Lords Chamber

Tuesday 4th November 2025

(began 2 weeks, 6 days ago)

Share Debate
Watch Live
Skip to latest contribution
This debate has concluded
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 into negotiations on this. But what I do find difficult is the issue around sovereignty. James Cleverly, the Foreign Secretary on the 3rd of November, was raised by Lord Purvis, said that negotiations would begin on the exercise of sovereignty over the British Indian Ocean territories. Its intention is to secure agreement based on international law.

So the government then were quite clear to discuss sovereignty, Lord Purvis said earlier on. So we've now got the rhetoric from Lord Callaghan saying that this is the sovereignty surrender bill. So I would actually challenge the Conservative Party. So what has changed in that time when it was quite clear that then the government at the time were going to be discussing sovereignty of the Chagos Islands. Now Lord Lord Lilley and Lord Blencathra said, well, it was all those nasty people at the Foreign Office who basically bamboozled both Ministers of both governments.

But I've got to say, I agree with Lord Henley. I think to be honest, they would have come to the similar conclusion. And if the conservatives have been returned, this bill would have been put forward. The second point is issue around costs, and clearly the Lord Callaghan, in his opening statement, did the usual trick of what you do. You add up all this money so you get to £35 billion to give the impression that this money is basically going to be paid out tomorrow.

Well, we know this is over 100 years, but can I also say that what this does in terms of this investment, it underpins the already huge investment not only we've put into the Diego Garcia base, but more importantly, the Americans and will continue to do for years to come. Now the report and just Lord Taylor has just outlined the issue around Djibouti and the issue around size. But this is not an unusual arrangement. What this does do, it gives certainty in this joint agreement both to ourselves and our American allies to invest in the future of that very vital capability.

Now, can we come on to the third point about China? I've got to say, there's a lot of hyperbole spoken around this issue. And I've got to say, not just on this bill, but other issues. I've got to say there's a lot of ill informed comment, even though it's often portrayed as fact. And can I urge noble members to look at our ISC report of 2023 on China? Yes, China is a threat. Is it a threat to Diego Garcia now? Yes it is.

Is it going to be in the future? Yes it is, but this bill does nothing to actually make that more possible. Now, in terms of the issue around China, who is Mauritius's main interlocutor, it is India. Our Five Eyes partners, the US have all agreed this and think this is a good way forward. And then we come on to this issue about, well, somehow Mauritius will have a veto over military operations. No, they will not. If you look at the bill, what they'll have, they'll have the same rights as the Republic of Cyprus has in terms of sovereign base areas.

If military action is taking place, people will be informed afterwards. That's not given them a veto over this, but the idea that China is going to somehow get close to the to to, to our very valuable assets, there is not the case now for the first time, secures the outer islands, which are vulnerable at the moment. And I think that is something we should, would, should welcome it also, I think underpins the strategy and working with our Pacific partners to ensure that we do face down China in that part of the world.

Fourth point is around the Russian people, and I think everyone agrees the way they've been treated over decades has been completely shameful. This agreement does, I think, make a movement for us, my noble friend said. In terms of the funding that's coming forward allows some limited resettlement. But I would urge those Russians listening, do not be fooled by the conservative front bench, because I spent 23 years in the House of Commons and the only person who consistently raised this issue was the Member for Islington North, Jeremy Corbyn.

I never heard a single member on the conservative benches, so it's clearly political opportunism now to say somehow they care about the people they do. Not at all. So I'd be very wary about that being put forward. This is an important bill. It has got the support of, as I say, our Five Eyes partners. It has got the support of regional players. And please, I think if we're talking about national security, this is too vitally important to be kicked around as it is being kicked around as a political football.

We need this bill. I think it gives a secure future for our continued occupation of the Diego Garcia and more importantly, the facilities that it brings to keep us all safe.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, it's a pleasure to follow the noble Lord Lord Beamish, and he. Deployed a lot of knowledge and

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Deployed a lot of knowledge and insight, and I have great respect for him. He mentioned the the former Leader of the Opposition, Jeremy Corbyn, who's been Jeremy Corbyn, who's been consistent in his interest in this subject. I would also just add Andrew Rosindell, who from the day I joined Parliament, has been consistent in his challenging of consistent in his challenging of governments of all all colours and standing up for the Chagossians my Lords, my noble friend Lord Callanan mentioned his amendment and the Minister in fact was pretty impolite about that amendment.

But if the government was serious about if the government was serious about challenging our amendment, why didn't they put it to a vote? And incidentally, wherever Labour peers this evening, I mean, they could
17:57
Lord Bellingham Portrait Lord Bellingham (Conservative)
-
-
this evening, I mean, they could have if didn't like on them, they could have voted it down and allowed the bill to be committed to a Committee of the whole House. Surely that would be the sensible thing to have done. My Lords, in 2010 I was appointed the Minister for the Overseas Territories. And so, 31 years on from when Lord Hannay was the director of the Overseas Territories Directorate, was taking a great interest in this subject, whether that makes him very old or me very young, I don't know.

But we both care passionately about this subject. And I remember at the time, looking at the whole issue of Chagossian people, and we agreed at the time in 2010 to set up a feasibility study, which then eventually reported in 2014. And I think it's a great shame that the then government, which was in fact in transition, I think from David Cameron to Theresa may, didn't pick up the recommendations of that feasibility study and take action and look at different schemes to allow the Chagossians to return.

Now, my Lords, the Chagossians have been treated quite appallingly, there is no doubt about that. Under a Labour government, decisions were made that were egregious on a par, probably with the Highland Clearances on a par with the appalling evictions during the famine in Ireland. These people were forcibly removed from their territory, from their land and we should be ashamed. My government as well, over successive decades, but all governments and there's been talk about consultation with the Chagossians, involvement with them, engaging with them.

But I agree 100% with Baroness Lister and Lord Morrow. I think we should have a referendum of the Chagossian people. If it's possible to have a referendum of the position of Chancellor of Oxford University and poll all the alumni around the world will surely be perfectly feasible and possible to have a referendum of Chagossians living in this country, in Mauritius and the Seychelles, and some in different parts of Europe. But surely it would be feasible, and I believe very strongly we should do that.

And of course, one of the observations I have come away with, having had many conversations with Chagossians, they are a very proud group of people. And what is extraordinary beyond belief is they're still incredibly loyal to the Crown. We do not deserve that. We owe a duty. My Lords, now on the deal itself, we've heard many different legal opinions, and we heard Lord Lilley, who I thought made a really excellent speech in which he dealt with his subjects.

I won't go over that ground again. I do know Sir Christopher Greenwood extremely well. We were immediate contemporaries, reading law at Cambridge and then at the Inns of Court, and I respect his opinions enormously. During my time as the Minister for the UN, I used to go and visit him at the Permanent Court of Arbitration, where he was our resident judge. But he hasn't once said that this these decisions, and there's more than one decision and potential decisions could actually be totally binding.

Other legal experts have said they're always going to be advisory, but we are where we are, my Lords. And I personally think that the Truss government didn't last very long. I think they were quite wrong to actually launch these negotiations. But the negotiations were launched and those negotiations took place at 11 rounds. But a number of Labour peers who are not here today have pointed to the fact that after 11 rounds, we were bound to reach a decision and it was only a matter of time when a new government came in.

But they would decide this. Well, actually, my Lords, 11 rounds. I've spoken to James Cleverly and the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, and they had red lines beyond which they were not prepared to go under any circumstances. There were two key red lines. I won't go into all of them, but red line one was an MPA properly managed, with preferably joint sovereignty. I'll come on to that in a moment. The other red line, which actually was more important, was negotiating with Mauritius.

And Mauritius would have agreed this to a sovereign base area. Now, a sovereign base area is very different to a lease. A sovereign base area is a sovereign base in perpetuity. And the noble Lord Lord Beamish mentioned the point about us being obliged in terms of the two Cyprus sovereign bases to notify Cyprus. But they are our sovereign territory. We have no obligation to do that. This will not be our sovereign territory, be Mauritius sovereign territory, and we'll be in a very different position as a leasee.

And if one looks back at the Cyprus negotiations under a Tory government in 1960, that was a country that was fighting for its independence, fighting for its independence after a very bloody, unpleasant war and conflict between the British occupying forces and EOKA, and after painful negotiations, we got to the stage at which Cyprus was going to reach its independence. But we stood firm on on insisting on those two sovereign base areas. The Cypriot government were not happy. But I would suggest to your lordships that they had a much stronger bargaining position than the government had over Chagos Islands and Diego Garcia.

And in fact, when I looked back to 1960, if we'd negotiated a 99 year lease on those sovereign base areas in 1960, we'd now be looking at 34 years to go. And if one looks at Hong Kong, and wouldn't it be better if the government in 1997, it had the chance of actually securing a sovereign grant of the new territories? Obviously, we had outright sovereignty on Hong Kong and Kowloon, but it was decided after the war that it wasn't feasible to maintain sovereignty over Hong Kong and Kowloon without New territories.

But if the government then had insisted on on an outright grant of sovereignty, which may well have been quite possible, and I've read all the debates that went on at the time, then we'd have been in a very difficult position. But can I just suggest to you, Lordships? But if one looks at what happened with Hong Kong, there was enormous pressure on leases and discussion and debate and uncertainty running up to 1997. And that started about 30 years out. So can I stress to to the Minister that probably in about 70 years time, that those discussions will start taking place about the future of Diego Garcia? The chances are we may well get a very warm reception with the Mauritian government in terms of extending the lease by those 40 years, but we may not.

A lot of things can change, and the bottom line is that we have actually lost control. If this treaty goes through, we will have completely lost control of the future of that base. Yes, it will be secure in the short term, subject to all sorts of caveats that have been mentioned. And so that's why I am very disappointed and sad that that red line was crossed. And I don't think that Lord Cameron would have allowed that red line to be crossed. And furthermore, had he tried to cross it, he would never have got it through the House of Commons anyway.

So, my Lords, just on the marine protected area, because one of the first things I dealt with when I became Overseas Territories Minister was to look at the biodiversity within the territories, and 92% of our total biodiversity is in the 80s, of which 20% is is in the Chagos Archipelago. So it may well be that Navin Ramgoolam who I know well his commitments will be honoured by future governments. He is an honourable, decent man, His Excellency, but he could be replaced by someone completely different.

And, as has been pointed out by Lord Fowler, by Lord Blencathra, the agreements that have been made have been made around the MPA, could easily be rescinded, they could easily be changed. And that MPA, which is one of the jewels in the overseas Territories crown, could be put at very, very severe risk indeed. So, my Lords, the I'm not going to go into details about the costs except to say that I think the Minister was wrong in her figures. If one in fact includes the 40 years of 100,000, that comes to 14 billion, not the 3 billion that she mentioned, but, my Lords, we have a pause.

This decision by the government not to commit has given us a pause to reflect on what we now do. And I urge the House that we have a duty to consult the Chagossian people. We have a duty to improve this bill, and we absolutely must do that. My Lords here. My Lord, it's. Always a pleasure to follow, to follow the noble Lord, Lord Bellingham,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

particularly his very thoughtful. Speech this afternoon. But let me say at the outset, my Lords, that.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Lords, that. I support. This Bill as a necessary. Consequence of the. Chagos Islands.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Agreement. Which I. Also support. I won't deal with the. Future of the Chagossians.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the Chagossians. Or with environmental. Issues this afternoon. Important though. They both are.
18:07
Lord Jay of Ewelme Portrait Lord Jay of Ewelme (Crossbench)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

They both are. But I. Will focus on security. But I do think that both the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

But I do think that both the will. Need. To work hard. To meet the justified demands of

**** Possible New Speaker ****

To meet the justified demands of the Chagossian people. My Lords, I don't want to. Go over all.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Go over all. The ground covered by the noble Lady, the Minister in opening the Lady, the Minister in opening the debate. But I do. Want to emphasise. The importance of the base in Diego

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Garcia for our security and more generally, for Western security. A simple look at. The map.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The map. Shows why it. Matters so much for our. And Western security in.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Asia, Africa. And the Middle East, and why security of the base in the years

**** Possible New Speaker ****

security of the base in the years ahead is so important. And it's for that reason. That I.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

That I. Thought at the time, and as I've said before. In this House, I. Continue to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

In this House, I. Continue to for. The. Last government. To start intensive negotiations

**** Possible New Speaker ****

To start intensive negotiations with Mauritius with the aim, and I quote, of ensuring the continued

**** Possible New Speaker ****

effective operation of the UK. US military. Base on Diego Garcia. While it was absolutely right.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

was absolutely right. For. The then Foreign Secretary, the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, to decide after examining the issue to continue with the negotiations and continue with the negotiations and why it is absolutely right for the present government to conclude them.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

present government to conclude them. As I understand it, and I've listened carefully to the noble Lady, the. Agreement will provide.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Agreement will provide. Us and the United States with the certainty we both need over the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

future of the military base in Diego Garcia for 99 years. Plus another.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Plus another. 40 years, if we exercise. Our. Rights under the treaty. It does not surprise.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

not surprise. Me that our. Five Eyes. Partners the United States, Canada, Australia and New Zealand Canada, Australia and New Zealand have welcomed the deal, recognising

**** Possible New Speaker ****

have welcomed the deal, recognising its importance for their as well as South. Africa.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Africa. South Korea and the African Union have welcomed it to.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Union have welcomed it to. Of course, my Lord. It would have been. Nice to. Have secured the deal without

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Have secured the deal without the cost and 101 millions a year in. Today's money is not cheap and Today's money is not cheap and would build a lot of hospitals. But would build a lot of hospitals. But the. Question surely is is it 0.2% of the defence budget? Is that a of the defence budget? Is that a price worth paying for the security it brings? And I believe that it is. And finally, my Lords, it is worth considering the implications of our considering the implications of our not agreeing a deal of continuing with a contested relationship with Mauritius, with the UN and the ICJ, and by ditching an agreement that we have reached with and has the support of our Five Eyes partners.

It is always risky, I know, to peer into the future, particularly given today's. Uncertain world, but we

**** Possible New Speaker ****

can be pretty certain that. The ICJ. And UN General Assembly resolutions condemning us will resolutions condemning us will continue. It is likely that they will, in the future, be legally will, in the future, be legally binding on us. Could we just ignore that? Yes, we could, but in doing that? Yes, we could, but in doing so, in these circumstances, we would be flouting international law. would be flouting international law. And I believe, and I hope the noble Lord Lord Lilley is listening.

And Lord Lord Lilley is listening. And I believe United Kingdom should be supporting and respecting supporting and respecting international law, not flouting it. That has been and should remain our That has been and should remain our tradition, whether under a conservative or a Labour government. conservative or a Labour government. And may I also say to the noble Lords, Lord Lilley and Lord

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Blencathra. Pursue international law? Does he accept that we have an opt out under the International Court of Justice for disputes between

**** Possible New Speaker ****

ourselves and Commonwealth countries? Or was he going to mention that anyway? I wasn't going to make that. I

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I wasn't going to make that. I was going to making the simple point. I was making the simple point that the respect for international law is something

**** Possible New Speaker ****

which has been, and should remain an extremely important. Part. Of British foreign policy. But I

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Of British foreign policy. But I also want to say to the noble Lord Lord Lilley and to the noble Lord, Lord Lilley and to the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, that when I was in the Foreign Office, serving under the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, and the noble Lord, Lord Hurd, I have to say, I was not conscious have to say, I was not conscious that there was a Foreign Office and not a government foreign policy. I not a government foreign policy.

I have to say, I did not have the privilege of serving under the noble Lord, Lord Cameron. My Lords, noble Lord, Lord Cameron. My Lords, the agreement with Mauritius and the treaty which we are now the treaty which we are now considering respect. International law protects British and Western law protects British and Western security, has the support of our Five Eyes partners, India and others. And in my view, unquestionably deserves our support here.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

here. Some pretty stiff competition for the accolade of worst Bill of

**** Possible New Speaker ****

for the accolade of worst Bill of this session. This bill is right up there in contention here. The Chagos. Islands are linked.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Islands are linked. Mauritius only by virtue of the fact that they were both once administers, administered as part of one colony. There is no historical, geographical or cultural basis for Mauritius claiming ownership here. I have no idea.
18:12
Baroness Noakes Portrait Baroness Noakes (Conservative)
-
-
Why the Labour government in 1965.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Decided to pay Mauritius £3 million for agreeing to detach the million for agreeing to detach the Chagos Islands, but that is what they did. Now that £3 million is they did. Now that £3 million is something like £70 million in today's money, Labour have form on chucking taxpayers money at Mauritius and the cost of this bill Mauritius and the cost of this bill is what I want to focus on today. Now, the bill itself has no Now, the bill itself has no financial provisions within it, but it is important because if it passes, it will pave the way for passes, it will pave the way for ratification of the treaty and that will trigger the payments described will trigger the payments described in the treaty.

And this is where smoke and mirrors start to come. In smoke and mirrors start to come. In the explanatory memorandum to the treaty says, as has already been mentioned today, that the average annual cost to the UK is £101 annual cost to the UK is £101 million in 20 2526 prices, and that is technically correct, but we will is technically correct, but we will be spending taxpayers money in cash be spending taxpayers money in cash not expressed notionally in this year's prices.

Now, the biggest element of the package runs for the whole of the 99 years. It starts at £165 million for the first three years, then £120 million for the next ten years. And then after that it is indexed for the whole of the remaining period, using the GDP deflator. Now, what that means is that by the end of the 99 years, will be paying over £650 million a year, assuming that the deflator comes in at 2%, which is a fairly heroic assumption given the current Bank of England performance on controlling inflation.

So that is what compounding does. Even using a very low rate of 2%. And as I say, if inflation goes above that, the figure could be very much more in cash terms, the average is not £101 million. It is at least three times that. Now that is not all. The payment structure is front end loaded, which means that using an average of 99 years understates the short term fiscal impact. If we look just at the first ten years, the average payment in 20 2526 prices is not 110 million.

It is about £150 million. And in cash terms, it is around £170 million. The Secretary of State for defence told the Other Place that the treaty would cost the UK less than 0.2% of the defence budget. That is about £120 million. Using the 20 2526 budget numbers. In cash terms, we will never, never pay less than £120 million a year and at current prices, we do not pay less than £120 million until about year 30 of the deal.

Did the Secretary of State for defence not understand the deal, or had or had he concocted this description in a deliberate attempt to confuse? The explanatory memorandum, goes on to say that the total expected cost of the finance package using a net present value methodology is £3.4 billion. As we have already heard, the total cash cost to taxpayers via the Exchequer is nearer ten times that. The figure of £3.4 billion not only knocks off future inflation.

To get to 20 2526 prices, but then knocks off very much more by using a social time preference rate in accordance with the Treasury's Green Book. And that rate starts at 3.5% and drops down to 2.5%. Now I will spare no Lords a discount discourse on the social time preference rate. It is a fact that the government use a lower figure when it suits them. Indeed, when the noble Lord Lord Stern was asked to analyse the economics of climate change, he used a discount rate of 0.1%.

The government did not even challenge that far from it. They used the report to justify the completely crazy costs of net zero policies. It is clearly convenient for the government to use a high discount rate when they're calculating what they claim to be the cost of this policy. I'm not going to argue about the discount rate. Instead, I'm going to argue that it is simply not relevant. The Treasury's Green Book draws a clear distinction between what it calls the economic dimension and the financial dimension.

Discounting is relevant to the economic dimension, but not the financial dimension. And the Green Book describes discounting in the following terms. The reason for social discounting is to allow proposals of different lengths and with different options, a different profiles of net costs and benefits over time to be compared on a common basis. That is not what we are doing here. There is no question of comparing differing proposals in the the bill that we have before us. The government are using discounting to try to pull the wool over our eyes, but we are not deceived.

The financial cost of this bill is not £3.4 billion. It is a £35 billion at best. My Lords, this is a bad bill for the many reasons that have been given by my noble friends and other noble Lords today. For me, it is another example of a reason why the Labour government cannot be trusted with taxpayers money. This morning the Chancellor of the Exchequer, as good as announced that she is going to raise taxes in this month's budget.

In the first five years alone. Hugely important to the budget arithmetic. Nearly £900 million will be given to the Mauritian government. How can the government look British taxpayers in the eye and say they will make us pay more tax so they can give it

**** Possible New Speaker ****

away to a foreign government? My Lords, I first mentioned the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I first mentioned the Chagos Islands back in 2008. In the other place, when we were telling other place, when we were telling that we had set up an all party group on Chagos. And I have to say group on Chagos. And I have to say that over the years, when I was in the other place at those meetings, I never once heard a Chagossian saying that they were asking to be put under Mauritian rule. They were asking for the British government to allow them back home.

So to me, to allow them back home. So to me, a basic underlying problem with this bill is that despite how we this bill is that despite how we behaved to the Chagossian Islanders in our lifetime, let us remember not in some far off time in not in some far off time in colonial history when we arbitrarily evicted them out of their homes, which was a gross their homes, which was a gross abuse which we undertook and which these days, let us be clear, would these days, let us be clear, would be called ethnic cleansing.

Yes. And now this Labour government is repeating the mistakes of the past. repeating the mistakes of the past. No involvement of the Chagossians, no attempt to get their views by no attempt to get their views by way of a referendum. And I know it would be very difficult to organise a referendum right across the world for us, but it could be done if there was the will to do it. Instead of rushing to announce this deal with Mauritius, they could have started a process of real engagement with Chagossians all over the world, and this would have shown all those various bodies passing judgement on us that we were serious about looking after the interests of those whose islands were being discussed.

The entire basis for this surrender of sovereignty seems to be the notion or principle in international law, that territories generally ought not to be divided at independence. But of course, there are countless examples of this having occurred, and having been right at the time, India, for example. And the government says that it's important we ensure the future of the Diego Garcia base and that without this treaty, its future would be uncertain. Why should it be uncertain? There is no one in this House who disagrees about the importance of the base for our security, the uncertainty they mean is based on three international judgements the International Court of Justice advisory opinion of 2019 was just that.

Advisory. The UN General Assembly resolution of 2019 is only a recommendation. The International Tribunal for the law of the sea judgement of 2021
18:23
Baroness Hoey Portrait Baroness Hoey (Non-affiliated)
-
-
followed a process which did not even involve the UK and is therefore not binding. This is just therefore not binding. This is just another example. I'm afraid of our government refusing to stand up for our own country and our own our own country and our own national interest. Can anyone imagine China or the United States giving up territory because of some international legal opinion? Of course they wouldn't, because they put their own country first. And put their own country first. And it's about time that we did that too.

I mean, what what if this too. I mean, what what if this advisory council suddenly said, we think the Falklands should be given back to Argentina? Is the back to Argentina? Is the government then going to say that perhaps that might be something that we should do, but now we're that we should do, but now we're actually going to pay out millions of pounds to give away our own territory, and no amount of fine territory, and no amount of fine words from lawyers and liberal ideas and international law will convince the public that this deal is anything other than a shameful act of betrayal of Chagossians.

As act of betrayal of Chagossians. As it stands at the moment, not a single Chagossian has the right to return to the islands. It's all return to the islands. It's all down to the Mauritian government, a government which is getting closer and closer to China and will face and closer to China and will face any direction. If the money is there, they will decide how the money that we give will get to the Chagossians if it ever does. Whatever assurances on paper are likely in a short time to become of little value, guarantees will be worthless.

And where then will be all these pillars of international law? I doubt they will be anywhere to be seen. This bill was not in the manifesto of the Labour Party. It was announced very soon after the election and I think to all of us it came out of the blue. Yes, the conservatives had started to negotiate, but I'm not really interested now in blaming who started what. The reality is the conservatives didn't actually sign up to anything. It's the Labour government who's signing up to it now.

And they hadn't. And that that is their decision that they took so quickly just after they were elected. So why is this government surrendering a vital geopolitical asset, a matchless environmental protection order, vast reserves of increasingly precious seabed resources and the right of self-determination of the Chagossian people to say nothing of the massive price tag the people of the UK will be paying for generations to come to rent something that we presently own. Why the rush? This whole deal? And Bill makes no sense to me morally.

For the British Chagossians legally, economically or from a security perspective, I genuinely don't understand where it's come from, and it makes me wonder if the only way to understand it, and I know noble Lords will not like me saying this, is to look at the role of the Attorney General, the noble Lord Hermer, for it was the attorney General who, as a barrister, moved from Doughty Chambers, which he had shared with his friend, the current Prime Minister, to join the chambers jointly founded by their mutual friend, a certain Philippe Sands, the lawyer who has represented Mauritius interests over those of the British Chagossians.

Throughout this sorry saga, Lord Hermer became a member of the Matrix Chambers, and I can only assume that he assumed his friendship with Sands presented no conflict of interest for the Attorney General when he became that. Nor, indeed did he suggest a conflict of interest when it was he who him before he was attorney general in 2023, represented a group of Sri Lankan asylum seekers in Chagos and then decided a few years later as Attorney General to allow their case and let them resettle in the UK.

Now, surely this was a conflict of interest. Now I'm raising this because this is what people out there are asking, and if I can't raise it here in this chamber, where can we get these answers? Why? Perhaps some people may say this is all above board, and that's not for me to say. It isn't. It is true, as perhaps the noble Lord Glasman observed in an interview with the New Statesman recently on Lord Hermer, he actually said, he's got to go.

And he I don't think I'll quote actually what he said in the New Statesman, because it was pretty harsh about the noble Lord. But it is, he said, they talk about the rule of law, but what they want is a rule of lawyers. And when we look at the Attorney General's 2024 Bingham lecture on the rule of law, he actually said, since taking office, this government has already taken steps to uphold those obligations and demonstrate our deep commitment to international law.

We have reached agreement with Mauritius. This is way back to settle the historic sovereignty claims over the Chagos Archipelago in a manner that successfully marries our international law obligations with vital national security requirements. Not a single mention in that speech of the Chagossian people. Shameful. Surely he should be recusing himself from anything to do with the Chagos Islands, and we should be getting a statement from him on his position, and we should be getting the legal opinion. I'm really deeply ashamed of the government's position on this, probably the most shameful act of its one year tenure, and I am pleased this one.

People like this either. I'm pleased that the Reform Party, if they were to get into power, has said quite clearly and unequivocally that they will tear this treaty up and whatever lawyers and international bodies say, I will back this because this is wrong. This is wrong for our country. And it is a it is absolutely outrageous that a government is getting away with giving away our sovereignty in this

**** Possible New Speaker ****

very short time. Lady sits down and. As soon as she sat down under a formal but you she sat down under a formal but you can go and say, I. Would very much prefer the noble Lady to be prefer the noble Lady to be consistent if she's criticising the Attorney General under this government for giving advice on government for giving advice on continuing. Negotiations to cede sovereignty, why is she not as sovereignty, why is she not as critical of the noble Lady? Lady Prentice, who was attorney general in November 22nd, 2022, when in November 22nd, 2022, when presumably she gave advice to the previous government to commence

**** Possible New Speaker ****

negotiations to seek sovereignty? The noble, the noble Lord. He obviously has seen some of these obviously has seen some of these legal agreements, I haven't. I would like to see all this legal advice. I see no reason why this.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

advice. I see no reason why this. This House should not see the legal advice. My Lords.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords. We have an opportunity to right
18:29
Lord Hannan of Kingsclere Portrait Lord Hannan of Kingsclere (Conservative)
-
-
an old wrong and to prevent a new injustice. We have an opportunity

**** Possible New Speaker ****

to stop the handover of tens of millions of pounds. A year, billions in total, in. Order to fund.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Order to fund. Taxes somewhere else, while taxes are rising, tax cuts somewhere else while taxes are rising. Here, we have the opportunity to prevent the handover of strategic territory to a state that may come under the influence of unfriendly powers. And above all, of unfriendly powers. And above all, we have the ability to stand up belatedly for the injured. Party belatedly for the injured. Party here. The Chagossian people sitting. Silently in the gallery throughout your lordships debate has been a

**** Possible New Speaker ****

your lordships debate has been a contingent. Of our friends from the British Indian Ocean Territory. Their role.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Their role. As silent spectators has been eerily symbolic of the role that they have played these past 50

**** Possible New Speaker ****

they have played these past 50 years, and. Especially these last. Five years, as decisions.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Five years, as decisions. About them have been made without them. But we have.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The opportunity. To go in a different direction. Article 18 of the treaty makes clear that it cannot enter into force until both parties have informed each other that they have concluded all the national ratification procedures. national ratification procedures. And I just want to remind noble Lords one more time. Of what the Labour manifesto said about this. My noble friend Lord Callanan quoted it. Defending our security also means protecting the British overseas territories.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Labour will always defend. Their sovereignty and right to self-determination. Now, my Lords,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I would argue that under the ways. I think. You could at least make the claim that this. Chamber has.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

claim that this. Chamber has. Not just the. Opportunity. But the duty to enforce the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

But the duty to enforce the manifesto on which. Labour was elected. And that means recognising

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the self-determination of the Chagossian people. Why are. We doing this? I'm not going to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

We doing this? I'm not going to repeat my noble friend Lord Lilley speech. There was no legal obligation. For one thing, military facilities are excluded from the facilities are excluded from the purview of these courts. But even if you set that aside, it was expressly drawn up.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

expressly drawn up. our. Lawyers could devise. That there. Was no purview for a court like.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Was no purview for a court like. A second ago. A second ago. There A second ago. There is A second ago. There is a A second ago. There is a clique A second ago. There is a clique of people and it is a clique I can't help noticing from the sparse help noticing from the sparse benches opposite, that there is no great enthusiasm from the governing party for this measure. There is a clique of people for whom Decolonise is everything it is.

It is painful for them to see little Union Jacks in the upper corners of flags, and they approach these questions impressionistically based on vibes, based on emotions, almost regardless of the legal rights and wrongs or the interests of the people concerned. So confronted with actually very clear in Philippe Sanders's book, which he he wrote about, the whole process is very clear how he and the attorney general and I suspect the Prime Minister have come at this, that you must always back the ex-colony against the coloniser, always back to the poorer state, against the Western one, always back the non-white population against the white one, regardless of the rights and wrongs, even though the people being injured.

Here are, of course, the dispossessed Chagossians. Even as a decolonised exercise, it totally fails in its own terms, because here is a territory now being handed to a genuinely colonial power that has no interest in it, no connection except a pecuniary one. I'm not going to get into the ecological arguments. They were so well stated by Lord Thurlow, or indeed the strategic ones that we've heard from other people, but I just want to to, in order to emphasise the wrong done to the chagossian population, I just want to canter through very briefly some of the history.

The archipelago was uninhabited until 1783. The French then populated it with enslaved people taken from the African mainland. It was seized during the Napoleonic Wars by or it wasn't seized, but the, the, the Indian Ocean. French speaking territories were seized by the Royal Navy, actually dramatically rendered in one of the Patrick O'Brian novels. And at the end of that war in 1814, Mauritius and the Chagos Islands were separately ceded to the British Crown. The Chagos Islands were never part of Mauritius.

They were administered from Mauritius because there was no suitable administrative seat in the archipelago. But I'm just going to invite you, my Lords, to to entertain for a moment. Seriously, the claim that because somewhere was once administered from somewhere else, that creates a sovereignty claim. By that logic, Anguilla would be part of Saint Kitts, the Turks and Caicos Islands would be part of Jamaica. Indeed, come to that, Burma would be part of India. It is a ludicrous argument, an incredibly dangerous precedent that we're setting not only for our fellow subjects in other overseas territories such as Gibraltar and the Falklands, but indeed for any other country that was ever administered from somewhere else, which is a great many places on the planet.

Fast forward to 1965, and as we've heard, the Mauritian government accepted and gladly pocketed the then huge sum of £3 million in return for renouncing in perpetuity any claim to the Chagos Archipelago. And they were far from unhappy about that, because this was a territory to which they were unconnected, and they saw this as an extremely good deal. Let me quote what the then Prime Minister, Sir Seewoosagur Ramgoolam, said shortly afterwards. He said this was a territory of which very few people knew, which is very far from us and which we never visited, and that, as far as he was concerned, was that the deal was done.

And indeed Mauritius then pocketed some further funds that were handed over by this country, supposedly for the betterment of the Chagossian diaspora. Although a lot of that money somehow never quite trickled through to the people it was supposed to help. Indeed, a lot of the bad feeling of the diaspora population towards Mauritius stems from the way in which those funds have been dispersed down the decades. It was really only 15 or so years ago, as China began to become interested in Mauritius, that the claim was being pressed again in earnest.

We had a state visit from the Chinese head of state, an unusual thing for a country the size of Mauritius. First, the first free trade agreement with any African state, I think, between China and an African state was. And at that point, suddenly Mauritius became very interested in exercising sovereignty over this territory. And can you blame them? Right. It's been referred to aptly as the Malta of the Indian Ocean. Of the seven great naval choke points in the world, it's within reach of four of them the Bab el Mandeb, the Straits of Hormuz, the Malacca Strait and the Cape of Good Hope.

It was from the Diego Garcia base in 1991 that the waves of B-52 bombers took off to topple Saddam Hussein's regime. It was from there that a brave part of the campaign against the Taliban was waged. It's worth noting if we're playing the game of Decolonise, that for a diaspora Chagossian to dispute Mauritian sovereignty is an imprisonable offence. Under a law passed in 2021. Simply to say what I'm saying would be would get me a spell in Chokey if I were in Mauritius.

But my Lords there is an alternative solution, and I think it was touched on by the noble Lady Baroness Foster, and I really want to put this forward because it is not just that we're stopping this. We've got to have an alternative. And it was one, actually, that was initially looked at when Tony Blair was Prime Minister. He commissioned a feasibility study by KPMG into resettling the chagossian populations on the outer atolls, and the feasibility study came back much later and said that it could be done for the cost of £3 billion over a century, which in a rather short sighted move, the subsequent conservative government decided was too big an outlay.

During the time of austerity. But even if we accept the noble Lady, the minister's figures on the liability to British taxpayers, and I suspect that my noble friend Baroness Noakes is much closer to the actual sum. But even on the government's figures, that is still a lot more expensive than putting in the infrastructure and resettling the Chagossian population as British subjects in a British overseas territory. And that would put forever beyond doubt, because it would then be an inhabited territory, the sovereignty claim.

It would then be up to the people there, and only up to them if they wanted to change their sovereignty. My Lords, when this government took office, it promised growth. And actually what we're seeing is that it's delivering shrinkage in every sense, economically, morally and physically, geographically. If this bill goes through and we compound the injustice to our fellow subjects of Chagossian descent, we will be, in every sense diminished as a country. Yeah, masterful. as a country.

Yeah, masterful.
18:38
Lord Horam Portrait Lord Horam (Conservative)
-
-
Absolutely masterful.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Grand colonial, anti-colonial views of my noble friend Lord views of my noble friend Lord Hannay splendid piece of of radical demography, if I may say so. Really well done. But can I narrow it right down to the point which was made very clearly by Baroness Hoey recently, and by my good friend Lord Bellingham, which is the Lord Bellingham, which is the position of the Chagossians. Now I should declare an interest straight away that I'm a member of the Vice away that I'm a member of the Vice Chairman.

Indeed, of the all party group on Chagos, and I am a chairman of vice chairman of that, because I did take part in a parliamentary delegation to parliamentary delegation to Mauritius many years ago and have maintained contacts with the island maintained contacts with the island since. I've been there once as a splendid place to go, by the way, thoroughly enjoyable, rather thoroughly enjoyable, rather different from a November day in the House of Lords. And and there's the House of Lords. And and there's no doubt that Mauritius is a very no doubt that Mauritius is a very pro-British colony, so pro-British that it actually follows our Premier League football quite Premier League football quite avidly.

There's even I found, to my surprise, in the middle of Mauritius, a village called Arsenal with a football team called Arsenal, Wanderers, Wanderers. I tried to find if there was a Manchester United reflecting my own interest, but no luck, I'm afraid. But nonetheless, I want to make the point that Lord Jay of well made Mauritius is an important, significant player in all this, in a vital part of the world which is very at the moment pro-British, very successful, and we should be very careful in how we handle this.

From a diplomatic point of view. We could could easily go very wrong if we do not take their point of view into account. But more importantly, there is the position of the of the Chagossians, because there's no doubt that we did a terrible act on them in 1965. And my my friend Lord Bellingham has compared it to the clearances in North and Scotland. And I think it's similar in a sense that we actually took their land and banished them from their hereditary land, and we have a moral don't forget the law.

We have a moral debt to these people which we must fulfil. And I'm glad some of them are in the in the gallery. Of course, there's no doubt that opinions are mixed. I know that many of the UK Chagossians are against this bill, but equally many of the Mauritian and Seychelles Chagossians are in favour of this bill. Opinion is clearly very mixed and indeed the the chairman of the. The Chagossian refugees Group, Olivier Boncore. His statement was read out by my good friend Baroness Ludford earlier this day.

Won't repeat it, but he makes clearly that there has been good consultation. There has been some consultation, good consultation which he is satisfied with, and also he supports the Bill. So there is mixed opinion. But what really worries me is the point which has not yet been made in this debate, is the point made by Lord Goldsmith, who is the chair of the International Agreements Committee. Earlier in in this the debates we've had on this, namely that the bill and the treaty itself is notably deficient on dealing with the Chagossians rights.

Only one sentence in the whole treaty, only one sentence deals with the position of the Chagossians. And what that says is that the Mauritian government is now in a position to to to do something for the Chagossian people. That's all. In effect, it says it is able to do something. It is in a position to do something. So my I have a suggestion to the Minister, and I'm glad she's come back into her place because Lord Carlile, my friend Lord Carlile, therefore homed in on exactly the right point that the big gap in the treaty and in the bill is regarding the treatment of Chagossians, which is incredibly inefficient, insufficient.

And he. I'm sorry we're not discussing the amendment he had, because I think the idea of having 4 or 5 week period when we could discuss all this properly in a measured way, without relying on what people outside the chamber said, could have it discussed it in a almost a select committee type way, will, I think, be entirely sensible. And I'm glad. I'm sorry we're not discussing that today, but if we couldn't have that, could we nonetheless do something else? Even if we did have that, but couldn't, could we also do something else, which is to meet this problem by a different method? Normally, I quite understand that in treaties of this kind you do not want to get into how a partner to the treaty should handle people who are, after all, its own citizens.

Many of the Chagossians, those who are in, in, in, in Mauritius. You would not normally do that in diplomatic circles. That is not the way it is handled. But there are such things, an exchange of letters you could have attached to the treaty, an exchange of letters which drew on any views there may be expressed by the Chagossian people. You have a referendum or you have some other means of finding out opinion about exactly what, how they should be handled and what they want, because to go forward on this, frankly sketchy basis is really not sufficient and really is a shame that this that we are apparently so far advanced down the line that have not addressed this fully in the way that we should.

So I do seriously make the suggestion to the noble Lady, as she's sitting there, has admirably put out a position that we should attach diplomatic letters and exchange of letters to this treaty, at the very least, taking into account any views which are expressed. And ultimately, as we have this further discussion, which my friend Lord Callaghan wishes us to have. Yeah.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Of Ballyholme is taking part remotely. I invite Lord Weir to speak.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

speak. My Lord, may I first of all declare an interest as a friend of British Overseas Territories. My Lords, this bill is labelled as the Lords, this bill is labelled as the Diego Garcia. Bill, but we all know Diego Garcia. Bill, but we all know it goes much further than that and deals with the full implementation deals with the full implementation of the Chagos Island deal. Now, the government has told us that the previous government started negotiations on sovereignty.

The opposition has told us that they opposition has told us that they would not have signed that bill. I suspect that both those assertions suspect that both those assertions are is to dissect whether this bill is an appropriate one. And I have
18:46
Lord Weir of Ballyholme Portrait Lord Weir of Ballyholme (Democratic Unionist Party)
-
-
is an appropriate one. And I have to say that in my view, this is a poor deal for the United Kingdom as a whole, but above all, a shameful deal for the Chagossian people. The Chagos Islands have been British since 1814. That was before the final defeat of Napoleon, and indeed before we, for example, before the Falkland Islands were British. It is before the vast bulk of countries across the world were in their current form, certainly their current boundaries. Indeed, it is before even the UK's current boundaries existed themselves.

Yet we are handing over sovereignty to a country which has is over a thousand miles away from the Chagos Islands, and has never had either rule or control of the Chagos Islands. It is akin to us handing over the Isle of Wight to Belarus. So limited are the geographical connections between the two. We are doing so largely because of, as the government has indicated, in part because of the advisory ruling of the ICJ and indeed the threat legally of what is to come.

Now, I will not reiterate, I think the very wise points from a legal perspective that were made by Lord Lilley earlier. Suffice it to say that I'm not convinced by the government's legal case on this, but let me go further, and I appreciate this will appear as heresy to some within the House when it comes to the sovereignty, sovereignty, and when it comes to the self-determination of those under British sovereignty. I would say that while international opinion is always something that we should have regard to, we cannot simply give carte blanche to international opinion and those who treat international opinion as being sacrosanct in these matters will then have to answer at some stage in the future.

When the ICJ, no doubt prompted by some feeling of anti-colonialism, declares that the Falkland Islands should be part of Argentina, or that Gibraltar should be part of Spain, that is the logical conclusion of saying that we cannot, at any stage, challenge what is ruled by an international court, and why I believe that the British sovereignty and regard to the self-determination of the people within, that must be paramount. Now, it is not simply a question, as others have said, of giving away sovereignty.

We're not simply giving it to Mauritius. We are actually paying them a substantial fee to take it off our hands. And whether we regard that as being the 3.4 billion that the government is talking about, or the 35 billion that the main opposition party is talking about, or somewhere in between, we are paying a vast sum, a cash cow to Mauritius to ensure that that the Chagos Islands become theirs. So not only are we giving a feather in the cap to Mauritius, we're giving a big financial gain to Mauritius.

We are also giving them an asset, and we know that already of the deep involvement of China, who sees Mauritius as part of their sphere of influence. And there is no doubt that in days to come, we will see parts of the Chagos Islands being built on by the Chinese, who will encroach more and more in that in that area. And the government, I think ultimately then will be left with no real response because they have already surrendered the sovereignty of the islands to Mauritius.

The other motivation, I think, is perhaps a feeling of colonial debt or colonial guilt. But if we take that premise at face value, if there is colonial debt, to whom do we owe that debt? Surely it is to those that we colonise in the first place, namely the Chagossians. But they have been treated shamelessly and shamefully so. And if you look, that is not something which I suspect has been different to what has happened over the last 60 years. We have a very poor record in the Chagos Islands, but the Chagossians throughout these negotiations have not had a veto, have not been directly involved in negotiations.

And when it comes to consultation, have effectively been consulted after deals have been done. That is not the way to reflect self-determination and therefore within the deal itself. As well as giving over sovereignty to Mauritius, we have a trust fund, supposedly for Chagossians, which is then going to be entirely controlled by the Mauritius government. Not a penny will go directly to the Chagossians themselves, and we did not, even within this deal, get a right of return. We have ceded that entirely to Mauritius.

Now, I have no doubt that if there is any form of right of return, it will be to those Chagossians who have shown subservience to the Mauritian government. Anybody deemed that will take a different view to the Mauritius government will not be able to return to their homeland. My Lords, this is a shameful deal. I welcome at least today that the committal motion has not gone ahead and I urge the government, even at this belated hour, to take advantage of that time, to genuinely consult and reach a view on the self-determination.

And people have been told by both the Minister and by others that really well, the voice of Chagossians is really content to be with Mauritius. Well, let the government then put that to the test and show proper self-determination to the people of the Chagos Islands. And let us use this pause to abandon this appalling deal and this rotten bill.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you. I thank the noble Lady, the Minister, for her patience in hosting this debate, and welcome the Chagossians who joined us this the Chagossians who joined us this evening. You're very welcome in our house, and would start by noting house, and would start by noting that some things are not obvious because they're not obvious. And because they're not obvious. And this one is really quite a complicated story to explain. And complicated story to explain. And it was interesting to hear how the Minister was able to explain it.

So Minister was able to explain it. So in a sense tactfully, because it involves at least three countries, the rights of individuals are quite the rights of individuals are quite a wide ranging view on legal matters and interpretations, matters and interpretations, environmental issues. And then only then do you get to the defence issues. And then finally a very issues. And then finally a very large amount of money. And so to understand why we are paying out so much money, we need to understand why the agreement is in the form it is.

And that always goes back to this claim on sovereignty and the government's anxiety over these government's anxiety over these legal risks. And the Minister in the Commons, just like the noble Lady, the Minister this evening referenced once again the learned and noble Lord Goldsmith's report, the International Agreements Report, and the statement in that report and the report is very carefully written, the statement in the report that if agreement was not reached, there would be some risk to the base. We always hear this.

The government does not like to quote the other statements made in the conclusions of that report, where they say in the conclusion that the findings in 2019 were were non-binding. They also note that the treaty does not make appropriate provisions for the Chagossians, and they conclude with an observation that the treaty is a compromise, and that is a good word to describe the situation. The government, in its some kind of compromise. And the our colleagues on the International Relations and Defence Committee, the chaired by the noble Lord Lord de Mauley, they struggled with the the legal position here, and they heard lots of legal opinions and they weren't able to reach any conclusion.

They said there's a wide range of opinions, and they came up with the language that it was a political decision. And again, that's a fair way of describing it. So we have a compromise for political reasons in the judgement of the government,
18:56
Lord Brady of Altrincham Portrait Lord Brady of Altrincham (Conservative)
-
-
and we would expect the financial part to reflect the spirit of that, a spirit of compromise, of a rather a spirit of compromise, of a rather complicated story. But when you get to the financial part of this agreement, you find that in fact, agreement, you find that in fact, it's a great deal of money. And my it's a great deal of money. And my noble friend explained the initial payments. But the government is likes to talk about an amount of £101 million.

It's in this £101 million. It's in this discounted, not real money way. The initial payments, incidentally, are initial payments, incidentally, are over £200 million a year, but the the government always goes back to the government always goes back to trying to justify why are we paying trying to justify why are we paying this rental fee? And they say with great triumph that in fact, there's great triumph that in fact, there's a precedent. And we heard this in the House of Commons, and the precedent is this, this example precedent is this, this example that France has is paying 85 million a year for a military base million a year for a military base in Djibouti.

Of course, it's extremely unlucky to justify British public spending. With British public spending. With reference to French public spending. But putting that aside, the Minister in the House of Commons was probably not aware that the whole idea of introducing Djibouti came from the Mauritians, and they introduced this concept of Djibouti because they wanted to introduce the concept of an open market rent. This had to be on an open market basis. But of course, this situation is not even beginning to be an open market basis.

We've just discussed it's a kind of very complex compromise. We should never have accepted the comparison to this Djibouti example, never accepted it at all, and never started from that position and a moment's reflection, just a moment's reflection is the UK is in no position to seek an open market rent for an American military base. It's just it's just preposterous. It's not even beginning to be an open market situation. And then we get to the overall economics of the situation.

Now, the government loves talking about this number of £3.4 billion. It's a great deal of money for those who don't really wish to pay any money for this. But unluckily for the government, unluckily, they don't seem to understand the financial risk of the contract, which could be for a great deal more. And the reason for that is, as we've heard, is because in the contract there's an inflation ratchet from year 14 to 99. And if it's not a question of how we account for it today, it'll be real money.

It'll be real money that flows out. And the ratchet starts in year 14. It's quite soon. The reason why that matters is because a future government will almost certainly need to retrade this situation, for reasons we don't know today, and what they'll find is that the Mauritians don't see the contract the same way. They don't account for it the same way. They will see an extremely valuable exposure to UK inflation. The government doesn't seem to understand the risk in its own contract.

So my question for the Minister is this could she she could she report to us in the House? Is the value of this contract actually £3.4 billion. And that is the capped capped value. There is no further exposure above 3.4 billion. It's extremely important that we cap this exposure or the government finds a way to cap this exposure. Because if it rolls on any longer, it'll be locked in as being actually uncapped. And that will create a frightful row in the future between the UK and the Republic of Mauritius.

But we're trying to settle rows between the two countries. We don't want a misunderstanding of the value of this, of this contract. And then finally, I'd add one other thought. And it is important this because we're deficit financing the government at the moment, which is that it's very burdensome for the government to pay money out of the country to another country. The government likes to point out that some public expenditure creates domestic stimulus. That itself will always be argued over, because some people will say there's too much waste.

The spending is inefficient. But when the government wastes money domestically, there probably is some level of domestic stimulus. But when the money is sent to the Republic of Mauritius, there isn't any. And it's worse than that, because in addition, the money is not being spent on the military base. And in addition, the treaty provides for priority to Mauritian contractors and Mauritian workers. There aren't any jobs for for people from the UK in this, so it's a straight loss out of the UK.

It is particularly burdensome. My Lords the treaty amounts to a shakedown of UK taxpayers by the Republic of Mauritius, and in addition, it points to weakness in financial controls at Her Majesty's Treasury. Weakness of national control by the government, and it may in due course, create great misunderstanding. If the government hasn't properly appreciated the inflation exposure they had in the contract and a future, future government will meet that exposure with dismay, and future taxpayers will be taking the cost of it.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

Hello. There's general agreement about the importance to the UK's.
19:01
Lord Craig of Radley Portrait Lord Craig of Radley (Crossbench)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

about the importance to the UK's. Defence security and to the USA that there should be a stable and that there should be a stable and legal arrangement. Agreed. The 100 year and more period of this treaty makes some valiant assumptions about the longevity of the relationships between the countries involved. Governments rise and fall relationship shifts, sometimes dramatically, sometimes on a general generational rather than a centenary time frame. Although this is far from being a well received arrangement treaty, it is maybe now increasingly difficult to change course completely.

I have, however, and following on from what the noble Lord, Lord Altrincham, has been saying, I have one question about the arrangements covering the payments to the government of the Government of Mauritius. As article 11 says in the treaty, quote, in consideration of this agreement, which applies to the whole of the Chagos Archipelago, certain sums will be paid to Mauritius. The exchange of letters dealing with the details of these arrangements also forms part of the agreement. But the British and American interest is confined to the islands and surrounding seas of Diego Garcia.

In a hundred years and more, there must surely be a possibility of some natural catastrophe. An earthquake or tsunami, or even a rise of ocean levels due to global warming. The runway at Diego Garcia is only a metre above today's sea level. Many of these, which might make the base and all the airfield no longer functioning as the UK. Any automatic right to cease payments to Mauritius if the base is no longer usable, nor capable of recovery at any reasonable cost.

Maybe the never. Did. The Minister will point to some sections of agreement that does cover this eventuality. If it is not explicitly covered, would Mauritius still be lawfully entitled to the annual payments? Even if Diego Garcia is unusable? Where UK to stop payments, would it have to be settled along the lines outlined in this agreement by arbitration and ultimately agreement between the respective Prime Ministers? It would not be in the UK's national interest to be devoting scarce defence funds to a useless white elephant.

But a clash over interpretation could also be damaging to our national interest. The noble and gallant Lord Lord Houghton of Richmond raised this point on my behalf and the debate on the 30th of June. In reply, the Minister suggested that, like all small atoll islands, it is naturally dynamic. He wouldn't speculate about future erosion, but was confident, says there is overall concluded, and I quote, the natural land area had decreased by less than a single percent in the past 50 years.

My Lords is that a sufficient reassurance? But the natural disaster or sea levels not rising by less than a metre for the next hundred years, plus considerable sums might be at stake if this. Eventuality is not satisfactorily covered, should this be corrected before the treaty is finally approved?
19:05
Baroness Meyer Portrait Baroness Meyer (Conservative)
-
-
As I rise to speak, looking at the empty benches opposite me, I wonder whether some Labour peers are just realising how unnecessary and reckless this bill is. First, the people of the Chagos Islands were. Islands were not even consulted about the future of their homeland, having already suffered the injustices of forced removal half a century ago, they have now been denied a voice in deciding its fate. For a government that claims to uphold human rights, this is an extraordinary moral failure.

The treaty claims to allow a program of resettlement on some of the outer islands, but not on Diego Garcia itself, the very heart of their former homeland. It provides no detail on where, when or how such a return might occur. The government concedes that settlement remain necessarily uncertain. In reality, the Chagossians rights of return depends entirely on the discretion of Mauritius, a government that has shown little interest in their welfare. So once again, those who were exiled more than 50 years ago will be denied any guarantee of justice or a true homecoming.

Second, this government has chosen to give away British territory to Mauritius, even though there was no legal binding obligation on the United Kingdom to do to do so. In February 2019, the International Court of Justice issued only an advisory opinion, a political statement, not a just judgement. It carries no legal force. I'm not going to go on. As Lord Lilley pointed out earlier, all the legal bases on why there was no need for us to sign any legal, any agreement.

In short, the government is not acting out of legal necessity, but by choice while jeopardising one of the most important access in the defence of the free world. The government insists that this is about the long term security of the base. But under article 13, the lease expires in 99 years. So what happens if Mauritius decides not to renew the lease? Only last month, its Prime Minister publicly questioned the duration and terms of the lease, suggesting that it may not guarantee long term British or American access.

A poor country will always be tempted by Chinese money. What if Beijing simply outbid us without a right to extend this deal? Neither secures Diego Garcia nor safeguards the marine protection area, nor does it protects the rights of the Chagossian people. This is not an investment. It is an expensive and humiliating surrender, made at a time when British taxpayers are already struggling. The Prime Minister has admitted that it will cost around 3.4 billion. But as my noble friend Lady Noakes so clearly set out, it will be at least 35 billion.

So why are we giving away billions of pounds on territory we already administer? Meanwhile, the American Americans keep the base. In other words, Britain pays, America stays, and China watches. Thirdly, the freehold now rests with a non-nuclear power. What if Mauritius objects to nuclear powered or nuclear armed vessels using the port or airstrips, or imposes restrictions on operations vital to our defence? What if Chinese trawlers granted fishing rights close to Diego Garcia, begin gathering intelligence under the cover of commerce? China, Russia, North Korea all have an interest in this vital region.

This is not only very expensive concession, it is also a very dangerous one, my Lords, we have weakened our position, undermined our allies, burden our taxpayers and silence the Chagossians. This is quite simply, the worst deal for Britain in living memory. A moral outrage, illegal folly and a strategic danger. Thus the noble Lord, the Minister, not agree that it is time to pause, admit that the government has got it wrong, and stand up for what is truly in our national interest.

And would the noble Lord, the Minister, not agree that before, sorry, before relinquishing sovereignty over any British territory, the government has a duty to ensure the consent of its people? So can the Minister explain why the government is proceeding with this bill without first consulting the Chagossian people? Those most directly affected by it? Will the government commit to rectify this omission? Maybe, as suggested earlier, by a referendum? And will the Minister also confirm whether the government recognises that Chagossian right to self-determination under international law? And, if so, why their right of return has been made dependent on the discretion of Mauritius, rather than on a clear guarantee within the treaty itself.

And lastly, may I remind the Minister that the trust fund is controlled by Mauritius and won't necessarily go to the British Chagossian.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yeah, well, sir. My Lords, I'm pleased. To follow.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

To follow. The noble Lady Baroness Meyer I have to say, despite the fact I have to say, despite the fact I don't agree with a word of what she said, I think I'm pleased because said, I think I'm pleased because I've waited a long time to make this relatively short speech in this debate. My Lords, in my this debate. My Lords, in my contribution to the debate on the 30th of June and the noble Lord Callanan motion, I concluded my contribution with the following sentence I will offer this agreement my full support in these agreement my full support in these and any other proceedings in your Lordships' House.

And that is still my position in relation to both the agreement and therefore the Bill and the same position. The more so and the same position. The more so because in my noble friend Baroness Liddell remarked in the earlier Liddell remarked in the earlier debate in June in column 501, and the noble Lord, Lord J of ul the noble Lord, Lord J of ul reminded us today our allies, not just the Five Eyes communities of just the Five Eyes communities of the US, Australia, Canada, and New Zealand along with ourselves, but
19:13
Lord Browne of Ladyton Portrait Lord Browne of Ladyton (Labour)
-
-
Zealand along with ourselves, but India, Japan and South Korea and the African Union strongly support this deal. I congratulate my noble friend, the Right Honourable Baroness Chapman of Darlington, on her opening and comprehensive remarks, and I thank and congratulate both her and my noble friend Lord Coaker for their openness and engagement with noble Lords on the many issues and complications that are raised by this treaty. I thank my noble friends in particular, for arranging on the 29th of October and all peers drop in session on the bill, and I thank them even more for ensuring that the key Fcdo officials, including the UK chief negotiator Harriet Mathews, were present to share their knowledge and to respond to noble Lords remarks or questions, which they did candidly and in my view, credibly.

I am only sorry that the representatives of the Official Opposition who were in the room at the beginning of this conversation, mostly left without taking advantage of the opportunity that was there to question those who negotiated this and to ask the questions that the clearly have my Lords in a few minutes, as I can possibly do, I'm going to focus my speech in what was the main purpose of my speech on the 30th of June to examine, insofar as I am able to enact the principles that under appear to underlie opposition to this treaty and consequently to the Bill.

Now, my Lords, the strategic importance of Diego Garcia and its base to both the United Kingdom and the United States, and to all our allies globally, is well known. And interestingly, in my research, despite the fact that many of the commentary about this space refers to it as a secret base, it's very easy in open source to find out the detail of quite a substantial amount of the capability that this base offers. It's available in some detail in open source.

And so I proceed on the basis that no one engaged in this debate needs to be reminded of the specific or strategical operational support that it offers. My own experience of its of its importance to UK security and to the security of our allies was the support that it gave our operations, both in Iraq and Afghanistan. When I was the Secretary of State for defence, I've no intention of going into the detail of that, but I think it is well known.

And for those who don't know, you can find a lot, a lot about this in open source. So as a consequence of our agreement with Mauritius, we will have access to this capability enhanced by more investment by the United States. I mean, it's not a case of we pay the United States, states. The United States invests many multiples of of of their cash in this, this base, in order to give it the extraordinary capability that it has. I mean, nobody can do anything to change where it is in, in the global map, but the Americans can continue for a period to invest.

And when they have plans to invest further in the long term, and we will get value for our money from what the Americans do to help support us and the way in which we work with them to make sure that capability is improving all the time. The fact of the matter is, however, and this has not. I worry if this is not known to those who sit in the opposite benches, but the fact of the matter is that in 2019, when the International Court of Justice issued an advisory opinion concluding that the UK's administration of the Chagos Archipelago was unlawful and that Mauritius has sovereignty over the territory immediately, immediately imperilled the continuing EU investment and planned investment in Diego Garcia.

I understand again from open source comment that the US suspended that investment until the issue of sovereignty had been resolved. One of the advantages of having the negotiators in the meeting of the 29th October was that I was able to ask them openly, was that information which is there available for people to see and read? Was it known to the Fcdo? Was it known to the government at the time when the negotiations started that this that this link existed? My Lords the uncertainty that justified the United States position? Excuse me, is to be found in the evidence from Sir Christopher Greenwood, which has also been referred to earlier in the debate by other speakers of the UK.

The one of the UK's pre-eminent practitioners of international law and a former judge in the International Court, gave to the International Agreements Committee. In his opinion, he said any international court examining the sovereignty dispute would likely find in favour of Mauritius that such an outcome would clearly represent a risk to the future of the military base, and thus to UK national interests and security. And that is not something we can just dismiss. The suspension of US investment had the issue of sovereignty not being resolved by negotiation also would have represented a risk to the future of the military base and thus to the UK's national interests and security.

That is the environment in which these decisions were made back in November 2022. The decision to enter into negotiations my Lords for the best part of 2020 years before I was elected, I practice law. A substantial proportion of my practice was negotiation. There are many lawyers in this in this House, and I'm sure that they realise that lawyers spend more time in negotiation than they do in almost anything else. So a substantial proportion of my practice was negotiation, and in some occasions my clients wanted me to enter negotiations in order to protect the status quo.

I think we call that a red line in this debate. Which and so, in other words, it appears to me from the many speeches that I've listened to, that was the latter objective of the negotiations that the conservative government started was to get back to the status quo. And I always told my clients that I would argue for the status quo in negotiation. But if there was a judicial assessment that that made the status quo unattainable, it would be failure in the negotiations to try to achieve that.

And that's the situation that the government in 2022 was in. The whole process, of course, started my Lords with the written statement made on the 3rd of November. Now, there have been there's been two ING and fro ING about what was actually said in this statement in order to try and water it down, but I will read my Lord Oates, if I may, the first paragraph of that statement, because it's extraordinarily revealing as to what that government was seeking to do.

Then it reads, following the meeting between the then Prime Minister, my right hon. Friend, the Member for South West Norfolk and Prime Minister Jugnauth at the UN General Assembly, the UK and Mauritius have decided to begin negotiations on the exercise of sovereignty over the British Indian Ocean Territory, the Chagos Archipelago. This is the important sentence through negotiations, taking into account relevant legal proceedings. It is our intention to secure an agreement on the basis of international law to resolve all outstanding issues.

In other words, we were beginning to negotiate with the only person we could negotiate with people we could, which was Mauritius, who were holding this particular card. It to to transfer the sovereignty to them in a way that would give stability, that would allow our major ally to get back into the relationship that we we had, and therefore to continue to build this mother of all bases in the world. And it's as simple as that. That's what I don't understand why everyone is looking for explanations for this.

It suggests in these 11 exercises of negotiation, we were seeking to do something else. It's perfectly clear what the conservative government was setting out to do, and it was pushed into this position by the fact that the United States was unwilling to continue to invest in this until that uncertainty was resolved. And, in fact, I took the opportunity of the 29 to ask the negotiators if that was as they understood what was happening. And that's exactly what they understood what was happening.

I know I do understand why now, for political reasons, the opposition wished to rewrite this, but that is what they were doing. And that's what we continued. Secondly, my, my oh, I'm happy to stop here because I think I've made my point. You know, and the nonsense about the Chinese has already been dealt with. I think.
19:24
Lord Murray of Blidworth Portrait Lord Murray of Blidworth (Conservative)
-
-
My Lords picking up on a theme identified by the noble Lord Lord Browne of Ladyton and as identified by my right hon. Friend Tom Tugendhat on the 9th of September. As he noted in his speech on the Second Reading of this bill. In the other place, that yes, negotiations were commenced under the last government as Ministers, both he and I wrote to the Prime Minister, both prime Ministers, to complain about the decision to institute those negotiations.

We were right. The treaty was not one that should have been considered then, and it's not one that should be considered now. The whole principle was wrong then, and it is wrong now. Why do I say that? The main rationale for handing over the islands is that an international tribunal, the International Tribunal on the law of the sea, may abuse its jurisdiction in treating the Icj's advisory opinion as if it had established, as a matter of binding international law, that Mauritius was sovereign over the British Indian Ocean Territory.

As I said, when the House debated the treaty on the 30th of June, the risk of an adverse judgement and the real risk to the operation of the UQs airfield at Diego Garcia are very significantly overplayed by those who favour this treaty. The ICJ had no such power and did not in fact reach the conclusion that Chagos should be transferred to Mauritius. It is an Its advisory opinion only left open. Other courses of action on the UK's part, other than surrender of the islands to Mauritius.

Mauritius cannot, as a matter of international law, secure a binding judgement before an international tribunal establishing that it is sovereign over the Chagos Islands. Because, my Lords, the United Kingdom is not required to consent to a dispute of this nature being adjudicated by the International Court of Justice. Accordingly, if I might expand on the point made by my noble friend Lord Lily, the government explained their position by saying that they anticipate that another tribunal, as I say specifically the International Tribunal for the law of the sea, which I may add has no jurisdiction over questions of sovereignty over territory, will presuppose that the Icj's 2019 advisory opinion has settled that Mauritius is sovereign and will thus proceed to exercise its jurisdiction in relation to disputes about the law of the sea, on the premise that Mauritius, rather than the United Kingdom, is sovereign.

Yet how can this be, since there is not a word about sovereignty over the Chagos Islands in that advisory opinion of the ICJ, we must be in no doubt the government, on its own account, is handing over a priceless strategic asset and trampling over the Chagossian people, as it does so because it wants to avoid being on the wrong end of a potential future abuse of adjudication. But this is a premature and wholly unnecessary surrender, which blazes a trail for other abuses of the Icj's advisory jurisdiction to be leveraged into future United Kingdom defeats and compromise of our vital interests.

We need to resist now, not only for our national security and that of our global allies, but also to refute this abuse of law. Furthermore, the deal is a terrible one for the reasons ably outlined by my noble friend Lord Blencathra. Some of the examples in just a second. Some of the examples are that the treaty, the terms of the treaty provide very little in the way of leverage or protection for the UK. We cannot, for example, withhold payments for a breach of the terms that nominally protect our interests.

And moreover, there is no machinery to enforce mauritius's commitments. Instead, Mauritius will be well placed to take our money and to reach accommodation with other states in relation to the archipelago that are injurious to our interests. My Lord, I'm following the noble

**** Possible New Speaker ****

gentleman very closely, and I don't. Disagree with some of the points he's making. But could you clarify that, or

**** Possible New Speaker ****

But could you clarify that, or why it was that James Cleverly on the 3rd of November? This is a the 3rd of November? This is a quote said the government was to begin negotiations on the exercise of sovereignty over the British of sovereignty over the British Indian overseas territory. Clearly, the government then were talking about the sovereignty of the actual islands.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

islands. As I said earlier in my remarks, that was a decision with which I that was a decision with which I strongly disagreed then, and I strongly disagree now. He was strongly disagree now. He was plainly wrong in so saying, Professor Ekins, the forgive me, I have given way once and time is have given way once and time is limited. Professor Ekins, the professor of law and constitutional government at Oxford, set out in government at Oxford, set out in detail when he gave evidence to the House of Lords International Agreements Committee the failings Agreements Committee the failings in the treaty, and in particular he set it out in even more detail in his Policy Exchange paper published at that time.

And I strongly urge the noble Baroness, the Minister, to consider those two items in detail. During the pause in proceedings brought about by the decision not to proceed with the committal motion tonight, there can be little doubt, contrary to the government's expostulations, about saving the base so ably outlined by the noble Lord, Lord Altrincham, that this in fact weakens the strategic interests of our country, and it does so without any sound legal or geopolitical basis. And, as many noble Lords have noted, it is done without any reference to the wishes of those who lived in the archipelago, shamefully removed on the orders of a Labour government.

A shame that, Lord Morrow noted, is about to be repeated and amplified by this present Labour government. Finally, the noble Baroness, the Minister, said that the last government had entirely overlooked the Chagossian people, a calumny that was repeated by the noble Lord Lord Beamish. Not so. Let me give this example. In the Nationality and Borders Act 2022, a conservative piece of legislation. Section three of that act was the first piece of legislation to make provision for the provision of British nationality for Chagos Islanders and their direct descendants to obtain British nationality, something successive Labour

**** Possible New Speaker ****

governments had failed to provide. Yeah.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yeah. that. The Bill before us would, would

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The Bill before us would, would ratify vaunts its writing of the historic wrongs done to Chagossians historic wrongs done to Chagossians while doing little for them. It signals its virtue without much signals its virtue without much exercising it. I think that's been made plain several times over the last few hours, so I won't labour it. As my noble friend Lord Hannan it. As my noble friend Lord Hannan of Kingsclere has rightly urged, the treaty's real concern is not the treaty's real concern is not that Chagossians its with completing the decolonisation of completing the decolonisation of Mauritius.

The government accepts the Icj's 2019 advisory opinion, in effect, that the detachment of the
19:32
Lord Biggar Portrait Lord Biggar (Conservative)
-
-
Chagos Islands from Mauritius in 1965 was unlawful because it defied UN General Assembly resolutions in 1960 and 1966. These declared that, quote, any attempt aimed at disruption of the national unity and the territorial integrity of a country is contrary to the UN charter, and the 1966 one urged that the UK take no action which would dismember the territory of Mauritius and violate its territorial integrity. But, my Lords, this principle of non partition is nonsense.

Supporting the 1960 resolution, the president of the General Assembly, Irish diplomat Frederick Boland, invoked Ireland's loss of its historic integrity to illustrate the injustice of partition. He thereby expressed the Irish Nationalists typical historical blindness. The island of Ireland had never been a political unit apart from its union with with Great Britain, and as the noble Baroness Foster of of an army. Drum has already well said it is. Is it Anna Dempsey? Okay. Thank you. And she's well said.

There is no natural law prescribing that a geographical integrity has to be a political one. On the contrary, there can be very, very good reasons for dividing it. The reason Ireland was divided in 1922 was because Irish republicans wanted home rule so much they were prepared to use violence to attain it, while Irish unionists disliked it so much they were prepared to take up arms to oppose it. Ireland was petitioned to prevent civil war, a justified act of political prudence.

What's more, if the principle of non partition were applied impartially, then applicants to the ICJ would be clamouring for the restoration of the territorial integrity of British India and the return of the Gulf States in Burma to rule by Delhi. Oddly, my Lords, we hear no such clamour. The 1966 resolution is no less absurd than the 1961. It appeals to the national unity of Mauritius, as if the Chagos Islands weren't separated by over a thousand miles of Indian Ocean.

And if the islanders were an integral part of the Mauritian people. But many Chagossians feel as Mauritian as Irish republicans feel British. The only connection between Mauritius and the Chagos Islands is an accident of colonial administrative convenience. Talk of some national unity that was ruptured in 1965 is an opportunistic fiction. Yet notwithstanding its opportunistic absurdity, the principle of non partition was invoked and confirmed by the ICJ in its advisory opinion. What's more, that court used that principle to adjudicate a crucial point of contention between Mauritius and the UK, notwithstanding the fact that when originally submitting itself to the court, the UK explicitly excluded its jurisdiction over such a dispute.

Among the government's several shifting justifications for signing the treaty before us is said to be the fear that is subsequent international tribunal, such as the International Tribunal for the law of the sea, would use the Icj's opinion to make a binding judgement against the UK to avoid that embarrassment. Therefore, the government prefers to give up the fight now, conceding sovereignty and negotiating an expensive lease. My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord Jay of Ewelme international law deserves respect, but I also agree with the with my with the noble Lord Weir of Ballyholme that respect requires much more than blind, slavish compliance.

When international law embodies an absurd principle opportunistically and partially applied outside of its agreed jurisdiction, it brings the international order into disrepute, and it corrodes the law's authority. So for the sake of upholding confidence in international law, the UK should stand its ground, arguing the strong, rational case for its sovereignty over the Chagos Islands, exposing the imprudence and partiality of the General Assembly's resolutions, and reminding the international community that the ICJ has no jurisdiction. And if some international tribunal were irresponsible enough to issue a binding judgement against the UK on the basis of the Icj's opinion, the UK should, with respect, not comply now, no doubt that would cost us diplomatic goodwill in progressive circles, entranced by an idealised view of international law.

But we have no goodwill to lose with ideological, ideologically hostile states such as China, Russia and Iran and the rest of the so-called global South is not a politically uniform block. It embraces nations ranging from India to Nigeria to Peru, which have divergent, sometimes opposing, interests and views. They would not all react with equal disapproval of to our principled non-compliance. Some might even be impressed by a self-confident Britain's refusal to yield to opportunistic lawfare. In bold defence of the law's integrity.

My Lords, I think this treaty is disingenuous in championing Chagossians, and it is slavish in its blind compliance with absurd

**** Possible New Speaker ****

and partial law. And for that reason we should not ratify it. Yeah, yeah yeah, yeah.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yeah, yeah yeah, yeah. Yes, Lord. I read his. Views of my breakfast and I can confirm that they haven't changed confirm that they haven't changed during the course of the day. I ought to start with an apology to ought to start with an apology to Lord Lilley. Between us, the noble Lord Lord Jay and I spent ten years in the Permanent secretary's office, in the Foreign Office. And I don't think we ever discovered. I certainly never discovered the certainly never discovered the secret plan to cede sovereignty over the Chagos Archipelago that over the Chagos Archipelago that officials were sitting on.

I saw a number of changes of Foreign Secretary, and I can't ever

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Secretary, and I can't ever remember the. Huddle of officials saying. Is this the soft one that we can

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Is this the soft one that we can manage to persuade that it's time to cede the Chagos Archipelago? I to cede the Chagos Archipelago? I think the noble Lord may have been watching too much. Yes, Minister. Perhaps it's a good thing. No, it's
19:39
Lord Kerr of Kinlochard Portrait Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (Crossbench)
-
-
Perhaps it's a good thing. No, it's a sad thing that he's never been Foreign Secretary, because I think he has far too high an opinion of officials in the Foreign Office. The. I have only three small points to make tonight. I can be very brief because I spoke at enormous length in July when we debated the treaty, and the opposition suggested that the treaty should not be ratified and the House voted that it should be ratified. It can't be ratified without this bill.

Therefore, we should now pass this bill. That's my first point. My second point is about the China syndrome we heard then and we're hearing again today. This theory hearing again today. This theory that if. We heard even from the opposition frontbench, that recognising Mauritian sovereignty somehow opens the door to Chinese influence in the Chagos Archipelago and a Chinese threat to the base. I've never understood this theory. If the risk was real, why did the Indians warmly welcome the treaty? Why did Secretary of State Rubio in Washington call the treaty, quote, a monumental achievement? Mr.

Rubio, like President Trump, is hardly soft on China. Mauritius is one of the only two African countries who haven't signed up to the Belt and Road Initiative. Why would the Mauritians enrage the Indians, to whom they are close by helping the Chinese, whom they seriously distrust? And why would we? They forego the payments. We'll be making? The theory makes no sense, and I strongly suspect that some of those who advanced the theory know that perfectly well. Which brings me to my third point, which is, of course, the emollient one, the pernicious doctrine that the duty of opposition is to oppose, regardless of principle, merit, or consistency, is perhaps particularly irresponsible in this sphere of foreign affairs.

Mr. cleverly announced in 2022 that we would open negotiations, quote, to ensure the continued effective operation of the joint UK US military base on Diego, which plays a vital role in regional and global security. And we agreed. I heard no dissent. I didn't know about Lord Murray's approaches. There is no public dissent from what the government was going to do under Foreign Secretary Cameron. Negotiations continued. 11 rounds of negotiation. As the noble Lady, Baroness Chapman reminded us, I'm rather sorry that Lord Cameron isn't here tonight.

It would be very good to have his verdict on the bill, which results from the work he supervised, the legal issues and the China risk explored by the conservative backbenchers today will have been thoroughly explained to him at the time. Indeed, we now know that Lord Murray of Bidwell, no less advised against the course that he was pursuing. There is nothing new in these arguments. These arguments were known to the conservative Ministers who proceeded with this negotiation.

Lord Blencathra says that it's one thing to start a negotiation about transferring sovereignty, and quite another to conclude one. Very true. But I have to say that if I was absolutely determined not to cede sovereignty, I don't think I'd start a negotiation about ceding sovereignty. And I don't think if I was strongly convinced that it was a bad idea, I don't think I'd have let it run on for 11 negotiating rounds. We're about to hear from the frontbenchers.

I look forward to hearing from the Liberal Democrat frontbench their concerns about the Chagossians do them credit. Their reservations about the treaty are ones I understand their honourable, though I personally believe they're unjustified. The heirs of Cameron and Cleverly, I have the greatest of respect for Baroness Goldie, not least because she hails from my part of the world. So my hopes are high that unlike some of her colleagues, including on the frontbench, she will contrive to steer clear of the twin rocks of steer clear of the twin rocks of

**** Possible New Speaker ****

hypocrisy and irresponsibility. My Lords, I declare an interest. As a member of the all party Chagos Islands APPG. I'd like to
19:44
Lord Northbrook Portrait Lord Northbrook (Conservative)
-
-
Chagos Islands APPG. I'd like to give the Secretary, David Snoxell, credit for persevering with the cause over the years. Unfortunately, having reflected carefully on the issue then the treaty, I've come to disagree on the conclusions formed by many of the group, and I now feel that Mauritius will unfairly benefit more from the treaty than the Chagossians. Indeed, I now feel that this agreement is bad for our national security and financially a disaster. Until recently, I was under several misapprehensions.

Firstly, I was led to believe that the International Court of Justice ICJ verdict that the island should be handed back to Mauritius was legally binding on the UK. Secondly, I had not realised that the UK had already paid Mauritius 3,000,000 in 1965 to retain ownership of the Chagos Islands after Mauritian independence. Thirdly, I believe that the UK was bound by the United Nations Convention on the law of the sea. And fourthly, I believe we had to obey the diktat of the International Telecommunications Union ITU concerning the threat the electromagnetic spectrum.

Fifthly, I underestimated the threat to the islands on the defence front from future restrictions on nuclear weapons and from encroachment from China, Russia and Iran. Sixthly I'm not sure that the guarantees and the financial promises to the Chagossians will be honoured. I will now deal with each of these above issues in turn. Firstly, on the ICJ verdict. I have since discovered that whilst the UK from February 2017 has accepted in declarations all judgements from the ICJ, it does not accept they apply to any dispute with a government of any country which is or has been a member of the Commonwealth.

Secondly, the payment of 3,000,000 in 1965, over 80 million in today's money means that we should not be paying Mauritius again. Thirdly, the UK is not legally bound, bound by the decisions of the International Tribunal for the law of the sea. According to Doctor Luke Evans. In the other place, at Second Reading on the 9th of September, back in 2015 under annexe seven, the tribunal had agreed with the UK that the Chagos sovereignty issue could not be determined by Onclose.

The case was a maritime protection issue. Fourthly, as forensically examined by colleagues in the other place, Sir Jeremy Wright, Sir John Whittingdale and Mark Francois, it is clear that the ITU have no jurisdiction over the UK's electromagnetic spectrum. The ITU treaty, to which we and others are a party, states specifically that the ITU has no authority over the allocation of military spectrum. Individual countries, not the ITU, make their own sovereign spectrum assignments in accordance with the Radio regulations.

The ITU has no legal authority over these assignments, regardless of the country's civilian or military classification of spectrum. Please can the noble Lady, the Minister, confirm this in the light of the fact that any judgement by the ICJ against us is not legally binding? Fifthly, I want to focus on the defence threat to the West from this deal. The Pelindaba treaty has already mentioned to which Mauritius is a signatory, prohibits the stationing and storage of nuclear weapons. Yet Ministers have failed to explain what that will mean in practice once sovereignty is transferred.

Also, an element of the agreement involves a requirement for us to expeditiously inform Mauritius of any armed attack on a third state directly emanating from the base. Can I ask the noble Lady, the Minister, if this means it must be done before the armed attack? The defence threat also comes from hostile powers in the region. The risk to British Britain's security is great. Diego Garcia is our most strategic and important base in the Indian Ocean, critical to our partnership with the United States and vital to project influence in the Indo Pacific.

Yet this bill leaves huge questions unanswered. What safeguards will prevent hostile powers like China, Russia and Iran from seeking a foothold in the archipelago once Britain steps back? Beijing already describes Mauritius as a partner with strategic advantages, and Mauritius could well join its Belt and Road initiative. Port Louis boasts of advancing cooperation with Russia. Iran. Since the first Iran Mauritius Economic Forum in 2022, has explored export and import opportunities and joint ventures in agriculture, fisheries, pharmaceutical industries and nanotechnology.

Sixthly I want to focus on the situation from the Chagossians themselves. After this treaty. The speeches at Second Reading by the Labour MP Peter Lamb and the conservative MP EFRA Brandis are very relevant on the subject. Peter Lamb, MP for Crawley, where many Chagossian exiles lives, makes very relevant points which I shall, from which I shall quote directly, although mention of the Chagossians is made in the wording of the deal, I remain concerned there are gaps that leave the Chagossian people at risk.

Whilst there is the option, whilst there is the option for the Chagossians to be allowed by the Mauritian government to return to the islands. There is no requirement in the deal that this happened. There is no guarantee that any Chagossian who does return to the archipelago will not face restrictions that prevent permanent habitation, even at a subsistence level of economic activity. There is no guarantee that at this time that the trust fund that is being created will be in control of Chagossians and use exclusively to address the consequences of their forcible removal from the island.

There is no guarantee that returning Chagossians will not face a ten year prison sentence for questioning. Mauritian territorial integrity through taking on British citizenship. Alfred Brandis adds another key point on the issue. She said the government must take the opportunity to implement a recommendation put forward by the House of Lords, International Relations and Defence Committee and a national International Agreements Committee that looked at the treaty. They urged the government to enhance Chagossian engagement by establishing a formal consultation mechanism with the Chagossian community to monitor the agreement's implementation and ensure their meaningful inclusion in decision making will enable the Minister confirm whether that recommendation will be implemented.

Furthermore, she states that the trust fund established as part of the treaty and financed by the UK, is to be distributed solely under the control of Mauritius. Yet the bill contains no provisions to monitor whether the rights of British Chagossians are upheld, or to create any statutory oversight of the trust Fund. Has the noble Baroness May Minister's Department for secured from the Government of Mauritius any firm commitment that British Chagossians will have a formal role in the oversight and decision making regarding the fund.

Indeed, why was a model of joint governance not agreed, ensuring the British Chagossians themselves have a voice in how the fund is government and how can benefit directly from it. In conclusion, this is a terrible deal for the UK, giving away full ownership of a vital defence asset and paying the Mauritian government an extraordinary sum of 34 billion in cash terms to lease it back. I've shown how the key pillars of the government argument for the necessity of doing this do not stand up.

These are, namely, the ICJ judgement, the Itlos argument and the electromagnetic spectrum. And I reiterate that the Chagossians have certainly not been looked after in this deal. Hence, I will be strongly supporting Lord Cullen, although he's not going to move the amendment.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I first wish to acknowledge for for those of the Chagossian community who've been Chagossian community who've been observing all of this debate and those that will have been following it at home, and then those that it at home, and then those that will read it, and my noble friend Baroness Ludford in in her powerful Baroness Ludford in in her powerful contribution to this debate, informed by decades of work on informed by decades of work on behalf of the Chagossians, told us of the remarkable sequence of November anniversaries, including November anniversaries, including some which are a dark stain on this country with regards to how we have treated the Chagossian community, treated the Chagossian community, and we should all share blame for this generational mistreatment.

I start by stressing in clear terms that we still need more clarity of that we still need more clarity of the rights, potentially in a permissive nature given to the
19:54
Lord Purvis of Tweed Portrait Lord Purvis of Tweed (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
permissive nature given to the Chagossians, but by virtue of us providing that those to the Mauritian government, not directly to them themselves, the Minister and I hope the House will recognise that this has been a consistent and constant concern of these benches and they do continue. We pursued those in the debate on the treaty. I am glad that the Minister acknowledged them in her opening remarks, and my colleagues in the House of Commons pursued them during the committee stages of the bill there, and I reiterate them today.

A test for us is now how finally we give rights back to Chagossians and indeed the right of self-determination for their future. And it should be in their hands if we negotiate an agreement on Gibraltar with the statement that nothing for Gibraltarians without Gibraltarian, nothing for Gibraltar, without the Gibraltarians, that should apply in this context to indeed, we divided the House of Commons in the Committee stage on the right to self-determination, and it's worth placing on the record in this debate.

And I say to the noble Ladies, Baroness Foster and the noble Ladies Baroness Meyer, that the conservative official Opposition did not support us in that. And so it's fine to call for self-determination and a referendum in this debate here. But it's worth recalling that just a couple of weeks ago, your party opposed it. In the House of Commons. We touched a little bit on history today also, but I went through a lot of the history in the debate on the treaty, and I don't need to rehearse it.

But today there was a slight new edge to this, and it was interesting that the noble Ladies Baroness Noakes and the noble Lord Hannan criticised the Labour government for concluding an agreement in 1965. Now that that may well have cross-party support. But Lord Murray of Blidworth called it a shame on our country, but with interesting parallels. It should be recognised that the fact that negotiations to detached Chagos Archipelago from Mauritius commenced on the 29th of June 1964 under the conservative government, the Conservative Party has form, as

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Lady Noakes might say, in this debate, yes, of course. A shame, as I'm sure the noble

**** Possible New Speaker ****

A shame, as I'm sure the noble Lord will agree, comes on the removal of the Chagossian people from the Chagos Islands, not from

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the agreement itself. And as the noble Lord will recall from the debate that we had on the treaty that was accelerated on the treaty that was accelerated under the Heath administration in 1970 and concluded under the 1970 and concluded under the conservative government, and the denial of repatriation, was then subsequently under another conservative government. My point conservative government. My point is, all of us in this country have a dark record when it comes to a dark record when it comes to Chagossian rights.

Our task now should be how at least we restore should be how at least we restore some of that. And the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, started his remarks on the debate on the treaty. He started by saying that the House of Commons was denied an opportunity under the Constitutional Reform and under the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act. Period of scrutiny of debating the treaty. Now he knows, because he will remember the debate we had on the treaty. And as debate we had on the treaty.

And as Erskine May makes it perfectly clear, one of the mechanisms to, for the House of Commons to deny for the House of Commons to deny ratification of a treaty would be through an opposition day debate. That is one of the mechanisms during the scrutiny period of this treaty in the House of Commons, the Conservative Party chose a different subject for their opposition debate. They had the chance, if they chose to take it, of debating and moving an amendment in the House of Commons during the scrutiny period.

We are here today debating this bill for one reason and one reason alone. The previous administration made a political decision to cede sovereignty and to enter into negotiations to conclude this. Now, not one conservative colleague today, I hear no, no, no, I'll come on to that. They may wish to change their mind. Not one conservative colleague today said why the previous government opened negotiations to cede sovereignty in 2022. The then government did not open negotiations to improve relations with Mauritius or cooperation.

They made the principled decision to cede sovereignty. But they still haven't said why. I hope that the noble Lady Baroness Goldie will outline clearly today why that is the case. All legal considerations on this issue, which had been debated quite a lot in this debate or predated 2022, and the complaints that the received in this debate predated James Cleverly and that government's decision. Now, I am assuming now we've had complaints in this debate from the noble Lady, Lady Hoey of the current Attorney General and the advice given to this administration.

Well, as my intervention on her suggested that the same would have been under the previous government, I am assuming that when the previous government made the policy decision in November 2022 to open negotiations, which would conclude with the ceding of sovereignty, that they were also advised by attorney generals, I made a hunch that it might have been the attorney general at the time in November 2022, but it could have been any of the three attorney generals that the government had in 2022. No doubt history will tell us which one.

That was the case now, but a new argument today had been presented by the noble Lord Lord Lilley and Lord Blencathra, that the conservative government was powerless and feeble, and its prime Ministers and foreign secretaries were forced against their will by officialdom in order to make that statement in 2022. I think this argument is in office, but not in power. It was our suspicion that the Conservatives were in office, but not in power at the time. I'm glad that the noble Lords have confirmed that, but I understand this argument that might say it is this is a bad deal, or it's been handled badly.

And I think that many parts of it remain problematic. And I would have liked the government to have handled it differently. But that is different from the conservative opposition in the Commons, who said in their motion on this bill that they were, quote, implacably opposed to ceding sovereignty. They were not implacably opposed to ceding sovereignty. In November 2022. So what changed? Yes, I'm happy to.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The noble Lord, who is actually putting a very strong case. What I said in my speech was that there said in my speech was that there was a red line about a sovereign base area. So concession of base area. So concession of sovereignty across all the other territory. But to keep the sovereignty of the base.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'm grateful for the noble Lord. And I listened very carefully to his speech. And he he made it in a very characteristic, sincere way. very characteristic, sincere way. If you forgive me, I will just I will try and address that just in a moment. But I asked, I asked what changed in the absence of the noble changed in the absence of the noble Lady when winding on behalf of her party, explaining what the policy changes were were being made, I changes were were being made, I only might assume that the only change that's relevant is the fact that they were in government, and now they're in opposition, because now they're in opposition, because without there being a clear policy change, then we can only make that change, then we can only make that assumption.

And the reason why this is quite important is because the is quite important is because the statement in 2022 did say, I quote, on the exercise of sovereignty. And indeed, I've wondered why the same party which was implacably opposed party which was implacably opposed then, can be in favour of it now, especially because that statement by the government said that the reason why they were doing this was to address and resolve all outstanding issues of international law. They knew that they had to resolve those outstanding issues of international law.

Now they are denying the very virtue of the fact that they had any issues at all to address. It's quite hard to understand, and they haven't made it any more clear today. Now, the noble Lord, the noble Lord Bellamy's point, because it was also Bellingham's point. It was also raised by the noble Lord Blencathra. The statement in 2022, which was the policy choice of the previous government, which was a mistake as the noble Lord Bellingham had indicated. I respect his honesty or as a result of deep state, according to some of his colleagues.

But nevertheless, if that raised serious defence concerns, then the Minister of State in the Ministry of Defence at the time presumably would have raised concerns about that. But that was the noble Lady Baroness Goldie, so she has ample opportunity of addressing the noble Lords point in her speech today.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Now, yes. To the noble. Lords giving way.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Lords giving way. We've heard a lot about what's gone on in the past and the Conservatives. And did they do this or do that? What I want to know is, are the Liberal Democrats implacably opposed to this treaty and wanting to see the Chagossians

**** Possible New Speaker ****

and wanting to see the Chagossians given full democracy and their rights? Listen to. The noble Lady heard me

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The noble Lady heard me referring to. I'm sure she was paying attention in the early part of my contribution when I said we moved that very motion in the House of Commons just a few days ago, and we didn't get the support from the official opposition, so I suspect I official opposition, so I suspect I would appeal to the noble Lady to just wait until Baroness Goldie just wait until Baroness Goldie makes her contribution and intervene on her. The same question intervene on her.

The same question now, Lord noble Lord Murray made an interesting contribution today. It was it was a post hoc breach of collective responsibility. When he referred to his letter of referred to his letter of opposition to that policy choice of of his government, I was going to of his government, I was going to intervene on him to ask politely if he would place that letter in the library for us all to see. I'm very library for us all to see. I'm very curious about it, and I would be interesting to know how many of his colleagues who also made the same complaints.

I've mentioned the fact that one of these was the noble Lady, and of course, another one of his ministerial colleagues at the time was the noble Lord, Lord Callanan. Now the noble Lord Lord Callanan didn't intervene on the Lord Murray. So I'm assuming that he didn't write a letter of complaint at the time. But I'm sure we can find out in due course. Well, I was going forward. Ultimately, we have to we have to recognise and I, to be fair to the previous government, they entered into negotiations.

I believe in good faith because I don't think a British government would likely enter into negotiations on the ceding of sovereignty if they knew that the conclusion of that was not the ceding of sovereignty. I give credit to the previous government for acting in good faith about that. The question now is how we go forward and we raise and we seek to raise our concerns on the very aspects of the Chagossian rights and self-determination, on the very scrutiny and the operation of the trust fund.

How we do that. I hope that we can continue to raise, to seek these concerns during the passage of of this bill in good

**** Possible New Speaker ****

faith. Well.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I'll try and get this debate back on track and deal with the issues that I think have been confronting us. And it was very ably introduced by the noble Lady, the Minister. And this has been a the Minister. And this has been a predictably interesting debate, presenting some sharply contrasting views. It has also demonstrated a dichotomy, a dichotomy between sincerely held views of former and sincerely held views of former and venerable public servants and political views. And there has been political views.

And there has been a further dichotomy within the political classes as to what constitutes responsible decision constitutes responsible decision making. And as my noble friend Lord Murray indicated, even within the Murray indicated, even within the same party you can sometimes find a dichotomy of view. It does happen. May I say to the noble Lady, the May I say to the noble Lady, the Minister, and I have to say to the noble Lord Lord Purvis, that when it comes to a party having differences of view, I would think the Liberal Democrats would give masterclasses.

Now I have to say masterclasses. Now I have to say that the position of these benches was laid out clearly by my noble friend Lord Callaghan, and my noble friend Lord Callaghan, and my noble friend also addressed the precipitate and surprising decision of the government to delay its own bill by, unusually, not proceeding with a committal motion, and the. Normally the Minister, with admirable verbal gymnastics, sought heroically, if perhaps not completely convincingly, to explain this decision. But I think the reason is very simple.

The
20:08
Baroness Goldie Portrait Baroness Goldie (Conservative)
-
-
government had concerns the sensible amendment, which my noble friend Lord Callanan had tabled to friend Lord Callanan had tabled to the committal motion, was indeed drawing support, and it may very well have been that the government was fearful that that support might support the amendment, or a version of the amendment that would prevail. of the amendment that would prevail. The government would would lose. But that was a judgement for the government to make. Can I just observe the amendment was not observe the amendment was not prescriptive.

It left matters entirely under the control of the government. But what has now government. But what has now emerged, I have to say, is a very welcome, breathing space for the government to consider and answer government to consider and answer some very serious questions about the agreement on which this bill is predicated. Now, some of these predicated. Now, some of these questions have already been asked, but it will be my pleasure in a moment to add to them. And indeed, my noble friend Lord Callanan raised some of the most serious issues arising from the agreement, issues arising from the agreement, and it is interesting that the concerns he expressed were mirrored during the debate by a number of during the debate by a number of contributors.

If we look at the agreement, if we look at the trust fund, there is an absence of fund, there is an absence of knowing in detail what the views of the Chagossian people are on these issues. And that was raised by a issues. And that was raised by a number of contributors. My noble friend Lord Lilley, the noble Baroness Ludford, has concerns about that. The noble Lord Lord Morrow, my noble friend Lord de Mauley and my noble friend Lord Bellamy spoke very movingly about the treatment to which the Chagossian people have been subjected over decades, and I did find that moving.

And may I say to the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, I am not being hypocritical in expressing that sentiment. And that was very much echoed by the noble Baroness, Lady Hoy, and also by the noble Baroness, Lady Foster of Aghadrumsee, who graphically described the lack of engagement in relation to current matters. And then there is the issue of money in today's economic climate a hot potato, if ever there was one. The Chancellor is scratching around looking for every penny she can find.

Defence urgently needs upfront cash taxes are almost certainly going up, and yet the British taxpayer is going to be asked to pay almost £35 billion to Mauritius. And this was raised by a number of contributors. But I thought my noble friend, Lady Noakes gave a devastatingly forensic analysis of the costs and the government's disparate approach, and I will leave that to the noble Lady, the Minister, to respond to. But these concerns were also echoed again by the noble Baroness, Lady Foster of Aghadrumsee and the noble Lord Lord Weir of Ballyholme.

And then there was the position of China, and not the imagined, but the avowed objective of China to strengthen ties with Mauritius because of its strategic advantages and China's commitment to elevating the bilateral strategic partnership. And these clearly cause concern to many of your lordships, notably my noble friend Lord de Mauley, even the noble Lord Lord Beamish, nobly supporting his government, said China is a threat, and I agree with that. That was again referred to by the noble Lord Lord Weir of Ballyholme.

And can I say to the noble Lord Lord Kerr, that I was a defence Minister for nearly four and a half years, and one of my areas of responsibility was South East Asia? And I have to say that China is a resolute prosecutor of its own interests, with an overt desire to exercise influence globally and at our peril. At our peril. Do we waver in our vigilance? Yes. And my Lords finally, and very

**** Possible New Speaker ****

importantly, the defence. Sorry Lord Kerr. So grateful to the noble Lady. I

**** Possible New Speaker ****

So grateful to the noble Lady. I just want to say it. I'm quite sure the Mauritians would agree with that. Well, that's an unexpected

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Well, that's an unexpected source of encouragement, for which I thank the noble Lord. Finally, my Lords, and very importantly, the defence and security implications of this arrangement are clearly of this arrangement are clearly ringing alarm bells. As noted by the contributions from Noble Friends Lord Lilley Lord Blencathra, Lord de Mauley, Lord Bellingham and Lord de Mauley, Lord Bellingham and Lord Bellingham helpfully distinguished between this agreement and the Sovereign Base agreement and the Sovereign Base areas in Cyprus to which the noble Lord Lord Beamish refer.

The whole point is we have sovereignty in Cyprus. We can control these arrangements, but not under this arrangements, but not under this arrangement. We are in the hands of the agreement and the disposition the agreement and the disposition of Mauritius to us now. The noble Lady, the Minister herself described the base as a prized described the base as a prized military asset, and I was very glad to hear that. And of course, I agree with her. And that was emphasised by the noble Lord Lord Jay.

But, my Lord, it is this aspect of defence and security to which I wish to devote my final remarks. The noble leader. The Minister has a lot of questions already to which her response is required, and the observations from my noble friend Lord Lilley certainly require comment. But here is my addendum. With the help of the Bill, I have been endeavouring to knit together the components of the agreement with the text of the Bill my Lords seeking clarification from the government on a number of vital points as part of a necessary scrutiny process.

But His Majesty's Opposition does reserve its overall position in the Bill and will determine our approach at a subsequent stage in the procedure. But in the meantime, let me set a general perspective. The introductory paragraphs of the agreement reached number nine. Before there is any mention of protecting international peace and security, with specific reference to the long term, secure and effective operation of the base and Diego Garcia. While I might have hoped for earlier recognition of the primacy of defence and security, mention this because it goes to the heart of what the agreement stands for, what it is about, and the need for absolute clarity.

And there is the further question of to what extent material text in the agreement should be replicated in the bill. Now, my Lords, I propose to raise a number of factual questions, which I appreciate may require the noble Lady, the Minister, to go back to her officials, and I am content that she does that and can respond by letter, a copy of which perhaps could be laid in the library. And at least the government has now helpfully provided some time within which to do that.

But going back to the agreement under article three, and I quote, the parties shall not undermine, prejudice, or otherwise interfere with the long term, secure and effective operation of the base, and shall cooperate to that end. My Lords as an undertaking of fundamental importance by Mauritius to the UK. It explicitly implies that Mauritius should not enter into any arrangements, either on their own account or with any third party, which could be in breach of that undertaking, and that, by implication, logically confers upon the UK a right to respond to such arrangements by taking whatever action is necessary to safeguard the base and the interests of the UK and our allies on the base.

Can the noble Lady, the Minister, confirm that is the government's understanding? My Lords is an important protection is granted to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the UK by annexe. One paragraph. Sorry. Forgive me for interrupting, but

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Forgive me for interrupting, but the noble Lady said a few minutes ago that the Sovereign Base Area in ago that the Sovereign Base Area in Cyprus was not the subject of a treaty. The fact is, it was a treaty. The fact is, it was a subject of three treaties the Treaty of Guarantee, the Treaty of Alliance and the Treaty of

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Establishment. I hesitate to to to correct the noble Lord. I think what I said in noble Lord. I think what I said in response to the point raised by noble Lord Lord Beamish, that when comparing the Sovereign Base areas comparing the Sovereign Base areas in Cyprus with this arrangement, they are not the same, because the point the noble Lord Lord Beamish made was in fact to expeditiously communicating with Cyprus if we were going to do something. So with were going to do something.

So with the greatest of respect to the noble Lord Lord Hannay, I thank him for his intervention. But I think for his intervention. But I think we're a slightly on different on different planes. My Lords I got to the UK's position under annexe one, paragraph one A, and that namely paragraph one A, and that namely says that the UK shall have unrestricted access basing and overflight for UK and US aircraft and vessels to enter into the sea and airspace of Diego Garcia.

And that's good in terms of annexe one, paragraph one B1, the UK shall have unrestricted ability to control the conduct and deployment of armed operations and lethal capabilities on Diego Garcia. Now that to me is strong. It is a clear reassurance and there should be no ambiguity as to what that means. But less clear is annexe one, paragraph one B, subsection eight. The UK shall have unrestricted ability to permit access, basing and overflight for non UK and non US aircraft and vessels.

Upon notification to Mauritius my Lords. If that is merely a courtesy intimation, it does not compromise the UK controlling the conduct and deployment of armed operations and lethal capabilities on Diego Garcia. If that notification requires the consent of Mauritius, it must assuredly does. So can the noble Lady, the Minister confirm that such intimation is purely a courtesy, and consent to the proposed action is not required from Mauritius. My Lords under annexe one, paragraph two, the UK agrees to expeditiously inform Mauritius of any armed attack on a third state directly emanating from the base on Diego Garcia my Lords in the middle of the Indian Ocean, and a territorial armed attack in the third state could theoretically be mounted from the base, albeit perhaps unlikely.

But can the noble Lady, the Minister, confirm if that obligation to inform expeditiously extends to assets which merely called into the base to refuel, for example, and are once again at sea or airborne? And does that obligation also apply if UK forces disable hostile aircraft, drone ships or other devices which present a threat to the base? My Lords. The reason I ask these questions is because in any live conflict, the environment is kinetic. The last thing on the minds of military commanders will be seeking consents.

So these questions which I've posed require clear, unambiguous answers. My Lords can I now turn to how the agreement engages with the bill? If we look at the issues which I have already raised, plus the importance of the role of the Joint Commission under article 12, the mechanism for settling disputes under article 14, I would have thought these all merited specific mention in the bill. So can the noble Lady, the Minister confirm if the government is prepared to look at the drafting of the bill with a view to incorporating some of these issues into the bill, and specifically in the bill, there is a reservation to His Majesty under his prerogative to make laws for Diego Garcia, and to empower His Majesty to be in Council.

I raised this at the very helpful briefing meeting held by the noble Lady, the Minister, for which I thank her. But may I add this point, his Majesty is Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces. What of a threat manifests itself in the safe to the safety of our armed forces, either in the base itself or in the assets operating from there? If there is a disagreement with Mauritius as to the character and gravity of that threat, and how the UK proposes to respond, does the law making power under clause three, subsection three, prevail to do whatever is necessary to protect our military and civilian personnel and our assets? My Lords.

This agreement raises two profound concerns. If the government concede this area of British sovereignty, how safe are our other Crown territories, the Falklands, Gibraltar, our sovereign bases in Cyprus? The moment lawyers come sniffing around any of these, is this government going to be resolute and stand up to that? And secondly, this agreement should not be seen as some tying up of loose legal ends. A box ticked. This agreement has a significant impact on the British taxpayer, on the Chagossians themselves and on our defence and security interests.

And notwithstanding the acknowledged authority of the noble Lord Lord Browne of Ladyton, the noble Lord, Lord Lord Beamish the respect in which they are held in this house. I have to say the lack of support from the government's own backbenches is troubling. So I look forward to the noble Lord, to the noble Lady. The Minister's answer, because this debate has raised a series of profoundly concerning issues which are substantive, and this chamber needs reassurance.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yes. Here. Yes. Can I start by thanking the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Can I start by thanking the noble Lady Baroness Goldie for her closing speech? I thought that was exactly the kind of speech that I would have expected from her. It was forensic, detailed, asking absolutely legitimate questions that any respectable opposition that any respectable opposition should be putting to a government proposing this kind of bill. I will proposing this kind of bill. I will try and answer all of her questions, I think, even if I do answer them tonight, and I was writing as tonight, and I was writing as quickly as I could, if I don't get through them all, I think the idea of a letter in the library explaining the detail so that explaining the detail so that everybody can, can see what we have to say is a very, very good one.
20:22
Baroness Chapman of Darlington Portrait Baroness Chapman of Darlington, Minister of State (Development) (Labour)
-
-
to say is a very, very good one. And I'd be very happy to do that. And I just want to begin by thanking all noble Lords for their contributions. It has been lively. I suspected it might be some contributions. I might say agreed with more than others, and some, I think will probably be better informed than others. But that is the nature of these things. I will endeavour to respond to all of the points raised by noble Lords, and we will, of course, I hope, have further discussions in committee on many of the points raised today.

I would like to remind the House why we're scrutinising and reviewing a bill sent to us from the other place. This bill is essential to ensure that the treaty with Mauritius can be ratified, a treaty that is fundamental to safeguarding the operations of a critical UK US base on Diego Garcia and to the security of British people. As Lord Jay said, this bill is also vital to protecting the British citizen rights, citizens rights, citizenship rights of Chagossians noble Lords have questioned the legal rationale for this deal, and have asked what court could give a binding judgement.

Let me just set this out again. As Lord Hannay explained well in his speech, if a long term deal had not been reached, it is highly likely that further wide ranging litigation would have been brought quickly against the UK. Both the International Agreements Committee and the International Relations and Defence Committee, when they scrutinised the treaty, heard evidence of where these binding judgements could come from. One possibility is that Mauritius would find a dispute under the convention of the law of the sea, that it could bring before an arbitral tribunal under annexe seven of the convention.

That would also raise the prospect that Mauritius would seek provisional measures from the International Tribunal for the law of the sea. Provisional measures of this type, and the decision of an arbitral tribunal would each be legally binding on the UK. A further possibility is that a dispute under a multilateral treaty could be brought before the International Court of Justice, a judgement delivered in the manner by the ICJ in disputes between states may also be legally binding. Now there are those and we've had this ever since we started debating this who question where this legal, this binding judgement might arise and that.

But I think they are fundamentally missing the point here. The risk was real. International courts were already reaching judgements on the basis that Mauritius had sovereignty. And this in turn, as Lord Browne explained, put the base at real risk. And the point is that the treaty with Mauritius prevents that from happening in the future. Now, noble Lords are perfectly entitled to take a different view on the extent of that risk. That is absolutely their right to do that.

The government's view is that that risk was real. Now, having that view that the risk is real. Any responsible government with that assessment has to then seek to resolve this and to come to some lasting, legally enforceable arrangement with Mauritius. And that is why we did the deal. So noble Lords are entitled to disagree with the government, and I have absolutely no issue with that at all. But please don't impute some sort of bad intent or some kind of motive around political correctness, around colonialism or any of these things.

Our intention is about securing that base for the benefit of the security of our country. We did it so an agreement could be concluded on our terms rather than being forced upon us. So we would have to accept the imposition of an arrangement which would have not been in our favour on Baroness Goldie questions. I mean, on the overseas territories. I'm interpreting her question as an invitation to the government to restate its long standing and clear commitment to all of our overseas territories.

And I am very glad, actually, that the Conservatives and Baroness Goldie never did this. But others did. And they, at some points in these debates, not recently, would raise the issue of the Falkland Islands. Now, I thought that was the height of irresponsibility, and I'm very glad that they no longer attempt to bring that question into these discussions, because it was wrong that they did that. On the issue of a resolution process, it is right that this treaty has a very complex resolution process attached to it, and that is for because it needs to be so long lasting and because we're trying to cover every eventuality that might arise.

I think that's a really good subject for us to get into in committee, and we must test that to make sure that we've got that right. And I have every confidence that the noble Lady and her colleagues will bring to us situations, that we need to hold up against that process to make sure that we've got that right. On the issue of notification of activities of third countries with our consent. And there is a notification there, which is I think that is right, but it is not it's not in any way conditional.

We don't need consent. It's not about permission or any of those things. So I hope that that is helpful. On the ability to make law. We did have quite an interesting discussion at the briefing about royal prerogative and the rights, the ability of the King to make law in Diego Garcia. I think we need to get into that at committee as well, because I think there are many. There is. There is still much. There will be things in this, in the bill that when I was sitting in the noble Lady's place, I would have been asking questions about powers and flexibilities and the ability of Ministers to make decisions and the various methodologies around that.

I expect we'll be having long discussions about negative and affirmative procedures and those sorts of things. But I think that law making power is one such issue. And can I also want to address some of the points that were raised regarding the Chagossian community. And as I stated in my opening speech, this government deeply regrets how Chagossians were removed from the islands. And this is a community which the government is committed to working with and supporting in the months and years ahead.

And can I pay tribute to the speech of Baroness Ludford? She made a compelling and genuine contribution on this. It's an important issue, as did Lord Horam, and I really do commend those, particularly who've been working on this for very many years. And I think she did her party proud, and I respect the long standing commitment that she and others have had. This bill ensures that there will be no adverse impacts on Chagossians nationality rights as a result of the treaty, Chagossians will not lose their right to hold on or to hold, or to claim British citizenship, and no one will lose existing British Overseas Territory citizenship status.

The bill does, however, remove Chagossians ability to acquire British Overseas Territory citizenship in the future. In the future, because once the treaty comes into force by it of course won't be an overseas territory. On the trust fund. Lord Horam raised the point about an exchange of letters. Perhaps that might be possible on the future treatment of Chagossians under this trust fund. And I think this is, again, this is a genuine issue that we ought to explore. And I appreciate that noble Lords will want more detail about how the trust fund will operate.

I look forward to discussing this at committee. Who knows, we might be able to reach some sort of agreement on on that issue, on the citizenship law which was raised by, I think, 1 or 2 noble Lords sitting in that part of the chamber. I can't quite remember who it was that raised it. It may have been Lord Hannan, but there have been mentions of 76 B of the Mauritian Criminal Code and that Chagossians are leaving Mauritius for fear of being prosecuted for their affiliation with the UK.

Just to make this absolute, this is really important. No one's ever been prosecuted under this law, but that doesn't make that law right. Just because no one's ever been subject to it. So last week, the Mauritian government repealed this section, and as of April 2025, 94% of Chagossians with British nationality also had Mauritian citizenship on the right to self-determination. There have been questions during this debate and leading up to it about consultation with Chagossians. The negotiations on the treaty were necessarily between states, the UK and Mauritius with our priority and this is true.

We have prioritised the operation of the base on Diego Garcia. That has been our priority. There may be those here who disagree with that, and who would have preferred us to prioritise other issues, and I respect their right to hold that view. But that is not the view of the government. We wanted to protect the base and and some, including Baroness Foster, who I have to say, I've, I mean, I've followed Baroness Foster's career for many years. I don't know why, but I sort of have always been rather attached to following what she does and says.

And I have real long standing respect for her. And I think I completely understand why she wants to raise this issue and why it matters so much to her. But she raised the right of self-determination for the Chagossians that the the fact of this is that the Chagos Archipelago archipelago has no permanent population and has never been self-governing, no question of self-determination for its population, therefore legally arises. The English courts, noting the conclusion of the ICJ in the 2019 advisory opinion, have proceeded on the basis that the relevant right to self-determination in the context of Biot was that of Mauritius rather than Chagossians.

The both the English courts and the European Court of Human Rights have also considered in a serious series of judgements. Since the 1970s, the related but distinct question of an alleged right of abode or other rights said to flow from that, and on each occasion the English courts and the European Court of Human Rights have ultimately dismissed these claims. So the transfer of sovereignty, therefore doesn't deprive Chagossians of any existing right. This is a long standing legal position that previous UK governments have also adopted, including in claims brought as recently as 2020.

And that all sounds very legalistic and cold, I think. But nevertheless, that is the legal position as it stands.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Nevertheless, I give way to the noble Lady. I thank the noble Lady for addressing this issue because it addressing this issue because it has become a real touch point. I think, in the general populace. And think, in the general populace. And would she agree with me? Whilst we d would she agree with me? Whilst we d there is a moral to engage with these Chagossians who feel so let these Chagossians who feel so let down, not just by this government.

I make that very clear, but just by

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I make that very clear, but just by the whole political establishment in this country here. Now, I do agree with that. And I

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Now, I do agree with that. And I will say a little bit about engagement, because I think that's a really it's an important point and it deserves a proper response. And if there is more that we can do, we would be very open to discussions about how that could be discussions about how that could be done in the right way, but a way that doesn't derail the the process that doesn't derail the the process that we're trying to undertake now about bringing the treaty into into about bringing the treaty into into law.

I mean, having said all of that, we recognise the importance of the islands to Chagossians and have worked hard to reflect this in have worked hard to reflect this in our wider policies. Lord Purvis has, as he said, a really long standing position on this, which I, I understand and respect. I thought his impressive command of the history of this was put to good use in his interventions earlier, and we completely agree with his point about the shameful treatment of the Chagossian population.

But on this specific issue of engagement, in the past three years, officials have met Chagossian and groups over 30 times to discuss the agreement and Fcdo's wider support to the community. The Minister for Overseas Territories, Stephen Doughty, has met with Chagossians four times since. He's been in post since July last year. And on 2nd of September, the new Chagossian contact group met. This group has wide representation from Chagossian communities in the UK, Mauritius, Seychelles and elsewhere to give Chagossians a formal role that shapes decision making on the UK government's support for their community.

And this. This group met for the first time on the 2nd of September and will convene quarterly here. After claims that all Chagossians are opposed to the agreement are failing to respect the differing views of this diverse and vibrant community. And we've seen some of that reflected in our discussions this afternoon. Many voices do support the outcome reached, and these include the Chagos Refugees Group, Chagos Islanders Movement, UK native Chagossian Council and Seychelles Chagossians Committee. But I absolutely accept that there are many Chagossians who take a different view and that is that is absolutely their right to do so.

On resettlement. Resettlement points have been made during the debate that the treaty doesn't guarantee Chagossians the right of return to the archipelago, and that it should have done. And this is this has come up several times. The Conservatives, though, when in government, ruled out resettlement in 2016, acknowledging the acute challenges and costs of developing anything equivalent to modern public services on remote and low lying islands, the KPMG report that's been mentioned several times was commissioned by that government, and it concluded that resettling a civilian population permanently on Biot would entail substantial and open ended costs.

This agreement gives Mauritius the opportunity to develop a program of resettlement on its own terms, without requiring the UK taxpayer to foot the bill for it. On this issue about Mauritius and their reliability, there have been a range of views and and, but some noble Lords have implied that Mauritius is somehow an unreliable partner and one that can't be trusted. I, I would say that these claims are just insulting to Mauritius, which is a member of the Commonwealth and a westward facing country with shared democratic values.

Mauritius ranks among the top African nations in governance, human development and innovation. It's a full democracy, a regional leader in human rights and a trusted partner in upholding the rules based international order. It ranks second out of 54 African countries in the Mo Ibrahim Index of African Government governance. It's also one of the only two African countries not to have signed up to China's Belt and Road Initiative, and as an act of good faith. Mauritius, as I said, stopped its legal campaign against us while we negotiated.

Much has been said as well this afternoon about China. There's been a substantial amount, I have to say, of complete misinformation about China's influence in the region and reported plans to develop a military base in the Chagos Archipelago. The Mauritian Attorney General has stated publicly that these claims are just a gross falsehood, and quite frankly, he calls them a political gimmick. So I can confirm unequivocally that the treaty prevents any foreign security forces, civilian or military, from establishing themselves in the archipelago.

Furthermore, if the UK believes, for whatever reason, that any activity taking place in the archipelago would jeopardise the security of the base, Mauritius is obliged under the treaty to cooperate with us to prevent that risk, and the UK can veto any construction or development across the archipelago, which we consider to be a security threat to the base, as the claims that China supports the treaty because it grants them greater influence in the Indian Ocean. This is just, frankly, nonsense.

And this is why our closest allies and partners have welcomed this deal, especially the US and other Five Eyes partners. They're satisfied that the treaty protects the base against foreign influence, and they think that it is essential for our capabilities for generations to come. On the issue about the environment, many I think many of the points about this are really quite important. And they've been raised on the marine protected area. I thought Lord Thurlow made a really thoughtful speech about this, and there have been claims made both during the debate today and in the other place that the Mauritian fisheries Minister wished to issue fishing licences in the area, which would risk, the argument goes, the protection of the unique marine environment of the archipelago.

It must, I think, first be noted that the point the Minister was making was more to do with sovereignty than fisheries policy. But as I said in my opening speech, the Mauritian government confirmed only yesterday that they will establish a marine protected area which follows current bounds of the Biot MPA, and that they will not allow any commercial fishing in any section of the marine protected area. Noble Lords have, quite reasonably, I think, sought assurances on enforcement of the MPA, and I expect this is something we will get into details discussion about in committee.

But for today, just to point out that if the UK at any point believes that Mauritius is in breach of its environmental obligations, then we can, using the agreed dispute resolution mechanism in article 14, I'll just finish this point. We can seek to resolve that. But in any case, the UK and Mauritius are working to finalise these arrangements on maritime security to ensure there are patrolling capabilities and that

**** Possible New Speaker ****

these are maintained. I give way to the noble Lord. I thank the noble Lady on this point about the marine protected point about the marine protected area. I think she said that Mauritius had duplicated the zone. Mauritius had duplicated the zone. Absolutely. Is it not the case that it's not a no catch zone? Point being, the communiqué issued confirms that fishing will still be permitted in over 600,000km² of the zone.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

zone. I said that in my speech. This is about artisanal fishing, so that is about artisanal fishing, so that would in the event that there was some sort of resettlement on the outer islands, that those communities would need to sustain themselves, and traditional practice would be that they would practice would be that they would be able to fish using traditional artisanal methods. And that's what that permission relates to. It that permission relates to. It would not permit any other form of fishing, because that would clearly fishing, because that would clearly be detrimental to marine life.

As be detrimental to marine life. As Lord Beamish, Who chair of the ISC, said this is about money. It is disappointing that there continues to be references to artificially inflated figures of the cost of the inflated figures of the cost of the treaty. It is misleading to ignore inflation and the changing value of money over time. The net present value of the treaty is what we've always said. It will be £3.4 billion over the lifetime of the treaty. This is in line with long standing practice in how the government accounts for all long term spend.

The office for statistics, regulation and the OBR have verified these figures and confirmed that we have applied this methodology correctly. And I give

**** Possible New Speaker ****

way to the noble Lady my Lords. The point is that in accounting

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The point is that in accounting for money, cash accounting is used in government. What she's talking about is economic analysis, which about is economic analysis, which is not the same as financial analysis. She's been in the chamber. She would have heard my speech on this subject. It is clear that when we come to draw up accounts for the government, cash goes into it in pounds of expressed in the time that it's expended.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

that it's expended. So I do apologise to noble Lady for missing her speech, and I will read it in Hansard, but your bladder's only so strong, isn't it so? But the point I would make in so? But the point I would make in response to that is that this what matters here is that there is consistency across government and consistency across government and over time in the way that we do these things, and these things are done the same way as they'd be done done the same way as they'd be done for any other agreement.

And I mean, I, I know some people take a different view of the OBR to the different view of the OBR to the one which this government takes. We take them seriously, and they have looked at our figures and verified looked at our figures and verified those figures. And she will have to if we want. She can by all means if we want. She can by all means come back to this at committee. I'm sure she will. But I think for tonight I would.

I'm going to stick with what the OBR has to say on this issue, because this ensures the way we've done it is that the figures are realistic and comparable and not inflated by simply adding up future payments while ignoring the depreciation. Depreciation of value over time. Lord Altrincham made what I thought was actually quite a thoughtful speech. He's worried about the money, and I should point out that we don't see this as an open market situation by any means, and he seeks clarity about the total cost.

And I can confirm that the 3.4 billion is just that. It is the total cost. Baroness Meyer suggested that the US should be contributing to the cost of the treaty, given their joint use of the military base. But we've really got to recognise, I think, that the US pays for the operating costs of the base and these are several multiples greater than any payments by the UK. We benefit greatly from this arrangement. This allows us to access valuable capability that keeps our country safe, and the US are paying far more for it than we

**** Possible New Speaker ****

do this I give way. Would she. Also agree. That with. This agreement, it also allows

**** Possible New Speaker ****

This agreement, it also allows the Americans to forward. Plan for. Investments. Which you quite rightly says.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Is substantial? Well, I absolutely, and I

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Well, I absolutely, and I thought the point made by the former Secretary of State for defence, Lord Browne of Ladyton defence, Lord Browne of Ladyton added to this. Very well. When you talked about how future investment is jeopardised by the legal is jeopardised by the legal uncertainty that we are seeking to uncertainty that we are seeking to resolve, some have questioned the use of defence money in particular for this. Just to be absolutely clear, for noble Lords, this treaty costs will be split between the costs will be split between the Fcdo and the Mod as is appropriate, given the shared interests of both departments in maintaining the departments in maintaining the future of the base, and as set out by the Defence Secretary in his by the Defence Secretary in his oral statement.

In the other place on the treaty, the costs represent a fraction of a percentage of the a fraction of a percentage of the total defence budget, less than 0.2%. It's a bit far fetched to 0.2%. It's a bit far fetched to suggest that the annual payments are in any way comparable to the biggest uplift in defence spending that since the end of the Cold War that we've seen, Lord Lord Craig of Radley raised this issue of sea level change. He I don't know why I'm dealing with this in the money section, but this is where I've written it down, so you might as well get it on the record.

But it is true, as he said, that sea level has changed over the last 50 years has been less than 1%. But the I think what we would be helpful to do in committee is explore how a future sea level change, which I think is quite rightly alerts us to how that would be treated by the dispute resolution process. I don't have a clear answer to that tonight, but I think that that is what Committee stage is for, is to getting to the bottom of exactly those sorts of questions.

I'm nearly there, so I just want to I'm I suppose I'm giving the last word to Lord Kerr. He made the argument, and it's not one I'd thought of, but it's a really strong one, and I'll definitely be using it again that this House voted in July to ratify the treaty. This bill, what this bill does is facilitate the enactment of this House's wishes, because we voted in favour of the treaty. The bill is necessary so we can do the ratification with Mauritius and therefore secure the critically important military base on Diego Garcia.

And I thank noble Lords for their contributions. I look forward to debating this at

**** Possible New Speaker ****

future Committee stage, and I beg to move. The question is that this bill
20:51
20:51
20:52
None Portrait
-



**** Possible New Speaker ****

attack. The Lords let me start. By expressing the heartfelt

**** Possible New Speaker ****

By expressing the heartfelt sympathies from these benches to all those injured in this horrifying attack, to their horrifying attack, to their families and to everyone else affected. I also join others in paying tribute to the British paying tribute to the British Transport Police, Cambridgeshire Constabulary, Cambridgeshire Fire and Rescue Service and the East of and Rescue Service and the East of England Ambulance Service. The swift response arriving within eight minutes of the first 909 call, brought an end to the violence and no doubt saved lives.

Above all, I no doubt saved lives. Above all, I wish to acknowledge the astonishing bravery of the passengers and crew aboard the train. I would like to aboard the train. I would like to pay particular tribute to Samir Zeitouni, a man who, in an effort to protect others, ran towards the attacker and now remains critically injured in hospital. He went to injured in hospital. He went to work that day to serve the public. He has become a hero to the nation and we wish him a full and speedy recovery.

My Lords, it now appears that the individual charged Anthony that the individual charged Anthony Williams may have been connected to three prior knife incidents, including the stabbing of a 14 year including the stabbing of a 14 year old in Peterborough. The Home Secretary rightly said that while investigations are ongoing, she cannot comment on those events. But when the case concludes, it is vital that a full account is given
20:53
Lord Davies of Gower Portrait Lord Davies of Gower (Conservative)
-
-
of what was known when and by whom. Only through transparency can Only through transparency can lessons be learned to prevent atrocities like this from occurring again. The Home Secretary also noted that knife crime has fallen in recent years. That progress is in recent years. That progress is very welcome. It is not my intention to politicise this tragedy, but I will make a couple of observations as more can and of observations as more can and must be done if the government is to make good on its manifesto promise to halve knife crime by 2030, it must take a tougher stance against those who carry and use against those who carry and use knives.

When the Crime and Policing Bill was before the Other place, my colleagues tabled an amendment to colleagues tabled an amendment to raise the maximum sentence for possession of a bladed weapon with intent to commit violence from 4 to intent to commit violence from 4 to 1414 years. Disappointingly, the government opposed that measure. As government opposed that measure. As the bill comes through this chamber, I hope noble Lords will reconsider. There can be no ambiguity. Those There can be no ambiguity. Those who carry and use knives should face serious custodial sentences.

Equally, there is a widespread Equally, there is a widespread concern that the forthcoming sentencing bill risks moving in the opposite direction. The prospect of opposite direction. The prospect of offenders being released earlier or in some cases, not serving their sentences in custody at all, sends the wrong message to dangerous criminals. The public are entitled to express. Expect that those who commit violent crimes are published proportionately, and that justice is served on these benches. We welcome the Home Secretary's openness to using technology to innovate the way knife crime is tackled, such as through knife detection, scanning and live facial recognition.

Both have shown promise in identifying dangerous individuals and intercepting weapons. We hope the government can roll out live facial recognition technology at pace, and that it will not be unduly delayed by further consultations. It is particularly needed in high crime areas, many of which are centred around transport hubs. The government must also ramp up the use of stop and search. The former Metropolitan Police chief scientific officer found increasing stop and search in London back to 2011 levels would reduce knife homicides by around one third.

And my Lords, I can personally vouch for the effectiveness of stop and search. Stop and search, when used intelligently and fairly, saves lives. This is why the Conservatives amended the Crime and Policing Bill to lower its threshold. But this was once again opposed by the government. The police must have the powers to act decisively when intelligence suggests that lives are at risk and Lord Dear. This country has witnessed too many tragedies of this kind. Each incident compels us to ask the same question what more could have been done? When the investigation concludes, the government must ensure every department, whether it be police, transport or probation, examines its role and that lessons are translated into action and not just reports.

We on these benches welcome the Home Secretary's commitment to halving knife crime. But words alone are not enough. It will require robust sentencing and expansionary policing powers and investment in technology. It will require the political courage to act decisively in the interests of public safety. In the aftermath of this horrific attack, we have seen both the worst and the best of humanity. And so, in closing, I say to the noble Lord, the Minister, we owe it to the Huntington victims and to every victim of knife crime to ensure that this tragedy is a turning point, and so that the public can have faith that our law enforcement and justice systems are well equipped to protect our streets and deliver justice.
20:56
Baroness Pidgeon Portrait Baroness Pidgeon (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
My Lords, as I rise to speak, I want to put on record on behalf of the Lib Dem benches. Our thoughts are with all those affected by this terrible incident the staff, the victims, friends and families and those who witnessed this attack an attack which left 11 people in hospital and many who are haunted by what they saw. I also want to thank the courageous work of the Lner staff, the Network Rail signallers and controllers, emergency services and the heroic acts of some of the passengers that we have been hearing about.

Staff prepare for major incidents routinely, but they rarely have to put them into practice. The calmness and professionalism has shone through this gruesome attack, and the goodness of the public too, and it would be very easy to jump to conclusions at this point, using this horrific incident to feed our own policy positions. I believe that is wrong. It's for the police and key partners to piece together what happened on the train and elsewhere to review if this could have been prevented and to learn from it.

It's always easy from the outside to point the finger of blame, but we know how stretched all of our emergency services are, including policing and indeed mental health. The police and other services need time to establish all of the facts, and clearly there is an ongoing legal process. But I would therefore like to ask the noble Lord, the Minister, a few practical questions. For example, what measures have been taken to reassure rail passengers and staff across the network following this incident? Will the Department for transport look to review security protocols on high speed and intercity routes, particularly in light of the confined environment in which this attack occurred? How will the government ensure that any proposed improvements to public transport security are proportionate in measures? And finally, last autumn, when we debated the public ownership of the railway bill, I flagged my concern about the future funding of the British Transport Police, resourced in large part by the train operating companies.

The BTP does such a superb job working with our other police services across the country. So will the noble Lord, the Minister confirm that resources for the British Transport Police will now be reviewed, and how the service will be funded fully going forward? I look forward to the Minister's response with interest.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Can I endorse everything that's just been said by the noble Baroness Lea represent the Liberal

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Baroness Lea represent the Liberal Democrat Party? I'm sorry. I'm grateful.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'm grateful. To His Majesty's loyal opposition and to the Liberal Democrat benches for the contributions this evening and the broad welcome I will give also for broad welcome I will give also for their comments on the work of the emergency services, the British Transport Police, Cambridgeshire Police, Cambridgeshire Fire and Police, Cambridgeshire Fire and Rescue, the East of England Ambulance Services. And I would add to that, the officials in the gold to that, the officials in the gold team, in the Home Office and in the Department of Transport who also liaised on these matters.

I'm pleased also that my noble friend Lord Hendy is present in the chamber tonight, because some aspects of the responsibility fall aspects of the responsibility fall within the Department of Transport, and Lord Hendy wished to be here this evening to hear contributions and comments. I think it's also extremely important that we place extremely important that we place on record the heroism that I have experienced and seen reported from both passengers, but also from the train driver, Andrew Johnson, and train driver, Andrew Johnson, and the member of staff, Sami Zitouni, who we all are.

Wishes are for his speedy recovery in hospital tonight. I think a number of points have been raised and I want to try and deal with them as best I can. First of all, it is right that there have been and I put this word, allegations of issues. Prior to the incident on the train at Huntingdon that occurred within other areas of the United Kingdom, notably in Cambridgeshire. And I think it's important that we do say that the police and crime commissioner and the Chief Constable of Cambridgeshire have initiated a review on those incidents.

I think it's best not to comment on that until we hear what the facts are on that. But it's also important to note that British Transport Police have now taken overall responsibility to examine all incidents that took place, even those not on strictly transport policing areas. And again, I can't comment too much in detail because there are outstanding potential charges to be made, investigations to be undertaken. But I'm very clear and I'm sure I will give this assurance to both front benches that when both the Transport Police and the Cambridgeshire Police produce reports that they will be subject to scrutiny in this House as, as a matter of, of course, the noble Lord mentioned the question of knife crime and it is important.

I hope this is reassuring in one way. And it's again, it's not a political point, but I hope it's reassuring in one way. In the British Transport Police themselves have reported in the year to June 25th, a decline of 33% in knife and sharp instrument offences on their area of responsibility, which I think is positive. More widely. Knife crime is falling. Knife homicides are down 18%, all knife crime is down 5%. Knife assaults have dropped by 6%. And hospital admissions for under 25 to fallen
21:03
Lord Hanson of Flint Portrait Lord Hanson of Flint, The Minister of State, Home Department (Labour)
-
-
by 10%. And that's, I think, just worth putting on the record that the that there are measures that we the that there are measures that we can still further take and the noble Lord will know that in the police and crime bill before us now police and crime bill before us now in this House, there are strong measures on a range of issues on measures on a range of issues on knife crime, including sales including age verification, and including age verification, and include further measures on possession of knives.

And they'll come before the House and we'll come before the House and we'll have a debate on those issues. And it is right that the opposition tables amendments and tests tables amendments and tests government policy. But I hope there will be a consensus in part on some of those key issues. There is also of those key issues. There is also the sentencing bill that's before this House in about a week's time. And again, there will be a discussion on sentencing issues then. But I think that's best left, then.

But I think that's best left, if I may say so, for another day, because today is about the immediate response. And I think, immediate response. And I think, again, if we look at the fact that particularly, I think my noble Lord friend Lord Hendy has drawn this to friend Lord Hendy has drawn this to my attention, the actions of the driver, Andrew Johnson, in taking a driver, Andrew Johnson, in taking a decision on the first incident being reported to him without any visuals on that incident, phoning and getting in touch with the signallers, getting into Huntington Station, British Transport Police being notified and within eight minutes of the first violence occurring, an arrest was made by British Transport Police.

I think is remarkable given particularly as well the strategic challenge of getting a fast moving train off a main line into a non main line station, and that deserves great skill and great praise for the staff that are involved. I think also the the noble Lady Baroness Pidgeon mentioned British Transport Police. I can tell her that British Transport Police had a 6% rise in their funding in this recent financial year. I've got the exact figures somewhere in here, but they had a 6% rise in their funding this year and obviously that is a matter for discussion.

We will make assessments on that. But I think it is important that we do recognise that. I don't think funding is an issue now. Obviously more funding is always available, but the British Transport Police is funding. Settlement was there. We are, I found it eventually I found it. The British Transport Police funds were up 6% and were £415 million in the last financial year. And addition to that, I think it's also worth because there have been, again, allegations of mental health issues related to this.

Potentially. We'll examine that in due course. But mental health funding is is up 688 million this year as well. So there are issues to be developed and looked at. I would say to the noble Lady that we will examine all of the points that she has raised. And again, I say to the House that we are open to scrutiny on that, but I think we should recognise today that this was a very serious incident, that there was immense bravery and skill on the part of individuals, a very good response by the police in this instance.

But there are now a criminal justice procedure to follow. There will be an investigation into allegations that have occurred elsewhere. And ultimately, I wish those who were injured a speedy recovery. And whatever the criminal justice outcome is in this case, we will examine any lessons to be learned, both from my noble friend and the Department of Transport and for ourselves as the Home Office. I think it's also just worth just placing on record as well that this was initially assessed as a potential terrorist incident.

That assessment lifted very quickly. So we are looking at specific circumstances that are not politically, potentially or terrorist related, motivated. So we can again reflect on that and be thankful that as of now, no lives have been lost.
21:06
Lord Snape Portrait Lord Snape (Labour)
-
-
My Lords can I first of all apologise to my noble friend, the Minister for jumping the gun earlier on? I've been here long enough to know better and it doesn't happen in future. Can I endorse the words of the noble Lady who represents the Liberal Democrats that we owe a great debt of gratitude to the railway staff concerned in this incident? I'll come to the driver and the member of train crew in a moment, but I think my noble friend should acknowledge the prompt action of the signaller.

As a former railway signalman, I think that it's a grade that's often overlooked. And the fact that once he was informed of the circumstances, this train was moved from the fast line on which it was booked to the slow line platform ought to be commended. My noble friend paid tribute, quite rightly, to Driver Johnson. Can I just point out to him that David Johnson actually, initially, after being informed of the circumstances on the train by a member of the train crew, I just put it I want to also to pay tribute to the gallantry of Mr.

The member of train crew who actually in the highest traditions of the railway industry by placing himself in a position of considerable danger between the assailant and the passengers, for which he felt just the responsible. All too often my Lords we forget the daily efforts of our railway staff to keep trains moving, to keep passengers safe, and the fact that he's still, despite incidents like this, the safest form of transport in this country, I think, is enormously commendable as far as our railway workers are concerned.

Can I just say, however, to my noble friend, if the assailant in this case had boarded a train from Liverpool Street to Stansted Airport, for example, he would have boarded a 12 coach train full of passengers with no staff on there at all, other than a driver locked in a cab. And I say with respect to my noble friend, and I'm glad that the my noble friend, the Minister of State at Department of Transport, is present, that there is still considerable concern not just amongst railway staff, but amongst passengers themselves, about the continuous staffing of the railway industry.

A combination of driver only operation and unstaffed stations is not one that makes passengers, particularly women passengers, particularly at night, feel any safer. And I hope that once the Great British Railways is formed, that the question of further staffing is one that's looked at to by Ministers, and that we take steps to ensure that passengers and the railway industry are properly protected. Finally, my Lords, I'm always delighted to hear praise from the party opposite for railway staff.

I hope they'll feel just as well disposed towards them the next time they want to fight to protect their jobs, or even worse, as a pay rise.
21:10
Lord Hanson of Flint Portrait Lord Hanson of Flint, The Minister of State, Home Department (Labour)
-
-
To my noble friend, I know that he's he's spent time in a Stockport signalbox in a previous life, and I think that he's right to pay tribute to the signallers who have helped with the safety measures that have undoubtedly saved lives. Because whatever the incident on the train actually arriving at the station with the police and ambulance services there has saved lives. And that's speedy response by the driver particularly, who, again, remember, would have taken risks in the the steps that he's taken.

And making instant judgements is something that we should really commend to the House. This is this is again, I've heard what my noble friend has said around staffing. And my noble friend, the Transport Minister Lord Hendy, is here and that is an area of his responsibility. So I'm sure he will reflect on that. I think it's worth pointing out, which is only something I've only learned really in the last hour. That is the attorney who is the individual from Lner staff who put his own life at risk by saving lives and standing in the way of the alleged assailant, is a customer service host.

So it's the sort of person who would normally be serving tea or refreshments. But he's stepped up to the plate and put his own life at risk in taking really strong steps here. And I think we should recognise that point, that this is an act of tremendous bravery, and I wish him well for the future. My noble friend has made a number of points around the need for good, well-paid staff. I take the view and I use the train every week.

I worked out on on a board day on Monday, I worked out that I'd probably spent a year of my life transporting myself back and forth to this House and to the House of Commons over 28 years on the train. And I looked on Monday at the train guards and the train staff in a very different way than I looked at them last Monday. And I think that's a tribute to them and to the service that they've given.
21:12
21:13
21:13
Lord Bishop of Manchester Portrait The Lord Bishop of Manchester (Bishops)
-
-
I'd like to add our tributes from these benches to the train crew and others who responded so heroically, and our thoughts and our prayers remain with all those who have been impacted. The traumatic effect of being involved in an incident like that in an enclosed space doesn't just go away after a short period of time. Also, declare my unpaid role as co-chair of the National Police Ethics Committee. I'm really grateful that information was got out early about the perpetrator, not just the fact it wasn't terrorism, but other information that we've known over the last year.

Since. Southport is vital to calming some of the public fears that there are. And that's something that my ethics committee has been discussing at length in recent times. Like many noble Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Goddard over there, who may well want to intervene shortly, I travel a lot on trains that don't don't stop for quite a long distance. They've got many carriages I would have made. Some of the points have already been made behind, but it is about having enough first responders on those trains throughout the journey who are equipped to respond effectively.

My trains do have CCTV in every carriage. It usually works. That helps. I think we've had facial recognition technology referred to. I think that does need to be managed very carefully. Many of the models that I've certainly seen still have an inbuilt ethnic bias that's inherited from the fact that in the original training, the algorithms, it's often based on the faces of white men like me, and they struggle sometimes to distinguish people from other groups within society. And that leads to too many false positives.

And then people who are entirely innocent are having their lives interrupted by being stopped and accused of some offence at the same. Again, if we increased stop and search, there's no problem with that. As long as we ensure that officers who are carrying that out are trained in unconscious bias, so they're making sure they're not carrying that out in a way that's unfair. Finally, one of the Ministers and the Minister would agree with me that crime, deterrence, knife crime and other crime is driven much more by fear of detection and arrest than by the theoretical length of a maximum

**** Possible New Speaker ****

sentence. I'm grateful to the Right Reverend Prelate. A number of us in Reverend Prelate. A number of us in this House continue to spend lots of periods of times on trains. And again, I think there's it is a very interesting point that the Right interesting point that the Right Reverend prelate makes about the distance between stops. The train I distance between stops. The train I get every week, normally the last stop before London is Stafford. When there's a lot of journeys When there's a lot of journeys between that time and a lot of carriages and a lot of individuals.

I did have a very brief conversation with my noble friend conversation with my noble friend Lord Hendy, who said that the most important thing that he expects on important thing that he expects on a train is for the ability to have contact with the driver, so that the driver can take immediate the driver can take immediate action, such as was taken in this instance, by diverting the train to instance, by diverting the train to a non mainline station, Huntingdon, where police and resources were made available.

But I know that my made available. But I know that my noble friend has heard what the Right Reverend prelate has said on staffing issues and obviously will reflect on that as part of his normal day to day duties. The question of stop and search is an interesting one. I've got some statistics which again, I hope will help the noble Lord who did raise this issue and may not have given this issue and may not have given him a fuller answer as I as I perhaps should have done at that particular time in the last year, 16,066 stop and searches led to an offensive weapon or firearm being found.

But that, interestingly, was only 3% of all stop and search figures where weapons were found on the individual. So it's an interesting statistic where where we can make of that what we will in slower time, but only 3% of actual stop and searches found a weapon on the individual who was stopped and search. Question of facial recognition is important. We have, as a government invested in live facial recognition. We've had some new vans, ten in number static location pilots.

We've undertaken piloting of this and what it does do is it saves a lot of police time. And we need to ensure that we do trial that to ensure that the points that the Right Reverend Planet has made with relation to facial recognition and characteristics is, is taken into account. I think the main thing it will do is if there are offenders who are convicted offenders who are known to the system, then potentially that will help draw down the ability to identify them quicker in a large crowd than would be the case otherwise.

But we are undertaking a public consultation on a new bespoke legal framework for law enforcement on the use of biometrics, facial recognition and similar technologies, and that will be launched very soon. And I think for the Right Reverend pilot, then there's an opportunity for him and others to raise those issues of of interest and concern so that they can form part of our final judgement on the benefits versus

**** Possible New Speaker ****

some of the challenges. With everything that's been said about the.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

about the. Courage, the skill and the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Courage, the skill and the efficiency of the staff and and the efficiency of response in emergency services and the police. I also services and the police. I also take the point about the signallers. It would be fascinating, would make It would be fascinating, would make a good drama. Sorry. I mean, the a good drama. Sorry. I mean, the the tragic, tragic, tragic context. But I mean, the way that the driver had to communicate, the signallers had to communicate, the signallers and goodness knows who.

It's above my pay grade. But it was all extremely impressive. But I did just want to ask about the last just want to ask about the last point, the CCTV and and facial recognition. And I absolutely hear what my noble friend Baroness what my noble friend Baroness Pidgeon said about how, you know, we can't sort of jump to conclusions about what the police should have done, should be doing should have done, should be doing whatever. But I but I have been somewhat intrigued to, to see it somewhat intrigued to, to see it reported and reported that the British Transport Police, of course, British Transport Police, of course, had the CCTV of an incident on the DLR station and it's apparently identified the person involved on the police national computer.

But I'd be interested. And they had identified the person, but that didn't sort of go anywhere before the Huntington train incident and I would just put down a marker that I'd be interested to know in the future. As one of the lessons learned if and all the reservations one have, and I share them about privacy issues, about CCTV and facial recognition, including the point made by the Right Reverend prelate about worries about the accuracy of facial recognition and the way it's been trained.

But it would be interesting to know what lessons we can learn about identification and then sharing that data across the country. I'm not saying anything could have been prevented, but I would be interested to know what what lessons, what knowledge can be learnt about what happened between

**** Possible New Speaker ****

DLR knowledge and what happened in Huntington. The points on what's happened in

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The points on what's happened in Cambridgeshire and the DLR. I think I've tried to indicate that they I've tried to indicate that they will be subject to an internal inquiry by Cambridgeshire police and they will reflect on that, and and they will reflect on that, and I suspect they will produce a report which surfaces the issues report which surfaces the issues that are there. The facial recognition issue we use facial recognition, facial recognition in recognition, facial recognition in a number of ways.

There's the opportunity potentially to look at a crowd and to determine from a a crowd and to determine from a database of known individuals or even, for example, missing people that we know, whether they are in that we know, whether they are in that crowd, by identifying that that's that's one way police can use operator initiated facial recognition, which is an app that allows officers to take a picture of a person and compare it against of a person and compare it against any database we have of people who've been convicted of offences and others.

And there are ways in which we can have live footage of people passing a camera, which is what we've been testing and what we've been testing and monitoring. And indeed, the British Transport Police, under my noble friend again, are piloting a live friend again, are piloting a live facial recognition technology very shortly. And that pilot is going to be looking for a short period of time, six months, to determine whether it's valuable and what lessons can be learned. But it needs to be put, as the Right Reverend prelate has said, into a legal context.

And that's what we're also looking at potentially later in this year. So so I think the, the, the issues about what's happened, we need to examine, I don't know as yet what lessons to be learned from the CCTV that was there and how it was used. But that's what the investigation will lead to. I also sorry, I did forget one point that the Right Reverend prelate mentioned that I want to just go back to, if I may, which was the issue of early announcement of what's happened and who's been potentially the subject of investigation.

And that's a really important point, because what we what we what we've learned from previous examples is that putting as much information into the public domain, although not in the first instance, the name of the individual until any charge is made does take away that level of social media and other speculation that can lead to people having false information that leads them down alleyways which are not productive to public good and public order. And therefore, I welcome the fact that in this instance, early information was given, and I would expect that in any situation, this individual was described in one way.

Others may be described in other ways, but the actual fact that they are given further information about who the individual of interest is is extremely important.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords I beg to move that the House do now adjourn.
This debate has concluded
Return to start of debate - Return to top of page