord Bellingham (Conservative)
-
-
My Lords, I will please the >> My Lords, I will please the government by being extremely brief. I spoke at length on Second Reading and Committee stage, and I also contributed, I think, on every single question we've had on this subject. So I will be very brief. But I do agree entirely with the noble Baroness Baroness Hoey and indeed Baroness Meyer. Why have we got this indecent rush? Why can't the government wait until the UK High Court case judgement? And why are we having a Third Reading so quickly after the Report stage? You know, I just don't understand why the government is pushing it so quickly, particularly when they know that many noble Lords and and Baroness are still away.

And a slip of the first part of this week. Now, my Lords, there are, in my opinion, two very important developments that have taken place which have been referred to already, particularly by the noble Lord Lord Hannan. But the UN Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, 18 independent experts. Their role is to monitor the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination. It's an important UN committee in Geneva. It's an important tribunal equivalent to a court within the UN family.

And of course, its opinion is advisory. And I'd simply suggest to the Minister, the two Ministers that they've made great play of, even though the other two UN court decisions were advisory, the government felt compelled for many reasons, to go along with them. We heard a lot about the rules based system were quite well values. Now, after what's happened in Venezuela, I don't know. We've heard a lot about the global South, about our reputation in the UN. And the government have said that for these reasons and many other ones, they've got to go with those UN advisory judgements.

So why are those judgements different to this one, if indeed the government are taking those advisory decisions so seriously, why don't they pause and listen to what the UN committee has just said in what, frankly, my Lords, was an excoriating judgement. Anyone who reads it can only go away, concluded that the UN Committee are really very concerned indeed about the treatment of the Chagossian people, and I certainly would echo the points made by a number of noble Lords. And incidentally, it's very excellent to see Lord Lilley here after his travels in getting here from France.

But, my Lords, one of the things that struck me when I first dealt with this case as the Minister of the Overseas Territories and I started meeting different groups of Chagossian people, was the extraordinary way in which they were forgiving of the UK government, in spite of the way they'd been treated. So surely amendment 32 is not actually asking a great deal. They deserve a referendum. And the second point, which I think has also changed significantly in terms of the overall climate in which we are looking at this, is indeed the Chagossian government that's been set up in exile.

Now, I've had a look at that, and every single one of the groups that have commented on this initiative have said that it's a very good idea indeed. Indeed, one of one of the many aspects of dealing with the Chagossian people has been the infighting between different factions, the number of factions and different countries, and the extent to which very often they don't agree on anything. But they agree on one thing, and that is that this Chagossian government in exile is a good thing, and it should be listened to.

They're taking it incredibly seriously. So, my Lords, in that spirit, we've had, I think, two very major changes in the overall situation. First of all, the UN committee in Geneva. Secondly, the setting up of this government in exile. So those reasons, I very much hope the Minister will agree to actually postpone the whole progress of this bill. And I'd also urge the House to vote for number 32, because that will send an incredibly strong signal, not just to the chosen people, but we feel deeply about them, but also to the government, so we can have a proper referendum so we can actually hear and we can consult with them, and we can make do and make up for some of the wrongs of the past.

Yes.
17:12
Lord McCrea of Magherafelt and Cookstown Portrait Lord McCrea of Magherafelt and Cookstown (Democratic Unionist Party)
-
-
I like I rise to support amendment 32, standing in the name amendment 32, standing in the name of Barnes, Foster, Baroness May and Lord Cunningham and Lord Hannan in Lord Cunningham and Lord Hannan in this grouping, and also Lord Purvis amendment 19 and 23. The proposal that they meant in 32 addresses is one, in my opinion, of major importance. It states that the Secretary of State must arrange a referendum on whether the British Indian Ocean Territory remains a British Overseas territory, or be transferred to and become a sovereign territory of the Republic of Mauritius.

And then there are other actions as well. Surely the opinion of a Chagossians is of fundamental and undeniable, undeniable importance. In fact, this should have been the very first step in the government's approach to the issue. To begin with. Are the honourable speaking in the chamber on the 18th of November about the Chagossian community, an entire group of people omitted from the process and left outside in the cold. It was my absolute privilege to have met with many of them during their visit to Parliament, and their personal stories have left an indelible mark upon my mind.

My Lords, I wish to reiterate that precious right of self-determination and consultation by by affirming my support for the Samantha. If accepted, this amendment would provide that no transfer of sovereignty over the British Indian Ocean Territory may take place until a majority of the Chagossian supported, and that all eligible Chagossians, whether wherever they live, must be able to take part. Now, that principle should not be controversial. Neither should it be awkward. The right of peoples to self-determination is not a slogan to be deployed selectively either.

We fundamentally believe in self-determination or we do not. It is a cornerstone of international law, and one that this country has consistently championed. We only have to cast our minds back to 2002. Gibraltar referendum 2013 Falkland Islands referendum, both concerning the maintenance of British sovereignty. It is entirely in the spirit of constitutional referenda that this process should be conducted. The sacred right of self-determination ought to go hand in hand with the sacred British sovereignty of overseas territories.

They should not be treated as spectators to their own fate, spectators to a decision principally and directly affecting only their homeland, not ours. They deserve to have a say in the future of their own land. And yet the government should choose not to accept the noble Lady. Baroness Prosser amendment will have deliberately snubbed the Chagossian people and consigned them to a status of citizenship that is second class to that of other overseas territories. Now, Lord, we should remind ourselves of the fact that British sovereignty owes much to the people.

Their community has experienced unimaginable hardship, betrayal since their forcible removal from the islands all those years ago. Successive governments acknowledge this travesty, though seemingly the current government has not learned from it. This amendment is not about frustrating diplomacy, rather it is simply about the right of the Chagossian voice to be heard loud and clear. My Lord, this is an entire group of people, a whole cultural identity with values, language, history, ancestry. We have no right to assault their immutable, these these immutable things.

The Chagossian community has been broken enough. What do they get from this? Where is their compensation and where is their consideration? I am a proud Ulsterman. I don't think anyone can doubt that. I know what it is to feel, to have your identity trampled on, to have your culture vandalised, your voice ignored, your citizenship invalidated. It is because of my own experience that I refuse to stand by and watch it happen to yet another group of proud British citizens in the Chagos Islands.

My Lords, I plead with the House, please think of the people that's hurting here. It's about them. These amendments offer the government a chance to proceed with legitimacy and moral authority, for without it, the bill risks entrenching the perception that the Chagossians are once again being spoken for rather than listened to. And therefore, I urge all noble Lords to support this amendment.
17:17
Lord Kempsell Portrait Lord Kempsell (Conservative)
-
-
My Lords, how can I add to the >> My Lords, how can I add to the tour de Oraison we've had from the benches on this side of your Lordships' House, and indeed all Lordships' House, and indeed all sides, as we consider this group, a group of amendments all about the rights, the moral rights, the legal rights of the Chagossian people who have been ignored, marginalised and set completely out of this government's process in the handling of this bill, if only to add very briefly, as I know we want to move to the end of the group to dwell on the double standard that is now at the heart of this debate.

After the report by the United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination. My Lords, if we had a grain of sand for the number of times the weight, the amount of space and gravity that was given by this government to non-binding opinions, rulings, mandates, exhortations, and other statements by international bodies of any form, we would be able to recreate the shoreline of the Chagos Archipelago, except when it comes to the report from the United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, which, as noble Lords have adumbrated.

My noble friend Lord Hannan has an amendment in his name, amendment 24, which I wish to support on this point. Noble Lords have adumbrated the. The brutal nature of the statement that was released by that body, totally condemning this bill. The United Nations intervening in the legislative process and suggesting that ratification should be paused altogether. The United Kingdom has been a state party to the convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination since the 7th of March, 1969, there are more than 180 states party to that convention.

Can I ask the noble Lady, the Minister, who I know is doing her utmost to manage an unmanageable and controversial bill? Just what is the UK government's response to the UN Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination? How can this bill possibly be in line with the commitments that the UK government made under that convention, to work to eliminate all forms of racial discrimination, when the committee itself has been so clear, in its view, on this government's policy.

And may I also add my support to the speech of my noble friend Lord Bellingham, who dwelt on the status of this body in the UN family and the UN system, at a time when these questions feel so timely and we feel them so sharply, is the government really willing to ride roughshod over that opinion and completely ignore it?
17:20
Lord Grocott Portrait Lord Grocott (Labour)
-
-
Very good. Thank you. my Lords, I particular reason for wanting to speak today is, is the fact of being on the committee, the Irdc committee. And I really am proud of the fact that we completed a near impossible task which was given to us by Parliament, which was to try and summarise the findings, the feelings of the Chagossian community on the UK Mauritius Agreement. And we had, I don't know precisely, but it felt like about ten days to to organise that, to supervise it and to draw up a report and the credit for that more than anything should go to our chairman Lord de Mauley and to the Secretariat, who I think were quite outstanding to have done that job in basically a few days before Christmas.

An impossible job, but an absolutely belated one in terms of why don't we ask the Chagossians what they think about all this? And, and, and a good job was done, in my view. And that's really at the heart of everything is the question of the views of the Chagossians or what's happened to them, perhaps more more specifically than that, because throughout all these debates and I've been involved in most of them, one way or another, there is this black cloud over the debate, over all the amendments, over all the speeches, and that is the awareness of the profound injustice that was done in a short six year period under Labour and Conservative governments to remove some 1400 to 1700 people from their homeland in the most objectionable circumstances.

I constantly ask myself, why? Why isn't it more of a cause celebre than it is, really? And I can only answer that by saying that it was a small number of people. Well, it's not a small number of people. If you're one of the people affected, the the effect the people affected, the the effect is 100%. And if more people had been involved, I suppose it goes without saying. There would have been far more of an outcry about what happened. And I won't repeat some of the things that have been said in the past, by the way in which it was done.

I think we all recognise that. I think subsequent governments have recognised that. But it begs the question of what, if anything, can we do? It's not not some crime committed in the ancient past. It's a crime committed within the lifetime of many people in this house. But what can we, in practical terms, do to put it right now? We've heard a lot today, and I'm not unsympathetic to this about holding a referendum. All I would say is, well, number one, we've had something that has many of the characteristics of a referendum by means of our report, though I'm sure there are plenty of statisticians and experts on these things that would say it could be done far more effectively and far better.

But I can say this that I'm 99% confident that I know what the result of a referendum would be. It would probably be inconclusive in terms of a huge majority. There are divisions amongst the Chagossian community that we know about, but if I read our key themes, which Lord de Mauley has already referred to, they are, in my view, the inevitable consequences or would become the inevitable consequences of holding a referendum. My guess is that a referendum would find a line here.

The profound suffering felt by Chagossian communities at their displacement, and a yearning for redress that'll be found without doubt. Secondly, concern that the Mauritian government may not be able to fulfil its aspirations. The aspirations of the Duke Gaussians that will undoubtedly be found, and this a clear desire for greater Chagossian agency in future decisions about the island. So don't expect anything stunning if if the amendment was passed and there was a referendum, it would take time. It would be challenged by whoever were to lose it.

Should the result be narrow? Because we do know there are clear and distinct divisions amongst the Chagossians and arguments, of course, about who would be eligible to vote. The usual arguments about referendums, but writ large in the case of of this one. So but in my view, the we can't redress the injustices of the past. We should focus our attention, not on speculation as to maybe prolonging the process or further referrals to further committees. We should concentrate at the heart of the practical things that could be done.

And in my view, there's one above all else, what the Chagossians want more than anything is the right, whether they exercise it or not, to return to the islands, to their homeland, even if it's only for visits. But they that is what they want. Now, we're told by the military, and I've got no reason to dispute this, that that is simply not feasible so far as Diego Garcia is concerned. And the Minister from the Commons, Stephen Doughty, who came before our committee at an earlier report when we produced one, had this to say.

And I think even those of you who. Perhaps haven't been in Parliament that long, or listening to Minister's responses that for a long time will see the flaw in this particular response from the Minister when I asked, why can't Chagossian people work at the depot? Why can't they live side by side with the military if that is what they some of them wish to do? And I was told that operationally it is unsuitable and inappropriate. Now, unsuitable and inappropriate are pretty slippery terms and they don't satisfy me by any means unless they can be elaborated upon.

And that is what I come to speak to my noble friends on the front bench about. I would like to have explained to me why on Diego Garcia, which is the only island in practical terms, that is likely to be desire for people to inhabit it or re-inhabit it. What is it especially about this military base that makes it impossible for civilian workers to work, live and work on that island in obviously a different part of the island, wherever you go in the United Kingdom, you will find examples of the military working alongside workers that go into the depot every morning through security and go back home in the evening.

And I've so far had no satisfactory answer to that question. But I do know that, you know, an ounce of help is worth a pound of pity, that if a practical proposal could be put forward to the Chagossians to say, contract workers work there all the time, we will give first refusal for any contract work that's required to native born Chagossians. That doesn't seem to me to be an unreasonable request. We've mentioned it in our report, but it does seem to me to be action rather than words.

So I close really with wishing we weren't in this position, wishing that this particularly shameful period of British history hadn't happened. But there's no point in in simply omitting words of anguish. What's needed now is 1 or 2 practical attempts to make the lives of Chagossians who are unjustly treated more acceptable. And I've

**** Possible New Speaker ****

put that to my front bench. It's it's always informative to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

It's it's always informative to follow the noble Lord, apart from when he's having his witty barbs against my party, which is often, against my party, which is often, often the case. But I think that he made a very strong case today, and I hope that he may feel as if his I hope that he may feel as if his points were reflected in part of the text in my amendment 33. This has been an important debate on a has been an important debate on a on a group I for since its report.

I will simply focus on the amendments that I rise to move on 19 and then, although it would be
17:30
Lord Purvis of Tweed Portrait Lord Purvis of Tweed (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
considered consequential, the more substantive amendment 33, I am substantive amendment 33, I am aware that my amendment 33 for the noble Ladies and foster will be a noble Ladies and foster will be a bird in one hand and half a loaf in the other. But but nevertheless, the other. But but nevertheless, I'm grateful for their for their prospective support. And I give prospective support. And I give notice to the House that I will likely test the opinion of the House on on amendment 19.

And I understand that the government has indicated that if 19 is supported, then 33 will be considered consequential. For the avoidance of doubt. And I know it's disappointing for her, but I we cannot support 33 a as that change would in effect link the arguments in my amendment with those on amendment 32, which I'll outline a little bit further. Now, the House has heard me on many occasions referred to the lack of legislative guarantees of the rights of the Chagossian community, including those that the noble Lord Lord Grocott Lord Grocott, has indicated with regard to the right of participation within Diego Diego Garcia in particular, as well as resettlement into the wider archipelago.

But I because its report, I will not rehearse the arguments I previously made, but my amendments do seek to resolve this as best that I've been able to, to draft, and I hope that the government will even at this stage, reconsider and support them. Amendment 33 states that to address the lack of the definitive legal right enshrined in statute in Mauritius law and acknowledged in the UK, we need to formally seek the views of the Chagossian community if they are willing to consent to the terms of the implementation of the Treaty on Rights.

That so far is only a permissive nature within the treaty, and that is the essence. If we are talking about self-determination, there's no point simply referencing self-determination if there are no, no legal rights to back it up. And that is the essence of what I'm seeking to chair achieve. That will include the resettlement to the archipelago, distinct from Diego Diego Garcia, but the right of participation in opportunities of working in Diego Garcia, and the statutory involvement in the decision making of the trust fund for their overall rights.

As the treaty is implemented and amendment 32, in the name of noble Lady Baroness Foster and I. And she spoke with sincerity today, as she has in committee and in all the times we've raised it, I do think has some issues. Firstly, and I understand the views of the conservative benches in support of it. I understand their political arguments, but firstly, it does overturn a century of long standing convention on those benches that Parliament should not retrospectively fetter the prerogative powers of treaty making.

And that is, that's not necessarily the view of our benches, but it is certainly the view of their benches. But this amendment would overturn that. Now, I understand that's the deliberate process, but that's the consequence of not voting for it would bring about. It's an interesting novel constitutional new approach, but one where it is worth recognising. Indeed, it was the point that Lord Kerr referred to earlier in his remarks, but also it is another issue.

And Barry Foster and Lord Morrow and Lord McCrea spoke with very strong, powerful, emotive words with regards to the rights to self-determination. But what they are proposing is that it would be a limited right, because that limited right of self-determination is not about the ability to decide of the future of Diego Garcia and the military base. The official opposition has indicated that it is non-negotiable, that Diego Garcia will be retained in perpetuity as a military base.

That is not a decision that's been made after the consent of the people about what their territory would be used for. That is a predetermined decision. They've stated that that they've stated it today. They've stated it as recently as April 2024. And the Foreign Secretary's letter, Lord Cameron to the Foreign Affairs Committee and also comments. So if there is the argument for self-determination and the argument for consent, then presumably the argument for all of those supporting amendment 32 is that that consent should include the use of Diego Garcia, but that has been precluded, that has been ruled out.

So I don't see how that squares in that respect, because presumably, if the principled stance is one where only consent should be applied, then it should be applied also for Diego Garcia and the use of the military base. I will certainly report. So I will certainly take a point of clarification from the.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yes. And even at the noble Lords, at the height of what the noble at the height of what the noble Lord has to say, surely limited self-determination is better than no self-determination, which is no self-determination, which is what is being put forward by the government. And surely he must be government. And surely he must be concerned by the United Nations recent report in December of this year, in relation to the issues year, in relation to the issues that have been stated in.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

My amendment, both covers the concerns that's in that committee report, and I also believe covers report, and I also believe covers the concerns raised in the IDC. That is why my amendment has been That is why my amendment has been drafted carefully. The noble Lady is right with indicating that limited self-determination is limited self-determination is better than no self-determination. The point is that her amendment does not have any limits to it, and does not have any limits to it, and therefore it's it's the inability for her to square that aspect, which I simply raise as an issue.

But that is with respect decisions that she and those that have will be supporting, will, will make. But I think it was just worth recording that. Amendment 32 does not give the Chagossian community the right for self-determination about part of the archipelago, and that's worth stating categorically. Amendment 32 also doesn't address rights, indeed, the ways of which I feel we should be morally bound to address are those rights that have been denied the community for a long period, which is that right of resettlement, resettlement and decisions being taken going forward which they need to be involved in? We can only correct the rights that are in our power to do so, and that would be by securing the consent of the Chagossian community before the treaty is ratified, in order to ensure that there is statutory underpinning of the permissive elements of the rights that are in the treaty, it is worth reflecting the fact that the only rights that the Chagossian community now may have potentially ahead of them are those that are provided for in the treaty.

Indeed, the letter that I referred to from the former foreign Secretary in April 2024, just last year, reiterated the previous government's view that those rights of resettlement would not be accommodated. We are close to having rights enshrined for the Chagossian community for the first time in a very long time, but the treaty only goes so far as giving the potential ability for the Chagossian community if the Mauritian government choose to do so. Now that we hand over from our parliamentary processes, it is, we believe, from these benches, correct, to make the case that those rights should be underpinned in law.

So I respectfully hope that the government will be able to see this and accept it. If not, then I will seek to test the opinion of the House, and I do so respectfully understanding the sincerity of the arguments being made so far from the noble Lady foster and others.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Could he help. Me on interpreting.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

19 and 3333 strikes me as an amendment which is would not have amendment which is would not have the effect of delaying ratification of the treaty. I think 33 is of the treaty. I think 33 is wording is in places a little odd. wording is in places a little odd. The question. Subsection five of the amendment is I think we're dealing when we talk about self-determination, we're dealing with concepts, not chaps. And therefore we should be talking about principles rather than principles.

And I also think that when we come on to five B. It's a little complex to work out the difference between the, the operation in Diego Garcia and, and opportunities for working in participating in the operation and working in the. I think we're talking about jobs on the base, and I think that could be expressed more clearly, but I see nothing in principle against amendment 33. But why I, I, I pause is on amendment 19 because the effect of 19 would be, as I read it, that ratification would have to be delayed until the referendum called for under 33 had been carried out.

If that's the case, I can't support it.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Well, first of all, I accept the admonishment with regards to the the spelling and the drafting of it. I can't even I can't blame the I can't even I can't blame the clerks on that one. That's my fault for for that and I accept. And if it is the case that under B in the participation in the operation of Diego Garcia and the, then the opportunities of working in means opportunities of working in means the jobs, then yes, then I will accept that also.

I also do believe accept that also. I also do believe strongly that recognising that it is there is a distance between the treaty being ratified. Anyway, there are other elements that would need to be in place in agreement with the Government of Mauritius. Before that the treaty would be ratified. I believe very strongly that these measures are some of those elements that should be put in place before the treaty is ratified. There are other elements of discussion with regards to, as we will get to later on in other groups.

But in the period between now and the government ratifying, I believe that the extra measures should be put in place to ensure that the consent of the Chagossian community is given to ensure that their rights are underpinned by statute.
17:42
Baroness Chapman of Darlington Portrait Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Labour)
-
-
My Lords, as. >> I've stated throughout this Bill's progress through the House, I would like to acknowledge at the outset the importance of the outset the importance of the islands to the Chagossians, as well as the different views within the Chagossian community on their future. This government deeply regrets the way the Chagossians were removed from the islands. We are committed to building a relationship with the Chagossian community that is built on respect and an acknowledgement of the wrongs of the past.

I also wish to acknowledge the strength of feeling in this House. On addressing the range of issues raised by Chagossian communities here in the UK and in other parts of the world. In this context, I would like to thank the Erdc for undertaking its recent review and publishing its report on the views of the Chagossian community regarding the UK Mauritius Agreement on the Chagos Archipelago, including Diego Garcia. As the report acknowledges, there is a wide range of diverse views amongst the Chagossian community and I thank the noble Lord for his introduction to the report.

Such diversity of views, though, is vital when considering amendments to. Nine. 12. 13. 18. 19. 20. 23. 25. 32. 33. 33 A and 55. That pertain to engagement and consultation with the Chagossian communities. I agree with those in this House who say transparency and frankness with the Chagossian community is vital. And that's why I've resisted some of the discussions around consultations and referendums to give the impression that a consultation or a referendum can elicit a change to a treaty that's already been negotiated and signed in a state to state negotiation, I believe, to be wrong.

My Lords, the negotiations on the treaty were necessarily state to state, with our priority being to secure the full operation of the base on Diego Garcia. That is what we've done. This deal will protect our national security for generations and ensures that the UK keeps unique and vital capabilities to deal with a range of threats. Chagossians have been critical of the failure to consult them, but the view of successive governments, and to date the courts, is that there is no duty to consult.

The Erdc report also acknowledged that international law does not provide a right of self-determination of Chagossians, and this has been the long standing view of successive UK governments and domestic and international courts. The truth is that there is no right to self-determination, and therefore there is no legal entitlement to a referendum, as the statement by the Chagos Refugee Group delivered by its chair, Olivier Bankole, just last month, demonstrates. Whilst there are different views amongst Chagossians, there is strong support for the treaty from a significant number in that community.

My Lords, it is important to respect the many different views within the Chagossian community, including groups that welcome the deal. Claims that all Chagossians are opposed to the treaty are failing to respect the differing views of this diverse community. The government therefore, cannot accept amendments two, 912, 13. 18. 19. 20. 23. 25. 32. 33 and 55. All of which propose consultation referenda or relate to ongoing litigation related to those topics. That being said, we do, of course, agree with the need to support Chagossians and that they should have a greater voice in how that support is delivered.

My Lords, on the 12th of December, the Mauritian government approved legislation to establish the Chagossian Trust Fund provided for in the treaty. This confirms the trust fund will be operated for Chagossians by Chagossians. The fund will be operated by a Trust Fund Management board made up of a Chagossian majority, including a UK based UK based representative and a Chagossian chair. Decisions on the use of funds will be taken by a Trust Fund Management board. The board will comprise 12 members, seven of whom will be Chagossian, ensuring a majority representation.

The chair of the Trust Fund will be Chagossian selected by the Chagossian members of the board following extensive representations and engagement by the government. The Bill also now confirms that a UK based Chagossian representative will sit on the board, alongside representatives living in Mauritius and the Seychelles. The UK High Commissioner to Mauritius will also attend board meetings. We welcome these commitments by the Mauritians, which will ensure the trust fund reflects the full spectrum of perspectives within the Chagossian community and is transparent.

The treaty is clear that represents full and final settlement of all claims by Mauritius in relation to the Chagossians, the English Courts and European Court of Human Rights have both concluded that the claims of Chagossians in relation to their removal from the archipelago have been definitively settled through the payments made under the 1982 settlement. This and successive governments have made clear that there is no basis for any further claim for reparations or compensation separate to the treaty. The UK government will continue to support Chagossians living in the UK, including support for newly arrived British citizens and a wide range of projects that will benefit the Chagossian community.

In this context, the government will not be accepting amendments 11, 45, 46, 52 and 53 on the management of the trust fund and other financial issues relating to Chagossians. My Lords amendments four, 27 and 41 relate to the issue of Chagossian resettlement for a range of reasons, including the security and financial implications. No UK government for over 50 years has sought to facilitate return to the islands. The Erdc conducted a survey of Chagossians as part of its engagement exercise, noting the methodological issues in the survey, including those highlighted by the subsequent done review and indeed by the Erdc report itself.

It is nonetheless clear that views on resettlement are, as you would expect, mixed. Just under half the respondents said they were unlikely to resettle on the outer islands. Some specifically stated that they would rather remain where they currently live, as opportunities were likely to be greater than those on the islands. The Erdc report also highlighted that several respondents born on the islands felt that their age or their health may prevent them from returning to the islands. Meanwhile, the review, which provides a quantitative analysis of the entire body of Chagossian respondents to the Erdc survey, extrapolates that a majority of participants, 51%, would exercise the opportunity to resettle under Mauritian sovereignty sovereignty.

Of this total, 93% of native Mauritian Chagossians and 50% of non-natives expressed a desire to resettle this government. Recognising the importance of resettlement to many, Chagossians has agreed under the terms of the treaty that it is open to Mauritius to start a programme of resettlement to the archipelago beyond Diego Garcia. Mauritius has announced that any future programme of resettlement will be available to all eligible Chagossians, regardless of where they live. The UK based Chagossians, who were born on the archipelago, and their children who did not already hold Mauritian citizenship, will be eligible for Mauritian citizenship and therefore able to participate in any future programme of resettlement while retaining their British citizenship.

As of April 2025, 94% of Chagossians with British nationality also had Mauritian citizenship. My Lords, we need to be very clear that this treaty provides the only viable path to resettlement on the archipelago. Successive British governments have never been prepared to do this, and those who seek to stymie the passage of this bill offer no viable alternative and thereby doing disservice to all those Chagossians who want to see the possibility of resettlement

**** Possible New Speaker ****

become a reality. noble Lady. I just wondered, before she sits down, could she before she sits down, could she tell us we have a very distinguished Attorney general, Noel Lord Hermer, and I wondered if Noel Lord Hermer, and I wondered if he had given any advice. Admittedly, you can't tell us, of course, what advice he's given, but has he given advice he's given, but has he given any advice to the government on the UN Committee report on the elimination of racial elimination of racial discrimination, which has come out so strongly against what His Majesty's Government is doing on

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the Chagos Islands? Not that I'm aware of. I mean, I would just point out, obviously, the committee that the noble Lady and others have referred to isn't the sort of legal body of the UN. the sort of legal body of the UN. It doesn't speak for the UN or for any UN member states. But, you know, any UN member states. But, you know, obviously we do it. No, I'm afraid it doesn't. Of course. So I think it doesn't. Of course.

So I think that that's just important for noble Lords to be aware of. They're not labouring under the misapprehension, of course, the government's priority remains the protection.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

By one point, because she'll be aware that it was set up under UN aware that it was set up under UN charter to monitor the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination. The UN, all UN members signed up to that. And although it's advisory, it carries although it's advisory, it carries a huge amount of influence, as indeed do the other two tribunals, which are also advisory, which the government said they've got to go along with.

Yeah.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

along with. Yeah. No, they're very different things. I would encourage the noble Lord to to investigate this a little bit further. I'm happy to to work with him on that. But the fact is that this particular committee doesn't speak on behalf of the UN, and there are many such equivalent committees across the UN. It doesn't actually speak on behalf of member states either. And if noble Lords want to verify that, then that's entirely up to them to do. But that is that is the situation.

But I just to continue the government's priority remains the protection of the British people, including British Chagossians, as the location of a military base with sensitive capabilities and assets vital to the UK's national security. It would not be appropriate for Diego Garcia to be included in Mauritius's programme of resettlement. However, both the UK and the Republic of Mauritius remain committed to facilitating a programme of heritage visits to the Chagos Archipelago, including Diego Garcia. Chagossians will also retain the opportunity to work on Diego Garcia through contracted employment at the base.

And my Lords, with respect to amendments nine, 16, 24 and 48, concerning the 2nd of December decision by the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, the government's position is clear. The Cerd is an independent body of experts that does not speak on behalf of. I'm repeating myself, but just to make it absolutely clear for noble Lords that does not speak on behalf of the United Nations or on behalf of UN member States. The UK does not agree with the approach that the CRD has taken.

The UN Secretary General and the African Union chairperson have both welcomed the agreement. This treaty protects the base and our national security, and that is why it has also been welcomed by the US, our Five Eyes partners and other important partners who appreciate the strategic importance of the base. Mauritius has also firmly and categorically rejected Curd's decision and the government therefore rejects the tabled amendments. Amendment five on migrants and asylum from Lord Callanan is not necessary and therefore we don't accept it.

The treaty already ensures Mauritian responsibility for and jurisdiction over all migrants arriving to the Chagos Archipelago, including Diego Garcia. This treaty closes a potential illegal migration route to the UK. 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 assess and facilitate in that exercise of Mauritian jurisdiction, there are ongoing negotiations and which I won't provide a running commentary, but both both Mauritius and the UK agree that it would be for Mauritius to take responsibility for any migrants, including for any asylum or international protection claims, that there is therefore no need for the government to provide a report on the negotiations through an amendment to the Bill, and I hope that that answers the noble Lords queries about this at this stage, and I hope that they can withdraw their amendments.
17:56
Lord Callanan Portrait Lord Callanan (Conservative)
-
-
Well, my Lord, I thank all noble Lords who have contributed to the Lords who have contributed to the debate. I thank the noble Lady for her response, but it seems to me her response, but it seems to me that she still hasn't answered the fundamental question that many of my colleagues and others have posed to her is that why are some UN International tribunals advisory tribunals to be obeyed without question? They should not be questioned. We have to do exactly what they say.

But others can apparently be safely ignored when it doesn't suit the government's case. She she tells us that that Mauritius were against her. I bet they were were against the conclusions. But apparently also I also read. I hope this is correct. Mauritius are actually a member of this tribunal that found that the against the treaty and recommended that it be disposed of, and we've heard some fantastic contributions. But of course what we haven't heard is the the opinion of the FCDO Mandarinate and the Crossbenches, who are normally so keen to tell us that international tribunals have to be respected without question, but apparently not this one.

But nevertheless, my Lords, I'm proud to speak on behalf peak alongside every noble Lord who has spoken up for the Chagossian people and has outlined how they have been so ill treated and for so long ignored. The noble Lady has said a number of times there is a diversity of opinion within the Chagossian community, and I'm sure she is right. Which is why, of course, we need a referendum to determine the absolute view of what they are, and I wish to particularly pay tribute to my noble friend Lord de Mauley and his committee for the sterling job that they have done in attempting and so brief period to at least provide some information on what the Chagossian community think, and the fact that so many of them responded so quickly in the period before Christmas, I think outlines the concerns that many of them have about this agreement.

We also share my noble friend Lord Lily, concerns about the reparations. It seems reasonable that Mauritius has sovereignty over the islands. They would bear the burden of any future claims for reparations. I am also grateful to the noble Lady for her clarification about the the legal position on asylum seekers. I won't detain the House any further. Finally, I want to reiterate our firm support for amendment 19, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Purvis. It might only be a half a loaf, but we are grateful for that half.

But we will also seek to be greedy and support Baroness Foster for the remainder of the loaf. When these divisions are finally called.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

An amendment to. Leave to withdraw the amendment. Is your Lordships.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Pleasure this amendment be withdrawn. The amendment is by leave

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The amendment is by leave withdrawn in clause one, amendment three Lord Callanan. That be briefly amendment three

**** Possible New Speaker ****

That be briefly amendment three standing in my name. And I'll also speak about the other amendments in the name in my name in this group, the name in my name in this group, but I will not seek to pre-empt the arguments of the noble Lords Lord Faulks when he gets around to proposing his. The ocean around the Chagos Islands is a uniquely rich and biodiverse environment. It is home to the UK's greatest marine biodiversity, with unique species, major seabird populations and healthy reefs.

As the custodians of that biodiversity, the UK has a proud record of increasing marine biodiversity and I know the government has ambitions to continue that record and is one that we support. But by transferring sovereignty of the Chagos Archipelago to the Mauritian government, Ministers are indeed putting the future of that MPA in an uncertain position. Yes, the treaty provides Mauritius to maintain the MPA, but what tools does the Mauritian government have
18:00
18:00
18:00
18:02
Baroness Cash Portrait Baroness Cash (Conservative)
-
-
I hadn't intended initially to speak to these amendments, but was speak to these amendments, but was very happy to do so after hearing from him. After I read the speech from him. After I read the speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, of the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, back in November, which horrified me and drew to my attention matters me and drew to my attention matters which I know this Chagossians themselves are also absolutely appalled by. Without the clarity and protection sought by these amendments, this House is being asked to acquiesce not only in technical deficiencies in this bill, but in an act of stark neglect and hypocrisy, which would destroy the UK's credibility as a climate and environmental leader.

Our Prime Minister at Cop 29, in Baku, said the UK has sent a clear message we are renewing UK climate leadership. There's no national security, there is no economic security, there is no global security without climate security. Linking climate leadership to national and global security. We are being asked, despite that very public declaration of climate leadership, to ratify a to pass a bill which would allow ratification of a treaty to transfer control of one of the world's most, if not the most significant marine protected area.

And the government admits that the terms of the future protection of that area are not yet dealt with and are to be dealt with later in a separate written agreement, not yet published, not yet scrutinised, not yet agreed without any sanctions. If none of that happens, it's an absolute abdication of responsibility, not only to the Chagossian people, not only to ourselves and our own principles of climate leadership, but to the global concerns around climate as well. Amendment 28 addresses the most basic constitutional failure in this process.

Parliament's being asked to approve the transfer first and trust that the environmental safeguards will follow, and no serious legislature should agree to that. If the protections matter and the Ministers have agreed that they do, then those protections should be visible, binding and tested before ratification, not promised to be dealt with afterwards. Amendments 29 and 30. Allocation of funds to environmental protection and the power to withhold funds for non-compliance should not be controversial. If the government is sincere that environmental stewardship is a priority, why would we not be willing to hardwire that priority into the financial architecture of the agreement? Why would we resist earmarking funds explicitly for environmental protection? And why? Why would we resist retaining leverage to withhold payments if the marine environment is degraded? Without any of these mechanisms, the UK is powerless to act in respect of the likely failures by Mauritius to protect the MPA.

And regrettably, it has to be stated that Mauritius is not a party likely to be relied upon in such matters. According to the Environmental Performance Index compiled by Yale University, Mauritius ranks extremely poorly. Indeed, 173 out of 180 for biodiversity and habitat category, but that measures countries actions towards retaining natural ecosystems for maritime habitat protection. 83 out of 129 countries, and, most crucially of all, for marine protection stringency. It's 131 out of 131 absolutely lost.

The amendment 31, tabled by Lord Faulks, confronts an uncomfortable but unavoidable reality, that of enforcement. The waters in question are vast, enforcement is expensive and technically demanding. Constant enforcement is needed to prevent illegal fishing, and Mauritius does not have the technical capacity to provide that. No serious government should be considering proceeding with any of this without a serious published assessment of enforcement capability and the proposal for its execution. My Lords, the Chagos Marine Protected Area is not just another marine protected area.

It is one of the largest, most intact, least exploited tropical marine ecosystems on this precious planet. Its value lies precisely in the fact that it has been strongly protected, something of of which the UK should be very proud and extremely hesitant to throw away. This MPA functions as a global reference point, a living baseline, so that we can understand what marine ecosystems can look like when they're not relentlessly harmed. If, as many experts fear, the result of this treaty is deep sea fishing across 99% of it, as opposed to the current situation where it's almost 100% protected, the consequences will be catastrophic and irreversible on any human time scale.

Sea floor habitats, flattened food webs, simplified, predator populations depleted. I won't in the time available list all of the species

**** Possible New Speaker ****

that will be destroyed. I think she's making a

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I think she's making a magnificent case. Magnificent speech. The blue belt of Marine Protected Areas is one of the Protected Areas is one of the greatest conservation stories in any of our lifetimes, something the UK has been so proud of for so many UK has been so proud of for so many years. So it is for the reasons she's described. It's a tragedy to see us going backwards when the appetite among the public, particularly after the recent Attenborough programme, is that we should grow, not shrink.

But would she also acknowledge that by removing the near 100% protection, reducing it down to 1%, there will be a flurry of fishing activity within those waters, which will make it impossible, from a security point of view to protect what is, as we've heard from many speakers, an incredibly important and valuable military base. How do you police things? How do you ensure that those vessels are not spy vessels, kitted up with all kinds of technology to intercept the very important work that's happening right now? It's simple.

It won't be going forward.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

100% degree. And I couldn't have put it better myself. And I hope put it better myself. And I hope that the Minister will address the points raised by my noble Lord. points raised by my noble Lord. Lord Goldsmith. We there is also raised by a number of Oxford raised by a number of Oxford academics. The additional profound danger of deep sea drilling, once the very issues that Lord Goldsmith the very issues that Lord Goldsmith has raised become a reality.

The prospect of that once effective control is surrendered. Once the protections are weak or unenforceable, industrial pressure follows, and deep sea drilling is the archetype of low probability, high impact risk which will destroy decimate this precious, precious area. Even routine drilling brings chronic pollution, noise and disturbance incompatible with meaningful protection. If the UK government proceeds or insists on proceeding without these amendments or without protections of equivalent force, the UK's claim to climate and environmental leadership collapses.

We will be that country that lectures the world about marine protection, biodiversity, climate responsibility while quietly signing away one of the most important marine sanctuaries on earth. Treaties aren't acts of faith or promises. They're instruments of law. They need to include all of the terms and all of the consequences for their breaches. If the environmental protections matter, as Ministers say they do. And that statement is one which we support, then this treaty must not be possible to be ratified without these amendments or protections of equal strength.

I'll give the last words. Unusually, you won't hear me say this often to the Secretary of State for energy, Ed Miliband, who stated last July that we know climate change and nature loss are fundamentally linked, but we in this country have helped make a difference. That is very true regarding this marine protection area, and we do not want the future difference that we make to be a destructive one and urge the government to accept these amendments or similar protections.
18:11
Lord Deben Portrait Lord Deben (Conservative)
-
-
Yes. >> My Lords, I remind the House of my interest as a trustee of Blue Marine for many years, and having been part of the negotiations with been part of the negotiations with the British government to produce what is the most exciting and real effect of marine protection that anyone has done, it is a great thing for us to have done. No other nation has done it, and it means that we have been able to bring out of the end of empire something which is really worthwhile for the future.

This is the crucial place, and the protection of the seas is crucial to the future of humanity. We're not talking about some vague, odd additional bit. We're talking about a central issue. I cannot understand this government. I wanted to be helpful to it. But I have to say to the noble Lady, this is not an acceptable position. We cannot give this up to a state which is unable to do what it in all, I'm sure validity says that it will wish to do.

It can't do it. It has neither the resources nor the history of being able to do it. My noble friend made the important point about the position of the state to which we are handing this responsibility and its present situation. It has a terrible reputation. It has failed. Even with the seas close to its own homeland. We are asking it. No, we are handing over to it the safety of a place which is a thousand miles from the area it doesn't protect.

Now how can we possibly agree to this? This is wholly contrary to all that Britain has fought for. The example we have given. Now the noble Lady knows that I am not entirely in favour of some of the changes which my party seems to think that would be helpful to the fight against climate change. So she can't accuse me of being in any way party political on this. This is an unacceptable situation and she really will have to say to this House that this these amendments are either accepted by her or she will come back with changes in Third Reading, which will mean that this our particular contribution to the world, will be protected.

If she doesn't do that, then this will be a major betrayal of what Britain has done. Of all political parties right across the board for the last 25 years. It is a great achievement. We can't throw it away and this House should not allow us to throw it away.
18:15
Lord Bellingham Portrait Lord Bellingham (Conservative)
-
-
My Lords, we've had two very powerful, moving speeches. I'd just powerful, moving speeches. I'd just like to reference another Miliband, David Miliband, the former foreign secretary, because one of the very last initiatives he brought forward was the Chagos Archipelago Marine Protected Area. And he said at the time that this is by far and away the most important environmental treaty, an agreement that this government has any government has ever enacted. And he pointed out at the time that 92% of UK's biodiversity is located in votes, which is still the case.

32% of that is in the Chagos Archipelago. And I would just like to say to the Minister that all the research I did as an incoming Minister at the time completely reinforced the decision by the then Labour government to launch this initiative and to put so much effort and time into it. Of course, we're concerned about seabirds, migratory turtles, coral bleaching, but my biggest concern is around fishing because all of the research that was done proved that if you can put a stop to fishing a, you prevent damage to the coral because modern commercial fishing does untold harm to coral reefs.

And secondly, modern commercial fishing is going to have a big impact on apex species, which are so important in environment such as sharks and rays. Now, I'm sorry to say, my Lords, but the Mauritian government does have a dreadful record on environmental protection. Now, it may well be that we give them the benefit of the doubt, and we say that they're going to raise their game. They're going to suddenly start finding resources to take this matter seriously. But what happens if they go the other way? And future governments in Mauritius, maybe in even ten years time, decide that they can raise a great deal of money from issuing licenses to the Chinese to maybe the Taiwanese, maybe the Bulgarians, whatever country wants to fish in these areas, and we'll have no control over that whatsoever.

Whatever they say now, it could well be ripped up and ignored in even ten years time. And what about hydrocarbons? My Lords, if there are discoveries in this part of the ocean, in the region of the archipelago, what is to stop the Mauritian government issuing licenses for exploration for hydrocarbons? I think we could be maybe in ten years time, and many of us won't be here. We'll look back and say, what on earth did this government do to take away

**** Possible New Speaker ****

those vital protections? Yes, sir. Very, very impressed by the noble Lord speech. Perhaps he could noble Lord speech. Perhaps he could tell us what proportion of the resources of the Royal Air Force and the Royal Navy are currently and the Royal Navy are currently deployed in the Indian Ocean,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

protecting the area. But I'm perfectly happy to say that the UK government takes its responsibilities incredibly seriously. And as I mentioned, the OTS contain 92% of our biodiversity and I can't think of one example, my Lords, where the UK government has not stepped up to honour its responsibilities and actually put

**** Possible New Speaker ****

in place every form of protection. Of course. My noble friend. But not only is the British government been doing the British government been doing this, but there are voluntary organisations to that because of the backing of the British Government are carrying this through. And the noble Lord, whatever his views on this issue is, has got to accept that at the moment this is a very highly protected area and we are offering

**** Possible New Speaker ****

protected area and we are offering anyone. My final point is that we can actually we can address those concerns by passing at least one of these amendments here.
18:19
Baroness Chapman of Darlington Portrait Baroness Chapman of Darlington, Minister of State (Development) (Labour)
-
-
My Lords, Lord Callanan amendments 331, a 42 and 43 all relate to the marine Protected area and the Mauritian intent to establish its own marine protected area. It will be for Mauritius to implement this MPA. However, we welcome the announcement on the 3rd of November by the Mauritian government of the establishment of the Chagos Archipelago Marine Protected Area, to be known as Campa, particularly the commitment of the Government of Mauritius that there will be no commercial fishing allowed in any part of the area.

Amendment 31 from Lord Faulks and Lord Godson follows a similar vein. Seeking to oblige the UK government to report on the Mauritian MPA. But we've been clear that Campa will be for the Mauritian government to enforce and to fund, and the UK will not be providing direct funding to Mauritius to maintain or set up this MPA. Renegotiation of the treaty at this stage isn't a practical proposition, as Mauritius has already made this public commitment to the MPA, which covers the protections requested by the noble Lords amendments.

We therefore do not think that they are necessary. Likewise, thirdly.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

What she repeats is what the Mauritian government has promised. I don't in any way attack what they promised, but they can't do it. They haven't done it anywhere else. They haven't done it anywhere else. So why are we not insisting that we provide the resources for them to do it?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

do it? I will come on to that. It's a perfectly legitimate question, perfectly legitimate question, although I would urge people not to speak about Mauritian government who have said everything that we we would all want them to say on these matters. We work with them in a positive light, and we want to work in partnership with them to make sure that the commitments that they themselves have made are followed through. And I think the right way for us to do that is in a in a more positive way.

I was about to come on to the question that the noble Lord put, but I will gladly give way to the noble Lady.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'm very grateful for Noble Minister giving way, because the question is related, which is question is related, which is simply that the Mauritian government may be saying everything you want to hear, but at the moment you have no mechanism whatsoever to enforce it and to ensure that what happens in the future can also be

**** Possible New Speaker ****

enforced. I think the noble Ladies, I shan't say repeated but amplified shan't say repeated but amplified the earlier point made by the noble Lord. And I think it's an important one, and I will address it. But we are going to reject at this stage amendment 28, which seeks to oblige the UK to publish the proposed arrangements on MPA management and security before entry into force of the treaty. The UK and Mauritius are working together to finalise an arrangement on maritime security that ensures that patrolling it provides enforcement over the future of the MPA, and that this is maintained after entry into force.

We'll publish relevant MoU, including on maritime security, once these are finalised, because we accept that this is vital, this is this is important and everything that David Miliband said. And thank you for reminding us of what he said. We stand by those commitments. Amendments 29 and 30, tabled by Lord Faulks and Lord Godson, seek to ensure that there is money set aside within the treaty for the establishment and maintenance of the MPA, and that the government amend the treaty to allow for non payment if Mauritius does not protect the marine environment.

And we agree that the continued protection of the environment is vitally important. As previously set out, the UK isn't going to be providing direct funding to Mauritius for this purpose. We will, however, and it is true that the UK Mauritius Strategic Partnership Framework does provide for technical support and expertise to enable the Mauritian government to work alongside the environmental partners and that noble Lords have referred to and including the Zoological Society of London, to make sure that the ongoing protection of the marine environment is secure and this is separate to the treaty.

And the noble Lady asked what we would do if there was a breach, and if the UK believes that Mauritius is in breach of its commitments in article five on the environment, it can follow the process set out within article 14 settlement of disputes and there is therefore is no need to include a further way to settle any disputes over protection of the environment, and we therefore don't accept these amendments.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

You conclude. My understanding is that article 14 does not provide is that article 14 does not provide for any recourse. There is no sanction, there is no provision. It sanction, there is no provision. It is not a mechanism as referred to by anyone who has addressed this today.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

today. It's no article 40. It's what's been agreed is the way to settle been agreed is the way to settle disputes. So a failure to to commit to deliver on the environmental commitments could be something that we want to, to challenge, and that the process by which we do that is in article 14. Now, in treaties, you don't have to have a sanction or a sort of punishment that that happens. The right thing to do is to try and resolve these things so that the impact can be changed.

Because what we want here is to make sure that this marine protected area is sustained and that the, the, the environmental what is special about this place is secured. That's something that we all agree on. Where we differ, I suppose, is that I think that the mechanisms in the treaty are sufficient to allow for that. And I think what the thing that's going to make the real difference is the quality of the partnership we're able to develop with Mauritius around the work with ZSL and other partners that mean that they are equipped to to comply with the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

commitments that they're making. How is the government addressing

**** Possible New Speaker ****

How is the government addressing the fundamental fact which has not been addressed by the noble Lady? I'm afraid that Mauritius does not I'm afraid that Mauritius does not have the capacity to police these waters, or to do that in any way. waters, or to do that in any way. We the house, is we are simply in ignorance about all of this.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

ignorance about all of this. She said it, not me, but I think the that that is why you provide technical assistance. That is, that's that's why technical assistance exists. We we we have a technical assistance partnership with very many countries. It is a much, much better way of working alongside and making sure that environmental improvements happen. And that is the approach that the government's taken, and that is what is in the treaty. And I hope that noble Lords will consider withdrawing their amendments.
18:26
Lord Callanan Portrait Lord Callanan (Conservative)
-
-
I think the noble Lady's remark just there to Baroness Cash was a just there to Baroness Cash was a little bit uncalled for. I have to say. I hope she will consider. Well, she might say she was joking. I thought it was very good joke. So let me firstly thank all noble Lords who have spoken in this group in our debates Committee. Noble Lords across your Lordships House set out their profound concerns about the practical ability of the Mauritian government to deliver on their commitments.

As I said, nobody doubts what they have said. Nobody doubts what the statements they have made. I think we all doubt their their ability to actually enforce this crucially important MP. And I do not need to repeat all the excellent points that have been made by Baroness Cash, by my noble friend Lord Goldsmith and others in their contributions to this debate. They very closely reflect our concerns. Given the critical importance of the oceans around the archipelago for global diversity, we think it is necessary to press the government on this so that we can have a formal statement of the government's expectations of Mauritius under article five of the treaty, and we also believe that we need clarity on what steps Ministers are willing to take to ensure the maintenance of the MPA in perpetuity by the Mauritian government.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

Is it withdrawn? Is this

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Is it withdrawn? Is this amendment withdrawn? Yes. Yes. Yeah. Sorry. Which one? Number three has been withdrawn.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Number three has been withdrawn. Is it your Lordships pleasure this amendment be withdrawn? It is by leave withdrawn. Amendments 44 by leave withdrawn. Amendments 44 to 6. Lord Callaghan. Callanan.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

to 6. Lord Callaghan. Callanan. My Lords, I move amendment seven standing in. Oh, sorry.
18:28
18:28
Lord Callanan Portrait Lord Callanan (Conservative)
-
-
payments averaged 101 million per annum over the 99 year life of the treaty. This is something with treaty. This is something with which we fundamentally disagree. My noble friends, Lady Noakes and Lord noble friends, Lady Noakes and Lord Altrincham forensically picked apart the government's figures at committee, leaving us in a position committee, leaving us in a position of serious and damaging uncertainty. We believe it is unacceptable that we find ourselves in a position where we are being asked to approve a bill enabling a treaty without a clear assessment of the cost of compliance with that treaty.

While the government continues to repeat this 3.4 billion figure, we now know that using other accountancy mechanisms is now going to cost something approaching 34 billion. As I said in an earlier debate, we are heading towards the highest taxes ever. The government showed no appetite to bring spending under control, but apparently it's fine to hand over 34 billion to Mauritius in retreat for islands that we already own. And the treaty is a stark example of the government's fiscal imprudence.

We know this treaty was not really necessary in law. We know it was a political choice and we would never have agreed to it. That is 34 billion that the government could have chosen to spend in other ways. And it is money that should be in the pockets of British taxpayers, and it certainly should not be used to fund tax cuts in Mauritius. But that is the position that Ministers, advised by their international lawyer friends have put us in. So my amendment 39 would require the government to publish a schedule of payments to Mauritius, including the plan dates of those payments, so that independent experts can make their own assessment of the true cost of the treaty to British taxpayers.

The government, who seem so keen to defend the treaty, must surely think it's good value for money. It follows, therefore, that the Minister should have no problem at all in setting out what the schedule of payments actually is in full, so that we can examine it. And I would hope that you would be able to give that commitment today with amendment 47. We are asking the government to publish the real cost of this treaty. The details provided in the explanatory memorandum which accompanied the publication of the treaty were helpful, and the Minister referred to those details at committee.

But we still have a vastly contrasting estimates that show that the treaty could cost as much as ten times more than the government actually claims. So we need to see more detail from the government on these costings to ensure transparency for the hard working British taxpayer.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I beg to move. Amendment proposed clause one, page one, line seven. At the end,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

page one, line seven. At the end, insert subject to subsection two a. Support the.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Support the. Remarks of my noble friend Lord Callanan and particularly to support amendment 47, which he support amendment 47, which he moved. And I would also like to support Lord Purvis when he comes
18:31
Lord Horam Portrait Lord Horam (Conservative)
-
-
support Lord Purvis when he comes to move Lord Fink amendment 50. The more we've gone into this, and I have to say that the scrutiny by the House of Lords has been excellent on this particular bill, far better than the House of Commons. The more I struck me as an economist, this is a terrible deal. It's not just a terrible deal. It's an absolute shocker. First of all, I will support very strongly support the £40 million towards a trust fund for the Chagossians.

As has been said repeatedly throughout these debates, they have had a terrible deal over many years and all governments and I know waste begrudge a penny of the £40 million and the arrangements have been said, and I am reassured by what the Minister was very capable Minister has said about that during the course of this debate. But in addition to that, of course, that small beer, by comparison with the 3.4 billion or 34 billion, as my noble friend Baroness Noakes pointed out earlier in our debates, which is this compensation, up to £34 billion of compensation for the use of this particular site, remembering, of course, that in the original deal in in 1965, conducted by Harold Wilson, who was then Prime Minister, there was compensation paid when he said, in effect to the Mauritian government, you can have your independence, but we wish to keep the Diego Garcia and the Chagos Islands.

He gave them £3 million as compensation. I may sniff at £3 million in 1965, but that's 75 to £79 million in today's money, which is a very considerable compensation. Therefore, I do not see why any further compensation of billions of pounds should be paid to the Mauritian government. Secondly, thirdly, rather, in addition to that, the treaty stipulates that the Mauritian government will get 140, will get £45 million a year for 25 years in development aid, £45 million a year for 25 years in development aid.

Now, I've been to Mauritius twice, first in a parliamentary delegation and secondly as a private citizen. Mauritius is a hugely successful country. My friend Lord Deben may castigate his environmental qualifications, but economically it is extremely successful. It started out over 50 years ago as a producer mainly of sugar and agricultural economy. It then diversified into business, supplying Marks and Spencers, Waitrose and all other sorts of companies in this country, companies in this country. It then further went into high end tourism, which is extremely successful.

In my second visit, I personally experienced in addition to that, of course, it's now a big financial centre. Terry Smith, one of our biggest investment advisers, lives there and runs his entire investment empire from Mauritius because it's a suitable tax place to do so. And what a lovely place to run an investment company from. All of this has contributed to Mauritius being, along with shells, Mauritius and Seychelles, the outstanding economic performer amongst all the African countries. For some absurd reason, it's actually bracketed with the African continent, but it means that Mauritius and Seychelles are more successful as GDP per head than Egypt, South Africa, Nigeria, all these, all these other countries, and we are giving it development aid, which is absolutely incredible.

Therefore, you know, money can only be spent once if spent by taxpayers on this. It's not being spent on the NHS. And the government maintains that it's putting people of this country first. Yet spending billions of pounds overseas quite unnecessarily. So. I do think that the government, my noble friend Lord Callaghan, is absolutely right to have this investigated. In fact, it's a reason, in my view, that this this particular treaty should not be ratified. Nonetheless, we have gone down that path, and certainly we shall have much greater transparency about this whole economic and financial consequences than we have already.
18:36
Baroness Noakes Portrait Baroness Noakes (Conservative)
-
-
Very good. forensic analysis of the financial aspects of the treaty, but I'm going to restrain myself and just going to restrain myself and just speak briefly to support all of the amendments in this group. As we've heard from my my noble friend Lord Kernan, the government likes to talk about an average of £101 billion a year in 2025, 26 prices, and the total cost being 3.4 billion. That's discounted using a social time preference rate. All of these figures ignore the cash that's going to go out of the Treasury's coffers and into Mauritius's coffers.

And all of these amendments are trying to do is trying to get a focus back on cash, because it's cash, which is important. At the end of the day, it's cash that's going to end up in the government's accounts. It's cash that's going to be leaving our economy. So amendment 39, which would have a schedule of the the amounts likely to be paid, will show that there is a single year when 101 million paid. It's always more than that. And it will show that the total is not 3.4 billion.

It is closer to 35 billion. It will show that in the first five years, for example, it's nearly 900 billion, which of course is a really big sum of money in the context of a budget which is cash constrained. I particularly would note that amendment 50, in the name of the noble Lord Lord Purvis of Tweed, asks for the schedule to be updated every five years, which is also very important because inflation expectations can vary. For example, if there was just a small inflation spike as occurred in 2023, you could you could change the overall numbers by 1 billion or 1 billion and a half by very, very, very modest assumptions.

So it's really important to keep a strong focus on cash and not try and talk in these funny money terms, which try and divert attention from how much money is really involved.
18:38
Lord Purvis of Tweed Portrait Lord Purvis of Tweed (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
Very good. >> Right to move amendment 50, which has been referred to by the the the noble Lady. I'm grateful the the noble Lady. I'm grateful for her support, but this is a quite unusual treaty, is that it is both a diplomatic measure when it comes to sovereignty, but it is also a financial relationship and one where it also adds some obligations to a community, which we've recognised that their rights has been diminished. So it is quite unusual.

And that is why at Second Reading, I raised concerns about the financial elements of it, the lack of clarity as to how much will be allocated towards the addressing of the rights of the Chagossian community, as well as an element of the lack of transparency. And I acknowledge letter one appended to the treaty, which outlines the figures. But I do feel as if there requires to be further clarity. I will not repeat the point that I've previously made, but amendment 50 does seek to address the major concerns about the lack of transparency in the planned implementation of the financial elements of the treaty, including as the noble Lady Baroness Fookes has indicated, a fifth year update to Parliament on what the progress is and the the contemporaneous situation with regards to the finances.

Paragraph four of amendment 50 also introduces to what I would consider to be a break clause in the financial relationship that's outlined in the treaty and in letter one. Earlier in our proceedings, the Minister helpfully said that the treaty could be terminated on two grounds and two grounds. Only the second of that was referenced to the Vienna Convention. If there are have been circumstances where means that the treaty is rendered unimplementable. But the first element is that of the failure to make payments by the UK.

There isn't anything in the treaty, and I say this without saying that Mauritius will act in bad faith or have entered into bad faith, but there aren't any mechanisms which would allow us to consider whether or not Mauritius is also operating to fulfil its obligations beyond those which have been elevated undiplomatic terms to Prime Minister level for dialogue. We do believe that there should be some formal mechanism by which, if that dispute mechanism has been exhausted, then Parliament should have the ability to say that the agreements on the finances reached under letter one should require supplementary approval.

Indeed, the obligation on the government would be of the day to come back to Parliament to say that the dispute mechanisms have been exhausted and no agreement has been reached. Therefore, this needs to be brought back. The sums of of funds are extremely high. The obligations are serious and therefore I hope that the government will consider moving on this element. Amendment 47 in the name of the Lord of Lord Callanan is not contradictory at all to this, and we would if he tests the opinion of the House, we will support him on that amendment.

And I'm grateful so far of the indications of support of my amendment to.
18:42
Baroness Chapman of Darlington Portrait Baroness Chapman of Darlington, Minister of State (Development) (Labour)
-
-
My Lords. Amendment seven, 39, >> My Lords. Amendment seven, 39, 47 and 50 all relate to financial transparency and parliamentary oversight of expenditure under the oversight of expenditure under the treaty. Lord Callanan amendments 39 and 47 seek to require the government to publish a schedule of payments to Mauritius and a detailed statement of the total cost of the treaty, including the methodology used by the government, Actuary's Department and the Treasury. These amendments aren't necessary as we published full details of the financial arrangements on the day the treaty was signed, including the finance exchange of Letters and the explanatory memorandum laid before Parliament.

These documents set out the payment schedule and confirm that the net present value of the treaty is £3.4 billion. In today's money, calculated using the standard Green Book methodology that successive governments have applied to long term projects. The average annual payment is £101 million, less than a quarter of 1% of the defence budget, in a fraction of the cost of comparable overseas facilities. This, we think, is a sound investment in our national security, and the figures have been confirmed by the government Actuary's Department.

For these reasons, we reject these amendments. Amendment seven, which ties commencement commencement of sections 2 to 4 of the act to the Discharge of duties under amendment 47 would introduce a necessary delay in ratification. The government has already provided the transparency sought by the noble Lord through the published explanatory memorandum and accompanying documents, as well as a significant number of parliamentary questions and debates in this chamber and the other place. We therefore don't accept this amendment. Lord Purvis of Tweed amendment 50 proposes an ongoing estimates and supply scrutiny process for expenditure under the treaty, including parliamentary approval of future payments and supplementary estimates.

The agreement has already undergone scrutiny under the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010, and neither House objected to ratification during the statutory period. The treaty provides robust mechanisms for dispute resolution under article 14. It is normal practice for payments under treaties to be made under the prerogative power, whilst the standard annual estimates process till applies, introducing additional parliamentary approval requirements isn't necessary and would undermine the certainty and stability that this long term agreement provides. As I have said on many occasions, the US covers the running costs of the base on Diego Garcia, which are significant, but any expenditure met met by this government will be published in our annual departmental accounts.

Finally, subsection four of Lord Purvis amendment would, we think, infringe on the prerogative power of making and unmaking treaties? It is not wise to impose any immovable requirements about a hypothetical set of circumstances which might arise in the future. This provision would seem to risk requiring the government to breach the UK's obligations under a treaty. It is clearly preferable that all options should be open to a future government to deal with whatever future may bring in the UK's best interests, taking into account all the circumstances that exist at the time, and I hope that noble Lords will withdraw their amendments.
18:45
Lord Callanan Portrait Lord Callanan (Conservative)
-
-
My Lords, this has been a brief but fruitful debate and I'm grateful to all who have contributed. I'm particularly contributed. I'm particularly grateful to the noble Lords Lord Purvis of Tweed for his amendment 50, which shares our concerns about the unacceptable uncertainty over the costs of the commitments made under the treaty. And if he presses it to a debate, I will to a division. I will support him. We share the noble Lords desire to see greater transparency and proper accountability for the government's spending under this treaty.

As my noble friend Baroness Oakes made clear, we are very concerned about the way the government has handled the calculation of the costs of the treaty, and we think that British people deserve to know more about the process by which the government reached the figures that they have published so far. So my amendment 47 would deliver greater transparency by requiring the publication of the methodologies used by the OBR, the government actuary departments and the Treasury when making their own calculations of the cost of the treaty, as well as requiring the publication of the justification of the methodology used.

My Lords, we surely cannot proceed with this Bill when there is such uncertainty and debate about the costs and the scale of the commitment that the government have entered into. I therefore give notice that my intention to divide the House on my amendment 47 when it is called. But in the meantime I will beg leave to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

withdraw amendment seven. Is it your Lordships pleasure that this amendment be withdrawn?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

that this amendment be withdrawn? It is by leave withdrawn. Amendment eight Lord Callanan. My Lords, I wish to move

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I wish to move amendment eight in my name. The amendment seeks to require the government to publish a statement that they are satisfied that the that they are satisfied that the State of Mauritius is not unduly influenced by hostile state actors, and that those actors will not and that those actors will not interfere with the operation of the military base. In our increasingly unstable world, where hostile actors are using increasingly unconventional methods to interfere with our activities both at home and abroad, we must be alive to the risks posed by those states.

We know that China's ambassador to Mauritius has applauded the treaty, and we also know that Mauritius has recently released public statements in support of China's One China policy. So could the Minister set out what steps were taken by Ministers and officials to assess the impact of this treaty on the influence that hostile countries will be able to have on the Mauritian government and the military base? Were any concerns raised with Ministers about the influence of hostile state actors during the negotiations, and have any concerns been raised since? My amendment 44 focuses on notification of the Mauritian government, and I was pleased that we have been able to clarify that the Mauritian government will not, in fact, receive prior notice of operation launched from Diego Garcia.

During the debates that we had at committee. So could the Minister go further and confirm that they will not receive prior notification of any other activities at the base, such as maintenance, upgrades, visits by foreign forces, etc. I would be grateful if the noble Lord, the Minister, could take the opportunity to provide a little more clarity on these points today. On the wider issue of long term security, the question we must ask ourselves, my Lords, is does this Bill actually preserve our long term security, or does it make that security even more uncertain? For example, we do have profound concerns about the relationship between Mauritius and China.

It is clearly worrying that China's representatives in Mauritius applauded this deal. The concerns raised by my noble friend Lord Lilley around the Pelindaba treaty, to which the Mauritian government is a signatory, have also not been satisfactorily answered by Ministers. Now, I know the noble Lord. The Minister was very cautious, perhaps understandably so, in the language that he used at committee. But we welcome his assurance that the Diego Garcia military base will continue to operate as it does now under the new treaty.

However, that does not explain how, therefore, Mauritius could fulfil its obligations under the Pelindaba treaty. Don't think I want to wish to push him any further to provide sensitive information in the public domain, but anything he is able to, any way he is able to go further and reassure us that demonstrate that the operational capacities of the base will remain completely unchanged under the treaty, would, I think, be welcomed by the House and particularly by the noble Lords on this side of the House? I am also in great grateful, in particular to the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, for her amendment, which raises the valid question of the UK's ability to shape developments on the Chagos Islands beyond Diego Garcia, where those activities have defence and security implications.

This is an important question and I hope that the Minister will be able to address it. In his reply. I beg

**** Possible New Speaker ****

to move. Amendment proposed clause one, page one, line seven at end insert page one, line seven at end insert subject to subsection two A.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

subject to subsection two A. I just want briefly to refer to my amendments 49 and 17. I think the noble Lord, the Minister will the noble Lord, the Minister will know because one of them I tabled before Committee stage, and I really just want to probe a little
18:51
Baroness Hoey Portrait Baroness Hoey (Non-affiliated)
-
-
really just want to probe a little bit further on on perhaps some of the questions then and that that I didn't get answers that satisfied me. Could I just ask, what is it that what can we do and what do we know? And what can the government do? If a country leases an island ostensibly for a non security or defence purpose, but then gradually introduces security and defence functions from Mauritius? In other words, what power do we have over what Mauritius does to the islands? Once we have given up our capacity other than for Diego Garcia? Turning to the actual deployment of security and our defence personnel to islands on the Chagos Archipelago beyond Diego Garcia what UK approval is required? I raise this before, but I really want to know the detail.

Given the announcement that we had on the 12th of September that India had paid Mauritius to secure a defence presence on a Chagos island, would the noble Lord, the Minister, please tell the House today whether the Republic of Mauritius asked the UK government ahead of doing that deal with India, and if they did not bother to ask? I mean, I really, genuinely think this would provide a really good reason for not ratifying the treaty at this stage. If the answer is that the Republic of Mauritius sought UK approval and this was given, why did the UK government agree? Surely it was completely inappropriate for the Republic of Mauritius to enter details about what will happen to the islands in the future, when the UK Parliament had not yet agreed to the transfer of sovereignty over the Chagos Islands, and when the treaty is still not ratified, and many of us in this place hope it will never be.

However, I think my amendment is really I just I do have no intention of moving them to a vote. I would just welcome the points.
18:53
Lord Lilley Portrait Lord Lilley (Conservative)
-
-
Yeah. >> First of all apologise to the House for being absent for my amendments in the first group and I'm grateful to my noble friend I'm grateful to my noble friend Lord Hannan for having moved some on my behalf, I'm sure, with far greater eloquence than I've been able to bring. Where I believe in conspiracy theories, I'd imagine that President Macron and Prime Minister Starmer had got together to prevent me returning to this House, but I'm sure, in fact, both of them have got more serious issues, given their lack of popularity in their respective countries than dealing with me.

I want to speak very briefly to my amendment 14, which asks that the government seek guarantee, negotiate guarantees from the government of Mauritius that Mauritius will not enforce its duties under the Pelindaba treaty on the basis Diego Garcia, and make sure that if they did so, the sovereignty of the base would revert to the UK. I do this because the Pelindaba treaty seems pretty clear. It excludes the use of any part of any African country.

A Mauritius counts itself as an African country, and when it takes sovereignty of Chagos Archipelago will count that as part of Africa. It precludes any of those countries from having any nuclear weapons or. Armaments in on that territory, and therefore it would be very difficult on a simple reading of the Pelindaba treaty for us to use that for our nuclear submarines or for any aircraft carrying nuclear weapons. The treaty, as it's written, says, each party confirms that none of its existing international obligations or arrangements now in force or effect between it and any third party is in conflict with the provisions of this agreement.

If that means that the parties to the agreement intend to ignore any other agreements that they have that may conflict with this. That's all right with me. But the trouble is, it then goes on to say that nothing in this agreement shall affect the status of existing international obligations or arrangements, except as expressly provided in this agreement. And that would appear to suggest that nothing is agreement will override the Pelindaba treaty unless it's expressly stated in this agreement. It is not expressly stated.

Now, I have every confidence in the two Ministers in their patriotism, and, you know, they do put the defence of this country manifestly above other minor considerations. And I'm sure if it's left to them, we can rely on all this. And I would sit down and not pursue the argument further. But we know that this is a government which says that its highest priority is international law. And if it's now saying, well, we're prepared to ignore legal agreements and enter into agreements with countries expressly on the basis that they ignore international agreements into which they've entered, then we're in a difficult position.

I notice the noble Lord there, especially come in here, perhaps to give us assurances that he will not, in this instance, express the supremacy of international law, but ultimately the sovereignty and independence of this country and its military defence and its allies, its alliances with the United States take priority over those matters. Now, if we can have that assurance, that's fine by me. Now, I appreciate that we're here dealing with very sensitive matters, and I don't expect the Minister to go into fine detail, but I would like them to give me greater assurance than I get from reading the treaty that the Pelindaba treaty is not going at some future stage to be cited by Mauritius as a reason that we cannot use nuclear powered vessels or nuclear equipped weapons and armaments and aircraft from the base.

And unless we have that assurance, we must be rather worried. My Lords.
18:57
Earl of Leicester Portrait The Earl of Leicester (Conservative)
-
-
I too. >> Was detained in France and was not able to speak to my First Amendment. 20 but I speak to my Amendment. 20 but I speak to my amendment 21 and support all the others in this group, and it basically seeks to ensure that the basically seeks to ensure that the Secretary of State consults with UK's Aukus partners on the transfer of sovereignty of the Diego Garcia base, and that we get the written approval of the governments of Australia, UK and USA and also the opinions of the senior Naval staff.

Of those three partners. Now, Aukus is central to the Strategic Defence Review. Secretary of State John Healey states in the foreword of the SDR that through Aukus program, this will allow us to grow our nuclear powered attack submarine fleet up to 12. This will reinforce our continuous at sea deterrent and position the UK to deliver the Aukus partnership with the US and Australia. Now there have been a number of notable naval critics. Indeed, one of them, Admiral the noble Lord West of Spithead, on the government's own benches, a former First Sea Lord and security Minister, warned the government may genuinely believe that the base's long term future is more secure under the agreement than without it.

But how can the base, which serves as an indispensable naval, air and intelligence asset, be more secure under the sovereignty of another nation than under our own? In November last year, retired Rear Admiral Chris Parry criticised the government's deal to transfer sovereignty of the Chagos to Mauritius. He described the decision as the biggest strategic mistake he has seen in his lifetime. And in February last year, Commander Peters, retired Royal Naval officer who led British forces on the joint UK US base on Diego Garcia.

He said that the base was currently easily defended, but if the outer islands are under Mauritian control, China could quite happily start redeveloping them and installing all sorts of spying equipment that I think would affect the security of Diego Garcia. I won't go on to talk about the Pelindaba treaty, because I think that's been very well covered by my colleague, Lord Lord Lilley, but I would just if I can just ask this, how can nuclear submarines or aircraft carrying nuclear explosive devices use Diego Garcia without compromising that Pelindaba treaty? Treaty? This is a perfect storm of danger twofold.

Either the international pressure influenced infinitely more pressure than the advisory opinions of a UN board that the UK has a veto on is brought to bear to prohibit aukus partners from using Diego Garcia for operations, essentially removing Diego Garcia from the Aukus program, or that foreign adversaries such as Russia, Iran or China use this new circumstance of us using nuclear weapons in or housing them in Diego Garcia as justification to thwart the Pelindaba treaty and install, station or transport their own nuclear weapons across the African continent.

For example, South Africa is a strong ally of Russia, Iran and China through the BRICs partnership. And next week, in fact, is this week. They are doing a joint significant naval exercise between those various countries. The implications on maritime and nuclear security in the context of these dangerous and alarming concerns, coupled with a rapidly changing geopolitical space, cannot be overstated. For this reason, my amendment stipulates the Secretary of State bring a report to Parliament that contains the opinions of the naval staff of all three Aukus partners.

Yeah.
19:01
Baroness Goldie Portrait Baroness Goldie (Conservative)
-
-
My Lords. >> I wish to endorse the comments of my noble friend Lord Kelvin relative to the amendments in this group, I raise specific concerns group, I raise specific concerns about defence and security at committee, and I have considerable sympathy with the remarks of my noble friends, Lord Lilley and the Earl of Leicester in relation to their amendments. My Lords, I accept that the noble Lord, the Minister, has acted in good faith, repeating the advice which he has been given after the Committee debate on these defence and security issues.

I read Hansard with care. I read that Pelindaba treaty with care, and it seems to me, as my noble friend Lord Lilley has indicated, that once UK sovereignty over the base is relinquished in consequence of this treaty, that sovereignty transmits to Mauritius and the base is then subject to whatever international agreements Mauritius has entered into. In the case of the treaty, there are restrictive consequences for the base, and my concern is slightly broader than that of my noble friend Lord Lilley.

If, in the eyes of the other signatories to the Pelindaba treaty, Mauritius is deemed to be in breach, all the other signatories have a locus to raise an objection and deploy international law. Now that cannot be addressed unless this treaty is renegotiated to retain sovereignty of the base in the hands of the UK. And I wish to place on the record that that is my opinion and my understanding of the position. My Lords, the noble Lord, the Minister rightly does not wish to be drawn into discussing sensitive operational issues relative to the base, and I agree with that.

What I do ask him to do before stage three is to ask his officials to draft a letter for him to be placed in the library, explaining her renunciation of sovereignty of the base by the UK and acquisition of that sovereignty by Mauritius, then governed by the Pelindaba treaty, is compatible with free and unrestricted usage of the base by the US, the UK and our allies. I have to say, my Lords, that I think the noble Lord, the Minister, has been placed in an impossible position by his Prime Minister.

This treaty was negotiated on a basis far removed from the harsh reality of the world we live in, and defence and security seem to have become the incidental sacrifices to the worship of the high altar of diplomacy and international jurisprudence. I feel it should never have proceeded as it did. And for that I do not blame either of the Ministers sitting opposite. But I do want the noble Lord, the Minister, to explain how the government will fix it.
19:04
Lord Morrow Portrait Lord Morrow (Democratic Unionist Party)
-
-
I wish to make some comments in relation to the amendment in my name. Number 22, and I will seek name. Number 22, and I will seek not to transgress my time in relation to this one. During the Committee stage, the noble Lords Lord Lily and Callaghan and noble Baroness Goldie pointed out the difficulty arising from the fact that while the Mauritius Treaty makes provision for the leasing of Diego Garcia by the United Kingdom, this does not change the fact that in the event that the Mauritius Treaty is ratified, Diego Garcia would come under the sovereignty of Mauritius.

This is problematic for some two reasons at least. First is that the Republic of Mauritius is a signatory to the Pelindaba treaty, which means that no nuclear weapons can be held in the territory over which it is sovereign. And second, article seven of the Mauritius Treaty expressly states each party confirms that none of its existing international obligations or arrangements now in force, or in fact between it and any third party, is in conflict with the provisions of this agreement, and that nothing in this agreement shall affect the status of existing international obligations or arrangements, except as expressly provided for in this agreement.

And I would just like very briefly, and I would like to ask, the Minister has and I and I know Baroness Goldie has already made reference to this, and I do accept that the noble Lady, the Minister, can she confirm that the government has discussed this matter in its entirety with the government of the United States, and that they have confirmation from the US that they have secured their solemn pledge that no nuclear submarines or other nuclear weapons will be able to be taken to Diego Garcia if sovereignty is transferred.

But and finally, I do accept that I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say in relation to that point. But I would very gently say that while, of course, she must not discuss operational matters, this cannot be pushed as an excuse for dodging questions about compliance with the law. With international law, any attempt to deploy the stratagem to the point of avoiding the demonstration of compliance with international law when non-compliance is feared, would precedent.
19:07
Lord Coaker Portrait Lord Coaker, The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Labour)
-
-
Although, sir. >> It's a pleasure. >> For the first time to get up the Report stage and to address all of Report stage and to address all of you. But on this really important group dealing with security matters. And I'll try to come to some of the points that have been that have been raised. Let me start with the challenge, and I'll come to the other point about the letter that the noble Baroness raised. But the challenge that she she put at the end explain how the government is dealing with the position with respect to the treaty, from a security point of view.

And I think it answers some of the questions that have been answered, not least just by Lord Morrow. And I won't go into some of the operational points that have been made by Lord Morrow and others. But I what I can say on the security matters is that if you look at the expressions of support for the security aspects of this treaty, all of our major international allies and partners have supported the security arrangements. And I think that is a fairly significant point for us to make a fairly important point for this House to recognise the noble Baroness and others.

And indeed, just now, Lord Morrow and indeed the Earl of Leicester, the United States President Trump expressed support for the Diego Garcia arrangements within the treaty. US Secretary Headset said Diego Garcia is a vital military base for the US. The UK is very important. Deal with Mauritius secures the operational capabilities of the base and key US national security interests in the region. We are confident that base is protected for many years ahead. Not me but the US.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

What is the US paying Britain

**** Possible New Speaker ****

What is the US paying Britain for the lease here? Because it pretty clear why the Americans are supporting this, because they're

**** Possible New Speaker ****

supporting this, because they're Well. They pay for the operations at

**** Possible New Speaker ****

They pay for the operations at the base which which they have done for many years. And I just say to the noble Earl, I think it is a fairly important policy that the government has secured to ensure the security of the of the base over the coming decades. And I think that is what is important about it. All I'm saying to the noble Earl, and I'll come to Aukus in a minute. He's asked in his own amendment. Lord Morrow has asked, and other noble Lords have asked about how this treaty, the treaty arrangements, how the security of the base is protected.

All I'm doing is reading out what our crucial allies are saying about it. That's what I'm saying about that's what I'm saying. I'm saying about what they're saying about it. They're paying for the operation of the base, which is what that we've secured the future of the base and they're supporting it. US Secretary Rubio came out and supported the base as well. But people asked me, what, what how have we secured the challenge? The noble Baroness said, how have we ensured that we've secured the future of the base? And I am saying we secured that by ensuring that our major allies support it.

I can only imagine what the noble Lord would say if I couldn't read out quotes from the US supporting what we were doing Five Eyes have supported it again, talking to the noble Lord, the Earl of Leicester, the Aukus partners that the Australia have supported it as well as the US. All of the Five Eyes have supported it. Canada has supported it, Japan has supported it. Korea has supported it. India has supported it. All of those countries have supported supported it.

And I just say that I think that that is an important position for the government to be in. And I think that's the context within which all of all of the various amendments should be considered. I don't question the desire of people, a noble Lords, in their amendments, to try to challenge the government to understand how effectively we've done that. All I'm arguing before your Lordships is to say that within the context of the treaty, the base is secured and the future of the base is secured.

And I think that is a fairly important statement for the government to be able to to make. I'll come to the Pelindaba treaty in a moment when I come to Lord Lilley and address the specifics that the noble Baroness, the noble Baroness, raised amendment tabled by Lord Callaghan, and request a statement from the Secretary of State on Base Security. The treaty has robust security provisions to protect the base, including full operational control of Diego Garcia, full UK control over the presence of foreign security forces across the archipelago, and an effective veto over any construction or development that risks undermining, prejudicing or otherwise interfering with the long term, long term, secure and effective operation of the base.

On Diego Garcia claims that Mauritius is an unreliable partner and one that cannot be trusted are unfounded. Mauritius is a member of the Commonwealth and a westward facing country with shared democratic values, and Mauritius ranks among the top African nations in governance, human development and innovation. It is a full democracy, a regional leader in human rights and a trusted partner in upholding the rules based international order. Ranking two second out 54 African countries in the Ibrahim Index of African Governments.

Can I deal with the amendment? 14 tabled by Lord Lily? Can I thank him for tabling that amendment and also for the support that the noble Baroness has given to him? The noble Baroness asked me, and I hope this helps with respect to Lord Lilley as well. Of course, as noble Lords will know, I was trying to be helpful. She's asked whether I would ask my officials to draft a letter between now and Third Reading. Yes, of course. Yes of course to Lord Lilley as well.

I will do that. I cannot guarantee that the content will necessarily be everything that the noble Baroness or the noble Lord would want, but I think it is a perfectly reasonable thing to request to ask for a letter to be to be done. And of course that will be done, and I'll place a copy of that in the library. So it's available to all noble Lords to to consider as we move towards Third Reading. But it's specifically regarding the amendment tabled by Lord Lilley.

And he knows he's been a senior Minister himself, and he's got a former distinguished Prime Minister sat next to him as other noble Lords. It's very difficult to answer some of the specific questions that other noble Lords have posed around certain capabilities. And nobody and indeed the noble Baroness Baroness Goldie recognised that we can't talk about. Let me just say what I can say. The amendment 14, tabled by Lord Lilley, would require guarantees that Mauritius will not enforce its duties under the Pelindaba treaty on the base, and that sovereignty would revert to the UK if it did.

As I said at Committee stage, the governments of the UK and Mauritius are both satisfied that the Diego Garcia treaty is compatible with their existing obligations under applicable international law. The UK will ensure all operations on Diego Garcia comply with its existing obligations. The UK is not a party to the Pelindaba treaty, although it is a party to protocols one and two. The treaty and the bill we are debating today will allow the base to operate as it always has done.

It will not reduce our ability to deploy the full range of advanced military capabilities to and from Diego Garcia in any way. As to amendment 17, tabled by Baroness Hoey, I'll come on to her other amendment, more specifically, annexe one of the treaty already clearly states the rights and authorities provided to the UK in the Chagos Archipelago beyond Diego Garcia. It also sets out the security review process that must be undertaken by Mauritius for any maritime installation or any land development on the outer islands, as well as the requirement for the UK consent of any such development.

This grants the UK significant ability to maintain the security and effective operation of the base. Can I can I come to amendment 49? And the specific question that the noble Baroness asked me, can I reassure her on on India and Mauritius, it's not true that India has paid for presence on the Chagos. That that is not correct. Both have confirmed it was a renewal of previous agreements on an Indian satellite station on the Mauritius mainland. Mainland. And so I hope that that answers that specific question that the noble Baroness quite rightly raised.

And I hope that clarifies that particular point that she that she raised, raised more specifically on amendment 49, tabled by the noble Baroness, it would require parliamentary approval for any future defence or security use of the Chagos Islands by countries other than the UK or the US. The UK can permit access, basing and overflight to non-UK and non US forces Diego Garcia and may need to act quickly in doing so. I would like to reassure and remind the noble Lady that the treaty also restricts the presence of the non non-united UK Non-united States or non Mauritian security forces in the broader archipelago are granting unrestricted access to states operating with UK or US military forces, save in respect of overflight or undersea access, which does require notification to Mauritius, not permission.

This amendment would therefore constrain the UK and the US's ability to cooperate with our allies and to conduct military operations and activities on or from Diego Garcia for the protection of the British people. The treaty also contains robust security provisions, including UK control over foreign security forces on the outer islands, where the civilian or military it is appropriate for this type of decision making about national security and defence matters to be done by government and without needing necessarily needing legislative approval.

In every case, normal parliamentary scrutiny of such matters will, of course, continue. Can I just come to the important point that the noble Earl of Leicester, made, in seeking consultation with Aukus partners and with their approval before the treaty comes into force? The government's view is it's unnecessary. Protections were designed and tested at the highest level of the UK. US rather security establishment, the UK. The US administration has already, as I've said publicly and categorically, backed the deal.

The agreement has also been publicly welcomed by the US and Australia and all other Five Eyes Five Eyes allies, as well as other key international point partners. As I've said, I know the noble Lords point, as indeed was from 1 or 2 of his colleagues, made me feel I was back in the other place again, being shouted out at the the about that saying. Well, they would say that, wouldn't they? But just to finish this point, but just to but just to say to the to the noble, the government's perspective on this is that we have a treaty.

We've secured the security of Diego Garcia, and we're pleased that our international allies have come out in support of that. And we regard the noble Earls Amendment as unnecessary because the Aukus partners, Australia and the US, have already expressed support for the treaty and for the security arrangements. Sorry, the noble excuse me, I think the noble. I'll just let me finish this, I think. I think I've dealt with the various I think I've dealt with all of the various amendments. Sorry.

I thought the noble Earl Lester was going to, I think I think amendment 44, I think I haven't done tabled by Lord Callaghan, seeks to prevent the UK from notifying Mauritius of the location of sensitive defence equipment before maintenance and upgrades. This is inconsistent with the treaty, which provides that the UK shall have rights of access for maintenance and upgrades. Equipment and islands of the Chagos Archipelago beyond Diego Garcia. Following notification to Mauritius after advising Mauritius of the location of such equipment.

Similarly, amendment 22 with respect to Lord Morrow, I've dealt with that with some of the comments that I've also made. He wants us. He's keen to understand the impact of the treaty on the rules based international order. All I can again say to him, the treaty has been welcomed by our international partners, including the UN Secretary General, the Commonwealth Secretary General and the African Union. I hope I've answered the points that noble Lords have raised, even if not to their total satisfaction.

But I think the important point that was raised regarding the Pelindaba treaty, I will ensure that a letter is ready for your Lordships before Third Reading and placed in in the library. But with that, I ask for the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
19:21
19:22
Lord Lilley Portrait Lord Lilley (Conservative)
-
-
amendment ten Lord Lilley. >> My Lords, very briefly to move

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, very briefly to move my two minutes, talk to my two amendments ten and 15, when a government of any administration shifts from the original arguments which justified its policy to a new set of arguments, you know, it's moving from evidence based policy to policy based evidence. And that seems to be what's happening here. When the original statement was made about this treaty on the 22nd of March, the defence Minister in the other place said that if we didn't have this treaty within weeks, we would face a binding legal judgement which would in due course, render the base inoperable.

That was implicitly based on the case before the International Court of Justice. But no mention was made that that case was that ruling was purely advisory, not binding. No mention was that it was based on General Assembly resolutions, which themselves are not binding, and had never been ratified by the Security Council, where in any case we have a veto. There was no mention that when we signed up to the ICJ, we specifically precluded it from hearing or being bound by anything it relating to UK disputes between UK and Commonwealth members, and that subsequently, in 2012, the Cameron government had tightened up by saying it shouldn't just be present Commonwealth members, but present or past Commonwealth members, just in case Russia should leave the Commonwealth to pursue its case.

When we mention these things, the government didn't say, oh yes, you're quite right. We should have mentioned that earlier. They simply shifted to talking about the possibility of tribunals in other fora. Above all, the UN convention, law of the sea. But that convention can't address sovereignty. The Minister, in her response to Committee stage, mentioned that in a dispute between Mauritius and the Maldives in which Britain wasn't obviously representative, represented the the tribunal did assume on the basis of the ICD treaty that the boundaries of Mauritius should include Chagos and ruled on that basis.

But we have the right in any future dispute that involves us to be represented. And above all, we have the right to invoke. I think it's amendment 238, which precludes military matters. The Diego Garcia basis is, above all, a military matter. So I don't see where any binding legal judgement could come from, which is why I say, well, this shouldn't come into force until we see that there is a binding ruling from some international body, and if it's going to happen within weeks, that's not going to delay the whole matter very much.

But the second issue, which is dealt with in my second amendment, is the reference to any ruling by whichever international body it is, effectively rendering the base inoperable. And when we've pressed that, we're told, well, it would mean that countries which supply the base, provide facilities for the base, would be able to withdraw those facilities, and that in some way would render it inoperable. What these facilities are, I mean, I presume they get food from neighbouring countries in boats, but nothing much has changed.

If countries wished effectively to impose an embargo on the Diego Garcia base, with or without an international resolution from the ICJ or any other tribunal, they could do so. And if that would render the base inoperable, then the base is much weaker than we thought. And if they can do can't do so, then surely there's nothing much to worry about with whether or not there's a legal ruling. I don't want to go on it any length because I know wish noble Lords want to get on to the important business of expressing their views in the lobbies.

But I really do think the fundamental basis on which this whole treaty has been based has shifted, like the Goodwin Sands and like sinking sands everywhere. When they shift, it swallows you up. And the government's rationale for this whole bill has been swallowed up by their refusal to just wait and see whether some tribunal would come up with some ruling, which would, in some very strange way, render the base inoperable. I find that imaginary. But if it's possible, let's suck it and see.

Yeah, yeah.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Does the noble Lord wish to move his amendment? Do I? Yes I do, yes I do.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Do I? Yes I do, yes I do. You have amendment proposed in clause one, page one, line seven, clause one, page one, line seven, and insert the words as printed in the Marshall List.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Of. Great. Right? I mean, we've been through this quite a few times, through this quite a few times, which I'm supposing is why noble Lords aren't jumping to their feet.
19:28
Baroness Chapman of Darlington Portrait Baroness Chapman of Darlington, Minister of State (Development) (Labour)
-
-
But why? Why wait for why not wait for a binding ruling? We've discussed previously that that discussed previously that that would leave us in a disadvantaged position in terms of negotiation, where we would be negotiating with where we would be negotiating with Mauritius following a binding ruling, and the point that there is no there can never be a binding no there can never be a binding ruling because no, no tribunal exists which could, could, could, exists which could, could, could, could make one that does rather beg the question of why the previous government did commit itself to 11 rounds of negotiations to protect itself from something which could never happen.

And so I having said all that, the amendments tabled by the noble Lord Lord Lilley concern again, the legal rationale and the risks of the agreement, including in waiting for a binding ruling on sovereignty over the archipelago in amendment ten. And I must reject again this this argument and this amendment, given that waiting for such a thing with the treaty with Mauritius not ratified, it would put us in an incredibly weak position. It would risk the future of the base, and the delay would be highly dangerous, we think, to UK national security and we're just not going to do it.

We published our legal rationale for the deal on the day that the treaty was signed. The House has dedicated hours debating this rationale. It's been the subject of two reports by respected committees. In this place. The government's been consistently clear throughout all of this. The legal case was compelling. There was no credible alternative for managing this risk, which is why the previous government undertook so many rounds of negotiation. And we're confident that this agreement secures the base from legal threat protecting the UK national security for generations.

And I hope that the noble Lord doesn't put his amendments to a vote.
19:30
19:31
19:32
None Portrait Division
-

My My Lords. My Lords. The My Lords. The question My Lords. The question is that this amendment be agreed to as amended. That opinion will say content the contrary, not content, not content. The contents will go to the right by the throne, the not Thank Thank you Thank you very Thank you very much. Thank you very much. How Thank you very much.

How are.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Lord Oates? The question is that this My My Lords, there have voted contents 210, not Amendment. Amendment. Amendment Amendment. Amendment 20. Amendment. Amendment 20. The Earl of Leicester not moved 21. Not moved. Amendment 22. Lord Morrow not moved. Amendment 23. Lord Morrow not moved. Amendment 24. Lord Hannan not moved. Amendment 25 Lord Hannan not moved. Amendment 26 Lord Morrow not moved. Amendment 27 Lord Morrow not moved.

Amendment 28 Lord Faulks not moved. Not moved. Amendment 29 Lord Faulks not moved. Amendment 30 Lord Faulks. Amendment 31 Lord Fox. Amendment 31 A not moved. Amendment 32. Baroness Foster moved. The question is that this amendment be agreed to. As many of that opinion will say. Content. Content the contrary. Not content, not content. The question will be decided by a division. I will advise the House when voting will advise the House when voting is open.

Thank you. All voting is Order. Order. My Order. My Lords. Order. My Lords. The Order. My Lords. The question Order. My Lords. The question is this amendment be agreed to? As many of that opinion will say content the contrary, not content. The contents will go to the right by the throne. The not contents to My My Lords, My Lords, the question is that this amendment be

**** Possible New Speaker ****

So.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My My Lords, My Lords, there My Lords, there have My Lords, there have voted

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, there have voted contents 168, not contents 178. So contents 168, not contents 178. So Lords

**** Possible New Speaker ****

amendment. Amendment 33 Lord Purvis of Tweed Lords. The government. Had indicated previously that if

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Had indicated previously that if amendment 19 had passed, then they would consider this to be consequential. My understanding is consequential. My understanding is that continues to be the position, so I would still have to. I will still have to move it formally. So

**** Possible New Speaker ****

move formally. So to be clear, this is consequential to a division which consequential to a division which was won earlier on. So the question is this amendment be agreed to as many of that opinion will say many of that opinion will say content contrary not content. The. The contents have it the contents have it. We now come to the next group. Group seven, amendment 34. In clause five. Lord Lansley.
19:56
Lord Lansley Portrait Lord Lansley (Conservative)
-
-
My Lords, there are four amendments in this group and they are all my amendments. So I hope I do not need to detain the House for a very long time. But it is rather important because this group of amendments relates to the scrutiny that is to be attached to the that is to be attached to the powers which are used in the continuing jurisdiction that this country will exercise in Diego Garcia. They are powers that are established under the royal prerogative.

But the question that amendment 34, 35 and 36 relate to is the extent of parliamentary scrutiny in the exercise of those powers. Now, noble Lords may recall that although these amendments were tabled at committee and they were tabled in order to give effect to the recommendations of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee. And the intention is very straightforward. It is that orders in Council which exercise Henry VIII powers, i.e. amending or repealing primary statutes, should be subject to an affirmative resolution procedure, and that all other orders should be subject to a negative resolution procedure rather than, as proposed by the bill.

No procedure at all. No parliamentary procedure at all. Now, at Committee, the Minister said, and I quote, we are still considering these suggestions and we will return to them on report. So we are returning to them on report by virtue of these amendments tabled. I'm grateful we haven't had an opportunity, the Minister and I, for a discussion of this issue since committee, but I am grateful for the copy of the letter by which the government responded on the 23rd of December to the DEFRA and noble Lords will also recall a letter of the 22nd of December, which is relevant, which was sent to noble Lords participating in the Committee stage.

The government have not accepted the Delegated Powers Committee's recommendations. So I am asking the House that we should include the recommended level of parliamentary scrutiny and amendments 34, 35 and 36 would achieve that. Now, the government's arguments are that the act provides for the continuation of law of the laws in Diego Garcia, and that processes for making laws in the military base area should be the same as those applying previously. In short, maintaining the status quo. However, the status quo has changed.

We are not in the status quo. The treaty with Mauritius provides that sovereignty is no longer with this country. Sovereignty, including in Diego Garcia by virtue of the treaty, is with Mauritius, as we've heard. So insofar as the prerogative powers were previously derived from that sovereignty, that no longer applies. The minister's letters refer to Cyprus as a precedent, but the Cyprus Treaty and the Cyprus Act 1960 provide that the United Kingdom's sovereignty is continued in relation to the two sovereign base areas.

The clue is in the title, and as we heard in an earlier debate, not least from my noble friend Baroness Goldie, the that the. She would have preferred that we had retained sovereignty in Diego Garcia, but that has not happened. I should also note that section three five of the Cyprus Act 1960 stated that an Order in Council under this section shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament. So, insofar as the Cyprus Act is a precedent, it is one that is supportive of the concept of parliamentary scrutiny of orders in Council.

The Minister's response to the Delegated Powers Committee, 23rd of December said that, and I quote, the operation of the base and the treaty as a whole are in the realm of international relations, defence and security. And given that subject matter, it is appropriate for those instruments to be subject to no parliamentary procedure. I have to say, I know of no basis for such a blanket assertion. Powers under statute relating to the armed forces. For example, the Armed Forces Act 2006 are subject to parliamentary procedures, including the affirmative procedure, where rights and offences are involved.

So the Minister's letters are also of the 22nd and 23rd of December, I'm afraid, are also in apparent contradiction. The the 22nd of December letter says prerogative orders in Council are not Statutory Instruments. The 23rd of December response to the Delegated Powers Committee says of the Orders in Council, quote, they will, of course, be Statutory Instruments, which will be registered and published in the usual way. I have to say, I think it's the Delegated Powers Committee letter, which is incorrect.

The prerogative orders are not Statutory Instruments, but if they are to be published and registered, that of course would be welcome. My purpose now in this debate is to enable us to give greater clarity and reduce the legal risk arising from the exceptional structure of powers that is generated by this Bill, by making clear both that Parliament has approved the use of the prerogative powers, and that their future use will be subject to appropriate parliamentary scrutiny. So firstly, I accept that the treaty, while removing sovereignty, maintains the UK's jurisdiction in Diego Garcia.

It is therefore not a foreign jurisdiction, and the Bill correctly applies the provisions of the Foreign Jurisdiction Act 1890. Given that the powers are established under an international treaty which is itself made under a prerogative power, the source of the powers used in Diego Garcia can correctly be regarded as continuing to be prerogative powers. So the orders in Council will therefore be prerogative orders, not statutory orders. But in this exceptional case, where the continuation of the prerogative powers are confirmed by this statute, it is consistent, in my view, with the best constitutional position that the orders may be subject to parliamentary scrutiny, whilst not being regarded as Statutory Instruments under the terms of the 1946 Statutory Instruments Act.

That is, I think, the position in this Bill, and I suggest it provides for a clear constitutional narrative particular to the circumstances, this bill, this act will give rise to. It will be stronger than to rely simply on the proposition that Diego Garcia is just like another British overseas territory, where clearly it isn't because of the recognition of Mauritius sovereignty in relation to Diego Garcia, nor is it analogous to the Sovereign Base areas in Cyprus, as I explained.

Amendment 37 I've always mentioned, which was about the application of the Statutory Instruments Act for reasons I've just explained. I accept the orders will not fall under that act, but amendments 34, 35 and six will ensure that orders that are made are subject to parliamentary scrutiny in the form in which the Delegated Powers Committee recommended it, i.e. Henry VIII powers subject to an affirmative procedure. Any other orders subject to a negative resolution procedure. Now, we haven't had a debate at committee.

May I suggest that this debate might well fill that space? I would welcome it if it were the minister's intention, even in the couple of days, available to us to reconsider the issue at Third Reading. I think there is a position which is not that recommended by the Delegated Powers Committee, which would also be acceptable to the House, i.e. that Henry VIII powers, when used, should be subject to the affirmative procedure, but that any other orders in Council should be laid before Parliament, rather than necessarily subject to any parliamentary procedure for the purpose.

And I hope, if that the Minister might reply to the debate by suggesting that we come back to this at Third Reading with a view to considering that proposal, as well as the Delegated Powers Committee's recommendations, which are what in amendments 34, 35 and 36. So I hope that I might get that positive response. But subject to that, I ask the House to consider, if necessary, supporting the Delegated Powers Committee's recommendations in amendment 34 and the consequential 35 and 36.

But for the moment, I beg to move amendment 34.
20:06
20:07
Baroness Chapman of Darlington Portrait Baroness Chapman of Darlington, Minister of State (Development) (Labour)
-
-
My Lords, amendments 34, 35, 36 and 37, tabled by the noble Lord Lord Lansley seek to amend clause five of the Bill, and I appreciate that amendments 34 to 36 would implement the recommendations of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee. The government has carefully considered the report of the Committee on the Bill and has responded to it. But on this occasion, this evening, we don't accept those recommendations. I am, and I note what the noble Lord says about Third Reading, and I am grateful to him for his detailed engagement with these provisions.

I do just want to clarify one point which noble Lords might not be entirely clear about. The effect of the Bill is that there will be two powers. One is the prerogative power to legislate for Diego Garcia only, which is preserved under clause three of the bill. And we do seem to have some agreement on that point. The other power is a new statutory power conferred by clause five, orders in Council made under clause five will be Statutory Instruments.

The Bill currently provides that those will be subject to the negative procedure, where they amend primary legislation and otherwise to no procedure. That is not because we argue that they are prerogative orders, but because that is appropriate, we think, given their subject matter. So so far as the power to amend primary legislation is concerned, we've been clear that the negative procedure is appropriate, given that changes to be made to legislation will, in very large part be technical in nature. The purpose of the power is to ensure that the government can bring the domestic statute book into conformity with both the purpose and effect of the treaty, making consequential changes as necessary.

That works hand in hand with clause three provides a default position of continuity of the law. The clause five powers will be necessary to make amendments to that law, to adapt it to the treaty and the new status of Diego Garcia. This is not just about the law of Diego Garcia. There is also UK legislation which refers to BIOT and which needs to be brought into line. Applying the negative procedure here is consistent with the Cyprus Act, which Lord Lansley referred to section three of the Cyprus Act 1960 also provides for the law of the UK in relation to Cyprus or the Sovereign Base Areas to continue, and for statutory Orders in Council to be made under the negative procedure to make further adaptations as required.

The Hong Kong Act 1985 also provides for the negative procedure for Statutory Orders in Council under its section three amending the law of the UK or of other British possessions. The government's position is that it is appropriate that no procedure applies when the clause five power is used, other than to amend primary legislation and the operation of the base on Diego Garcia and the treaty as a whole are in the realm of international relations, defence and security. As the noble Lord said, and given the subject matter, it's appropriate for those instruments to be subject to no parliamentary procedure.

They will, of course, be Statutory Instruments, which will be registered and published in the usual way. It's not uncommon for orders in Council, which relate to the overseas territories, to have no procedure attached to them. But I am happy. I think it would be a good idea to continue to discuss this with the noble Lord Lord Lansley ahead of Third Reading, and I'd be very happy to do that, but I hope that he withdraws for this evening.
20:11
20:12
None Portrait Division
-

Voting Voting is Voting is now Voting is now open. Voting is now open. My Voting is now open. My Lords. Is Is that Is that this Is that this amendment be agreed to. As many are as that opinion will say content to the contrary. Not content, not content. Right, my Lords, the contents will go to the right by the throne. The go to the right by the throne.

The not content to the left by the bar.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Lord. Lord. This Lord. This amendment Lord. This amendment be Lord. This amendment be agreed

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Lord. This amendment be agreed to as many as will say content. I'm to as many as will say content. I'm sorry. I think you're supposed to say content, aren't you at that stage? No, no you're not. I'm so stage? No, no you're not. I'm so sorry. You're not. I'm so sorry. The question is that the amendment My My Lords, My Lords, there My Lords, there have voted content 194, not content 130. So the contents have it.

Yeah. My Lords, I have to inform the House that in Division number two, the number voting not content was 131,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

affected. Thank you.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you. Good. We now move on, my Lords, to, I think, amendment 48 Lord to, I think, amendment 48 Lord Callanan. No not moved. And amendment number 149 Baroness Hoey not moved 100 and. Amendment 50 not moved 100 and. Amendment 50 Lord Purvis of Tweed right. The question is this amendment be agreed to? As many as are that

**** Possible New Speaker ****

content. Not content. My Lords, the question will be

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, the question will be decided by division. I will advise the House when voting is open.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The The question The question is The question is that The question is that this amendment be agreed to. As many as amendment be agreed to. As many as an opinion will say content. To the contrary, not content. The contents contrary, not content. The contents will go to the right by the throne. The not contents to the left by the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Okay. Okay. Okay. Yes.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

So So the So the question So the question is So the question is that So the question is that this amendment be agreed to. So So that.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

So that. Everyone. Lord Arbuthnot. My Lords, there have voted

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, there have voted content 131 not content 127. So the
20:34
20:34
20:36
Lord Callanan Portrait Lord Callanan (Conservative)
-
-
Amendment proposed articles five. Insert the following new clause UK Mauritius Interparliamentary Mauritius Interparliamentary Committee as printed on the Order Paper.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lord, I'm pleased that the noble Lords Lord Purvis has chosen to retabled amendments on Interparliamentary Committee to Interparliamentary Committee to monitor and assess the implementation and operation of the treaty. The ongoing assessment of the success of the treaty is something that we have been seriously concerned about, and this is just one mechanism that could be used to deliver that ongoing monitoring. We are pleased so far that we've secured a number of significant concessions from the government on the detail of how the treaty's implementation will be monitored, the release of much more detailed information about the contact group, for example, and how it operates.

And I'm pleased also that towards the end of the year, the government released some further information about the Trust Fund Board. And we've heard today about the legislation in, in, in Mauritius on the establishment of the Trust Fund Board, which is all very positive. They are all important organisations which will have a role in holding both the UK and Mauritius to account as the treaty is implemented, delivering greater clarity during the progress of this Bill in your Lordships House shows, I think the impact that parliamentary scrutiny can have.

So in light of those facts and the noble Lord Lord Purvis amendments, I would be grateful if the Minister, when she replies, can confirm what further opportunities Parliament will have to discuss and scrutinise the implementation of the treaty. As I said before, I did not think it boded well that the government refused to allow a substantive motion in the other place on the treaty under the Crag procedures. So can she give the house a cast iron assurance that Parliament will be granted the opportunity to debate the implementation of the treaty at regular intervals, should it ever be implemented.
20:38
Baroness Chapman of Darlington Portrait Baroness Chapman of Darlington, Minister of State (Development) (Labour)
-
-
My Lords Amendments 51 and 54, tabled by Lord Purvis, concern the establishment of a UK Mauritius Interparliamentary Committee to oversee the implementation and operation of the treaty. And I would love to please the noble Lord Lord Purvis this evening. I'm happy to continue to talk to him, but I am going to, I'm afraid, disappoint him. This evening. Amendment 51 seeks to require the government to engage with Mauritius to create a committee with equal representation from both parliaments and the purpose of promoting mutual understanding of provisions of the treaty.

The Committee would have responsibilities including monitoring the implementation of the treaty and its impact on Chagossians. Amendment 54 ties. Commencement. Commencement of the act to the establishment of this Committee. Now, I recognise completely the intention behind these amendments is to promote dialogue and scrutiny. However, Mauritius's agreement to it could not be guaranteed and the treaty itself makes no provision for an Interparliamentary committee. Indeed, there would seem to be some potential for overlap, perhaps even conflict, between the proposed role of the committee and that of the Joint Commission under the treaty, and furthermore, introducing this requirement would at least delay, if not prevent, ratification and implementation of an agreement.

That's vital, we think, for our national security. There are numerous committees across the two houses that can, and I am sure, will undertake periodic inquiries into the operation of the treaty. And this joint committee could overlap with the work of these select committees. And that just wouldn't be right. We have select committees for a purpose, and it's for them to scrutinise the work of departments. And I don't think that we should be trying to replicate that. I know that the noble Lord and he's told me, and I know that he feels passionately about supporting Chagossians, and I commend him for that.

But I don't think that a joint committee will increase trust amongst the Chagossian community. As already mentioned in earlier groupings, this government is committed to a relationship with Chagossians built on trust and acknowledgement of the wrongs of the past. There are also elected representatives in the other place who are there to advocate for their constituents. And there are many in this House who also do this. The agreement has already been subject to extensive scrutiny under the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010, and both houses have had the opportunity to consider its terms.

The treaty also establishes a Joint Commission and article 12 to manage its operation, which is the appropriate forum for bilateral engagement. And for these reasons, I hope that the noble Lord will withdraw his amendment.
20:41
Lord Purvis of Tweed Portrait Lord Purvis of Tweed (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
And I'm grateful for the noble Lord Lord Callanan for the indication of support from him. And I'm grateful for the Minister for her reply. I have listened carefully with what she has said. Of course, the Joint Commission with the treaty is executive to executive level, and I've been seeking consistently for there to be an opportunity for parliamentary dialogue to continue. It is absolutely right that elected members of Parliament will represent their constituents and their constituents interests, and indeed, MPs in the Mauritian Parliament will do likewise.

My ambition is to find a vehicle by which that can be made in a systematic way, not to contradict or to conflict with parliamentary committees, but for there to be a parliamentary voice on behalf of the community where our commitment for their rights should be ongoing and not end. Once this treaty is ratified. I am grateful for the Minister saying that she is willing to continue to talk. I understand that that's not that's equally language, not to give any commitment to those anything at Third Reading, I understand that, but I would like to continue the engagement with the noble Lord and the Minister on this, and indeed with other parliamentary vehicles.

But at the moment, because of the lateness of the hour, we've had a very busy Report stage. Notwithstanding the importance of this issue, I beg leave to withdraw amendment in my name.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Is it your amendment? Withdrawn. Amendment by leave withdrawn. Amendment by leave withdrawn. Amendment 52 Lord Morrow Lord Hannan move. Amendment 53 Lord Hannan move. Amendment 53 Lord Morrow and Lord Hannan not move. No. 54 Lord Purvis not moved and 54 Lord Purvis not moved and amendment 55 Lord Callanan not moved.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I beg to move to the House to now adjourn. Question is that the House do
Feed Live - Click to view video
Return to start of debate - Return to top of page