UK-Mauritius Agreement on the Chagos Archipelago

Baroness Crawley Excerpts

Monday 30th June 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Crawley (Lab)]

My Lords, I congratulate the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Prentis of Banbury, on a fine and exhilarating maiden speech. She was my MP until regime change last year, so I personally welcome her to the House. We will certainly miss the noble Lord, Lord Boswell of Aynho. We will miss his consistent wisdom, especially, for me, on Brexit. I wish him all the best into the future.

As a member of the International Relations and Defence Committee, I participated in our short inquiry into the transfer of sovereignty of the Chagos Archipelago to Mauritius. Our committee had the pleasure of two meetings with members of the International Agreements Committee, chaired by my noble and learned friend Lord Goldsmith, on the treaty. At one, we heard evidence from Stephen Doughty MP, Minister of State at the FCDO. Our inquiry centred on how the transfer of sovereignty of the Chagos Archipelago could affect the UK’s strategic interests and obligations in four specific areas: the future of defence and security arrangements on Diego Garcia; the rights of the Chagossian people; the environmental protection of the archipelago, described by one of our witnesses as

“possibly the most important reef wilderness on the planet”;

and, finally, the cost of the agreement.

Before asking my noble friend the Minister some questions on these areas of concern, let me say for clarity that I agree overall with this treaty and support the Government’s rationale in bringing it forward. That was not always the case. I started out as something of a sceptic, hawkish about, as I saw it, current Chinese influence on Mauritius and the region, and wondering if settling the sovereignty issue with Mauritius now might increase that influence in the future. However, the more my committee looked into the context of bringing the agreement forward, the more I realised that it was a question of balancing any possible long-term future risk with the growing present risk that not settling the sovereignty question would bring for the UK and its relations internationally. I take the point of the noble Lords, Lord Anderson and Lord McDonald, on the influence of India as far as Mauritius is concerned.

I believe that the treaty resolves the risk that international law bodies such as the ICJ and the UN would increasingly find against the UK and in favour of Mauritius on the vexed question of sovereignty and post-colonial behaviour, therefore putting the base on Diego Garcia into a legal grey zone internationally. Diego Garcia was described by the Minister in his evidence as the UK’s vital contribution to the UK-US security relationship. It is vital. It could not have gone on operating on territory that was seen internationally as questionable legally. The last Conservative Government realised that this legal ambiguity needed fixing and entered into negotiations with Mauritius, as we have heard, holding 11 meetings, as I understand it, before the general election last year. The new Labour Government took on that work and the result is the treaty now awaiting ratification.

Finally, I wish to question the Minister on our committee’s four areas of concern. On the future of defence and security arrangements on Diego Garcia, some of our witnesses raised concerns that the termination clause in the agreement could be exploited by a hostile power to pressure Mauritius into ending the agreement prematurely, before the end of the 99-year period. How does the Minister answer such concerns? What lessons can we learn from the historic and shameful abuse of the Chagossian people? What degree of transparency and accountability will there be in the use of ring-fenced funding for Chagossians administered by Mauritius going forward? The track record, as we have heard, of the Chagossian people benefiting from past funding has been abysmal, as far as we can tell. Can my noble friend the Minister give us some more detail on the way in which the development grant is going to support marine conservation? How can we be sure that it will be used for that purpose? On cost, what can the Minister say to those critics of the cost? Can he say how the overall cost of leasing Diego Garcia has been arrived at?

None of us will be around in 99 years’ time to see how all this works out—except perhaps the Minister, who is of course for ever young. I am convinced that the future of the Chagossians and the base is more secure, not less, because of this treaty.

House of Lords Reform

Baroness Crawley Excerpts

Tuesday 12th November 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Crawley (Lab)]

My Lords, in a debate where roles and conventions have been constantly referred to, I know my role as the penultimate Back-Bench speaker: to get on with it.

I support my Government’s policy and Lords reform, and I congratulate the Leader of the House on her elegant introduction. However, as the third member of the Lord Speaker’s Committee on the Size of the House —we have already heard from the chairman the noble Lord, Lord Burns, and the noble Lord, Lord Wakeham—I have to say that I am disappointed that, as a House, we could not have taken this reform into our own hands years ago. The report from the Lord Speaker’s Committee on the Size of the House was published in 2017 and has been updated every year since. As noble Lords have said, it concluded that, if the House agreed, we would work to

“reduce the size of the House”—

two out, one in—

“and maintain a cap of 600 members into the future”.

It went on to say that the proposal would have provided

“sufficient turnover of members to refresh the House and rebalance it in line with general elections over time, while also guaranteeing a sizeable fixed proportion of independent Crossbench peers”,

as well as a beefed-up HOLAC.

These proposals were supported by a significant majority of the House and would have gradually reformed it without the need for legislation. However, the then Conservative Government’s response was unenthusiastic, to say the least, and ultimately unhelpful. With the honourable exception of the noble Baroness, Lady May of Maidenhead, Conservative Prime Ministers were unwilling to open up the discussion on the prime ministerial prerogative in appointments to this House. I really do think that, had the previous Government agreed to support the logic of the Lord Speaker’s proposals and my noble friend Lord Grocott’s Private Member’s Bill, we would not find ourselves in the present situation, as my noble friend Lord Murphy said.

We all have friends and colleagues across party and non-party lines in this House. We will of course be sorry to see people whom we like, respect and look forward to seeing each week leave us. However, the Labour Party’s manifesto, on which a decisive electoral victory was won, could not have been clearer, as was alluded to by the noble Duke, the Duke of Wellington: it was to introduce legislation immediately to remove the right of hereditary Peers to sit and vote in the House of Lords. I hope that, despite feelings running high—I understand this—the Government’s right to enact that manifesto commitment will be respected in this House.

I acknowledge that the noble Lord, Lord True, said that he respects manifesto commitments. Looking to future legislation, I say that it will be important for this House to work together, across party lines, on new reform; this was said by the noble Lords, Lord Jay and Lord Norton of Louth. I look forward to that collaboration very soon.