Diego Garcia Military Base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill Debate
Full Debate: Read Full DebateLord Lilley
Main Page: Lord Lilley (Conservative - Life peer)Diego Garcia Military Base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill
Lord Lilley Excerpts(1 day, 11 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate
Baroness Foster of Aghadrumsee (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I will speak briefly in relation to Amendment 77 from the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, on the process for the establishment of the joint commission. This is critically important because, while the treaty does talk about the process of setting up the joint commission in Annex 3, there is no determination as to whether that person, as the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, said, will be a Member of Parliament, will be accountable to Parliament or will be a civil servant. It would be very helpful if we had more detail in relation to that matter.
It brings me back to my days studying constitutional law at Queen’s University, Belfast, when Professor Brigid Hadfield used to lecture us about the mischief behind the law. She would say, “Read the debate in Parliament to find out what the mischief was”. I was just thinking of her there when I was listening to the noble Lord, Lord Callanan. It would be really useful to find out what the Government’s position is in relation to this joint commission, because it could be a very critical part of the post-agreement scenario, where there is accountability to this place. I would really welcome clarity in relation to that matter.
Lord Lilley (Con)
My Lords, I would like to address Amendments 11 and 12 in my name, which both relate to the terms of the lease. Over the years, I have often heard leaseholders wish they had, or propose to acquire, the freehold. They feel that, as leaseholders, they are in a very inferior position and that the freeholder has the whip hand and, of course, at the end of the lease, the freeholder, like as not, gets everything back and leaseholders potentially lose everything. This is the first time I have ever heard of someone wanting to swap a freehold for a leasehold and, at the same time, claiming that they will be more secure as a result. Of course, they will not—and even less secure, given the terms of this agreement. Amendment 11 relates to whether or not the lease is renewable.
The lease is dealt with in Article 13 of the treaty, which says that it has a duration of 99 years. What happens at the end of 99 years? Is it automatically renewable? No. Under Article 13.5, the UK has a right to first refusal for a further 40 years on the same terms as offered to any third state. There we have it. Mauritius can offer the UK-US base to a third state in 99 years’ time and force the UK and USA to outbid some other bidder—it might be China, India, Iran or any other country with interests in the Indian Ocean around it, such as Saudi Arabia. There are lots of countries that can afford and might like to have this base. We would have to outbid them to retain what had been maintained and invested in for the previous 99 years. I have no reason to suppose that it would not be as valuable in the future then as it is now.
Lord Lilley (Con)
Probably to get some more money. Indeed, we should have dealt with that in the previous session on money. How much more money is he asking for? One understands there are debates in Mauritius saying they have done so well that they should now reopen discussions and get a little more.
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
My Lords, I am not sure if the noble Lord, Lord Lilley, wants a serious response to that last comment. I will respond to the noble Lord’s point that possession is nine-tenths of the law. Yes, this is true, but if the asset is legally contested to the extent that a close ally is no longer investing in it, and third-party friends and allies are possibly unwilling to support its operability, I would say that possession of that asset is worth a lot less than one that has legal certainty, the investment of the United States and the ability to operate it, because third parties will not be questioning the legal basis on which it is held. But we have been through this at some length already.
I turn to the amendments in the group concerning various mechanisms surrounding termination and the extension of the treaty. We will deal with the issue of sovereignty and termination in a subsequent group. On Amendments 6, 12, 79 and 89 about the implications of terminating the treaty, I should remind the House that there are extremely limited grounds for termination once the treaty is in force, both of which are within the UK’s control. The first would be if we did not pay the sums due under Article 11. Secondly, to answer the point made by the noble Lord, it would be in the case of an armed attack, or threat of one by the United Kingdom on Mauritius, or one directly emanating from the base on Diego Garcia. This base is, of course, to be operated by the United Kingdom and the United States together.
It is in our interests that the grounds for termination are limited in this way. It means that Mauritius is unable unilaterally to terminate the agreement except in very specific circumstances. These amendments would therefore force us to reopen negotiations on an area in which we have already secured the strongest terms, and which have also been endorsed by our US allies. It is also highly unrealistic that Mauritius would agree to a reversion to British sovereignty in the event of termination. It is important that we understand and are clear about that.
On Amendment 11, Article 13 already sets out the basis on which we can extend the duration of the treaty, including our right of first refusal. The treaty will last for an initial 99 years and may be extended for a further 40 years and beyond, by agreement between the UK and Mauritius. Even if no agreement were reached, the UK would have the right to first refusal on the use of Diego Garcia. If exercised, this would prevent the use of the base by any other party. I was asked—I think by the noble Lord, Lord Lilley, but it may have been another noble Lord—how exactly this would work and on what terms. I will get a full answer on this specific point. For today, I am relying on the right of first refusal. I will come back to noble Lords and clarify exactly what is meant by this.
I welcome the interest shown by Amendment 77 in the establishment of the joint commission. Its precise structure is still being developed and will continue to be a point of negotiation between the UK, Mauritius and the US. This includes the development of terms of reference as to how the joint commission will function. However, the following principles have already been agreed, as set out in Annexe 3 to the treaty. I think these answer some of the points that were put, although, because we are still negotiating, it is useful to get the responses, understanding and views of noble Lords on some of these things. The joint commission shall consist of one senior representative from each party as co-chairs, and four additional representatives from each party. The US shall have the right to introduce items for discussion in the joint commission and to designate a representative to attend meetings and provide views and advice. The joint commission shall meet at least twice a year, or more frequently on the request of either party. All decisions of the joint commission shall be taken with the agreement of both parties.
While I welcome the opinions of noble Lords on the best means of keeping the House informed on the development of the joint commission, I do not think that a statutory obligation to publish a statement would be the most appropriate means of doing so, although I will think about this a little more.
On this issue of prerogative and the law on Diego Garcia, this applies only to the law on Diego Garcia. We did have quite a complex exchange about this in one of our briefing conversations and it does not apply to the operation of the treaty, so it would not concern non-payment or any of those other issues. It is only about the law as it applies to Diego Garcia. I hope that that is helpful and that noble Lords will not press their amendments.
Lord Lilley
(2A) Sections 2 to 4 of this Act come into force only when the Secretary of State has—(a) sought to undertake negotiations with the Government of Mauritius on whether Mauritius will establish a right for Chagossians to return and reside in the Chagos Islands, and(b) laid before both Houses of Parliament a report on progress on establishing such negotiations with the Government of Mauritius and the outcome of any that have taken place.(2B) Within two months of the report being laid under paragraph (2A(b), the Secretary of State must table a substantive motion in the House of Commons on the contents of the report.(2C) In this section “Chagossians” are defined as those eligible for British citizenship under section 4 of the Act, and their descendants.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment requires that the Government must undertake negotiations with Mauritius on a Chagossian right of return, with a report laid before Parliament on the outcome of the negotiations. The Government must subsequently table a substantive motion in the House of Commons on the content of that report.
Lord Lilley (Con)
My Amendment 10 deals with the issue of resettlement. This is a very sensitive issue, one that Chagossians feel very deeply about. But Article 6 of the agreement, which is entitled “Resettlement of Chagossians”, fails to give any right to Chagossians to resettle. The wording of Article 6 is:
“In the exercise of its sovereignty over the Chagos Archipelago, Mauritius is free to implement a programme of resettlement on the islands of the Chagos Archipelago other than Diego Garcia. Such resettlement shall be implemented in conformity with the terms of this Agreement and the laws of Mauritius”.
Let us be clear: there is no right for Chagossians to resettle; there is no obligation on Mauritius to resettle the Chagossians. Mauritius is simply free to do resettlement but it does not specify that that resettlement has to be by Chagossians. It could resettle it with Mauritians—just as, when I used to work in Indonesia, it resettled Javans on the various islands such as Borneo and Sumatra. All we are doing is saying that Mauritius can do what it likes—it can do or not do anything that is to the benefit of the Chagossians, or it can give away their former lands and islands to other people—and we will effectively sanctify that through our agreement to Article 6.
Back in 2015, the British Government looked at the possibility of resettlement and asked KPMG to do a study of how much it would cost and how feasible it was. A year later, KPMG came out with a report which stated that resettlement was possible. It would cost certain sums depending how much resettlement was done. If there was a pilot community of 150 people, that would cost in those days £63 million—in current money, that would be about £80 million to £90 million. If there was a medium-sized settlement of 500 people, that would cost about £200 million in today’s money, and if there was a large community of 1,500 people, which is more than the population of Chagos in 1965, that would cost in today’s money £570 million. That is a large sum, but it is much smaller than the sums we have committed to pay Mauritius over the life of this deal. They are largely one-off sums, whereas we are talking of paying Mauritius initially an average of £110 million, inflation adjusted, plus some lump sums and some bringing forward of money in the early period.
We could certainly start a pilot community of Chagossians back in the Chagos Islands for a fraction of what we are otherwise committed to spend on this agreement, so I understand why Chagossians feel really let down and sold out that we are prepared to pay so much money to Mauritius and to designate none of that to their potential resettlement. We pretend to by having this Article entitled “Resettlement of Chagossians”, but it gives no guarantee that the money will be spent in this way.
The study by KPMG looked into the practicalities. The reason it costs money is that we will have to rebuild facilities. On some of the islands there was a church, a hospital, buildings and so on that have fallen into rack and ruin. They would have to be re-established, and there would have to be transport facilities for the envisaged resettled communities to link up with each other and the outside world, but I again point out that these are not huge sums. This is not impossible. It is something that many in the Chagossian community, in the UK, in Mauritius even more, in the Seychelles and elsewhere would like to undertake, but they are not going to be able to undertake it unless Mauritius says so, and one gets the feeling that Mauritius is not terribly well disposed to the idea, otherwise it would not have negotiated such harsh terms in Article 6, which imposes no obligation on it to do so.
I ask Ministers to think again about this and to go back to the Mauritians and say, “I’m sorry, we have”—as they will have done by then—“consulted the Chagossians. We found how eager many of them are to resettle. Many more are eager to have the right of return to visit the graves of their ancestors, the places where they were born and the churches where they worshipped, and we feel they should be given that right, and if we’re going to settle a trust fund on you, we want to be sure it’s going to be used for those purposes as well as perhaps a chunk of the money we’re paying you in rent”. I hope the Minister will look at that in a positive way, given her evident sympathy for the Chagossians, and tell us that there is going to be a little hint of some more positive news that we can give the Chagossian community. I beg to move.
Lord Weir of Ballyholme (DUP)
I will speak briefly in support of the amendments tabled by the noble Lords, Lord Lilley and Lord Callanan, in this group. On resettlement, what we have in the treaty may be described as less than useless. I say that because, to a certain extent, it confers a right that is already there, but it underlines it in such a way and denies others that right. The treaty explicitly says that there is a right for Mauritius to resettle people.
If we have handed over sovereignty to Mauritius, people implicitly have a right to resettle on the other islands anyway but, actually, it very much underlines that Mauritius is completely in control; it is completely in the driving seat. There is a lack of reference to the Chagossians: yes, Mauritius may choose to allow some Chagossians back, but it may choose also to deny them. There is no specific right for the Chagossians.
If, as has been mentioned across the Chamber, we are to try to rectify some of the many ills that we have done to the Chagossian people over the years, having at least some level of right of return is the bare minimum that we should be looking for here. The concern is that, from the point of view of Mauritius, the implication will be that, if it is to allow back some Chagossians, they will be the hand-picked Chagossians who have played ball with the Mauritian Government. If you are a good boy or a good girl, yes, you may be allowed back. If, however, you have been part of the awkward squad, you may have a much lesser chance of being resettled on the Chagos Islands than, for example, Chinese contractors. That is the problem.
These amendments would at least take a step towards trying to ameliorate and rectify that situation. If we cannot give the Chagossians an opportunity or a right, which is completely missing in the treaty and missing in the Bill, we are not giving them anything.
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
It is for the Mauritian Government to make that decision. I understand the noble Baroness’s scepticism, especially given our reluctance to undertake this. To serve citizens living in such a remote place with so few services is a considerable thing to do, which is why we are very careful and mindful of the warnings that we have heard about not wanting to give false hope or a false impression, or to make this sound straightforward. That guides us all in our discussions. It is, of course, an incredibly difficult prospect and very expensive. There is the trust fund. I do not know how that would operate and whether it would enable some of this to happen. This is for the Government of Mauritius to determine; we are completely clear about that. The noble Baroness might not wish that to be so, but I point out that the UK Government, for over 50 years, have made it absolutely clear that we would not facilitate return to the islands, for security and financial reasons.
On Amendment 72, it is important that negotiations between the UK and Mauritius on this matter—which I completely accept is sensitive—can take place in confidence. Publishing the records of confidential negotiations such as this would be damaging to trust in the UK keeping matters confidential in the future. That relates not just to our negotiations with Mauritius; it would obviously relate to the prospect of our negotiations with other states on other equally or more sensitive matters. With that, I ask the noble Lord to consider withdrawing his amendment.
Lord Callanan (Con)
It is not my fault if the Liberal Democrats do not want to be consistent on this.
The point is that colleagues of the noble Lords to my left have argued in the other place for a referendum, but the Liberal Democrats in your Lordships’ House have done nothing. The noble Lord has tabled just two amendments, only one of which is consequential. When we debated ratification, the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, withdrew his amendments to the Motion without a Division. I think that speaks a thousand volumes. It seems that it falls to my noble friends on these Benches to stand up for the Chagossians and ask for the referendum that they rightly deserve. I beg to move.
Lord Lilley (Con)
I support my noble friend Lord Callanan’s amendment. My own amendment also calls for a referendum. The Government have given priority to the Mauritians—and, indeed, to some extent, the advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice—maintaining what they think of as territorial integrity over the right to self-determination. That should not be the case. Under international law, the right of a group within a decolonised area to self-determination has priority over so-called territorial integrity. It is very regrettable that that has not yet been conceded.
When we come to vote on this subject on Report, as no doubt we will, I very much hope that this will be an area where there is widespread support across the House. I very much hope that the Liberal Democrats will support a vote requiring a referendum among the Chagossian people over the right to self-determination. We are told that they did so in the Commons. In fact, they were so moved by it and thought it such an important issue that they voted against the whole Bill at Third Reading.
So far, the amendments the Liberal Democrats have tabled cannot be said to be amendments that would require a referendum. Amendment 80, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, would require that
“a Minister of the Crown must engage with the Government of the Republic of Mauritius with a view to establishing a Joint Parliamentary Commission”.
We are getting “could”, “may” and “might” added together.
Lord Lilley (Con)
I will speak to the noble Lord’s amendment first, because I am informing the House about it, and then he can tell me where I am wrong.
Amendment 80 would require that, having engaged with the Mauritian authorities to set up this joint commission, and having perhaps persuaded them to do so:
“The Minister of the Crown must further propose that the Commission’s responsibilities include … evaluating the recognition and protection of Chagossian rights, including … the right of return”
and
“the right to self-determination”.
We would therefore have to seek the Mauritians’ agreement on setting up a commission and then propose to that commission that it does something to evaluate the recognition and protection of Chagossian rights, which would include the right of return and to self-determination. However, this amendment, if we were to accept it, contains absolutely no requirement for the House to support a referendum. Indeed, it is extremely unlikely that this convoluted chain of events would lead to such a recommendation.
The final sentence of the amendment reads:
“If the Commission described in subsection (1) is established, within five years of the commencement of the Treaty”,
et cetera. The commission is not envisioned to even get going for several years, and the amendment is probably realistic to recognise this. I am looking forward to a serious Liberal amendment, or their support for serious amendments from me and my noble friend that would require a referendum. I give way to the noble Lord, now that he knows more about what his amendment says.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
I first apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, for intervening when he was moving his amendment. I am flattered by being so courted by the noble Lords, Lord Callanan and Lord Lilley. Historians will be aware that the Rough Wooing was not entirely successful in my Border area. I have a question for the noble Lord, Lord Lilley, that I am sure he will be able to clarify. He is aware that the House of Commons voted on Amendment 9 for a referendum. Tabled by my colleagues, it would have required the Government to seek to
“undertake negotiations with Mauritius on a Chagossian right of return and on a referendum”
for Chagossians on self-determination. Parliament has voted on this already. The Division was 319 votes against and 83 in favour. The Conservatives did not support it. Why?
Lord Lilley (Con)
I am afraid I cannot tell the noble Lord that. I read the debate and it was not clear that there was much focus on the Liberal amendment. He has read out part of it; it covered lots of other things and they probably thought it was a bit wishy-washy.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
I do not think that is quite acceptable. Amendment 9 was voted on, and it included everything that the noble Lord asked of me. Why did the Conservatives not support it?
Lord Lilley (Con)
I do not know. I am not an official representative of the Conservative Party. I am flattered that the noble Lord thinks I control the Conservative Party in the Commons and in this place. I do not do either. I have not had any ministerial role since about 2000. I may give the impression of having power and influence beyond that which I really do, and I am flattered that he should think so.
I would like to see the Liberal Democrats support us. We know that, if they do, we will win, but they seem unlikely to do so. It is clear that they have done a deal with the Government. They will never defeat the Government on issues of substance because, if they do, they will not get as many peerages as they want next time. Let us be quite clear about this. It is as shoddy as that underneath this, I suspect. I hope I am wrong—I may well be. I often am.
It would be a wonderful thing, and we may be able to achieve something for the Chagossians in the shape of getting an amendment on Report—not now, because we are in Committee—which has the support of a majority in this House. If we carry it out, the odds are that the Chagossian people will declare that they do not want to be incorporated in Mauritius and would prefer to remain citizens of the British Indian Ocean Territory and British subjects. In that case, we should honour and support their decision when it is taken. I look forward to a Damascene conversion by the Liberal party to this amendment.
Baroness Hoey (Non-Afl)
My Lords, we are almost having another debate on the referendum, which I spoke to on the original amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, earlier. The referendum is probably one of the most important aspects of the Bill, because it is fair and needed and the Chagossians really want it. I am not really interested in what the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, said about what happened on the amendment on a referendum in the other place, because it was not in the manifesto. As far as I am concerned, we in this Committee should be able to make up our own minds and should certainly not be stopped from moving amendments to the Bill just because the other place has decided something.
It is so just so antidemocratic. I am amazed that the Labour Back-Benchers are going along with this. They are not here—does that mean that they do not actually support the Bill but are having to be loyal? It is a shocking Bill. As the noble Lord said at the beginning, and as the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, said at Second Reading, this must rate as the worst Bill that Labour have brought forward—which is quite difficult, as there have been so many awful Bills. They just cannot justify it.
These amendments tonight are very important, and I hope that, when we come back on Report, many more Members will have actually read what has gone on in this debate and recognised that to support a referendum is the right thing to do.
Baroness Hoey (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 60, 65 and 68 on the protection and preservation of native and migratory bird species, protection against illegal fishing and, generally, marine conservation. Chagossians support these amendments and want to see His Majesty’s Government implementing them.
First, I will deal with the protection and preservation of native and migratory bird species. Amendment 60 not only represents an environmental concern but a kind of power that, as the indigenous people of the Chagos Islands, they wish to be able to exercise themselves. It sets out the kind of responsible stewardship they want to provide to their own homeland, but the Bill, in Clauses 2 to 4, extinguishes their right to self-government in the islands from which they were forcibly removed by a Labour Government.
The Chagos Archipelago is one of the most important sea bird sanctuaries on earth. It supports some of the largest and least disturbed tropical sea bird colonies remaining anywhere in the world. Scientific surveys by the British Indian Ocean Territory, the Zoological Society and the Chagos Conservation Trust confirm that it holds globally significant populations of species that are in decline elsewhere.
I could go through and name a number of the breeds that are very rare: red-footed boobies breed in very large numbers and tens of thousands of brown noddies, white terns, sooty terns and wedge-tailed shearwaters are nesting successfully nesting on the uninhabited islands that remain free of invasive predators.
Sea birds are not simply wildlife; they are the ecological engine of the entire archipelago. Guano from the large sea bird colonies enriches coastal waters, increasing nitrogen and phosphorus levels that in turn fuel reef productivity. Peer-reviewed research published in Nature shows that reef fish biomass adjacent to healthy seabird colonies can be up to five times higher than the reefs where seabirds have been lost. Protecting seabirds is therefore central to protecting the coral reefs, the lagoon ecosystems and the wider marine food web.
These are not hypothetical risks; they are documented threats to the species of global conservation concern, coming from rats, which can wipe out entire colonies. Light pollution disorientates fledglings. Human disturbance can cause nesting failure. There is a whole range of things. The amendment seeks to create a clear duty to safeguard this irreplaceable natural heritage. It is the kind of environmental care and responsible stewardship that the Chagossians themselves wish to bring to their homeland if they are allowed back and to have self-determination. If this Bill passes in its current form, we will transfer the Chagos Islands to the Republic of Mauritius, a country that is 1,337 miles away and does not even have the capacity, as I said earlier, to reach the islands without assistance from India. We will deny the Chagossian people the opportunity to govern these vital ecological assets. That shows what is at stake. The Chagossian people are asking what needs to be done and what they will lose if we proceed with Clauses 2 to 4. We should not be denying them this as far as the amendment on birds is concerned.
Amendment 65 seeks to introduce a waste management and coastal protection system for the Chagos archipelago. Again, I am sure that noble Lords will agree with this because the ecological consequences are serious and well documented—the risk of ghost nets ensnaring endangered green and hawksbill turtles as well as red-footed boobies, which I have already mentioned, brown noddies and reef sharks. When these nets become caught on the reef crest, they break the coral colonies and accelerate degradation.
It is a most significant protected marine area, covering more than 640,000 square kilometres, including a very large share of the remaining high-quality coral reefs in the Indian Ocean. Seabird-driven nutrient cycles, which sustain high fish biomass on adjacent reefs, are disrupted when plastics and fishing gear interfere with nesting colonies. The Chagossian people know this better than anyone. They have told us that keeping their coastline clean is a matter of identity, stewardship and duty. They want to remove the waste that arrives from other nations and prevent further debris entering their waters. That is an essential part, to them, of caring for their homeland. This amendment is not merely about waste but about justice. It is about whether this House, currently denying the Chagossian people any act of self-determination, will also deny them the ability to protect the beaches, reefs and nesting grounds of their homeland. I hope that this amendment will be supported by noble Lords.
Amendment 68 concerns protection against illegal fishing. It would require the Secretary of State to establish a system of patrols and monitoring to prevent illegal fishing within Chagos territorial waters and the surrounding marine protected areas. It would require the Secretary of State to establish a clear system of patrols and monitoring within the Chagos territorial waters and the surrounding marine protected areas. It is exactly what the Chagossian community have said they would want to do for themselves if Clauses 2 to 4 of this Bill were not going through and the United Kingdom was relinquishing sovereignty. The evidence of illegal fishing in these waters is real and well documented. The Chagos marine protected area spans more than 640,000 square kilometres, an area the size of France. It is formally designated as a fully no-take zone, yet its remoteness has made it a target for illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing. Satellite monitoring, vessel tracking systems and analysis by global monitoring groups such as Global Fishing Watch have on multiple occasions detected foreign longliners operating close to, and in some instances within, the BIOT waters.
Enforcement records maintained by the British Indian Ocean Territory Administration confirm that vessels have been intercepted while illegally targeting tuna, sharks and other species. Past patrols have confiscated shark fins, prohibited gear and long lines, providing clear physical evidence of illegal extraction.
The ecological consequences are profound. Illegal fishing undermines the conservation objectives of one of the world’s most important marine protected areas. Every scientific assessment of Chagos ecosystems concludes that maintaining strong enforcement is essential to preserve its uniquely intact reefs, fish biomass and biodiversity.
There are still many people in the Chagossian community who, from their history and heritage, understand this intimately. They have said that protecting the fish stocks is as important to them as protecting their beaches and nesting sites. They want to be able to participate in patrols to support monitoring and to take responsibility for safeguarding the marine life that their parents and grandparents depended on. They see illegal fishing as a threat not only to biodiversity but to their future ability to sustain themselves when they go back to their islands.
Also, under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea—we have been discussing the advice that it gave—Article 61 requires coastal states to conserve living resources. Article 62 obliges them to ensure proper management and enforcement. Article 73 grants the authority and responsibility to board, inspect, arrest and detain vessels engaged in illegal fishing. The International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea has confirmed that these articles require states to maintain monitoring, to regulate and, crucially, to enforce. At present, there is no statutory duty in domestic law requiring the UK to maintain patrols or monitoring in the BIOT. This amendment would fill that gap and bring legislation into proper alignment with other international obligations, which noble Lords are very keen always to comply with.
The Government may argue that Mauritius can meet these responsibilities after transfer, but the United Kingdom remains the coastal and administrating power today and its treaty obligations exist today. They cannot be satisfied by assuming that another state will meet them.
These are very sensible amendments which, if passed, would at least give the Chagossians the feeling that the United Kingdom cared about the islands overall, about the fishing, the bird life and about the marine life generally. I hope that noble Lords, when they look carefully at this, will actually agree to these amendments. If not, we will bring them back on Report.
Lord Lilley (Con)
I had not intended to speak on these amendments because there are other far more qualified people who I thought would do so. I served on your Lordships’ Environment and Climate Change Committee when it produced the report in July 2023 on the biodiversity agreement in Montreal. As I recall, that commitment, the Montreal treaty, requires Britain to protect 30% of its marine areas by 2030; it was called the 30 by 30 agreement. We were very proud, and I think it was mentioned in that report, that the largest single area of sea that was being protected was the British Indian Ocean Territory’s sea. We accepted tacitly that it was Britain’s responsibility to protect that, that it was a very important area of biodiversity for the world as a whole, and that it was our responsibility.
It now seems that we have handed that over to Mauritius, but Mauritius has no means of policing that area. It has no boats or aeroplanes that could cover that distance and that area. I doubt whether we had permanent boats stationed there, but if there were problems we could. We have the capacity to send both sea- and airborne reconnaissance aircraft to make sure that things are being properly respected.
I wonder, therefore, whether this treaty which we are now legislating to implement is not in contravention of our commitments under the Montreal biodiversity treaty. Are we abandoning commitments we made there and leaving them, in effect, unpoliced?
Another treaty was passed which we did not investigate and which was investigated by another committee of this House. I cannot even remember the name of the treaty but it was about areas of the sea which are outside national jurisdiction. It would seem that this now covers the BIOT—or does it? I hope the Minister will tell us which of these two treaties it is covered by. Is it covered by the old one, which we had responsibility for but have now given up, despite our international obligations under international law, which are normally sacrosanct, or is it under another treaty, which means that it is now dealt with as if it is beyond national jurisdiction?
These are clearly very important matters. It is a shame that we are discussing them at this time of night when people far better informed than I, who could bring their expertise and knowledge to bear, are not here. Since they are not here, I am raising these questions and hope that the Minister will be able to respond to them.
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
My Lords, I am happy to respond. As I understand it, details about the Mauritian marine protected area were published only last week, or it may have been the week before. There will be a new treaty which will be lodged at the UN in a similar way to ours. It will not be a BBNJ issue. I think we will be considering it in this House next week, when we can get into it in a little more detail now that the noble Lord is back into these issues after a bit of a break. Because this would not be biodiversity beyond national jurisdiction, it would be the responsibility of the Mauritians and covered by the new treaty. I can talk about that a bit more now.
Amendments 15 and 66 would prevent Clauses 2 to 4 coming into force until the UK Government had published a report on how it intended to preserve the Chagos Marine Protected Area. The MPA will be for the Mauritian Government to implement. They have already announced the creation of the MPA, which they will create once the treaty enters into force. No commercial fishing whatever will be allowed in any part of the marine protected area. Low levels of artisanal subsistence fishing for resettled Chagossians will be allowed in certain limited areas and will be compatible with nature conservation. The UK will continue to support Mauritius in the establishment of this marine protected area and in protecting the globally significant ecosystems of the Chagos Archipelago.
On Amendments 38 and 65, while I appreciate and understand the noble Baroness’s commitment to sustaining the unique and pristine environment around the archipelago, recycling and waste management systems on the outer islands would be for Mauritius to deliver. On Diego Garcia itself, waste management is currently undertaken by the US and monitored by the UK to ensure compliance with environmental standards. This will continue following the entry into force of the agreement, with no identified need to change current processes.
On Amendment 60, while Mauritius will be responsible for the environment throughout the Chagos Archipelago, the UK will continue to provide support to protect migratory bird species. Within the agreement, under the international organisations’ exchange of letters, the UK and Mauritius will, for instance, agree separate arrangements to maintain the listed Ramsar wetlands site on Diego Garcia, which provides a unique protected habitat for migratory birds. Further protections will be a matter for Mauritius.
On Amendments 16 and 68, Mauritius will be responsible for the environment throughout the Chagos Archipelago, including enforcement. On 3 November, the Mauritian Government announced the creation of the Chagos Archipelago Marine Protected Area. They have confirmed already that no commercial fishing will be allowed in any part of the MPA. They will, however, allow low levels of artisanal subsistence fishing for resettled Chagossians in certain limited areas, which will be compatible with nature conservation.
The UK has agreed to co-operate with Mauritius on maritime security and provide assistance in the establishment and management of the MPA as part of the Diego Garcia treaty. The terms of this co-operation and assistance will be agreed in a separate process that is already under way.
Amendment 73 is completely unnecessary. We have been clear on this. The UK has not and will not make any financial payment to the Mauritian Government to establish a new MPA in the waters surrounding the Chagos Archipelago. The UK has agreed to provide support and assistance in the establishment and management of the MPA as part of the Diego Garcia treaty, protecting the vital military base on Diego Garcia, and the terms of this support and assistance will be agreed in a separate process that is already under way.
Amendment 76 is no longer required. On 3 November, Mauritius, as I have said, announced the creation of its MPA once the treaty enters into force. Similarly, the points about artisanal fishing apply to that amendment as well. With that, I hope that the amendment can be withdrawn.