Lords Chamber

Tuesday 4th November 2025

(began 3 hours, 45 minutes ago)

Share Debate
Watch Live
Skip to latest contribution
14:36
14:38
14:38
14:38
14:38
14:39
14:40
14:40
14:42
14:43
14:43
14:43
14:44
14:44
14:45
14:46
14:46
14:47
None Portrait Oral questions: Consideration to the case for energy market reforms following the government's decision not to implement zonal pricing
-

Yeah.
14:47
14:48
14:48
14:49
14:49
14:50
14:50
14:51
14:51
14:51
14:52
14:52
14:53
14:54
14:54
14:56
14:56
14:57
14:57
14:58
None Portrait Oral questions: The Official Development Assistance programme allocations for 2026–27
-



**** Possible New Speaker ****

energy for the future. Thank Lord Thurlow. Question Lord McConnell of Glenscorrodale.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Lord McConnell of Glenscorrodale. My Lords, my registration in the Lords Register of Interests, I beg
14:58
14:59
15:00
15:01
15:01
15:02
15:03
15:03
15:04
15:04
15:04
15:06
15:06
15:06
15:07
15:08
15:08
15:09
None Portrait Oral questions: Safeguarding individuals who exhibit signs of suicidal ideation or other mental health emergencies while messaging generative AI chatbots
-

My Lords.
15:09
15:10
15:10
15:11
15:11
15:12
15:13
15:14
15:14
15:15
15:15
15:16
15:17
15:17
15:18
15:18
15:19
15:22
15:22
15:22
15:22
15:22
15:23
15:24
15:25
15:27
15:27
15:28
15:29
15:30
15:31
15:31
15:31
15:32
15:32
15:32
15:33
Baroness Finn Portrait Baroness Finn (Conservative)
-
-
My Lords, the report of the Infected. disaster in the history of the NHS. Noble Lords across the House and members in the other place have spoken time and again of the unimaginable suffering endured by those affected. There can be no doubt that this scandal represents a profound and repeated failure by the state, by medical professionals and by national institutions. We should never lose sight of the fact that what we call the scandal was, in truth, the infliction by the state collectively of grievous harm upon thousands of people.

It is now our solemn duty to ensure that such mistakes are never repeated and that justice is delivered swiftly, fairly and fully to all who were affected. In that spirit, I very much thank the noble Baroness, the Minister, for her continued time and engagement across the House. And my Lords, I pay tribute to the work of Sir Brian Langstaff, the chair of the Infected Blood Inquiry. Yet, my Lords, earlier this year that inquiry warned that there has been a repetition of the mistakes of the past and that people have been harmed.

Yet further, since the establishment of the compensation scheme, Sir Brian concluded that the number of people compensated to date is profoundly unsatisfactory and has called for faster and fairer delivery of redress. The campaign group Tainted Blood estimates that at least 100 people have died while waiting for compensation since the inquiry's final report last year. Sir Brian warned that delay creates an injustice all of its own. We welcome the measures announced to implement some of Sir Brian's recommendations, such as the HIV eligibility Start Dates and Bereaved Partner Support Scheme payments.

The Minister confirmed that as of 21st October, 2476 people have received an offer of compensation and over £1.35 billion has been paid. However, as the BBC have reported, as many as 140 000 bereaved parents, children and siblings of victims may also be able to claim compensation, and the government has set aside 11.8 billion to pay compensation to victims. There is evidently still a great deal of work to be done to ensure that the infected blood compensation authority can scale up quickly and make payments to affected people will clearly be a far larger number for Ithaca to deal with.

My Lords, in recent weeks, further concerns have emerged that delays in paying compensation risk undermining one of the core principles of the scheme and that relates to how it is, or rather, isn't taxed under the present arrangements. Compensation received by a victim can be passed to their children free from inheritance tax. But for the thousands who have died before receiving payment, those sums will now pass through their estates to bereaved relatives, many of whom are themselves elderly. If they too die before receiving the funds, their families could face handing back almost 40% of that compensation to the state in inheritance tax.

A statement from the Association of Lifetime Lawyers says that it is an outrage that a technical flaw will allow the government to claw back up to 40% of the compensation that was specifically intended to provide redress. The government have said that they are committed to making the system as fair and compassionate as possible, and will continue to engage with victims and their families. I therefore, urge the noble Baroness, the Minister, to assure the House that the government is aware of this problem and that they are looking into possible solutions.

My Lords, as was noted in the Other place, £140 million has now been spent on this inquiry after six years, and that figure will be greater once the accounts for this year's this year have been released. The Minister in the other place said that he thinks we are now in an exponential phase where the scale of payments being made through ibca is increasing. However, the concern is that we are stuck in this test and learn phase of delivery. The scaling up of the payments mechanism has been too slow, and the reliance on repeated rounds of inquiries and tranches of recommendations has prevented swift action in compensation from being delivered.

My Lords, while it is right that we proceed with care and consideration, we must not lose sight of the pressing need to deliver this process swiftly. The government must strike a balance between acting responsibly and acting quickly. My right hon. Friend John Glenn made the point that we now need to focus on the delivery of ibca, rather than more iterations of recommendations, and he is absolutely right. I therefore urge the noble Baroness, the Minister, to ensure that the scaling up process proceeds with the urgency that this situation so clearly demands.

My Lords, before I conclude my remarks, I do have some further questions for the Minister. First, can the Minister confirm the government's current timetable for making full compensation payments to victims and families yet to receive them, and whether that timetable remains consistent with Sir Brian Langstaff call for faster and fairer redress. Secondly, what steps are Ibca and the government taking to identify those individuals who are potentially recipients of compensation under the scheme, who may also be sick or elderly and are as such deserving of prioritisation in the processing of their claims? Thirdly, will the government commit to taking, as a matter of urgency, immediate steps to ensure that all infected blood compensation payments, whether made directly to victims or through estates, are entirely exempt from inheritance tax, regardless of the circumstances or timing of payment? And can the Minister in that vein confirm whether the Treasury has undertaken any assessment of the number of families likely to be affected by this tax anomaly, and of the potential sums at stake if it is not corrected? Fifth, what action is the Minister taking with the independent Ibca to ensure that the pace of payments, which has seen some welcome progress, continues to accelerate and is not jeopardised by changes to rules and processes? And can the noble Baroness, the Minister, confirm that it has the right capability to scale up and that the staff are receiving the right training to deliver? And finally, my Lords, can the noble Baroness confirm when the recommendations from the proposed changes to the Infected Blood Compensation Scheme consultation will be implemented? I am aware that the consultation period ends in January.

So when can we expect the practical implementation of these recommendations to be forthcoming? My Lords, the victims and their families have already been failed profoundly by the state. It is now our duty and our responsibility to make sure that there is no further injustice. Addressing the questions we have raised around delays, taxation and the scalability of the system is absolutely imperative. I hope that the noble Baroness, the Minister, can assure us that the government is taking immediate steps to resolve these issues.
15:39
Baroness Brinton Portrait Baroness Brinton (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
My Lords. I want to start by. Thanking all the infected and affected victims who have been in touch with me and other noble Lords over the last few weeks, not least since the consultation started and the independent review of.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The workings of Cobra published. They are living the consequences of They are living the consequences of the scandal that Lady Fynn outlined at the beginning of her contribution. And the problem is contribution. And the problem is that any delays or problems in the scheme retraumatize them and revictimize them. And whilst I'm grateful that the government have been tackling some of the issues, there are still many outstanding. there are still many outstanding. And whilst the numbers of both those registering claims and receiving offers are beginning to receiving offers are beginning to improve since we last met, there remain real concerns about the remain real concerns about the slowness of the deceased claims.

The phrase used is to start by The phrase used is to start by December 2025. That is a somewhat woolly timescale. It shouldn't just be about starting. So can I ask the be about starting. So can I ask the Minister when it's expected that the claims process will be up and running at pace? A favourite phrase running at pace? A favourite phrase of the Cabinet Office, and also understanding that one has to use, test and learn on each different test and learn on each different part of the compensation process.

Can the Minister say when things Can the Minister say when things will be speeded up and it may be too early to say is there an end date in sight? But even an end year in sight for deceased claims would be very welcome. Victims and groups have referred ibca and the processes to the Public Affairs and Constitutional Affairs Committee in the House of Commons. So can I ask the Minister, will both Ibca and the Cabinet Office cooperate fully with any requests for evidence that that committee might seek? I do want to thank the government for increasing transparency.

We have, over many years in your lordships House, been concerned about some of the secrecy about arrangements. A lot of this goes right back 50 years to when doctors were not very clear about their own arrangements, and there certainly wasn't paperwork. But it is good that the names of the expert group and the minutes of their meetings are now published. I hope there will continue to be more transparency about the arrangements. I have a specific query about the arrangements regarding the assessment of severe mental health continuous treatment.

Apparently, the government are insisting on six months of continuous treatment as the benchmark to justify the supplementary routes for mental health, but the NHS only offers continuous treatment for 20 week periods because there just aren't enough counsellors and psychiatrists available to go round. As a result, there are inevitably gaps in treatment in order that other people can also be treated to the victims. This feels like a barrier that none of them can get past, and I wondered if the Minister could look at this particular problem.

There are concerns about the processing of deceased claims. I see that there is a proposal to have the first claims started. I'm sorry, I've just read that bit out. I will not do so again. The victims continue to be very concerned about Treasury and HMRC stance on inheritance tax. As Lady Finn outlined, society for Trust and Estate Practitioners and the Association of Lifetime Lawyers have written a letter to the Chancellor of the Exchequer and copied to the Paymaster General to point out that in their discussions with HMRC over the additional report on compensation, which Sir Brian Langstaff published earlier this year, they remain particularly concerned about this payment.

The issue is that the government has confirmed that compensation payments should be free from income tax, capital gains tax and inheritance tax. But unfortunately, because of the way IHT operates, this principle is not being upheld consistently. And there are three points where the infected or affected persons are alive. When compensation is paid, they get a tax credit to ensure the sums are not later taxed in their estate, but where the victims or their loved ones have sadly died before receiving compensation.

The payments flow through their estates without the benefits of such a credit. Their beneficiaries can therefore face IHT charges in some cases at 40% on compensation specifically designed to provide redress for a heinous act by governments. Many governments over many years, then this so-called secondary transfer problem is particularly acute, where compensation first passes to a surviving spouse or civil partner, and then on to children or other relatives. In such cases, significant proportions of compensation are lost to tax.

Throughout the inquiry, the last government, and indeed this government Ministers made it clear that passed benefits would not be called back at a settlement. Money, surely, my Lords, the same must be true for Treasury and HMRC. It would be iniquitous for an infected person to die. Their settlement passed to their widow, who dies, say, within a month. But anything passed on to their children is severely taxed. So what is it that is different about infected blood? To a general principles on IHT is that entire families are badly affected by the experience of their loved one.

And this isn't just in medical terms. We have to remember that they were also shunned in their communities, particularly those who had Aids losing homes and jobs because of ill health. It would be awful to punish them through that taxation. So please can I ask the Minister if she would agree to a meeting with Treasury to discuss this issue? It's not a good look for Treasury to give billions with one hand and then claw back with the other. I do thank the noble Lord, the Minister, for the statement, and hope she will continue to keep your lordships House informed of progress and issues in the weeks to come, including the regulations that we

**** Possible New Speaker ****

will look at very shortly. My Lords. I am, as ever, very grateful to.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I am, as ever, very grateful to. The noble Baroness for the. Thoughtful and. Productive points. Raised on this issue. It is very.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

It is very. Easy for. Members of your lordships House to get. Caught up in some of the politics of this.
15:46
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent Portrait Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Labour)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

Of of. Many issues, but on the issue of infected blood, this has genuinely. Been a cross-party and cross house Been a cross-party and cross house approach, and I hope that that will continue to be the theme that we adopt. At the heart of everything that we are trying to do is the victims of one of the most is to support the victims of one of the most heinous experiences the state has ever undertaken, and we need to fix it not only for them, but as a member of your Lordships' House reminded us last time, to ensure that the wider society can have faith that the state can be a force for good.

And I truly believe it can. My Lord, since I last updated the House in July, I truly believe significant progress has been made and this demonstrates that we are committed to moving forward both swiftly and with the community at the front and centre of what we are doing. I know in other contexts, the noble Baroness, Lady Finn and I have an interesting discussions about the concept of test and learn. But truly, if we think about what we're trying to do is to compensate many thousands of people with up to 11.8 billion, although that is not a target or a goal, but that is the amount allocated currently.

We're trying to get the money out the door as quickly as possible to the people that need it. Test and learn has been an appropriate way to do that, to make sure the money is given. Taxpayers money is gets to the people who need it as quickly as possible at the appropriate speed. I would like to respond to a number of the points raised by the noble Baroness. Or as ever, if I've missed something which I may well have done, pretty sure I will have done, I will, right? I'm going to first address the issue of inheritance tax.

Both the noble Baroness have raised it, and it was obviously a theme as well of discussions in the other place. My Lords, I think it would be helpful just to clarify exactly where we are. Anyone in direct receipt of compensation from Ipsa or as a beneficiary of an estate of a deceased infected person, does not need to pay inheritance tax and inheritance tax relief is applied. As the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, said to the estate of the person who received the compensation, whether they received it as an infected person or an affected person.

Under HMRC regulations, the inheritance tax on that person's estate is reduced so that the amount of compensation received is effectively free of any inheritance tax when it passes to the estate beneficiaries. However, once the compensation has passed the beneficiaries, it is treated the same for inheritance tax purposes as any other money or property that they own, and the relief does not apply again, for example, when the beneficiary themselves die where compensation is paid to a person who is affected or infected, and that they then die, the inheritance tax which would otherwise be payable in respect of their estate is relieved.

It doesn't matter who the beneficiary of that estate are. The inheritance tax relief applies. However, once the money is received by those beneficiaries, then inheritance tax applies as normal to as simply as possible. The relief will apply to the estate of the person who is being directly compensated. Whether that person is infected, affected, living, or sadly passed away. Having said that, my Lords, I do appreciate the strength of feeling in your lordships House and having reflected on Hansard, we are listening and I will seek to arrange the meeting with Treasury officials.

I'm about to make myself very popular with the Treasury to discuss this issue, and we'll see if the noble Lord, my noble friend Lord Livermore, is still speaking to me by the end of the day. With regard to the there is also the budget coming. We may have to wait a little bit of time, but I will endeavour to answer the Lords in terms of the issue of the consultation and timing. The consultation will run from 12 weeks to January 26th.

We'll publish a response to the consultation on Gov.uk within 12 weeks of its closing and regulations to change to make changes to the scheme as a result of the consultation will be brought forward next year. The only thing I'd like to say to enable Lords this is a genuine consultation, not a tick box exercise. There are many recommendations that have been made by our technical experts that offer us a range of options within the tariff based system that we will seek to apply, and we genuinely, we should always listen to those people that are affected, but especially in the case of the infected blood community, we need to make sure we get it right for them.

So this is truly about making sure we get the answers needed. Both. Noble Baroness has raised the points of The Independent about the effectiveness of noble Lords may be aware, but on Thursday last week we published a review that we had commissioned in August by Tyrone Urch, reviewing the effectiveness of it to make sure it was able to take us forward for the next stages as quickly as possible. He has made a series of recommendations. We only publish them last week.

Now we're looking to see with Ibca who is appropriate to take them forward. So noble Lords are aware they focussed on three issues stability, resources and digital systems to make sure that we're in the opportunity to move forward. A matter of weeks ago, I visited Ibca to make sure that I was confident in their ability to take steps forward. That option is available to all members of your Lordships' House. For those that are interested, I highly recommend taking a trip to Newcastle to meet with them.

It was an extraordinary experience, of which I'm sure I will reflect on more during these questions. I'd like to reassure in terms of the ability of the staff at Ibca to move forward. Ibca now employs 329 dedicated claim managers who support people with their claims from start to finish. All claim managers are fully trained and complete a three week training programme. This includes working with a clinical psychologist to undertake trauma informed training to ensure claims managers work compassionately with the community.

They are extraordinary people. But then when I met one of them, he said other than the National Lottery, I get to make someone a millionaire every day by working at Ibca, and by the time he has ensured that the payment is in their bank account, he knows the family well. It is a genuinely, if any part of this can be joyful. That part is in terms of the delivery, registered, infected. All have been contacted to claim by October. Unregistered infected first claims begin in November.

Affected and infected estates will begin by the end of the year. My Lords, I appreciate the noble Baroness is concerned about when we will pay, but by the end of 2027 is for the overwhelming majority. I do have an answer. Although time is short about the issue of severe psychological harm and the six months of support, I will write to noble Lady, but just to reassure her ICJ in. So this is about not counselling but psychiatric treatment. A day as an in-patient qualifies you, not six months.

But there is a severity that we are. We are currently as part of the consultation about how we will pay that. My Lords, I will reflect on everything else that has come forward. But what I would want to say is that when I visited earlier this year, not only was I overwhelmed by the expertise and professionalism of those people who I met, but I want to give special mention to IPC's three user consultants, as they're told they're actually members of the infected blood community themselves Jason Evans, Clare Walton and Susan Harris, who advise Epcot on how their processes and plans can be focussed on the needs of those who will be applying for compensation.

My Lords, given what their personal experiences have been given, how easy it would have been for them to walk away. The fact that they are here helping us fix it is extraordinary. And I want to put on record my huge admiration for them, and I will reflect on the points I have missed and write to noble Baroness.
15:54
15:55
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent Portrait Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Labour)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'd like to put on record my thanks to Baroness Finlay, but also I think I can call her a noble friend, even though she's not on my benches. But I've Baroness Campbell who is much missed, and I'm pleased that we'll be returning to us in the new Year. She raises, as ever, very, very important points. I think trust has increased, but that is difficult to tell in an environment where misinformation is rife and making sure that people have access to genuine information is truly one of the most challenging parts of this.

And we have discussed in your Lordships' House many times the ability of Ithaca to communicate and making sure that they are providing the relevant information. Having said that, I think the claim managers have provided an incredibly important role, and one of the things that we're seeing is when claims are finished. Obviously, this is a small community, relatively speaking. They are asking the claim managers who have just finished with them if they will be the claim manager for their friends, for other members of the community by name.

My Lords, I think that does suggest that at least trust in the claim managers is clear, and that is a really important part of this. With regard to Baroness makes an incredibly important point. Two points, one about access to medical records. While our claim managers are not investigators, where there is clearly paperwork missing, they are working with the recipients to make sure to help them go and find the paperwork. So the emphasis is the onus isn't just on the victim, the the members of the infected blood community, but there is someone helping them get the paperwork.

We are still having challenges, making sure we can get access to some of the medical records, and noble Lords would appreciate that. As we move forward away from the live infected or the registered infected. But when we move towards estate and others, that may well be challenging, but we are working on what new technologies we can use to harness some of that material. And in terms of advice to recipients who want to be protected, we are giving paid financial advice to make sure that is that is easily accessed.

My Lords, we have to appreciate these are some very, very vulnerable people who have had horrendous experiences and could be targeted again. So making sure that we can work to protect them is an incredibly important part of what we do going forward here. My Lords.
15:58
15:59
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent Portrait Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Labour)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

will need this kind of attention. I thank my noble friend both for her work in getting us to this her work in getting us to this point. I think both her and Earl Howe and Baroness Brinton as leading negotiators to make sure we got to this point, need always to be that our thanks to be put on record for them. What I can say is she was not allowed to say sorry, but I can say sorry to those people who have been affected by this, and I get to do that because of the fights that she had.

And for that, I am grateful that that I don't have to have so many fights with my civil servants with regards to transparency. Noble Lords will appreciate that we are talking about a cohort of people who have been affected by, who have been affected by infected blood, who have no trust, and rightly, there is no reservoir of goodwill. We have to be as transparent and open as we possibly can to make sure that they know what is happening, why it's happening, and at what speed and in what process.

And while the speed may be or the challenge, we have to make sure that that is in place. One of the things that I haven't said yet, but I wanted to put on record, is that as of the 1st of October, staff at Ipqa are now directly employed and are no longer seconded civil servants. They're now public servants who work for Ipqa. I think that also helps lead to both transparency and trust of Ipqa going forward. And I hope that in addition to the fact that we publish everything that all of the and the reviews are making sure that we have the ability to do that moving forward, but including the publication of the the transparent publication of the technical Group meeting group, everything we're doing is trying to rebuild trust with that community.
16:00
16:02
16:03
None Portrait Legislation: Diego Garcia Military Base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill - second reading
-

My My Lord, shall we begin Second Reading of the Diego Garcia military base in British Indian Ocean Territory? Bill Baroness Chapman of Darlington.
16:03
Baroness Chapman of Darlington Portrait Baroness Chapman of Darlington, Minister of State (Development) (Labour)
-
-
My Lords, I beg to move that this bill be. Now read a second time, my Lords, the bill that we are to discuss today is vital for the security of our nation. It enables the ratification and entry into force of the treaty between the UK and Mauritius concerning the Chagos Archipelago, including Diego Garcia, and thus protects the operation of an essential UK military base in the Indian Ocean. The consequences of not ratifying this treaty cannot be underestimated.

The inevitable effect would be to expose the UK to an unacceptable level of risk and legal uncertainty, which could deny US key military and security capabilities, dramatically reducing the effectiveness of our armed forces and security services. A binding judgement against the UK from an international court or tribunal would undermine our ability to operate globally, to protect UK influence and counter the threats we face in an increasingly dangerous world. And it would be it would put at risk security at home.

My Lords, I understand that the treaty has divided opinion. We have had good debates, both in this House and the other place on its substance. And I, of course, welcome this scrutiny. Since the government signed the treaty, there have been statements and debates across both houses, hundreds of questions raised and answered, and the completion of several committee inquiries by learned colleagues. My Lords, the necessity of the Diego Garcia treaty and of this bill has been amply demonstrated. It has been tested in detail by both the International Agreements Committee and the International Relations and Defence Committee.

Both agreed that protection of the strategic value of Diego Garcia, a vital national asset, was necessary. The IAC clearly set out the path to significant risks to the base, and if the treaty were not ratified and the Diego Garcia treaty has the support of our international allies, the United States has been engaged throughout the negotiations and support it. So do the rest of our Five Eyes partners, Japan, South Korea and India support it. The UN, the Commonwealth and the African Union all welcomed it.

Our overseas territory family supports it. The list goes on. My Lords, I welcome the opportunity to test this further today. The treaty is an important matter that the government considered with great care. We bore the full weight of responsibility not only for the security of the British people, but for the integrity of the UK's position on the global stage, and for respect for the experiences of those that had lived on the islands. This treaty is critical to our national security. The base holds a range of vital capabilities.

Some of them are highly secret, but I know that those with experience in this House will understand the military advantage of being able to rapidly deploy forces across the Middle East, East Africa and South Asia and will appreciate the political and security importance of operating such a prized asset. Jointly with our closest partner, the United States. The deal preserves this vital security footprint. With it, we will retain full operational control over Diego Garcia with robust provisions to keep adversaries out.

These include unrestricted access to and the use of the base for the UK and US. A buffer zone around Diego Garcia, a UK veto to ensure no development or construction on outer islands, threatens base operations, and a ban on the presence of any foreign security forces. No protections were designed, tested and endorsed at the highest level of the US political and security establishment. My Lords, the government acted to protect this vital asset because it faced an existential threat.

This was well understood by the previous government, which is why they started negotiations over three years ago, negotiations that they entered in good faith, despite what we heard in the other place, and continued for 11 rounds, including detailed text based negotiations in the weeks and months before the general election, it was under the previous government that Mauritius secured its string of legal and political victories against the UK. Noble Lords will be aware of the 2019 advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice and the loss of votes at the UN General Assembly.

This was followed in 2021 by a ruling by a Special Chamber of the International Tribunal for the law of the sea, on a maritime delineation dispute between Mauritius and the Maldives. The Special Chamber, in a decision which was binding on the parties to the dispute, ruled that Mauritius's sovereignty was inferred from the Icj's determinations. This gave a clear indication of how this tribunal and quite possibly other international courts and tribunals, would approach the ICJ. Advisory opinion and the sovereignty dispute between the UK and Mauritius.

I urge my noble Lords to reflect on the sound conclusions of the International Agreement Committee and the International Relations Committee. The learned members of both committees took evidence from eminent legal scholars, including a former member of the ICJ. The IAC concluded that if the treaty is not ratified, Mauritius is likely to resume its campaign against the UK through international courts, and that it had heard evidence that any international court looking at this issue would be unlikely to find in favour of the UK putting the base at risk.

The government has been clear about the legal position. Had a long term deal not been reached, it was highly likely that wide ranging litigation would have been brought quickly against the UK. There were several potential routes for this, which included further arbitral proceedings against the UK under annexe seven of the UN convention of the law of the sea. A judgement from such a tribunal would be legally binding on the UK. The long standing legal view of the United Kingdom has been that we would not have a realistic prospect of successfully defending our legal position on sovereignty in such litigation, even if we had chosen to ignore legally binding judgements against the UK, their legal effect on third countries and international organisations would have given rise to real impacts to the operation of the base and the delivery of all its national security functions.

We've all heard the counter positions that the government is bowing to an opinion, which is merely advisory, that there was no viable route to a binding judgement. But these, I'm afraid, simply do not reflect the reality of this situation. It is clear that securing a deal was essential. The agreement that the government has signed protects the base for generations and is firmly in the national interest. But, my Lords, the government did not secure the base at any cost.

We negotiated a deal that is good value for money for the British people. The full financial details were published alongside the treaty on the day of signature. The average cost per year in today's money is £101 million, and the net present value of payments under the treaty is £3.4 billion. These figures have been verified by the government Actuary's Department. These figures draw on long established methodology used under this government and previous governments to account for long term projects.

We have all heard, and I suspect that we will hear again today, that the opposition claim that the cost is higher. My Lords, this is grossly misleading. Accounting norms and processes set out in the Green Book are there for a reason, so we can understand the true value of things. Let us debate those values with transparency, not exaggeration or manipulation. For political point scoring. Noble Lords, I suspect that some in this House will have heard concerns regarding undue influence on Mauritius from hostile forces.

The opposition was clearly quite vocal on the subject in the other place though. Interestingly, we heard barely a peep before the 4th of July last year when they were in negotiations. The treaty is the only way to ensure the base continues to operate, as it has done with all the protections that I listed earlier, including threats from our adversaries. Whereas had Mauritius secured a binding judgement against the UK, there would have been nothing to stop them leasing different islands to different countries, dramatically undermining the utility of this prized military asset.

My Lords, as with any government policy, it is crucial that we discuss the people who are at the heart of it. And I know that there is a deep strength of feeling genuinely held in both this and the other place about Chagossians. And let me be clear, this government deeply, deeply regrets the way the Chagossians were removed from the islands. We are committed to building a relationship with the Chagossian community that is built on respect and acknowledgement of the wrongs of the past.

The negotiations on the treaty were necessarily state to state between Mauritius and the UK, and it is true that our priority was to secure the base. But that doesn't mean that the interests of the Chagossian community were set aside. Indeed, the treaty has the support of many in the Chagossian community. Olivier Bankole, chair of the Chagossian Refugee Group, the largest Chagossian group, has said, we remain convinced that this agreement provides the only way forward and in a recent communiqué urged all members of the UK Parliament to support the bill.

The treaty provides that Mauritius may develop a programme of resettlement on the Chagos Archipelago. Other than Diego Garcia, and noble Lords will also be aware of the £40 million trust Fund for Mauritius to use in support of Chagossians. I know many in this House are interested in the operation of these commitments, my noble friend Lord Collins noted in this place that ahead of ratification, the government would make a ministerial statement in both houses, providing a factual update on eligibility for resettlement and the modalities of the trust fund.

I know that many noble Lords are also interested in the environmental consequences of the treaty. It is crucial that one of the world's most pristine marine environments is protected, and both this government and Mauritius are committed to that. Mauritian Prime Minister Ramgoolam has publicly stated his commitment to the Marine Protected Area and confirmed it directly to the former Environment secretary at the UN Oceans Conference in June. Just yesterday, the Mauritian government announced plans for the establishment of the Chagos Archipelago Marine Protected Area.

This will be based on the robust International Union for the Conservation of Nature categories for marine protected areas. Critically, it makes clear that there will be no commercial fishing across the entire 640,000 square kilometre area. The Great Chagos Bank will be given one of the highest levels of protection, with the rest of the MPA categorised as highly protected conservation zone. There will be limited provision for controlled levels of artisanal fishing in confined zones intended for resettlement to allow for sustenance of the Chagossian community, while maintaining the commitment to nature conservation.

This development should assuage concerns that we've heard in this House and the other place that Mauritian about Mauritian commitments to environmental protections, my Lords, despite this progress and the passage of the bill in the other place, there are still those here who want to relitigate the debate that we had in July. There will be there are motions intended to probe and amend and at committee and report. And they are they are welcome. But those that are designed to wreck are not about the welfare of a community, but a cynical tactic of delay and disruption.

My Lords, the opposition frontbench has tried blocking ratification, yet seemed unable to accept the will of this House. And I'm disappointed but unsurprised that we all now look likely to have to witness an unedifying spectacle of them having another go. Noble Lords will notice that today we're not considering a committal motion to commit the bill to committee today. Noble Lords, it is, as you know, extremely unusual to table a motion to seek to divide the House, to delay the passage of government legislation passed by the House of Commons.

It is even more unusual for the opposition, as they've indicated they would do, to press such a motion to a vote on the floor of the House. And we know that His Majesty's opposition do take their responsibilities seriously. They've said on multiple occasions to my noble friend, the Leader of the House of Lords, that their motivation is to properly challenge and to scrutinise government legislation. That is the job, that it's not to block legislation or to stop the government getting its programme through.

But let me share the truth of this matter. The amendment to the motion favoured by Lord Callanan is, in effect, a fatal motion. It makes committal, it makes, and I will explain why it makes committal conditional on consultation. It is not credible to undertake meaningful consultation in the 30 days period set out in the motion, and it would therefore risk progress towards ratification, becoming bogged down in litigation. And I think the frontbench opposite should know that.

And if they don't know that, then I would be very surprised. The motion wrecks the bill and would mean a delay not of 30 days, but of months and maybe years. In these circumstances, the bill and the treaty that is intended to implement could not move ahead. This is both reckless and deeply cynical. It is reckless because it threatens the continued operation of the base on Diego Garcia, and with that, the national security of the British people. Cynical because the opposition now seek to use for their own ends a community they systematically disregarded when in government.

We all know their record, the decision not to consult Chagossians when meaningful consultation was possible at the start of negotiations. The decision in 2016 not to permit any resettlement by Chagossians across the archipelago. The dramatic failure to spend 96% of the £40 million commitment to support Chagossians. My Lords, it is worth contrasting this record with the record of this government. We're financing a new trust fund for Mauritius to use in support of the Chagossian community. We're working with Mauritius to start a new programme of visits for Chagossians to the Chagos Archipelago, including Diego Garcia, and the treaty we have entered allows Mauritius to develop a programme of resettlement on the islands.

Other than Diego Garcia. This government is also increasing our support to Chagossians living in the UK through new and existing projects. My Lords, these are initiatives that actually deliver for Chagossians, not empty promises or hollow words. The Bill, my Lords, is relatively short. It preserves the current laws of the British Indian Ocean Territory as Lords, the laws that will continue to apply to Diego Garcia once the treaty is in force, allowing for the base's continued effective operation with minimal disruption.

The bill also grants the new power to make domestic legal changes needed to implement the treaty and manage responsibly the base's future operation. There will be no change to the British nationality status that any Chagossian currently holds, whether British citizen citizenship or British Overseas Territory citizenship and current pathways for Chagossians to acquire British citizenship are also maintained. Most of the provisions in the bill will only commence when the treaty enters into force. I trust that we will have, and I think I'm right, a lively and thorough debate on this subject matter, and I look forward to debating the contents of this

**** Possible New Speaker ****

bill. I beg to move. ODA question is that this bill be. Now read a second time.
16:22
Lord Callanan Portrait Lord Callanan (Conservative)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords. I thank the noble Lady for introducing the Bill, and I will come to some of her points shortly. But this is now the second shortly. But this is now the second opportunity that we've had to debate the UK Mauritius Agreement concerning the Chagos Archipelago, including Diego Garcia. But it is, of course, the first time that your lordships House has been asked to approve the agreement in law. Now, when we debated the motion to approve the treaty under the Crag process at that stage, I lamented the fact that the Other place was denied the opportunity of a substantive debate on the treaty.

At that point, if the government is so confident in its arguments, why did it deny the other House the opportunity to debate it properly? As I said then, the government played fast and loose with the Convention on Treaty approval, despite promises that have been given by their own Ministers. When the Crag process was first introduced, the government was elected on the back of pledges to put public service and integrity first refusing to adhere to the conventions in this case hardly lived up to those promises.

That said, as a responsible official opposition and recognising the primacy of the Other place which approved the bill at Third Reading, we will not seek to deny it. A Second Reading today. We already know that the Other place did not have the opportunity to debate the treaty when it was laid before the House, and this bill subsequently received minimal scrutiny. In fact, Committee stage and Third Reading were both taken on the same day, and a total of just 17 hours of debate were allocated to a bill that fundamentally changes our strategic security role in the Indian Ocean and puts £35 billion worth of taxpayers money in the hands of politicians thousands of miles away from the UK.

My Lords, not only was there no mention of the Bill in the Labour manifesto, there was a specific promise to protect our overseas territories. I quote defending our security also means protecting the British Overseas Territories and Crown dependencies. Labour will always defend their sovereignty and right to self-determination, was what your manifesto said at the election. It seems. My Lords, the tax is not the only manifesto commitment that's being binned today. Crucially, my Lords, the views of the Chagossian people have not been heard and we feel it is only right that the government should be required to consult the Chagossian community on the implementation of this treaty, including on the establishment of the Chagossian Trust Fund that the noble Lady talked about, which the UK taxpayer will fund.

But the Mauritian government has sole responsibility to distribute however they see fit. That is why I tabled the amendment to the original motion. That amendment would have required the government to consult the Chagossian community over a period of 30 days, and if the noble Lady is concerned that 30 days is not long enough, we actually talked about making it longer, but we did not do that because we wanted the government to have the opportunity to get their bill in this session of Parliament.

If I had set the motion at three months, the noble Lady would be standing up here and saying, there is no time to have a committee debate before the end of this session. The opposition are trying to deny us the bill. We deliberately selected a short period so that the noble Lady could not argue that we were trying to wreck the bill, because that was not our intention. It was a measured, reasonable approach which we felt would have made up completely for the government's failure to consult the Chagossians to date and help us in our work to give this bill a proper scrutiny it deserves, informed by the outcome of that consultation.

It was not a wrecking amendment, and the noble Lady knows that in her heart of hearts, without that additional consultation.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

If the noble gentleman was so concerned to do this one, why didn't he consult earlier? But two didn't he consult earlier? But two he can achieve his aims which would not be wrecking, and would be perfectly legitimate by amendment perfectly legitimate by amendment to the bill delaying implementation. Perhaps those things are standard and he could make his case. He and he could make his case. He could win his vote, perhaps even. And he could achieve the aims, should they be genuine and not a wrecking amendment.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

wrecking amendment. Well, how how is this? This treaty is due to last 100 years. How is it a wrecking amendment to How is it a wrecking amendment to take 30 days to consult the people that will be affected by it? The noble Lady is talking nonsense and she knows it. Without that additional consultation, the Chagossian people, we fear that Chagossian people, we fear that this bill, which receives so little scrutiny in the other place, will go on to become law without the affected Chagossians having their views heard, as they rightly should.

And I know a number of them have turned up in the public gallery to turned up in the public gallery to hear this debate today. I hope that the government's decision to withdraw the committal motion at the last moment is an indication that they are listening to us and want to think about this more want to think about this more deeply. It is clear to us that we need that consultation. So I call upon the noble Baroness to bring it forward as part of the committal forward as part of the committal motion.

When they eventually bring it back to the House. My Lords, as I said, this treaty, the government intends this treaty to last 100 years. Surely we can take one month to consult the people most affected by it. Now, to call this bill a surrender bill is an understatement. This is a strategic capitulation that will see us give away sovereign territory that has been British for two centuries. And to add insult to injury, taxpayers are paying tens of billions to Mauritius for the privilege of doing so.

We know the important strategic role that the British Indian Ocean Territory has played internationally as a staging post for forward operations in both the Indian Ocean and in the Middle East, handing over sovereignty even with the lease agreement in respect of Diego Garcia military base puts in our view, that strategic role in jeopardy. In particular, the requirement in the agreement that Mauritius must be informed of armed attacks on third states directly emanating from the base in Diego Garcia is an astounding failure of diplomacy.

Could the government tell us how this would actually work in practice, in a rapidly changing armed conflict? Has the US who actually run this base agreed to do that? How would it work in practice? How would we inform them in an emergency situation with proper notice, to enable us to take strategic action as required? Now, I know that my noble friend Baroness Goldie is going to expand on some of the security implications of this agreement, but we are clear that this agreement is a capitulation that weakens our influence on the international stage.

It is a surrender orchestrated by international lawyers and implemented by a Prime Minister who is either unwilling or unable to stand up for the UK national interest. But this bill does not just relate to the UK's affairs Indian Ocean in the Indian Ocean. My Lords, the sheer cost of the treaty with Mauritius make this bill a domestic issue to. By pressing ahead with this legislation, the government are facilitating an agreement that will see the UK pay almost £35 billion to Mauritius.

Now I notice that the noble Lady spent quite a bit of her time disagreeing with those figures. And yet only one hour ago, when I asked her how much of the Oda budget is being dedicated to this agreement, she got a cheap lap, avoided the question once again as she has now done four times. But she knows, as I know, that some of that Oda budget is being used to fund this agreement. If she wishes to be so transparent and disagreeing with our figures, why don't you tell us how much of it is

**** Possible New Speaker ****

going to be spent from the Oda budget? She can stand up and do it now if she wishes. I shouldn't. All of our Oda

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I shouldn't. All of our Oda spending is published. It's probably one of the most transparent bits of government funding. I will send him the website address. He can have a look in satisfying himself on this point.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

in satisfying himself on this point. Well, I'm grateful for that. That's a concession of sorts. I've only asked the question four times only asked the question four times during questions so far. Now that she's willing to be more transparent, I'd say that's progress at least. But against that progress at least. But against that backdrop, hard working Britons will be furious that Ministers have somehow found 35 billion to send somehow found 35 billion to send 6000 miles away. When we face such financial challenges here at home, the fact is, my Lords, that the the fact is, my Lords, that the treaty facilitated by this bill will fund tax cuts for Mauritius while taxes are being hiked here at home.

We put this deal on hold, and when we were in government, when it when we were in government, when it was in its infancy, we saw its flaws and we posed it. Alas, Ministers no longer have the clarity of mind needed to deliver

**** Possible New Speaker ****

clarity of mind needed to deliver for the British people, and. That is. That is factually incorrect. And

**** Possible New Speaker ****

That is factually incorrect. And I would like to give the noble Lord the opportunity to correct that. It was paused. But the noble Lord, was paused. But the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, when he was appointed negotiations.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'm happy to tell the noble Lady that I've spoken to Lord Cameron about that, and he also agreed that about that, and he also agreed that it was paused, which I think she has just confirmed. Alas, Ministers no longer have the clarity of mind needed to deliver for the British needed to deliver for the British people. And as so often with this government, they have allowed themselves to be taken in by their international lawyer, friends and donors. My Lords, this all begs the question why? Why did Ministers question why? Why did Ministers feel the need to pursue this agreement that puts Britain's interests last? Why has the government seen fit to saddle government seen fit to saddle taxpayers with an additional financial burden? At a time when we're all being softened up for massive tax rises from the Chancellor of the Exchequer? Ministers have told us she did it Ministers have told us she did it again today, that this agreement is a legal necessity.

But as we heard from my noble friend Lord Wolfson from my noble friend Lord Wolfson of Tredegar, when we debated the motion to approve the treaty, and I would commend his speech to noble Lords who have not had the chance Lords who have not had the chance to interest to see it yet. There are a range of views among very senior lawyers on this matter. The government cannot hide behind legal advice unless they want to publish advice unless they want to publish it all.

For us all to see. This was a political decision for which Ministers must take the political Ministers must take the political responsibility. Indeed, my Lords, the almost single minded obsession with international law has blinded the government to the real threat from a country that itself pays absolutely no heed whatsoever to that same international law. We know that China has said that it wants to deepen its strategic partnership with Mauritius. As recently as the 15th of May this year, China's ambassador to Mauritius said the People's Republic of China wanted to strengthen ties with Mauritius and notice the countries noted the country's strategic advantages, expressed a commitment to elevating the bilateral strategic partnership.

The Chinese ambassador to Mauritius has also on the record, offering, unsurprisingly, massive congratulations on the deal and stating that China fully supports Mauritius attempts to safeguard national sovereignty. It's a shame that China doesn't show that same regard to the national sovereignty of other nations. My Lords, this is who the government have appeased with this agreement. When the government took office, they claimed they would protect our national security. So can the noble Baroness please explain how ceding national sovereignty to a country that is known to be deepening its ties with the nation that we know to be a threat to the UK, will help them achieve that manifesto commitment.

As the Official Opposition, we will seek to amend the Bill in your lordships House to ensure that Chagossian community are properly consulted, and that the agreement facilitated by this Bill does not put the desires of international lawyers before the interests of the British people who have paid the taxes, which are now to be transferred with careless abandon to Mauritius. Speaking of the rights of the Chagossians, I find myself on this occasion in the unusual position of agreeing with noble Lords to my left, when I say that the government has not handled this well in the other place, the Liberal Democrat spokesman, Doctor Al Pinkerton, said this bill fails the Chagossian people on this.

We agree Ministers have failed to properly consult the Chagossians to the point that the community is now furious with this government. As we've all seen from our email inboxes. But, my Lords, there was another way in the other place. The shadow Foreign secretary, Priti Patel, tabled a presentation bill which included specific requirements to consult and engage with British Chagossians in relation to any proposed changes to the sovereignty and constitutional arrangements of the British Indian Ocean Territory. My Lords, that is what should happen.

The Chagossian community should be heard and not ignored. In conclusion, my Lords, the question at the core of all our debates will remain. Is this treaty a good deal for Britain? Does this bill put us in the service of the British people? I do not think that it does. And we will set our reasons in detail. If the Bill ever

**** Possible New Speaker ****

returns to your lordships House, I will give way to the noble Lord. noble Lord, I have listened very carefully to all these carefully to all these contributions. I fear he's missed something out, so I want to help him. Can he just explain briefly? Then, if international law advice which was given to the previous administration, which has not changed for this administration changed for this administration over the status of British sovereignty, if that has changed. And secondly, why did James Cleverly, on the 3rd of November 2022, make a statement to 2022, make a statement to Parliament saying that that government had decided to begin negotiations on the exercise of negotiations on the exercise of sovereignty over the Biot Chagos Archipelago? Why, if everything he Archipelago? Why, if everything he said is a point of principle, why did the previous government accept that negotiations had to start on

**** Possible New Speaker ****

that negotiations had to start on ceding sovereignty? Yes. Well. I'm always suspicious when the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'm always suspicious when the Liberal Democrats say they want to be helpful. We have we have debated all of these points at length. all of these points at length. There were, if you listen to the answer, there were, of course, answer, there were, of course, discussions that took place. That is a matter of public record. I've spoken to both James Cleverly and I've spoken to Lord Cameron about this. We're very clear that no agreement was possible on the terms that have been outlined.

That is why the negotiations were paused. That is why we did not reach any agreement at the time. That is why we believe the process is flawed

**** Possible New Speaker ****

and why we will oppose this bill. Now watch. Although I don't. I have been.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I have been. Advised that it is not obligatory for me to declare an interest in this matter, but on the interest in this matter, but on the basis it is better to be safe than sorry, I will declare an interest, sorry, I will declare an interest, which was that during a period in 1979, I was the head of the Foreign 1979, I was the head of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office Department, responsible for the British Indian responsible for the British Indian Ocean Territories.

My Lords, the bill to which we are giving Second
16:37
Lord Hannay of Chiswick Portrait Lord Hannay of Chiswick (Crossbench)
-
-
bill to which we are giving Second Reading today, and I hope that is what we are doing, is by no means the first time the House has debated the UK Mauritius Treaty on the Chagos Islands. Ratification under the Cracks procedure took place on the 30th of June, on the basis of a report from your Lordships International Agreements Committee, on which I have the honour to serve, but not to represent. The House was divided by the opposition on that occasion, but the report was endorsed by a majority, and the Prague's process was thus completed in the sense recommended by the committee.

Today's bill is simply needed to bring our domestic legislation into line with that decision, and I hope that can now be done speedily and without further controversy. And I have to say that it is with some regret that I hear signs that that may not happen. My Lords, the legal testimony, the International Agreements Committee was given before it reached its conclusion that the agreement should be ratified was not unanimous, but the committee's view was that the most compelling evidence was that of Sir Christopher Greenwood, a former British judge of the International Court of Justice.

His view was that if the UK were not to ratify the agreement, Mauritius could be expected to pursue actively the matter through international courts and in the light of the opinion handed down by the International Court of Justice to win such cases, with damaging consequences for our security interests. In the case of Diego Garcia and for those of our closest security ally, the United States. And in addition, Sir Christopher pointed out that it was not correct to assert that the UK agreement with Mauritius amounted to the seceding of sovereignty.

Since the International Court of Justice opinion already established that that step had been taken when the UK had granted independence to Mauritius, and that view was accepted by the international community. My Lords, it is relevant to to recall that governments of both main parties have frequently stood at the despatch box and stated, without ambiguity, that the British government upheld the rules based international order. It cannot seriously be disputed that a finding of the International Court of Justice, whether advisory or mandatory, is an integral part of that rules based order.

So to suggest now that the International Court of Justice opinion could be ignored or set aside would surely be incompatible with those statements of policy so frequently repeated at a time when the rules based order is under such widespread attack, that course could hardly be in our national interest, nor can we afford to ignore the fact that the 99 year lease on the base at Diego Garcia, with the possibility of extension, is sufficient to meet the security requirements of our closest ally, the United States, which is backing the agreement to put those interests at risk by frustrating their implementation, would seem to be an act of singular folly.

And all this is to ignore the fact that, as has been made clear during the course of this debate already, the previous government had held 11 rounds. 11 rounds of negotiations on the basis similar to what has now been concluded in a negotiated agreement. If last year's election had had a different result, can it be seriously doubted that the present opposition would have been defending an agreement similar to the one this House cleared on the 30th of June? Now, none of these considerations invalidate the judgement that successive British governments behaved in a lamentable way towards the Chagossian inhabitants of the islands, many of whom are now British citizens.

The provisions agreed to mitigate these past failings are part of the bill brought to us today, and rightly so. But they are not a reason to reject the agreement or to delay it. To do that would in reality bring no satisfaction or benefit to anyone. Quite the contrary.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I declare my interest as a member of the friends of the British Overseas Territories and an adviser as well. My Lords, it is with great sadness that I rise to
16:41
Baroness Foster of Aghadrumsee Portrait Baroness Foster of Aghadrumsee (Non-affiliated)
-
-
with great sadness that I rise to speak to this Bill. Earlier today I spent some time with my friends from the Chagos Islands, and they have often felt ignored by many governments of different views. But never have they felt as badly treated as by this government. They have taken some court cases to deal with their lack of urgency with this government, as they were left with no other option. And indeed, there is a case still before the courts today.

So even at this late stage, if the government does deign to consult with the Chagos community living here in the UK, it will be at least a start to listening to their needs and to their aspirations, as opposed to being told what is happening to their homeland through government statements. And I was shocked today when I was told by Chagossians living here in the UK, British citizens that despite repeated requests to meet their Members of Parliament in person, they have been told they have no time.

I think that is absolutely wrong and I hope the noble Lady, the Minister, will agree with me that it is wrong. It is anti-democratic and if you're going to support a government policy, at least have the wherewithal to meet those affected by the government policy and defend it to them. Chagossians, I am very pleased to say, have come along today to hear the debate. And also I have to say to the noble Lady, the Minister, they are accompanied today by colleagues from other overseas territories because they too are concerned about what is happening now, no doubt, and we have already heard it.

We're told that this bill is all to do with national security and therefore should not be challenged. And I was told as much in this House when I had the temerity to ask about the details of the trust fund being set up in Mauritius with British taxpayers money, I contend that treating people with dignity and addressing their needs does not mean you are challenging national security needs. The two issues can and should exist together, and it saddens me greatly that this government has chosen a different course.

In January 2015, a report commissioned on behalf of the British Indian Ocean Territory, Biot and carried out by KPMG, carried out a feasibility study for the resettlement of Biot. And that study, unlike our present government, took the views from a range of stakeholders, including the Chagossian communities in Mauritius and the Seychelles. In Manchester, in Crawley and in London. And the study looked in depth at the environmental issues as well. And it concluded this is a public document, that there are no fundamental legal obstacles that would prevent our resettlement of Biot to go ahead.

That's in 2015. Now the government of the day decided not to proceed with resettlement because, of course, but crucially, my Lords, the cost identified for resettlement at that time in the report are nowhere near the costs associated with this date. How have the government arrived at a place where we are now handing Biot to Mauritius and paying for the privilege? And by the way, we've already paid Mauritius because in 1965, when they agreed to Biot being created, we paid them £3 million.

So we've already paid. This is actually us paying again for the privilege. The government has also told us that there are no options but to conduct and conclude, and I think that's the critical issue, because we've heard a lot about these 11 rounds of negotiations, but none were ever concluded. As someone who has had many, many negotiations throughout the years, the deal's not done until the deal is done. And I think that that is the critical issue here. But we've already heard from the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, that there is a lack of clarity on the basis for proceeding with this deal.

And so it is imperative that the legal opinion is shared to bring transparency to what is very, very murky water. We're also advised by the government that investment by the US has paused after the advisory judgement due to the lack of certainty. Surely such certainty could have been provided in another way. We could have asserted sovereignty over our territory instead of colluding in handing it away. That surely would have brought certainty for the American allies as well, would it not? The government also claimed that we have to do this deal to protect the joint US-Uk exclusive access to the electromagnetic spectrum on Diego Garcia, but the International Telecommunications Union, which supervises global communications technology, has no enforcement mechanisms to either terminate or interrupt our satellite operations on the Chagos Islands.

And I thank Policy Exchange for their work in this area and in particular their publication, The Chagos Debacle a critique of the British government's shifting rationales. As former NATO commander and Royal Navy Rear Admiral Chris Parry has recently said, handing away the Chagos Islands is the biggest mistake I've seen in my lifetime. So moving to the specific of the bill, or rather the lack of specifics in the bill, there is very little detail on the face of this bill. We are told that there will be secondary legislation, there will be ministerial statements to deal with a lot of the issues.

That means that there will be less scrutiny of those issues. And it's a matter of record that the Chagossian people were forcibly removed from their homes in the late 1960s, and by doing so, the government is now telling us that they do not have the right to self-determination. Now, I find this very skewed thinking. So you remove the Chagos Islanders from their homes by force, and now you don't have self-determination. I think it's morally wrong. And at the very least, what should be happening is a referendum with those of Chagossian heritage here in the UK, because despite what previous Mauritian administrations have had to say, the Chagos people are a distinct people on the basis of ethnicity and of religion and should be afforded the respect they deserve, not forced into a country which they have no affinity with and which is 1300 miles away.

So let me be clear. If Mauritius was the closest country, geography is not political destiny, and I want to make that clear for a whole variety of reasons, especially when you have a distinct people. KPMG, on behalf of BIOT, consulted in the past in a meaningful way with the citizens back in 20 1415, and the government should do so again. This is an historic decision we are making here, and I think we absolutely need to listen to what the Chagossians have to say.

The bill has nothing to say about the welfare of British Chagossians not one clause is drafted to deal with our needs, and on the face of the bill, there's nothing about the money. £40 million, which has been sent to set up a trust fund in Mauritius for Chagossians who live there. But we've told the British Chagossians will not benefit from that trust fund. Now. Many Chagossians have left Mauritius in the past few months as they choose to be British and not live under the authority of Mauritius.

And of course, those Chagossians who choose to remain in Mauritius are content with what is happening and they are supporters of the Mauritian regime. And that's why we shouldn't be surprised that there are statements coming out in support of this deal from Mauritius as regards visiting the atoll well, that we understand will be at the discretion of the Mauritian government, a government which up until very recently denied the very existence of the Chagos people, telling them that they were Mauritian instead, and having listened to many Chagossians talk about their identity, the last thing they are is Mauritian.

So finally, there's nothing on the face of this bill about the very fragile and internationally important eco structure of the many little islands and their marine area. And I recognise that the noble Lady, the Minister, has referenced the environment in her opening speech, and I'm pleased to hear that there has been some movement in relation to that. I know there are very many who are concerned about the stewardship of the environment in the future. Given that we are giving away all of this to the Mauritian government without any sanctions, if the eco system is damaged.

So I do hope the government will consult with the Chagossian people. I think that they deserve to be listened to even at this late stage, and I hope that the government will take the opportunity to do so.
16:51
Lord Lilley Portrait Lord Lilley (Conservative)
-
-
I Lord, it's a great privilege.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Baroness Foster of. Aghadrumsee. I'm tempted just to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Aghadrumsee. I'm tempted just to say ditto and. Sit down. But that's. Not the. Practice in this place. So I

**** Possible New Speaker ****

will focus on some. Aspects which. Differ from the. Focus she gave,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Differ from the. Focus she gave, and it will Which was diluted a bit today, and the defence put forward by the noble Minister. The original noble Minister. The original statement by the Defence Secretary said without this deal, within said without this deal, within weeks we could face legal rulings, losing legal rulings. Within just a few years, the base would become few years, the base would become inoperable. Now, what is the inoperable.

Now, what is the likelihood of us facing a legally binding ruling? And if so, I would binding ruling? And if so, I would ask the Minister from which court is it likely to come? The first, as is it likely to come? The first, as even the Foreign Office recognises, the opinion of the International Court of Justice was purely advisory, not binding. Secondly, it was based on UN General Assembly resolutions. Such resolutions are not legally binding, especially as they have not been endorsed by the Security Council.

Third, when the UK signed up to the International Court of Justice, our declaration specifically said that the government of the UK excluded, and I quote, the jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice on any dispute with the government of any other country which is or has been a member of the Commonwealth, as is Mauritius. Hence, the opinion of the ICJ was triply non-binding and no future ruling of the ICJ on this dispute could be binding on US. Ministers never mention these facts either.

They are unaware of them. They don't want us to know. Instead, they segue on to discussing the UN convention on the law of the sea, as the noble Baroness did today, since that also has a tribunal. But article 298 of that treaty provides that states may at any time exclude disputes concerning military activities. So it's hard to see how the tribunal tribunal could reach a binding ruling, which would impede our use of the base. Still, less do so in ways that the defence Minister originally spelt out when he said rulings against us would mean we could not prevent hostile nations from setting up installations on the outer islands.

No. And we could not guarantee the safe birth of our submarines. We could not patrol the waters around the base. We could not control the airspace directly above or protect the integrity of our communications system. All that seems impossible to come from a tribunal, which excludes or where we can exclude military matters. Now, these are not the only issues which the government refuses to address. They never mention even the explanatory memorandum on the agreement ignores it. The Pelindaba treaty, to which Mauritius is a signatory.

It's signed by all countries in the African region, and Mauritius is one. Making Africa a nuclear free zone, the treaty allows no reservations at the time or subsequently. So it will apply to Diego Garcia and it cannot be overridden by the treaty unless Mauritius our treaty unless Mauritius resigns from the Pelindaba treaty. Do Ministers do the Americans accept that that will mean no nuclear weapons carrying vessels or planes can use the base? Now, the agreement with Mauritius relates purportedly to the completing the decolonisation of Mauritius.

There are two relevant principles which have a bearing on the process of decolonisation. Colonisation. The first is the right of self-determination, and the second is the integrity, the principle of territorial integrity. This agreement elevates the principle of territorial integrity above that of the right of self-determination. It's bizarre that boundaries laid by and former administrative arrangements imposed on an area by the colonial power should be treated as so sacrosanct, whereas the rights of the people who were displaced and many would like to return or have the right to return, are to be ignored.

And even more so given, as my noble friend, the Lord Callanan pointed out, given the promise in the Labour Party manifesto that they would. Support the sovereignty and integrity and right to self-determination of peoples in the British overseas territories. I wait in the summing up to hear how they reconcile that promise made to the British people and to the peoples of those territories with what they're doing today. So why is the government ploughing ahead? Well, of course, they refer to the fact that negotiations began under a previous government, although they were paused by Lord Cameron.

But at the time they were paused, I found myself discussing with a Foreign Office official. The way I heard him mention the agreement. I said, isn't it good that the these negotiations have been paused? And he obviously didn't approve the negotiations. He said, oh, it'll make no difference. They'll continue. It's the settled policy of the Foreign Office, whichever government is in power, that we shall continue with these processes to give away the sovereignty of. When I subsequently, of course, of

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the noble Lord, all of the. Legal considerations that he has

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Legal considerations that he has outlined to the House in his remarks, all of them, including the remarks, all of them, including the latter part of his remarks, pre-date November 2022, when the pre-date November 2022, when the previous government started negotiations to cede sovereignty. negotiations to cede sovereignty. They took all of his remarks into consideration. Why did they start

**** Possible New Speaker ****

consideration. Why did they start negotiations to cede sovereignty? noble Lords, Lib Dems always do, is making a party political point. I'm making I'm I'm accepting that both parties are allowing both parties are allowing themselves to be driven by the settled policy of the Foreign Office, and we've got to recognise Office, and we've got to recognise that. But whenever it started, the policy of the Foreign Office will policy of the Foreign Office will continue, probably for another 22 years. Anyone who's been a Minister knows every department has a settled policy, unless Ministers come along and determine to overthrow it, then it continues.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

overthrow it, then it continues. Are grateful. Earlier in 2022, the government's view was that the government's view was that there would be no change to the sovereignty of Chagos. That was a statement given to Parliament in early 2022. The policy changed under Liz Truss as Prime Minister and James Cleverly as foreign secretary, to start negotiations to cede sovereignty. If there had been a settled will, it had been the one before the government changed policy. It was his government that

**** Possible New Speaker ****

changed the policy. Yes. Of course it was. But it allowed it to be changed from pressure from it to be changed from pressure from the Foreign Office. We can go into the archaeology of when this the archaeology of when this surfaced in the form of government policy and when it was internal, but I've no doubt it was. And whenever I've spoken to Foreign whenever I've spoken to Foreign Office officials, they've acknowledged that we're not bound really by rulings of the court, and really by rulings of the court, and nor are we likely to be, nor by any the obligations of any treaty.

But they argue that Britain must nonetheless abide, even by non binding advisory opinions, since if binding advisory opinions, since if we don't, how can we tell other countries that they must abide by countries that they must abide by international law? That's precisely the agreement. The argument that was forwarded by the noble Lord was forwarded by the noble Lord Hannay just now. It's touching that our diplomats believe that countries which might otherwise flout international obligations and rulings will change their ways and become law abiding if they see us obeying rulings that we don't have obeying rulings that we don't have to abide by and being purer than pure.

I believe the policy of the pure. I believe the policy of the Foreign Office, and above all, the policy of elected officials in charge of the Foreign Office should be to pursue British interests not set about setting examples to other countries and virtue signalling. This is what this is doing, and it's weak. For that reason, I hope the House will, in the weeks to come, persuade the government to abandon it. Yeah. abandon it. Yeah.
17:00
Lord Thurlow Portrait Lord Thurlow (Crossbench)
-
-
My Lords.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Short break from tangle of treaties and policies. And who did what in diplomatic circles. In my contribution, I want to talk about ocean.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Surrounding the Chagos Archipelago. And I, in doing so, thank the library and others for thank the library and others for their assistance. And I was very encouraged by the noble Lady. The Minister's opening comments in regarding the environment by way of background of Marine Protection background of Marine Protection Area was established around Chagos following a determined and successful campaign by the British successful campaign by the British charity Blue Marlin and others, which persuaded the then Labour which persuaded the then Labour administration to designate an MPA.

In the closing weeks of the Brown administration, they created what administration, they created what was then the largest no take fishing zone in the world, an fishing zone in the world, an extraordinary achievement. Blue marine, together with other NGOs, marine, together with other NGOs, seeks to protect and restore the seeks to protect and restore the ocean health worldwide. By securing MPAs like this, and they have successfully established protection over some four point 3,000,000km² of ocean. An outstanding achievement.

And the Chagos MPA is a significant part of that success. It works for those unfamiliar with MPAs. It is precisely that the designation protects the MPA from overfishing, destructive fishing techniques, and they work to restore marine habitats and supporting coastal communities with sustainable fishing practices. These large scale marine reserves enjoy the critical mass to allow the restoration of vital marine ecosystems. They enjoy international acceptance and of course, critically, they need policing to enforce that protection.

The present arrangement enables the UK to police the Chagos MPA against illegal fishing activity. But what of future protection? The Chagos agreement we're discussing today refers to a separate written instrument. Those words are in inverted commas, which will outline how the management of the MPA and its policing will be managed. Why? The simple matter of managing the Chagos MPA cannot be dealt with as part of this bill? On the face of the bill, I fail to understand reference to a separate written instrument.

Sounds like a response from an instalment of yes, Minister, a slow process of obfuscation and delay until following the next election when it all falls apart, I hope not. Would the Minister please explain more of the detail relating to the separate written agreement instrument in her closing remarks? Because for many, the lack of clarity as to how policing and management will be paid for is a worry. The agreement we are discussing today refers to an annual payment of 35, 40 or £45 million per annum over 20 years to be gifted as development capital to Mauritius.

I ask how much of that will be allocated to managing the Marine Protection Area? Where is the detail? Are we really committing hundreds of millions of taxpayers money over 20 years to an agreement with little detail? This bill transfers sovereignty of the islands to Mauritius whilst retaining control over Diego Garcia for 99 years. This dual authority could complicate enforcement of the environmental protections. While Mauritius has pledged to maintain the MPA and yesterday's news is welcome.

Economic pressures such as fishing licences and development deals could lead to relaxed regulations, and experts warn that even slight deregulation could unravel decades of ecological resilience. My Lords, we must protect, protect our oceans just as we seek to protect the rest of our planet from the climate crisis. We are more familiar with land based effects of the crisis, the destruction of the rainforest, the growing red list of endangered species, and the melting ice. Above all, there is an interdependence between the health of oceans and the survival of land.

On land. Protecting the health of these oceans seems to me to enjoy fewer column inches in the media. Notwithstanding the remarkable television series narrated by Sir David Attenborough, which have been eye opening and persuasive, it is worth pointing out that the Chagos Islands are some 2000km from Mauritius, their maritime enforcement assets include two small planes which cannot reach Chagos, and two ocean going vessels. Can we really expect them to invest the sums of money and the resources required to administer protection, and to maintain and enhance this vital MPA? There must be serious doubts about this and the effectiveness of our agreement with Mauritius, which includes a hands on involvement in the management of this MPA.

I do not think it is appropriate, with the current awareness of the climate crisis, to leave the details of administering this ocean area to a separate written instrument. The agreement leaves risks leaving Mauritius with an overwhelming conservation burden. It is worth noting that the International Agreements Committee of this House consider it vital that an appropriate portion of the annual grant funding is allocated specifically towards supporting this Marine Protection Area. To conclude, I look forward to the noble Lady the Minister's response to these concerns, and specifically would like an indication of how much of the proposed annual payments will be directed towards

**** Possible New Speaker ****

policing the Chagos MPA. I declare an interest as a friend of the British Overseas
17:07
Lord Blencathra Portrait Lord Blencathra (Conservative)
-
-
Territories. Can I say how delighted I am to hear the excellent speech of the noble Lord Lord Thurlow? Because I too shall focus on MPAs at the end of my remarks. My Lords, we have to ask ourselves, how are we now in the position of giving away a vital British overseas territory to a nation that has no legitimate claim to it, and pay them a fortune in the process? Well, it simply comes down to the traditional role of our Foreign Office always selling out British interests as we count out a hostile foreign states like China, whilst abandoning our friends and allies, and of course, the Home Office.

The Foreign Office has a long history of this. Last week, my Lords, the Telegraph had an obituary for Vice-Admiral Sir Jonathan Todd, who flew more than 2000 hours in 25 types of aircraft and commanded the aircraft carrier illustrious. His talent was soon recognised, and he was promoted to captain in 1980 and sent to the Cabinet Office. There he headed the assessments team, analysing intelligence from Central and South America. In July 1981, Todd told the Joint Intelligence Committee that if the Argentines were to conclude there was no peaceful solution to the Maldives question, then they were capable of mounting an invasion swiftly and with little warning.

The Foreign Office absolutely rubbished that as scaremongering, and the intelligence watch on the Argentines was scaled down, giving Argentina the signal that we did not care about the Falkland Islands. But Todd stuck to his guns and in October he warned that threats emanating from Argentina were were not disinformation. And six months later, Argentina invaded. And the rest is history. Then, my Lords, we've got Gibraltar again. The FCO tried to set it out to Spain with secret negotiations in 2001 and 2002 for shared sovereignty.

There was no reason to share sovereignty with Spain, apart from the FCO wanting to kowtow to a foreign EU government. Once, once the plan was in the open, of course, the Gibraltar Government organised a poll and 98.97% voted against the UK government plan and wanted to stay with the UK. That was another FCO plan scuppered and now we come to the Chagos Islands. These islands have been British since the end of the Napoleonic Wars, long before Mauritius existed as an independent country.

Nobody ever lived in Mauritius until the Dutch brought in slaves, and then the French took over. No Mauritians ever landed 2000 miles away on the Chagos Islands to inhabit them or to claim them. Thus, Mauritius has never owned or controlled the islands, and the Mauritian sovereignty claim is totally bogus and nothing more than a rewriting of history. France and the United Kingdom administered the Chagos Islands and Mauritius from Mauritius, but they were never owned by Mauritius. Their false claim was strengthened, of course, by this advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice, the judicial arm of the thoroughly discredited United Nations, in its usual anti-colonialism stance.

Now, my Lords, I don't mean to offend you all. I say discredited because there has never been any un condemnation of the genocide being perpetuated by Russia and Ukraine, nor China with the Uyghurs, nor Myanmar. And when we come to the genocide in Sudan, debated about an hour ago in this chamber, whilst the US officials have explicitly declared that the RSF and associated militias have committed genocide, the UN as an organisation has generally used terms like risk of genocide. Genocide could be a curry.

It's a typical UN cop out speech. So the UN cannot denounce genocide, but it can denounce UK ownership of the sovereign of the Chagos Islands as colonialism. The ICJ so-called ruling was merely an advisory opinion from a political court, which in 2017 was involved in a grubby episode to remove the Security Council nominee judge who was British. The renowned UN, Sir Christopher Greenwood, and stack the court with more Asia Pacific judges and reduce Western influence. And I say this to the government, if it is the government's case that we have to obey the ICS on this case, will we have to obey them when they give an advisory opinion on giving the Falklands to China, or an advisory opinion giving Gibraltar to Spain? Yeah.

Now, the last government, of course, was negotiating and negotiating, but no intention. How about no intention to sell out? It's one thing starting negotiation. It's another thing to conclude them. I bear three months with Mr. Lammy. Did. So we first need to look at why did Labour do it? I think we need to look at the past behaviour of the Prime Minister before entering politics. Sir Keir Starmer was invited to a high profile legal conference in 2013, hosted by the Mauritius Bar Association at the Intercontinental Hotel in the intriguingly named Balaclava Beach Resort.

That is correct. A gathering of international lawyers. While while there, Sir Keir delivered a keynote speech. But more notably, he used the visit as an opportunity to engage in discussions with the Chagos issue with Mauritian legal and political figures. He met the then Prime Minister, Navin Ramgoolam, who is now leading Mauritius negotiations over the islands and is back as Prime Minister. Ramgoolam later recalled their 2013 meeting as a moment of shared values and mutual understanding. Another prominent Mauritian lawyer and friend of Sir Keir Starmer, has stated that he cleared things up for him regarding the Chagos issue.

Thus we have our new Prime Minister already keen to sell out Mauritius. And then came along the new foreign secretary, David Lammy MP, not known to be the sharpest knife in the drawer and ripe for the FCO to call him into a sell out. My Lords, I can imagine what the FCO said to him at their first meeting. Welcome Minister. You have a unique opportunity to settle a long running issue which the last government failed to do. We have an International Court of Justice ruling that we must hand back the Chagos Islands to the rightful owners, Mauritius.

And you can get the credit. Where the last government failed, they started negotiations, but they were unable to conclude the Minister. Naturally, we will have to pay them a small amount to keep a lease on the military base at Diego Garcia, and that will keep the Americans happy. It's a win win for you, Minister. We avoid condemnation from the UN. The Americans are content and you get the credit for a diplomatic success. Now, my Lords, I challenge anyone to say that that description of what happened is not reasonably accurate in all probability.

Now, of course, the last government that started negotiations in November 22nd and was nowhere near an agreement after 11 rounds of negotiations by the general election in 24. That's 18 months of negotiations, including six months led by my very able noble friend Lord Cameron of Chipping Norton. But I have to hand it to Mr. Lammy. A mere three months into the job and a new foreign secretary with no past experience whatsoever. And yet he concludes the deal in a mere three months.

No wonder the dealers are diabolically bad for the UK and Chagossians. We've surrendered a UK strategic asset to China, which is already talking to Mauritius about doing deals there. And which country will fund development in the Chagos Islands? Why China? Of course, if Mauritius and India to possibly certainly China if Mauritius wishes to economically exploit the archipelago, they will need to establish infrastructure on the islands. And the most likely investor for that is China. They will most likely build a huge military base on one of the other 70 islands, some of which are very shallow water around them.

We have seen how China has illegally built massive military bases on sandbanks in the South China Sea as a piece of cake for them to do likewise, and one of the Chagos Islands. I leave it to others to try to get to the bottom of the cost. 5 billion, 9 billion, 18 billion or 35 billion. My Lords, even 1 million is an outrageous sum to give to a foreign power with no rights whatsoever to the islands, along with giving away our own territory. Yeah, I conclude on the environmental crime.

We will soon see there when the marine protected area will be destroyed, as it surely will. Mauritius ranks very low globally in overall ecosystem vitality and biodiversity protection metrics, with fish stocks showing decline. The Chagos Islands boast some of the world's most pristine coral reefs and marine biodiversity, making their preservation critical not only for ecological reasons but also for future scientific research on climate change adaptation and marine conservation. In 2010, the UK government established the MPA around the islands of approximately 640,000km².

This no take zone is one of the world's largest marine reserves and protects the the the Chagos Archipelago, coral reefs, deep sea habitats and wildlife. However, China's distant ocean fishing fleet is ravaging and destroying our oceans, invading the Galapagos MPA, and is a constant battle to keep them out of our gigantic Pitcairn Islands MPA, the second largest in the world at 841,000km². So, my Lords, when China does a deal with the Mauritius government now mired in corruption scandals, the MPA will be the first target for Chinese exploitation, exploitation and destruction as efficient, dry and destroy the coral reefs with bottom trawling.

Four of the top ten MPAs in the world are British UK Overseas territories, and we will have destroyed one of them. So I say to the government, is there nothing you will not sell out in this grubby deal? The Chagossian people are defence and security. The cost to our economy, the perception that we sell out other overseas territories and now even our pristine marine environment. I pray that this appallingly bad bill can be amended or stopped before it does more damage to our country.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yes. My Lords, I think we all agree that what a Labour government did
17:17
Baroness Ludford Portrait Baroness Ludford (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
that what a Labour government did 60 years ago in displacing the Chagossians was disgraceful, and that there has been a tangled web of deception ever since. And under governments of all parties, the Chagossians have been treated with shameful contempt and disdain. But this treaty enhances Bill, while not perfect, but they do open the way to see some sort of justice after 60 years. And that is a good advance. And my Lords, this is a remarkable week of anniversaries concerning Chagos. Yesterday marked no fewer than three of them.

November the 3rd was the 25th anniversary of the High Court judgement in 2000, allowing the Chagossians to return to the outer islands in Mauritius. November the 3rd is Chagossian National Day, when the Prime Minister lays a wreath at the Chagos Monument on the port side in Port Louis, accompanied by the chairman of the Chagos Refugee Group, Olivier Blanco. No. November the 3rd is also, as my noble friend Lord Purvis noted, the third anniversary of the UK announcement to Parliament in 2022 by the then Conservative Foreign Secretary that constructive negotiations on sovereignty, the protection of the base, the Chagossians and the marine Protected Area would begin with Mauritius with a view to reaching agreement in early 2023, and we can now add a fourth notable November.

The third event, the creation by Mauritius, announced yesterday of the Chagos MPA. As a noble Lord, the Minister noted. And to cap it all, November the 6th Saturday is the 60th anniversary sad one of the detachment of the Chagos Archipelago from Mauritius and creation of Biot by Order in Council in 1964 1965, with, of course, the beginning of the disgraceful expulsion of Chagossians from their home. I have supported the Chagossians for several decades, and declare my long standing membership of the Chagos All-Party parliamentary Group, founded 20 years ago, which has shaped my desire for resolution of this long open wound.

The noble Lord Lord Callanan has used a lot of extravagant terms at various times to deplore this treaty, calling it variously in the last few months the strategic capitulation, a surrender obscene and dangerous. And he did not disappoint. Today he was very entertaining, but the opposition is being utterly disingenuous, dishonest and hypocritical, as this treaty is pretty much what they would have concluded in the two years from the launch of negotiations in autumn 2022 to their loss of power in July 2024.

As my noble friend Lord Purvis said, both both in his interventions and indeed when we debated the treaty in June, quote, the treaty is a consequence of now completing the previous conservative governments policy. Some who agreed with it then disagree with it now. But that does not change the fact that the conservatives made a major policy choice to cede sovereignty and to do it under the context of the International Court of Justice decisions and our International Agreements. Committee's conclusions included are included.

After hearing Sir Christopher Greenwood, as has been noted former judge of the International Court of Justice, that the future of the base on Diego Garcia would be at greater risk in the likely in the likely event of a future binding legal judgement in favour of Mauritius. Sir Christopher recognised that the ICJ opinion was advisory and not binding, but that it is, quote, a very authoritative guide to the legal position. In reality, it would be very difficult for any state just to ignore an almost unanimous opinion of the International Court.

Liberal Democrats want to be assured that the UK would not permit the United States to breach international law at Diego Garcia, as the UK government, the then UK government, did in colluding in the use of the base for extraordinary rendition after nine over 11. As my colleague in the other place, James McCleary, said in a debate in May, having now confirmed this deal on a shared UK US asset, how confident is the Secretary of State that Diego Garcia will not be used by this white House to advance foreign policy objectives that we deem contrary to our principles and interests? And if she was able, I wouldn't mind an answer from the noble Lady Minister today.

The treaty does not bring Mauritius closer to China. Rather, it strengthens Mauritius relationship with the West. Mauritius has not joined China's Belt and Road Initiative and has no intention of doing so. A long term agreement between the UK and Mauritius reinforces not only UK but Commonwealth ties, especially with India, which is a close ally of Mauritius. Mauritius also has close ties with the EU, France and Australia. The treaty strengthens NATO's position and potential operations in the Indian Ocean.

India recently participated in military exercises with the US out of Diego Garcia. The bill and treaty will bring by, up to an end, allow Chagossians to return to their native outer islands under Mauritian sovereignty and provide for visits to Diego Garcia. I realise that the treaty does not provide for a right of self-determination, but the House needs to recognise that the majority of Chagossians nonetheless support it. The Chagos Refugees group is the largest and longest standing group led by Olivier Blanco, who I have met several times, including earlier this year.

The CRG, whose members are all dual citizens of the UK and Mauritius, has campaigned for the rights of Chagossians to return, including through pursuing litigation in our Supreme Court, European Court of Human Rights and other international courts. And the CRG believes that the UK Mauritius Treaty is the only way Chagossians will be able to return for visits and resettlement. In a statement three weeks ago, Olivier Blanco said on behalf of the group, quote, for the last 55 years since our exile began, we have implored the UK government to permit us to resettle in our homeland.

After repeated rejection of our demands, we remain convinced that this agreement provides the only way forward in which our compatriots will be allowed to restore the ancestral connection to our islands. Unless, therefore, the agreement is approved and implemented, our exile will continue with no hope of restoring our fundamental human right to human right to return. And Olivier Blanco added, this resolution has come about after comprehensive consultation of Chagossians worldwide. Although he warned if Mauritius will not fulfil its responsibilities to us, of course we will raise our voices.

In fact, not only has Olivier Blanco been consulted over 30 times by the Mauritian government, but Stephen Doughty, the Minister, the UK Minister responsible, has met Chagossians throughout the process and has briefed Chagossians ahead of the agreement. There was also mention earlier, I think, of a government commissioned study conducted by KPMG in 2015, which also involved considerable also involved considerable consultation with Chagossians. Sir Christopher Greenwood, in his evidence to the International Agreements Committee, said Britain standing to argue that Mauritius should be required to resettle Chagossians on the other islands, frankly, is somewhat undermined by the fact that the UK has consistently refused any suggestion of resettlement on the other islands.

That is a position that the UK government have reaffirmed relatively recently, and what he cited was a reply by the noble Lord Lord Ahmad in 2022 to a written question from the noble Baroness, Lady Whitaker. And he can he and he confirmed that in November 2016, which of course was also under conservative government, the UK government announced that resettlement of Chagossians could not be supported on the grounds of feasibility, defence and security interests and cost to the British taxpayer.

There remains no right of abode in Biot, so that was the position under conservative government. No resettlement in the Chagos Islands. So that was a conservative position. So it is an improvement on the on the situation under previous governments that resettlement is now to be possible, even if not assured. It is true that the provision in the Treaty on Resettlement is permissive, saying that Mauritius is free to arrange for resettlement on all the islands except Diego Garcia rather than obligatory.

So, as my noble friends here and friends in the other place have consistently argued, more clarity is needed about the implementation of the agreement and the impact on Chagossians, including on funding from the trust fund and on resettlement. And it would be good to hear more detail from the noble Lady Minister today. Finally, other provisions of the treaty or the bill which merit a mention are citizenship and environmental matters. While the bill removes the ability of people to acquire British Overseas Territory citizenship on the basis of connection to Biot.

It preserves a route to full British citizenship for Chagossian descendants. The treaty also includes provisions for the UK to support Mauritius in establishing and managing marine protected areas. And we've noted that yesterday Mauritius created one called Campa Chagos Archipelago. MP treaty also commits the parties to cooperate on environmental protection, maritime security and illegal fishing, my friend. Lastly, I would say that my friend in the other place, Doctor Al Pinkerton, understandably put forward the need for accountability with an annual report on progress on the MPAs so that environmental protection does not fade from view.

So my last request would be to hear from the Minister a commitment to such

**** Possible New Speaker ****

protection. Yeah. Here. Yeah, here. Yeah.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yeah. Here. Yeah, here. Yeah. The people of Northern Ireland have a particular interest in the islands, because the United Kingdom took on responsibility for the islands and, crucially, a duty of
17:28
Lord Morrow Portrait Lord Morrow (Democratic Unionist Party)
-
-
islands and, crucially, a duty of care for the people. In 1814, when the UK was represented by one of the most successful foreign secretaries, namely Viscount Castlereagh. He went on, of course, to play a pivotal role in laying the foundation for peace in Europe for nearly 100 years through the Congress of Vienna the following year, the success of which stands in sharp contrast to the shortcomings of our sales 160 years later. My Lord. His family home, Mount Stewart in Northern Ireland, is now owned by the National Trust and contains the state chairs from the Congress of Vienna, which were donated to Castlereagh after the conclusion of the Congress.

In recognition of the crucial contribution that he made to proceedings. My Lord and my comments today, I want to reflect on the serious human rights failures attending the bill before us today and the treaty to which it relates. The argument for the bill and treaty are that on the 8th of November, 1965, the UK government, with the consent of the Council of Ministers, removed the Chagos Islands and made them into a separate colony. The British Indian Overseas Treaty, in order to meet the American request for a military base on the islands.

This means that Mauritius gained independence in 1968 without the Caicos Islands. The argument is that this was contrary to the UN Declaration on Decolonisation 1514, because it involved the colonial power. The UK changing the territorial integrity of the colony before the decolonisation. In this context, it is said that notwithstanding the fact that the Mauritian Council of Ministers consented to the separation of the islands in 1965, this decision was not valid because the United Kingdom acted contrary to international law.

In seeking this separation. My Lord. Since 1968, before the decolonisation of Mauritius has only been partially secured and will not be fully secured until the islands are returned to Mauritius. This argument, however, depends on obstructing a concern for the territorial integrity of the 1965 colony. Frozen in time. Apart from all other considerations of international law. My Lords, the distance from the island of Mauritius to the islands is a huge 1339 miles.

The distance from here to North Africa. And not surprisingly, the people are of a different ethnic group and religion. Thus, in international law, regarding decolonisation, rather than self-determination being subject to territorial integrity, territorial integrity is very much subject to self-determination. My Lords, in the second instance, in turning to the events of 1968 to 1973, the delivery of self-determination was undermined from 1968 because, after creating the British Indian Ocean territories, the UK government embarked on one of the most shameful episodes in our history.

Already mentioned in your lordships House today, my Lords, we would like to think that the events of 1968 to 1973 took place in an earlier age, between 1768 and 1773, or perhaps between 1868 and 1873, but they did not. They happened within my lifetime and the lifetime of many noble Lords, and involved the forced removal of the people not just from their homes, but from their islands. In this context, the argument of the government that we can somehow forget about the self-determination of the people of the islands and just revert.

On the 8th of November, 1965. Territorial integrity is so effectively reassert the validity of what happened between 1968 and 1973. My Lords, rather than alleviating our national shame and moral responsibility, the decision of the government to use the fact that we forcibly remove the Christians from their homeland as an excuse for denying self-determination, makes our moral failure much, much worse. It involves our acting as if the casinos do not exist. My Lords, the government might seek to argue that their position is not the casinos, that they do not exist, but they are properly conceived as mauritians in two reasons.

First, because pre November 8th, 1965, they lived in the colony of Mauritius, the boundaries of which the government is seeking to restore. And secondly, because some casinos live in Mauritius. This argument, however, is completely unsustainable. First, most casinos do not live in Mauritius, and those that do have been leaving in large numbers. Second, those that remain in Mauritius are only there because they were forcibly removed to Mauritius, not because they wanted to go there. And I think we need to give some thought to that.

Third, the relationship between the casinos and mauritians is such that it is plainly very difficult, if not impossible, for casinos to place themselves in the identity Mauritian because the mauritians played a crucial role in facilitating what amounts to an existential attack on the casinos, their forced removal from the islands. In agreeing they would be moved to the island of Mauritius, 1339 miles away. In the 1965 decision of the Mauritian Council of Ministers was not valid because it took place while Mauritius was the UK colony.

How much more is any attempt to pretend that the decision of the Republic of Mauritius in 2025 can be regarded as a valid decision on the part of the casinos, and unlike the Mauritian Council of Ministers in 1965, were not consulted. My Lord, going forward, two things are absolutely clear. First, having taken advice, it would be perfectly possible to facilitate a robust and secure referendum of the Christians who live principally in the UK and the Seychelles and Mauritius, to find out whether they self-determine that their islands that from this Saturday will have been functionally separate from that what has become the Republic of Mauritius for 60 years should rejoin Mauritius or not.

This is critically important because the informal referendum, facilitated by a citizens group which has engaged around 40,000 casinos, has demonstrated that over 99% of them do not wish their islands to be given to the Mauritians. Second, according to the crucial KPMG report already mentioned in your lordships House today, the resettlement of the islands would be significantly cheaper than leasing just one of the islands. Diego Garcia and Mauritius. My Lords, it was unconscionable that we should have taken the people of the Chagos Islands from their own lands, but now the UK government's malicious treaty and Diego Garcia military base and British Indian Ocean Territory bill is about to make things much, much worse.

First, the bill, the concluded passage of which facilitates the coming into force of the Mauritius Treaty, seeks to give their lands to what many Christians regard as a foreign country without their consent and without even requiring the Mauritians to resettle the islands with the Christians. Second, the government proposes paying the Republic of Mauritius, which many Christians regard not only as a foreign country, but a foreign country that has a history of discriminating against Christians and extravagant amount of money for the use of just one island that would would pay for the resettlement of the Christians in their islands right now.

Third, the government then hoists itself on its own petard by engaging directly with the casinos, as distinct from the mauritians through article 11 of the treaty, but then attempt to to facilitate their self-determination. My Lords, there's more we would all like to say. But finally, can I say this if government decides to proceed, they will unwittingly make provision for an even more disturbing TV drama than Mr. Bates versus the Post Office. I urge the government to think about that.

The British public expect more from their government in 2025. I strongly advise them to step back from the brink. Thank you.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Good morning, my Lords. The International Relations and Defence Committee, which I have the honour to chair, decided on the announcement of the deal with Mauritius that we should have a look at the proposed handover of sovereignty of the British Indian overseas Territory. As a result, the committee raised a number of the committee raised a number of issues. In view of the fact that we are, of course, a cross-party committee, we didn't get.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

committee, we didn't get. Into an argument about the government's detailed reasons for doing the deal. We simply observed doing the deal. We simply observed that the decision to proceed was ultimately political, that statement itself acknowledges the fact that several members of the committee, myself included, were very doubtful about the very doubtful about the government's stated legal and other reasons. So my noble friend Lord Lilley eloquently set out the basis Lilley eloquently set out the basis for some of those doubts.

Our witnesses were unanimous in their view that Diego Garcia holds a pivotal strategic role for the United Kingdom and the United States, and that it is critical for broader Western security strategy in the Indo-Pacific. That much at in the Indo-Pacific. That much at least, we can agree with the government. The government argue government. The government argue that the deal secures Diego Garcia as a UK base. My Lords, as is pointed out in an article from Rusi issued since our inquiry, however,
17:41
Lord De Mauley Portrait Lord De Mauley (Conservative)
-
-
the base was already secure prior to the ceding of sovereignty. We had arguments that I find had arguments that I find persuasive that the deal could, in fact, make the base less secure in fact, make the base less secure in absolute terms. And I'll come to some of those in a moment. The committee focussed on four key committee focussed on four key areas the future of defence and security arrangements on Diego Garcia, the rights of the Garcia, the rights of the Chagossian people, the environmental protection of the archipelago and the costs arising archipelago and the costs arising from the agreement.

As regards defence and security, witnesses defence and security, witnesses alerted us to a number of potential risks. Most of these revolved risks. Most of these revolved around increased vulnerability to Chinese political warfare tactics. Chinese political warfare tactics. Our attention was drawn to the fact that there remains a risk, particularly in the context of expanding Chinese influence on the expanding Chinese influence on the African continent, that the base may need to be used in a way which is perceived as contentious in is perceived as contentious in Africa, for example, arising from the African Nuclear Weapon Free Zone Treaty, which could cause Zone Treaty, which could cause diplomatic difficulties, to say the least, for the UK in the future.

As least, for the UK in the future. As regards the long term, we heard evidence that the government's confidence in the strength of the UK's right of first refusal to an extension after 99 years was unconvincing. This was, amongst other things, because it lacks a mechanism for enforcement and would be difficult to assert in practice. This is a significant potential source of future vulnerability, which the government must address now as part of their long term strategic planning. Among those having been in Hong Kong at the time of its handover to the Chinese in 1997, and look what a success that has been.

It has brought home to me that 99 years is today little more than a single lifespan. We noted that the agreement has introduced a risk that Mauritius, as the sovereign power, if the treaty is ratified, could object to a specific military operation from Diego Garcia due to differing views on whether it meets the requirements of international humanitarian law. While the government was categorical that this would not limit UK US freedom of action, we were warned that such objections could lead to lawfare and create diplomatic difficulties for the UK, bringing the risk that they affect military operations.

Turning my Lords to the rights of Chagossians, we met a cross-section of members of the community in the UK and Mauritius. While we acknowledge that their views cannot be representative of the entire community, those we met expressed unanimous dissatisfaction with the consultation processes conducted by both the UK and Mauritian governments. Concerns principally revolved around, first, the vague language relating to resettlement, and secondly, the inadequacy of arrangements to ensure that Chagossians benefit from the financial package being given to Mauritius by the UK.

It's notable that under article ten of the agreement, the UK is required to give preference to suitably qualified Mauritian nationals to the maximum extent practicable when employing contractors, but no reference is made to prioritising employment for those of Chagossian heritage. To date, the government has not provided a clear or convincing rationale for excluding Chagossians from employment on Diego Garcia. The lack of attention to the interests of Chagossians is even more stark in the context of the financial package.

Concerns were raised to us about the £40 million trust fund, which the UK will set up under article 11 of the agreement, dedicated to the Chagossian community, with Mauritius establishing the fund under its financial regulations in consultation with the UK. A key theme during our discussion with the Chagossians was the lack of clarity on how the trust fund would be managed, with participants highlighting the Mauritian government's poor record in supporting their community. For example, in 2016, the UK provided £40 million to the Mauritian authorities to improve Chagossian lives, yet only £1.3 million was disbursed and even those funds came with restrictive conditions.

Given this, it is surprising that the government have surrendered the right to manage this fund to the to Mauritius when the UK itself well equipped to manage funds on behalf of others. My Lords, the government have committed to providing a factual update to Parliament on the modalities of the Trust Fund and on eligibility for resettlement. And I ask the noble Lord, the Minister, when that update will be forthcoming. Alongside the Trust Fund, a £45 million annual development grant will be provided by the UK for a period of 25 years to support development projects aimed at improving the economic welfare of Mauritius and its citizens.

My Lords, why has not at least a proportion of the grant been earmarked for the benefit of Chagossians? Speaking for myself, my Lords, I find it extraordinary that it was a Labour government which in the 1960s evicted the population of the Chagos Islands callously from their island homes. And it is a Labour government in 2025, which is so blatantly failed to give adequate attention to the rights of the Chagossians. My Lords, to the environmental implications. The committee heard the archipelago archipelago, described by a credible environmental expert as the most important reef wilderness on the planet, concern arises partly because there's uncertainty about the future of the marine protected area established around the Biot.

As noble Lord Lord Thurlow said in 2010 by the UK. Given that it has not been recognised by Mauritius in particular, we were told that the Mauritian government's track record in marine governance is poor. Furthermore, assuming Mauritius acts in good faith in the matter of the environment, its enforcement capabilities, as again, the noble Lord, Lord Thurlow said, are currently limited to just two ocean going vessels and two aircraft that are incapable of reaching Chagos directly. Turning. Finally, my Lords, to the cost of the agreement.

For each of the first three years, the UK will pay Mauritius £165 million. It will then pay £120 million per year for the following ten years. Thereafter, it will continue to pay the equivalent equivalent of £120 million annually, increasing in line with inflation. In addition, the UK will fund the £40 million Trust Fund and the 45 million annual development grant I referred to earlier. The government calculates the total cost of all this at approximately 3.4 billion. However, critics have questioned the methodology used and argued that the total cost of the agreement could be very considerably greater.

Attempting to justify the cost of the agreement. The Minister asserted to us that the payments to Mauritius compare favourably to payments made by others for overseas bases. For example, he indicated that France had recently arranged an 85 million per year deal with Djibouti on its basing arrangements for a military base 15 times smaller than Diego Garcia. We noted, however, that the government's emphasis on the size of the Djibouti base draws a false equivalence between size and cost, and therefore calls into doubt any such comparison.

We called on the government to provide the committee with further information on how the overall leasing costs for Diego Garcia were determined, and how these may affect the allocations in the defence budget. No such data has yet been produced. My Lords, as I hope I have outlined, the government still has some very serious questions to answer on the future defence and security arrangements. The rights of the Chagossians, the environmental protection of the archipelago and

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the costs arising from the arrangement. Here, my Lords, as a former defence Minister.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

defence Minister. recognise. The vital importance of. The base.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The base. On Diego Garcia. Its significance, significant because of its strategic location, its been
17:48
Lord Beamish Portrait Lord Beamish (Labour)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

of its strategic location, its been vital in. Combating some of the most serious threats against ourselves serious threats against ourselves and our allies, including terrorism and hostile states. It has a unique capability of collecting data which is being used to counter terrorism both abroad and at home, and has made our security not only greater here, but also that of our allies. It also is a strategic, vital logistics hub and also protects some very strategic shipping lanes on national security.

We usually have consensus across the house that both here and in the other place. Therefore, it saddens me to say that I am disappointed that the official opposition is using this as a political football on such an important, vital interest, not just to our allies. Now, there are four main issues which I think have been put forward against this bill. One is the legal issue and around sovereignty. The second is cost. The third is the threat from China, and the fourth is the way in which the Chagossian people have been treated.

Now, my hon. Friend, my my noble friend, in opening outlined the issues around the legal uncertainty around the Chagos, the Diego Garcia base. And I've got to say, the excellent report. And I congratulate members who were involved in the international agreements report covers these in very good detail. But like all legal questions, there are very different opinions. And clearly in its work, it took evidence from different opinions. And quite clearly, Professor Richard Eden QC made the opinion that the ICJ opinion was not legally binding has already been said by Lord Henley that Sir Richard Greencroft Greenwood said that he could envisage at least two possible routes to make that agreement binding.

So clearly there is a division, there is uncertainty and that's what this bill is about and was raised by my noble friend in opening this debate. And that is why the last government entered
Feed Live - Click to view video
Return to start of debate - Return to top of page