British Sovereignty Protection (Chagos Islands) Bill [HL]
Lord Bellingham Excerpts(2 days, 19 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Bellingham (Con)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow my noble friend Lady Meyer. Having been married to a former UK Ambassador to Washington, she understands what goes on in Washington. We should all listen carefully to what she said about the American Administration.
I support the Bill wholeheartedly and congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Weir, not just on drafting it in a precise, accurate and impressive way, but also on his speech this morning. It encapsulates in very clear legal terms all the issues we have been talking about and are so concerned about. I will not go through all of them, but what the Bill says about sovereignty, the protection of the rights of the Chagossians, including their right to a referendum and, of course, the guarantees for the marine protected area are all incredibly important. But, as other noble Lords, particularly my noble friend Lord Lilley and the noble Lord, Lord Hannan, pointed out, the Bill, important though it is, should not be necessary, because the background, obviously, is the wholly discredited treaty: the Chagos surrender Bill.
I had a Question in the House recently, on 13 October, and I put it to the Minister that, first, the opinion that was given by the ICJ was indeed advisory. I also pointed out to her that, under Article 36.2 of the statute of the ICJ, which we helped to draft—her own officials will give her background on that—there was that specific initial exclusion for sovereign disputes between the UK and Commonwealth countries. As my noble friend Lord Lilley pointed out, that was reinforced at a later date.
Under the other case, the UNCLOS case, the then Defence Secretary John Healey said in the House last year—in the first Statement on the treaty, in fact—that there was an imminent and immediate threat to the UK under the UNCLOS tribunal. We have already established very clearly that UNCLOS cannot rule on issues regarding military bases. I asked the Minister, on 13 October, to explain to the House why the Government believe that there is a credible and viable threat to the UK in terms of a binding legal judgment. I would give way to her now if she thinks there is a threat, but it would be very helpful if she can say to the House, when she winds up, that there is no legal threat to the UK whatever. Let us be very clear on that, because I do not think anyone now believes that there is any form of threat whatever.
In her reply, the Minister repeated what she has said many times before: that the previous Conservative Administration went for 11 rounds of negotiations—or maybe 12; I cannot remember—and, somehow, that makes it all the more justifiable that the new Government came in and immediately signed along the treaty terms. I point out to the Minister that the very fact that there were 11 rounds of negotiations leads me to believe that the previous Government, and the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, in particular, believed that they could not sign the treaty with the terms that were on the table. The terms of that treaty were just not acceptable, so we did not sign it, which is why the negotiations went on and, indeed, why they were paused by the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, before the last election.
We have also heard Ministers go on about the UK’s reputation in the global South. I have been privileged enough to have two separate stints at the FCO. I have never heard the phrase “global South” mentioned; I think it is the concoction of a number of NGOs. Presumably, it refers to those countries in sub-Saharan Africa south of the equator. There is an idea that, somehow, if the Minister and her colleagues are doing a trade negotiation with Mozambique, Malawi or Madagascar, they will arrive in Maputo, Lilongwe or Antananarivo to meet their counterparts to sign a treaty and their counterparts will say, “Well done Britain, you’ve signed this treaty with Mauritius; we’re really impressed”. I know those countries pretty well and they do not respect signs of weakness; they respect strength. Frankly, the argument about the global South that was rehearsed many times by the previous Prime Minister, Keir Starmer, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hermer, does not stack up at all. I hope that the Minister, when she winds up, makes it very clear and reinforces to everyone that there is no legal, credible, viable threat.
A very important part of the Bill is on the whole issue of resettlement. Fairly recently this year, on 16 February, four Chagossians under Misley Mandarin landed on the Île du Coin in the Peros Banhos archipelago. Two days later, two more Chagossians joined them. As we know, the BIOT commissioner launched a case to evict them, but failed in that case. It has now gone to appeal. The Court of Appeal has reserved its judgment; we are awaiting it. Something very interesting has happened in the meantime, because the BIOT commission, based in Diego Garcia, has been supplying the six Chagossians on the Île de Coin. They have set aside, I gather—the Minister can confirm this—£6 million to go on supplying the Chagossians on that island. The Foreign Office started by saying that this was an irresponsible, illegal act, and it deplored it. Now, and I find this commendable, it is supplying them with key provisions to reinforce the supplies that those six Chagossians have. Of course, they have access to plentiful numbers of fish and local crops, such as breadfruit.
It is good news that the Government, in the form of the BIOT commission, are supplying them formally—I applaud that. I understand that there are 42 more Chagossians immediately ready to go to Île du Coin, and there are another 300 who have expressed interest in going. We are moving pretty quickly towards having a viable population on those outer islands that could form a British Overseas Territory. That is something that I think many of us would be extremely pleased to see.
When I was appointed the OTs Minister in 2010, I asked the FCO to commission a feasibility study to look at the resettlement of the outer islands. It commissioned KPMG to do a full report. It came out in 2015, by which stage I had been sacked from the department. The report was very comprehensive. KPMG looked at different scenarios: first, a settlement of 1,500 settlers and, then, another option of 500 or 150. It concluded that it certainly was possible and viable for a settlement to take place in a number of those outer islands. It flagged the cost, which was going to come in at between £10 million and £20 million a year. However, as the noble Lord, Lord Hannan, pointed out, that is a tiny amount of money compared with the amount that we have committed, in principle, to give to Mauritius—it is a small sum of money by comparison. Therefore, the whole cost argument goes out of the window.
The other point that KPMG made in its report—I certainly urge the Minister to find a copy of it; maybe a précis of it is in her folder—is that, if the Government puts up this money for supporting this resettlement, there may well be a flow of private sector money coming after it. If there were a sensible programme of restructuring the settlement and making sure that we had a viable, interesting commercial offer to the private sector, I suggest that a lot of private sector money would flow after the money put in by the Government.
Another point raised by KPMG touched on some of the strategic points that have been made already on defence. The report said that settlement on the outer islands could compromise the security of Diego Garcia. This was 15 or 16 years ago, and since then there has been a major reappraisal of the security of the base, because it is now in range of supersonic and hypersonic missiles. Indeed, Iran fired one at Diego Garcia—it fell short. That base is under threat of missile attack from the north, so the obvious place to put systems to counter potential missile strikes is on those islands to the north of Diego Garcia—Île du Coin and the other northern islands. What better way to secure those islands than to have them part of a settled British Overseas Territory?
China has launched a phase of activism in the Indian Ocean. I certainly would not trust Mauritius not to allow Chinese presence on those outer islands. Certainly, if there were any intrusion by a third party through settlements on those islands, that would do far more damage to the future security and safety of the base than anything else that might happen.
I will look at two final points that have cropped up in our discussions this afternoon. One is around sovereignty and the right of Chagossians to have a referendum to decide their future, which is incredibly important. The other is around environmental protection. One of our most important marine protected areas was launched by the then Foreign Secretary David Miliband in 2009, and it is securing an incredibly important part of the UK’s biodiversity. In fact, David Miliband said at the time that 40% of the UK’s total biodiversity is around those islands.
There is also a chance now for this Government to right the wrongs of 1967. Under a previous Labour Government, the Chagossians were evicted; they were taken off those islands, and their dogs and other pets were gassed. I hope that, almost 60 years later, this Government will do two things: accept this Bill and then tear up this totally discredited treaty.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Baroness Winterton of Doncaster) (Lab)
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Weir, on securing this Second Reading debate and bringing forward his Bill. I thank all noble Lords who have contributed to the debate for their contributions, which certainly reflect the deeply held views about this issue among noble Lords. I will try to address as many of the points raised as I can in my response.
Before I do that, I will once again set out the vital importance of the base on Diego Garcia. As noble Lords have heard on many occasions, Diego Garcia is a key strategic military asset for both the UK and the US which has protected our shared security for nearly 60 years. The base enables the rapid deployment of operations and forces across the Middle East, east Africa and south Asia, helping the UK to combat some of the most challenging threats we face, including from terrorism and hostile states. Diego Garcia’s unique strategic location grants us real military advantage across the Indo-Pacific. Put simply, the base makes an essential and irreplaceable contribution to keeping the British people safe and protecting our global interests. Many noble Lords have raised the issue of the legal rationale and arguments behind that. I am sure noble Lords will accept that the base has been operating at increasing risk for decades: UK sovereignty has been challenged, and international courts have already made decisions that undermine our position.
Lord Bellingham (Con)
How can an advisory opinion by a court, which can under no circumstances lead to a binding judgment by a court, undermine the security of the base? I do not understand that.
Baroness Winterton of Doncaster (Lab)
I will come on to address that issue. Let me first return to what I was setting out, which is that, because of the legal position—which, as I say, I will come back to—negotiations were started by the previous Conservative Government. There were 11 rounds of talks, conceding the principle of UK sovereignty and establishing the model of direct payment to Mauritius to lease back Diego Garcia.
When they came to power in 2024, the Labour Government inherited a draft treaty that was close to completion and a political context in which the risk to base operations had never been greater. Nevertheless, the Government were able to secure much stronger provisions in the treaty to protect the base well into the next century. I should say that in drawing this up, the UK and the US worked hand in glove in developing the treaty, and we continue to work together. When the Diego Garcia treaty was signed by Prime Minister Keir Starmer, we had US support. However, as the noble Lord, Lord Weir, said, it is clear that the US, through President Trump, has taken a different view, so we will continue to work together, as has been made clear by both the Defence Secretary and the Prime Minister. We need the support of both Mauritius and the US to find a solution that works for everyone.
The noble Lords, Lord Callanan, Lord Lilley, Lord Bellingham and Lord Hannan, asked why we are handing over sovereignty on the basis of a non-binding legal opinion. This is not just about a legal judgment; it is about the long-term safety and security of the UK. The only way to maintain the base safely in the long term is through this agreement. There is no alternative, whereby we just hang on to the base without an agreement. The previous Conservative Government tried to do that under Boris Johnson and when that failed, they started the negotiations.
I accept that there are those who argue that we should ignore the legal challenges, but there is no question that we can do that. Doing nothing is simply not an option and threatens the UK’s safety. Some argue that there are carve-outs and exemptions that the Government have missed. We have heard these arguments before, and I am afraid we have to reject them. On the ICJ exemption, although the 2017 amendment does indeed mean that the International Court of Justice cannot rule on disputes between the UK and Commonwealth countries, this is not the only viable route to a binding judgment and not the one we consider most likely.
With regard to the UNCLOS—
Falkland Islands
Lord Bellingham Excerpts(1 month, 2 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Winterton of Doncaster (Lab)
First, let me thank the noble Lord for his kind words and fond memories of the CPA visit. I also echo what he said about my noble friend Lady Chapman.
With regard to the US, I assure him that we, of course, engage regularly with the US on a range of foreign policy issues. I am sure he will understand that I cannot give a running commentary on all of our engagement with the US, but it is our closest ally. We engage on a number of issues, including this one, and of course I take on board the points that he has made about the areas that may be of particular concern to the Falkland Islanders.
Lord Bellingham (Con)
The Minister is aware that the UK is a prominent member of the CPTPP. Argentina applied to join a few weeks ago. Is this a point of leverage that can be used against a country that is threatening our sovereignty?
Baroness Winterton of Doncaster (Lab)
The noble Lord raises an important point but, just to be clear, accession to the CPTPP is a matter for the member states themselves. We do not comment on individual applications for accession.
Palestinian Authority Prime Minister Visit
Lord Bellingham Excerpts(1 year, 5 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
I thank my noble friend for her question, her long-standing interest in this topic and the thoughtful way she goes about raising these issues. We have announced funding recently, but this comes after the money that was announced for the OPTs in 2024-25. This included £41 million for UNRWA, providing vital services to civilians in Gaza.
In answer to the question about why we are providing this support now and to the Palestinian Authority, I invite noble Lords who are concerned about this to consider who it might be that would be leading this work in Gaza if it were not for the people who are currently doing it. They are mostly technocrats who had other roles, who have come back and want to do the right thing by their population. They are deserving of our support. The reason we have had to put additional aid in is, frankly, the absolutely desperate situation that civilians—who have had no role in any of the violence—find themselves in.
Lord Bellingham (Con)
My Lords, I welcome the Minister’s Statement and the Government’s announcement of the aid package. Would the Minister agree that most of the Israeli settlers in the West Bank have contributed significantly to the local economy, farming, small businesses and enterprise? However, if you believe in the two-state solution, as the Minister has mentioned on four occasions—my noble friend also mentioned it on four occasions, and I support it strongly—then surely the logic is that these settlers must accept that their future lies certainly as residents, and maybe as citizens, of a Palestinian sovereign state. What representations have HMG made to the Israeli Government on this point?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
My Lords, if I wanted to write to the noble Baroness, I would have said that I was going to write to her. It is up to her to challenge me—I am here for that; I enjoy it and that is what I want to do—but it is up to me to decide whether I like what she says or not.
Lord Bellingham (Con)
My Lords, I would like to take the question I asked a bit further. If we accept that the settlers have contributed a great deal and invested heavily, what is the ideal outcome? Is it that they are forced to move if we have a Palestinian state, or would it be better if they stayed and worked with a new Palestinian Authority at some stage in the future, maybe a long way off? It is our avowed mission and wish to see this two-state solution take place.
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
Yes, it absolutely is. I am careful not to make comments that might pre-empt or get ahead of negotiations. That would not be a good idea for me as a Minister. The issues that the noble Lord raises are incredibly important and he is right to raise them, but they are probably best dealt with through a process of negotiation, which I hope we can enter into sooner rather than later.
London Sudan Conference
Lord Bellingham Excerpts(1 year, 5 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
We are clear that the conflict needs to end and that anyone with any influence over any of the warring parties should use it to bring the conflict to a peaceful conclusion. I am happy to look into the reports—which I was not aware of—that the noble Lord just raised about recent events in Zamzam, and to get back to him about that.
Lord Bellingham (Con)
My Lords, is the Minister concerned that no contact group was set up for the conflict after the conference? Can she tell the House what assessment she has made of the withdrawal of USAID support?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
Clearly, the withdrawal of USAID support is having an impact in many places around the world, and we are doing what we can. One of the outcomes from the conference, although not an aim of it, was that £800 million was raised, which is positive. But the noble Lord is right to raise the impact of the withdrawal of USAID as well. It is a mistake to impose a test of the success or failure of a conference such as the one we led that is about whether there was an agreed statement or a contact group. Clearly, ideally, you would have those things, but let us be realistic about where this is. If that became the test of a successful conference, I would venture to say that fewer leaders would take the steps that our Foreign Secretary did. This is protracted, long-standing and fiendishly difficult to resolve, but our Foreign Secretary cares deeply about it and wants to use his convening power to make progress. That is what he has done and will continue to do.
Chagos Islands
Lord Bellingham Excerpts(1 year, 6 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
There will be legislation before the House to do this. I do not know exactly the process or whether a debate will be in government time—the Chief Whip is sitting to my right. As far as I am aware, we are not amending the process by which this would be considered.
Lord Bellingham (Con)
Can the Minister confirm that the total cost over 99 years will be a staggering £50 billion, according to my figures? The Government did not have to give in to Mauritius at a time when we face economic headwinds. What will she say to Labour MPs in marginal constituencies that face the consequences of the Chancellor’s austerity, with cuts to libraries, children’s services, the fire service and grants to charities?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
The numbers that have been quoted are completely incorrect. This is an agreement with Mauritius that we have worked out respectfully and collaboratively. The characterisation that the noble Lord puts forward is not correct.
Syria
Lord Bellingham Excerpts(1 year, 7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
It is true that in the situation that Syria finds itself in, the ability of civil society to work closely with communities is essential. My colleague Minister Falconer is talking to civil society groups and working through any agencies and relationships that he has to support this because they are vital in establishing a stable future for the country.
Lord Bellingham (Con)
My Lords, the Minister is aware, obviously, that Syria is facing the world’s largest refugee crisis, with a truly staggering 14 million Syrians having fled their homes. Over 6.2 million have fled abroad, including many to this country. Among their number are some of the brightest, best and most qualified Syrian citizens, who are needed for rebuilding their country. This leads on from the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Reid. What steps will the Government take, working with civil society, the new President, Ahmed al-Sharaa, and the UNHCR, to find a way of trying to smooth the return of many of these very able and capable people?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
That is a really interesting question. It is wonderful that we are in a situation where we can even begin to have those conversations, when you consider the journey that Syria has been on. It is early days, but we will work with whoever we need to to enable the reconstruction and rebuilding of Syria, not just physically but of the society in Syria. There is still a long way to go—we are in the early stages—but the suggestions made by the noble Lord are good, and I will follow them up.
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
We are working with our partners and allies on this. As the noble Lord knows, decisions have been made, particularly on the citizenship of certain individuals, which I think is what he is getting at. Those decisions have been made; I do not have anything further to add today.
Lord Bellingham (Con)
My Lords, before we leave the subject, may I ask a quick supplementary? There are Syrian community and civil society groups in this country. Will the Minister find out who they are and work with them on this agenda?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
I know some of them very well. Many have made an enormously positive contribution since they arrived in the United Kingdom, setting up businesses and becoming leaders in the community. For some of them, there may be choices to make now, and I am very happy to work with whoever wishes to on anything that would help improve the chances of a lasting and stable situation in Syria.
Chagos Islands
Lord Bellingham Excerpts(1 year, 8 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
We are working very closely with our allies in the United States. Jonathan Powell, our National Security Adviser, is in Washington at the moment working through the deal with the Americans. It is right and understandable for any new Administration to want to know every precise detail of this, because it has a profound impact on security and the stability of the base on Diego Garcia.
Lord Bellingham (Con)
My Lords, why were this Government so keen to reach an agreement when, because we did not contest it, the UN court case was only advisory? Why is there this rush on the part of the Minister and her ministerial colleagues?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
We have been through this in the House several dozen times, but I am happy to take the question again. I invite the noble Lord to consider a situation where we had allowed for the legal processes to continue. The advice that we received was that it was likely that the advisory decision would be followed by a decision to which we would have to adhere. Our view—this is a judgment—is that we would be in a stronger position to negotiate ahead of a binding judgment rather than afterwards. Noble Lords can disagree with that, but it is the reason for our timing. It is also the reason for the 11 rounds of negotiation under the previous Government. It is also true that there are Members opposite and Members in opposition in the other place who know that very well.
Chagos Islands
Lord Bellingham Excerpts(1 year, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Bellingham
To ask His Majesty’s Government what plans they have to engage with the new administration in the United States to discuss the future of the Chagos Islands.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Baroness Chapman of Darlington) (Lab)
My Lords, this deal protects UK and US national security interests by ensuring the long-term effective operations of the base. However, given the importance of the base to the US, it is right that the new Administration have the chance to consider the full agreement. We look forward to discussing the deal with them, which will include sharing the full detail of what has been agreed, including the detailed protections that we have secured for the base.
Lord Bellingham (Con)
I am grateful for that Answer. Is the Minister aware that, on independence, Mauritius was paid an extra grant to waive any future right to the Chagos Islands? Furthermore, is she aware that, because the UK did not contest the recent ICJ judgment, we are not bound by it, so it is purely advisory? Does she agree that it was a diplomatic error to push ahead with the treaty before the elections in Mauritius and the States? Has the time not now come to work with our American partners on a fresh treaty that protects the rights of the Chagossians while providing some sort of financial package for Mauritius? Above all, rather than a 99-year lease on Diego Garcia, which will only encourage the Chinese, should we not go for a sovereign base island in perpetuity?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
Of course we are aware that the ICJ ruling is advisory—we have discussed it many times in this House—but just because that ruling was advisory does not mean that there would not be future rulings. We believe that we are in a stronger position to negotiate ahead of a binding ruling than we would be waiting for one. Interestingly, the previous Government shared that view, which is why they commenced two years and 11 or 12 rounds of negotiations themselves. We are working very closely with the new Administration in the United States, and we will talk to them in great detail about what this deal means.
Journalists Detained or Killed Overseas
Lord Bellingham Excerpts(1 year, 11 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
We respect enormously the work that is done by journalists. We advise against all travel to South Sudan, and yet we know that it is important that the truth of what is happening there is reported by brave journalists. We will offer every assistance that we can, should they need it.
Lord Bellingham (Con)
My Lords, the Minister will be aware that aid to South Sudan comes in different strands, including humanitarian development and direct budget support. As far as the latter is concerned, that is money paid by the UK Government to South Sudanese government departments, where there is obviously some leverage that can be made. Therefore, can she comment on what pressure is being put on them and how they are using that leverage in a constructive way?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
It is true that there are different options we can use to approach South Sudan. We can disengage or we can use various levers. We have a relationship with the Government there, and our view is that that is the best way to have some influence. We have a team in Juba, and we provide assistance to people in the most desperate situations. It is one of the most difficult areas on the planet at the moment. Our Minister for Development, in her first visit to Africa, chose to visit South Sudan just to make sure that we use every opportunity to raise our concerns.
Red Sea: Houthi Attacks
Lord Bellingham Excerpts(2 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
The implication of that question is that somehow the behaviour of the Houthis regarding shipping is related to the instability and the war in Israel and Gaza. We do not accept that. The behaviour of the Houthis needs to stop. It is a threat to security and stability more widely in the Middle East. We do not accept the Houthis’ contention that their behaviour is in any way related to the situation in Israel, Lebanon or Gaza.
Lord Bellingham (Con)
My Lords, just to add to that question, will the Minister look at the wider situation regarding the peace agreement in Yemen? Until there is more momentum behind the peace talks in Yemen, this problem in the Red Sea is not going to be solved.
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
Until the horrendous attacks by Hamas on Israel on 7 October, the peace process was progressing. An envoy was engaged, and it looked as if there may well be some progress. Sadly, that is not the situation that we are in at the moment. We will use every diplomatic lever that we can, in addition to the measures we are taking to defend shipping and prevent further attacks, to bring about stability and de-escalation.