Diego Garcia Military Base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill

Baroness Chapman of Darlington Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 25th November 2025 Lords Chamber

To govern is to choose. The Prime Minister has made a choice: to stand with his learned north London, prosecco-drinking friends, against the wishes of his plain-talking, pie-and-pint caucus in his wider party and the wider interests of the British people and our kinsmen on the Chagos. This is a bad Bill and we should fight it as hard as we can.

[The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Baroness Chapman of Darlington) (Lab)]

My Lords, I was not sure whether anybody else wanted to follow that last speech. I do not think I have ever seen the Prime Minister drink prosecco—he would prefer a pint, I think.

Anyway, I thank noble Lords for their speeches on this quite important set of amendments, and I would be very surprised if we did not come back to some of these issues on Report, because, for all the nonsense we have just heard, there are actually some very thoughtful and quite important considerations here. Someone put it very well when they said that, while they might not agree with everything we are doing, there is a shared view across the House that we need to do as best we can through this process for the Chagossian communities.

Regarding Amendments 17, 26 and 78, the Chagossians are already entitled to work on the base and have done so. There are a range of job opportunities on Diego Garcia, open to Chagossians with British, Mauritian and Seychelles citizenship. A link to vacancies advertised by KBR, the main contractor responsible for recruiting and managing support staff at the base, is already available on the GOV.UK pages, setting out UK government support for Chagossians. On Amendment 78 from the noble Lord, Lord Hannan—

[Lord Bellingham (Con)]

How many Chagossians are actually working on the base today?

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

I do not think that data is published anywhere, I am afraid. If it is, I shall provide it to the noble Lord.

I very much enjoyed the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Hannan, as I always do, but it is unjustifiable to define Chagossians as only those holding British Overseas Territories citizenship. I think that is what he was getting at. There are many Chagossians living in Mauritius, the Seychelles and beyond, and this would also exclude anyone who holds British citizenship, but not British Overseas Territories citizenship.

Amendment 20 from the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, which is one of many that would require the Government to seek something from Mauritius, is not needed. We have already committed to making a Statement to Parliament—and I think it is right that we do this—on the modalities of the Chagossian trust fund and eligibility for resettlement. That is in large part a response to the considerable interest that there has been from noble Lords across the House in making sure that the trust fund is run properly and fairly.

Taking this together with Amendment 38A from the noble Lord, Lord Hay, on air travel to Diego Garcia, I say that, as we have said numerous times, the UK is taking forward planning for a programme of heritage visits for Chagossians to the Chagos Archipelago, including Diego Garcia. These were paused in 2019 because of Covid, but we are working hard to reinstate them as soon as possible. Now, as then, these visits would include visits to key heritage sites. Specifically on the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Hay, there are no commercial flights to Diego Garcia, and nor would they be practical, as it is a working military base that is highly sensitive. Allowing commercial flights would interfere with the operational use of the base. Heritage visits in the past have often involved the use of charter aircraft and this may be the case for future visits also, but there is nothing in the treaty that would prevent this.

On Amendment 20C, noble Lords will recall that we debated the environmental impacts of the treaty and the marine protected area around the Chagos Archipelago last week. Both the UK and Mauritius are committed to protecting the unique environment around the islands. Noble Lords will be aware that on 2 November Mauritius issued a statement announcing the creation of a marine protected area once the treaty enters into force. No commercial fishing whatever will be allowed in any part of the MPA. Low levels of artisanal fishing, compatible with nature conservation or for subsistence of the Chagossian community, would be allowed in certain limited areas.

The noble Lord’s amendment seeks to delay the implementation of the Bill and the entry into force of the treaty. The treaty has already been reviewed by two Select Committees of this House. They have reported their findings and agreed that the treaty allows for positive environmental work, with the IAC welcoming

“the Government’s assurance that it will work closely with the Mauritian Government to establish a well-resourced and patrolled Marine Protected Area”.

Amendment 38C, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Weir, would require the Government to implement the resettlement recommendations of the 2015 KPMG study. The KPMG report, commissioned by the Conservative Government, concluded that resettling a civilian population permanently on BIOT would entail substantial and open-ended costs. The then Government ruled out resettlement, acknowledging the acute challenges and costs of developing anything equivalent to modern public services on remote and low-lying islands.

[Lord Hannan of Kingsclere (Con)]

Will the Minister confirm that there were three different options for how many people you would resettle, and the costs of all of them were substantially lower than the transfer payments that we are making to Mauritius alone under the current deal?

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

That is correct, but those payments would not have paid for a legally secure operation of the base alongside our United States allies. Whatever legal geniuses we have opposite us today, those in the White House differed on the analysis now being put forward by the Conservative Party, which is clearly different from what they put forward in the not-so-distant past.

The agreement gives Mauritius the opportunity to develop a programme of resettlement on its own terms, without requiring the UK taxpayer to pick up the bill.

On Amendment 81G from the noble Lord, Lord Kempsell, as I and other Ministers have said on numerous occasions, it will be for Mauritius to establish a programme of resettlement once the treaty comes into force. I am very sympathetic to the way he put his case on this, but it would not be a good use of taxpayers’ money to keep reporting on something that is not in our gift to achieve. The Government are increasing their support to Chagossians living in the UK through new and existing projects. These include Chagossian-led community projects in Crawley and beyond, as well as education and English language support, and have involved the creation of a number of FCDO-funded full-time jobs for Chagossians. The noble Lord, Lord Ahmad, asked me about commitments on this going forward. We are committed to these at least until the end of this Parliament. He will understand that what happens beyond that may depend on decisions of Ministers in the future.

Amendment 31 tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Morrow, and Amendment 55 tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Weir, ask for an equality impact assessment on the payments to be made by Mauritius to Chagossians. The Government have already released the public sector equality duty report relating to the treaty, which addresses all the issues around equalities and the impact assessment.

Amendment 50A tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Foster, raises a really important issue. We do not think it is necessary to make provision for this in the Bill, but we understand her concern. As I said in my letter in relation to the first day of Committee, we will work with relevant authorities to ensure that official documentation reflects historic connections to the Chagos Archipelago wherever possible. British passports issued to Chagossians will continue to display their place of birth and, if they wish, those who already have British Overseas Territories citizenship status can hold a British passport reflecting their status as British Overseas Territories citizens. I am very sympathetic to the arguments put forward by the noble Baroness and commit to making diplomatic representations to the Government of Mauritius to ensure that place of birth is recorded accurately on documentation.

[Baroness Foster of Aghadrumsee (Non-Afl)]

I very much appreciate the Minister’s commitment to do that, because this is such a hurtful thing. Sometimes, those of an Irish republican disposition will say that I am not British but just Irish, so it is something I feel very strongly about. The Chagossians are entitled to have their identity confirmed, and I would be very pleased if she could write to me after she raises those issues through the diplomatic channels.

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

Of course, I would be very happy to do that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Weir of Ballyholme (DUP)]

On the amendments that the noble Lord, Lord Morrow, and I put forward, as was alluded to in a number of speeches, including by the noble Baroness, Lady Foster, the reason why we raised equality issues as regards financial payments is the potential role of Chagossians within the trust fund. There is a widespread concern at present that we are simply hoping that Mauritius does the right thing with that. I appreciate that the Minister is perhaps not in the position today to give any level of direct assurances. However, can she at least go away and come back before Report with the Government’s thoughts or information—perhaps after discussions with the Mauritian Government —as to how we can inject a level of Chagossian direct involvement and control over that trust fund? That would be very helpful for whenever we reach Report.

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

That is not too much to ask. We are talking to the Mauritian Government about this, because we want the same thing as the noble Lord. I had hoped that we would be able to say something a little bit more detailed about that by now. We have not quite got there, but we will use best endeavours to get there before Report. I understand the motivation behind this, and it is right that we do what we can to make sure that noble Lords have the assurances they need by Report.

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

In light of the reaffirmation that there will be both ongoing citizenship as well as dual nationality, and, perhaps uniquely, that community will be impacted directly by the terms of this treaty, does the Minister accept the principle that formal mechanisms of representation for the duration of this agreement, rather than just between now and the treaty coming into force, in principle warrant very serious consideration?

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

It depends on what we mean by formal and what that looks like. We have an arrangement at the moment via the contact group and a commitment to strengthen and expand that, to make sure that does the job it is intended to do and the Government can support it in doing that. However, we are clear that we do not do anything to it without its consent. It is an area on which we are interested in having further conversations—I think the noble Lord knows what I am getting at. Whether that completely satisfies his desire for formality, we will probably continue to explore together.

With that, I hope the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, feels able to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

My Lords, I agree with the Minister that this has been a fascinating debate. It was a real pleasure to hear so many noble Lords focusing, as we rightly should, on the rights and futures of the Chagossian people.

The trust fund is an essential part of the treaty. Essentially, it is the only part of the treaty that is positive for the community. Therefore, we must not allow it to be maladministered, or worse, by the Mauritian Government. My noble friend Lord Ahmad made some very good points about the management of the existing fund, to which he got some answer from the Minister. We are certainly clear that the UK Government should take all necessary steps to hold the Mauritian Government to account for their management of the fund to ensure that the Chagossians are properly looked after and no longer treated as second-class citizens. I apologise to my noble friend Lord Fuller for trying to apply a little imaginary lipstick to his proverbial pig in this matter.

The points raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Foster, were particularly important and extremely serious. I was pleased to hear the assurances given to her by the Minister. We should not allow the Chagossian people to be treated in this manner by Mauritius.

This speaks to our concerns on value for money. Whichever figures you take, this agreement is a major financial undertaking, costing the British taxpayer billions of pounds over the lifetime of the deal. Any situation where the fund is capitalised but not managed properly would surely be unacceptable, and we should make sure that there are powers to hold Mauritius to account should that happen.

My noble friend Lord Hannan, in his excellent contribution, made some great points on how the Chagossians could be resettled in future and many of the alternative occupations that they could take in such circumstances.

If the Minister is not satisfied that the Government have the powers that they need to do that, I hope Ministers will go back to the Mauritian Government to ensure that we have those stronger powers before the treaty takes effect. The Minister is right that many of these matters will be returned to on Report. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Hoey (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I will speak to my Amendment 36, which, as the noble Lord mentioned, relates to asylum seekers who arrive on Diego Garcia, or anywhere on the Chagos Islands. Its purpose is very simple: it ensures that, if any person fleeing danger or persecution lands on those shores, they will not be subjected to unlawful detention, denial of due process, or the kinds of conditions that a British judge has already found to be in breach of international law.

I got a very nice personal letter from a native Chagossian, saying:

“We were exiled from our islands once, but we must not watch new injustice happen on our shores again. Anyone who arrives in our homeland must be treated with dignity. No one should suffer in the Chagos as we once did … As a native islander, I insist that any asylum seeker reaching the Chagos must have their rights respected. We were once denied justice. We cannot allow injustice to happen again in our name”.


Of course, the background has already been mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Callanan—that in late 2021 more than 60 Sri Lankan Tamils were intercepted at sea and brought to Diego Garcia after their vessel was found in distress. Those individuals, many of whom intended to seek asylum in Canada, were accommodated for almost three years in a fenced compound on the island. This was not a temporary holding area; it became a long-term camp. The conditions are a matter of judicial record. The British Indian Ocean Territory Supreme Court found that the asylum seekers were effectively held in unlawful detention. The acting judge described the camp as

“a prison in all but name”

and said it was unsurprising that the individuals felt they were being punished. Evidence presented to the court documented leaking tents, rodent infestation, extreme heat, restricted movement, repeated incidents of self-harm and at least one mass suicide attempt. Some were warned that leaving the compound would expose them to the risk of being shot on security grounds. Those words are not mine—they were the court’s findings.

We also now know, again from the court’s judgment, that progress on their protection claims was impeded because of political factors, including concerns within the Home Office about the Government’s Rwanda policy. Rwanda seems to get mentioned everywhere. The effect of that delay was that these individuals were kept in a camp, in extreme conditions, for far longer than should ever have been contemplated. Most have now been brought to the United Kingdom, as has been said. I think that my noble and learned friend Lord Hermer was involved in that before he became Attorney-General. The Government described this as a one-off transfer and said that Diego Garcia would not be used again for long-term processing, but it remains the case that nothing in statute today prevents a future commissioner, Minister or Government using the islands in exactly the same way, should another vessel arrive. That is why this amendment is necessary; it gives effect to what the United Kingdom is already legally bound to do and ensures that any transfer to Mauritius or any other state happens only under an agreement that guarantees humane treatment, full rights of appeal and compliance with international law. These are not new standards; they are the minimum standards that the United Kingdom already owes to any asylum seeker, regardless of geography.

This amendment also speaks to something deeply felt by the Chagossians. The Chagossian people know what it is to be held without rights; they know what it is to have decisions made about their lives thousands of miles away; and they know what it is to be told they have no voice in decisions taken on their own islands. They have told us repeatedly that they do not want Diego Garcia, or any part of the Chagos Archipelago, to become a place where other vulnerable people suffer in silence.

There is also a simple and moral point. The only civilians permitted to remain long-term on the islands in the past decade were not the native Chagossians but asylum seekers confined in a manner that a British judge found to be unlawful. That fact alone should give the Committee pause for reflection. It was perfectly okay for asylum seekers to be on Diego Garcia but not the original Chagos people.

This amendment seeks to ensure that asylum seekers under Mauritian jurisdiction must have binding guarantees for monitoring, appeal rights, independent oversight and humanitarian standards. The Chagossian community has raised serious concerns about the treatment of vulnerable people already in Mauritius. These concerns cannot be dismissed and certainly cannot be ignored. The Government now intend that asylum seekers arriving in Chagos should be sent there.

This amendment does not oppose the transfer of asylum seekers. It does not dictate the policy of future Governments; it simply ensures that the mistakes made between 2021 and 2024 can never be repeated on British responsibility. It ensures that any person arriving on those islands is processed humanely, lawfully and with respect for their basic rights. For the Chagossians, who were themselves displaced without rights, this is not an abstract principle. It is an affirmation that the islands they still regard as home will not again be a theatre for human suffering. It is a modest and necessary amendment, which is fully consistent with our international obligations and our national values. I therefore commend it to the Committee and urge noble Lords to support it.

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

My Lords, Amendments 19 and 27 from the noble Lords, Lord Callanan and Lord Lilley, now in his place, seek to ensure that Mauritius will be responsible for any illegal migrants who may arrive at Diego Garcia. These are important amendments, and it is helpful that they have been tabled to allow us to clarify this point. I can reassure both noble Lords that the treaty already ensures Mauritian responsibility and closes a potential—as they correctly identify—illegal migration route to the UK. Mauritius, as the sovereign state and as specifically referenced under Annex 2 of the treaty, has jurisdiction over irregular migration to the Chagos Archipelago, including Diego Garcia.

To the extent that the noble Lords, Lord Callanan and Lord Lilley, through their amendments are seeking clarity on the arrangements with Mauritius to put that responsibility into practice, I can assure them that the UK Government are already in the process of agreeing with Mauritius the separate arrangements referenced in Annex 2 paragraph 10 of the treaty, to assist and facilitate in that exercise of Mauritian jurisdiction. These are ongoing negotiations on which I will not provide a running commentary; suffice to say that there will be no need to force the Government to provide a report on the negotiations.

Amendment 36 from the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, is another helpful amendment. It seeks to ensure that any arrangement entered into with Mauritius regarding migrants ensures the humane treatment, full rights of appeal and compliance with international law of any asylum seeker or refugee. It is an important amendment, and I can confirm that the Government will, of course, ensure that any arrangement we enter into will comply with applicable international law and our domestic obligations. For that reason, I think that the amendment is unnecessary, but I thank her for tabling it and allowing us to make that clear. I hope that noble Lords will not press their amendments.

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for her clarification, and to the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, for her contribution to this important debate. We know how strongly the British public feel on illegal immigration. It would have been outrageous if we handed over the territory yet retained responsibility for dealing with any illegal immigration.

I will look carefully at the words that the Minister used in her response in Hansard, but it seems as though she has provided the reassurances we are seeking that no illegal arrivals in the Chagos Archipelago will be able to make a claim in the UK for asylum now that sovereignty has been handed over. She used the famous government expression “I am not going to provide a running commentary”, which often means “I am not going to say”. Nobody is asking her to provide a running commentary; we just wanted a clarification on the issues or any outcome of the discussions. If there is a resolution to the discussions before we get to Report, I hope she will update us in writing. Apart from that, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Diego Garcia Military Base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill

Baroness Chapman of Darlington Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 25th November 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Hannan, reminds us, this amendment gets to the core of the criticisms that have been levelled against the Government’s approach to this Bill so far. As my noble friend Lord Lilley pointed out numerous times during the debates on the first day in Committee, it is very difficult to see which court could have delivered a binding judgment against the UK on the question of sovereignty over the Chagos Archipelago. Yet it is the repeated contention of the Government that this treaty is somehow essential to deliver legal certainty.

The question remains of which court could have delivered a binding judgment that would have threatened that legal certainty and the security of the military base. I hope that the Government can finally provide us with an answer. If they cannot answer that question then the argument that this treaty and this Bill were both necessary falls apart. Indeed, the argument that the treaty and the Bill are needed urgently also falls apart, and we should consider whether the Government should take a more circumspect approach. That is what the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Morrow, suggests.

If this treaty is necessary, Ministers must surely have considered other options before coming to this agreement with Mauritius. Perhaps the Minister can tell the Committee what consideration was given to resettlement of the Chagos Archipelago by Chagossians, for example. What would the cost have been for that? What is the difference between that cost figure and the true cost associated with this treaty? I say “true cost” because the Government’s initial claims on costs have now been thoroughly discredited.

There were lots of options that should have been considered, so perhaps the noble Baroness can tell us what options were in fact considered. I understand that these are specific questions about the process followed by Ministers before agreeing to the treaty with Mauritius, so if the noble Baroness cannot say with certainty what potential approaches were considered, perhaps she could write to us to confirm the details.

[The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Baroness Chapman of Darlington) (Lab)]

In relation to Amendment 20J, the House has dedicated at least 15 hours to debating the Government’s rationale for entering this treaty. It has been subject to two reports, by the International Agreements Committee and the International Relations and Defence Committee. Three separate committees—the IAC, the IRDC and the Foreign Affairs Committee—have held evidence sessions and questioned the Minister for the Overseas Territories.

The Government have been consistently clear throughout. The legal case was compelling and there was no credible alternative. A policy of hanging tough, which I assume the noble Lord has in mind, would have been a real gift to our adversaries. As we have stated on numerous occasions, the continued operation of the base was under threat. Courts were already making decisions which undermined our position. If a long-term deal had not been reached, further wide-ranging litigation was likely, with no realistic prospect of the UK successfully defending its legal position on sovereignty in such cases.

Legally binding provisional measures from the courts could have come within weeks, affecting, for example, our ability to patrol the waters around Diego Garcia. Both the IRDC and the IAC recognise that the treaty provides legal certainty for the base. I hope the noble Lord will withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Morrow (DUP)]

My Lords, I thank all those who have spoken in this debate. I have noticed that no one has spoken against the amendment, other than the Minister who brought her explanation and reason. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

My Lords, Amendment 20K, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Morrow, seeks to oblige the Government to publish a report on the ability of Mauritius to govern the Chagos Archipelago and on the implications of the treaty for international peace and stability. The IRDC concluded that the treaty gave the UK legal clarity on which it could capitalise to enhance defence co-operation and that it was a platform for reinforcing operational links with key regional partners, allowing the UK to position itself as a credible contributor to regional stability grounded in the rule of law. Under the treaty, the UK retains full operational control over Diego Garcia. There are robust provisions in place to protect the security of the base. The treaty is the best way to ensure the continued operation of the joint UK-US base and therefore to protect international peace and security. I hope that the noble Lord will withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

The Minister has not even attempted to address any of the questions that we have asked.

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

I am very happy if the noble Lord would like to ask me a specific question that I have not already answered in previous groups. Would the noble Lord like to do that?

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

Will the Minister comment on the ability of the Mauritian coastguard actually to enforce the marine protected area, for instance?

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

I suggest that the noble Lord looks at the ways in which marine protected areas are generally enforced. It is not, as he seems to imagine, by patrolling in vessels around the ocean, checking on things. That is not how these things work. But I will gladly send him some information about that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Bellingham (Con)]

My Lords, I certainly do support the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Hannan. I will be very brief. The amendment on which I want to focus is not one regarding referenda and consulting the Chagossian people, even though that is very important. Amendment 20L simply states—and I would be surprised if the Government could not accept this—that the Secretary of State needs to come up with a report

“assessing the potential implications for other British Overseas Territories that would arise from this Act and the Treaty”.

What is wrong with that amendment? Nothing. It would cost the Foreign Office a certain amount of time and effort to put together a report but, in the context of what has been said—at Second Reading, in the debate that we had on the treaty, on the first and second day in Committee—it is not asking a lot.

The noble Lord, Lord Jay, was looking specifically at the interests of the citizens in those different territories. He has a huge amount of knowledge, wisdom and experience, and what he said made a huge amount of sense. What he perhaps did not address is the signals that this Bill, if it becomes an Act, and the treaty, will send to other countries. The noble Lord, Lord Hannan, made some specific points about Argentina—where we know that the dispute will not go anywhere; it will go on and on—as well as Gibraltar. I will also mention one other territory that could well—

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

I hesitate to interrupt, but I think we need to remind ourselves before it gets repeated again that we have just done a deal on Gibraltar with Spain. That has been welcomed by the Government in Gibraltar and that situation is no longer as is being implied by the noble Lord.

[Lord Bellingham (Con)]

I understand that, but circumstances can change and this may well be seen as a precedent in the future.

I want to mention one other territory: Anguilla. As the Minister will know, Anguilla went through a period of huge unrest to resist becoming part of St Kitts and Nevis. The consequence was that a UK battalion of the Parachute Regiment had to deploy to Anguilla to control the unrest that took place. This is a small but incredibly proud territory that wanted to remain British. In the past few years, there have been a number of attempts by St Kitts and Nevis to reopen the whole issue of Anguilla.

There will be consequences of this treaty going through, which could be to some extent alleviated if the Government would accept this very simple amendment, Amendment 20L. This is the amendment in this group that concerns me most. I do not think that it is asking a great deal of the Government to put this in the Bill. This would be a very important signal in the Bill that those other territories would be properly considered.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Weir of Ballyholme (DUP)]

My Lords, I will briefly make two points. First, on behalf of my noble friend Lord McCrea, who has had to leave for a family wedding, I will speak to Amendment 57, which principally brings to the Committee’s attention the role of British legal firms in this issue.

We have been critical in this House of the current and, to some extent, the previous Government. Those criticisms are not entirely without merit on the issue of sovereignty. There has also been further British involvement in any number of aspects, the four most significant legal interventions being two cases in connection with UNCLOS; one relating to the advisory opinion of the ICJ; and one on the drafting of the UN security resolution. In each of these four cases, the Mauritius Government used British firms as their legal representation in order to further their aims. In effect, British firms acted on behalf of a foreign Government to challenge British sovereignty, British defence rights and the wishes of British citizens. We cannot do anything about what happened in the past, but I suppose the amendment queries whether there is an appropriate way forward in terms of that level of support for Mauritius. Raising my noble friend Lord McCrea’s amendment gives the Government an opportunity to respond to it.

I want to deal briefly with the wider point. We do not always see eye to eye, but I agree with at least one phrase that the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, used: he said that we have to be careful about words, and words matter. One of the major concerns, as highlighted by the noble Lord, Lord Hannan, and others, might be described as the precedent and the ripple effect. It is undoubtedly the case that in the past we as a nation have made mistakes in dealing with overseas territories. In particular, we have sent out the wrong signals on both the Falklands and Gibraltar. It is probably the case that some, at different points within Governments in the past, would have been quite happy to see those territories dispatched to another sovereign territory on that basis. They can best speak for themselves but, fortunately enough, in each case we have drawn back from what might be described as a fatal mistake. The danger with this is that it crosses the line in handing over that level of sovereignty.

Mention has been made of a range of overseas territories. The one thing that largely unites them is that whatever discussions we have had with different Governments, about whatever level of co-operation, they have ultimately respected the self-determination and the inhabitants’ will for sovereignty. That is what at times has drawn us back. I think this goes beyond that and moves towards a situation regarding the wishes of the Chagossian people and their right to self-determination—and that self-determination may, because we do not know definitively, express itself in them saying, “We want to be part of Mauritius”. If that is their self-determination, so be it. I think it is unlikely to be the case; nevertheless, so be it. The concern is the signal that this sends out to the outside world.

The Minister mentioned the arrangements as regards Gibraltar. I think there has been work ongoing with both this Government and the previous Government to try to find arrangements that are in the best interests of Gibraltar. I entirely acknowledge that, while it is sometimes easy to criticise when looking from outside, the Gibraltar Government themselves have been supportive of those actions and have backed the moves made so far.

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

It is really important that there is not a dispute with regards to Gibraltar. There is an arrangement that is agreed with Spain and it is not in question at all, in any sense.

[Lord Weir of Ballyholme (DUP)]

Absolutely. I have taken the Minister and the Government to task on a range of things, but this may be one issue on which we are in vigorous agreement. I do not question the Government’s bona fides as regards Gibraltar or the Falkland Islands. I know there is a strong commitment to both. I fully acknowledge that and believe it would be the case under a future Government, but this is not a concern over the attitude of this Government or other UK Governments over the ripple effect. It is the danger of what message will be sent out; as the noble Lord, Lord Hannan, said, there is a ripple effect towards Madrid and Buenos Aires, which might take a very different approach in future.

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

I am really sorry, but we have an agreement with Spain. The matter is settled. Madrid takes the same view that London takes; it is the same view that the Government of Gibraltar take. It is settled, and it is beyond unhelpful for noble Lords—unintentionally, I realise, as this is a relatively recent development—to suggest in any way that that is not the case.

[Lord Weir of Ballyholme (DUP)]

I am not querying that. What I am saying is from experience and from having spoken directly to Gibraltarians in relation to this. They know that a very good agreement may have been done with this Government, but Spanish Governments down the years have sometimes tended to blow hot and cold as regards Gibraltar.

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

It is agreed.

--- Later in debate ---

On the increased legal risk, my noble friend is absolutely right that the international law case is definitely not cut and dried. There are agreements that confirm British sovereignty, and we do not understand why the Government are ignoring those agreements. With that, I look forward to the Minister’s response.

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

My Lords, a large number of the amendments that have been tabled seek to mandate the Government to renegotiate the treaty with Mauritius on various points. The noble Lord told me this on many occasions in the last Parliament, so I am sure that he understands the point that I am about to make: treaty-making and international negotiations are a matter for the Government, in exercise of the royal prerogative. It is simply not practical for that to become a matter where Parliament seeks to direct this or that isolated element of what can be intense, dynamic and sometimes difficult negotiations. In this case, I can assure the Committee that the Government have thoroughly considered all aspects of the treaty that the UK has entered into and used all their efforts throughout to achieve the best possible deal for the UK. These requests to reopen negotiations on different points are not realistic and would make the UK appear an unreliable counterparty on the international stage. This treaty has gone through a rigorous assessment and been agreed at the highest levels of the US security establishment.

Our reasons for rejecting Amendment 20U are, essentially, those that I set out earlier in relation to Amendment 20J, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Morrow. I do not intend to repeat them.

Amendment 20L was tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Hannan. I enjoy the noble Lord’s contributions. His speeches are as entertaining as they are, unfortunately, inaccurate and misleading sometimes. My grandfather fought in Malaya, in the Green Howards, and so it was an unfortunate example that the noble Lord chose to resort to—but I forgive him for this, because he puts so much into his speeches. I assure him and other noble Lords that this deal has been welcomed by both Gibraltar and the Falklands Islands. As the noble Lord, Lord Jay, said, their Governments have both stated that there is no read-across to them, and we should respect what they have to say.

Through Amendment 20M, the noble Lord, Lord Hannan, seems to be suggesting that the Government have not complied with the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act in respect of the treaty. I respectfully disagree with him on this. The treaty was laid in Parliament on the day that it was signed, under the process set out in the Act. CRaG requires that a treaty is laid in both Houses for 21 joint sitting days before it may be ratified. The period expired on 3 July 2025, with neither House resolving against ratification. During that 21-day period, two committees in this House held evidence sessions, including with the Minister for Overseas Territories, and produced reports, which we have responded to. There was a debate and a vote on the Motion from the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, against ratification, which this Government defeated. As a matter of practice, the UK Government do not ratify treaties until the necessary implementing legislation is in place, and that is what the Government are currently doing with the Bill.

Amendments 20P and 20Q appear to misunderstand the archipelago. I feel uncomfortable making this point, as it feels very cold, harsh and legalistic, particularly given the testimonies, many of which we have heard directly from Chagossians in their accounts of what happened in the late 1960s and early 1970s. I do not feel comfortable repeating it but this is the legal situation as it is, and it is important to be clear. The archipelago has never had a permanent population. The islands have not been inhabited since the population was removed in the late 1960s and early 1970s. As such, there is no “economy” of the Chagos Archipelago. Once the treaty enters into force, Mauritius will be sovereign and will have jurisdiction over the regulation of commercial activities unrelated to the operation of the base throughout the archipelago, subject to the constraints of the treaty. On the exclusive economic zone around the archipelago, Mauritius has announced its intention to establish a marine protected area and, importantly, there will be no commercial fishing allowed. It will be for Mauritius to decide how any resettlement will work, including in respect of governance of the islands.

Amendment 57, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord McCrea, and spoken to on his behalf, cannot be accepted. The UK’s legal services industry and the English Bar are internationally recognised for their expertise. That includes expertise in public international law, and UK-qualified lawyers act for states all around the world on various matters, facilitating the peaceful settlement of disputes. The standing of UK legal expertise should be a matter of pride for this House, not a tool for manipulation by politicians to achieve narrow and short-term advantage. An attempt to place a prohibition on who can utilise our world-leading legal services would undermine access to legal representation—an important element of the rule of law. It is wholly inappropriate for the Government to dictate who can be represented by whom. It risks undermining our standing on the world stage.

I hesitate to repeat the debate we had last week, but I say to the noble Lord, Lord Lilley, that, had there been no legal risk to our position, why did the United States stop investment in the base at that point? It was because it was sufficiently concerned about the legal risk. Had there been no basis whatever for our concerns on legality, why on earth did the previous Government even begin to negotiate, accepting that they did not manage to conclude a deal? Our view is that there was sufficient legal risk. The noble Lord disagrees, as is his right, but the fact is that the principle of this treaty, and the necessity for it, has been through the appropriate process. It has been voted on in this place and we have voted that this treaty should be ratified. We have already taken that decision in this Chamber. This legislation is about making the necessary changes to UK domestic law to enable us to sign, fully ratify and implement.

[Lord Lilley (Con)]

I am grateful to the noble Baroness for giving way, but I ask her to respond to the point I made: why, even now, does she refuse to let pass her lips any recognition that there was never any possibility of the ICJ reaching a legally binding decision that would affect us, because of our opt-out from the power of the ICJ to decide on disputes between ourselves and Mauritius? UNCLOS is a different matter, but would she let those words pass her lips?

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

My Lords, I accept that about the ICJ, but the point is that other countries will act on an advisory opinion even if we choose to ignore it. We have not chosen to ignore it. That is a judgment call. Partly, that is because we think that, by negotiating now, we negotiate from a stronger position than we would have had we waited for other, binding judgments. Those judgments can come from any treaty to which both parties are signed up. That is why we feel—and not everyone has to agree with the Government on this—that there is sufficient legal question that we needed to act and to negotiate. If they are honest with themselves—there is a lack of former Ministers who were responsible for this arguing the point that the noble Lord makes; they argue other points but not this one—there was sufficient legal jeopardy for the previous Government to enter into this process. I hope noble Lords will withdraw their amendments.

[Lord Hannan of Kingsclere (Con)]

I am grateful to the Minister for dealing so comprehensively with all those points, and to all noble Lords who contributed: the noble Baronesses, Lady Hoey and Lady Ludford, my noble friends Lord Bellingham and Lord Lilley, the noble Lords, Lord Weir and Lord Purvis, and the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Sentamu.

On finality, almost all treaties are said to be final at the time but they are not always treated as final by one or both parties. The treaty of Utrecht was pretty final. It said that Spain would have first refusal if Britain ever left, but it was pretty final about granting sovereignty. I absolutely agree, as the Minister says, that Spain has now agreed to a permanent settlement, but it is one of many, and experience tells us that incoming Governments do not always regard treaties signed by their predecessors as final. Indeed, the treaty we signed when Mauritius became independent and renounced all claim to the Chagos Islands was said to be permanent at the time, so I am less reassured than I think she hoped I might have been.

Let me put it the other way around: the way to make these treaties final is to stop inviting people, through our behaviour, to reopen them—to refuse to countenance it. The French had a very similar issue in the Comoros; they just refused to countenance it. I cannot see any other country doing what we are doing now. Indeed, I am afraid to say I cannot see any British Government other than this one having done it.

I do not want to get into the whole history of the Malayan emergency, but there is a wonderful record that, when Malaysia became independent, one of the first acts of the new Government was to give some very valuable land containing the house called Carcosa Seri Negara—a very fine house—to Britain in perpetuity as sovereign British territory. It became the seat of the high commission in Kuala Lumpur in recognition of all the things that we had done together. A young anti-colonialist Minister said, “But if we give them the best land in KL, no one will believe that we fought for our independence”, and there was a rather awkward moment around the Cabinet table because, of course, they did not: we were in Malaya supporting a democratic Government against a communist insurgency. We would have left much earlier had we not had the requests of that Government to remain and support them. That is getting slightly off topic so, with your Lordships’ permission, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Morrow, for his Amendment 81 that he has just talked about, which rightly puts the focus of our debate on the citizens of the Chagos Islands, the Chagossian community themselves. It has so far been a disappointing aspect of this Committee to hear the Government dismiss the rights of the Chagossian community. Throughout the process of agreeing the treaty, it is clear that the Chagossians have not been properly consulted. In fact, the Government’s official view—I think the noble Baroness has repeated it again this evening—is that there is no relevant claim of self-determination in respect of the Chagos Archipelago.

I also welcome Amendment 50B in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey. The resettlement of the Chagos Islands under the treaty is an option, not a requirement, and it is increasingly clear that it is possible that the Mauritians will simply ignore it and not take any steps whatever to achieve resettlement of the Chagossians.

The amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, would certainly help put pressure on the UK Government and, in turn, the Mauritian Government to use the provisions of the treaty in respect of resettlement and allow those Chagossians who wish to to return to the outer islands.

On a separate but related note, I am of course pleased that the International Relations and Defence Committee has launched its relatively short piece of work to finally hear the views of the Chagossian community, but I think there are some serious procedural flaws in its survey. There seems to be no control of who can submit views: I am sure the relevant Chinese bots are already on the subject of submitting the survey forms, and there are already concerning reports of Mauritian government officials actually filling in the forms on behalf of Chagossians in Mauritius. But, when the results are in and we have the report of the committee, I hope the Minister will commit to considering it carefully before we proceed to the next stage of the Bill.

We obviously understand that there may be limited time between the committee’s publication of its report and Report stage, so the Government may not have the time to consider and table their own amendments to reflect the views of the Chagossian community as expressed in the—valid, hopefully—responses to the committee. Should that be the case, we would ask the Government to engage constructively with others in this House on amendments before Report so that we can put the needs and welfare of the Chagossian community front and centre as we progress with the Bill. I hope that the Minister will be able to give that assurance today.

As the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Morrow, seeks to do, we need to step up and support the Chagossian community, who have been mistreated for far too long.

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

My Lords, Amendment 20M, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Hannan, requests that the treaty does not come into force until the publication of

“a report assessing the impact of Article 6 of the Treaty”.

As I and other Ministers have said on numerous occasions, it will be for Mauritius to establish a programme of resettlement once the treaty enters into force. It is not sensible, or a good use of taxpayers’ money, to be reporting on something that will not be in our gift to achieve.

The Government are increasing our support to Chagossians living in the UK through new and existing projects. These include Chagossian-led community projects in Crawley and elsewhere, education and English language support, and have involved the creation of a number of FCDO-funded full-time jobs for Chagossians.

Amendment 81, from the noble Lord, Lord Morrow, requests a report of the forecast impact of the treaty on Chagossians. The Government have already released the public sector equality duty report relating to the treaty, which addresses all the issues around an equalities impact assessment. This, in addition to the IRDC’s current review, should support understanding of the impacts to the Chagossian community.

I understand, respect and appreciate the noble Lord’s support for the Chagossian community, but I must also speak to the many different views within the Chagossian community, including several groups that welcome the deal. I think that this will perhaps be surfaced as a result of the work that the IRDC is doing, and I obviously commit to reflecting on it as the Bill proceeds.

Amendment 50B, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, seeks to recognise in the domestic law of the UK that the Chagossians are the indigenous people of the Chagos Archipelago. I hear absolutely what she says about lived memory and the persuasive way that she puts that across. But the unfortunate fact—and I think it is unfortunate—is that both the English courts and the European Court of Human Rights have considered in a series of judgments since the 1970s the related questions of a claimed right of abode or other rights said to flow from the rights that she seeks to gain for the Chagossians through her amendment. On each occasion, the English courts and the European Court of Human Rights have ultimately dismissed the claims.

Had that not been the case—the noble Baroness clearly wishes that that had not been the case; it is her strongly held view and I can see why she feels so—the Government would perhaps have had to take a very different course, because the rights would have held a different weight in law. However, the situation is that history has taken us to a position where, much as we do not like it and it goes against some of the things that we feel and what we may even argue is the moral case, the legal situation is, I am afraid, as it is.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

The legal situation is as I have described. The noble Baroness may wish that that were not the case, but the legal position is as it is, and the Government do not intend to amend the Bill in order to change that legal position.

[The Earl of Leicester (Con)]

That legal position is guidance; it is not law.

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

There have been legal judgments in English courts and elsewhere that have established that the right that the noble Baroness’s amendment seeks to grant to the Chagossian people does not currently exist in law. It is not guidance. Those are decisions of English courts. I hope that, with that, the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Hannan of Kingsclere (Con)]

I thank the Minister. I also thank the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, and the noble Lord, Lord Morrow, who were diligent and eloquent in their defence of the dispossessed Chagossians. Sometimes people approach the story of Britain overseas as a kind of morality play where Britain plays the villain, the Alan Rickman of the global drama. We heard a hint of it, I think, from the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, in the previous round. Every disengagement was somehow disagreeable. Here, the disagreeable thing is pulling out in a way that disregards the wishes of the people who have been most injured. I was grateful to the Minister for making the clarification on birth certificates. She is doing enormously well defending this position, I have to say. With that, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

I am sorry that my noble friend Lord Kempsell is not here to move his amendment, which I thought was a particularly good one.

We debated some of the financial aspects of the treaty on the first day in Committee. The Minister at that time asked to delay her remarks on those amendments to the appropriate group. I assume this is the group that she was referring to, so we all look forward to the fuller answer on the finances that she promised then.

The core contention of the Government is that the deal costs an average of £101 million a year and the present net value of payments under the treaty is therefore £3.4 billion. This has been challenged by my noble friends Lady Noakes and Lord Altrincham, but the Minister, rather than engaging in the substance of those challenges, has relied on the Government’s published figures and refused to explain why she believes those figures accurately reflect the cost of the deal.

The Minister has relied on the approval of the Government Actuary’s Department and simply argued that consistency was essential. These are typical deflections that, no doubt, many Ministers have used in previous cases, but they do not address the concerns of my noble friends. We know that the payments are front-loaded at £165 million for the first three years, and then £120 million for the next 10 years. After that point, it is index-linked. As my noble friend Lady Noakes set out at Second Reading, that will see the cash payments hitting more than £650 million a year by the end of the 99 years, depending, of course, on what indexation you use. With all those additional considerations, it is our contention that the true cost of the deal is not £3.4 billion, as claimed by Ministers, but something more like £35 billion.

So the question lands: why would the Government seek to play this down? If they are so delighted with the deal—if it is such a good deal for the British public that they keep claiming that they deliver for, as all government policies should surely be—then surely they would want to be open about the true cost of things. They brag about spending on every other area; they take every amount of money per year, cumulatively add it all up and then put it in a press release and brag to the British people about what a great amount they are spending in every area except for this one. Does the Minister think it is better that the country should know the full costings before the treaty comes into effect, or would she prefer that the UK tie itself into these vast annual payments first, before admitting what the true cost of the deal actually is?

We are clear that the British people deserve to know what their Government are signing up for. Ministers should engage with the detailed costings laid out by my noble friends Lady Noakes and Lord Altrincham, and the points made by my noble friend Lord Lilley, rather than hiding behind their pre-prepared lines. If they have nothing to hide, what is wrong with producing a report that we can all see and study and get checked by independent financial experts? Once Ministers have admitted the true cost of the deal, then they can start justifying the so-called benefits of the treaty against what the true cost actually is. I do not think that people would be impressed by arguments justifying that figure, but Ministers should do the decent thing and justify the real numbers openly and in public.

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

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

Noble Lords already know that the Government published full details of the financial payment on the day that the treaty was signed. These details are in the finance exchange of letters, which is included in the treaty in the version laid in the House and published on the government website. The details are also set out in the accompanying Explanatory Memorandum, which was also laid before the House and published on the government website. It is plain to see how much the treaty is costing. The breakdown on page 10 of the Explanatory Memorandum is particularly straightforward for anyone who might desire further information about what will be paid in each year of the treaty. Indeed, the clarity with which the information was presented by the Government was welcomed by the Office for Statistics Regulation, which confirmed that it was consistent with the principles of intelligent transparency.

Therefore, there is no requirement for any additional report on the financial costs, either before the Bill comes into force, as the noble Lord, Lord Lilley, proposes, or before each payment, as is suggested in the other amendment.

The quid pro quo I was asked about is that we get a unique military asset shared with our closest ally on a legally secure basis. The noble Lord, Lord Callanan, asks why I rely on government figures and the answer is because I am representing the Government. With that, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.

[Baroness Goldie (Con)]

Before the Minister sits down, the particular question I pose—and I am not being polemical; I think there is an issue—is: what actually stops Mauritius, contractually, from commercially transferring this revenue stream in a capitalised form to another purchaser?

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

I think the noble Baroness is asking me what a sovereign country would do with some money that it gets as part of payment from this treaty. I am not sure what the problem would be with Mauritius investing that money in something that then provided it with a return, which it could then use to support public services or anything else in Mauritius. I am not sure if I have properly understood exactly what the noble Baroness is concerned about. I would be happy to engage further—

[Baroness Goldie (Con)]

I am happy to speak outside the Chamber.

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

Okay, that might be a good idea. I hope that the noble Lord can withdraw his amendment on that basis.

[Lord Lilley (Con)]

I beg leave to withdraw.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

My Lords, Amendments 20T and 81K, in the name of my noble friend Lord Lilley, seek to achieve a similar objective to Amendments 80 and 82. Given the similarity of the two pairs of amendments, I was slightly surprised to see the noble Lord, Lord Purvis of Tweed, degroup his amendments. We could have had a very satisfactory debate with the original grouping, but of course I fully respect the noble Lord’s right to degroup his amendments. I am slightly surprised, because he criticised me for doing something similar last week, but it is, of course, only right that noble Lords should be able to debate their amendments in the groupings that most suit them.

I am pleased that my noble friend Lord Lilley has the right to self-determination, as confirmed by a referendum of the Chagossians, in his amendment. This is an important point that I am sure many noble Lords will agree with.

Amendment 20T would also delay the implementation of the key parts of this Bill until some progress has been made on establishing the joint parliamentary commission. It seems to me that too many core parts of the treaty are not tied to deadlines or quantifiable outcomes. As a result, it would be hard to monitor whether Mauritius, and indeed the UK, are fulfilling their obligations under the treaty in a timely manner. My noble friend Lord Lilley’s amendment helpfully ties the joint parliamentary commission to the coming into effect of the Act, forcing Ministers and their Mauritian counterparts to get on with the job so that the commission can play an important role from the very beginning of the treaty’s effect. It is a very sensible proposal.

I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response on whether the Government will agree that establishing a joint parliamentary commission would be a useful tool going forward.

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

My Lords, as the noble Lord opposite has indicated, it is slightly surprising that the four amendments on establishing a joint UK-Mauritius parliamentary commission or committee have been degrouped. Members are well within their rights to do this and I am glad at least that this time noble Lords have had sufficient notice of what is happening.

I am sensitive to the sentiment of these amendments. I take them to come from a genuine desire for greater parliamentary involvement in the scrutiny of the implementation of the treaty on specific areas that are of concern to the Committee. The Government have always said that they welcome scrutiny, and this remains the case. We are not opposed to the strengthening of links between the UK Parliament and that of Mauritius, although this would be a somewhat novel approach. I think it seems pretty likely that the noble Lord, Lord Lilley, took inspiration from the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, on this occasion.

There is a question of proportionality and the proper extent of the remit of such a parliamentary commission. Out of respect for the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, I propose to discuss this in much more detail when we reach the debate on Amendment 80, which he has tabled. I hope that is acceptable to the noble Lord. I will be very happy to meet with him and other noble Lords to discuss this proposal, and specifically the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, in more detail. I hope that, with that, the noble Lord will withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Lilley (Con)]

I beg leave to withdraw.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Lilley (Con)]

My Lords, I am persuaded by the argument of the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, that his amendments are somewhat narrower but much more justified than my broader amendment. When the appropriate moment comes, I will not press my amendment and leave his standing.

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

In response to the desire of the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, that we are clearer in the Bill about what it does, I have read it a couple of times and honestly do not think that it could not be any clearer. It is a Bill to enact an agreement between the United Kingdom and the Republic of Mauritius concerning the Chagos Archipelago. I think that is sufficient, and if he does not, I am not sure what he is getting at.

The Government rejects Amendment 33 on the basis that the provision in question is not redundant. It is needed to ensure the secure and effective operation of the base. It ensures clarity on which law will apply through the jurisdiction that the UK will exercise under the treaty. Legal continuity and certainty for operations on the base once the British Indian Ocean Territory is dissolved is far from unnecessary.

Let me explain why we have Clause 3. This clause saves the law of BIOT, and law which relates to BIOT, as the law of Diego Garcia and law which relates to Diego Garcia. This has been done as the default, to ensure the continued effective running of the base on Diego Garcia and to make sure that there is no legal gap. Detailed work is being carried out to establish where technical amendments may be needed to this preserved law to reflect the new status of Diego Garcia. Diego Garcia is defined in Clause 3 as the whole area that the UK can exercise jurisdiction over, as covered in the treaty. This includes the island of Diego Garcia and the 12 nautical miles surrounding it. Preserving the existing prerogative power to legislate for Diego Garcia means that we can continue to operate the base and its legal architecture in much the same way that we do today, and it gives the maximum flexibility for the future.

Amendment 51, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, seems to be based on a misapprehension. As I mentioned in my response to the amendments related to Clause 3, His Majesty has a prerogative power to legislate for BIOT at present and Clause 3 preserves this power. It does not allow him to make laws for other parts of the realm about BIOT or Diego Garcia. If the noble Lord reads that clause of the Bill again, he will see that I am right about that.

The statutory power in Clause 5 is necessary to enable amendments to Acts and statutory instruments which form part of the law of Diego Garcia and amendments to legislation which forms part of the law of other jurisdictions—the UK Crown dependencies and the other OTs. These other jurisdictions have laws which refer to BIOT or treat it as one of the overseas territories. Amendments to those laws may be necessary to reflect the new status of Diego Garcia.

I see that the noble Lord, Lord Lansley—as is becoming classic in his contributions on these occasions—has read the report from the DPRRC. His Amendments 51A, 51B and 51C appear to seek to implement its recommendations. Amendment 51BA, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Lilley, appears to be less consistent with the recommendations—I think he has recognised that in his remarks—in that it would impose the affirmative procedure in respect not just of Orders in Council, which amend primary legislation, but of those which amend secondary legislation. Without showing too much leg so late at night, we are still considering these suggestions and we will return to them on Report. With that, I hope noble Lords will not press their amendments.

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, and others who contributed to this group. I am grateful to the noble Baroness for her reply to my amendments. I appreciate that they are technical and relate to the prerogative, but they are important none the less.

In essence, we seek to understand whether the Government believe that Clauses 3 and 5 will limit the prerogative in any way because as we see from the drafting of the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010, which we discussed earlier, this has effectively ended the Government’s adherence to the original Ponsonby rule. Statute is so often deficient when compared with convention. As in the case of the prerogative, statute should not limit the prerogative without very careful consideration.

I am grateful to the Minister for her reply. Given the complexity of these issues, I hope she will write to us to set out the impact of the Bill on the prerogative before we proceed to Report. In the meantime, I will, of course, study her reply in Hansard. Obviously, we reserve the right to return to any unresolved issues on Report.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

My Lords, I have said repeatedly throughout these deliberations that the Government are very interested in thinking about different ways of working alongside the Chagossian community on these issues. That applies to Amendment 47 as well.

The noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, asks the Government in her amendment to produce a report consisting of a demographic study of the Chagossian community. I am going to have to disappoint her this evening. It will not be possible to produce a useful report, at a cost to taxpayers, in time for it to do anything of consequence alongside this treaty. It is not a bad idea to have a report such as this, for many of the reasons that have been described. I would not be against it. What I am saying is that the responsibility for conducting the study does not belong in this Bill, but that does not mean it is a bad thing to do in principle. The noble Baroness will know, as we have heard most recently from the noble Earl, Lord Leicester, about the IDRC leading a report into the Chagossians, which I hope will be published soon. I hope that all these things will help to mitigate some of the noble Baroness’s concerns.

I saw that Jeremy Corbyn had also written to the noble Lord, Lord De Mauley, wo chairs the IRDC, which is responsible for the survey. It is not something that the Government are responsible for. We are looking forward to the results. We were asked what weight we put on the survey. It is for the committee to determine that. I am sure that it will take on board the comments that have been made by those who are concerned about how the survey has been conducted. I know that some Chagossians would be completely unable to access a survey such as this, for reasons of literacy or access to the means by which the survey is being conducted. I am sure that the committee will want to reflect on that. We certainly will when we receive its report. I look forward to it and hope that it is useful in assisting us to understand the complexity of opinion that exists within Chagossian communities.

On the substantive point that the noble Baroness raises, such a piece of work may well be useful, but I am not able this evening to commit the Government to commissioning it. With that, I hope that noble Lords will not press their amendments.

[Baroness Hoey (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for that rather thoughtful answer. I note that she did not rule out what I said—that the Americans would still be seeing uncertainty in the future. I think that we will see that whatever happens in this Bill. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

My Lords, this is the last group of amendments in Committee. I am delighted to see so many noble Lords opposite taking a close interest in the Bill and what it will do to the Chagossian people. I am delighted that they are taking an interest in what their Government are finally doing to the Chagossians.

I have already spoken to my noble friend Lord Lilley’s amendments, which are similar in drafting to those of the noble Lord, Lord Purvis of Tweed. I must say that I prefer my noble friend’s amendments to his Amendments 80 and 82, principally because they include reference to a referendum of the Chagossians. My noble friend the Earl of Leicester has talked about how deficient the current survey being undertaken by the International Agreements Committee is. I think that we could greatly improve on that, but the best mechanism would be simply to hold a referendum of the Chagossians asking them whether they approve of this treaty.

I know that the Liberal Democrats were previously very supportive of a referendum, but, despite criticising the position of my party, this amendment implies that they may not now be so supportive. I hope to see information to the contrary from the noble Lord, Lord Purvis. His amendment also differs from my noble friend Lord Lilley’s, in that it would apparently come into force after the treaty, whereas that of my noble friend would come into operation beforehand, which seems much more appropriate. I am of course happy to take up the offer of the noble Lord to discuss the wording of amendments because, as is so often the case in your Lordships’ House, we bring about improvements to a Bill only if we work together. I am certainly prepared, from my point of view, to work with him on the drafting of these amendments. I hope my noble friend Lord Lilley would be involved as well, so we can get them into a form where we can support them on Report and ask the Government to move on this.

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

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

The proposal put forward by the noble Lord is a novel one. I could not recall any examples of where there have been joint committees set up between different legislatures in this way, but the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, mentioned some, and I will reflect on those to see whether there is anything we can glean from them that might be useful.

The noble Lord, Lord Purvis, has made some changes to his amendment, but, unfortunately, we still cannot accept it in its current form today. The structure is not something that the treaty with Mauritius was drafted to contemplate. Of course, there is nothing to prevent parliamentarians in the UK engaging with their equivalents in Mauritius on these matters, but we do not see this as being a matter for domestic legislation in the way that we are considering it at the moment because, obviously, that does not have any effect on what the Mauritians themselves do.

Some elements in the noble Lord’s proposed scope for a joint parliamentary commission seem to be very much for the UK alone, so we could look at them. The Government are committed to building a relationship with the Chagossian community that is based on respect. As noble Lords will be aware, we have established a Chagossian contact group to give Chagossians a formal role that shapes decision-making on the UK Government’s support for their community. We are also providing additional support to build the capacity of community groups so that more are eligible for grants.

There are two elements in the amendment that are an issue for the Government and that we will disagree on at the moment, and those are the right to self-determination and compensation. On self-determination, we have been over this several times in this House and in the other place. To put it simply and plainly, in legal terms no question of self-determination applies. The English courts, noting the conclusion of the ICJ in the 2019 advisory opinion, have proceeded on the basis that the relevant right to self-determination in the context of BIOT was that of Mauritius. On compensation, again it is legally the case that the UK paid compensation to the Chagossians in the 1980s and the English courts in a series of judgments and the European Court of Human Rights have ruled that this settled the claims definitively.

Having said all that, I recognise and understand the noble Lord’s intentions and his determination with this amendment. He has been consistent about arguing along these lines throughout our consideration of this Bill, and I suggest that we meet to discuss his amendment in more detail to see if we can find a way to move this forward ahead of Report. With that, I hope that for today he would be happy to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

My Lords, I am glad there are so many witnesses who saw my ability to bring the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, and the Minister together with some form of consensus at the end of this Committee. I am grateful for both the noble Lord’s and the Minister’s responses. She will know that I have been keen to see the areas where we can move towards formalisation and a degree of statutory underpinning for some structures of ongoing representation, because this is a special case. Even if it was novel—I am sure officials will now be studying all the examples I have given; by the time we get to Report I will try to find some more—I believe it is justified, given the circumstances are in. I am grateful for the willingness to discuss this. There are ongoing debates on the particular aspects the Minister said she had difficulty with. I will happily give way to the noble Lord.

Ukraine

Baroness Chapman of Darlington Excerpts

Friday 31st October 2025 Lords Chamber

[The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Baroness Chapman of Darlington) (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank both Opposition Front Benches for their continued support for our approach to Ukraine. It is, perhaps uniquely, something that brings us all together—perhaps, as noble Lords suggested earlier, that is one of the reasons it does not excite the media and the public in a way that some of those issues on which we do not agree so readily sometimes do. I will resist the temptation to respond to the jibe from the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, about 100-year partnerships—we can get into that on Tuesday, and I look forward to it.

I will attempt to answer all the questions that have been put to me this afternoon. If I miss anything, it is an omission, and I will write to noble Lords—particularly my very good noble friend Lord Stansgate, who by my count asked me 28 questions in his contribution.

I pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Barrow, and his quite remarkable maiden speech. I was looking forward to it, as were many others in this House. We very much welcome him and look forward to what will be, I am sure, many more well-informed, thoughtful and immaculately crafted contributions in the years to come. I do not mind a bland speech from time to time, as long as it is well-informed and a point is being made, rather than a speech that is incredibly entertaining but does not actually say anything. I am sure that we will all enjoy listening to him and his future contributions.

As the Foreign Secretary said a few weeks after her visit to Kyiv:

“As Ukraine stands firm against Russia, the UK stands firm with Ukraine. Ukraine’s security is Europe’s security, and the security and stability of the whole of Europe is vital for our security here in the UK”.—[Official Report, Commons, 15/10/25; col. 390.]


To all those this afternoon who have been urging us to go further and faster, suggesting new measures and telling us to stay the course, we thank you. We encourage every noble Lord to stay resolute and to keep making this encouragement loudly and publicly. The points made by the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, the noble Baroness, Lady Suttie, and others on the need to secure public support are well made and are accepted by the Government.

Ukrainians have defended their country with courage for over three and a half years. They have made clear their desire for the war to end and for a just and lasting peace. While President Zelensky has affirmed his readiness for a ceasefire and meaningful talks, Putin’s response has been to launch some of the largest attacks seen in Europe since the height of the Second World War. Our focus remains on ensuring Ukraine gets the support it needs to stay in the fight and protect its cities and infrastructure from Russia’s increasingly brutal attacks. We are ramping up the pressure on Putin to force him to conclude that his military objectives are unachievable and that he should engage in talks that result in a sovereign, secure and independent Ukraine.

Shortly before the Russian delegation walked out of the UN Security Council chamber last month, our Foreign Secretary told Foreign Minister Lavrov directly that this is our aim. Despite throwing everything it can at Ukraine, Russia has achieved none of its objectives, while the costs of the war are piling up. Russia has gained less than 1% of Ukraine’s territory since November 2022 and sustained over a million casualties in the process, and its economy is stagnating and economic pressure is biting. The UK will continue to work with partners and allies to go further.

The noble Lord, Lord McConnell, and the noble Baroness, Lady Pidding, asked about the deported children. I sincerely thank them for making sure that that was part of the debate this afternoon. Children should never be pawns of war. Russia’s forcible deportation, adoption and militarisation of Ukrainian children is a despicable and systematic attempt to erase Ukrainian identity and with it Ukraine’s future. The UK raises this issue continually with our partners and allies. We are playing our full part in international efforts to reunite these children with their families, where they belong.

Last Friday, the Prime Minister welcomed President Zelensky to London, and he co-chaired a virtual meeting of the coalition of the willing with more than 20 leaders. The Prime Minister urged them to act, to take Russian oil and gas off the global market, to make progress on using immobilised Russian sovereign assets to unlock billions in funding for Ukraine, and to provide more long-range capabilities to ensure Ukraine can defend itself. The Prime Minister underlined the group’s support for President Trump’s position that the fighting must stop immediately and that the current line of contact should be the starting point for negotiations. Leaders reiterated their determination to put robust arrangements in place for Ukraine’s future security so it can deter and defend itself against any future attack. In response to the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, and others, that includes the deployment of a multinational force to help secure Ukraine’s skies and seas and regenerate Ukraine’s armed forces once hostilities have ceased.

Leaders expressed their intent to address Ukraine’s pressing financial needs for 2026 and 2027, which includes, as many noble Lords have argued, working up options to use the full value of immobilised Russian sovereign assets so that Ukraine has the resources it needs to defend its territory and rebuild its armed forces.

The Prime Minister announced that we are accelerating our UK programme to provide Ukraine with more than 5,000 lightweight multirole missiles, aiming to deliver an additional 140 missiles ahead of schedule, which will help bolster Ukraine’s defences through the depths of winter in the wake of Russian attacks on energy infrastructure.

The noble Baroness, Lady Suttie, asked about NATO and the noble Lord, Lord Barrow, asked about defence investment. We have made a historic commitment to spend 5% of GDP on national security. This is a generational increase, underlining the UK’s commitment to national security and our leadership in NATO.

In response to the question from the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, about non-military support, we work to support Ukraine to implement vital democratic, economic and security reforms. Allies will continue to support progress towards interoperability with NATO.

For months now, President Zelensky has said that he is ready for a ceasefire and to engage in meaningful talks with President Putin. Yet Putin continues to stall and play for time, rejecting the opportunity for talks to end the war while escalating his attacks against Ukraine. So, we continue to work closely with our international partners to keep Ukraine in the fight, enable it to defend itself against Russia’s attacks and ratchet up the pressure on Putin to end his illegal war.

Our most powerful tool to bring Putin to the negotiating table is mounting economic pressure applied through sanctions. Since July 2024, the Government have introduced almost 900 new sanctions designations against individuals, entities and ships. In our most recent package, announced earlier this month, we sanctioned 90 targets across Russia’s energy, financial and military sectors. That includes Russia’s two biggest oil producers—two of the largest in the world—Rosneft and Lukoil. We also announced our intention to ban the import of oil products refined in third countries from Russian-origin crude oil, further restricting the flow of funds to the Kremlin.

We have led international efforts to disrupt Russia’s shadow fleet, sanctioning over 520 shadow fleet vessels to date. This hits Russia’s ability to transport oil to third countries. The noble Lord, Lord Ricketts, referred to India. We welcome decisions taken by certain Indian refineries to suspend future purchases of Russian crude. We welcome the sanctions packages announced by the US and EU last week, with the US matching our sanctions on Rosneft and Lukoil and the EU sanctioning Rosneft.

[Lord Skidelsky (CB)]

I thank the Minister for giving way. She has just produced some very impressive statistics on economic sanctions. What effect have they had?

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

They are having a very real effect on the economy of Russia. I would perhaps describe it by saying that this is a battle, yes, on the front line, but it is also becoming a battle of military-industrial complex. Our ability to supply is at stake, and we are in competition with Russia. The more we can do to damage the Russian economy, the stronger we become. But we cannot do that alone. We need to do it alongside our partners and allies, and that is the work that our Prime Minister is engaged in.

Indeed, sanctions have denied Russia access to at least $450 billion, equivalent to an estimated two years of funding for this horrendous war. Noble Lords of course know that we do not speculate on future designations to maximise their impact, but they should be in no doubt that this Government will continue to ratchet up measures as we pile pressure on the Kremlin to change course.

In recent months, Russia has intensified attacks against Ukrainian civilians and civilian infrastructure. Russia has fired thousands of drones at Kyiv and other Ukrainian cities, resulting in ever more civilian casualties. These strikes are having a devastating impact on communities enduring extreme hardship, compounding displacement, trauma and loss. Drones are being used to target humanitarian responders as well. A clearly marked UN convoy delivering humanitarian assistance to front-line communities was hit earlier this month. I am sure noble Lords will join me in paying tribute to the selfless humanitarian aid workers who continue to operate in high-risk environments, not just in Ukraine but in Gaza, Sudan, the Democratic Republic of the Congo and elsewhere to reach those most in need, often under fire.

Several noble Lords asked specifically about women. The needs of women and girls have been embedded in our support for Ukraine, including funding for humanitarian aid, civil society and inclusion, sexual and reproductive health services and assistance to tackle gender-based violence. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Mott, for talking about children. UK funding delivered via partners is providing mental health and psychosocial support to Ukrainian rehabilitation professionals, the burns unit in Kyiv, Ukrainian Red Cross staff and volunteers, and adults and children in front-line oblasts. The British Army is supporting the morale and resilience of Ukrainian troops through the delivery of combat mental resilience practitioner training, and we will train 180 Ukrainian soldiers this year.

As winter begins to bite, Russia is stepping up its attacks on Ukrainian energy infrastructure once again. Russia’s aim is to plunge Ukrainians into cold and darkness, and it carried out its largest-ever attack on Ukraine’s gas infrastructure earlier this month. This threatens to deepen the humanitarian crisis for millions of people now facing a bitter winter without heat, electricity or access to basic services. That is why the Foreign Secretary announced £142 million in aid during her visit to Kyiv last month to support Ukraine through the winter and into next year. That includes £42 million for vital repairs to the electricity transmission network and critical protection for gas and power infrastructure as temperatures plunge, as well as £100 million in vital support for humanitarian assistance to get emergency relief to communities on the front line, a clear commitment that we stand with our Ukrainian friends in the face of Russia’s intensified attacks.

My noble friend Lord Coaker made an inspiring speech at the beginning of this debate and set out details of our military support as we continue to work with our Ukrainian partners to ensure that they have what they need to stay in the fight. In addition, the UK has been the leading bilateral donor since the start of the full-scale invasion, with a commitment of up to £1.2 billion to fund humanitarian assistance, energy resilience, stabilisation and reform, recovery and reconstruction. UK funding continues to provide urgent assistance to front-line communities to protect the most vulnerable. We are supporting efforts to bolster the rule of law, pursue justice and fight corruption. We are bolstering the growth and resilience of Ukraine’s economy, and we are helping Ukrainians to revitalise community services as they build more efficient and inclusive systems of social protection.

I conclude this debate by echoing the words of the Deputy Prime Minister at the United Nations General Assembly in New York just a few weeks ago:

“We must all strive for a just and lasting peace in Ukraine, which maintains the integrity of our UN Charter and sees Ukraine emerge from Russia’s brutal war as a sovereign, secure and independent nation”.


As we speak, he said:

“President Putin rains down ever more drones and missiles on the Ukrainian people”,


yet President Zelensky continues to affirm his commitment to peace at every turn, and the Ukrainian people continue to demonstrate their resilience and determination to resist Russia’s aggression. As the Deputy Prime Minister said, our message to our Ukrainian friends is clear:

“We will stand with you today, tomorrow, and one hundred years from now”,


as we sustain the UK’s unwavering support for our shared future for decades to come.

Motion agreed.

Ukraine

Baroness Chapman of Darlington Excerpts

Friday 25th October 2024 Lords Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Baroness Chapman of Darlington) (Lab)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, in his closing speech. I agreed with everything he said. From being a scrappy, feisty Minister, he has become a genuinely statesmanlike shadow Minister.

I am grateful to all noble Lords for their contributions, but would particularly like to welcome my noble friend Lord Spellar. I have known him for quite some time, and I am not sure he is accustomed to bathing in the warm glow of adoration in many of the places that he has spoken over the years, so I hope he has not found things here too uncomfortable. We are genuinely pleased that he is here. Perhaps there can now be fewer conversations between him and my husband on Sunday mornings; sometimes, there have been three people in my marriage. For all his feistiness and no doubt his decades of fighting the extreme politics on the left of our country, there is a softer side to my noble friend; he has been—and I hope continues to be—a leading light in the APPG on horticulture. I very much look forward to his future contributions in this House.

I have made many notes during this debate. I will try as hard as I can to reply to all the questions that have been raised but, if I fail to do so, please allow me to check Hansard after the debate and I will endeavour to answer any questions that I miss in writing.

As the Foreign Secretary said at the UN Security Council last month:

“Putin’s invasion of Ukraine is in his interest alone”,


but the consequences matter for us all. If Putin wins in Ukraine, the threat posed by Russia to UK and European security will increase. The credibility of international law will be severely undermined, and a signal will be sent to authoritarian leaders elsewhere that aggression pays and that the commitments and statements of the UK and her allies are worthless. We cannot allow this to happen.

As we approach 1,000 days of war, the situation on the front line for Ukraine is incredibly difficult. Russia has made some tactical advances and continues to intentionally target Ukrainian energy infrastructure, to punish millions of innocent Ukrainians ahead of winter. This month, Russian missiles have struck several commercial vessels in the Black Sea, some loaded with grain destined for global markets—yet another grim reminder of Russia’s disregard for international law and global food security. But Ukraine continues to prove that with the right tools it can defend itself, and proves its determination to do so. I note the calls for Storm Shadow and other measures from this Government, and I do not for one second complain about any noble Lord who is pushing us to do more, to go faster, harder, and to be further ahead. I welcome that. I just hope that in return, noble Lords will appreciate that I need to be careful what I say, and that, at the moment, the position of the Government remains as it was. I know that this is entirely what noble Lords expected me to say, but I want to be clear that we do not resist or complain about any contributions that urge us to do more in our support for Ukraine.

Earlier this year, Ukraine successfully headed off a Russian attempt to establish a new foothold in Kharkiv. In August, Ukraine launched a bold offensive across the Russian border into Kursk, targeting Putin’s supply lines, exposing the vulnerabilities of his front-line forces and demonstrating Ukraine’s ability to achieve strategic surprise. In recent weeks, Ukraine has conducted several successful strikes on major Russian munitions depots, restricting Putin’s ability to resupply his forces.

The UK’s support for Ukraine is, as many have said, ironclad. The noble Lord, Lord Bilimoria, said that freedom does not come for free. I would say that failing to support Ukraine would have a far higher price than the one we are paying now. We have provided £12.8 billion in support for Ukraine, including £7.8 billion of military support and £5 billion of non-military support. I note the thoughtful comments from the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, about psychological support for children and post-traumatic support. He made a very good point; it is something that the Government are mindful of and support. We have been clear that we will support Ukraine for as long as it takes. Helping Ukraine to emerge from this war as a strong, secure and sovereign nation, able to deter future Russian aggression, is in the best interests of both the UK and our international partners.

I shall now address some of the important questions that have been asked in today’s debate. The noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, and the noble Lords, Lord Carlile and Lord Banner, made memorable speeches. They bring extensive personal knowledge and enriched our debate enormously. We thank them for that. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Banner: please thank your niece for her letter to us. We do not need her thanks but we do appreciate them. Please tell her that we—in this House, in particular—stand with her.

The UK is taking action to support Ukraine using all the levers at our disposal. The noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, and the noble Lord, Lord Shinkwin, were correct to remind us that we must constantly remind ourselves and others of why this matters. It is not an act of charity; it is about self-interest and collective interest all at once. If the territorial integrity of Ukraine is lost or compromised, the message we send to the world is that war wins.

I turn to the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Stevens, my noble friend Lord Spellar and others about our military-industrial policy. The Government are well aware of those points, which were well made. That is why we are appointing a national munitions director, both to help co-ordinate this work and to ensure that our military obligations to Ukraine can be met.

So far, the UK has provided £7.8 billion in military support to Ukraine. As many noble Lords noted, we announced on Tuesday that, on top of that money, we will provide an additional £2.26 billion to enable Ukraine to purchase essential military equipment; this represents the UK’s contribution to the Extraordinary Revenue Acceleration Loans to Ukraine scheme, which was agreed by the G7 leaders in June. This historic loan, which will be repaid by revenues stemming from immobilised Russian sovereign assets, will ensure that Russia pays for the damage it has caused Ukraine.

The noble Earl, Lord Courtown, asked in his excellent speech when that money will be available. There will be further announcements in the Budget. We anticipate that it will be soon or in due course—whatever form of words we are using at the moment—but we are not going to hang about. Some legislation will be needed to allow for this.

I am grateful to the noble Lords who encouraged the use of all diplomatic and political means. That is why the Prime Minister, the Foreign Secretary and the Defence Secretary have continued to engage closely with international partners: to ensure that Ukraine gets the military support it needs now so that it can defend itself against Russian aggression. The Prime Minister discussed this with his Quad counterparts in Berlin last Friday. We remain in close discussion with Ukraine on the support—be it military, financial or humanitarian—that it needs to secure a just and lasting peace.

Several noble Lords—in particular, the noble Lord, Lord Purvis of Tweed, and the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, on the Liberal Democrat Front Bench—mentioned the BRICS and CHOGM summits. We had noticed these. This week, Putin hosted the BRICS summit in Kazan. With mounting evidence of Russia’s war crimes, the international community must remain united in demonstrating to Putin that such actions will not go unchallenged. We must ensure that engagements with Putin are never treated as business as usual. We urge all our partners to use every opportunity to impress on Putin the need to end the war immediately by withdrawing the Russian forces from Ukraine and ceasing his illegal attacks.

Since the start of the Russian invasion, the UK and our international partners have implemented the most severe package of sanctions ever imposed on a major economy. They are working: Putin himself has admitted that sanctions are causing a “colossal amount of difficulties”. Where we can do more, we will. Thanks to efforts by the UK and its allies, Putin faces extreme costs from the conflict. The UK has sanctioned over 2,000 individuals and entities under the Russian sanctions regime, with over £22 billion of Russian assets now frozen because of UK financial sanctions.

The noble Lords, Lord McConnell and Lord Alton, asked about Chelsea FC. I assure noble Lords that we are committed to making progress on this. The money is held in an account, and it will leave that account only when we are sure it will go on humanitarian work, but we are moving forward with that. This has resulted in depriving Russia of over $400 billion—or four years of funding for Putin’s war machine. The UK continues to co-ordinate through the G7 to undermine Putin’s war efforts and engage countries that have seen an increase in the trade of sanctioned goods.

The noble Lord, Lord Alton, asked a number of questions specifically about North Korea and the discussions we had earlier in the week on liquefied natural gas. We discussed this during a sanctions SI debate in the Moses Room on Monday. I do not have the full answer, and I do not think he expected me to have it today, but there has been a letter to which we will respond in full. For now, however, the UK has taken significant action to constrain Russia’s LNG revenues. In the past month, we have sanctioned nine vessels carrying Russian LNG, including vessels loading from the US and UK-sanctioned Arctic LNG 2 project. This is in addition to our 2023 ban on the import of Russian LNG and export ban on energy-related goods to restrict Russia’s longer-term LNG production. We will continue to explore options to target Russian LNG revenue, while balancing impacts on global supply and energy security.

On the DPRK, we are committed to accountability for the most serious international crimes. The UK consistently supports strong resolutions on human rights in the DPRK at both the UN Human Rights Council and General Assembly. We also joined 53 other countries in a co-sponsored joint statement noting the 10th anniversary of the UN commission of inquiry into DPRK human rights and calling on the DPRK to co-operate with the special rapporteur. The UK will continue to build on momentum from the COI’s 10th anniversary and reinforce the commission’s call for the UN Security Council to consider both the human rights situation in the DPRK and appropriate action to ensure accountability, including through consideration of referral to the International Criminal Court.

The noble Lord, Lord Hannay, raised the issue of disinformation, and the noble Viscount, Lord Chandos, spoke about journalists. This is really important and I am very grateful that they raised the point. Russia has made no secret that it is making a strategic priority of this. There is a reason why Russia is establishing cultural centres and language learning through Africa and Latin America. It is powerful and is working to Russia’s advantage. However, we also have some strength in this space. I point to the work of the World Service, particularly when we are talking about Ukraine. The most reliable record of Russian war dead is being compiled by the BBC and the World Service. They have been supported well by families inside Russia. They have found that people as young as 18 or 19, and people well into their 70s, have been killed in Ukraine. Their work is commendable. It will probably come as a surprise to many people here in the UK, but we should promote and acknowledge it because it comes at no little risk to some of those journalists involved.

Since February 2022 the UK has committed £5 billion in non-military support. This includes £4.1 billion in fiscal support through World Bank loan guarantees and £937 million in bilateral assistance. I pay special tribute to the work of the noble Lord, Lord Ahmad, especially on sexual violence. He asked me about the special envoy. We will make an announcement on that in due course, but I assure him that the work he did will continue. We thank him for that work.

This year £242 million of bilateral funding to Ukraine will fund humanitarian, energy, recovery and reconstruction programmes. Furthermore, the UK has provided more than £370 million for energy security and resilience in Ukraine through grants and guarantees, including £64 million to repair, replace and protect energy infrastructure that has been targeted by Russia—as the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, pointed to—with ongoing support for solar panels to power hospitals, back-up generators to keep the lights on and power generation equipment in Kharkiv and Odessa.

I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Jones, for bringing a delegation from Lviv this week to discuss a wide range of issues with me and many other noble Lords, including recovery and those regional partnerships. We will work closely with a range of international partners to deliver reforms and economic support for Ukraine’s recovery and reconstruction, through the Ukraine Donor Platform and bilaterally.

The noble Lord, Lord Callanan, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Leicester and the noble Baroness, Lady Harris, spoke of the welcome that Ukrainian refugees have received and the extensive contributions that they have made to our communities. I was asked about visas and our plans for the Homes for Ukraine scheme. I assure noble Lords that there will be an opportunity for Ukrainians here to extend their visa if they want to, starting after Christmas. They will be able to extend on the same terms they have now for another 18 months.

To those who are motivated by a desire for peace and who are urging the Government to do more to urge the Ukrainians towards a conclusion to this war, I say this: it is for the Ukrainians to determine their position on a ceasefire or peace negotiations. Together with more than 90 countries, we made clear at the June peace summit that for peace to be just and lasting, it must be based on international law, the UN charter and the will of the Ukrainian people. Putin cannot be trusted. Russia has violated multiple previous agreements, as the noble Baroness, Lady Harris, recalled, including the 1994 Budapest memorandum in which it committed, among other things, to respect Ukraine’s sovereignty and national borders in return for Ukraine agreeing to give up its Soviet-era nuclear arsenal.

Putin has also ignored the demand of 141 countries of the UN General Assembly for the complete withdrawal of Russian forces from Ukrainian territory. Make no mistake: we will be sure to hold Putin and his cronies to account for the hideous atrocities they have committed. In May 2022, alongside the EU and the US, the UK launched the Atrocity Crimes Advisory Group to support the office of the prosecutor-general in Ukraine in its domestic accountability efforts. So far the UK has provided £6.2 million to support Ukraine’s domestic work to document, investigate and prosecute war crimes. This is in addition to £2 million that the UK has provided to the International Criminal Court to collect evidence and support survivors. The UK will support work towards establishing a special tribunal on the crime of aggression against Ukraine, to ensure that those responsible for these barbaric crimes are held to account for their actions.

I end this debate by echoing the Prime Minister’s words at the UN General Assembly last month. We will stand with Ukraine for as long as it takes, because the alternative would be to confirm that international law is merely a paper tiger and that aggressors can do whatever they like. We will never let that happen because it is our duty to respond to a more dangerous world with strength and to keep our people safe. Putin must not be allowed to expand his mafia state into a mafia empire. We see his actions. We know who he is. We support Ukraine. Ukraine must and will prevail.

Motion agreed.