Diego Garcia Military Base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill

Debate between Lord Hannan of Kingsclere and Lord Purvis of Tweed

Committee stage
Tuesday 18th November 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hannan of Kingsclere (Con)]

My Lords, I will start with the amendment from my noble friend Lord Callanan and the objection to it from the noble Lord, Lord Purvis of Tweed, which was that this wasincompatible with the decision taken by Parliament. I will just quote—because I think it is helpful—Article 18 of the treaty. It states:

“This Agreement shall enter into force on the first day of the first month following the date of receipt of the later note by which the Parties notify each other that they have completed their respective internal requirements and procedures necessary for the entry into force of this Agreement”.


In other words, it cannot enter into force until both Chambers of this Parliament have given their assent.

We have not made any bones about the fact that we do not like the treaty at all. I think it is a bit much to complain about my noble friend making this point in principle.

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

The noble Lord will recall that I had said that it is not in force. I said Parliament had ratified it. I am not sure whether the noble Lord can intervene on an intervention, but I am sure he can intervene on his noble friend in just a moment as a proxy to intervene on me. Parliament has ratified the treaty. The treaty is not in force, but treaty-making is a prerogative power, not a parliamentary power. I am sure the noble Lord will agree with that.

[Lord Hannan of Kingsclere (Con)]

I will, of course, invite an intervention. I do not know what the rules are on intervening on an intervention.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

To clarify: it is the position of the Opposition that the referendum would also be for there to able to be inhabitants on the military base?

[Lord Hannan of Kingsclere (Con)]

My Lords, if I may intervene—

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

I am intervening on the noble Baroness. It is her speech.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness. She speaks with great sincerity and consistency in making her arguments, and I share many of her thoughts. I said on the earlier group that I am also awaiting the conclusions of the work of the International Relations and Defence Committee. I hope that it will be able to guide us with some of our thinking on this on Report, after its consultations with the community.

Reference has been made to my honourable friends in the House of Commons, who have also for many years been consistent that we should not repeat the history of making decisions on behalf of the community without involving them. It is our long-held view that that is the basis on which we should go forward.

One of the reasons why I intervened on the noble Baroness, and had the interaction with her noble friend, was that there have been some parts of the debate, especially in the House of Commons, where seeking consideration of the right to self-determination has perhaps been used as a bit of a proxy for other considerations, to try either to prevent a treaty or to prevent the restoration of rights. As the noble Lord said on behalf of his noble friend, we seem to be talking about some form of limited sovereignty, some form of limited and partial right to self-determination.

[Lord Hannan of Kingsclere (Con)]

The proposal has come from the Chagossian population. That is what we mean by self-determination. It is not for us to lay down whether they should have full sovereignty or partial sovereignty; it is for us to listen to what they want.

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

I agree with that. It is a clearer proposition than we have heard—a better proposition, in my view. Actually, “better” is the wrong word; it is a more convincing proposition because of its origination. The reality of how we define self-determination and the rights of the community—and where I think the debate has bled into previously—is that it has been used without that clarification, as a different political impetus with regard to the overall desirability or otherwise of having a treaty with Mauritius.

That is where I come to it. The most vociferous of speeches that we have heard deny the reality of what happened just last year. We can talk about the denial of rights. If we are talking about referendum statistics, I agree with about 90% of what the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, said about rights in her speech. But we do not have to go back to the 1960s to look at the denial of rights. It was in January 2024 that the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, as Foreign Secretary, restated government policy that there would be no right of resettlement, and that was while negotiations on the basis of a treaty were carrying on. If it is an argument to suggest that we wish to restore rights of resettlement and rights to self-determination, I accede to that argument. I think it should be in the acknowledgement that the previous Government and this Government refused to do so in the absence of a treaty with Mauritius.

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

Northern Ireland Protocol Bill

Debate between Lord Hannan of Kingsclere and Lord Purvis of Tweed

2nd reading
Tuesday 11th October 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hannan of Kingsclere (Con)]

My Lords, no one had proposed anything like the Northern Ireland protocol until the second half of 2017. It is worth recalling the genesis. I was a Member of the European Parliament at the time and following the negotiations. In the immediate aftermath of the referendum, no one in Brussels proposed that Northern Ireland should remain under EU jurisdiction for regulatory purposes. They understood that sovereign countries are not in the business of ceding part of their territory to foreign control. They understood that sovereign countries do not usually allow internal borders. All of the talk then was about finding technical solutions: Enda Kenny’s Government in Dublin negotiating in good faith with British authorities to try to find ways to keep the border open, on the basis that the UK and EU had pretty similar regulatory norms and could trust each other’s standards.

What changed? It was a very sudden moment, around October 2017. I remember Guy Verhofstadt coming to the Constitutional Affairs Committee with his customary self-satisfied grin, saying, “We have now made it part of our negotiating mandate that there must not be any change in the EU side of the single market regulations as pertaining to Northern Ireland.” What had changed? We all know the answer: what had changed was that, on 8 June 2017, there was a general election that altered the balance in the other place.

From then, it became clear that a majority of people in both Chambers here were not prepared to leave the European Union except on terms that Brussels liked. That was not the phrase they used; the phrase was that they would not “permit a no-deal Brexit”. But let us think about it for five seconds: that is exactly the same, is it not? So, of course, the European Union—not unreasonably; I do not blame them—started putting on the table all sorts of outlandish demands that, up until then, it had not occurred to them to make.

Plenty of people have said, “Parliament ought to assert itself in this situation.” That is fine, but it strikes me as a little inconsistent for noble Lords who were strongly in favour of this no-deal Brexit stance, who then, if you like, ensured that this treaty was signed under duress, now to turn around and say, “You told us it was a great treaty. How come you have changed your mind after three years?” It was signed in a moment of EU overreach and it was bound to be corrected when the majority in another place changed. I am bound to add that there is something slightly odd about saying, after three years of negotiations, “Shouldn’t we have a little bit more time to talk?” What do noble Lords think we have been doing for the last three years?

I would like to put a question. I am one of the last speakers; some 54 noble Lords have spoken and, as far as I can tell, no one has taken issue with the contents as set out by my noble friend the Minister. Noble Lords will correct me if I am wrong. The aims of the Bill are that companies in Northern Ireland that do not export should be free to follow either UK or EU regulation; that there should be a green channel so that goods not intended for onward export are not subject to additional checks or tests; that Northern Ireland should be part of the general principle of “no taxation without representation”; and that the treaty should be arbitrated in the same way as all other international accords. Are those unreasonable demands? I see a couple of Lib Dem Peers theatrically pulling Paxmanesque leers of incredulity. I shall, of course, give way.

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

I thank the noble Lord for giving way since he was obviously referring to me. I am wondering about the noble Lord’s assertion—a serious one: that Parliament was misled by the Prime Minister of the day; that the deal that they presented to Parliament was made under duress. We were not informed about that being the case, but that is the case that he is making. Is that correct?

[Lord Hannan of Kingsclere (Con)]

There is absolutely no question that the Northern Ireland protocol would not have been agreed had there not been an anti-Brexit majority in another House that was saying in terms, and had taken the legislative agenda and legislated to say, that they would not permit Brexit to happen except on terms that Brussels liked.

I finish by saying that if there is a conflict between respecting the basis of the Good Friday agreement—which rests on the idea of devolution and power sharing—and an overseas treaty obligation, I hope that any British Government would pursue the former objective. That should go almost without saying. If we were not in this situation where a large chunk of the country will automatically want to side with the EU, whatever its position is, that would be an almost banal statement. If there is a conflict between the protocol and our obligation to the people of Northern Ireland, I hope that any British Government would honour their obligation to the people of Northern Ireland.