Diego Garcia Military Base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill
(1 day, 2 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Callanan
(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 would agree an amendment to Article 10 of the Treaty to allow Chagossians as well as Mauritian nationals the right to be employed on the Base to the maximum extent practicable;(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), a Minister must table substantive motions in the House of Commons and the House of Lords 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 is intended to prevent the provisions from coming into force until the Government has sought to negotiate Chagossian employees the same right to work in support of the operation of the Base as Mauritians under Article 10 of the Treaty, with a report laid before Parliament on the outcome of the negotiations and subsequent motions in the Commons and Lords on the contents of the report.
Lord Callanan (Con)
My Lords, the trust fund set up for the Chagossians is absolutely central to this treaty. Under Article 11, the Mauritians have been given the responsibility for administering the fund, which will be paid for, of course, by the UK. However, we still do not have any clarity on how Mauritius will manage the fund. We seem to have no say in it whatever.
The reality of Mauritius’s past record is also a cause for concern. Since the forced removal of the Chagossians from the archipelago, many Chagossians have lived on Mauritius. As has been pointed out a number of times in the debates so far, in the 1970s the UK Government paid £4 million into a trust fund for the benefit of registered Chagossians. I would be very interested to know the Government’s assessment of whether that trust fund has indeed been a success. Do the Government have any concerns about the way Mauritius has managed that fund before we offer to donate cash for another one? If the Government are concerned about Mauritius’s past actions in this area, what additional assurances have Ministers sought from the Mauritian Government to prevent mismanagement, corruption or failure to properly distribute funds in future?
The domestic reality of this arrangement is also worrying. Many Britons will struggle to understand why we are transferring funds to a foreign Government so that they can manage a trust fund on our behalf. Does this mean that we are transferring funds without proper control over how those moneys are spent? What powers will the UK have under the treaty to ensure that Mauritius is fulfilling its responsibilities? These are all important questions—many Members have raised them in the debates so far—which Ministers should seek to answer, either at the Dispatch Box or in the Bill.
Amendment 17 in my name and Amendments 26 and 78 in the names of my noble friends Lord Lilley and Lord Hannan of Kingsclere relate to the employment of Chagossian citizens on the military base. The treaty makes provision for the employment of Mauritians on the base. We debated issues related to that provision in an earlier group. The treaty, sadly, does not make any provision for the employment of Chagossians on the base. We already know how many Chagossians living on Mauritius feel that they are treated as second-class citizens. Does the Minister agree that Chagossians should have similar protections for their employment on the military base as Mauritians?
Amendment 81, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Morrow, is a very simple amendment that would provide for a report on the impact of the treaty on British Indian Ocean Territory citizens. I see no reason why a Minister would refuse to produce that report. The rights of BIOT citizens are, or should be, central to the future of the islands. We need some clarity on this matter. If the Government cannot commit to a report on the impact of the treaty, will the Minister at least give the Committee an assurance that her department will do everything in its power under the terms of the treaty to ensure that BIOT citizens are properly supported by Mauritius?
I look forward to hearing the rest of the debate and the Minister’s reply.
Baroness Foster of Aghadrumsee (Non-Afl)
My Lords, in this group I will speak to my Amendments 20A, 50A and 81A. I also strongly support Amendment 55 in the name of my noble friend Lord Weir of Ballyholme. As the Minister knows, I have asked several questions about the trust fund, which, as I understand it, will be totally in the control of the Mauritian Government. This brings inherent problems, particularly as those Chagossians living here in the UK are often near or below the poverty line and could well do with access to help and assistance. Amendment 55 seeks to probe the fairness of the payments to Mauritians and Chagossians.
I will go further in saying that the Secretary of State should establish a Chagossian advisory council comprised primarily of individuals of Chagossian descent, including members based here in the UK, Mauritius and Seychelles. This council could then be consulted on all strategic programme and spending decisions relating to the trust fund, ensuring that Chagossian communities are directly involved in shaping priorities and oversight. That would promote transparency. The minutes of the council meetings and any recommendations or advice could also be published annually. That goes further than the amendment in the name of my noble friend Lord Weir, but I would be obliged to hear from the Minister on this as it would deal with some of the issues around transparency and accountability as well.
On Amendment 20A, I am not going to labour the points raised as we discussed some of this last week in Committee, but I remind the Committee that the current provisions of the treaty do not grant a right for Chagossians to access their homeland. They leave it up to the Mauritian Government as to whether this happens. Article 6 states that the Mauritian Government are
“free to implement a programme of resettlement”.
That falls far short of right to access the islands. That is what this amendment seeks to do.
Amendment 50A concerns the protection of Chagossian identity and birthplace. I tabled this amendment at the request of the Chagossian community here in the UK, including many native islanders who were born on Diego Garcia, Peros Banhos and Salomon before their forced removal between 1968 and 1973.
This amendment is not theoretical and it is not precautionary. It responds to a real, current and deeply troubling practice that is already happening, and the Committee needs to be aware of the seriousness of this. We have now seen documentary evidence that Mauritian authorities have begun issuing birth certificates to Chagossians in which the true place of birth has been removed and replaced with Mauritius. In each case, the names of islands such as Diego Garcia, Peros Banhos or Salomon have been deleted from the official record. It is not an allegation; it is a matter of record. Chagossian families have shown us the documents and they have been verified by lawyers. Native islanders born on Peros Banhos and Diego Garcia are now being told by a Government claiming future sovereignty over their homeland that they were not born there at all.
This pattern of altering official records is consistent with long-standing concerns expressed by Chagossians who lived in Mauritius, many of whom describe decades of discrimination, marginalisation and a complete lack of constitutional recognition as a distinct people. United Nations human rights experts have previously documented that Chagossians in Mauritius faced entrenched barriers to housing, healthcare, employment and political participation, and continue to experience de facto discrimination as an Afro-descendant minority. Would the Minister care to look at the page on the website of the Mauritian Government which is dedicated to the Chagos Archipelago? There they refer to those who were “forcibly removed” from the islands in the 1960s as
“Mauritians born and residing at the time in the Chagos Archipelago”.
I have seen the passport of a Chagossian who was deported from Diego Garcia to the Seychelles. In that case, the birthplace that was originally recorded as Diego Garcia has been replaced with Mauritius. I am informed by those directly affected that this practice followed political agreements involving the former Mauritian Prime Minister and the former Seychelles President, under which Chagossians living in Seychelles were required to have Mauritius entered on their documents rather than the true place of their birth on the island. Whether these arrangements were informal or formal, the effect is the same: the birthplace of Chagossian natives has been erased, replaced or falsified. That is an act of identity deletion; it is happening now, and the evidence is in front of us.
The way to deal with this is through this amendment, which I believe is essential. The Chagossians were removed once, their homes were demolished, their pets were killed, their possessions were thrown into the sea, and they were shipped to Mauritius and the Seychelles with no warning and no rights. They lost their land, their livelihood and their future. What they ask for today is, I believe, modest in comparison. They ask for the one thing they still possess: the truth of who they are and where they were born. The Committee needs to be cognisant of that. Identity is not a technicality; for a displaced person, it is absolutely everything. It is the final surviving link to their home, lineage, history and dignity. Yet we now know—not just fear or speculate—that the birthplace of Chagossian natives has been altered by an external authority. There can be no more powerful demonstration of why this House must intervene.
The Government have repeatedly argued that decisions about the Chagos should respect international norms—we have heard it many times in this House. International law is absolutely clear on this point. Altering a displaced person’s civil status records without their consent violates the principles laid down in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the UN guiding principles on internal displacement and the fundamental norms to identity as recognised in human rights jurisprudence.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, I speak briefly in support of my noble friend Lady Foster, based on insight and experience. The Chagossian package that we, the previous Government, negotiated was for £40 million over 10 years. Part of the challenge faced by the previous Government was around administration and governance and who would have a say on how that money was spent. For example, the delivery partners included the British Council for packages on English language training. We worked with universities, including Middlesex University, on delivering skill sets for Chagossian communities, and there was some insight provided on governance by local communities right here in the United Kingdom. I share that insight and experience because it remained a big challenge as to how the money would be administered.
Perhaps I can ask the Minister about some specifics. The £40 million Chagossian support package was, as she will know, administered by the FCDO—in other words, the UK Government. In the £40 million now being proposed, that will shift, so the issue of accountability, particularly for the Chagossian people, will be a vital component. I have some probing questions on the existing schemes that are already operational. Going purely from memory, about £30-odd million had been allocated. Will those schemes run to the end of their project period? What has happened to that extra £10 million? Has it been reallocated to the £40 million now being proposed in the trust fund by the Government?
Lord Hay of Ballyore (DUP)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 38A and 38B in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Weir. The amendment before the Committee in my name would require that this Government
“shall seek to permit limited commercial and chartered flights for British Chagossians to and from Diego Garcia, using the existing runway facilities”,
and is of great importance. Like many colleagues have already mentioned, the islanders themselves ought to be at the very heart of this conversation. I was privileged to receive correspondence from many members of the Chagossian community living in the United Kingdom, asking that I reflect their concerns on this issue. I believe this would be a modest but vital step towards addressing the historic injustice inflicted on the Chagossian community.
I shall explain why the Government should accept this amendment and why the Bill in its present form is inadequate without it. Noble Lords will be aware of the history of the British Indian Ocean Territory, and I do not intend to repeat it today. However, we must be continually mindful of what happened to the inhabitants of these islands from 1968 to 1973, then numbering around 2,000: they were removed from their homes so that Diego Garcia could become the site of a UK-US military base.
Since then, the Government have repeatedly recognised that these are British Overseas Territories citizens, some native, but many descendants of deceased islanders who never returned, and the Government have provided certain support measures throughout the years, or so they might contend. Yet, in spite of this, they have failed to take into account the undeniably important right of the Chagossians to have any meaningful access to their former homeland. They have been denied what we consider an expectation to return home at the end of the day.
This amendment is about more than symbolic flights; it addresses infrastructure, reconnection and justice. It taps into the Chagossian people and their campaign for representation throughout this long process, during which His Majesty’s Government have continually left them very much outside in the cold. This amendment would allow limited commercial or charter traffic, especially for the Chagossian community in the United Kingdom. This would not be a wholesale opening of the island, nor would it challenge the base operations; it would simply permit members of the community, many of whom live in the United Kingdom, to visit, reconnect and maintain their culture and family ties to the Chagossian community.
Those opposed to this amendment may argue that additional flights raise security and other major issues. I respectfully suggest that this argument cannot be used to stonewall all access. Instead, this amendment demands a managed, limited and regular scheme—for example, scheduled charters once or twice a year. Under vetting, with government oversight, this is entirely compatible with defence interests. Indeed, recognising the ties of displaced people is part of Britain’s international human rights obligations. The amendment would permit family members to see where their parents were born and to grieve, remember and connect with their roots. That matters more than any of us could ever know. It gives the Chagossian community a tangible and practical link to their homeland. Practically speaking, the Government should include reporting requirements on how many flights, who operates them, capacity and cost. We should ensure a transparent and accountable process. I therefore urge noble Lords to consider this amendment carefully. Without it, the Bill will proceed without a tangible measure of access and leave the Chagossian community with yet another broken promise.
I turn to Amendment 38B in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Weir. In its current form, the Bill fails to provide even the most basic protections for a community whose treatment by successive Governments has been one of the most regrettable chapters in our modern history. The proposal in this amendment is simple. All employment on the Diego Garcia military base must include fair and equal opportunities for the Chagossians as British Indian Ocean Territory citizens, and conditions must be in line with UK labour standards. Those conditions are the bare minimum we should expect for individuals working under the authority of the United Kingdom, particularly in the case of British Chagossians, who have just as much claim to Britishness as we do. Although the Government like to point out that Chagossians can apply for jobs on Diego Garcia, in reality very few have ever had meaningful access to stable, fair and properly regulated employment on the island. Much of the labour force is made up of contracted or sub-contracted workers from elsewhere. Where Chagossians have been employed, concerns have been raised in relation to pay disparity and unclear contractual safeguards. Without explicit protection in legislation, these inequalities will simply continue unchecked. We cannot allow that to happen.
The British Overseas Territories should reflect British values, and those include adherence to UK recognised labour standards. These standards cover fair pay, safe conditions, rest periods, paid leave and protection from discrimination. I completely disagree with the claim that a military base “complicates” and creates a problem for workforce regulations. Civilians work on UK and allied military installations right across the world.
This amendment is about treating the Chagossian community with fairness and basic justice. It is a chance for Parliament to ensure that the community that paid the highest price for Britain’s historical decisions in the British Indian Ocean Territory is no longer marginalised from its own homeland.
This amendment may not ensure self-determination or the maintenance of sovereignty, and nor is it likely to affect the security of the region. But what it does seek to do is to put the Chagossian people first. If the Government are serious about righting the past wrongs, surely, they must begin by guaranteeing equal treatment in employment.
Lord Jay of Ewelme (CB)
My Lords, I will say at the outset that I do not see the need for the amendments we are discussing. However, I do think that responding to and respecting the wishes and interests of the Chagossians is one of the most important and difficult issues facing the Governments of both the United Kingdom and Mauritius.
There is a lot of history to make good here. It is all the more difficult, in that there is no single Chagossian view. There are Chagossian people in Britain, in Mauritius, in the Seychelles and elsewhere, and there are different views among and indeed within the different communities. It would be unwise to think that there is an immediate or straightforward answer to meeting the wishes and interests of these different communities. My guess is that current and future British and Mauritian Governments will be dealing with these questions for quite some time to come.
It is sensible of the Government to ask the International Relations and Defence Committee to look into the issue, and sensible of them to conduct a survey of Chagossian interests and wishes. This is not an easy task. There will be, and indeed already are, doubts expressed about the time and scope of the IRDC’s work. That, I fear, is inevitable, but I hope that the results of the IRDC’s survey and its report will give the Minister some firm ground on which to make her promised statement in due course.
I know that discussions have been going on between the Mauritian and British Governments about the way forward. I hope that one conclusion of these talks will be that the £40 million trust fund to be administered by Mauritius will be administered in the interests of all Chagossians, and in a way that reassures Chagossians, wherever they are now, that their views are properly heard and represented. There is understandable scepticism about this, and it needs to be addressed.
I hope too that the Government will recognise and indeed facilitate the right of return to and resettlement on the Chagos outer islands, and that here too, there will be close and constructive co-operation between the British and Mauritian Governments.
There is a lot of history to put right as far as the Chagossian community is concerned, in Britain and elsewhere. The Government are, I know, fully conscious of that, and I am sure that future Governments will be too. Meanwhile, I hope that this Bill will soon be approved, passed and implemented.
Lord Bellingham (Con)
My Lords, I would certainly agree with the noble Lord, Lord Jay, when he says that the Chagossian people, in the disparate parts of the world in which they live, are not united on many issues. However, one thing on which they are united is their desire for employment opportunities on Diego Garcia, so I very much support the words of my noble friend Lord Callanan.
When I looked at this as a Foreign Office Minister, one of the things that staggered me was the number of people employed on that base from Sri Lanka, India and many other countries. There were occasionally some Chagossians, but there was no comprehensive, well-thought-out framework for Chagossians, be they in Crawley, Mauritius or the Seychelles, to find opportunities for employment in Diego Garcia. It was almost as though there was an underlying desire on the part of both the MoD and the Americans not to employ them on the basis, probably, that they might well go on to claim other rights. There was a lot of concern about whether there would be an issue of self-determination if they went there and settled there. I think my noble friend Lord Callanan’s amendment makes a great deal of sense. This is one issue that the Chagossian people are fully agreed on, and we should absolutely support it.
Lord Weir of Ballyholme (DUP)
My Lords, I rise in relation to this group. Picking up the remarks, first of all, of the noble Lord, Lord Jay, I will say that, yes, there is not, perhaps, a single unified position of every single Chagossian. Perhaps we should not be surprised at that. Can we identify an issue in the United Kingdom on which there is a single view which every citizen of the United Kingdom holds? We may indeed have great difficulty in finding many issues within this House on which every single one of us is on exactly the same page. Of course, there would be a way to test that, which is the case of democratic self-determination. That would have been the way to see where the majority of opinion lay within the Chagossian community. It would not be beyond the wit of any Government to do that.
Turning to the amendments in this group, I want to particularly address my Amendments 38C and 55. I have also co-signed a number of my noble friend Lord Hay’s amendments. The thread that very much runs through the amendments in this group, both in content and spirit, is an attempt to actually do something practical, even at this late hour, to support the Chagossian people.
For example, the amendments from the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, look at employment rights; my noble friend Lord Hay’s amendments look to both employment rights and making some level of provision in terms of flights to the Chagos Islands, and Amendment 50A, from the noble Baroness, Lady Foster, looks at birthright and identification, so that the Chagossians do not become some sort of 21st-century Trotsky, who will suddenly be erased, with their identity being erased from all photographs. They will simply become some sort of non-people. All the amendments are very much in the spirit of trying to provide support to the Chagossian people.
It seems that there are objectively three ways in which the United Kingdom can support the Chagossian people. It is undoubtedly the case. I think it has been acknowledged in earlier parts of this debate, from all sides of the House, that, whatever our views on the present treaty, and whatever our views on a wide range of issues, there does seem to be a common agreement and an acknowledgement that we have had over half a century of poor and shameful treatment of the Chagossian people. Successive Governments of whatever political persuasion have let down the Chagossian people. We cannot turn back the clock to prevent what happened in the late 1960s or the 1970s, or what happened subsequent to then. But what we can try to do is ameliorate the situation.
Again, I would highlight three areas which we could look at. The first is the issue of democracy and self-determination, which was the subject of an earlier debate. The second area, which I think is the principal focus of this group of amendments, is how we can provide financial and practical support for the Chagossians. The third issue is the rights of resettlement of Chagossians. My two amendments deal specifically with the latter two.
Turning first to Amendment 38C, this highlights to the Government that there was an alternative way forward. The KPMG report that was produced in 2015, commissioned by a former Labour Prime Minister, put forward a potential pathway of progress as regards the Chagos Islands. My amendment, in the spirit of trying to be practical in terms of help, does not seek to go fully down that pathway or to reinstate the KPMG report. That is clearly something that the Government would reject, but there were a range of proposals within that report dealing with resettlement.
The cost highlighted in 2015 for implementing that report would, I think, have been about £400 million. Sadly, at that stage, the Government rejected that as being far too expensive. Whatever arguments we may have had at an earlier stage over the broader financial cost of this settlement, it seems to me that a solution which cost £400 million would have been very cheap compared with what we face in practice, no matter what figures we belie.
So it strikes me that, while we still have that sovereignty and control of the Chagos Islands, we should be facilitating that resettlement, because it is clear that the treaty agreement that we have reached does not give a right of resettlement to the Chagossians; it hands that lock, stock and barrel to the Mauritius Government. As I said at an earlier stage, I suspect that those who make the right noises towards the Mauritian Government may be able to resettle, while those who are deemed the “awkward squad” will not be able to go back to their homeland. It seems that the very least we can do is to make that provision while we still can for the resettlement of the Chagossian people.
Finally, Amendment 55 is, again, a probing amendment. We have rehearsed the broader financial position. It is clear that, in stark figures, £101 million will be paid per year to the Mauritius Government. We know that the disparity in terms of what that equates to as a total will vary between the Government’s assessment, using one particular calculation of £3.4 billion, and the main Opposition’s figure of £35 billion, but we know that vast sums will go directly to the Mauritian Government. Where we owe a duty of care in particular is to the Chagos Islanders: they should be our top priority when it comes to finance, but this amendment does not even go quite as far as that. We are simply saying that, financially, we want to ensure that there is at least a determination that what is provided is fair and equal towards the Chagos Islanders compared with Mauritius.
I have to say that there is deep concern over the £40 million trust fund. No doubt the Government will say that it is very well intended to provide direct support to the Chagossian people. However, by providing it in such a way that it is entirely within the Mauritian Government’s control, while Chagossians appear to have no particular leverage as to how it is spent, we do not know on what projects or on whom it will be spent. This is one opportunity, at least, to probe the Government on what actions are going to be taken to at least try to ensure equality of provision on that basis.
I look forward to the Minister’s summing up to see what practical measures the Government can take. For instance, will they accept that we monitor the situation closely through an equality assessment, or ensure that there are Chagossians put on any board that deals with the distribution of the money? The noble Baroness, Lady Foster, has suggested that there should be a reference group of Chagossians who could at least monitor this. If it simply becomes, effectively, a slush fund for the Mauritian Government to indulge whatever pet projects they want, under the guise of providing for the Chagossian people, without any direct input or control from them, we will simply have repeated the mistakes of history and let down the Chagossian people again.
Lord Hannan of Kingsclere (Con)
My Lords, I will speak to my Amendment 78 and in support of the amendments of the noble Lords, Lord Hay and Lord Weir, the noble Baroness, Lady Foster, and my noble friend Lord Callanan. The crux of this debate is about ending the dream of return for most British Chagossians. As long as they were British citizens, there was always the possibility of resettlement, but we know that Mauritius denies their nationality, treats them as so many Mauritian citizens and is certain not to allow a general right of return to the Chagossian population.
One or two Chagossians who have said all the right things, as the noble Lord, Lord Weir, says, may be allowed back as part of that general migration, but we can be pretty certain that they will not be our fellow subjects watching now from the Gallery, stoical and silent, ignored and overlooked in a grisly symbol of these past five decades.
My amendment deals specifically with the rights of employment at the base, but I want to widen it a little to what would make an economically viable community in the Chagos Islands. The Minister has said several times at the Dispatch Box that our priority is maintaining the base and that by implication, therefore, we cannot do the right thing by the Chagossian population. I do not believe there is a contradiction. Maintaining sovereignty would meet both our strategic and our moral obligations of stewardship as the sovereign power and the focus of loyalty of the Chagossian population, and it is economically viable. We heard in our last debate that it could not happen because it was too far away, too distant and too expensive, but as we have just heard from the noble Lord, Lord Weir, it is a fraction of what we are paying in direct transfers to Mauritius, let alone any associated costs. We can take the Minister’s figures and say that it is six times more expensive to hand the archipelago away, or we can take my noble friend Lady Noakes’s figures and say that it is more like 60 times as expensive. Either way, it is extraordinary that we are not considering the option of resettlement.
I want to explore how that would work. I mentioned last week that the Falklands War was, paradoxically, the beginning of the economic revival of that archipelago because the regular link to the UK and the impact on the economy, as well as our readiness to start exploiting some of the resources, made an island that until then had been suffering from emigration viable and hugely attractive. It has nearly doubled its population since. At the moment we are flying in civilian contractors for all the non-military jobs on an occasional flight from Singapore. These contractors come from the Philippines, Sri Lanka or India, and they do the many non-military jobs on a base of that size—the construction, cooking, cleaning and so on. There is no reason why those jobs could not be done by local people. It would make sense both economically and in security terms, as well as giving a viable economic option to the British Chagossians who return.
But I would not want to leave your Lordships with the thought that this would be a population wholly dependent on the existence of the military base. That is not a position that anyone wants in the long term. It is not a position that the Falkland Islands would want to be in. We will come on to our other overseas territories in a later group, but the economy of Gibraltar has been transformed since the 1980s. Having been almost completely dependent for GDP on our naval base there, it has now become a hugely successful territory through private enterprise. There are lots of other things. What would those other things be? I have said before in this House that it is not for politicians to second-guess the private sector and I am conscious of sitting next to my noble friend Lord Moynihan, who has written a wonderful book making this point at greater length, but here are some ideas off the top of my head after conversations with British Chagossians who had been kicking around a couple of these ideas. Here are seven or eight ideas. Maybe one or two of them might be viable. That is all you would need.
First is the extraordinary marine resource. What about establishing a marine and oceanographic university on Peros Banhos? There has been a lot of interest from academic institutions here and elsewhere. Lancaster University, the University of Exeter, the University of Western Australia in Perth and Dalhousie in Canada have all been involved in ecological and maritime projects around the archipelago. Is it so unthinkable to have a permanent base there that in time could take visiting students and have accommodation for them?
Secondly, the obvious one is tourism. People put a great premium on both novelty and isolation. Here is the last undiscovered tourist archipelago. It can be reached by seaplane from the Maldives which, it is worth reminding ourselves, is closer to the Chagos Archipelago than either the Seychelles or Mauritius. It is perfectly feasible to see snorkelling, birdwatching, scuba-diving and exploration of the marine fauna becoming viable. There are wealthy people who would spend a great deal of money for the additional seclusion and the new frontier.
Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)
This is all very fascinating. I hope we get back to Heligoland soon, and maybe the Gilbert and Ellice Islands, but I have to ask the noble Lord: where was he when his Government decided that the straightforward thing to do was to go for the cession of sovereignty?
Lord Hannan of Kingsclere (Con)
I was a Member of the European Parliament, and I spoke out quite strongly against that Government. I hope the noble Lord knows me well enough to know that I was never a party line man. I thought it was an appalling thing to do then, and I still think it is an appalling thing to do.
Lord Bellingham (Con)
Yes, the previous Government set out to give sovereignty to Mauritius across the archipelago, but not necessarily on the sovereign base. In fact, the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, has made it very clear that one of his red lines was protecting the sovereign base in perpetuity, as in Cyprus. That would have been a very plausible and popular decision.
Lord Hannan of Kingsclere (Con)
That was my understanding, but even that was too much for me. Even if we had been able to get continued sovereignty on the base and some kind of shared sovereignty on the outer atolls, that would still have been exchanging a freehold for a leasehold. It is a preposterous thing to do when we are being told to do it by a court that has expressly been denied jurisdiction in cases between Commonwealth states. We would be doing it, setting a terrible precedent, to satisfy a tribunal that has no authority.
I was very critical of the previous Government for countenancing these changes. I have told the people involved what I think of it. I am equally critical of this Government, as I suspect are quite a lot of the people on the Labour Benches. I look at the expressions of some noble Lords opposite. I know they are decent patriots and democrats, and I know they feel a sense of obligation to our dispossessed Chagossian colleagues. Of course, they have to do their duty, such is the essence of politics.
I finish by holding out the prospect—just the vision—of people coming back: of civilian and military life coming back; of stories told again by grandmothers under newly thatched roofs, their voices stitched with salt and memory; of footsteps remembering the pale coral paths; and of the islands themselves remembering their old inhabitants, as the tides remember the moon.
Lord Morrow (DUP)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 31 standing in my name. I want to place on record my appreciation for the noble Lord, Lord Hannan, stepping in last week during the difficult situation I had back home. It again demonstrates clearly that, when you throw an awkward ball to a good player, he will pick it up, make you look good and carry on as if nothing has happened, but I appreciate his assistance in that instance.
I was about to say three lines on this amendment, but then I thought I was perhaps being too presumptuous, because I hoped that the Government, just by reading the amendment, would simply have said that there was no reason why they could not support it. I hope that that is exactly what they will say at the end of the debate, but I think I had better say more than just one or two lines in relation to it before sitting down.
Even if one accepted that it was just £101 million every year for 99 years and considered the proposition in its own terms, without regard for the preceding history, the contrast between this and a one-off payment of £40 million to the Chagossians conveys the message that, while the Mauritians are important and worthy of respect, the Chagossians are, by contrast, worthy only of a few crumbs from the table, relatively speaking, which is deeply hurtful and insulting.
Secondly, to really understand the injustice presented by the arrangement, it obviously needs to be seen in the context of history. The Chagossians do not, for the most part, regard themselves as Mauritian.
I have heard what the noble Lords, Lord Weir and Lord Jay, have said. As the noble Lord, Lord Weir, rightly said, across the United Kingdom there is a multiplicity of views on many issues, so it is difficult to get a concise, exact and single supporting view on this, but I will say these things anyway. In this context, the decision to also pay Mauritius a fantastically large sum of money for the use of just one of the Chagos Islands, while the Chagossians are afforded just £40 million, compounds the present injustice.
To appreciate the menacing nature of the way this monetary injustice greatly compounds the underlying injustice, one must point out that the monies for resettlement set out in the KPMG report are significantly less than the monies it is now proposed the Republic of Mauritius be paid for the UK to lease just one of the Chagos Islands.
Finally, the funding for the Chagossians is also important. Article 11 of the treaty undermines the UK Government’s argument for it by addressing the Chagossians apart from the Mauritians. They are, in effect, saying that it is right to return the islands to the Republic of Mauritius because the pre-8 November 1965 boundaries of the colony express the self-determination of the people of the territory, which implies that everyone, at least from a civic perspective, can be happily Mauritian. However, in that context, there would be no need to address the Chagossians separately and allocate payment to them. In addressing the Chagossians separately, the treaty, in effect, hoists itself with its own petard.
Lord Kempsell (Con)
My Lords, I will speak to the amendments in my name in this group, and I support the amendments in the name of my noble friend Lord Hannan, who masterfully adumbrated his litany of development ideas, as well as those in the names of the noble Baroness, Lady Foster, the noble Lords, Lord Weir and Lord Callanan, and others.
The theme before the Committee in this group has surely been, as the noble Lord, Lord Weir, put it, an attempt to understand the views, wishes, legitimate desires and concerns of Chagossians. How is it possible to do so without a proper process for consultation with the Chagossian community? Much has already been said in the Committee about the inadequacy of the consultation process followed by the Government that has brought us to this point in the design of the Bill and their policy. My Amendment 81C would make the Chagossian contact group, the Government’s official consultation forum, more robust. Indeed, it would ensure that the Chagossian contact group remained in existence throughout the lifetime of the treaty.
In all the impenetrable fora, groups and organisations within Whitehall, the Chagossian contact group has been shrouded, I think it is fair to say, in a little secrecy. I have repeatedly asked Written Questions of Ministers about the operation of this consultation mechanism. We know that it met earlier this year and was attended by a Minister and that it is chaired by a deputy director in the FCDO and has a small secretariat. My amendment would ensure that it remained active and that Chagossians continued to be enfranchised to a greater extent than they have been thus far by the Government.
My Amendment 81G pertains to the theme of resettlement, which has already been mentioned extensively in the debate. The Government prayed in aid the notion of resettlement as one of their key motives for pursuing this policy, and they have taken the word of the Mauritian Government, I think it is fair to say, on trust when it comes to resettlement. To a certain extent, that is to be expected at international negotiations and in bilateral fora, but there is no reason why the Government should not take steps to ensure that the important issue of resettlement is continually checked on by Ministers in future. That is why, in Amendment 81G, I suggest that within 12 months of Royal Assent the Secretary of State should publish a report made in connection with Article 6 of the treaty as to progress on resettlement.
For the sake of timing, I shall speak also to my Amendment 20C, which is grouped here, on the marine protected area. With this amendment, I seek to ensure that the Government take external expertise and consultation of the kind that the noble Lord, Lord Hannan, mentioned, from universities and scientific experts, who have deep concerns about the potential administration of the marine protected area by the Mauritian authorities and the standards to which those authorities will hold the administration of the MPA and its future designations—whether they will truly be in accordance with the standards that have thus far been set by the UK Government, in terms of both environmental protection and the quality of expertise, scientific and otherwise, used in governing those important regions for marine and broader conservation. My Amendment 20C seeks to ensure that an independent panel is commissioned before those elements of the treaty come into force to provide a serious and well-thought-out independent view, away from the scientific advice that the UK Government will take from their own resources, and to publish that advice so that the international community can see that the Mauritian Government will be held to those international standards.
Lord Fuller (Con)
My Lords, I rise to particularly support Amendment 20 in the name of my noble friend Lord Callanan, and, more generally, Amendment 26 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Lilley, who is not in his place, and Amendments 38B and 78. This is an important group because it seeks to remedy the way in which the Bill will not only make the Chagossians stateless, but prejudice their ability to financially provide for themselves and their families for today and tomorrow.
Last month, I travelled to Hamburg on business. At dinner, I was sat next door but one to a gentleman who was involved in business in quite a substantial way in Mauritius. It did not take long for my German colleagues to explain to him that I sat in your Lordships’ House, upon which he leant over and implored me—no, begged me—to do that deal with Diego Garcia, so that, in his words, “our streets can be paved with gold”. Those were his exact words.
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Baroness Chapman of Darlington) (Lab)
My Lords, I was not sure whether anybody else wanted to follow that last speech. I do not think I have ever seen the Prime Minister drink prosecco—he would prefer a pint, I think.
Anyway, I thank noble Lords for their speeches on this quite important set of amendments, and I would be very surprised if we did not come back to some of these issues on Report, because, for all the nonsense we have just heard, there are actually some very thoughtful and quite important considerations here. Someone put it very well when they said that, while they might not agree with everything we are doing, there is a shared view across the House that we need to do as best we can through this process for the Chagossian communities.
Regarding Amendments 17, 26 and 78, the Chagossians are already entitled to work on the base and have done so. There are a range of job opportunities on Diego Garcia, open to Chagossians with British, Mauritian and Seychelles citizenship. A link to vacancies advertised by KBR, the main contractor responsible for recruiting and managing support staff at the base, is already available on the GOV.UK pages, setting out UK government support for Chagossians. On Amendment 78 from the noble Lord, Lord Hannan—
Lord Bellingham (Con)
How many Chagossians are actually working on the base today?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
I do not think that data is published anywhere, I am afraid. If it is, I shall provide it to the noble Lord.
I very much enjoyed the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Hannan, as I always do, but it is unjustifiable to define Chagossians as only those holding British Overseas Territories citizenship. I think that is what he was getting at. There are many Chagossians living in Mauritius, the Seychelles and beyond, and this would also exclude anyone who holds British citizenship, but not British Overseas Territories citizenship.
Amendment 20 from the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, which is one of many that would require the Government to seek something from Mauritius, is not needed. We have already committed to making a Statement to Parliament—and I think it is right that we do this—on the modalities of the Chagossian trust fund and eligibility for resettlement. That is in large part a response to the considerable interest that there has been from noble Lords across the House in making sure that the trust fund is run properly and fairly.
Taking this together with Amendment 38A from the noble Lord, Lord Hay, on air travel to Diego Garcia, I say that, as we have said numerous times, the UK is taking forward planning for a programme of heritage visits for Chagossians to the Chagos Archipelago, including Diego Garcia. These were paused in 2019 because of Covid, but we are working hard to reinstate them as soon as possible. Now, as then, these visits would include visits to key heritage sites. Specifically on the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Hay, there are no commercial flights to Diego Garcia, and nor would they be practical, as it is a working military base that is highly sensitive. Allowing commercial flights would interfere with the operational use of the base. Heritage visits in the past have often involved the use of charter aircraft and this may be the case for future visits also, but there is nothing in the treaty that would prevent this.
On Amendment 20C, noble Lords will recall that we debated the environmental impacts of the treaty and the marine protected area around the Chagos Archipelago last week. Both the UK and Mauritius are committed to protecting the unique environment around the islands. Noble Lords will be aware that on 2 November Mauritius issued a statement announcing the creation of a marine protected area once the treaty enters into force. No commercial fishing whatever will be allowed in any part of the MPA. Low levels of artisanal fishing, compatible with nature conservation or for subsistence of the Chagossian community, would be allowed in certain limited areas.
The noble Lord’s amendment seeks to delay the implementation of the Bill and the entry into force of the treaty. The treaty has already been reviewed by two Select Committees of this House. They have reported their findings and agreed that the treaty allows for positive environmental work, with the IAC welcoming
“the Government’s assurance that it will work closely with the Mauritian Government to establish a well-resourced and patrolled Marine Protected Area”.
Amendment 38C, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Weir, would require the Government to implement the resettlement recommendations of the 2015 KPMG study. The KPMG report, commissioned by the Conservative Government, concluded that resettling a civilian population permanently on BIOT would entail substantial and open-ended costs. The then Government ruled out resettlement, acknowledging the acute challenges and costs of developing anything equivalent to modern public services on remote and low-lying islands.
Lord Hannan of Kingsclere (Con)
Will the Minister confirm that there were three different options for how many people you would resettle, and the costs of all of them were substantially lower than the transfer payments that we are making to Mauritius alone under the current deal?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
That is correct, but those payments would not have paid for a legally secure operation of the base alongside our United States allies. Whatever legal geniuses we have opposite us today, those in the White House differed on the analysis now being put forward by the Conservative Party, which is clearly different from what they put forward in the not-so-distant past.
The agreement gives Mauritius the opportunity to develop a programme of resettlement on its own terms, without requiring the UK taxpayer to pick up the bill.
On Amendment 81G from the noble Lord, Lord Kempsell, as I and other Ministers have said on numerous occasions, it will be for Mauritius to establish a programme of resettlement once the treaty comes into force. I am very sympathetic to the way he put his case on this, but it would not be a good use of taxpayers’ money to keep reporting on something that is not in our gift to achieve. The Government are increasing their support to Chagossians living in the UK through new and existing projects. These include Chagossian-led community projects in Crawley and beyond, as well as education and English language support, and have involved the creation of a number of FCDO-funded full-time jobs for Chagossians. The noble Lord, Lord Ahmad, asked me about commitments on this going forward. We are committed to these at least until the end of this Parliament. He will understand that what happens beyond that may depend on decisions of Ministers in the future.
Amendment 31 tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Morrow, and Amendment 55 tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Weir, ask for an equality impact assessment on the payments to be made by Mauritius to Chagossians. The Government have already released the public sector equality duty report relating to the treaty, which addresses all the issues around equalities and the impact assessment.
Amendment 50A tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Foster, raises a really important issue. We do not think it is necessary to make provision for this in the Bill, but we understand her concern. As I said in my letter in relation to the first day of Committee, we will work with relevant authorities to ensure that official documentation reflects historic connections to the Chagos Archipelago wherever possible. British passports issued to Chagossians will continue to display their place of birth and, if they wish, those who already have British Overseas Territories citizenship status can hold a British passport reflecting their status as British Overseas Territories citizens. I am very sympathetic to the arguments put forward by the noble Baroness and commit to making diplomatic representations to the Government of Mauritius to ensure that place of birth is recorded accurately on documentation.
Baroness Foster of Aghadrumsee (Non-Afl)
I very much appreciate the Minister’s commitment to do that, because this is such a hurtful thing. Sometimes, those of an Irish republican disposition will say that I am not British but just Irish, so it is something I feel very strongly about. The Chagossians are entitled to have their identity confirmed, and I would be very pleased if she could write to me after she raises those issues through the diplomatic channels.
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
Of course, I would be very happy to do that.
Lord Weir of Ballyholme (DUP)
On the amendments that the noble Lord, Lord Morrow, and I put forward, as was alluded to in a number of speeches, including by the noble Baroness, Lady Foster, the reason why we raised equality issues as regards financial payments is the potential role of Chagossians within the trust fund. There is a widespread concern at present that we are simply hoping that Mauritius does the right thing with that. I appreciate that the Minister is perhaps not in the position today to give any level of direct assurances. However, can she at least go away and come back before Report with the Government’s thoughts or information—perhaps after discussions with the Mauritian Government—as to how we can inject a level of Chagossian direct involvement and control over that trust fund? That would be very helpful for whenever we reach Report.
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
That is not too much to ask. We are talking to the Mauritian Government about this, because we want the same thing as the noble Lord. I had hoped that we would be able to say something a little bit more detailed about that by now. We have not quite got there, but we will use best endeavours to get there before Report. I understand the motivation behind this, and it is right that we do what we can to make sure that noble Lords have the assurances they need by Report.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
In light of the reaffirmation that there will be both ongoing citizenship as well as dual nationality, and, perhaps uniquely, that community will be impacted directly by the terms of this treaty, does the Minister accept the principle that formal mechanisms of representation for the duration of this agreement, rather than just between now and the treaty coming into force, in principle warrant very serious consideration?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
It depends on what we mean by formal and what that looks like. We have an arrangement at the moment via the contact group and a commitment to strengthen and expand that, to make sure that does the job it is intended to do and the Government can support it in doing that. However, we are clear that we do not do anything to it without its consent. It is an area on which we are interested in having further conversations—I think the noble Lord knows what I am getting at. Whether that completely satisfies his desire for formality, we will probably continue to explore together.
With that, I hope the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, feels able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Callanan (Con)
My Lords, I agree with the Minister that this has been a fascinating debate. It was a real pleasure to hear so many noble Lords focusing, as we rightly should, on the rights and futures of the Chagossian people.
The trust fund is an essential part of the treaty. Essentially, it is the only part of the treaty that is positive for the community. Therefore, we must not allow it to be maladministered, or worse, by the Mauritian Government. My noble friend Lord Ahmad made some very good points about the management of the existing fund, to which he got some answer from the Minister. We are certainly clear that the UK Government should take all necessary steps to hold the Mauritian Government to account for their management of the fund to ensure that the Chagossians are properly looked after and no longer treated as second-class citizens. I apologise to my noble friend Lord Fuller for trying to apply a little imaginary lipstick to his proverbial pig in this matter.
The points raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Foster, were particularly important and extremely serious. I was pleased to hear the assurances given to her by the Minister. We should not allow the Chagossian people to be treated in this manner by Mauritius.
This speaks to our concerns on value for money. Whichever figures you take, this agreement is a major financial undertaking, costing the British taxpayer billions of pounds over the lifetime of the deal. Any situation where the fund is capitalised but not managed properly would surely be unacceptable, and we should make sure that there are powers to hold Mauritius to account should that happen.
My noble friend Lord Hannan, in his excellent contribution, made some great points on how the Chagossians could be resettled in future and many of the alternative occupations that they could take in such circumstances.
If the Minister is not satisfied that the Government have the powers that they need to do that, I hope Ministers will go back to the Mauritian Government to ensure that we have those stronger powers before the treaty takes effect. The Minister is right that many of these matters will be returned to on Report. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Lord Callanan
(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 regarding a guarantee that paragraph 3(d) of Annex 1 will cover all non-UK and non-US civilian personnel stationed in the Chagos Archipelago, in addition to military and civilian security forces;(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), a Minister must table substantive motions in the House of Commons and the House of Lords on the contents of the report.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is intended to prevent the provisions from coming into force until the Government has sought guarantees regarding the presence of non-UK and non-US civilian personnel in the Chagos Archipelago beyond Diego Garcia.
Lord Callanan (Con)
My Lords, the amendments in this group speak to perhaps one of the most concerning parts of the treaty—although the previous bit was also concerning: namely, the risk that this agreement will undermine our security. Given the large number of amendments in this group, I will speak only to those in my name. I know that my noble friend Lady Goldie will speak to her amendments as well, and I will certainly not seek to pre-empt her arguments in my remarks, as my noble friend is much more of an expert on defence matters than I will ever be.
My Amendment 18 is a commencement block that would prevent the main clauses of the Bill coming into effect until the Government have laid a report on securing a guarantee that all non-UK and non-US civilian personnel stationed on the archipelago will benefit from the provisions of Annex 1. Annex 1 protects the UK’s unrestricted access to Diego Garcia’s sea and airspace. The treaty makes reference to some civilian activity, but we are seeking an assurance from the Government that that part of the treaty in its entirety applies to civilians stationed on Diego Garcia. I hope the Minister will be able to give us that assurance.
Amendment 67 speaks to one of the most fundamental questions, which has already been the subject of much debate. The treaty is clear that the UK must inform Mauritius of any armed attack on a third state directly emanating from the base on Diego Garcia, using the magnificent word, “expeditiously”. The dictionary definition of expeditiously is “quickly and efficiently” and “with speed”. Many have rightly asked what expeditiously means in practice. My Amendment 67 clarifies that the UK Government must not inform Mauritius of any relevant armed attacks until the attack has ended. Providing prior notification to Mauritius, or indeed any third state not directly involved in the attack, could risk the safety of British and American servicemen who are engaged in the relevant operation. Could the Minister confirm that nothing in the treaty requires the UK Government to give forewarning of any attack emanating from the military base? If that is the case then I am sure they can accept the amendment.
Additionally, my amendment seeks a requirement not to notify Mauritius if notification would endanger the security of the base. Can the Minister confirm that nothing in the treaty would prevent the Government withholding notification if notifying Mauritius would endanger the base? My noble friend Lady Goldie will be going into additional details on these important issues.
Amendment 69 in my name seeks to make a point about the location of specific equipment and installations on the base. It is essential that the security of the base is maintained. It would not be acceptable if the UK Government were to endanger the security of equipment at the military base by notifying Mauritius. In replying to the debate, can the Minister please address those concerns? It is essential that the UK Government have the right to refuse notification when doing so would endanger the base itself or our personnel.
Baroness Goldie (Con)
My Lords, I associate myself with the remarks of my noble friend Lord Callanan on the amendments to which he spoke. I shall be dealing with the word “expeditiously” and I will try to ensure that that characterises my contribution, and perhaps influences this debate.
I wish to speak to my Amendments 83, 85, 86 and 87. At Second Reading, I raised the issue of the mismatch between the Bill and the treaty that it implements. My main concern in this whole affair is our defence and security and the implications of this Bill on that. I identified a range of areas where greater clarity is required. Before I continue, I should say that I have received a letter from the Ministers, for which I thank them. That sought to clarify some of the questions that I asked at Second Reading. The letter brings a degree of clarification, but in other respects it leaves me with questions. I shall address these as I explain my amendments.
Amendment 83 is simply a technical drafting amendment to accommodate my remaining amendments in this group. It specifies that the commencement of the treaty cannot occur until the conditions outlined in my amendments have been satisfied.
Amendment 85 relates to the specific notification requirements under Annex 1 1(b)(viii) of the treaty. My amendment would require that Clauses 2 to 4 do not come into force until the Secretary of State has published a statement establishing that the notification in Annex 1 1(b)(viii) of the treaty does not require the consent of Mauritius in response. The provision in Annex 1 to which this refers says that:
“In accordance with this Agreement and with reference to Article 2(5) and Annex 2, in respect of Diego Garcia, Mauritius agrees the United Kingdom shall have … unrestricted access, basing and overflight … for non-United Kingdom and non-United States of America aircraft and vessels, upon notification to Mauritius”.
The amendment seeks to enable the Secretary of State to make explicit, before Clauses 2 to 4 of the Bill can come into force, that the consent of Mauritius is not required for us to host third-party forces on Diego Garcia.
As I mentioned, I have the letter from the Ministers in which they helpfully clarify that permission from Mauritius is not required. However, I require the Minister to confirm that such notification is after the event. If notification is required before the event, that implies consent is required, or that the intimation of an objection by Mauritius is possible. That is why I seek the clarification.
We cannot have a situation where Mauritius can in any way object to which forces are present at the base. The operation of the base, including the matter of the basing of our allies, must be solely at the discretion of the United Kingdom. I would appreciate the Minister giving a guarantee that Mauritius will have no control whatever over the basing and overflight of other countries’ forces. Unusually, the Minister and I are perhaps nearly at consensus in idem here. If that is the case, why would the Secretary of State be reluctant to publish a statement?
Amendment 86 is another defence and security amendment. It seeks that Clauses 2 to 4 would not come into force until the Secretary of State has published a statement establishing that the obligation under Annex 1(2) of the treaty
“does not extend to aircraft and vessels which have landed or docked at the Base for the purposes of maintenance or refuelling prior to the armed attack on a third state”.
Annex 1(2) of the treaty is the provision that requires the United Kingdom
“to expeditiously inform Mauritius of any armed attack on a third State”.
As we have discussed, much has been made of what is meant by “expeditiously”. The Ministers’ letter to me stated that they are satisfied that this does not require the UK to seek the permission of Mauritius, nor for notification to be given prior to the event. That is helpful. The International Agreements Committee of this House has also concluded that it interprets “expeditiously” to mean
“as soon as reasonably practicable in the circumstances”.
I believe that the Minister gives her interpretation in good faith, but what of Mauritius’s interpretation? Does the Minister know whether the Mauritian Government share this view? If she does not currently know, and I quite accept that she may not, I would be happy for her to write to me to confirm the point.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, I totally support the amendments in the names of my noble friends Lord Callanan and Lady Goldie. The noble Lord, Lord Coaker, and the noble Baroness, Lady Chapman, both know that I, as someone who was involved with direct negotiations, albeit in 2019, remained unconvinced of one specific element above all else—I remain unconvinced of it today—and that was the security protections that have just been so eloquently narrated by my noble friend Lady Goldie.
In associating myself with those amendments, I will also press ahead on the archipelago and the lay of the land beyond Diego Garcia. I draw attention to paragraph 3(a) of Annex 1, which says that
“vessels and aircraft of the United Kingdom and the United States of America shall have unrestricted rights of overflight, navigation and undersea access”.
That is clear. It continues:
“States operating with the United Kingdom or the United States of America shall also have such unrestricted rights, save in respect of overflight or undersea access, which require notification”.
We need a degree more clarification to unwrap that provision, particularly on passage to and from Diego Garcia and the lay of the other parts of the archipelago. Like my noble friend, I press the Minister to give the specific assurance, which I certainly feel should be within the agreements signed with Mauritius, that notification does not mean before the event but after.
Lord Beamish (Lab)
My Lords, I will speak on Amendment 67. This part of the agreement is being portrayed as though it has some type of special status. It is similar to the agreement we have with the sovereign base areas in Cyprus. The UK and our allies use Cyprus as a staging post for a number of operations outside the Republic of Cyprus. The way it operates there is that the Government of Cyprus are not informed prior to the use of that base but, like in this agreement, are informed afterwards. I accept the point about the use of “expeditiously”—what it means is worth debate—but the way I read this is that it is no different from other bases.
The noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, said she was nitpicking. To be fair to her, I do not think she is: she is trying to get clarity on this important point. We want to ensure that our forces and allies have free movement and use of the base under this treaty. I do not think that our United States allies would agree with the Bill and treaty if they in any way limited their use of the base, not only for actions against other parts of the world but in the siting of various pieces of equipment on those important islands. We look for some reassurance on that point, but it is important to have clarity. That would certainly allay some of the fears raised, quite legitimately by some people and by others as scaremongering against the Bill.
Lord Bellingham (Con)
My Lords, following on from the noble Lord, Lord Beamish, surely the fundamental difference with the two bases on Cyprus that he mentioned is that we kept them in perpetuity—they are sovereign bases. Yes, we have an arrangement with the Cypriot Government to inform them of activity after deployment takes place, but what concerns me about this particular lease arrangement is very simple.
At the moment, we have in place a Government in Mauritius headed by His Excellency Navin Ramgoolam, who is a democrat and a friend of his country. I had the privilege of meeting him a number of times when he was premier before. Indeed, he took over from a Government who were also democratic and had all the right intents. We had many arguments about this issue but, fundamentally, we were two democratic Governments discussing a matter.
The concern I have is this: what would happen if there were some sort of coup or a military Government in Mauritius? In these worst-case scenarios, we have to be prepared for the future. Let us hope for the best but prepare for the very worst. Could the Minister comment on what would happen to these arrangements in the treaty in that event? If, indeed, a military coup took place and an alliance was made with a hostile power, the operations of this base could be jeopardised.
Lord Morrow (DUP)
My Lords, I wish to speak to Amendments 20G and 20H in my name. I have tabled them because I want to probe more deeply whether the consequences of non-ratification are such that non-ratification is not an option.
Furthermore, it is important that we are clear about what we can and cannot do. The Minister has told the Committee that the treaty is a done deal; that it cannot be changed; and that the role of your Lordships’ House in relation to it and to the Bill before us today is really very limited. The noble Lord, Lord Purvis, has supported the Government in this view, suggesting that, going forward, there is only scope for possibly impacting the details of the implementation. It is clear that, although the CRaG process did not prevent the Government ratifying the treaty, the treaty was defined between the UK Government and the Republic of Mauritius in terms that place not only a clear distinction between the act of signing and ratification but unusual distance between the two, in that the treaty cannot come into focus unless and until the Bill before us today is passed and Clause 2 transfers sovereignty.
The comments of the noble Lord, Lord Murray, on day one in Committee were important. He said:
“Because of the way the treaty is drafted and the way Article 18 operates, the treaty can come into force only when this legislation is implemented. That is unusual”.
After an exchange, the Minister helpfully clarified the situation further and said:
“Before the UK can ratify the treaty, we will need to do the following: pass both primary and secondary legislation, update the UK-US exchange of notes, and put in place agreements on the environment, maritime security and migration”.—[Official Report, 18/11/25; col. 713.]
In this context, it is clear that, although the treaty has been negotiated and cannot be changed without reopening negotiations, it has been defined in terms to which both parties consented. This means that what could be drawn from the act of signature on 22 May was, by definition, inherently provisional and contingent. It was signed subject to recognition that the act of signing did not bring the treaty into force; and that the treaty would not come into force unless and until the respective political processes of both countries had been properly honoured. In this context, because the coming into force of the treaty depends on an Act of Parliament, this is plainly not a done deal, in my estimation.
Furthermore, as a legislature on its toes, we have to let the Executive know that we understand that, having negotiated the treaty, they will encourage us to pass this legislation so that it can move to ratification. We know that this does not mean that we have to pass this piece of legislation any more than we have to pass any other piece of legislation. If we reject this Bill, the islands could not be given to Mauritius. If the Government chose, they could then invoke the Parliament Act, which would delay things by some 13 months or thereabouts, in the context of which there is a good chance that common sense would prevail. The Republic of Mauritius could not object to this because it signed up to the treaty knowing that it depended on domestic processes that, in this case, require the passing of legislation through a legislature that cannot be dictated to by the Executive. It is really important that we are open, transparent and honest about the opportunity that we have both to stand up for the Chagossians and to say no to this treaty because, if we have the power to do so, we have the responsibility to do so. That is, I think, is of equal importance; it may even be more important.
Lord Weir of Ballyholme (DUP)
My Lords, I rise to deal with Amendments 58, 61 and 62, which are, largely speaking, probing amendments.
My noble friend Lord Morrow raised the question of whether the Government have breached their manifesto; far be it from me to suggest that. There are even some scurrilous rumours that they will raise taxes, but that will clearly not be the case, and such rumours will obviously be disproved in the next few hours.
I and others have been very critical of the deal, the legislation and the approach that has been taken by the Government. We have been critical of the treatment of the Chagossian people on issues such as the right to self-determination and the ceding of sovereignty. It seems to me that the response that the Government will offer as a rationale is essentially that, whatever the position on those issues—and I appreciate the Government will dispute the position that I and others have put forward—the outweighing factor is the securing of our strategic defence within the area and, if that is got right, that will trump everything else.
That is why the amendments in this group are so important, as they try to put that to the test. My amendments and, indeed, a number of the others, try to seek assurances. I am using the word “assurances” as I am reminded of a phrase that a friend of mine would use when talking of “clarification”. He would say that the purpose of clarification is often not to make things clear but to put yourself in the clear. Instead, I will ask the Government for assurances on the issue of defence. Is what is being put forward—what is said on the tin—being met by what is delivered in respect of assurances?
As regards the amendments, I want to deal with three issues that are interrelated. First, I want to probe the position as regards the potential. We know what has been secured directly on Diego Garcia itself, but I want to probe on the potential for the Mauritius Government to enter into arrangements with third countries, to have a movement by those countries towards other islands by way of a leasing or some other arrangement, which may then descend into some form of military activity, with monitoring bases and things of that nature.
Earlier today, in answer to an Oral Question, the Minister rightly indicated that it would be wrong to speculate on potential future events. However, this is not an issue that simply appears in a vacuum. We know that the Mauritius Government have had relatively close relationships with Russia, for example, and have been in discussions with India, and that there are ongoing discussions with China. Indeed, it is reported in relation to one of the islands—Peros Banhos, if I am pronouncing that correctly—that there are discussions around a leasing arrangement. It is clear that Mauritius will look towards the Chagos Islands as an opportunity to work with a range of other Governments to lever in what they have been given.
Specifically, the concern is with regard to China. Where arrangements have been made between other jurisdictions and China, they have led, in a military sense, to a level of mission creep. We have seen that these things are beginning to happen. There are a number of examples, from Sri Lanka to Djibouti to the Solomon Islands. We need a belt and braces approach to how we are going to prevent any level of development around that side of things.
I know that the Minister will respond in part by saying that there is provision within the treaty that, should there be any sort of military arrangement, Mauritius would then have to notify the UK Government and that, effectively, the UK Government could say no to such an arrangement. However, there are a couple of concerns in relation to that. Amendment 58 therefore looks to see what practical measures can be taken. We need to flesh out in very clear-cut terms what we can do. The concern, of course, is that any notification by Mauritius might be post the event. We might see a situation in which something is, for example, leased to the Chinese, who then develop their own mission creep. Mauritius could then turn round and say that, “Actually, this has been leased out to them, and we do not know what they are doing, and they have gone beyond that”. We need to tease out from the Government what they intend to do in practice in a situation where, for example, a listening station was placed on one of the islands or there was a range of other realistic possibilities.
Lord Beamish (Lab)
What the noble Lord is saying is very interesting, but the treaty protects the outer islands from development. Mauritius is one of only two African countries that is not part of the belt and road initiative, so its main interlocuter is not China but India.
Lord Weir of Ballyholme (DUP)
We can pick which Government are looking to lever in additional influence in the area. I am simply saying that China has a particular record of reaching agreements with other countries to—
Lord Hannan of Kingsclere (Con)
Will the noble Lord confirm that, although it is true that Mauritius is not part of the belt and road initiative—the road thing would not really work, if you think about the geography—it was the first African country with which China signed a free trade agreement, and it has received a state visit from the President of China, which, given the population of Mauritius, would suggest something a little more unspoken than just trade between those two territories.
Lord Weir of Ballyholme (DUP)
It is clear that the Chinese interests—and indeed those of other countries, which I think goes to the heart of why we are seeing this as a key strategic point of view—go beyond simply trying to create trading relationships. We know that Mauritius has around 1.3 million people, much smaller than even my own beloved Northern Ireland—but President Xi is not beating down the doors for a state visit to Belfast any time soon, as far as I am aware. Whether it is China, India or anyone else, whatever the assurances that are there, what are the practical implications and what can we do to assure ourselves that there will not be a level of mission creep?
I will continue very briefly, as I suppose time is moving on. Amendments 61 and 62 probe the position as regards airspace and maritime assurances. Again, this has been sold particularly on the basis of it being not simply the British position but the US position, so I think we need to see some level of joint assurance in relation to that. There has been a concern—and some level of suspicion, which I seek assurances that the Government can allay—that the position of the Americans has been effectively to go along with this treaty. There was, I think, a level of reluctance. It was reported initially that the Americans had given a level of lip service. I think we want to get a much greater level of reassurance that they have bought into this, rather than simply acquiescing with something that one of their allies has asked for. Specifically, as highlighted by the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, there are some restrictions in terms of notification that seem to undermine the security implications.
For instance, if we look at the airspace side of things, there is a 12-mile zone around Diego Garcia, but airspace around the rest of the Chagos Islands is simply with Mauritius. On a maritime basis, we know that the treaty details that the archipelago waters, the territorial seas and the EEZ around the Chagos Islands are all within the control of Mauritius. Where there can be a level of restriction or interference on airspace or maritime boundaries, that can also create a concern. We seek assurances from government that what is being proposed—and this is a question of belt and braces—is actually going to provide the genuine level of defence. If so much else is potentially being sacrificed to bring about this deal, we need to make sure that we have something that is ironclad as regards our defences.
Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)
It is probably best to let the Americans be the judge of their own best interests. They seem to be rather keen on this treaty and its ratification. The Secretary of State in Washington, who is also currently head of the National Security Council, called its conclusion a “monumental achievement”. He does not seem to be concerned that it might open the road to Chinese influence; nor do the Indians, who are, of course, close friends of the Mauritians and are as concerned as we and the Americans are about Chinese influence in the Indian Ocean. The treaty is seen as a barrier to that, not an opening to it.
Lord Hannan of Kingsclere (Con)
Of course, the noble Lord knows better than anyone that Governments do each other favours in these situations, and Heads of Government will sometimes say, “I need you to say the following”, but I am pretty sure the Secretary of State said at the beginning that he was extremely worried by what he described as a serious threat to our national security when the deal was first put forward.
Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)
I am not sure what remarks the noble Lord is referring to. I am talking about the position taken by the current Administration of the United States.
Lord Weir of Ballyholme (DUP)
I appreciate what the noble Lord has said in relation to the response in the public sphere by the American Government. Whatever one’s views—and there will be a range of views towards the current American Government across this Chamber—it is a fair accusation that they occasionally lapse into a certain level of hyperbole. It is either the greatest thing that has ever happened or the worst disaster. We should not necessarily take an enthusiastic apparent public endorsement as something being a great thing from the Secretary of State or the current President as a full reassurance of the American position.
Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)
I think it is probably best to take what they say at face value. They probably mean what they say.
I will now attempt to address the amendments from the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, and surprise her by saying that I think they are extremely sensible. I understand the thinking behind them. I understand her concerns that are encapsulated in Amendments 83 and 85 to 87, but I think the amendments are probably unnecessary. I suspect that the statements the noble Baroness is calling for could be made today. I suspect that we will hear them before the debates on this Bill are over, but it seems to me important that we should hear them, so I understand what the noble Baroness is saying.
I would like briefly to refer to the consistent and cogent arguments from the noble Lord, Lord Bellingham, for a sovereign base area solution rather than the solution that is written into the treaty. I do not know why the last Government looked at it but decided not to pursue it. I do not know what the reasons were. They were probably, I would guess, topographical—we are talking about a very large area, rather than the two restricted areas on Cyprus—but I do not know, and I think it is a valid question to ask.
The big point, surely, is that we are where we are. We have a treaty, and we cannot ratify it until we pass this Bill. That is why I disagree strongly with the four amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Kempsell. He comes straight out and says that he wants renegotiation. He wants the treaty renegotiated in four separate respects, but we are where we are. The treaty exists. If we were to decide to reopen the negotiation, I think we could expect a rather hostile reaction in the United States. The principal concern of the United States is security of tenure and the continuing co-operation of third countries over supply chains. That is what they are concerned about—not our blue eyes but security of tenure of the base. Given that, some in Washington would argue that it is time for the United States to switch sides, to ditch us and do a direct deal with the Mauritians. That argument has been made in Washington and could be made again if we get ourselves into such a mess that, having secured a treaty that the Conservative Government sought and the Labour Government have concluded, we were to decide, after all, that it was not a treaty we wanted and that we wanted to go back to the start and negotiate something different. I can imagine the United States losing patience with us.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
I know that the noble Lord speaks with great insight but the whole point of the amendments, with which I agree—that is why I back my noble friend Lady Goldie in particular—is on the specific issue of security. Yes, as I have said on the Floor of the House before, there were 11 rounds of negotiation but, at the end of them, agreement could not be reached because—I speak from my own insight and experience—back in 2019, that element of security was not assured. When I returned to London, I asked Boris Johnson directly, in good faith—I was not the OTs Minister but I had a good rapport with the then Prime Minister—and he could not give me that assurance. That is what I have pressed for throughout the passage of the Bill.
It has come up repeatedly that there were 11 rounds of negotiations. I have spent a lot of time in business and, as the noble Lord knows, in government. When you are looking for a negotiation and seeking to agree something, the fact that there were 11 rounds would suggest—I know this for a fact—that that agreement could not be reached.
Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)
I respect what the noble Lord says and he knows what he is talking about. I also respect what the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, asked for in requesting four statements. We should be asking for statements rather than changes to the text of a treaty. We voted in July for the ratification of this treaty; we cannot ratify the treaty until we pass this Bill, and we should pass the Bill.
Baroness Hoey (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I wish to speak to my Amendment 54. I must say to the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, that I think we are all pleased that we are where we are. It seems very strange to say that we cannot be discussing the Bill—that was almost the way it was put.
My amendment really follows on a little from what the noble Lord, Lord Weir of Ballyholme, talked about. During Committee in another place, concerns were expressed that other countries may seek to lease individual Chagos Islands and reference was made to reports that India and China were in consultation with the Republic of Mauritius. At that time, the Minister of State at the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, the honourable Member for Cardiff South and Penarth, responded robustly. He stated:
“I want to say on that point that this is absolute nonsense. Is the shadow Minister willing to provide any evidence that that is going to take place? This treaty protects the security of the outer islands and expressly prohibits foreign forces building bases on them—something on which her Government did not succeed in their negotiations”.—[Official Report, Commons, 20/10/25; col. 686.]
What is this great protection to which he referred?
Noble Lords will find that in paragraph 3 of the first annex to the Mauritius treaty. It states:
“In accordance with this Agreement, in respect of the Chagos Archipelago beyond Diego Garcia, Mauritius agrees”—
this is point d—that,
“except in circumstances of necessity for a response to a humanitarian emergency or natural disaster in instances where the United Kingdom or the United States of America is unable or unwilling to provide such a response, Mauritius and the United Kingdom shall jointly decide on authorisations permitting the presence of non-United Kingdom, non-United States or non-Mauritian security forces, either civilian or military”.
I cannot see anything there to validate the Minister’s assertion that the treaty
“expressly prohibits”
foreign forces building bases on the islands. What it says is that they cannot do so without the agreement of the UK Government.
For me, this presents two real concerns. First, and most importantly, there is nothing in the treaty to provide any kind of safeguard in relation to the leasing of islands for purposes other than security and defence. This would leave the door wide open for other countries to seek to lease the islands, ostensibly for purposes other than security and defence. The argument made by the Minister in the other place was that the suggestion that there was a problem was nonsense. It seems to me to be very well founded. The extraordinary thing about these provisions is the fact that they relate to islands of immense geostrategic importance, yet the protections in relation to them are effectively non-existent. That seems very complacent to me.
There is nothing to prevent a hostile country leasing an island and either combining security and defence purposes with others, in the hope of hiding the former, or on beginning with non-security and defence purposes and then changing over to them. Can the Minister tell me how that could be prevented? What would happen if an island is leased for non-security and defence purposes, yet it subsequently becomes apparent that it is being used for those purposes and that the country has dug in well and has no intention of relinquishing the islands? How could they be dislodged? Would the Minister here like to respond on that? I found the suggestion from that Minister in the Commons that there are no presenting difficulties quite alarming. It suggested a certain otherworldliness with a high degree of disconnection from political reality.
Secondly, the other difficulty is the completely opaque nature of the protection that is provided and the lack of parliamentary scrutiny. At the moment, we would have no knowledge about when or if approaches were made by the Republic of Mauritius to seek UK agreement for other countries to use other islands, and we need to know that. My Amendment 54 would address this concern by requiring the Minister to develop regulations stating that before the UK can agree to a proposal from the Republic of Mauritius—made under Annex 1(3)(d) of the treaty—that any island other than Diego Garcia be used for security and defence purposes by another country, that proposal must be brought to Parliament and endorsed by a vote of both Houses. Will the Minister give me a reason why that should not happen?
In ending, I will ask at this stage about the point made in the debate on the fourth group about whether the Government were asked to give their consent before the deal between Mauritius and India was done. I am not sure that we got a response to that. It was going to give India a defence presence. I would really like to know how long the Government knew before that happened. Did they know and when did they agree to it?
Baroness Foster of Aghadrumsee (Non-Afl)
I will speak to my Amendment 81J on behalf of all those who have written to me, urging the House of Lords to look again at the security implications of the Bill. My amendment would require the Secretary of State to consult the Government of the United States before taking any action that may affect the security environment of Chagos or the operation of the facilities on Diego Garcia. It is simple, reasonable and, I think, essential. The Minister may well say that we will of course speak always and at length to our closest ally, but this amendment seeks to put that into the Bill and on a mandatory footing.
We are all aware that Diego Garcia is not an ordinary base; it is the backbone of US and UK operations in the Indian Ocean, the Middle East and east Africa. It is critical for surveillance, early warnings, carrier support and global rapid deployment. Hundreds of thousands of British and American personnel have depended on it for missions authorised by this country, but the Bill does not have any statutory requirement even to consult with the ally whom we seek to stay closest to. Of course, the US is not a passive observer; it is a treaty partner that has kept those waters free from extremism, piracy and hostile influence for decades. Therefore, this is a straightforward amendment. I will not prolong the debate, because I can see the Whips getting nervous. Unfortunately, this is a rather large group of amendments, but I thought that it was very important to speak to my amendment. I hope that it will be considered by the Committee.
Lord Kempsell (Con)
My Lords, I am more than happy to associate myself with the amendments tabled in the name of my noble friend Baroness Goldie. We started the group by saying that your Lordships’ House would consider it expeditiously, so I will be brief.
My full sympathy is with the experience of the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, in these matters. All I can say is that he must be speaking to different people in Washington DC than I am when it comes to the provisions of this treaty. Occasionally in your Lordships’ House, we hear extreme criticisms of the Government of the United States, and that is entirely justifiable from noble Lords who take that position, but it is impossible on the one hand to criticise the position of the Government of the United States or the way they conduct themselves and simultaneously to suggest that the United Kingdom should resile from seeking to renegotiate provisions in the treaty that are, on further reflection and discussion in your Lordships’ House, found to be wanting. There is no reason why the Government of the United Kingdom should resile from seeking to renegotiate elements of this treaty which are deficient, as is being exposed in the debate. The noble Lord, Lord Morrow, gave an interesting constitutional deposition on the ins and outs of that process.
I will confine my comments to my controversial Amendments 81F and 20F, which seek that renegotiation. My full sympathy is with Ministers opposite who are trying to steer a difficult Bill on a difficult issue into a safer port. My amendments come from the fact that it is incumbent on your Lordships’ House to look beyond the current security situation. The treaty and its Annex 1 are necessarily drafted in the context of the current security picture, but that security picture is dynamic, and it does not take much imagination to envisage a time very soon when Ministers find themselves in a completely changed security scenario; for example, in the Indo-Pacific and the wider Pacific region. What if a military superpower were to invade a neighbouring country and the requirements of the UK’s Armed Forces in their use of the base area and the wider contested issue of sovereignty over the Chagos Islands changed dramatically from the position today? That is why I support the amendments in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, on issues such as the notification of the Government of Mauritius, the third-party armed forces being present, and the placement of devices and installations.
My Amendment 20F seeks to take that a step further by looking into the future and saying there may well come a point at which Ministers feel, at the outbreak of hostilities more widely in the world, a pressure to derogate from the restrictive provisions of Annex 1. That is why I package it with Amendment 81F, which would take the unusual step of placing a requirement on the Government to notify Parliament should there be communications from the Government of Mauritius about the application of that annex in future. It is an issue of such public concern. More broadly, outside of your Lordships’ House, the public feel the treaty has been so poorly handled and drafted that these extraordinary provisions are required.
Lord Hannan of Kingsclere (Con)
My Lords, I will not detain the Committee for long, but I want to speak briefly to Amendments 20D, 20E and 20F from my noble friend Lord Kempsell and to Amendment 87 from my noble friend Lady Goldie. We have witnessed in recent decades an extraordinary alchemy in the South China Sea. Whole islands are called from the vasty deep, summoned like Brigadoon into existence, not by prayer but by the imperatives of Chinese geopolitics. Reefs are dredged into runways; lagoons are refashioned into naval installations; artificial islands are planted thickly with radar, missile systems and airstrips, and it is all done in the name of installing civilian infrastructure. None of those installations or airstrips is openly avowed as a military unit, so, when we hear that in this treaty there is an effective British veto for any kind of defence installation, I ask noble Lords to consider that no one is going to call it a defence installation. It is going to be done subtly, little by little, and it is going to be a much tougher proposition suddenly to object when we feel that a line has been crossed than at present when we have the unquestioned sovereignty over the entirety of the archipelago.
I did not want to misquote the US Secretary of State, so just after my exchange with the noble Lord, Lord Kerr of Kinlochard, I looked up what he said on taking office. In November of last year, he said that the deal
“poses a serious threat to our national security”.
Obviously, he has changed his tune; people are entitled to change their minds. I just invite noble Lords to ask why he might have changed his mind. Is it that he saw a blinding figure on the road to Damascus and heard a voice saying, “Go into Damascus”—I think Marco Rubio has changed his religion at least twice, so I mean no disrespect to our most important ally. Or is it not more likely that he has been worked on by this Government’s officials?
Lord Beamish (Lab)
Could it not also be that when he came into office, he had not received the security briefings from his own intelligence services and possibly then he saw the importance of getting this deal and the permanency which it gives to both us and the United States?
Lord Hannan of Kingsclere (Con)
It is a very good point. I think there is a divergence, exactly as in this country, between the permanent apparat and the rest of the country, which would explain why my noble friend Lord Kempsell and the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, are speaking to very different sets of people. As the German ambassador to London in 1914 said to his French counterpart, “You have your information, we have ours”. It seems that there is at least a debate in the United States about this, and you can see why. As my noble friend Lord Bellingham said, there is a real prospect down the line that a future Mauritian Government may take a very different attitude towards the presence in the outer atolls of powers that are unfriendly to us. We have no assurance that we will always be on friendly terms with that republic.
The world is imperfect, I understand that. The world is sublunary. We are dealing with lesser evils, as is usually the case in politics. But when the Minister has justified this treaty and the treatment of the Chagossians, she has always done so by saying, “Our priority was the security of the base”. I just ask noble Lords on all sides to consider how this makes us more secure in an imperfect world than we are at present. We have obvious sovereignty over the entire region at the moment. We have the great advantage of its isolation. There is no prospect of anybody taking a leased island and putting any kind of listening infrastructure or anything else nearby. How does moving from where we are now to what is proposed in this treaty make us more secure, even if we set aside all the wrongs being done to the Brits of Chagossian origin?
I thought the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, was on to something when he asked, “What if the Americans were to change sides?” But I am not sure that quite makes the point he intended. I just invite noble Lords to consider the wholly pecuniary terms in which Mauritius has considered this territory: not as part of its own demos, not as part of its own nation, but as an investment and a way of raising money—of paving its streets with gold, as my noble friend said earlier. Would it not be the ultimate humiliation if Mauritius were to trouser the sum of money that we are now paying it and then to turn around and sell the base to the United States? Where would that leave this Government? I would love to hear the Minister’s reply.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Lord Coaker) (Lab)
I thank all noble Lords who have contributed to an important set of amendments, and I thank them too for the way in which they have put those amendments. There is clearly some disagreement between us, but there is no disagreement over the fact that every single person in the Chamber is seeking to ensure that we protect the security of the nation and the security of Diego Garcia, and on the importance of that base to us. I start from that point. There were a couple of times when noble Lords almost seemed to question that. I do not question it at all. I do not agree with everything that has been said, but I do agree with the right to challenge how we take this forward, because out of that come better legislation and more clarity. While I do not agree with the need for some of the amendments, some of the comments that those amendments require to be made from the Dispatch Box are important. I wanted to set that context out for noble Lords.
I also just want to say this, because I think it is important. I do not want to have a Second Reading debate again but the noble Lords, Lord Kerr and Lord Beamish, and others have made this point: the Government, whatever the rights and wrongs, are trying to bring stability. The noble Lord, Lord Hannan, disagrees with the treaty, and it is fair for him to make that point, but the Government’s point of view is that we are trying to bring stability and certainty to an uncertain situation. The noble Lord disagrees with that, as do a number of noble Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord Callanan. But that is the Government’s view. The Government’s view, in answer to the challenge the noble Lord raised, is that we are changing it because we are trying to bring certainty to an uncertain situation. We believe we have done that, and we have made certain that we have secured one of the most important military bases—if not the most important military base—for ourselves and the United States. The noble Lord does not accept that or agree with that, but that is the alternative proposition the Government are making.
It is really important, therefore, to say, in answer to the points made by the noble Lords, Lord Morrow and Lord Weir, and others, that we would not have gone forward with this were it not for the fact that the Americans support it. The noble Lord, Lord Kerr, is right. We can say, “Well, the Americans said this” or “The Americans said that”. I am going to quote this, because I think it is really important. The US Secretary of State, Marco Rubio, said that
“the United States welcomed the historic agreement between the United Kingdom and the Republic of Mauritius on the future of … the Chagos Archipelago … this agreement secures the long-term, stable and effective operation of the joint US-UK military facility at Diego Garcia. This is a critical asset for regional and global security … We value both parties’ dedication. The US looks forward to our continued joint work to ensure the success of our shared operations”.
That does not mean, as the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, supported by the noble Lords, Lord Kerr and Lord Ahmad, and many others, said, there are not challenges to that and what it actually means in practice. But it is a pretty fundamental starting point for the UK Government to be able to directly quote US Secretary of State Rubio saying that the US supports what this Government are doing and taking forward. I lay that on the table as the context for trying to answer some of the points and considerations that have been made.
Some of the points and comments—I say to the noble Lords, Lord Morrow, Lord Weir and others, and even to an extent to the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey—are perhaps better dealt with in some of the other groups, particularly on the rights of the Chagossians. My noble friend Lady Chapman has answered on this at great length and will continue to do so as we move forward. That context is really important for the debate and the discussion we are having.
I will try to deal with some of the amendments. It will take a little while and I hope that noble Lords will bear with me. Amendment 18 from the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, seeks to prevent the presence of non-UK and non-US civilian personnel in the Chagos Archipelago. The treaty gives the UK control over these matters. The security provisions were, as I have said, designed and tested at the highest level of the US security establishment, which supported us in proceeding with the deal.
On Amendment 34 from the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, let me be clear: the entire treaty is designed to preserve the UK’s ability to take the necessary steps to preserve the long-term, secure and effective operation of the base. Article 3(2)(c) states clearly that the UK has
“the full responsibility for the defence and security of Diego Garcia”.
Mauritius and other states should have no doubt—this is the importance of comments made here—about our willingness to exercise our responsibilities in a manner that ensures the long-term, secure and effective operation of the base.
Baroness Goldie (Con)
Forgive me for being slightly behind the curve; I was trying to follow the sections in the annex. The Minister referred to Annex 1(11), in particular the definition of “unrestricted”. That paragraph states that
“‘unrestricted’ means not requiring permission or notification, subject to the standing authorisations and notifications separately agreed between the Parties to meet the requirements of international or domestic Mauritian law or current practice”.
For the sake of clarification, what are these “standing authorisations and notifications”?
Lord Coaker (Lab)
If I am wrong on this, I will write to the noble Baroness and put a copy in the Library so that all Members can access it. My understanding is that the crucial bit of Annex 1(11)(c) is
“‘unrestricted’ means not requiring permission or notification”.
The phrase,
“the standing authorisations and notifications separately agreed between the Parties”,
refers to things contained within the treaty. I will write to the noble Baroness to clarify that. I am grateful to her for pointing it out.
The fundamental point I am trying to make—which I think the noble Baroness and the noble Lord, Lord Ahmad, made—is that we have an obligation under the treaty to notify Mauritius of activities emanating from the base but we do not have to seek its permission. “Expeditiously” notifying does not mean notifying before we take any agreed action. Those were the points that I thought the noble Baroness was making, but I will certainly seek to clarify exactly where that takes us with Annex 1(11)(c). I will write to the noble Baroness and provide a copy to others. I thank her for raising that.
The treaty specifically confers on the UK the unrestricted ability to
“control the conduct and deployment of armed operations and lethal capabilities”
in respect of Diego Garcia. Given that there is no question over operational freedom on Diego Garcia, it is unclear what necessary derogations the noble Lord, Lord Kempsell, is seeking. The annex gives the UK the extensive rights that we would need in such a situation.
The noble Lord, Lord Kempsell, raised reporting restrictions. His Majesty’s Armed Forces and the intelligence services routinely produce reports for the Prime Minister on all types of security matters. I reassure the noble Lord, and other noble Lords, that this will include operational issues arising on the Diego Garcia base. There is no requirement for this to be made a statutory obligation, as Amendment 81E seeks to do. Additionally, Amendment 81F would represent an unusual interference with the prerogative to conduct international affairs and to make or unmake treaties. Noble Lords will understand that there is often a need for confidentiality in international discussions.
The clock is flashing away and the Whip is getting jumpy next to me. I shall have a look at Hansard and I shall write to noble Lords in the debate with anything that I have not covered and any questions that have not been answered and make sure that the amendments that I have not responded to are responded to. I shall send the letter to noble Lords in the debate. Let me be clear: I shall write to noble Lords about two or three of the amendments that I have not covered, copy the letter to noble Lords and put a copy in the Library. I hope that that is acceptable to everyone.
I thank noble Lords for a really interesting and important debate on the security provisions of the treaty and ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Callanan (Con)
My Lords, the issue of national security is clearly one of the most important concerns that have been raised about this treaty. The continued and effective operation of the military base is paramount, and Ministers must ensure that they have the powers that they need to protect the security of the base. I listened very carefully to the reassurances provided by the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, who I know has tremendous respect across the House for his commitment to defence and foreign affairs. I thank him for that.
I could raise a lot of points, but I shall not raise a number of them now because I will want to have a close look at Hansard for the reassurances that he was able to provide. I will make one point on the famous definition of the word “expeditiously”. I listened carefully, and the Minister quoted at length the opinion of the International Relations and Defence Committee, which of course was fascinating. I am not sure that he told us what the Government’s view was of the meaning of that word: as they will be applying it in practice, I think that would be more relevant. But, again, I shall look carefully at his remarks and we would welcome any further reassurances—although the Minister gave a very detailed exposition—that he can provide in writing. I am sure that my noble friend Lady Goldie, who made an excellent contribution, would also welcome any further reassurances that the Minister can provide in writing. The details of this issue are particularly important, beyond the political rhetoric that we are all involved in. This concerns one of the most fundamental aspects of our national security.
Having said all that, I seek leave to withdraw my amendment.
Lord Callanan
(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 to guarantee that the application of Annex 2 will oblige (where the UK Government so requests) the Mauritian Government to take responsibility for all asylum claimants and illegal entrants in the Chagos Archipelago including Diego Garcia and accept the transfer of all claimants to Mauritian custody, 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 negotiations that have taken place.(2B) Within two months of the report being laid under paragraph (2A)(b), a Minister must table substantive motions in the House of Commons and the House of Lords on the contents of the report.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is intended to prevent the UK being responsible for asylum claims resulting from illegal entrants into the Chagos Archipelago.
Lord Callanan (Con)
My Lords, this amendment seeks to prevent the United Kingdom being responsible for asylum seekers and refugees arriving in the Chagos Archipelago.
In moving this amendment, it is important that I remind the Committee of the background to this issue. In October 2021, a group of Tamil speakers who were apparently seeking to travel to Canada, bizarrely, by boat, foundered in the Indian Ocean and were escorted to Diego Garcia. These were the first people to claim asylum on Diego Garcia, they were kept on the island for several years and, in October 2024, the Government confirmed plans to relocate them to the UK for their legal claims to be processed. At the time, the Government said that this was to provide the asylum seekers with “greater safety and well-being”.
On 3 December 2024, it was reported in the Guardian—and of course I always believe everything that is reported in the Guardian—that lawyers and those campaigning for the asylum seekers to be relocated called their arrival in the UK a “big day for justice”. One of those interviewed by that newspaper—and we always believe what the Guardian says—was quoted as saying:
“We cannot believe we are finally in the UK … We feel we have reached paradise”.
My amendment seeks to probe the approach that would be taken to any future arrivals on the Chagos Archipelago. Will they be handed to Mauritius, to which the Government want to hand over sovereignty, or will they be handled by the British Government under this treaty? Has the Minister’s department made an assessment of the risk of the Tamils’ arrivals being transferred to the UK, opening another front in our fight to tackle illegal immigration? I do not expect the numbers to be great—I hope that they will not be great—but we need an answer on this important subject.
I also welcome Amendments 27 and 36 in this group, tabled in the names of my noble friend Lord Lilley and the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, respectively. This is clearly something that noble Lords across the Committee are concerned about. I cannot imagine that this subject was not discussed with Mauritius during the negotiations, but I look forward to the Minister giving us some clarity on this issue and telling us whether these factors were in fact discussed with Mauritius. I beg to move.
Baroness Hoey (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I will speak to my Amendment 36, which, as the noble Lord mentioned, relates to asylum seekers who arrive on Diego Garcia, or anywhere on the Chagos Islands. Its purpose is very simple: it ensures that, if any person fleeing danger or persecution lands on those shores, they will not be subjected to unlawful detention, denial of due process, or the kinds of conditions that a British judge has already found to be in breach of international law.
I got a very nice personal letter from a native Chagossian, saying:
“We were exiled from our islands once, but we must not watch new injustice happen on our shores again. Anyone who arrives in our homeland must be treated with dignity. No one should suffer in the Chagos as we once did … As a native islander, I insist that any asylum seeker reaching the Chagos must have their rights respected. We were once denied justice. We cannot allow injustice to happen again in our name”.
Of course, the background has already been mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Callanan—that in late 2021 more than 60 Sri Lankan Tamils were intercepted at sea and brought to Diego Garcia after their vessel was found in distress. Those individuals, many of whom intended to seek asylum in Canada, were accommodated for almost three years in a fenced compound on the island. This was not a temporary holding area; it became a long-term camp. The conditions are a matter of judicial record. The British Indian Ocean Territory Supreme Court found that the asylum seekers were effectively held in unlawful detention. The acting judge described the camp as
“a prison in all but name”
and said it was unsurprising that the individuals felt they were being punished. Evidence presented to the court documented leaking tents, rodent infestation, extreme heat, restricted movement, repeated incidents of self-harm and at least one mass suicide attempt. Some were warned that leaving the compound would expose them to the risk of being shot on security grounds. Those words are not mine—they were the court’s findings.
We also now know, again from the court’s judgment, that progress on their protection claims was impeded because of political factors, including concerns within the Home Office about the Government’s Rwanda policy. Rwanda seems to get mentioned everywhere. The effect of that delay was that these individuals were kept in a camp, in extreme conditions, for far longer than should ever have been contemplated. Most have now been brought to the United Kingdom, as has been said. I think that my noble and learned friend Lord Hermer was involved in that before he became Attorney-General. The Government described this as a one-off transfer and said that Diego Garcia would not be used again for long-term processing, but it remains the case that nothing in statute today prevents a future commissioner, Minister or Government using the islands in exactly the same way, should another vessel arrive. That is why this amendment is necessary; it gives effect to what the United Kingdom is already legally bound to do and ensures that any transfer to Mauritius or any other state happens only under an agreement that guarantees humane treatment, full rights of appeal and compliance with international law. These are not new standards; they are the minimum standards that the United Kingdom already owes to any asylum seeker, regardless of geography.
This amendment also speaks to something deeply felt by the Chagossians. The Chagossian people know what it is to be held without rights; they know what it is to have decisions made about their lives thousands of miles away; and they know what it is to be told they have no voice in decisions taken on their own islands. They have told us repeatedly that they do not want Diego Garcia, or any part of the Chagos Archipelago, to become a place where other vulnerable people suffer in silence.
There is also a simple and moral point. The only civilians permitted to remain long-term on the islands in the past decade were not the native Chagossians but asylum seekers confined in a manner that a British judge found to be unlawful. That fact alone should give the Committee pause for reflection. It was perfectly okay for asylum seekers to be on Diego Garcia but not the original Chagos people.
This amendment seeks to ensure that asylum seekers under Mauritian jurisdiction must have binding guarantees for monitoring, appeal rights, independent oversight and humanitarian standards. The Chagossian community has raised serious concerns about the treatment of vulnerable people already in Mauritius. These concerns cannot be dismissed and certainly cannot be ignored. The Government now intend that asylum seekers arriving in Chagos should be sent there.
This amendment does not oppose the transfer of asylum seekers. It does not dictate the policy of future Governments; it simply ensures that the mistakes made between 2021 and 2024 can never be repeated on British responsibility. It ensures that any person arriving on those islands is processed humanely, lawfully and with respect for their basic rights. For the Chagossians, who were themselves displaced without rights, this is not an abstract principle. It is an affirmation that the islands they still regard as home will not again be a theatre for human suffering. It is a modest and necessary amendment, which is fully consistent with our international obligations and our national values. I therefore commend it to the Committee and urge noble Lords to support it.
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
My Lords, Amendments 19 and 27 from the noble Lords, Lord Callanan and Lord Lilley, now in his place, seek to ensure that Mauritius will be responsible for any illegal migrants who may arrive at Diego Garcia. These are important amendments, and it is helpful that they have been tabled to allow us to clarify this point. I can reassure both noble Lords that the treaty already ensures Mauritian responsibility and closes a potential—as they correctly identify—illegal migration route to the UK. Mauritius, as the sovereign state and as specifically referenced under Annex 2 of the treaty, has jurisdiction over irregular migration to the Chagos Archipelago, including Diego Garcia.
To the extent that the noble Lords, Lord Callanan and Lord Lilley, through their amendments are seeking clarity on the arrangements with Mauritius to put that responsibility into practice, I can assure them that the UK Government are already in the process of agreeing with Mauritius the separate arrangements referenced in Annex 2 paragraph 10 of the treaty, to assist and facilitate in that exercise of Mauritian jurisdiction. These are ongoing negotiations on which I will not provide a running commentary; suffice to say that there will be no need to force the Government to provide a report on the negotiations.
Amendment 36 from the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, is another helpful amendment. It seeks to ensure that any arrangement entered into with Mauritius regarding migrants ensures the humane treatment, full rights of appeal and compliance with international law of any asylum seeker or refugee. It is an important amendment, and I can confirm that the Government will, of course, ensure that any arrangement we enter into will comply with applicable international law and our domestic obligations. For that reason, I think that the amendment is unnecessary, but I thank her for tabling it and allowing us to make that clear. I hope that noble Lords will not press their amendments.
Lord Callanan (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for her clarification, and to the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, for her contribution to this important debate. We know how strongly the British public feel on illegal immigration. It would have been outrageous if we handed over the territory yet retained responsibility for dealing with any illegal immigration.
I will look carefully at the words that the Minister used in her response in Hansard, but it seems as though she has provided the reassurances we are seeking that no illegal arrivals in the Chagos Archipelago will be able to make a claim in the UK for asylum now that sovereignty has been handed over. She used the famous government expression “I am not going to provide a running commentary”, which often means “I am not going to say”. Nobody is asking her to provide a running commentary; we just wanted a clarification on the issues or any outcome of the discussions. If there is a resolution to the discussions before we get to Report, I hope she will update us in writing. Apart from that, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.