UK-Mauritius Agreement on the Chagos Archipelago

Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon Excerpts

Monday 30th June 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)]

My Lords, I add my formal warm welcome to my noble and learned friend Lady Prentis and congratulate her on an excellent maiden speech. The poignancy of the moment was made even greater by the speech of my noble friend Lord Boswell, who we shall miss not only for his contributions to your Lordships’ House but, on a personal note, for the valuable advice and insights he provided to me when I joined in 2011, which seems like a long time ago now.

I note the concerns outlined by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Goldsmith, in his speech—I have been before him as a Minister in the committee, and I know the scrutiny that the committee provides under quite challenging timescales—and those of my noble and learned friend Lady Prentis, about the need for added scrutiny and transparency around this treaty.

I want to focus on my own insights and experiences, not just as the OTs Minister—I served in that capacity for only two years—but as, at times, the troubleshooter for successive Governments and Prime Ministers in meeting with key Prime Ministers. Prime Minister Jugnauth of Mauritius was one such individual, and I will come on to that in a moment.

I want to touch on the legal context briefly. The ICJ advisory opinion of February 2019 was not binding. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, that I for one read the opinion; I spent a whole weekend and a half—and more—poring over the detail. I was there at the General Assembly in New York when that vote was taken. It was not pleasant seeing the votes as they were totted up, but, again, the General Assembly vote was not binding. Finally, the ITLOS decision between Mauritius and the Maldives equally was not binding on the UK. Indeed, Article 296 of the UNCLOS treaty itself confirms this to be the case.

We have heard repeatedly that this deal was necessary at times to avert binding legal action. Therefore, in the light of the context I have provided, can the Minister tell me what court Mauritius would have gone to if the UK had not agreed this deal? Furthermore, could the Minister confirm that any non-compliance within the courts related to the United Nations or to the implementation of international treaties under a tribunal would ultimately—as is my understanding—go before the UN Security Council? In that instance, the UK would retain a veto option. As such, as my noble friend Lady Goldie stated, this is a “political decision”, a view shared by the Lords International Relations and Defence Committee.

Turning to security guarantees, I remember my last meeting with Prime Minister Jugnauth, the former Prime Minister of Mauritius. The final line I asked him was whether he could provide the security assurances that I need. I refer to them now. What specific obligations have been assured on preventing Mauritius taking forward a separate agreement with a third country on the outer islands, or indeed installations beyond the agreed exclusion waters? Will this be seen as a breach of the treaty? Secondly, on the issue of renewal, the treaty seems to lack a mechanism or procedure for the extension of 40 years. What specific provisions in the treaty provide the guarantee of a continued lease?

Turning to the agreement, paragraph 1 in annex 1 refers to “unrestricted access” for the UK and US in relation to Diego Garcia, including flights and maritime. We welcome this, but it also states that Mauritius must be notified if third country access is required. Paragraph 1(b)(viii) reads:

“Unrestricted ability to … permit access … for non-United Kingdom and non-United States aircraft and vessels, upon”—


that is a crucial word—

“notification to Mauritius”.

What about our obligations to our NATO partners or planned joint exercises with our key Five Eyes partners—for example, Australia? The words “upon notification” suggest—to me certainly—that this means in advance. Surely this needs the Government, in Lords language, to think again.

Beyond Diego Garcia, paragraph 3(a) in annex 1, on undersea or overflight access, says that that requires notification to Mauritius. Again, is this before or after the event? This requirement for notification, also in paragraph 3(b), applies to new locations or upgrades to equipment. Again, how does this satisfy security issues for the UK?

I get what the Government are doing. I assure the Minister, as I have assured the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, that when discussions took place with previous Governments, they were done in good faith but without prejudice. We wanted to ensure the long-term security of our interests, and I know the Government have that in mind. However, it is important that we not only have this debate but that some of the questions I have asked, and that other noble Lords will ask subsequently, are answered. We owe it to the Chagossian people and to our interests, not just in the Indian Ocean but in the world as a whole. Security matters, and we must put security first.