British Sovereignty Protection (Chagos Islands) Bill [HL]

Lord Hannan of Kingsclere Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 23rd October 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hannan of Kingsclere (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I would like to congratulate my noble friend Lord Weir of Ballyholme on introducing this Motion and on the manner in which he introduced it. It is very rare that we get second chances. Providence has provided us with one here, and I really hope that Ministers will look impartially at the opportunity before them.

I am going to canter over, very briefly, some of the history of how we got here. The islands were uninhabited until 1783, when they were taken by France, which populated them with an enslaved population brought mainly from east Africa. They were then taken from the French in the Napoleonic Wars in 1810—an episode fictionalised in the Aubrey/Maturin novels by Patrick O’Brian, where Jack Aubrey is given the wonderful line that it strikes him as absurd and unnatural that islands should not be British.

In 1814, the islands were then ceded as part of the general movement of territories following the Congress of Vienna, and there things stayed. Britain manumitted the slave population. The territory was administered from Mauritius only in the sense that it was too small to maintain an administrative seat and therefore had its administration in Mauritius in the same way that Aden had its administration in India. It would be a very strange and bizarre thing if that became the basis of sovereignty claims around the world.

Fast forward to 1965, when Britain is decolonising, there is some dispute within Mauritius about not wanting to be decolonised. One of the Mauritian political parties is arguing that Mauritius should instead have representation in another place and be an integral part of the UK in the same manner as the DOM-TOMs of France, but Britain pushes ahead with the decolonisation, maintaining sovereignty over the British Indian Ocean Territory.

To put the issue beyond doubt, Mauritius trousers what was in those days a very large sum of money permanently to renounce any claim it might have to the sovereignty of the archipelago. The then Prime Minister was later asked in a Mauritian parliamentary committee whether he was pressured. He said no. He was very happy to take the money. He said this is a portion of our territory which is very far from here and which we have never visited. He might have added that it was historically and ethnically different—its population, as it were, broadly having come from the West rather than from the East. There was very little sense of awareness, let alone of claim, of this being a similar population.

There we can leave things until, perhaps with an approximation to China going on in the early 20th century, until Mauritius gets together a posse of third-worldist judges and on the basis of a non-binding resolution of the UN General Assembly, gets another non-binding ruling that somehow this territory belongs, in defiance of the wishes of its people, to a country that had never owned it and that had until then shown no interest beyond the pecuniary interests that it had.

So, once again, I am going to say to the Minister and to other Ministers: take the off ramp. There is no good in pursuing this process. It is senseless militarily. We are imperilling a key base that commands four of the seven naval choke points. We are inviting unfriendly powers to take up positions in the surrounding archipelago. It makes no sense ecologically. We are giving away the most pristine maritime conservation zone in the world to a nation with a very poor record on biodiversity. It makes no sense democratically because the overwhelming majority of Chagossian people, those born on the islands and their descendants, are clear that they do not want to be Mauritians and that they want, as they have made clear over and over again, to return to their islands as British overseas subjects. Of course, it makes no sense financially. Good luck to any political party going into an election saying, “We are raising your taxes here so that they can cut their taxes in Mauritius”, which is indeed the boast being made by some Mauritian politicians.

How have we ended up in this place? I can best describe it as something one sees often with the Foreign Office: “Bridge on the River Kwai” syndrome. If you take as your starting assumption the absolute supremacy of any international tribunal, even when it issues non-binding resolutions, and even when, for all the reasons that we just heard from the noble Lord, Lord Lilley, its jurisdiction in this case is expressly excluded because of the military nature of the facility and because disputes between Commonwealth or ex-Commonwealth members are excluded from its jurisdiction, if you none the less are tearing around the world in your Matrix Chambers/Doughty Street way, looking for international tribunals to which to surrender, and this is your priority, then within those terms, the leaseback agreement had a certain ingenuity. It had a certain neatness, and it could be justified when there was pressure from the then US Administration to do it, and when there was pressure internally because of the obsession of the previous Prime Minister and the previous Attorney-General with international law.

However, as with the bridge on the River Kwai, this treaty was never primarily in the British national interest. It was only a response to a very specific circumstance, and that circumstance has now changed. The US Government have made it very clear that they do not want to go ahead with this treaty, and, rather in the manner of Alec Guinness in the movie, we still have officials trying to stick to the thing in which they had invested so much of their time and ingenuity. I hope that, even now, one of them will fall on the plunger and undo the folly because, in doing so, we would restore our relations with our closest ally, and we would save ourselves a great deal of money.

I have to say, not that it is any of my business, that the party opposite would be doing itself a great favour electorally. I cannot help noticing that at every stage, including today, the Labour Benches have been completely empty when we have been discussing this issue because Labour politicians, whether in this place or in another place, did not generally go into politics again to betray a poor, black, dispossessed population and hand a pristine maritime conservation zone to a country with a terrible record ecologically.

There is every reason to pull out while there is still time. Let me urge the Minister and all Ministers to take the win: take the off ramp.

United Kingdom: Global Position

Lord Hannan of Kingsclere Excerpts

Thursday 13th March 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hannan of Kingsclere (Con)]

My Lords, over the past two months, our world has tilted on its axis. A lot of our assumptions were overthrown and a lot of our “isms” are suddenly “wasms”. We were perhaps ready for a new US Administration to withdraw from Ukraine—that had been flagged up in advance—but other things have come as a shock: to side with Russia while attacking NATO allies; to instruct the NSA to stop treating Russia as a threat and to downgrade it as a source of cyberattacks; to vote with North Korea, Belarus, Russia and the world’s delinquents in the United Nations on a motion that even China was not prepared to support; to make aggressive territorial demands on Denmark; and to wage actual economic war against Canada.

I take this opportunity to salute the Minister for the tone she took yesterday on the question of Canadian trade. I could see that she had all sides of the Chamber with her. It is not a question on which anyone in this country can be neutral. I also salute the Administration for the mature and responsible attitude they have taken during these very sudden changes, these very mercurial times. We have not lost sight of the prize that we have—a potential trade deal with the US and closer associations with what is still by far the world’s strongest country and our biggest market. But we have still stood up for the values that, as a country, we pride ourselves on having exported—as the heirs of a liberal and democratic tradition that stretches back through the Bill of Rights even before the Great Charter to the folkright of common law.

Where are we left as such a country in this world that has been so suddenly shaken up? The question assumes some urgency when you look at some of the defence procurement decisions that have very long lead times. We have always assumed until now that if there were a serious war, we would be part of a wider western coalition, a US-led coalition. So, yes, we could manage Aden emergencies or Falklands Wars or Sierra Leone conflicts. But if it got serious, when it came to things such as strategic lifts, satellites and, of course, nuclear spare parts, we always assumed we would have the US deterrent there. Can we assume that we will be able to rely on it 30 or 40 years from now when the current nuclear deterrent expires; in other words, what procurement decisions should we be making now? Can we be certain that we would be able to rely on our American friends? I would hope we could, but I am less certain of it now than I was two months ago.

I hope we would be able to rely on liberal and democratic countries in western Europe, but, again, can we be certain of that? You would think the EU would be bending over backwards to draw us into a defence and security arrangement, given its relative exposure to Russian threats and revanchism. But it is sticking to the line, as far as I can tell, that it will not talk to us at all until we agree to open our fishing grounds. Now, is that a mature and responsible attitude? Does it show signs of having adapted to this new world?

On whom can we rely? The only thing I can say with certainty is that 30 or 40 years from now, we will not be quarrelling with the countries that have always been our strongest supporters and closest allies; namely the other large Commonwealth realms of Australia, Canada and New Zealand. Somebody was telling me that if we were to make our nuclear system autonomous on the model of the French one, it would roughly double the budget. Well, we could roughly double the budget by sharing our GDP responsibility with those three countries.

Here I should declare an interest as president of the Conservative Friends of CANZUK, which launched at the other end of this building last night. CANZUK stands for closer co-operation, military and strategic, among those four countries, as well as free movement of labour—the right to take a job in another country—and an enhanced free market.

I end with a suggestion to the two Ministers, who both know, I hope, in what high esteem I hold them. Next year is the centenary of the Westminster Conference, which began the transformation of the British Empire into a voluntary Commonwealth. Is that not a splendid opportunity for His Majesty to invite the Prime Ministers of his four largest realms and show that our song is not yet sung—that we are only just getting started?

Prime Minister: Meeting with Prime Minister of Canada

Lord Hannan of Kingsclere Excerpts

Wednesday 12th March 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

That is a very important point. Canada is a leader in working alongside other Arctic nations on issues of security. I am pleased that we work closely with the Canadians on issues surrounding the Arctic region and we have every intention of continuing to do so.

[Lord Hannan of Kingsclere (Con)]

My Lords, since Mr Carney became leader of the Canadian Liberal Party, both of the main Canadian parties are now in favour of CANZUK—that is to say, closer links between Canada, Australia, New Zealand and the UK on issues such as a free market, free movement of labour and enhanced diplomatic collaboration. Is this something that His Majesty’s Government will look upon as a way of building on the ties we have of language, law, habit, history, culture and kinship? We are already linked in the trans-Pacific partnership. Could we not deepen our alliance with the countries that, as the Minister correctly says, have fought longest and hardest at our side?

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

As the noble Lord says, we are members of the CPTPP, together with Canada. If there are other ways that we can deepen our collaboration and enhance the ties he described, I am sure that we should look at them and speak with our Canadian friends about this.

Belarus: Elections

Lord Hannan of Kingsclere Excerpts

Monday 10th February 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

That is an interesting question. One of the reasons that we maintain an embassy in Minsk is to send a signal to the people of Belarus that they have not been abandoned by us, that we are there and that we will advocate on their behalf. It is difficult to work in the way that we want, of course, but we will continue to do what we can.

[Lord Hannan of Kingsclere (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for the way she summarised government policy. I think she said that she wants a free, democratic and independent Belarus. We can all agree that it is not free and democratic, but does there come a point when it is not independent either? Since 2020, whatever autonomy there had been in foreign policy has been lost. Under the union state treaty, the Russians are now deploying not just troops but tactical nuclear weapons there; any pretence of a separate foreign policy has gone. Does there come a point when we face reality and talk about this as what it is, which is a Russian annexation?

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

The noble Lord is completely right about the state of democracy in Belarus, such as it is. This situation saddens us all. We look at what has happened in Moldova and in Ukraine, and we cannot help but see the future if we leave some of those activities unchecked. Russia is clearly intent on strengthening its grip on nations outside its borders, which is exactly what we have seen in Belarus, as the noble Lord said.

Embassy of China: Proposed New Site

Lord Hannan of Kingsclere Excerpts

Wednesday 29th January 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

Noble Lords might be interested to understand that the Government of China have seven different locations around London although, of course, they have only one embassy. In the future, these sites could well be in one place, which would make it a very large embassy but China is a considerably large country with considerable interests. We want to develop our relationship with China. We want to co-operate, compete and challenge as appropriate but, more than that, to be consistent in our approach. We think that is the best way to raise the issues we have diplomatically and to tackle the growth challenge, as well as the climate challenge that we wish to see addressed.

[Lord Hannan of Kingsclere (Con)]

My Lords, when the Chancellor of the Exchequer came back from her recent visit to China, she boasted about having got £600 million of investment over 10 years. This is about what our bloated government spends every 12.5 hours. If that is all that the Chinese are ponying up, why do they need such a big embassy?

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

It is not for me to say how much real estate another Government might wish to have as their presence in London. As I just pointed out, at the moment they have seven locations here. Some consolidation is clearly desirable, as I think we can all appreciate.

Colombia: Bilateral Investment Treaty

Lord Hannan of Kingsclere Excerpts

Monday 20th January 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

The United Kingdom is absolutely committed to supporting Colombia in the peace process, and enormous progress has been made. We see these things as separate. I think Colombia has faced 26 cases since 2016. Only four of them have been brought by the UK, so we hope that we can continue to trade with Colombia and to invest in Colombia—it is an important partner for us—and to support it as it moves forward with its peace process.

[Lord Hannan of Kingsclere (Con)]

My Lords, the arguments against the ISDS do not come just from the ecological lobby; there is a democratic argument against them, and there is an argument that they give some foreign companies an unfair advantage over domestic ones. None the less, as the Minister correctly says, they are a necessary way of attracting investment. Can she confirm that, wherever we decide to draw that balance, we should apply it consistently across all our trade deals? It would be neither credible nor sustainable to start changing them because of lobbying from one particular country, which would then encourage every other trading partner to do the same thing.

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

I think so—but there is a difference between being consistent and having a cut-and-paste approach. Every context is unique and Colombia is a particularly special partner for us, for reasons that noble Lords will understand.

West Papua

Lord Hannan of Kingsclere Excerpts

Wednesday 13th November 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

Whenever possible, influence should be gained through a good relationship and, sometimes, by being a critical friend. The noble Lord’s points about the wider Indo-Pacific and the security situation are things that a responsible Government here in the UK need to take into account.

[Lord Hannan of Kingsclere (Con)]

My Lords, I am very grateful to the Minister for her answers to the noble Lords, Lord Spellar and Lord Watts. Will she take this opportunity to congratulate Indonesia on having last month deposited its formal application to join the CPTPP? Will she congratulate it on, like us, having had a recent democratic and peaceful transition of power, where the new Government keep the same trade policy towards the Pacific bloc as the previous one? Will she take this opportunity to confirm that we will not engage in the kind of protectionism disguised as environmentalism that has led the rapeseed oil industry in Europe to come up with, effectively, a sabotage of any trade deal, thereby opening the door towards the UK being Indonesia’s chief trading partner in this part of the world?

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

We note the approach to the CPTPP by Indonesia. We believe in free trade and we want to strengthen our trading relationship with partners through the CPTPP, as the noble Lord would expect.

China: Human Rights and Sanctions

Lord Hannan of Kingsclere Excerpts

Tuesday 29th October 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

I am frantically looking through the read-out of the exchange to see a reference to Tibet. I assure the noble Baroness that the Foreign Secretary raised a number of foreign policy and security matters, particularly issues around human rights. As she would expect, you do not get an instant result in these sorts of exchanges—diplomacy is about consistency and it takes time. But we are now in a period where we want a consistent, stable and pragmatic relationship. For 14 years, the relationship has blown hot and cold, and we have not had that stability and consistency. So that is the approach we will see from this Government.

[Lord Hannan of Kingsclere (Con)]

My Lords, the Chinese state is not the first autocracy in the world and it may not be the most repressive, but it is by far the most technologically advanced. The ways in which the People’s Republic uses face recognition technology, surveillance technology and apps that monitor your phone is without precedent, as is the way it uses notionally private companies, such as Tencent, Weibo and Alibaba. Has the Minister’s department made any assessment of whether this kind of surveillance state could be exported; in other words, whether China’s allies and client states might be offered the package of a panopticon state to use on their own citizens?

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

My Lords, we are concerned about surveillance and threats to, for instance, BNO passport holders or others here in the UK, and we monitor that extremely closely. We take our responsibilities towards human rights, compromises of freedom of religious belief and other issues of privacy very seriously.

British Indian Ocean Territory: Negotiations

Lord Hannan of Kingsclere Excerpts

Wednesday 9th October 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

My Lords—

[Lord Hannan of Kingsclere (Con)]

My Lords—

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)]

We will hear from the Lib Dem Benches now.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

The security of the marine conservation area is very important; I think it was Foreign Secretary Miliband who instigated it. We will see it continue, and Mauritius has agreed to that.

[Lord Hannan of Kingsclere (Con)]

My Lords, Mauritius was paid the then immense sum of £3 million in exchange for this agreement in 1965, and treated it as a final settlement. In 1972 it was then paid again, if memory serves, £620,000 for the resettlement of the Chagossians—moneys which I am afraid it hung on to until their value had been eroded by inflation, which may explain why Chagossians are not enthusiastic about Mauritian sovereignty. It does seem extraordinary that we have given away this prime strategic location, the so-called Malta of the Indian Ocean, not only for nothing but somehow managing to pay for the privilege. I think I have heard three or four Ministers today talk about this black hole. Is it really credible, when we are hearing about that, that the Government will not disclose either what we are paying to the Mauritians or what we are putting in the fund for Chagossian resettlement?