Lords Chamber

Monday 12th January 2026

(began 3 hours, 5 minutes ago)

Share Debate
Watch Live
Skip to latest contribution
14:45
None Portrait Introduction(s): Lord Doyle; Lord Duvall
-

The The Grace The Grace of The Grace of God The Grace of God of The Grace of God of the The Grace of God of the United Kingdom, of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and of our other realms and territories. King, head of the Commonwealth, defender of the Faith to all Lords, spiritual and temporal, and all other subjects whatsoever to whom these presents shall come. Greeting. Know ye that we of our special grace, certain knowledge, and mere motion, in pursuance of the Life Peerages Act 1958, and of all other powers in that behalf are seized, presence, advance, create, and prefer our trusty and well beloved Leonard Lloyd Duvall officer of our most excellent Order of the British Empire to the state degree, style, dignity, title and honour of Baron Duval, of Woolwich, in our Royal Borough of Greenwich.

And for us, our heirs and successors, to appoint, give and grant unto him the said name, state, degree, style, dignity, title and honour of Baron Duval, to have and to hold unto him for his life willing, and by these presents granting for us our heirs and successors, that he may have, hold and possess a seat, place, and voice in the parliaments and public assemblies and councils of us, our heirs and successors within our United Kingdom, amongst the Barons, and also that he may enjoy and use all the rights, privileges, Preeminences, immunities and advantages to the degree of a Baron duly and of right belonging, which Barons of our United Kingdom have heretofore used and enjoyed, or, as they do at present, use and enjoy.

In witness whereof we have caused these our letters to be made patent witness ourself at Westminster in the afternoon of the eighth day of January, in the fourth year of our reign, by warrant under the King's sign-manual.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I Leonard Lloyd Duvall do swear by Almighty God that I will be by Almighty God that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to His Majesty King Charles, his heirs and successors according to heirs and successors according to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My
14:50
None Portrait Lord Speaker Election Result
-

>> My Lords. >> My Lords. Announce >> My Lords. Announce the >> My Lords. Announce the results of the election for the office of of the election for the office of Lord speaker. Details of the votes cast will be made available in the cast will be made available in the printed paper office. The successful candidate was Lord

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Forsyth of Drumlean. My Lords, I have the honour to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I have the honour to notify your Lordships that His Majesty the King, having been informed that your Lordships have informed that your Lordships have elected Lord Forsyth of Drumlean to be Lord Speaker, has pleasure in confirming your Lordship's choice confirming your Lordship's choice of him as your speaker.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, on behalf of the whole House, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, on being Lord, Lord Forsyth, on being elected our Lord speaker, and I look forward to working closely with him in his new role when he with him in his new role when he takes up the post, and it will be next month. I know he will represent the House rigorously and represent the House rigorously and will act robustly, as he is known to in the role for members across your Lordships House and my Lords, your Lordships House and my Lords, I also want to pay tribute to noble Lady Baroness Bull.

For her was a dedicated campaign and candidacy. My Lords, both candidates were an absolute credit to your Lordships House and I thank them. The campaign process was courteous and dignified, showing that despite being the unelected House, we can run a good election. My Lords, I also extend thanks to all the House staff involved in the election, particularly those in the Journal Office, the Hansard Society and the digital team supporting all members to take part and for making sure that a right and proper procedure was followed.

My Lords, as usual, time has made available for the House to pay tribute to my noble friend Lord McFall when he leaves the Woolsack, and I have promised him, under pain of retaliation that will not be paying tribute to him today, and pre-empting those that distribute will make later. But my Lords, I know the whole House will want to thank him for what has been really sterling service to the House for so many years. Thank you.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords. I entirely endorse everything that the Leader of the everything that the Leader of the House has said on our behalf, and I do congratulate my noble friend do congratulate my noble friend Lord Forsyth, and he is my friend. All that he has. I do remember when All that he has. I do remember when I was first Minister in your Lordships House, that it fell to the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, my the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, my friend, to ask the first question, and I was very pleased, and went up to him, said, I'm glad it's you asking a question.

He said, yes, yes, good. And my Lord, he asked me a right bastard of a question I don't know, so I may not be parliamentary language. He asked me. Really? He asked me a really difficult question, and I said to him afterwards, what's going on? He said, gave me that seraphic smile and he said, well, he did very well. And my Lords only tell that story to show that I know that my noble friend who is the Leader of the House, said is rigorous in his scrutiny.

He was rigorous in his scrutiny of us on our side when we were in government is here. He is a great parliamentarian and will be a wonderful servant of your Lordships House in his new role. I have no doubt. And like the leader, I would also like to pay a most sincere tribute to. And I will say also, if I may, my noble friend Baroness Ball, who conducted herself with her habitual decorum and charm, and I hope she will take from this election a sense of the respect and affection in which she is held.

And the crossbenches are a vital part of this House, and long may that remain. My Lords. I accept the strictures, and I ask others to do that. There should be no tributes to the Lord speaker today, but I regret that I will not be present at the on the day assigned for the tributes. For personal reasons I cannot be present, so I hope you will forgive me if I take 30s simply to say my deepest sense of friendship, affection and gratitude for the service of the Lord Speaker as chair of the Commission in so many other ways, I worked with him as Leader of the House and Leader of the Opposition, and he treated me in the same way on both occasions.

A consummate servant of the house and often not easy circumstances. And some of that may come out in the tributes. In particular. As we all know, his love and dedication to his wife, my Lords, he is an outstanding servant of the House and will be continuing to be that for the rest of the month. I hope he'll accept my apologies, though not be present on the appointed day, but that these brief words are no less deeply and sincerely meant.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

By Lords on behalf of the Liberal Democrat benches. I also wish to give warm congratulations wish to give warm congratulations to the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, on his election and an efficiently run election. I suspect Ministers of election. I suspect Ministers of all persuasions may have slight relief that he will no longer be asking those types of questions to asking those types of questions to any Minister. I wish also to thank the noble Lady Baroness Bull for the noble Lady Baroness Bull for her candidacy and the way that she conducted it, with a sense of integrity, commitment and optimism.

And the House thanks her for for that. We wish the noble Lord Forsyth well in his work on the Woolsack rules, and perhaps the noble Earl of Kinnoull, and I could be forgiven for rather liking a Caledonian continuity for Lord Forsyth and Lord McFall. But they also have another thing in common a deeply held passion for parliamentary accountability, and that their politics is based on ideas, crafting an argument, shrewdness and, yes, wit. And I know that all of his estimable skills are going to be put to good use in his service to the House Amen.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

Very brief, but I think that I'm very much looking forward on the Commission to seeing the forensic Commission to seeing the forensic skills of Lord Forsyth, questioning all the many people that we have to question. I dare say that matters. question. I dare say that matters. Like the door will will have a very rough ride, very rough ride indeed. rough ride, very rough ride indeed. The other thing is that it is a little bit hard for us sometimes to recruit members to the crossbench, recruit members to the crossbench, but I'm much looking forward to his arrival, I think, in five years time.

So that's wonderful and I will reserve everything that I have to say, the many warm and happy memories that I have for Lord Speaker as well. I finished by turning to my noble friend and colleague, who I think did show the very finest of of campaigns during the campaign. And and I'm very glad I'm going to carry on sitting next door to her. She brings much needed

**** Possible New Speaker ****

glamour to our front bench. I have known and worked alongside Lord Forsyth for many alongside Lord Forsyth for many years, since we represented neighbouring constituencies in the House of Commons in the 1980s. Michael was conservative MP for Stirling on the east bank of Loch Stirling on the east bank of Loch Lomond, while I was a Labour representative for Dumbarton on the west side, and it's fair to say that we did not see eye to eye. On every issue when there was turbulence in the waters of Loch Lomond, locals would say aye, that's McFall and Forsyth rowing again.

But although we locked horns many times, I always recognised Michael as an honourable and distinguished public servants dedicated to the good governance of our nation and the well-being of its people. That impression has been further cemented by his work here in the House of Lords, particularly as chair of the Economic Affairs Committee and the Financial Services Regulation Committee, and after more than 40 years service in both Houses of Parliament, I am sure Lord Forsyth will find, as I have done, that the post of Lord Speaker is both the most rewarding job of his career and the honour of a lifetime, and I would like to thank both Lord Forsyth and Baroness Bull for putting themselves forward as candidates to serve this House and congratulate them on the constructive way they have conducted this election, and I would also like to thank all those involved in the administration of the contest.

But above all, I would like to congratulate Lord Forsyth and his election and offer him my best wishes and support in his new role as Lord Speaker Lord Forsyth.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I'm most grateful for these very flattering tributes from all the frontbenchers. My father all the frontbenchers. My father would have been astonished and my mother would have believed them. I mother would have believed them. I am, I am really overwhelmed and slightly humbled. Believe it or not, slightly humbled. Believe it or not, by the. I don't know what you're all laughing. By the the confidence and trust which you've put on me, put in me and on me in supporting my election.

Not all of you voted for me and for those who didn't vote for me. I just like to say I completely understand why. And that's because I had in my opponent a formidable candidate, and I echo all the words that have been said about Baroness Bull. The Clerk of the House was very kind and told both of us what the result was on Friday. So we've had quite an interesting weekend trying not to tell anyone what was happening, and I rang Baroness Bull and she has very kindly agreed to continue to support me as Deputy Speaker, and we will work together to deliver what were so many common issues across the benches and that you can be sure of.

I'm sorry we're not allowed to see anything at this stage about the Lord Speaker, but can I just say, I think the Lord Speaker has done a brilliant job, and it's a great privilege for me to have the opportunity to build on the great work that she's done. On increasing accountability in the House and moving us forward. So I look forward to serving all of you, whether you voted for me or not, with with pleasure. And I will try and avoid being political, which I think must be for people like me, a bit like coming off heroin as an addict first.
15:01
15:02
15:03
Lord Katz Portrait Lord Katz (Labour)
-
-
Well, I know that the noble Baroness has taken a long interest in the sustainable drainage system, or Suds, and I want to reassure her in the House that the government is strongly committed to improving the implementation of sustainable drainage systems. In December 2024, we made changes to the National Planning Policy Framework to support increased delivery of Suds. And that means that all development now the new policy planning policy framework now requires all development to utilise Suds where they could have drainage impacts appropriate to the nature and scale of the development.

In June this last year, the government introduced new national standards to make clear that Suds should be used to design to cope with the changing climatic conditions and deliver wider benefits. And so we are now actually consulting on a revised national policy planning framework, which, including for flood risk and sustainable drainage systems, and separately on proposals to increase adoption of shared immunity amenities with guidance to ensure lifetime maintenance. And as the noble Baroness raised it, I do just want to say in terms of what the situation we see at the moment on the ground in in Kent and parts of Sussex, I want to make absolutely clear that restoring supply must be the company's absolute priority, and every possible measure must be taken to protect vulnerable customers and ensure that those affected receive decent and proper compensation.

And to that extent, Defra Ministers are meeting daily with the Chief Executive of the of the of the Water Company and local MPs to reinforce the fact that this level of service failure cannot continue.
15:04
15:05
15:06
15:06
15:07
15:08
15:09
15:09
15:10
15:10
15:11
15:11
15:12
15:12
15:13
15:14
15:14
15:15
15:15
15:16
15:17
15:18
15:18
15:19
15:19
15:20
15:21
15:21
15:22
15:22
15:23
15:23
15:24
15:25
15:25
15:26
15:28
15:28
15:29
15:30
15:31
15:32
15:33
15:33
15:34
15:35
15:35
15:36
15:37
15:37
15:38
15:39
15:39
15:40
15:40
15:41
15:41
15:42
15:43
15:43
15:44
15:45
None Portrait Private Notice Question: Treatment of protesters in Iran, and engagement with the United States government to ensure proposed responses are in accordance with international law
-

>> Thanks. Well, that's. >> My Lords. My Lords. Private notice question on the treatment of
15:46
Baroness Kennedy of Shaws Portrait Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws (Labour)
-
-
notice question on the treatment of protesters in Iran. Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws. >> I beg leave to ask. >> The question of which I've given

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question of which I've given private notice, and I should declare that I am the director of the International Bar Association's Human Rights Institute, which has been monitoring human rights abuses in Iran for many years. A grave human rights crisis is unfolding in Iran. As many of my lawyers will know, there has been a nationwide uprising taking place in 111 cities across Iran. This is not confined to Tehran and the students of Tehran or the young women of Tehran.

This is across all classes and all the peoples of Iran, and the regime is using live ammunition against unarmed citizens. There are mass arrests and there are a total internet and telecommunications blackout. Bodies are piling up in morgues, but families cannot locate their loved ones. Hospitals are overwhelmed, and even Starlink connectivity is reported to be jammed. And so the question I ask of this government is what assessment they have made of the treatment of protesters in Iran, what they feel that the British government can be doing, and how they are engaging with the government of the United States on proposed responses to ensure that those are in accordance with international law.

The people of Iran want democracy. They do not want outside entities to bring about regime change.
15:47
15:48
15:49
15:50
15:51
15:51
15:52
15:53
15:54
15:54
15:54
15:55
15:56
15:57
15:58
15:58
15:59
16:00
16:00
16:00
16:01
16:02
16:03
Baroness Chapman of Darlington Portrait Baroness Chapman of Darlington, Minister of State (Development) (Labour)
-
-
OK. I mean, that's the the noble Lords view of what should happen next in Iran, that the UK government's view is that the future of Iran and its leadership should be firmly in the hands of the people of Iran. Here. The time is up for this question. This may be an appropriate moment for Lords who wish to do so to leave the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

So.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

So.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

So. My Lords, Third Reading of the Diego Garcia military base and

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Diego Garcia military base and British Indian Ocean Territory bill. My Lords, I have it in command

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I have it in command from His Majesty the King to acquaint the House that His Majesty, having been informed of the purport of the Diego Garcia military base and British Indian Ocean Territory bill, have consented to place his interests so far as are affected by the Bill at the disposal of Parliament for the purpose of the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Bill. And the question is that this

**** Possible New Speaker ****

And the question is that this bill be. Now read a third time, beg to move that this bill now be read to move that this bill now be read a third time. The question is that a third time. The question is that this bill be read a third time. We move to amendment clause in clause six, amendment one. Baroness Chapman. My Lords, I beg to move amendment one, the amendment to this bill that the government has tabled will change the parliamentary procedure applicable to the delegated power in clause six.

With this amendment, all instruments made using that power
16:06
16:06
16:06
16:07
Baroness Chapman of Darlington Portrait Baroness Chapman of Darlington, Minister of State (Development) (Labour)
-
-
Yes. >> Question is that the amendment be agreed to? As many as that opinion will say. Content contrary, opinion will say. Content contrary, not content the contents have it in that case, we move to the bill. Do that case, we move to the bill. Do now pass. I beg to move that this bill do now pass. I am very grateful to noble Lords for their engagement in this crucial piece of legislation, which secures a vital element of the UK's national security and the UK's transatlantic defence partnership.

I would like to thank noble Lords across the House for their expertise and those who've used this to scrutinise the security of the base. The costs of the treaty support and support mechanisms for the Chagossian community, and environmental conservation provisions, to name a few. The UK Mauritius Treaty protects the Diego Garcia military base and ensures that the UK retains full control over this vital asset. This, in turn will protect our national security for generations, ensures that the UK keeps unique and vital capabilities to deal with a wide range of threats, and will keep the British people safe.

The bill, of course, ensures that the treaty can be ratified as the world grows more dangerous. So too does the importance of the base for our national security. Noble Lords will not need to be told how crucial it is that the treaty is ratified and the base protected in the ever shifting geopolitical landscape of our age. We've had extensive debate in this House, and it's been good debate, and I would like to thank noble Lords on this side of the floor, including Lord Beamish, for his thoughtful and insightful contributions.

I'd like to thank those across the House for their contributions throughout the passage of the bill, and I'd like in particular to thank the noble Lords. Lord Kerr of Kinlochard Lord Hannay Lord Jay Lord Purvis of Tweed for their thoughtful contributions. And I'd also like to thank Lord Hannan and Lord Lilley for their exuberant speeches, even if I haven't always agreed with them. And I'd also like to thank Baroness Foster, Baroness Hoey, Lord Morrow and Lord Weir for their passionate speeches.

I'd like to thank Lord Coaker for his support on leading the Bill, and to my hon. Friends in the other place, the Minister for Overseas Territories and the Minister for defence, Readiness and Industry, who has spoken at length with peers about the detail of the bill. And finally, I would like to thank the officials who've supported the bill. Those on the bill team, notably Helena Bryce, our indefatigable, indefatigable bill manager. And across the policy teams in both the foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office and the Ministry of Defence.

And they've worked tirelessly behind the scenes, often working to challenging deadlines. And I thank my private office and in particular, who have, of course, been crucial in supporting me. And thanks must also be offered to all the parliamentary staff who have

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Bill. Amendment to the motion. Lord Callanan.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Callanan. My Lords, I beg to move the motion standing in my name on the Order Paper. Well, throughout our debates on this bill, we have had, as the noble Lady has said, many as the noble Lady has said, many robust exchanges. And the bill will go to the other place with four go to the other place with four amendments passed by your Lordships House. However, it is also, I think, become increasingly clear
16:11
16:12
None Portrait Legislation: Diego Garcia Military Base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill - motion to regret Lord Callanan (Conservative)
-

from another UN body, the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, which ironically Discrimination, which ironically even contains Mauritius as a member. This committee a few weeks ago published a formal decision calling for the suspension of treaty ratification. As far as I am aware, the Foreign Office has ignored it yet to even comment on this ruling. So we have two diametrically So we have two diametrically opposed opinions from different UN bodies one to be obeyed without hesitation, the other apparently to be completely ignored.

Then Ministers tell us that they have fully secured the future of the Diego Garcia base, which will be able to continue operations exactly as before. But they have manifestly failed to explain how that can possibly be the case when Mauritius is a signatory to the Pelindaba treaty, which prohibits the placing of any nuclear weapons on any African territory which Diego Garcia would become under this deal. Nobody has been asking Ministers to disclose disclose secret defence information, but we know from openly published sources that the base has been utilised for transportations of nuclear weapons on planes and submarines.

So how can that possibly be compatible with Mauritius obligations under the Pelindaba treaty? My Lords, this agreement is completely silent on this matter, and even in the face of robust questioning from my noble friend Baroness Goldie, herself a former defence Minister, we have received no ministerial answers. So off base operation is to continue unhindered, as Ministers tell us. We can only assume that there exists some kind of secret agreement along the lines of the old, disgraced US policy on gays in the military.

Don't ask and don't tell. And what about all the other? What if the Mauritius government might play along with this fiction? What about any future Mauritian governments? And what about all the other African signatories to the treaty? Any one of them could also take action in the international courts to force Mauritius to abide by its treaty obligations for an agreement supposedly predicated on providing both military and legal certainty. It seems destined to do the exact opposite. My Lords, one of the jewels in the crown of the British Indian Ocean Territory, is one of the largest marine protected areas in the world, a tremendous achievement for the natural world of which we can all rightly be very proud.

Ministers have reassured us that Mauritius have agreed to continue that protection, except for small amounts of what they call artisanal fishing. Yet, let me quote directly from the Mauritian fishing Minister, who said last year, and I quote, what stops me tomorrow to say that I am going to give fishing license for any fishing trawler company or any fishing vessel to go to any part of Chagos, to fish and to bring the catch to be landed at our port. We have the authority, the moral authority, legal authority, legitimate authority to fish in our own exclusive economic zone.

But my Lords, even if he was fishing and Mauritius is continued to preserving the MPA, the British Indian Ocean Territory, as many members have observed, is over 2000km away from Mauritius. So there are and have been legitimate concerns that they would have no means whatsoever of monitoring or even policing the area. This concern about Mauritius capability was ably demonstrated on the 9th of September, during a visit of the Indian Prime Minister to Mauritius. The Mauritian Prime Minister Ramgoolam, was quoted as saying, we want to visit Chagos to put our flag there.

The British offered us a vessel, but we said we preferred one from India because symbolically it would be better. Maybe that's true. If Mauritius even lacks the resources to transport its own Prime Minister to the Chagos, what chance have they got of monitoring and preventing incursions into 640,000km² of one of the largest pristine marine protected areas in the world? My Lords, not only does the government have no mandate for this treaty, they actually have a manifesto commitment to do the opposite.

Let me quote from the Labour manifesto. Defending our security also means protecting the British overseas territories. Labour will always defend their sovereignty and right to self-determination. My Lords, there is much else that I could say on this dreadful deal. It's £34.7 billion cost. That figure, by the way, now confirmed in an FOI from the government Actuary's Department. The noble Lady spent the whole of the debate telling us for months that the cost is apparently only 3.4 billion. So I hope she will take the opportunity today to apologise and correct the record.

This is an astonishing sum to give away when we are imposing financial sacrifices everywhere else in our public sector. Then, of course, there is the betrayal of the Chagossian people whose wishes have been completely ignored, particularly now that it has become clear in the excellent recent report from the House International Relations Committee that most of them actually want to remain British. They have no desire to be handed over against their will, to a hostile foreign power that has trampled over their rights and discriminated against them for many years.

With this motion, your Lordships House has an opportunity to tell you other place, that really is time to think again, to see sense and to scrap this dreadful deal. I beg to move here.
16:18
Baroness Goldie Portrait Baroness Goldie (Conservative)
-
-
The question is that the amendment in the name of Lord amendment in the name of Lord Callanan be agreed to. >> First of all, I associate myself

**** Possible New Speaker ****

First of all, I associate myself with the remarks of my noble friend Lord Callanan. And may I preface my Lord Callanan. And may I preface my remarks by saying, I thought there was a very useful debate at the report, bringing out a number of important points which command attention in that context. I spoke then exclusively on the defence and security implications of this treaty, and I want to thank the noble Lords Minister Lord Coaker for both listening to my concerns and undertaking to write to me, which he has indeed done, and that attentive and helpful approach bears all the hallmarks of the responsible and helpful persona which a defence Minister should be, and of which the noble Lord Lord Coaker is the embodiment.

The content of the response bears all the hallmarks of a letter drafted by someone blind to the basic precepts of defence and security, but who finds much more comfortable the languorous corridors of the FCDO and the confines of the beauty of the text of this treaty. It is the other treaty, the Pelindaba treaty, about which I sought clarification. Instead, I received a letter about how this treaty guarantees this stops at and binds Mauritius to the other. The letter is silent on how, once Mauritius gained sovereignty of the Diego Garcia base under this treaty, Mauritius can stop the co-signatories of the treaty either on their own account or egged on by others from challenging Mauritius and alleged misuse of the base.

Under the terms of the treaty, and I suspect the reason for the silence is because you can't stop that third party interference, and that strikes at the heart of why we currently have sovereignty over the base, how we use it, how the United States uses it, how our allies may need to use it, and that unfettered unchallengeable usage and access is only possible because we have certainty. And while we can have bilateral discussions with Mauritius, enter into bilateral agreements and treaties with Mauritius, they are only as good as Mauritius has competence to give the protections, the undertakings and the reassurances.

If the hands of Mauritius are tied by a preceding undertaking such as appeal indaba Treaty, then these protections, undertakings and reassurances are not worth the paper. They are written on just a load of flummery. My Lords, I didn't put down an amendment at report because this floor is irremediable. I was prepared to allow the government a final opportunity to provide clarification and reassurance, but unsurprisingly, it has been unable to do that. The question, then is what should a responsible opposition do? My naturally bellicose nature inclined towards voting against this bill, but I am not indifferent to the constitutional status of this House and the respective conventions which regulate our proceedings in relation to government bills.

Fortunately, my leader, my noble friend Lord True and my Chief Whip, my noble friend Baroness Williams of Trafford, a far less hot headed than I am, and infinitely more thoughtful and strategic in outlook. It is their view which I accept that, however wrongheaded, naive we think this treaty to be, voting down the bill at stage three is not an appropriate way in this instance to proceed. Our regret motion places on the record. All our misgivings and apprehensions. If this precarious, ill starred government adventure comes to grief, it will give me no pleasure to say we told you so.

But at least His Majesty's opposition can hold its head up and say we did our job. What a pity the government cannot make the same claim. I support the motion in the name of my noble friend, Mark Warner.
16:22
Lord Altrincham Portrait Lord Altrincham (Conservative)
-
-
I thank the. >> noble Baroness. >> The Minister, for. Her courtesy. >> And patience. >> Throughout this. >> Very unusual bill and its

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Very unusual bill and its passage through this House, and would make a few remarks just on the financial costs that we have the financial costs that we have here. The treaty makes provision for a financial agreement that requires the UK to make payments to the Republic of Mauritius for the next 99 years. The agreement is very unusual and that is because the payments are not known. The payments are not known from year 14 for the next 85 years, because the payments are linked not to events in the Indian Ocean.

The payments are linked to UK domestic inflation. It's an extraordinarily long contract for the taxpayer to be exposed like this to UK domestic inflation. Inflation in the future is unknown, it is unknowable and it's uncapped. And that means the payments under this contract, they are unknown, they are unknowable and they are uncapped. And maybe the Foreign Office, in looking at the projections, imagined a very benign opportunity for UK inflation. And maybe they hoped that the numbers would stay very low.

But if we had inflation just as high as it was in this country two years ago, at any point in the 85 years of this contract, the payments would get completely out of hand and be completely unaffordable to the UK. This is why Ministers have been poorly briefed on the contents of the treaty, and why Parliament has been poorly briefed, and why there's this extraordinary difference between the 3.4 billion accounting valuation, which is done under the Treasury Green Book procedure. This is for UK domestic infrastructure spending.

Why there's such a gap between this accounting valuation and the concept of cost and what this is actually going to cost, and what my noble friend Lord Callanan mentioned is the government's own internal estimate of the cost, which is around 34, £35 billion, which is a very, very substantial amount to be paying. Now, we might hope at this stage of the bill to have some good advice from the OBR, but the OBR have been quite unhelpful to the government, quite unhelpful, possibly to Parliament, and said that they've got nothing to do with this.

We might hope for clarification from Her Majesty's Treasury, from His Majesty's Treasury, of course. The treaty was negotiated by the Treasury. It was negotiated by another department. But in the middle of the holidays, the Chief Secretary of the Treasury slipped out an announcement on the 16th of December. It's on Gov.uk to say the Treasury will be changing their Green Book methodology, so we can be sure that the Treasury doesn't even agree with the accounting valuation, let alone the actuarial true cost of this agreement.

So when the noble Baroness, the Minister, said to us during the passage of the bill that the total cost is £3.4 billion, and she said it to us, as in this chamber, it's not correct because the total cost is not known. And that does need to be corrected in the treaty, because it's quite clear that is the intention of the government. The government wishes for their own reasons, not well understood by the opposition, to pay the Republic of Mauritius £3.4 billion.

It's their intention and it appears to be their

**** Possible New Speaker ****

understanding. But it's not what's in the treaty. Third Reading. Arguments made previous.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Arguments made previous. No, this. Is. Third Reading and it's repeating

**** Possible New Speaker ****

what has been debated before. Motion. I'll speak briefly to the rest

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'll speak briefly to the rest of this amendment. So so the amounts quoted in the, in the reference in the chamber and during reference in the chamber and during the passage of this bill have not been correct. We need to make sure the treaty is amended to reflect what the government's intention is, that it should be a payment of £3.4 billion and not an open ended economic exposure. And given the extremely unusual nature and the long dated nature of this contract, we need to make sure the treaty is amended to protect UK taxpayers and indeed to maintain confidence in the sovereign credit of the UK.
16:26
Lord Weir of Ballyholme Portrait Lord Weir of Ballyholme (Democratic Unionist Party)
-
-
And. >> Can I join with others? First of all, in welcoming the robust but yet civilised and courteous way in yet civilised and courteous way in which this legislation has been debated? Can I say, obviously at Third Reading it is not appropriate Third Reading it is not appropriate to regurgitate all the arguments. However, I think given the significance of this bill, it is also the case that it merits some level of, albeit short a brief comment, because while we've gone through this process and I welcome the amendments that have taken place within this bill, they cannot render acceptable what I believe is totally unacceptable.

We are still left with a bill which is bad for the United Kingdom. We are not simply handing over sovereignty to Mauritius, we are actually paying them an expensive dowry to take over what has been sovereign territory for 200 years. From a defence point of view, we are left with a flawed situation rather than perhaps the jewel in the crown. We are left with a situation where, in terms of whatever the assurances that have been given, we know from a practical point of view that we will see Mauritius effectively leasing out, in either official or unofficial form to foreign powers, particularly the Chinese government.

Surrounding islands. So instead of a jewel in the crown, we will be left with a military base with a noose around it ever tightening as time moves on. But in particular, even with the amendments, we have not dealt with the situation as regards our debt and duty to the Chagossians themselves. We've been left in a situation in which they have been denied the complete access to the islands. They have no right of full self return, but more importantly, they have also been left without a right of self-determination.

This House, I think, is being united, as we saw a few moments ago, in rightly condemning what has been happening in Iran and supporting the Iranian people in their right for self-determination. This House, on a number of occasions, has utterly condemned the invasion of of Ukraine and supported the right of Ukrainians to decide their own future. And similarly, I suspect that this House would be united in saying that the Greenlanders have the right to determine their own future, and that it should not be imposed from the United States or anywhere else.

The thread that runs through all three of these situations is the right of self-determination and democracy, and that is the golden thread to which we should be standing. But yet we are in a situation as regards the Chagossians that this can apply elsewhere in the world, but shamefully not to the the people who have actually looked to us to deliver for them. And I think that if we simply let this go through and the government lets us go through unaltered, then we then lack the the moral authority or the political authority to dictate elsewhere in the world on the issue of self-determination.

So I support the regret motion in the perhaps vain hope that by sending a signal today, we can at least say to the government, think again before it is entirely too late.
16:29
Baroness Hoey Portrait Baroness Hoey (Non-affiliated)
-
-
I very much support and pleased that this regret motion has been that this regret motion has been tabled. I find the word regret not nearly strong enough because for me this is a very, very sad day when if this bill goes through from the House of Lords to the other place, we talked about self-determination of the Chagossians and the noble Lord has just said what I was going to mention. The fact, the hypocrisy, almost, of His Majesty's Government over the fact that they are determined to keep Greenland and Denmark and allow Greenland to have self-determination.

They couldn't possibly do anything else because Greenland or have to have self-determination. And I agree with that. And yet we have totally denied the Chagossian people, not just in the past year since this bill came. And incidentally, let's not forget it wasn't in the manifesto. No Labour MP here. Labour, sorry, no Labour Baroness or peer can say that this was something that was in the manifesto and no Labour MP can say that they were elected to do this.

So I think constitutionally we have every right in this noble place to have this amendment to regret and regret, not just because of the hypocrisy that I mentioned about the self-determination of the Chagossians, but also about international law. You know, the whole advisory thing that we said was so important that came from the UN, and then we just ignore, absolutely ignore the committee of the UN that says that this should be suspended because of the that it's gone against the rights of the Chagossians and, and is is racial discrimination.

In fact, that's the committee that said these things. And then there's the whole environmental issue, which was nodded through very, very quickly at Committee stage. I think we were it was late at night. I think we had about ten minutes to discuss the most important ecological danger that now lies, because none of us can believe that Mauritius is going to look after it and we have given up. We will be giving up our rights as British, as Britain, as the United Kingdom to actually protect it.

So there are so many reasons why we should be regretting this and even going further. But this is your Lordships House, and I accept that there are certain precedents here, but I would urge every noble Baroness or peer, whatever their party is saying, this is not a political party political issue. This is about giving away part of our country's British territory and then paying Mauritius to take it. It's very, very simple. We either believe in the right of the Chagossians or we don't.

We either believe in self-determination or we don't. We either believe in the security long term of our country, the exile government, the government in waiting of the Chagossians. This is not going to go away. This is going to continue and will fester and fester away at this government. And there is still time, I would urge for change, and still time for His Majesty's Government to recognise that this is a very, very bad bill and should be dropped.
16:33
Lord Beamish Portrait Lord Beamish (Labour)
-
-
Amen. >> Amen. >> Please Baroness Hoey just said that this was not part of a Labour manifesto, but it was part of the last government's determination to get a deal on the issue of Diego Garcia. And I accept that there are genuine arguments in this debate around the environmental issues and issues around Chagossian people. I've got to say, from certain quarters that's come a bit late. We've had quietness, certainly in the last government in terms of the rights of Chagossians, and I accept that there are no exceptions in this House and in the other place that have campaigned for many years for their rights.

But that was never one of the issues which was at the forefront of the last government's negotiations in terms of this bill. What the last government did, I think was very sensible. It wanted to enter into a long term agreement to ensure the security and long term use of Diego Garcia, which was at threat because obviously of the unusual nature in terms of that island territory, in terms of the Diego Garcia. It is vital not only to our international and our national interests, but to our international allies, including the United States.

There's been much said about United States being against this deal. They're not. They see the long term benefits of this. And I accept what Lord Callaghan said about the the investment. Can I just say that pales into insignificance to the amount of investment that us and other allies will be putting into that long term secure and that not only the long term interests of that base, but the capabilities on that base. It is not something we can play party politics with.

And alas, I accept that some people, I think, are playing party politics with this.
16:35
16:36
Lord Deben Portrait Lord Deben (Conservative)
-
-
Come back. >> To the one issue of the environment, which is crucial here? And I have a direct question to the Minister whom I respect in this Minister whom I respect in this area particularly. But the direct question is why on earth was there not a clear connection between our payments and the upkeep of this? The most important marine environment area that there is in the world? We have a very proud record on this, and yet we are now giving this into the hands of a country which, however good it's its words, however much it wants, has one of the worst records on marine protection in the entire world.

We are giving them power over the most important marine protection area in the entire world, and we have not connected the money we are paying with their ability to pay for the protection of this area. And my question to the Minister is very simply, why not? Why on earth have we not done that? I don't like this agreement at all. I'm opposed to it for all the reasons that the noble Lord Lord Callanan has so rightly put forward.

But at the heart of my concern is that we are letting down the whole of the international community by giving out something which we have protected, and which has set the example for marine preservation throughout the world. Without the Chagos agreement, we would never have had all the others which have followed and which have been crucial to the environmental health of this planet. And I say to the Minister again, can you explain how this arrangement has been made when there is no connection between what we pay and what we expect in terms of protection?
16:38
Lord Howell of Guildford Portrait Lord Howell of Guildford (Conservative)
-
-
Yes.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

While confessing, quite frankly, that I've taken zero part in the earlier Committee stage, but I think the Third Reading, contrary think the Third Reading, contrary to what was suggested earlier, is an opportunity for looking at the overall aim and underlying strategy of of a measure, and that the some earlier remarks, which were fascinating about the financial side, should have been ones we had were allowed to hear a bit more of. were allowed to hear a bit more of. But my question is quite simple why does the Minister think that we have not heard a single mention of the Commonwealth system? The largest, although not very centralised, organisation in the world, in looking at this issue.

Why does she think we've had no has been no discussion between the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the Development Office and the new and very lively Commonwealth Secretary general? Why does she think we haven't seen any understanding of the fact that the Commonwealth, although friends with the purpose it's been described as, is of course, deeply concerned with the rights of islanders and the rights of countries as to their status, whether it should be protected, whether they should be free and open members of the Commonwealth or associated with the Commonwealth in the knowledge that we have many friends in the knowledge they could discuss matters with Mauritius and indeed with India, and indeed with the possibility of their own status in an age of delegated and digitalised activity in which very small countries can assume a very important role, as no doubt the Chagos Island and Diego Garcia will be doing for some years.

Why does she think that that whole area of a new and changing pattern of organisations is a new world emerges as everyone admits an entire take over and difference in our international relations for years ahead. Why did you think we just haven't applied the sensible duty that we should have applied as an active member, not a hub, but an active member of the Commonwealth Network and left and left, the decisions that were now being asked to make for much further discussion in a changing world.
16:41
Lord Kempsell Portrait Lord Kempsell (Conservative)
-
-
My Lords, what a privilege to follow the incisive questions of my noble friends who spoke before me and to add my support to the regret and to add my support to the regret motion in the name of my noble friend Lord Callanan, whose speech I think crystallised the litany of reasons that there is to oppose this bill and to continue opposing it. And, if I may say so, the speech is already in this debate, have been a mirror of the way in which your Lordships House has conducted the difficult work of scrutinising this bill.

Forensic, effective and in-depth. I will restrict myself only to a point which occurred to me just now as the noble Lady the Minister was speaking, and that we haven't heard so much of in previous stages as the noble Lady the Minister was delivering her. Her paean of praise to all of those who've been involved in working on the bill. And no doubt they have worked very hard indeed to achieve this outcome. I have to say I've felt some disquiet at the government indulging itself in the way in which it has handled this particular policy for one reason, and that is the consultation of the Chagossians themselves.

When we know that only a handful, despite the government's huge machinery at its disposal, have been asked for their thoughts and views, and moreover, the way in which Ministers have adumbrated reasons, explanations and theories for the deal. First, that it was opposed, or indeed that it was designed to push back on hostile states. And then we learn that only a week later, representatives of hostile states have visited the government of Mauritius and openly praised the deal. Of course, there was the argument that the deal was necessary for the policing of the electromagnetic spectrum over Diego Garcia, an argument that we heard so much about, and then fell away when it emerged that the UN, not the International Telecommunications Union this time, but the UN's Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, criticised the bill in the sternest possible terms.

My Lord, some governments blunder into historic foreign policy disasters. Some governments have their hand forced by world events but never has a government in modern British administration walked so voluntarily into a strategic bear trap, as this government is doing so with this bill. So can I ask the noble Lady, the Minister, to clarify, as this bill returns to the other place, what plans are in place now to make good the the deficit in consultation of Chagossians, even at this very late hour, what plans does the government have for that? And I must say to the noble Lady, the Minister, this bill remains so confusing, the pace at which it's been brought forward by the government, the way in which the government handled questions and scrutiny, not least my own written question.

Back in September 2004, I asked the government to explain its intentions on the Chagos deal. It answered that it was too early to say, and only nine days later it announced the entire plan. These are deficits of consultation, of scrutiny. How does the noble Lady, the Minister, plan to make it good? And in closing, there is a suspicion, of course, that behind every great fortune and a fortune of taxpayers money is being spent on this deal, as the noble Lord, Lord Altrincham, explained, behind every great fortune there is some crime, and there are many of us who consider this deal to be an historical crime.

As it turns out, in the implementation of the government's bill. I think we will see the final answers that we are seeking as the truth about this deal later emerges.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, when I first started to ask questions about this treaty to ask questions about this treaty in this place, I asked a question about the trust fund. I'm sure the noble Lady, the Minister, will noble Lady, the Minister, will remember that question because in her answer she accused me of not her answer she accused me of not respecting national security, which for me, of course, was quite a
16:46
Baroness Foster of Aghadrumsee Portrait Baroness Foster of Aghadrumsee (Non-affiliated)
-
-
for me, of course, was quite a thing. Having spent all of my political life standing up for self-determination and indeed for security in its widest possible sense. I think that the greatest problem with this treaty has been to echo what Lord Kempsell has said. The fact that we can't have both, we can't have national security alongside respecting the rights of the Chagossian people. I don't accept that that is the case. I think we could have respected the Chagossians in their very clear desire, and I know there are some here who will say there are different views in the Chagossian communities.

But I think given the report from the International Committee of this House very recently, which we heard about in Report stage, it was clear that those who had communicated volunteered the fact that they wanted the Chagos Islands to remain British. And there are many reasons, and we've heard them from Lord Callanan as to why this treaty is a bad treaty and why this bill is a bad bill. Fiscal reasons, which again have been echoed today by Lord Altrincham and indeed from Baroness Noakes as well in Committee stage environmental issues of a monumental scale which we've heard about from Baroness Cash, from again from Lord Deben today, and indeed from Lord Goldsmith and of course, defence issues, which Baroness Goldie has rightly mentioned again today.

And this is all in the context of a live judicial review, which still has not given a judgement. And of course, that report from the UN Committee in early December on the elimination of racial discrimination. And yet the government are determined to push ahead. This is a bad treaty, my Lord. This is a bad bill. I thank Lord Callaghan for putting down his amendment to this Third Reading, because in committee and at Report stage, reasonable questions have been put to the government about this bill.

Reasonable questions. And they have been met with a wall of denial. And now the Chagossian people have set up a government in exile. What does that say about the United Kingdom, when the Chagossian people have to set up a government in exile, many of them here today again in the gallery. So even if this Third Reading goes ahead today, the denial of rights will not disappear. The Chagossian people will not disappear. That is very, very clear. And so I plead with the government, even at this late stage,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

to think again. My Lords, and what are we here

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, and what are we here for, if not to think again? We're on a hook. We're wriggling painfully on a hook. Because in the painfully on a hook. Because in the early days, I think a lot of people hearing that the Chagos Islands were to be handed over understood were to be handed over understood it to be some kind of restitution to the indigenous Chagossians, whom we all agree were very badly
16:49
Lord Hannan of Kingsclere Portrait Lord Hannan of Kingsclere (Conservative)
-
-
we all agree were very badly treated in the late 60s and early 70s. But with every week that has passed since that initial announcement was made, the arguments have crumbled. First, it's become clear that the Chagossians do not want to be handed to a foreign power that has never governed them, and whose interest in the archipelago is financial. They're here, as always, in the gallery, watching their silence, a neat symbol of how they have been overlooked in this entire debate. It's become clear that Mauritius does not have the capacity to maintain, as my noble friend Lord Deben says, the world's greatest marine conservation area.

It's become clear that the price tag is vastly higher than we were initially led to believe. It's become clear that foreign powers and unfriendly foreign powers are in favour of this deal, and it's become clear that we are steamrolling over democracy. My Lords, I have to say, if we are not prepared to take a stand on something as permanent in its impact as this changing the size of the United Kingdom, changing the maps, this is going to be remembered long after people have forgotten what the inflation rate was in 2026, or whether we band X on something of this magnitude.

If we're not prepared to take a stand as the upper house, as the revising chamber, then what on earth are we

**** Possible New Speaker ****

here for? In my Lords, I wish to rise to address a point made by Lord Beamish. Just one point.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Just one point. Lord Beamish said that the last government would inevitably have done a deal. Plainly, this is not so. As my right hon. Friend Tom Tugendhat, the then Minister of Tugendhat, the then Minister of Security, made clear in the debates on this bill. In the other place, both he and I made clear our opposition at the time that this course of negotiations should not be adopted. Furthermore, when my noble friend Lord Cameron was Foreign Secretary, he was offered a similar deal to the present one, and we know that he stopped the process.

The current treaty is and remains an act of wanton strategic self-harm. Yeah.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, this has been an important debate in an important bill on a very considerable treaty because it impacts on people's lives, it impacts on international lives, it impacts on international law, and it also has a direct relevance to UK national security.
16:51
Lord Purvis of Tweed Portrait Lord Purvis of Tweed (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
But this regret motion has a bit of a Cambodian Year Zero feel to it, as if it all started last summer. A casual observer would not be aware by this debate, notwithstanding the point that the noble Lord Murray just indicated that the previous government chose to open negotiations to cede sovereignty in November 2022 without a mandate or without consulting the Chagossian people. That decision by the previous government, which we now know was opposed by the noble Lord Murray and considered a mistake by the noble Lord Bellingham, was done without consultation, was not predicated on guaranteeing chagossian rights, and further more, we now know was actively ongoing in April 2024 because at that point the Foreign Secretary, Lord Cameron, wrote to the Commons Foreign Affairs Committee to confirm the continuation of the negotiations.

But also, regrettably, the ongoing denial of the resettlement and consultation rights of the community. So if we are to have regrets, perhaps there's quite a lot that can be shared around the chamber. I have previously said, and I don't want to repeat it, that we've got a deep regret at the current government. It's chosen not to change the path of the previous government in coming to office, and it chose not to conclude the process differently. And that is been the essence of the votes on the amendments in this House, because each step of the way, I've sought to raise the concern of a lack of consultation, consent and rights.

I'm very pleased that the House backed my amendments to seek to address this, and I hope very much the Commons will now back this to putting the permissive elements of Chagossian rights in the treaty on a mauritian and UK statutory footing going forward should now be the priority and I hope should get cross-party support from the outset. I've also raised concerns over the lack of transparency in the financial arrangements and value for money. I was also very pleased that the House backed my amendments to give Parliament and through it, the wider Chagossian community a much greater say and indeed a final say on ceasing making payments if Mauritius does not honour its commitments as part of the treaty.

As the House knows, there's only mechanisms in place if the UK renege on commitments and not Mauritius. I'm not saying that they will, and I'm sure both parties have entered into the agreement in good faith, but for whatever reason they fail to honour commitments. Parliament must have the ability to cease the financial elements of the agreement, and I hope that the government will move on these areas as they are. The view expressed by this House. Now, finally, on some of the wider political arguments we've heard, and we've heard quite a lot, notwithstanding the year zero feel of this amendment, anyone listening to this debate or reading it in Hansard should understand some basic members of this House, because some external messaging about stopping the bill, or the last ditch efforts of people who haven't stopped this bill, needs to be done into context.

There are, and I, like many of them, 281 conservative members of this House, my benches of 75. That's a different argument as to the numbers, of course, but the number of conservative peers alone could sway the decision today. If the motion is voted on and I understand it will be, it is a regret motion and the conservatives are choosing with the fire and fury we have heard in opposition that they have chosen not to oppose this bill today, but to complain about it.

I think the whole public should be aware that that is the reality of what will be happening today, and we will see how many of the 281 at least will complain about it, even though they are not seeking to stop it. Finally, I thank one of the communities at the ending of this bill most particularly, and that community is the Chagossian community member. Members have watched these debates, and sometimes I've regretted some of the language that they've had to listen to, but I hope that many of them do feel that there are many people in this House that do believe sincerely in their rights.

I also thank Ministers who have been willing to listen and to engage, and indeed, on certain occasions, as we've heard today with Lord Lansley agree. I hope that that principle. I want to chat with Lord Lansley how persuasive he was, because I hope the Minister will now act on the the other amendments that we've heard, but that will presumably have to be for ping pong. And I support those that have helped me in the debate and our whip's office and many other people who have been in touch.

I hope that we can make progress and focus on the priorities now, which is the Chagossian legal rights of resettlement and active consultation and participation, value for money and finance. And we should return to these issues after the Commons is considered a very sensible amendments.
16:57
Baroness Chapman of Darlington Portrait Baroness Chapman of Darlington, Minister of State (Development) (Labour)
-
-
My Lords, this government is >> My Lords, this government is doing the tough and vital work necessary to protect our national security and I understand we were security and I understand we were in opposition for very long time, 14 years. I do understand completely the temptation to play political games whenever you get the chance. I completely get that. But one thing we never did, we never did was put our national security at risk. And I do not aim these remarks at some of those noble Lords and Baroness opposite who I, I know for a fact, come at this like Baroness Foster and Baroness Hoey, who come at this, whose aim is true, who have a genuine long standing support for the Chagossian community.

And they apply that to this debate. But I have not seen that same integrity of and care over time expressed over the years, the many years which and often I was shadowing the noble Lord. I don't think I've ever heard him mention the rights or the needs or the the way that the Chagossian community has been treated over the years, and I am the first to say that they have been badly treated and have said so many, many times throughout the passage of this bill.

I disagree with everything that is in this motion. The deal does secure the long term future of the critically important military base on Diego Garcia. And if we had not done a deal, it would have left the future of the base as well as current operations in jeopardy, with likely further wide ranging litigation, which would have undermined base operations and waiting, as some noble Lords opposite encourage us to do, waiting for that risk to crystallised, to crystallise would have placed us in a much weaker position from which to negotiate.

Now, either there was legal jeopardy, which is why, presumably the previous government embarked upon round after round after round after round of negotiation, or, as they now ask us to believe, there was never any legal jeopardy, in which case one Earth were they doing with their time, and the time of officials undertaking negotiation in bad faith? Unlike the previous conservative government's strategy with the Rwanda deal, we have been upfront about the costs. We've clearly set them out in our explanatory memorandum and in the finance exchange of letters, which were published on the same day as the treaty and have been debated many times since.

The opposition, or some members of the opposition, appear to be wilfully ignoring the facts in order to score political points, and this is frankly, shameful. It puts at risk the UK's national security for an unedifying and unconvincing political jab. I understand the temptation, but I think it is fundamentally wrong to do that. I would have hoped, although this has clearly been a hope in vain for much better from the official opposition in relation to Chagossians. And as the IDC report noted, a series of governments have failed to engage properly with the Chagossian community.

And I hold my hand up. I take this government, takes responsibility for what it has, has done, and the former government needs to do the same. More so than our predecessors, we take responsibility. They started these negotiations three years ago. They had every opportunity to reach out at every point to the Chagossian community, but they only seem to have found their voice when it comes to listening to the Chagossians and speaking with them. Once they found themselves in opposition.

And we are working hard to rectify that because it is wrong the way that Chagossians have been treated. And that's why we've established the Chagossian contact Group and these negotiations, as noble Lords do understand, were primarily about sovereignty and securing the base on Diego Garcia. It was therefore right that these negotiations were between the UK and Mauritius. They were state to state. And noble Lords do understand this. Whatever they say today, and we recognise the importance of these islands to Chagossians.

This treaty is the only viable route to any resettlement which can now move forward under a mauritian programme, and the Chagossians will be able to work on the island and to visit Diego Garcia, which is something they have not been able to do for a very long time. We are and members and I, I do believe many members to be genuine in their concern about the marine protected area, and it's right that they've taken the opportunity to to raise this. We are working incredibly closely with Mauritius.

We are. They do not have the capability and expertise to to do this as it stands, but we're going to make sure that we work alongside them so that that important work can be done. I'm on the issue of the Commonwealth. The Commonwealth born of the past, but has a vital role to play in our future. This particular negotiation was state to state between the UK and Mauritius. But everything he says about the new leadership at the Commonwealth and about its successful past, and about the vital work that it has to do, I completely agree with him.

But noble Lord, noble Lords have said that there is no legal reason to negotiate. But this. But it negotiated all the same. This government has negotiated and has reached a conclusion. My Lords, all of our Five Eyes partners support this deal because they understand the need to resolve this in order to maintain our security. This government has one priority, and it is the safety and security of our citizens, of the British people. The noble Lord opposite has one priority, and it's to play politics with the hopes and the dreams of the Chagossian communities.

That is what he has done, and he has, without any concern about what that might mean for this nation's security.
17:03
17:04
17:05
17:06
Feed Live - Click to view video
Return to start of debate - Return to top of page