(1 day, 20 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Callanan (Con)
My Lords, if this deal is not yet legally deceased then it certainly seems to be on end-of-life support. Can the Minister explain why the Government were in such a hurry to give away strategically important British sovereign territory to a country 1,500 miles away within weeks of taking office, just before important elections in both Mauritius and the US and without even having the courtesy of consulting the Chagossian community who in fact used to live there? We have had no detail on what is in the agreement or how much we are paying to lease back something that we already own. It has had the effect of destabilising the entire region and it is concerning some of our closest allies. Is it not time to scrap the entire thing and start again?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Baroness Chapman of Darlington) (Lab)
My Lords, the negotiations with Mauritius are not destabilising the entire region, and we were not in a hurry to conclude them. As we have said before, these negotiations commenced two years ago and had gone through many rounds of negotiation under the previous Government. On the issue of scrutiny, I say that the treaty will be subject to the usual process in this House. There will also be primary legislation that will go before both Houses and be amendable in the usual way; I do not think we have explored that in our exchanges previously.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
I thank the Minister for meeting me yesterday with my Commons colleagues to discuss this issue; I am grateful for that opportunity. Does she agree that this is, regrettably, turning into a bit of a political football, with the principal Opposition claiming discourtesy now, after having 11 rounds of negotiations without consulting the Chagossians or providing any details of the basis of those discussions? It was also regrettable, perhaps, that this Government released the announcement after the general election but before the Mauritian general election, and it was regrettable that the previous Government allowed the matter to drag on before our general election. However, there is an opportunity now for the involvement of the Chagossians and for there to be clarity with regard to what the treaty text might be. As the Minister has heard me say before, an enhanced parliamentary scrutiny procedure is now very important. We need to put in reassuring measures for the Chagossians that this political football will not be to their disbenefit again.
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
I could not agree more with the noble Lord’s comments on his desire, which we share, that this should not be a political football. We should all tread carefully and respectfully in the way that we discuss this. The timing of the Mauritian election was not in our gift. The negotiations reached a conclusion that day, and our Prime Minister thought that the right thing to do was to be open about that fact. Yes, there has since been an election in Mauritius and, quite rightly, the new Mauritian Government wish to cast their own eye over the treaty. We respect that; it is what any incoming Government would want to do. Having said all of that, I strongly agree with the noble Lord on the way we discuss these issues, because they matter so much to many people. They affect our security but, as he rightly points out, they matter most of all to the Chagossian community.
Baroness Blackstone (Lab)
My Lords, can the Minister confirm that one of the benefits to the Chagossians is that they will be able, if they wish, to resettle some of the outer islands? Has this been agreed by the Government of Mauritius yet, and will it be in the treaty?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
Yes, this was something we wanted to secure as part of the negotiations. It is intended that the Chagossians will have the right to resettlement on the outer islands, but not on Diego Garcia, because that is where the military base is sited, and the view is that that would not be feasible or in our national security interests. But the noble Baroness is quite right in what she says.
Baroness Foster of Aghadrumsee (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I declare my interest as an adviser to the Friends of the British Overseas Territories charity. In the other place yesterday, the Minister repeatedly said that the interests of Chagossians were absolutely at the heart of this agreement. If that is so, why are so many Chagossians here campaigning against this deal? Will the noble Baroness respect the right to self-determination and grant the Chagossian people a referendum on the sovereignty of these islands?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
No, we will not be granting one. Bluntly, there is no point in stringing people along on these issues; that just compounds the wrong that has been done to them. The Chagos Islands have never been self-governing and the view among the Chagossian populations varies quite considerably. While there is a view among Chagossians here, we should be humble enough to accept that the largest Chagossian community is not in the UK but in Mauritius. That Chagossian community has been clear that it supports the deal, I suspect largely because of the point made my noble friend Lady Blackstone: that they would have that right to settle on the outer islands. The situation is not quite as straightforward as it is sometimes suggested.
Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)
Does the Minister agree that the House would do well to note how warmly our friends and allies in the Pentagon, the State Department and the NSC have welcomed the extended and improved security of tenure of the base?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
The security of and continuation of legal certainty regarding the base on Diego Garcia has been our prime objective in these negotiations. We would not have entered into any kind of agreement or deal that did not have the support of our closest allies, because if something might be acceptable to us but is unacceptable to them, the stability and security that we were trying to achieve would have been compromised, so the noble Lord is completely right.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, one of the key reasons why previous Governments did not conclude these negotiations was the issue of security. That is why there are repeated requests to see how that has been aligned. My question, however, is about the United States, which is a key component. What representations have been made to and what conversations have been had with the incoming US Administration of President Trump regarding negotiations on Diego Garcia? I say to the Minister that their perspective will be markedly different from that of the current Administration.
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
As the noble Lord knows, we deal with the current Administration until they are no longer the current Administration. I note that as negotiations concluded, support was provided by our US allies not just at the political level, but throughout their Department of Defense and Department of State. This is seen as a desired outcome not just by leading politicians; those who are closely concerned with the security and stability of the base and its continued viability and legal certainty have very much been in support of this treaty.
Lord Grocott (Lab)
I very much welcome my noble friend’s assurances about the Chagossian people who, in all these discussions, must be central in view of the gross injustice inflicted upon them in the past. Can she give us some further assurance about the extent and form of the discussions going on with the Chagossian communities now? This is perhaps an impossible question to ask, but I will try it. We know that there are divided opinions among the Chagossians, but when there is division there comes a point at which one has to reach a conclusion about what the majority view is, in any set of circumstances. Has my noble friend formed that opinion? Do they support, broadly, what is happening, or oppose it?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
It really depends on who you seek the opinion from. There undoubtedly will be Chagossian communities who are deeply unhappy about this—there is no point pretending otherwise—because what they have wanted and asked for since they were removed by this Government from Chagos in the 1960s is to be able to return and to continue their life as it was previously. Since that happened, that has never been possible. To make that possible, we would need to withdraw our base and our military activity, alongside the United States, from the islands. We have taken the view that we are not prepared to do that. That being the case, the next best thing, as one could describe it, is for those Chagossians to be allowed to visit and settle on the outer islands. That is what has been achieved, potentially, through this treaty.