UK-Mauritius Agreement on the Chagos Archipelago

Baroness Neville-Jones Excerpts

Monday 30th June 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Neville-Jones (Con)]

My Lords, I apologise for not rising to speak in the right place on the list.

Diego Garcia is exceptionally important to western security and the UK, and the US are right to want to continue to have access to it, but the importance of that base rests on the ability of those Governments to operate without hindrance. Sovereignty becomes important if the parties to the agreement fail to agree on its implementation. That is where real-world worries arise. I will devote a moment or two to how the agreement is likely to pan out.

Other noble Lords have commented that the agreement has many shortcomings—so many that it is hard to see that the implementation will be smooth. There are areas where there is insufficient detail and areas where there will clearly be disagreement. Already, the Mauritian Government show signs of going back on some of the central provisions, such as the rent to be paid and the basic purpose of the marine protected area. One begins to ask whether we have a good-faith partner. I wonder. Others have remarked on the shameful treatment of the British Chagossians. That is a whole separate area of problems where something better can still be done.

The most worrying provisions of the agreement are those that impinge on the operation of the base. The opening is given by the agreement to the Mauritian Government entering into dispute over or interfering with decisions on things such as the equipment to be based there. Frankly, it is naive to think that an obligation to inform the Mauritian Government about certain operations, whether before or after the event—that is not the issue, although before the event would be extraordinary—does not affect the security of those operations. It is quite obvious that that increases the level of insecurity.

The Government say that the Americans support the deal. I wonder whether they have decided that it is not worth arguing at this stage. It is not clear to me that this agreement—I do not mean any agreement; I am talking about this agreement—puts us in a good position for the long term. I wonder whether, as technology and international politics move on, we may find that, far from being an important part of our general armoury, Diego Garcia becomes a very expensive white elephant.

Iraq

Baroness Neville-Jones Excerpts

Friday 26th September 2014 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Neville-Jones (Con)]

My Lords, I agree with the cautionary words that we just heard.

I support the Government’s proposal that the UK should join other allies in taking direct military action from the air against the self-proclaimed Islamic State in Iraq. This is not a state in any accepted sense of the word, but a group of murderous thugs terrorising the area they control. They are enemies of the inhabitants of Iraq, a threat to the authority and stability of countries in the region and a terrorist threat to this country and many of our allies.

Today, we are not discussing the possible action in Syrian airspace. The presence in Iraq of ISIL, however, clearly demonstrates that the threat to Iraqi security from the uncontrolled situation in Syria, from whence these people come, is a factor in the situation. I do not think that there are serious legal obstacles in the way of legitimate military action in the air over Syria without a UN resolution. That is not necessary and I agree with those who argue that to compartmentalise our assistance to only part of the problem, and not reach its core, does not make total sense.

In our history in the UK, we have normally sought to respond to action against so clear a threat to our country. We have not outsourced the defence of our interests to third countries and we should not do so now. The urgent task is obviously to contain and then reduce the area to which the terrorists lay claim and then degrade their control over it so that local forces can retake the ground. We have the capability, both in aircraft and in Special Forces, that is needed to make the air campaign a success. We can assist, including with training and lethal weaponry, the local forces on the ground.

The legal base for action exists in the clear request of the Government in Baghdad for assistance. Their spokesmen have made clear that this includes the UK. I understand why the Government have not taken action until now but they should delay no longer. The strictly military risk to our Armed Forces looks acceptable. The potentially increased security risk to this country must be factored into the measures taken by the Government to protect us.

I welcome the increasingly clear and unambiguous rejection by the vast majority of British Muslims of the perverted ideology of ISIL. More effort and resource devoted to Prevent is part of what the Government should do, and they need to accompany this action with the strategy being pursued abroad. The noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth, who is no longer in his seat, made some important points about the management of jihadists when they attempt to return to this country. However, although removing passports is a sensible measure, it does not render people stateless.

It has been well pointed out that humanitarian action has to accompany the strategy, as does a proper political position on our part. It needs to be regional as well as related to Iraq. We are fully engaged in the humanitarian effort. As to the political situation, much hangs on the future inclusivity and performance of the Government in Baghdad. A political settlement between the people of that country is an indispensable component of success. Wider regional stability also depends on the willingness of countries such as Saudi Arabia to pursue policies that unambiguously increase rather than undermine the social and political stability of their neighbours. Western allies can help and I welcome the Prime Minister’s discussion with President Rouhani three days ago, which I hope will be a first step towards a successful strategic stability in the Middle East.