Lord Callanan (Con)
My Lords, the new Government were suspiciously quick to conclude the deal, within weeks of taking office, with the Mauritian Government, represented as they were by a close legal friend of the Prime Minister. They now seem strangely reluctant to allow anyone to see the actual text of this handover. Since then, of course, we have had two important elections, so can the Minister confirm what discussions the Government have had with the new US Administration and with the new Mauritian Government? Is this not a case of negotiating with the wrong people at the wrong time?
Today, the Chagossian Voices group sent a letter, signed by 200 Chagossians, to the Foreign Secretary, again confirming that no Minister has ever responded to its previous letters. Can the Minister confirm whether there are any plans to engage with Chagossians in these negotiations? Can she explain why no Chagossians have been consulted so far? The vast majority of Chagossians deeply resent their homeland being handed over on a subsidised plate to Mauritius, a country 1,000 miles away. Lastly, does the Minister think there are adequate safeguards in this treaty—which, of course, we have not yet seen—to allow the lease of Diego Garcia to be extended beyond its current 99 years?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Baroness Chapman of Darlington) (Lab)
My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, said, there have been changes of Government in the US and Mauritius. I take this opportunity to congratulate both President-elect Trump and the new Prime Minister, Dr Ramgoolam, in Mauritius, on their election victories. Changes of Government are an inevitable part of negotiations with fellow democracies. We have also had a change of Government in this country since these negotiations began. This is the conclusion of a few years’ worth of negotiation—11 to 13 rounds of negotiation took place under the previous Government. We were aware that this could happen, and we are working closely with our allies, in both the US and Mauritius, on making sure that everyone is comfortable with the deal and the treaty. We have no reason to think that this is not the case at this stage.
On engagement with Chagossians, it was not possible for them to be party to these negotiations because they took place between Governments. I regret what happened to the Chagossians in the past—it was over 50 years ago, but that in no way diminishes the pain and hurt that they will have experienced. I accept that Chagossians will be concerned about the arrangements reached. We have prioritised the security of the US-UK military facility on Diego Garcia. People can disagree with that and can say that prioritising security was the wrong thing to do, but that is what the Government have chosen on behalf of the people of the United Kingdom, because we think that was in the best interests of the UK. There are arrangements in the deal to allow Chagossians to visit and return, and some Chagossians will be able to take advantage of that.
The treaty will be published as soon as it has been finalised with the Mauritian Government, and there will be a process for Members of this House and the Commons to debate it.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
Given that there was no public information from the previous Government—of whom the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, was a member—about any of the 11 rounds of negotiations that took place, does the Minister agree that two points of principle should be adhered to now? First, for the treaty approval process, nothing should be done on behalf of the Chagossians without their involvement, and Parliament should have an ability to vote on the treaty proactively, rather than the limited process under the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act. Secondly, unlike what Nigel Farage or Kemi Badenoch might suggest, British foreign policy should be formed and set by us, not Donald Trump.
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
My understanding is that the process will be the usual one for agreeing these treaties. We need to be careful about the use of the word “consultation”, because there will be an opportunity to listen to the views of Chagossian communities and to understand that there is more than one view among them about this deal. It would be wrong to give the impression that there would be an opportunity to have a treaty changed in light of Chagossian voices. We can all have a view on that, and some of us might wish that it could be otherwise, but when we are dealing with a matter of security like this in the Indian Ocean, and with a treaty between two Governments, it is far better if we are up front and honest about what will be possible during that process.
Baroness Whitaker (Lab)
My Lords, is this not something of a trumped-up objection on the part of the Opposition? Does my noble friend agree that the previous Government never questioned the legitimacy of Mauritius’s eventual sovereignty over the Chagos Islands, very many years ago and internationally confirmed? Does she further agree that the majority of Chagossians do agree with this, and that all Chagossians are now being consulted by the Government? But can she say whether our Government are also discussing the resettlement plans with Mauritius?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
What is important is that Chagossians have the right to visit and return that the Mauritian Government will be free to enable. This is new, and some Chagossians have said that they wish to see this. It will now be possible under this deal. On the record of the previous Government, it is not for me to say whether the outrage is faux—others will judge. But I will say that I regret very much the implication by some on the Opposition Benches—by no means all, and I do not point the finger at the noble Lord, Lord Callanan—to attempt to co-opt other overseas territories into this, and to somehow suggest that there is a vulnerability there, which there is not. This is a unique situation, and I am glad that we have been able to move this forward and resolve it. It secures our base in the Indian Ocean and gives certainty on that and to Chagossian communities here.
Lord Howell of Guildford (Con)
My Lords, as the noble Baroness’s brief will probably be telling her, the Chinese are taking an immensely close interest in what is happening in the Chagos Islands and Mauritius. Can she reassure us that the Foreign Office has a clear focus on how the Chinese are playing this situation and what they are up to generally, in the Chagos Islands and in many other islands and coastal states of the Commonwealth, where they are involving themselves increasingly closely?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
We consider this issue closely. I draw noble Lords’ attention to the fact that Mauritius is a close ally of ours and of India, and it does not take part in the Chinese belt and road initiative. It is our view that the stable, secure and long-term arrangement we now have protects the Chagos Islands from any interest from any other parties that we would not wish to see.
Lord Hain (Lab)
As a Minister of State who dealt with this matter a quarter of a century ago, I applaud the Government for reaching an agreement. Does the Minister agree that if the treaty were somehow derailed by some of its critics, surely the losers would be not just our country but the United States, Mauritius, the Chagossians themselves, the United Nations General Assembly, the Commonwealth, the African Union and international law?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
It is hard to believe that it was 25 years ago. We are confident about this treaty and the fact that it secures our presence in the Indian Ocean. We accept that when there is a change of Government questions are raised and it is right that new Governments will want to cast their own eyes over the deal that has been done. We respect that and will co-operate, but we are confident that we can answer any concerns that may exist, because we think this is the right thing for us, for Mauritius and for the Chagos Islands, in securing our security.
Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)
My Lords, will the Minister accept my welcome for what she said—that this treaty, when it has been concluded, will be brought to both Houses? If it involves the International Agreements Committee, on which I have the honour to serve, will she undertake that the committee will be given sufficient time to take proper evidence on the treaty before it?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
That would be very helpful indeed. My experience is that the more people find out about the treaty and the deal that has been done, the more likely that some of the concerns they will naturally have—we welcome questions and scrutiny on this—can be answered fully. I am not responsible for the scheduling and timing, but I am sure my noble friend the Chief Whip has heard what the noble Lord said.