Diego Garcia Military Base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill

Lord Callanan Excerpts

Report stage
Monday 5th January 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Morrow (DUP)]

My Lords, Amendment 26 standing in my name states that:

“Sections 2 to 4 come into force only when the Secretary of State has assessed … the impact of the termination of all rights granted by the Treaty to the United Kingdom with respect to the entire Chagos Archipelago through Article 15 of the Treaty”


and

“the impact of the arrangements in Article 15 on the leverage opportunities at the Secretary of State’s disposal in negotiating with Mauritius after ratification”.

Article 15(1)(a) of the Mauritius treaty states that Mauritius can terminate the Mauritius Treaty in the event of

“a failure by the United Kingdom to make payment as required by Article 11”.

This means that if a payment is more than 22 days late, the entire Mauritius treaty is terminated, subject of course to the fact that sovereignty over the Chagos Islands will be in the hands of Mauritius. In that event, we would lose absolutely everything, and if the United States wanted to keep its Diego Garcia base, it would probably have to do so by force. While the United Kingdom could no doubt seek to achieve this, China, Russia and other countries could protest very loudly and have international law on their side. It would provide an excuse for any other power to try to take Diego Garcia and could lead to a major war.

Of course, the Government can respond by saying that this will not happen if we pay on time—and, no doubt, they will assure that we will pay. While we are protected from this eventuality by dutifully paying up completely and always on time, Article 15(1)(a) places the United Kingdom, and by extension the United States, in a formally intolerable, weak position.

To understand the problems arising from the very weak footing on which the treaty places us when negotiating with Mauritius, we must appreciate the huge concerns about what happens in relation to the Chagos Islands beyond Diego Garcia. Mauritius has a clear incentive, arising from the income stream we have promised, to seek additional income streams for leasing other islands or parts of islands. The Government have sought to make much of the fact that we have a veto on the deployment of security and defence forces beyond Diego Garcia, but the problem is that the real threats do not announce themselves as deployment of security and defence forces and are much more subtle. Something that begins as a non-security and defence deployment, in relation to which we have no veto, can evolve into something very different—an emergent risk, over which the treaty affords us no right of veto but only a right to object. The right to object can be resolved only on a consensual basis within the joint committee between the UK and Mauritius proposed by the Mauritius treaty and could no doubt take a long time if Mauritius wanted it to. It is here that our complete lack of leverage provided by paragraph 1(a) of Article 15 is a particular cause for concern.

Mauritius could generally adopt a very unco-operative approach on the joint committee, knowing that, if it resists one of our concerns and we counter by threatening to withhold payment, subject to satisfactory resolution, that will serve simply to renounce all our remaining rights in relation to the Chagos Islands, giving them completely to Mauritius. Of course, if ever a deployment of non-security and defence personnel from another country becomes an emergent risk, and one wherein those concerned in effect become security and defence personnel, the UK would have a right of veto. However, the difficulty is that, by that stage, they will be established in place, and if they did not want to leave, they could be removed only by force, threatening war and international instability.

If we look at other categories of emergent risk, in relation to which we have powers only to lodge objections on the joint committee, we are further confronted by the way in which the terms of the Mauritius treaty—especially paragraph 1(a) of Article 15—rob us of leverage. These risks would all be avoided if the UK did the right thing and corrected the historic wrong of the forced removal of the Chagossians from their islands and afforded them self-determination. While it is plain that not all would vote to be a separate jurisdiction from Mauritius—in the same way that not everyone on the Ellice Islands voted to become a separate jurisdiction from the Gilbert Islands—polling suggests that a majority would vote to become a resettled, largely self-governing British Overseas Territory, legitimately under British sovereignty. In that event, none of the above difficulties would arise.

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

My Lords, as we begin our proceedings on Report, let me reiterate our view, as the Official Opposition, that the treaty that the Government have agreed with Mauritius puts the interests of the British people last. It is an abject surrender that we would never have agreed to. It was mentioned nowhere in the Government’s election manifesto, and it stands in stark contrast to their manifesto commitment to protect the British Overseas Territories. The British people were not consulted on the treaty, yet it will see over £34 billion-worth of taxpayers’ money paid to the Government of Mauritius over the treaty’s lifetime. That is a political decision by this Government at a time when taxes to the British public are being hiked to an all-time high.

In stark contrast, the Mauritian Prime Minister said that the money from the Chagos deal will fund debt repayments and tax cuts as part of a budget package that will see 80% of Mauritian workers exempted completely from income tax.

However, it is, of course, not just the British people who have not been consulted but the Chagossians themselves, who have suffered so much over many years and have not had their voice heard in this process either.

I am pleased to say that the Government have rightly shared some more details about the Chagossian Contact Group they have set up, but it should not have taken forceful pressure from the Opposition to deliver that transparency. Even with those details, the Chagossian people have not been formally consulted by the British Government on this treaty. We have only to look at the recent report from the International Relations and Defence Committee on the opinion of Chagossians to know exactly what they think of this treaty.

In the other place, we opposed the Bill at Third Reading, and we still oppose it. But, of course, now that we are on Report, we will work constructively with noble Lords across the House to seek to improve the Bill today.

My Amendment 6 would require the Secretary of State to seek to negotiate a right to extend the length of the treaty beyond 99 years before it can be ratified. When we suggested this in Committee, the Minister explained that Article 13 of the treaty establishes the process by which the treaty would be extended up to a limit of 40 years. One of the problems with that process is that it would require a renegotiation, possibly including additional payments, leaving the British taxpayer exposed to potentially even higher bills at the end of this period.

Ministers tell us that the UK will have the right of first refusal of the terms offered to any third party for the use of Diego Garcia following the expiry or termination of the treaty, but how can the UK ensure that those terms are reasonable? We therefore seek clarity from the Government on what happens at the end of this 99-year period. I hope that this time, the Minister will be able to provide us with more information on the Government’s exact understanding of the workability of Article 13 of the treaty.

My Amendment 40 would require the Government to clarify their understanding of the status of the Chagos Islands should the treaty be terminated. In Committee, the Minister emphasised that the circumstances in which Mauritius can unilaterally terminate the treaty are extremely limited, and we accept that. She also told the Committee that it is

“highly unrealistic that Mauritius would agree to a reversion to British sovereignty in the event of termination”.—[Official Report, 18/11/25; col. 781.]

That leaves open the question of who might agree to a transfer of sovereignty with the Government of Mauritius. In a circumstance where Mauritius is sovereign and the treaty is no longer in effect, is there a risk that the Mauritian Government may choose to transfer sovereignty to a third party? What guarantees have the Government sought from Mauritius on this? Again, I hope the Minister will be able to provide us with some more detail on those points at this stage in our legislative process.

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Morrow, for his excellent amendment in this group. He is right to continue to press the Government on this point, and we share his concerns about the position should the treaty be terminated. I look forward to hearing the replies from the Minister on these points.

Finally, I turn to the amendments in the name of the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig of Radley, which is supported by the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Houghton of Richmond—two well-respected Members of the House. It is unconscionable that British taxpayers should be forced to continue to fund the Mauritian Government under the terms of the treaty in circumstances where the military base, which the treaty relates to and secures, has therefore become inoperable. Therefore, we firmly support this amendment and, should the noble and gallant Lord wish to test the opinion of the House, we on these Benches would support him in that.

[Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)]

My Lords, one criterion which the House may like to have in mind as we consider the amendments before us is whether they would prevent the Government ratifying the treaty. We have to pass the Bill before the treaty can be ratified, and some of these amendments would ensure that ratification could not take place until there had been some renegotiation or a new negotiation.

The House decided, at the end of June, that it wanted to ratify the treaty. The House voted for ratification; the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, argued that it should not do so, but it chose to follow the advice of its International Agreements Committee and voted for the ratification of the treaty. Consistent with the view we have held up to now, I believe that, today, we should not pass any amendments that would require renegotiation.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Callanan]

2: Clause 1, page 1, line 7, at end insert
“, subject to subsection (2A).
(2A) Section 4 comes into force only when the Secretary of State has undertaken a consultation of the Chagossian community and laid a report of that consultation before both Houses of Parliament.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would prevent the provisions of this Bill relating to citizenship from coming into force unless the Secretary of State has undertaken a consultation of the Chagossian community.

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

My Lords, throughout our debates on the Bill, we have heard time and again from noble Lords across your Lordships’ House that the Chagossian people have not been properly consulted by the Government. That is a view with which I heartily agree. They should be formally consulted on the whole treaty and I will come to that point when we address the amendments relating to a referendum of the Chagossian people. However, my Amendment 2 sets out an absolute bare minimum of consultation that the Government should surely undertake.

The Bill changes Chagossian citizens’ rights. That is a fundamental change in their lives and will result in profound changes to their rights. Can the Minister set out what consultation the Government intend to undertake before the provisions relating to Chagossian citizenship rights come into effect? Can she also confirm whether these provisions have been discussed with the Chagossian contact group? What concerns, if any, were raised by its members?

Many Chagossians want to return to their homeland. I tabled Amendment 4 to give the Government the opportunity to go further than the treaty and take positive steps to ensure that Chagossians will be able to return to their homeland should they wish to.

My Amendment 5 relates to illegal migration and asylum seekers. In Committee, the Minister helpfully clarified that Mauritius will be responsible for any illegal migrants who arrive at Diego Garcia. But the terms of Annex 2 of the treaty qualify the exercise of jurisdiction by Mauritius in respect of illegal migration by stating that this applies only

“provided such exercise of jurisdiction is in conformity with the requirements of this Agreement”.

Can the Minister therefore explain the Government’s understanding of that qualification? Can she categorically rule out the possibility that the UK might be responsible for any illegal migrants or asylum seekers arriving at the Chagos Islands, including Diego Garcia?

As noble Lords will be aware, on 8 December 2025, the UN Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination released a report that expressed deep concern about the UK’s treaty with Mauritius. I hope that the noble Lords, Lord Kerr and Lord Hannay, have taken the time to read that report, as they are so keen to know what the UN thinks.

We are told that the Government’s motivation for agreeing the treaty is to address the advisory judgments of international courts. Therefore, can the Minister set out how the UK Government intend to respond to the UN committee? What steps will Ministers take to address its concerns and implement its conclusions? Can the Minister give the House an assurance that the Government are satisfied that the treaty they have agreed with the Mauritian Government will prevent further legal uncertainty in future? They have spent all their time telling us that the reason for the treaty is to resolve any legal concerns, yet additional ones have now been raised by the UN about this very agreement.

I turn now to my Amendments 45 and 46, in respect of the Chagossian trust fund board. I am delighted that the Government have now come forward with further detail on how the board will operate. Greater transparency about the operation of the trust fund was one of the key requests that we made of the Government last year and we are pleased to have been able to secure greater transparency for the Chagossians. In particular, the confirmation that Chagossians will have fair representation on the board is crucial. It is vital that board members champion the rights and interests of Chagossian people. Can the Minister confirm that the Chagossians on the board will not be linked, either through employment or other means, to the Mauritian Government? Can she also confirm that the fund will be open to all Chagossians, including those who are not Mauritian citizens but wish to be Mauritian citizens, and who are not resident in Mauritius?

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

They are very different things. I encourage the noble Lord to investigate this a little further and am happy to work with him on that. The fact is that this particular committee does not speak on behalf of the UN and there are many equivalent committees across the UN that also do not speak on behalf of member states. If noble Lords want to verify that, it is entirely up to them to do so, but that is the situation.

To continue, the Government’s priority remains the protection of the British people, including British Chagossians. As the location of a military base with sensitive capabilities and assets vital to the UK’s national security, it would not be appropriate for Diego Garcia to be included in Mauritius’s programme of resettlement. However, both the UK and the Republic of Mauritius remain committed to facilitating a programme of heritage visits to the Chagos Archipelago, including Diego Garcia. Chagossians will also retain the opportunity to work on Diego Garcia through contracted employment at the base.

In respect of Amendments 9, 16, 24 and 48 concerning the 2 December decision by the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, the Government’s position is clear. The CERD is an independent body of experts that—I am repeating myself, but I want to make it absolutely clear for noble Lords—does not speak on behalf of the United Nations or of UN member states. The UK does not agree with the approach that the CERD has taken. The UN Secretary-General and the African Union chairperson have both welcomed the agreement. The treaty protects the base and our national security, which is why it has also been welcomed by the US, our Five Eyes partners and other important partners who appreciate the strategic importance of the base. Mauritius has also firmly and categorically rejected the CERD decision, and the Government therefore reject the tabled amendments.

Amendment 5 on migrants and asylum, from the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, is not necessary and therefore we do not accept it. The treaty already ensures Mauritian responsibility for and jurisdiction over all migrants arriving to the Chagos Archipelago, including Diego Garcia. The treaty closes a potential illegal migration route to the UK. The UK Government are already in the process of agreeing with Mauritius the separate arrangements referenced in paragraph 10 of annex 2 of the treaty to assess and facilitate that exercise of Mauritian jurisdiction. There are ongoing negotiations; I will not provide a running commentary, but both Mauritius and the UK agree that it would be for Mauritius to take responsibility for any migrants, including for any asylum or international protection claims. There is therefore no need for the Government to provide a report on the negotiations through an amendment to the Bill. I hope that answers noble Lords’ queries about that issue at this stage and that the noble Lord will withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have contributed to the debate. I thank the Minister for her response, but it seems to me that she still has not answered the fundamental question that many of my colleagues and others have posed to her: why are some UN advisory tribunals to be obeyed without question? They should not be questioned and we have to do exactly what they say, but others can apparently be safely ignored when it does not suit the Government’s case. She tells us that Mauritius was against the conclusion, and I bet it was, but apparently—this is what I have read and I hope it is correct—Mauritius is also actually a member of the tribunal that found against the treaty and recommended that it be disposed of.

We have heard some fantastic contributions, but of course we have not heard the opinion of the FCDO mandarinate on the Cross Benches, who are normally so keen to tell us that international tribunals have to be respected without question—but apparently not this one.

Nevertheless, I am proud to speak alongside every noble Lord who has spoken up for the Chagossian people and outlined how they have been so ill-treated and for so long ignored. The Minister has said a number of times that there is a diversity of opinion within the Chagossian community. I am sure she is right, which is why we need a referendum to determine the absolute view of what those opinions are. I pay particular tribute to my noble friend Lord De Mauley and his committee for the sterling job that it has done in attempting, in so brief a period, to provide at least some information on what the Chagossian community think. The fact that so many of them responded so quickly in the period before Christmas underlines the concerns that many of them have about this agreement.

We also share my noble friend Lord Lilley’s concerns about the reparations. It seems reasonable that, once Mauritius has sovereignty over the islands, it would bear the burden of any future claims for reparations. I am also grateful to the Minister for her clarification about the legal position on asylum seekers.

I will not detain the House any further. I reiterate our firm support for Amendment 19 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Purvis. It might be only half a loaf but we are grateful for that half. Still, we will also seek to be greedy and support the noble Baroness, Lady Foster, on the remainder of the loaf when those Divisions are finally called. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 2 withdrawn.

Moved by

[Lord Callanan]

3: Clause 1, page 1, line 7, at end insert
“, subject to subsection (2A).
(2A) Sections 2 to 4 of this Act come into force only when the duties outlined in section (Chagos marine protected area) have been discharged.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would prevent the provisions from coming into force until the Government has published its plan to ensure the long-term protection of the Chagos Marine Protected Area.

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

My Lords, I will briefly move Amendment 3 in my name. I will also speak about the other amendments in my name in this group, but I will not seek to pre-empt the arguments of the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, when he gets around to proposing his amendments.

The ocean around the Chagos Islands is a uniquely rich and biodiverse environment. It is home to the UK’s greatest marine biodiversity, with unique species, major sea-bird populations and healthy reefs. As the custodians of that biodiversity, the UK has a proud record of increasing marine biodiversity. I know the Government have ambitions to continue that record, which we support. But by transferring sovereignty of the Chagos Archipelago to the Mauritian Government, Ministers are putting the future of that MPA in an uncertain position. Yes, the treaty provides for Mauritius to maintain the MPA, but what tools do the Mauritian Government have at their disposal to discharge those responsibilities? I do not doubt their commitment, but I doubt their ability to actually enforce it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

She said it, not me. That is why you can buy technical assistance; it is why technical assistance exists. We have a technical assistance partnership with many countries. It is a much better way, working alongside countries to make sure that environmental improvements happen. That is the approach the Government have taken, and it is in the treaty.

I hope that noble Lords will consider withdrawing and not pressing their amendments.

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

My Lords, the Minister’s remark to the noble Baroness, Lady Cash, was a little uncalled for.

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

I was joking.

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

The Minister may say that she was joking, but it was not a very good joke.

I thank all noble Lords who have spoken in this debate. In Committee, noble Lords across the Chamber set out their profound concerns about the practical ability of the Mauritian Government to deliver on their commitments. As I said, nobody doubts what they have said and the statements they have made; however, I think we all doubt their ability to enforce this crucial MPA.

I do not need to repeat all the excellent points that have been made by the noble Baroness, Lady Cash, my noble friend Lord Goldsmith and others in their contributions to this debate; they very closely reflect our concerns. Given the critical importance of the ocean around the archipelago for global diversity, we believe that it is necessary to press the Government on this, so that we can have a formal statement of the Government’s expectations of Mauritius under Article 5 of the treaty. We also believe that we need clarity on what steps Ministers will be willing to take to ensure the maintenance of the MPA in perpetuity by the Mauritian Government. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 3 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Callanan]

7: Clause 1, page 1, line 7, at end insert
“, subject to subsection (2A).
(2A) Sections 2 to 4 of this Act come into force only when the duties outlined in section (Cost of the Treaty) have been discharged.”

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

My Lords, we have had lengthy debates on the cost of the treaty. The Government have consistently told us that their estimates tell us that the treaty will cost only £3.4 billion, with payments averaging £101 million per annum over the 99-year life of the treaty. We fundamentally disagree with that.

My noble friends Lady Noakes and Lord Altrincham forensically picked apart the Government’s figures in Committee, leaving us in a position of serious and damaging uncertainty. It is unacceptable that we are being asked to approve a Bill enabling a treaty without a clear assessment of the cost of compliance with that treaty. While the Government continue to repeat the figure of £3.4 billion, we now know, using other accountancy mechanisms, that it will cost something approaching £34 billion.

As I said in the debate on a previous group, we are heading towards the highest taxes ever. The Government show no appetite for bringing spending under control, but apparently it is fine to hand over £34 billion to Mauritius for islands we already own. The treaty is a stark example of the Government’s fiscal imprudence. We know that the treaty was not necessary in law and that it was a political choice—and we would never have agreed to it. That is £34 billion the Government could have chosen to spend in other ways. That money should be in the pockets of British taxpayers; it certainly should not be used to fund tax cuts in Mauritius. However, that is the position that Ministers, advised by their international lawyer friends, have put us in.

My Amendment 39 would require the Government to publish a schedule of payments to Mauritius, including the planned dates of those payments, so that independent experts can make their own assessment of the true cost of the treaty to British taxpayers.

The Government, who seem so keen to defend the treaty, must surely think it is good value for money. It follows, therefore, that the Minister should have no problem at all in setting out in full what the schedule of payments is so that we can examine it. I hope the Minister will be able to give that commitment today.

With Amendment 47, we are asking the Government to publish the real cost of this treaty. The details provided in the Explanatory Memorandum which accompanied the publication of the treaty were helpful, and the Minister referred to those details in Committee. But we still have vastly contrasting estimates which show that the treaty could cost as much as 10 times more than the Government claim. We need to see more detail from the Government on these costings to ensure transparency for the hard-working British taxpayer. I beg to move.

--- Later in debate ---

Finally, proposed new subsection (4) in the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, would infringe the prerogative power of making and unmaking treaties. It is not wise to impose any immoveable requirements about a hypothetical set of circumstances that might arise in the future. This provision would seem to risk requiring the Government to breach the UK’s obligations under a treaty. It is clearly preferable that all options should be open to a future Government to deal with whatever the future may bring in the UK’s best interests, taking into account all the circumstances that exist at the time. I hope that the noble Lord will withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

My Lords, this has been brief but fruitful debate and I am grateful to all who have contributed. I am particularly grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Purvis of Tweed, for his Amendment 50, which expresses our shared concerns about the unacceptable uncertainty over the costs of the commitments made under the treaty. If he presses it to a Division, I will support him. We share the noble Lord’s desire to see greater transparency and proper accountability for the Government’s spending under this treaty.

As my noble friend Lady Noakes made clear, we are very concerned about the way the Government have handled the calculation of the costs of the treaty, and we think the British people deserve to know more about the process by which the Government reached the figures that they have published so far. My Amendment 47 would deliver greater transparency by requiring the publication of the methodologies used by the OBR, the Government Actuary’s Department and the Treasury when making their own calculations of the costs of the treaty, as well as requiring the publication of the justification of the methodology used.

We surely cannot proceed with the Bill when there is such uncertainty and debate about the costs and scale of the commitment that the Government have entered into. I therefore give notice of my intention to divide the House on my Amendment 47 when it is called. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw Amendment 7.

Amendment 7 withdrawn.

Moved by

[Lord Callanan]

8: Clause 1, page 1, line 7, at end insert
“, subject to subsection (2A).
(2A) Sections 2 to 4 of this Act come into force only when the Secretary of State has published a statement setting out that the Secretary of State is satisfied that— (a) the government of Mauritius is not unduly influenced by hostile state actors, and(b) there will be no interference by hostile state actors in the operation of the base.”

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

My Lords, this amendment seeks to require the Government to publish a statement stating that they are satisfied that the state of Mauritius is not unduly influenced by hostile state actors and that those actors will not interfere with the operation of the military base. In our increasingly unstable world, where hostile actors are using increasingly unconventional measures to interfere with our activities both at home and abroad, we must be alive to the risks posed by those states.

China’s ambassador to Mauritius has applauded the treaty, and Mauritius has recently released public statements in support of China’s “One China” policy. So could the Minister set out what steps were taken by Ministers and officials to assess the impact of the treaty on the influence that hostile countries will be able to have on the Mauritian Government and the military base? Were any concerns raised with Ministers about the influence of hostile state actors during the negotiations, and have any concerns been raised since?

My Amendment 44 focuses on the notification of the Mauritian Government. I was pleased that we were able to clarify in Committee that the Mauritian Government will not in fact receive prior notice of operations launched from Diego Garcia. Could the Minister go further and confirm that they will not receive prior notification of any other activities at the base, such as maintenance, upgrades, visits by foreign forces and so on? I would be grateful if the Minister could take the opportunity to provide a little more clarity on these points today.

On the wider issue of long-term security, the question we must ask ourselves is: does the Bill actually preserve our long-term security or does it make that security even more uncertain? For example, we have profound concerns about the relationship between Mauritius and China. It is clearly worrying that China’s representatives in Mauritius applauded this deal.

The concerns raised by my noble friend Lord Lilley around the Pelindaba treaty, to which the Mauritian Government is a signatory, have also not been satisfactorily answered by Ministers. The Minister was very cautious, perhaps understandably so, in the language he used in Committee, but we welcome his assurance that the Diego Garcia military base will continue to operate as it does now under the new treaty. However, that does not explain how Mauritius could fulfil its obligations under the Pelindaba treaty.

I do not want to push the Minister any further to put sensitive information in the public domain, but any way in which he can go further to reassure us that the operational capacities of the base will remain completely unchanged under the treaty would be welcomed by the House—particularly by noble Lords on this side.

I am also grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, for her amendment. It raises the valid question of the UK’s ability to shape developments on the Chagos Islands beyond Diego Garcia where those activities have defence and security implications. This is an important question, and I hope that the Minister can address it in his reply. I beg to move.

[Baroness Hoey (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I will refer briefly to my Amendments 17 and 49. I tabled one of them in Committee and want to probe a little further on some of the questions to which I did not get satisfactory answers.

What can we do, how do we know and what can the Government do if a country leases an island ostensibly for a non-security or defence purpose but then gradually introduces security and defence functions from Mauritius? In other words, what power do we have over what Mauritius does to the islands once we have given up our capacity other than for Diego Garcia?

Turning to the deployment of security and defence personnel on islands on the Chagos Archipelago beyond Diego Garcia, what UK approval is required? I have raised this before, but I want to know the detail. Given the announcement on 12 September that India had paid Mauritius to secure a defence presence on a Chagos island, would the Minister please tell the House today whether the Republic of Mauritius asked the UK Government ahead of doing that deal with India? If they did not bother to ask, this provides a good reason for not ratifying the treaty at this stage. If the Republic of Mauritius sought UK approval and it was given, why did the UK Government agree? Surely it was completely inappropriate for the Republic of Mauritius to enter deals on what will happen to the islands in the future when the UK Parliament had not yet agreed to the transfer of sovereignty of the Chagos Islands, as the treaty is still not ratified. Many of us in this place hope that it never will be.

I have no intention of moving my amendments to a vote. I would just welcome the Minister’s response on those two points.

--- Later in debate ---

I hope I have answered the points noble Lords have raised, even if not to their total satisfaction. I will ensure that a letter is ready for your Lordships on the important point regarding the Pelindaba treaty before Third Reading and placed in the Library. With that, I ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his comprehensive response. I know that my noble friend Lady Goldie would like to thank him for agreeing to write. We await this letter with interest. He has tremendous respect from across the House for the view he takes on defence; I think he knows that. Nevertheless, I am sure he would be the first to recognise that he has not explained the disparity between what the Pelindaba treaty actually says and what we would like to use the base for. I totally understand that he is not able to go into sensitive matters, but I suspect that what has actually been agreed will for ever remain a mystery. In the meantime, I withdraw my Amendment 8.

Amendment 8 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

My Lords, the argument that the treaty was necessary because of the advisory judgment of international courts is something that we have debated at length. But, as my noble friend Lord Lilley has consistently demonstrated, the reality is that the Government had a political choice and they could have not entered into the agreement. In the meantime, though, as the hour is getting late, it remains only for me to say that, if my noble friend presses his amendment to a vote, we will support him. Sorry, I spoke in the wrong place there.

[Lord Lilley (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for responding to my points. I still do not think she has explained why a delay would weaken our negotiating position when that position has been based on the fact that we would face a binding ruling. If that happens, our negotiating position is no worse, and if it does not happen, it is much stronger. Still, I do not want to cause a vote if that is going to delay more important votes where we might win.

--- Later in debate ---

I hope that the Minister will reply by suggesting that we come back to this at Third Reading with a view to considering that proposal as well as the recommendations of the Delegated Powers Committee, which are in Amendments 34, 35 and 36. I hope that I might get that positive response but, subject to that, I ask the House to consider, if necessary, supporting the recommendations of the Delegated Powers Committee in Amendment 34 and the consequential Amendments 35 and 36. For the moment, I beg to move.

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

I thank my noble friend Lord Lansley for the amendments in this group. Throughout the passage of the Bill, we have had some interesting debates on the future of the prerogative. The Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee has made its recommendations on this point, and I understand why my noble friend has therefore tabled his amendment. The Constitution Committee has drawn Clause 5 to the attention of the House but fell short of matching the recommendations made by the DPRRC. We on the Opposition Front Bench have read carefully the Government’s response to the DPRRC’s report, which we believe has some merit. That said, we will not seek to oppose my noble friend should he choose to divide the House on this matter.

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

My Lords, Amendments 34 to 37 tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, seek to amend Clause 5 of the Bill. I appreciate that Amendments 34 to 36 would implement the recommendations of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee. The Government have carefully considered the committee’s report on the Bill and responded to it but, on this occasion, we do not accept those recommendations.

I note what the noble Lord said about Third Reading. I am grateful to him for his detailed engagement with these provisions. I want to clarify one point about which noble Lords might not be entirely clear. The effect of the Bill is that there will be two powers. One is the prerogative power to legislate for Diego Garcia only, which is preserved under Clause 3. We seem to have some agreement on that point. The other power is a new statutory power conferred by Clause 5. Orders in Council made under Clause 5 will be statutory instruments. The Bill currently provides that those will be subject to the negative procedure where they amend primary legislation, and otherwise to no procedure. That is not because we argue that they are prerogative orders but because it is appropriate given their subject matter.

So far as the power to amend primary legislation is concerned, we have been clear that the negative procedure is appropriate, given that the changes to be made to legislation will in very large part be technical in nature. The purpose of the power is to ensure that the Government can bring the domestic statute book into conformity with both the purpose and effect of the treaty, making consequential changes as necessary. That works hand in hand with Clause 3, which provides a default position of continuity of the law. The Clause 5 powers will be necessary to make amendments to that law to adapt it to the treaty and the new status of Diego Garcia. This is not just about the law of Diego Garcia; UK legislation which refers to BIOT needs to be brought into line.

Applying the negative procedure here is consistent with the Cyprus Act 1960, which the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, referred to. Section 3 of the Cyprus Act also provides for the law of the UK in relation to Cyprus or the sovereign base areas to continue and for statutory Orders in Council to be made under the negative procedure to make further adaptations as required.

The Hong Kong Act 1985 also provides for the negative procedure for statutory Orders in Council under Schedule 3, amending the law of the UK or of other British possessions.

The Government’s position is that it is appropriate that no procedure applies when the Clause 5 power is used other than to amend primary legislation. The operation of the base on Diego Garcia and the treaty as a whole are in the realm of international relations, defence and security, as the noble Lord said. Given the subject matter, it is appropriate for those instruments to be subject to no parliamentary procedure.

There will, of course, be statutory instruments, which will be registered and published in the usual way. It is not uncommon for Orders in Council which relate to the overseas territories to have no procedure attached to them. I am happy, and I think it would be a good idea, to continue to discuss this with the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, ahead of Third Reading. I would be very happy to do that. I hope he withdraws his amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Callanan]

47: After Clause 5, insert the following new Clause—
“Cost of the TreatyThe Secretary of State must publish a statement setting out— (a) the total real terms cost of payments to be made to Mauritius under the Treaty; (b) the full methodology and justification of the discount mechanism used to calculate the total cost;(c) the methodology used to calculate the total cost of the Treaty by—(i) the Office for Budget Responsibility,(ii) the Government Actuary’s Department, and(iii) the Treasury.”

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

I wish to test the opinion of the House.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

My Lords, my Amendment 51 addresses an issue that I raised in Committee: that there should be an ongoing representation of the Chagossian community, including its members living in the UK as joint nationals, and a means by which the parliaments of the UK and Mauritius can have dialogue on the operation and implementation of the treaty.

I set out the justification for that in Committee, so I do not need to repeat any of those comments and do not wish to detain the House any further. I was grateful to both Minister Doughty and the Minister in this House for engaging in discussions with me since Committee. Ministers have been very open, and I appreciate that. I hope that that openness will encourage them to give supportive words at the Dispatch Box for this proposal, so I am keen to hear what the Minister has to say. I am very happy to continue having discussions on this issue and to hear from the Government. I do not need to say anything else at this stage. I beg to move.

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

My Lords, I am pleased that the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, has chosen to re-table amendments on an inter-parliamentary committee to monitor and assess the implementation and operation of the treaty. We have been seriously concerned about the ongoing assessment of the success of the treaty, and this is just one mechanism that could be used to deliver that ongoing monitoring.

We are pleased that we have so far secured a number of significant concessions from the Government on the detail of how the treaty’s implementation will be monitored, including, for example, the release of much more detailed information about the contact group and how it operates. I am pleased also that, towards the end of last year, the Government released some further information about the trust fund board. We have heard today about the legislation in Mauritius on the establishment of that trust fund board, which is all very positive. These are important organisations that will have a role in holding both the UK and Mauritius to account as the treaty is implemented.

Delivering greater clarity during the progress of the Bill in your Lordships’ House shows the impact that parliamentary scrutiny can have. So, in light of those facts and the amendments from the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, I would be grateful if the Minister, when she replies, can confirm what further opportunities Parliament will have to discuss and scrutinise the implementation of the treaty. As I said before, I do not believe that it bodes well that the Government refused to allow a substantive Motion in the other place on the treaty under the CRaG procedures, so can she give the House a cast-iron assurance that Parliament will be granted the opportunity to debate the implementation of the treaty at regular intervals, should it be implemented?

Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty Review Conference 2026

Lord Callanan Excerpts

Wednesday 10th December 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

I thank the noble and gallant Lord for his comments, and I should have thanked the noble Baroness for associating herself with the remarks that I made about the tragic death of our serviceman. The lesson I think we should learn as a country is that it is important for us to reassert and re-establish the principle of deterrence. Part of preventing war is actually preparing for war. The whole success of the deterrent is the fact that the nuclear deterrent is there—the theory of deterrence. I think what happened following the Budapest arrangements, the withdrawal of nuclear weapons there, is perhaps a lesson for us that sometimes a position of strength allows you to negotiate and pursue peace more effectively than in the alternative way.

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

First, on behalf of these Benches I echo and endorse the Minister’s sentiments on the tragic death of Lance Corporal George Hooley of the Parachute Regiment in Ukraine while observing Ukrainian forces testing a new defensive capability, and we of course extend our condolences to his family on this tragic loss. On the subject of proliferation, what is the Government’s current assessment of Iran’s progress towards nuclear capability? What work is ongoing to discourage Iran from further progress, and what steps is the UK taking in concert with our allies to prevent Iran acquiring nuclear weapons?

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

I first thank the noble Lord for the comments that he made and his association with my remarks about the tragic death. It is appreciated by everyone in this House and beyond. The noble Lord will know that there is no difference between us all. We support the work of the IAEA in ensuring that Iran’s nuclear technology is not used for the making or establishment of a nuclear weapons facility; we take action with respect to that. The noble Lord will have seen the action that others have chosen to take. The UK takes this very seriously, and we continue to press Iran to ensure that it abides by the provisions of the NPT.

Diego Garcia Military Base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill

Lord Callanan Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 25th November 2025 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Callanan]

17: Clause 1, page 1, line 7, at end insert “, subject to subsection (2A).
(2A) Sections 2 to 4 of this Act come into force only when the Secretary of State has—(a) sought to undertake negotiations with the Government of Mauritius on whether Mauritius would agree an amendment to Article 10 of the Treaty to allow Chagossians as well as Mauritian nationals the right to be employed on the Base to the maximum extent practicable;(b) laid before both Houses of Parliament a report on progress on establishing such negotiations with the Government of Mauritius and the outcome of any that have taken place.(2B) Within two months of the report being laid under paragraph (2A)(b), a Minister must table substantive motions in the House of Commons and the House of Lords on the contents of the report.(2C) In this section “Chagossians” are defined as those eligible for British citizenship under section 4 of the Act and their descendants.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is intended to prevent the provisions from coming into force until the Government has sought to negotiate Chagossian employees the same right to work in support of the operation of the Base as Mauritians under Article 10 of the Treaty, with a report laid before Parliament on the outcome of the negotiations and subsequent motions in the Commons and Lords on the contents of the report.

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

My Lords, the trust fund set up for the Chagossians is absolutely central to this treaty. Under Article 11, the Mauritians have been given the responsibility for administering the fund, which will be paid for, of course, by the UK. However, we still do not have any clarity on how Mauritius will manage the fund. We seem to have no say in it whatever.

The reality of Mauritius’s past record is also a cause for concern. Since the forced removal of the Chagossians from the archipelago, many Chagossians have lived on Mauritius. As has been pointed out a number of times in the debates so far, in the 1970s the UK Government paid £4 million into a trust fund for the benefit of registered Chagossians. I would be very interested to know the Government’s assessment of whether that trust fund has indeed been a success. Do the Government have any concerns about the way Mauritius has managed that fund before we offer to donate cash for another one? If the Government are concerned about Mauritius’s past actions in this area, what additional assurances have Ministers sought from the Mauritian Government to prevent mismanagement, corruption or failure to properly distribute funds in future?

The domestic reality of this arrangement is also worrying. Many Britons will struggle to understand why we are transferring funds to a foreign Government so that they can manage a trust fund on our behalf. Does this mean that we are transferring funds without proper control over how those moneys are spent? What powers will the UK have under the treaty to ensure that Mauritius is fulfilling its responsibilities? These are all important questions—many Members have raised them in the debates so far—which Ministers should seek to answer, either at the Dispatch Box or in the Bill.

Amendment 17 in my name and Amendments 26 and 78 in the names of my noble friends Lord Lilley and Lord Hannan of Kingsclere relate to the employment of Chagossian citizens on the military base. The treaty makes provision for the employment of Mauritians on the base. We debated issues related to that provision in an earlier group. The treaty, sadly, does not make any provision for the employment of Chagossians on the base. We already know how many Chagossians living on Mauritius feel that they are treated as second-class citizens. Does the Minister agree that Chagossians should have similar protections for their employment on the military base as Mauritians?

Amendment 81, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Morrow, is a very simple amendment that would provide for a report on the impact of the treaty on British Indian Ocean Territory citizens. I see no reason why a Minister would refuse to produce that report. The rights of BIOT citizens are, or should be, central to the future of the islands. We need some clarity on this matter. If the Government cannot commit to a report on the impact of the treaty, will the Minister at least give the Committee an assurance that her department will do everything in its power under the terms of the treaty to ensure that BIOT citizens are properly supported by Mauritius?

I look forward to hearing the rest of the debate and the Minister’s reply.

[Baroness Foster of Aghadrumsee (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, in this group I will speak to my Amendments 20A, 50A and 81A. I also strongly support Amendment 55 in the name of my noble friend Lord Weir of Ballyholme. As the Minister knows, I have asked several questions about the trust fund, which, as I understand it, will be totally in the control of the Mauritian Government. This brings inherent problems, particularly as those Chagossians living here in the UK are often near or below the poverty line and could well do with access to help and assistance. Amendment 55 seeks to probe the fairness of the payments to Mauritians and Chagossians.

I will go further in saying that the Secretary of State should establish a Chagossian advisory council comprised primarily of individuals of Chagossian descent, including members based here in the UK, Mauritius and Seychelles. This council could then be consulted on all strategic programme and spending decisions relating to the trust fund, ensuring that Chagossian communities are directly involved in shaping priorities and oversight. That would promote transparency. The minutes of the council meetings and any recommendations or advice could also be published annually. That goes further than the amendment in the name of my noble friend Lord Weir, but I would be obliged to hear from the Minister on this as it would deal with some of the issues around transparency and accountability as well.

On Amendment 20A, I am not going to labour the points raised as we discussed some of this last week in Committee, but I remind the Committee that the current provisions of the treaty do not grant a right for Chagossians to access their homeland. They leave it up to the Mauritian Government as to whether this happens. Article 6 states that the Mauritian Government are

“free to implement a programme of resettlement”.

That falls far short of right to access the islands. That is what this amendment seeks to do.

Amendment 50A concerns the protection of Chagossian identity and birthplace. I tabled this amendment at the request of the Chagossian community here in the UK, including many native islanders who were born on Diego Garcia, Peros Banhos and Salomon before their forced removal between 1968 and 1973.

This amendment is not theoretical and it is not precautionary. It responds to a real, current and deeply troubling practice that is already happening, and the Committee needs to be aware of the seriousness of this. We have now seen documentary evidence that Mauritian authorities have begun issuing birth certificates to Chagossians in which the true place of birth has been removed and replaced with Mauritius. In each case, the names of islands such as Diego Garcia, Peros Banhos or Salomon have been deleted from the official record. It is not an allegation; it is a matter of record. Chagossian families have shown us the documents and they have been verified by lawyers. Native islanders born on Peros Banhos and Diego Garcia are now being told by a Government claiming future sovereignty over their homeland that they were not born there at all.

This pattern of altering official records is consistent with long-standing concerns expressed by Chagossians who lived in Mauritius, many of whom describe decades of discrimination, marginalisation and a complete lack of constitutional recognition as a distinct people. United Nations human rights experts have previously documented that Chagossians in Mauritius faced entrenched barriers to housing, healthcare, employment and political participation, and continue to experience de facto discrimination as an Afro-descendant minority. Would the Minister care to look at the page on the website of the Mauritian Government which is dedicated to the Chagos Archipelago? There they refer to those who were “forcibly removed” from the islands in the 1960s as

“Mauritians born and residing at the time in the Chagos Archipelago”.

I have seen the passport of a Chagossian who was deported from Diego Garcia to the Seychelles. In that case, the birthplace that was originally recorded as Diego Garcia has been replaced with Mauritius. I am informed by those directly affected that this practice followed political agreements involving the former Mauritian Prime Minister and the former Seychelles President, under which Chagossians living in Seychelles were required to have Mauritius entered on their documents rather than the true place of their birth on the island. Whether these arrangements were informal or formal, the effect is the same: the birthplace of Chagossian natives has been erased, replaced or falsified. That is an act of identity deletion; it is happening now, and the evidence is in front of us.

The way to deal with this is through this amendment, which I believe is essential. The Chagossians were removed once, their homes were demolished, their pets were killed, their possessions were thrown into the sea, and they were shipped to Mauritius and the Seychelles with no warning and no rights. They lost their land, their livelihood and their future. What they ask for today is, I believe, modest in comparison. They ask for the one thing they still possess: the truth of who they are and where they were born. The Committee needs to be cognisant of that. Identity is not a technicality; for a displaced person, it is absolutely everything. It is the final surviving link to their home, lineage, history and dignity. Yet we now know—not just fear or speculate—that the birthplace of Chagossian natives has been altered by an external authority. There can be no more powerful demonstration of why this House must intervene.

The Government have repeatedly argued that decisions about the Chagos should respect international norms—we have heard it many times in this House. International law is absolutely clear on this point. Altering a displaced person’s civil status records without their consent violates the principles laid down in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the UN guiding principles on internal displacement and the fundamental norms to identity as recognised in human rights jurisprudence.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

It depends on what we mean by formal and what that looks like. We have an arrangement at the moment via the contact group and a commitment to strengthen and expand that, to make sure that does the job it is intended to do and the Government can support it in doing that. However, we are clear that we do not do anything to it without its consent. It is an area on which we are interested in having further conversations—I think the noble Lord knows what I am getting at. Whether that completely satisfies his desire for formality, we will probably continue to explore together.

With that, I hope the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, feels able to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

My Lords, I agree with the Minister that this has been a fascinating debate. It was a real pleasure to hear so many noble Lords focusing, as we rightly should, on the rights and futures of the Chagossian people.

The trust fund is an essential part of the treaty. Essentially, it is the only part of the treaty that is positive for the community. Therefore, we must not allow it to be maladministered, or worse, by the Mauritian Government. My noble friend Lord Ahmad made some very good points about the management of the existing fund, to which he got some answer from the Minister. We are certainly clear that the UK Government should take all necessary steps to hold the Mauritian Government to account for their management of the fund to ensure that the Chagossians are properly looked after and no longer treated as second-class citizens. I apologise to my noble friend Lord Fuller for trying to apply a little imaginary lipstick to his proverbial pig in this matter.

The points raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Foster, were particularly important and extremely serious. I was pleased to hear the assurances given to her by the Minister. We should not allow the Chagossian people to be treated in this manner by Mauritius.

This speaks to our concerns on value for money. Whichever figures you take, this agreement is a major financial undertaking, costing the British taxpayer billions of pounds over the lifetime of the deal. Any situation where the fund is capitalised but not managed properly would surely be unacceptable, and we should make sure that there are powers to hold Mauritius to account should that happen.

My noble friend Lord Hannan, in his excellent contribution, made some great points on how the Chagossians could be resettled in future and many of the alternative occupations that they could take in such circumstances.

If the Minister is not satisfied that the Government have the powers that they need to do that, I hope Ministers will go back to the Mauritian Government to ensure that we have those stronger powers before the treaty takes effect. The Minister is right that many of these matters will be returned to on Report. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 17 withdrawn.

Moved by

[Lord Callanan]

18: Clause 1, page 1, line 7, at end insert “, subject to subsection (2A).
(2A) Sections 2 to 4 of this Act come into force only when the Secretary of State has—(a) sought to undertake negotiations with the Government of Mauritius regarding a guarantee that paragraph 3(d) of Annex 1 will cover all non-UK and non-US civilian personnel stationed in the Chagos Archipelago, in addition to military and civilian security forces;(b) laid before both Houses of Parliament a report on progress on establishing such negotiations with the Government of Mauritius and the outcome of any that have taken place.(2B) Within two months of the report being laid under paragraph (2A)(b), a Minister must table substantive motions in the House of Commons and the House of Lords on the contents of the report.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is intended to prevent the provisions from coming into force until the Government has sought guarantees regarding the presence of non-UK and non-US civilian personnel in the Chagos Archipelago beyond Diego Garcia.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

My Lords, the amendments in this group speak to perhaps one of the most concerning parts of the treaty—although the previous bit was also concerning: namely, the risk that this agreement will undermine our security. Given the large number of amendments in this group, I will speak only to those in my name. I know that my noble friend Lady Goldie will speak to her amendments as well, and I will certainly not seek to pre-empt her arguments in my remarks, as my noble friend is much more of an expert on defence matters than I will ever be.

My Amendment 18 is a commencement block that would prevent the main clauses of the Bill coming into effect until the Government have laid a report on securing a guarantee that all non-UK and non-US civilian personnel stationed on the archipelago will benefit from the provisions of Annex 1. Annex 1 protects the UK’s unrestricted access to Diego Garcia’s sea and airspace. The treaty makes reference to some civilian activity, but we are seeking an assurance from the Government that that part of the treaty in its entirety applies to civilians stationed on Diego Garcia. I hope the Minister will be able to give us that assurance.

Amendment 67 speaks to one of the most fundamental questions, which has already been the subject of much debate. The treaty is clear that the UK must inform Mauritius of any armed attack on a third state directly emanating from the base on Diego Garcia, using the magnificent word, “expeditiously”. The dictionary definition of expeditiously is “quickly and efficiently” and “with speed”. Many have rightly asked what expeditiously means in practice. My Amendment 67 clarifies that the UK Government must not inform Mauritius of any relevant armed attacks until the attack has ended. Providing prior notification to Mauritius, or indeed any third state not directly involved in the attack, could risk the safety of British and American servicemen who are engaged in the relevant operation. Could the Minister confirm that nothing in the treaty requires the UK Government to give forewarning of any attack emanating from the military base? If that is the case then I am sure they can accept the amendment.

Additionally, my amendment seeks a requirement not to notify Mauritius if notification would endanger the security of the base. Can the Minister confirm that nothing in the treaty would prevent the Government withholding notification if notifying Mauritius would endanger the base? My noble friend Lady Goldie will be going into additional details on these important issues.

Amendment 69 in my name seeks to make a point about the location of specific equipment and installations on the base. It is essential that the security of the base is maintained. It would not be acceptable if the UK Government were to endanger the security of equipment at the military base by notifying Mauritius. In replying to the debate, can the Minister please address those concerns? It is essential that the UK Government have the right to refuse notification when doing so would endanger the base itself or our personnel.

[Baroness Goldie (Con)]

My Lords, I associate myself with the remarks of my noble friend Lord Callanan on the amendments to which he spoke. I shall be dealing with the word “expeditiously” and I will try to ensure that that characterises my contribution, and perhaps influences this debate.

I wish to speak to my Amendments 83, 85, 86 and 87. At Second Reading, I raised the issue of the mismatch between the Bill and the treaty that it implements. My main concern in this whole affair is our defence and security and the implications of this Bill on that. I identified a range of areas where greater clarity is required. Before I continue, I should say that I have received a letter from the Ministers, for which I thank them. That sought to clarify some of the questions that I asked at Second Reading. The letter brings a degree of clarification, but in other respects it leaves me with questions. I shall address these as I explain my amendments.

Amendment 83 is simply a technical drafting amendment to accommodate my remaining amendments in this group. It specifies that the commencement of the treaty cannot occur until the conditions outlined in my amendments have been satisfied.

Amendment 85 relates to the specific notification requirements under Annex 1 1(b)(viii) of the treaty. My amendment would require that Clauses 2 to 4 do not come into force until the Secretary of State has published a statement establishing that the notification in Annex 1 1(b)(viii) of the treaty does not require the consent of Mauritius in response. The provision in Annex 1 to which this refers says that:

“In accordance with this Agreement and with reference to Article 2(5) and Annex 2, in respect of Diego Garcia, Mauritius agrees the United Kingdom shall have … unrestricted access, basing and overflight … for non-United Kingdom and non-United States of America aircraft and vessels, upon notification to Mauritius”.


The amendment seeks to enable the Secretary of State to make explicit, before Clauses 2 to 4 of the Bill can come into force, that the consent of Mauritius is not required for us to host third-party forces on Diego Garcia.

As I mentioned, I have the letter from the Ministers in which they helpfully clarify that permission from Mauritius is not required. However, I require the Minister to confirm that such notification is after the event. If notification is required before the event, that implies consent is required, or that the intimation of an objection by Mauritius is possible. That is why I seek the clarification.

We cannot have a situation where Mauritius can in any way object to which forces are present at the base. The operation of the base, including the matter of the basing of our allies, must be solely at the discretion of the United Kingdom. I would appreciate the Minister giving a guarantee that Mauritius will have no control whatever over the basing and overflight of other countries’ forces. Unusually, the Minister and I are perhaps nearly at consensus in idem here. If that is the case, why would the Secretary of State be reluctant to publish a statement?

Amendment 86 is another defence and security amendment. It seeks that Clauses 2 to 4 would not come into force until the Secretary of State has published a statement establishing that the obligation under Annex 1(2) of the treaty

“does not extend to aircraft and vessels which have landed or docked at the Base for the purposes of maintenance or refuelling prior to the armed attack on a third state”.

Annex 1(2) of the treaty is the provision that requires the United Kingdom

“to expeditiously inform Mauritius of any armed attack on a third State”.

As we have discussed, much has been made of what is meant by “expeditiously”. The Ministers’ letter to me stated that they are satisfied that this does not require the UK to seek the permission of Mauritius, nor for notification to be given prior to the event. That is helpful. The International Agreements Committee of this House has also concluded that it interprets “expeditiously” to mean

“as soon as reasonably practicable in the circumstances”.

I believe that the Minister gives her interpretation in good faith, but what of Mauritius’s interpretation? Does the Minister know whether the Mauritian Government share this view? If she does not currently know, and I quite accept that she may not, I would be happy for her to write to me to confirm the point.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

My Lords, the issue of national security is clearly one of the most important concerns that have been raised about this treaty. The continued and effective operation of the military base is paramount, and Ministers must ensure that they have the powers that they need to protect the security of the base. I listened very carefully to the reassurances provided by the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, who I know has tremendous respect across the House for his commitment to defence and foreign affairs. I thank him for that.

I could raise a lot of points, but I shall not raise a number of them now because I will want to have a close look at Hansard for the reassurances that he was able to provide. I will make one point on the famous definition of the word “expeditiously”. I listened carefully, and the Minister quoted at length the opinion of the International Relations and Defence Committee, which of course was fascinating. I am not sure that he told us what the Government’s view was of the meaning of that word: as they will be applying it in practice, I think that would be more relevant. But, again, I shall look carefully at his remarks and we would welcome any further reassurances—although the Minister gave a very detailed exposition—that he can provide in writing. I am sure that my noble friend Lady Goldie, who made an excellent contribution, would also welcome any further reassurances that the Minister can provide in writing. The details of this issue are particularly important, beyond the political rhetoric that we are all involved in. This concerns one of the most fundamental aspects of our national security.

Having said all that, I seek leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 18 withdrawn.

Moved by

[Lord Callanan]

19: Clause 1, page 1, line 7, at end insert “, subject to subsection (2A).
(2A) Sections 2 to 4 of this Act come into force only when the Secretary of State has—(a) sought to undertake negotiations with the Government of Mauritius to guarantee that the application of Annex 2 will oblige (where the UK Government so requests) the Mauritian Government to take responsibility for all asylum claimants and illegal entrants in the Chagos Archipelago including Diego Garcia and accept the transfer of all claimants to Mauritian custody, and(b) laid before both Houses of Parliament a report on progress on establishing such negotiations with the Government of Mauritius and the outcome of any negotiations that have taken place.(2B) Within two months of the report being laid under paragraph (2A)(b), a Minister must table substantive motions in the House of Commons and the House of Lords on the contents of the report.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is intended to prevent the UK being responsible for asylum claims resulting from illegal entrants into the Chagos Archipelago.

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

My Lords, this amendment seeks to prevent the United Kingdom being responsible for asylum seekers and refugees arriving in the Chagos Archipelago.

In moving this amendment, it is important that I remind the Committee of the background to this issue. In October 2021, a group of Tamil speakers who were apparently seeking to travel to Canada, bizarrely, by boat, foundered in the Indian Ocean and were escorted to Diego Garcia. These were the first people to claim asylum on Diego Garcia, they were kept on the island for several years and, in October 2024, the Government confirmed plans to relocate them to the UK for their legal claims to be processed. At the time, the Government said that this was to provide the asylum seekers with “greater safety and well-being”.

On 3 December 2024, it was reported in the Guardian—and of course I always believe everything that is reported in the Guardian—that lawyers and those campaigning for the asylum seekers to be relocated called their arrival in the UK a “big day for justice”. One of those interviewed by that newspaper—and we always believe what the Guardian says—was quoted as saying:

“We cannot believe we are finally in the UK … We feel we have reached paradise”.


My amendment seeks to probe the approach that would be taken to any future arrivals on the Chagos Archipelago. Will they be handed to Mauritius, to which the Government want to hand over sovereignty, or will they be handled by the British Government under this treaty? Has the Minister’s department made an assessment of the risk of the Tamils’ arrivals being transferred to the UK, opening another front in our fight to tackle illegal immigration? I do not expect the numbers to be great—I hope that they will not be great —but we need an answer on this important subject.

I also welcome Amendments 27 and 36 in this group, tabled in the names of my noble friend Lord Lilley and the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, respectively. This is clearly something that noble Lords across the Committee are concerned about. I cannot imagine that this subject was not discussed with Mauritius during the negotiations, but I look forward to the Minister giving us some clarity on this issue and telling us whether these factors were in fact discussed with Mauritius. I beg to move.

[Baroness Hoey (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I will speak to my Amendment 36, which, as the noble Lord mentioned, relates to asylum seekers who arrive on Diego Garcia, or anywhere on the Chagos Islands. Its purpose is very simple: it ensures that, if any person fleeing danger or persecution lands on those shores, they will not be subjected to unlawful detention, denial of due process, or the kinds of conditions that a British judge has already found to be in breach of international law.

I got a very nice personal letter from a native Chagossian, saying:

“We were exiled from our islands once, but we must not watch new injustice happen on our shores again. Anyone who arrives in our homeland must be treated with dignity. No one should suffer in the Chagos as we once did … As a native islander, I insist that any asylum seeker reaching the Chagos must have their rights respected. We were once denied justice. We cannot allow injustice to happen again in our name”.


Of course, the background has already been mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Callanan—that in late 2021 more than 60 Sri Lankan Tamils were intercepted at sea and brought to Diego Garcia after their vessel was found in distress. Those individuals, many of whom intended to seek asylum in Canada, were accommodated for almost three years in a fenced compound on the island. This was not a temporary holding area; it became a long-term camp. The conditions are a matter of judicial record. The British Indian Ocean Territory Supreme Court found that the asylum seekers were effectively held in unlawful detention. The acting judge described the camp as

“a prison in all but name”

and said it was unsurprising that the individuals felt they were being punished. Evidence presented to the court documented leaking tents, rodent infestation, extreme heat, restricted movement, repeated incidents of self-harm and at least one mass suicide attempt. Some were warned that leaving the compound would expose them to the risk of being shot on security grounds. Those words are not mine—they were the court’s findings.

We also now know, again from the court’s judgment, that progress on their protection claims was impeded because of political factors, including concerns within the Home Office about the Government’s Rwanda policy. Rwanda seems to get mentioned everywhere. The effect of that delay was that these individuals were kept in a camp, in extreme conditions, for far longer than should ever have been contemplated. Most have now been brought to the United Kingdom, as has been said. I think that my noble and learned friend Lord Hermer was involved in that before he became Attorney-General. The Government described this as a one-off transfer and said that Diego Garcia would not be used again for long-term processing, but it remains the case that nothing in statute today prevents a future commissioner, Minister or Government using the islands in exactly the same way, should another vessel arrive. That is why this amendment is necessary; it gives effect to what the United Kingdom is already legally bound to do and ensures that any transfer to Mauritius or any other state happens only under an agreement that guarantees humane treatment, full rights of appeal and compliance with international law. These are not new standards; they are the minimum standards that the United Kingdom already owes to any asylum seeker, regardless of geography.

This amendment also speaks to something deeply felt by the Chagossians. The Chagossian people know what it is to be held without rights; they know what it is to have decisions made about their lives thousands of miles away; and they know what it is to be told they have no voice in decisions taken on their own islands. They have told us repeatedly that they do not want Diego Garcia, or any part of the Chagos Archipelago, to become a place where other vulnerable people suffer in silence.

There is also a simple and moral point. The only civilians permitted to remain long-term on the islands in the past decade were not the native Chagossians but asylum seekers confined in a manner that a British judge found to be unlawful. That fact alone should give the Committee pause for reflection. It was perfectly okay for asylum seekers to be on Diego Garcia but not the original Chagos people.

This amendment seeks to ensure that asylum seekers under Mauritian jurisdiction must have binding guarantees for monitoring, appeal rights, independent oversight and humanitarian standards. The Chagossian community has raised serious concerns about the treatment of vulnerable people already in Mauritius. These concerns cannot be dismissed and certainly cannot be ignored. The Government now intend that asylum seekers arriving in Chagos should be sent there.

This amendment does not oppose the transfer of asylum seekers. It does not dictate the policy of future Governments; it simply ensures that the mistakes made between 2021 and 2024 can never be repeated on British responsibility. It ensures that any person arriving on those islands is processed humanely, lawfully and with respect for their basic rights. For the Chagossians, who were themselves displaced without rights, this is not an abstract principle. It is an affirmation that the islands they still regard as home will not again be a theatre for human suffering. It is a modest and necessary amendment, which is fully consistent with our international obligations and our national values. I therefore commend it to the Committee and urge noble Lords to support it.

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

My Lords, Amendments 19 and 27 from the noble Lords, Lord Callanan and Lord Lilley, now in his place, seek to ensure that Mauritius will be responsible for any illegal migrants who may arrive at Diego Garcia. These are important amendments, and it is helpful that they have been tabled to allow us to clarify this point. I can reassure both noble Lords that the treaty already ensures Mauritian responsibility and closes a potential—as they correctly identify—illegal migration route to the UK. Mauritius, as the sovereign state and as specifically referenced under Annex 2 of the treaty, has jurisdiction over irregular migration to the Chagos Archipelago, including Diego Garcia.

To the extent that the noble Lords, Lord Callanan and Lord Lilley, through their amendments are seeking clarity on the arrangements with Mauritius to put that responsibility into practice, I can assure them that the UK Government are already in the process of agreeing with Mauritius the separate arrangements referenced in Annex 2 paragraph 10 of the treaty, to assist and facilitate in that exercise of Mauritian jurisdiction. These are ongoing negotiations on which I will not provide a running commentary; suffice to say that there will be no need to force the Government to provide a report on the negotiations.

Amendment 36 from the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, is another helpful amendment. It seeks to ensure that any arrangement entered into with Mauritius regarding migrants ensures the humane treatment, full rights of appeal and compliance with international law of any asylum seeker or refugee. It is an important amendment, and I can confirm that the Government will, of course, ensure that any arrangement we enter into will comply with applicable international law and our domestic obligations. For that reason, I think that the amendment is unnecessary, but I thank her for tabling it and allowing us to make that clear. I hope that noble Lords will not press their amendments.

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for her clarification, and to the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, for her contribution to this important debate. We know how strongly the British public feel on illegal immigration. It would have been outrageous if we handed over the territory yet retained responsibility for dealing with any illegal immigration.

I will look carefully at the words that the Minister used in her response in Hansard, but it seems as though she has provided the reassurances we are seeking that no illegal arrivals in the Chagos Archipelago will be able to make a claim in the UK for asylum now that sovereignty has been handed over. She used the famous government expression “I am not going to provide a running commentary”, which often means “I am not going to say”. Nobody is asking her to provide a running commentary; we just wanted a clarification on the issues or any outcome of the discussions. If there is a resolution to the discussions before we get to Report, I hope she will update us in writing. Apart from that, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 19 withdrawn.

Diego Garcia Military Base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill

Lord Callanan Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 25th November 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hannan of Kingsclere (Con)]

My Lords, I support the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Morrow. I thank the Ministers for the patience and courtesy that they have displayed all evening. The two Ministers and the Whip know that they are among my favourite Peers, not just my favourite Government Front-Benchers, and they have been very patient and good-humoured.

I take issue with the idea that this is a done deal. That is an argument that has run through a lot of the debates and this seems to be the apt amendment on which to take it on. We have been told repeatedly—including by the noble Baroness, Lady Chapman, last week, and again just before dinner by the noble Lord, Lord Kerr of Kinlochard—that the treaty has been signed and been passed by the CRaG process and that therefore all this is, as it were, dancing after the music, and we would be exposing ourselves to a much more dangerous situation if we now try to hold it up.

I ask the Committee to ponder the possibility that the CRaG process has not in fact been a full democratic exercise. There has been no vote. Everything was rushed through from Second Reading in one day—there was no Report stage. I have never been a Member of the other place, unlike some of your Lordships present, but, as I understand it, you have a vote in the CRaG process by moving an amendment or a resolution and then voting for it. Looking online, I see that there is such an amendment, standing in the name of my right honourable friend the Leader of the Opposition and others, signed by 107 Members of the other place, from six political parties. I concede that that is not nearly as big a deal as it would have been a decade ago—there has been something of a splintering of parties. As yet, there has been no vote on it.

I mention this because the idea that therefore we have no option except to tweak statements at the margin and polish the edges of this, and cannot look for substantive changes, is fundamentally at odds with what was promised when the CRaG process was brought in. If the treaty was rushed through without debate in another place, surely the only proper scrutiny and the only proper chance of amendment is in this Chamber. Therefore, I hope that noble Lords on all sides will feel uninhibited when it comes to moving and, in due course, voting on substantive amendments. This is the one realistic opportunity that we have to make the points that would be made by the people from the Chagos Islands watching us now if they had a voice in our counsels.

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Hannan, reminds us, this amendment gets to the core of the criticisms that have been levelled against the Government’s approach to this Bill so far. As my noble friend Lord Lilley pointed out numerous times during the debates on the first day in Committee, it is very difficult to see which court could have delivered a binding judgment against the UK on the question of sovereignty over the Chagos Archipelago. Yet it is the repeated contention of the Government that this treaty is somehow essential to deliver legal certainty.

The question remains of which court could have delivered a binding judgment that would have threatened that legal certainty and the security of the military base. I hope that the Government can finally provide us with an answer. If they cannot answer that question then the argument that this treaty and this Bill were both necessary falls apart. Indeed, the argument that the treaty and the Bill are needed urgently also falls apart, and we should consider whether the Government should take a more circumspect approach. That is what the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Morrow, suggests.

If this treaty is necessary, Ministers must surely have considered other options before coming to this agreement with Mauritius. Perhaps the Minister can tell the Committee what consideration was given to resettlement of the Chagos Archipelago by Chagossians, for example. What would the cost have been for that? What is the difference between that cost figure and the true cost associated with this treaty? I say “true cost” because the Government’s initial claims on costs have now been thoroughly discredited.

There were lots of options that should have been considered, so perhaps the noble Baroness can tell us what options were in fact considered. I understand that these are specific questions about the process followed by Ministers before agreeing to the treaty with Mauritius, so if the noble Baroness cannot say with certainty what potential approaches were considered, perhaps she could write to us to confirm the details.

[The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Baroness Chapman of Darlington) (Lab)]

In relation to Amendment 20J, the House has dedicated at least 15 hours to debating the Government’s rationale for entering this treaty. It has been subject to two reports, by the International Agreements Committee and the International Relations and Defence Committee. Three separate committees—the IAC, the IRDC and the Foreign Affairs Committee—have held evidence sessions and questioned the Minister for the Overseas Territories.

The Government have been consistently clear throughout. The legal case was compelling and there was no credible alternative. A policy of hanging tough, which I assume the noble Lord has in mind, would have been a real gift to our adversaries. As we have stated on numerous occasions, the continued operation of the base was under threat. Courts were already making decisions which undermined our position. If a long-term deal had not been reached, further wide-ranging litigation was likely, with no realistic prospect of the UK successfully defending its legal position on sovereignty in such cases.

Legally binding provisional measures from the courts could have come within weeks, affecting, for example, our ability to patrol the waters around Diego Garcia. Both the IRDC and the IAC recognise that the treaty provides legal certainty for the base. I hope the noble Lord will withdraw his amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Hoey (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I will say a few words in support of the noble Lord’s amendment, which seems really sensible: we should not have been paying to give away British territory without a full and proper assessment of who was going to take it over. This all boils down to whether we trust Mauritius. My feeling is that, while I have probably a great deal of respect for Mauritian people, I am not sure that the Government of Mauritius is one that we would genuinely want to trust in the way that this whole treaty is doing.

I also detect a feeling among the Government and perhaps Whips that, really, we are all wasting our time here: “What on earth are we doing spending all this time?” As the noble Lord, Lord Hannan, said, we have seen how little time was spent on this and how quickly it came through once the election was over and the new Government were in place. Suddenly, this all was happening. That is why it is important that, even if there are very few people here, we consider all these issues. In the long term, this will all be recorded. There will be a time in the future when many people look back and say, “Oh, perhaps we should have considered that more when it came”.

I do not believe that Mauritius has treated Chagossians who live in Mauritius very well. Yes, there are a few who have done obviously very well and are now out cajoling and saying how wonderful it is that Mauritius is going to take over the islands, but the reality is that they have not been treated well. You need to just talk to any of the Chagossians who are here to discover what has been going on. That was when there was some kind of input from our Government; what on earth is going to happen when the British Government no longer have any say in what is happening in Mauritius?

We need a proper, detailed assessment of the ability of the Government in Mauritius to not just look after the welfare of Chagossians who are there, and in the future, but to look after the whole archipelago and obey the terms of the treaty. The treaty may not be tough enough, but, at the very least, we want to make sure that, if there is one, they carry through their side of it. I just have a real feeling that, once this is all signed and sealed, so many people will forget about what has happened and the Mauritian Government will have an easy time doing anything they want, and mostly not doing things that they should be doing to preserve those wonderful islands and the people who should be allowed to go back there. So I support this amendment.

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Morrow, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, for their contributions on the noble Lord’s Amendment 20K, which, much like his Amendment 20J in the previous group, asks a specific question of the Government, which I think gets to the heart of the process that was apparently followed by Ministers in reaching agreement on the terms of the treaty.

Clearly, Ministers will have had to consider other issues beyond the claim, which we have debated at length, that the sovereignty of the archipelago was somehow threatened by a binding legal judgment. The long-term security and effective management of the archipelago will, if the Government get their way, be delivered by the Government of Mauritius. We surely cannot have decided to pass that responsibility over to the Mauritian Government without first assessing their ability to manage the islands that we are, well, not giving them but paying them to take. Would the Minister consider publishing the details of the Government’s assessment of Mauritius’s ability to manage and protect the islands effectively?

In an earlier group, we debated Mauritius’s responsibility for illegal migrants arriving on the islands, but this is just one of the relevant administrative questions that should have been considered by Ministers before an agreement was reached with the Mauritian Government. For example, was the fact that Mauritius does not even have a navy considered a relevant fact when the UK Government formed a view of the Mauritian Government’s ability to manage the islands?

The Mauritian National Coast Guard consists of one offshore patrol vessel, two midshore patrol vessels and 10 fast interceptor boats. As has been said repeatedly, the Chagos Archipelago is approximately 1,250 miles away from Mauritius. Do the UK Government feel that Mauritius’s coastguard is adequately equipped to deal with the challenges it will face as a result of this treaty? Can the Minister confirm whether her department have had any discussions whatever with the Mauritians about increasing their coastguard’s resources in light of their responsibility for the archipelago? If they even had a boat that could reach the distance, that would be a step forward. Will this be monitored by the UK Government on an ongoing basis and raised appropriately through the joint commission, or will we just say that we have handed the islands over and it is now the Mauritians’ responsibility, when we know from all available evidence that they have no capacity whatever to do any of that management?

The Mauritian coastguard’s role is not only important for the Mauritian Government’s access to and administration of the islands. The coastguard will, presumably, play a role in establishing and maintaining the marine protected area that the Minister has told us at great length that they are establishing. What discussions have Ministers had with their Mauritian counterparts to fully understand their plans to protect this important marine protected area? It does not have any boats that can even reach the islands, never mind protect the islands from any access by foreign vessels. Can the Minister confirm whether the UK Government are satisfied that the Mauritian Government have or are about to acquire the capabilities needed to maintain the protected area? When this was debated on the previous day of Committee, the Minister said:

“The MPA will be for the Mauritian Government to implement”.—[Official Report, 18/11/25; col. 801.]


I am sure it will, but have we not given any thought whatever to their ability to implement that?

We understand that this would be the responsibility of the Mauritian Government if the Bill goes through, but does the Minister think that there is any responsibility whatever for the UK Government to ensure that those nations with whom we make agreements are able to practically fulfil their obligations before we then sign a treaty? It is essential that we should have some clarity on this process that Ministers have followed in establishing that Mauritius has not just committed to the terms of the treaty but is in a position to be able to honour the terms of the treaty if and when it finally comes into force. I look forward to the Minister’s response.

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

My Lords, Amendment 20K, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Morrow, seeks to oblige the Government to publish a report on the ability of Mauritius to govern the Chagos Archipelago and on the implications of the treaty for international peace and stability. The IRDC concluded that the treaty gave the UK legal clarity on which it could capitalise to enhance defence co-operation and that it was a platform for reinforcing operational links with key regional partners, allowing the UK to position itself as a credible contributor to regional stability grounded in the rule of law. Under the treaty, the UK retains full operational control over Diego Garcia. There are robust provisions in place to protect the security of the base. The treaty is the best way to ensure the continued operation of the joint UK-US base and therefore to protect international peace and security. I hope that the noble Lord will withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

The Minister has not even attempted to address any of the questions that we have asked.

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

I am very happy if the noble Lord would like to ask me a specific question that I have not already answered in previous groups. Would the noble Lord like to do that?

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

Will the Minister comment on the ability of the Mauritian coastguard actually to enforce the marine protected area, for instance?

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

I suggest that the noble Lord looks at the ways in which marine protected areas are generally enforced. It is not, as he seems to imagine, by patrolling in vessels around the ocean, checking on things. That is not how these things work. But I will gladly send him some information about that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Lilley (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful for the opportunity also to speak to my Amendments 20U and 20Q. Amendment 20U would provide that the Bill shall not come into force until the Secretary of State has published

“a report on how the Treaty may increase any political or legal risks”—

that is what we have been told underlie it—

“related to … reliance on third countries required to service the base … risks of litigation from Mauritius regarding the base in Diego Garcia in the International Court of Justice”—

and I hope this will include some explanation of the Government’s reactions to the Mauritian declarations of 23 September 1968 which, as I understand it, mirrored our determination that the ICJ should not have jurisdiction on disputes between previous and current Commonwealth states and ourselves; Mauritius likewise said that any such disputes should be settled reciprocally. Finally, the report should include the

“risks of litigation in an arbitral tribunal under Annex VII of UN Convention on the Law of the Sea”.

The Minister said a little while ago that we spent many hours discussing the reasons or rationale behind the decision to cede sovereignty. In fact, we have spent many hours dragging out from the Government an explanation of their decision to do so. It is pretty clear that the decision came first, and their justification has been cobbled together in response to each successive challenge that has been put forward to it. The more it has been challenged, the more tenuous the rationale has become. It has been spread out like an elastic band and has become thinner and more transparent. It is very clear that, if we keep on this process, it will eventually break and then the Government will be without any rationale at all.

The Government first suggested that the ICJ decision was purely advisory but Mauritius might come back and somehow get a definitive ruling out of the ICJ. However, that was then abandoned because, of course, we had the specific opt-out when we signed up to the ICJ that it would not be able to consider disputes between ourselves and present or previous Commonwealth countries. One thing has puzzled me. Looking back through the record, I have never seen Ministers refer in words to that opt-out. They have tacitly acknowledged it, because they move on to talking about the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. Likewise, when we have heard from the great mandarins of the Foreign Office, none of them has ever explicitly let past their lips—if I have read the transcript correctly—the existence of this opt-out. That is a great mystery. When people do not say something, one wants to know why, particularly when they tacitly admit it.

Oh dear, I hope I have not caused the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, to leave in disgust. We were hoping he would be able to break this omertà that has forbidden him and his colleagues ever to mention this.

My suspicion—of course it is no more than a suspicion, and the person who could have set that right has left the Chamber—is that the Permanent Secretaries in the Foreign Office and the other mandarins who have spoken in defence of the Government on this never actually told Ministers about this opt-out and they do not like to admit that. Ministers do not like to admit that they did not know about it, because that looks pretty difficult. Maybe in the course of debate we will find that that is an unworthy consideration and they were told explicitly at the beginning there was no possibility of the ICJ reaching a binding judgment on the sovereignty of the Chagos. They tacitly accept that is the case and move on to the possibility of a judgment coming from the tribunal set up under the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea.

My amendment would force the Government to be more explicit about that. What precedents are there for this tribunal ruling on sovereignty? The noble Baroness said that she thought it was very unlikely— I think that was her phrase—that the tribunal would directly rule on sovereignty. I think she is more than right on that, because there are no precedents I can find for it ruling on sovereignty. But then she said that it might rule on other things and sort of assume sovereignty. I would like some examples of that sort of thing happening, if it is a sufficiently big risk for us to be doing this nefarious deed of ceding sovereignty over the Chagos Islands. We have not had that up to now.

The tenuous justification moves on to say that there may be a ruling that would somehow assume sovereignty, but what negative effects would that have? It would apparently put the base at risk, because of its reliance on being supplied from other countries. From which other countries is the Diego Garcia base supplied, and in what way, and how would that be put at risk? Is it supplied from Aden? Would the Suez Canal be closed to British shipping if it was thought to be supplying the base? Would we get labour from mainland Africa to help run the base? Would the Philippines refuse to send Filipino workers to help run the base? When we are given such a tenuous reason, at the end of a long chain of tenuous arguments, we need some substance to it. This amendment would require the Government to give that.

Amendment 20Q would provide that the Bill would come into force only

“when the Secretary of State has published a report into the governance of the Chagos Archipelago under the Treaty, including local administration and democracy”.

The Minister has said that there was never any settled population in the Chagos Islands, nor any system of local administration. I am sure that was said in good faith, and I can well understand that the detailed history of the Chagos Archipelago is not something most of us have studied, but a letter has now been sent to the Minister, and to the committee that has been asked to consult with the Chagossians, pointing out that, in the absence of the British, who sort of came and went, the inhabitants of the Chagos Islands elected a chief to help with the governance and local administration of the islands. Therefore, the settled inhabitants did have a local administration in the past, and we want to know what is going to replace it in future.

We know that Mauritius, while it has no obligation to, will be able to resettle the islands. It may, of course, settle them with Mauritians, not Chagossians. Either way, what system of administration will there be, and will it be democratic or autocratic? I think we should know. My Amendment 20Q would require the Government to spell that out, and to acknowledge and accept that it was a mistake to say that there has never been any system of local administration, when clearly there has.

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Hannan of Kingsclere for leading this debate. He set out a very strong argument for his amendments in this group, as did my noble friend Lord Lilley and the noble Lord, Lord McCrea of Magherafelt and Cookstown.

Amendment 20L, in the name of my noble friend Lord Hannan, is a very helpful amendment in Committee, as it affords the Committee the opportunity to debate the impact of the Government’s decision on the Chagos Archipelago on other overseas territories. While I accept that there are, of course, legal arguments here, we believe that they should be explored fully. I want to focus on the impact of the UK Government’s treatment of the Chagossians, and on our reputation among other overseas territories, which look to the UK for steadfast support and security. How do residents, and descendants of the residents, of other overseas territories feel now that the Government have caved in to pressure from their international lawyer friends on the question of the Chagos Islands?

As my noble friend Lord Hannan observed, the British Indian Ocean Territory is not the only overseas territory subject to legal claims by foreign states. Does the Minister accept that the behaviour of our Government on this issue will have ramifications for the level of trust in the UK held by residents of other overseas territories? We should be standing up for our overseas territories and protecting those who live on them, not caving in to activist international lawyers. In my view, it really is that simple. Can the Minister confirm that the UK Government are not considering ceding sovereignty over any other British Overseas Territories? Will she rule out such a move in future? We want residents of the overseas territories to feel secure, and I hope that the Minister’s words in response to this group will help to give them that security.

--- Later in debate ---

Finally, given the commitment of the British people to fair play and their predisposition to support the weaker party, what assessment have the Government made of the potential impact of such a development on British public opinion?

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Morrow, for his Amendment 81 that he has just talked about, which rightly puts the focus of our debate on the citizens of the Chagos Islands, the Chagossian community themselves. It has so far been a disappointing aspect of this Committee to hear the Government dismiss the rights of the Chagossian community. Throughout the process of agreeing the treaty, it is clear that the Chagossians have not been properly consulted. In fact, the Government’s official view—I think the noble Baroness has repeated it again this evening—is that there is no relevant claim of self-determination in respect of the Chagos Archipelago.

I also welcome Amendment 50B in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey. The resettlement of the Chagos Islands under the treaty is an option, not a requirement, and it is increasingly clear that it is possible that the Mauritians will simply ignore it and not take any steps whatever to achieve resettlement of the Chagossians.

The amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, would certainly help put pressure on the UK Government and, in turn, the Mauritian Government to use the provisions of the treaty in respect of resettlement and allow those Chagossians who wish to to return to the outer islands.

On a separate but related note, I am of course pleased that the International Relations and Defence Committee has launched its relatively short piece of work to finally hear the views of the Chagossian community, but I think there are some serious procedural flaws in its survey. There seems to be no control of who can submit views: I am sure the relevant Chinese bots are already on the subject of submitting the survey forms, and there are already concerning reports of Mauritian government officials actually filling in the forms on behalf of Chagossians in Mauritius. But, when the results are in and we have the report of the committee, I hope the Minister will commit to considering it carefully before we proceed to the next stage of the Bill.

We obviously understand that there may be limited time between the committee’s publication of its report and Report stage, so the Government may not have the time to consider and table their own amendments to reflect the views of the Chagossian community as expressed in the—valid, hopefully—responses to the committee. Should that be the case, we would ask the Government to engage constructively with others in this House on amendments before Report so that we can put the needs and welfare of the Chagossian community front and centre as we progress with the Bill. I hope that the Minister will be able to give that assurance today.

As the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Morrow, seeks to do, we need to step up and support the Chagossian community, who have been mistreated for far too long.

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

My Lords, Amendment 20M, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Hannan, requests that the treaty does not come into force until the publication of

“a report assessing the impact of Article 6 of the Treaty”.

As I and other Ministers have said on numerous occasions, it will be for Mauritius to establish a programme of resettlement once the treaty enters into force. It is not sensible, or a good use of taxpayers’ money, to be reporting on something that will not be in our gift to achieve.

The Government are increasing our support to Chagossians living in the UK through new and existing projects. These include Chagossian-led community projects in Crawley and elsewhere, education and English language support, and have involved the creation of a number of FCDO-funded full-time jobs for Chagossians.

Amendment 81, from the noble Lord, Lord Morrow, requests a report of the forecast impact of the treaty on Chagossians. The Government have already released the public sector equality duty report relating to the treaty, which addresses all the issues around an equalities impact assessment. This, in addition to the IRDC’s current review, should support understanding of the impacts to the Chagossian community.

I understand, respect and appreciate the noble Lord’s support for the Chagossian community, but I must also speak to the many different views within the Chagossian community, including several groups that welcome the deal. I think that this will perhaps be surfaced as a result of the work that the IRDC is doing, and I obviously commit to reflecting on it as the Bill proceeds.

Amendment 50B, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, seeks to recognise in the domestic law of the UK that the Chagossians are the indigenous people of the Chagos Archipelago. I hear absolutely what she says about lived memory and the persuasive way that she puts that across. But the unfortunate fact—and I think it is unfortunate—is that both the English courts and the European Court of Human Rights have considered in a series of judgments since the 1970s the related questions of a claimed right of abode or other rights said to flow from the rights that she seeks to gain for the Chagossians through her amendment. On each occasion, the English courts and the European Court of Human Rights have ultimately dismissed the claims.

Had that not been the case—the noble Baroness clearly wishes that that had not been the case; it is her strongly held view and I can see why she feels so—the Government would perhaps have had to take a very different course, because the rights would have held a different weight in law. However, the situation is that history has taken us to a position where, much as we do not like it and it goes against some of the things that we feel and what we may even argue is the moral case, the legal situation is, I am afraid, as it is.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Goldie (Con)]

My Lords, I did not expect to participate in this, but I was having a conversation earlier with my noble friend Lord Minto, who is very knowledgeable about corporate finance. He posed the question: is there anything in this whole arrangement that would stop Mauritius capitalising on the revenue stream that they have coming to them and selling that off to someone else?

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

I am sorry that my noble friend Lord Kempsell is not here to move his amendment, which I thought was a particularly good one.

We debated some of the financial aspects of the treaty on the first day in Committee. The Minister at that time asked to delay her remarks on those amendments to the appropriate group. I assume this is the group that she was referring to, so we all look forward to the fuller answer on the finances that she promised then.

The core contention of the Government is that the deal costs an average of £101 million a year and the present net value of payments under the treaty is therefore £3.4 billion. This has been challenged by my noble friends Lady Noakes and Lord Altrincham, but the Minister, rather than engaging in the substance of those challenges, has relied on the Government’s published figures and refused to explain why she believes those figures accurately reflect the cost of the deal.

The Minister has relied on the approval of the Government Actuary’s Department and simply argued that consistency was essential. These are typical deflections that, no doubt, many Ministers have used in previous cases, but they do not address the concerns of my noble friends. We know that the payments are front-loaded at £165 million for the first three years, and then £120 million for the next 10 years. After that point, it is index-linked. As my noble friend Lady Noakes set out at Second Reading, that will see the cash payments hitting more than £650 million a year by the end of the 99 years, depending, of course, on what indexation you use. With all those additional considerations, it is our contention that the true cost of the deal is not £3.4 billion, as claimed by Ministers, but something more like £35 billion.

So the question lands: why would the Government seek to play this down? If they are so delighted with the deal—if it is such a good deal for the British public that they keep claiming that they deliver for, as all government policies should surely be—then surely they would want to be open about the true cost of things. They brag about spending on every other area; they take every amount of money per year, cumulatively add it all up and then put it in a press release and brag to the British people about what a great amount they are spending in every area except for this one. Does the Minister think it is better that the country should know the full costings before the treaty comes into effect, or would she prefer that the UK tie itself into these vast annual payments first, before admitting what the true cost of the deal actually is?

We are clear that the British people deserve to know what their Government are signing up for. Ministers should engage with the detailed costings laid out by my noble friends Lady Noakes and Lord Altrincham, and the points made by my noble friend Lord Lilley, rather than hiding behind their pre-prepared lines. If they have nothing to hide, what is wrong with producing a report that we can all see and study and get checked by independent financial experts? Once Ministers have admitted the true cost of the deal, then they can start justifying the so-called benefits of the treaty against what the true cost actually is. I do not think that people would be impressed by arguments justifying that figure, but Ministers should do the decent thing and justify the real numbers openly and in public.

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

Noble Lords will recall that we debated the financial elements of the treaty in some detail last week, and I genuinely do not think that further debate is going to persuade anybody of anything this evening and probably is not a good use of time at this stage. However, I respect that the noble Lords, Lord Lilley and Lord Kempsell, who was not here to speak to his amendment, have tabled further amendments, so I am happy to put their minds at rest about the matter to the best of my ability this evening.

Noble Lords already know that the Government published full details of the financial payment on the day that the treaty was signed. These details are in the finance exchange of letters, which is included in the treaty in the version laid in the House and published on the government website. The details are also set out in the accompanying Explanatory Memorandum, which was also laid before the House and published on the government website. It is plain to see how much the treaty is costing. The breakdown on page 10 of the Explanatory Memorandum is particularly straightforward for anyone who might desire further information about what will be paid in each year of the treaty. Indeed, the clarity with which the information was presented by the Government was welcomed by the Office for Statistics Regulation, which confirmed that it was consistent with the principles of intelligent transparency.

Therefore, there is no requirement for any additional report on the financial costs, either before the Bill comes into force, as the noble Lord, Lord Lilley, proposes, or before each payment, as is suggested in the other amendment.

The quid pro quo I was asked about is that we get a unique military asset shared with our closest ally on a legally secure basis. The noble Lord, Lord Callanan, asks why I rely on government figures and the answer is because I am representing the Government. With that, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Earl of Leicester (Con)]

I want to add to my noble friend’s words. I will not read the whole letter, but this is a copy of the letter to the Minister from the Chagossian people. They write that the Minister’s words

“cut deeply. They erase our history, our dignity, and the truth of who we are. They echo the very language used to justify our people’s deportation between 1968 and 1973. And they are demonstrably false … For more than a century before our exile, the Chagos Islands were home to a multigenerational, settled population. This is not our opinion. It is documented in church registers of births, marriages, and burials across Peros Banhos, Salomon and Diego Garcia; colonial-era records describing communities with homes, chapels, gardens and workplaces; judgments of the UK High Court in the Bancoult cases; the International Court of Justice; United Nations resolutions; academic research stretching across decades. We were not transient workers. We were a Creole-speaking people, rooted in our islands, with our own traditions, our own culture, and our own community life. To say that our homeland had ‘no permanent population’ is simply untrue … You also stated the islands had ‘never been self-governing’. Chagossians have never claimed to have operated a Westminster-style system. But for generations, in the long absence of resident British administrators, our islands were organised and cared for by local leaders from within our own community”.

This has been confirmed in academic work. Misley Mandarin, who lives here in London now with his family, finishes,

“We ask you not for sympathy, but for recognition. Not for pity, but for accuracy. Not for charity, but for truth. We deserve self-determination. We want to stay British and return to our islands as British citizens”.

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

My Lords, Amendments 20T and 81K, in the name of my noble friend Lord Lilley, seek to achieve a similar objective to Amendments 80 and 82. Given the similarity of the two pairs of amendments, I was slightly surprised to see the noble Lord, Lord Purvis of Tweed, degroup his amendments. We could have had a very satisfactory debate with the original grouping, but of course I fully respect the noble Lord’s right to degroup his amendments. I am slightly surprised, because he criticised me for doing something similar last week, but it is, of course, only right that noble Lords should be able to debate their amendments in the groupings that most suit them.

I am pleased that my noble friend Lord Lilley has the right to self-determination, as confirmed by a referendum of the Chagossians, in his amendment. This is an important point that I am sure many noble Lords will agree with.

Amendment 20T would also delay the implementation of the key parts of this Bill until some progress has been made on establishing the joint parliamentary commission. It seems to me that too many core parts of the treaty are not tied to deadlines or quantifiable outcomes. As a result, it would be hard to monitor whether Mauritius, and indeed the UK, are fulfilling their obligations under the treaty in a timely manner. My noble friend Lord Lilley’s amendment helpfully ties the joint parliamentary commission to the coming into effect of the Act, forcing Ministers and their Mauritian counterparts to get on with the job so that the commission can play an important role from the very beginning of the treaty’s effect. It is a very sensible proposal.

I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response on whether the Government will agree that establishing a joint parliamentary commission would be a useful tool going forward.

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

My Lords, as the noble Lord opposite has indicated, it is slightly surprising that the four amendments on establishing a joint UK-Mauritius parliamentary commission or committee have been degrouped. Members are well within their rights to do this and I am glad at least that this time noble Lords have had sufficient notice of what is happening.

I am sensitive to the sentiment of these amendments. I take them to come from a genuine desire for greater parliamentary involvement in the scrutiny of the implementation of the treaty on specific areas that are of concern to the Committee. The Government have always said that they welcome scrutiny, and this remains the case. We are not opposed to the strengthening of links between the UK Parliament and that of Mauritius, although this would be a somewhat novel approach. I think it seems pretty likely that the noble Lord, Lord Lilley, took inspiration from the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, on this occasion.

There is a question of proportionality and the proper extent of the remit of such a parliamentary commission. Out of respect for the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, I propose to discuss this in much more detail when we reach the debate on Amendment 80, which he has tabled. I hope that is acceptable to the noble Lord. I will be very happy to meet with him and other noble Lords to discuss this proposal, and specifically the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, in more detail. I hope that, with that, the noble Lord will withdraw his amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

My Lords, the amendments in this group relate to issues around the ceding of sovereignty over the Chagos Archipelago to Mauritius. I asked a question on the previous day of Committee about the drafting of this Bill and why it does not mention Mauritius. I wonder whether the Minister has had time to think about that and will be able to give your Lordships’ Committee an answer today. As I mentioned then, there are some previous examples of similar legislation that actually named the state that is gaining sovereignty, so I am keen to know why the precedent was not followed in this case.

My Amendment 33 simply seeks to remove two unnecessary subsections from the Bill. If we remove Clause 3(1) and (2), as my amendment would, we will be left with the simple statement that

“His Majesty has under his prerogative the like powers to make laws for Diego Garcia as His Majesty had before commencement for the British Indian Ocean Territory”.

With that simple statement, the Bill would assert His Majesty’s powers sufficiently and he could use those powers to ensure the continuity of law from the British Indian Ocean Territory to Diego Garcia. Given that these powers are under the prerogative, we cannot understand why a statutory provision is necessary to ensure the continuity of law following the ceding of sovereignty.

Furthermore, if the Bill passes in its current drafting and a future Parliament were to repeal this clause, what would the effect be on His Majesty’s prerogative powers? I understand that the Government’s intention is not to undermine the prerogative with the Bill—that is clear from Clause 5(4)—but why have they not included an identical provision in Clause 3? If the Government are merely confirming His Majesty’s prerogative powers, should the drafting not be simpler, so as not to risk limiting the prerogative?

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

In response to the desire of the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, that we are clearer in the Bill about what it does, I have read it a couple of times and honestly do not think that it could not be any clearer. It is a Bill to enact an agreement between the United Kingdom and the Republic of Mauritius concerning the Chagos Archipelago. I think that is sufficient, and if he does not, I am not sure what he is getting at.

The Government rejects Amendment 33 on the basis that the provision in question is not redundant. It is needed to ensure the secure and effective operation of the base. It ensures clarity on which law will apply through the jurisdiction that the UK will exercise under the treaty. Legal continuity and certainty for operations on the base once the British Indian Ocean Territory is dissolved is far from unnecessary.

Let me explain why we have Clause 3. This clause saves the law of BIOT, and law which relates to BIOT, as the law of Diego Garcia and law which relates to Diego Garcia. This has been done as the default, to ensure the continued effective running of the base on Diego Garcia and to make sure that there is no legal gap. Detailed work is being carried out to establish where technical amendments may be needed to this preserved law to reflect the new status of Diego Garcia. Diego Garcia is defined in Clause 3 as the whole area that the UK can exercise jurisdiction over, as covered in the treaty. This includes the island of Diego Garcia and the 12 nautical miles surrounding it. Preserving the existing prerogative power to legislate for Diego Garcia means that we can continue to operate the base and its legal architecture in much the same way that we do today, and it gives the maximum flexibility for the future.

Amendment 51, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, seems to be based on a misapprehension. As I mentioned in my response to the amendments related to Clause 3, His Majesty has a prerogative power to legislate for BIOT at present and Clause 3 preserves this power. It does not allow him to make laws for other parts of the realm about BIOT or Diego Garcia. If the noble Lord reads that clause of the Bill again, he will see that I am right about that.

The statutory power in Clause 5 is necessary to enable amendments to Acts and statutory instruments which form part of the law of Diego Garcia and amendments to legislation which forms part of the law of other jurisdictions—the UK Crown dependencies and the other OTs. These other jurisdictions have laws which refer to BIOT or treat it as one of the overseas territories. Amendments to those laws may be necessary to reflect the new status of Diego Garcia.

I see that the noble Lord, Lord Lansley—as is becoming classic in his contributions on these occasions—has read the report from the DPRRC. His Amendments 51A, 51B and 51C appear to seek to implement its recommendations. Amendment 51BA, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Lilley, appears to be less consistent with the recommendations—I think he has recognised that in his remarks—in that it would impose the affirmative procedure in respect not just of Orders in Council, which amend primary legislation, but of those which amend secondary legislation. Without showing too much leg so late at night, we are still considering these suggestions and we will return to them on Report. With that, I hope noble Lords will not press their amendments.

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, and others who contributed to this group. I am grateful to the noble Baroness for her reply to my amendments. I appreciate that they are technical and relate to the prerogative, but they are important none the less.

In essence, we seek to understand whether the Government believe that Clauses 3 and 5 will limit the prerogative in any way because as we see from the drafting of the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010, which we discussed earlier, this has effectively ended the Government’s adherence to the original Ponsonby rule. Statute is so often deficient when compared with convention. As in the case of the prerogative, statute should not limit the prerogative without very careful consideration.

I am grateful to the Minister for her reply. Given the complexity of these issues, I hope she will write to us to set out the impact of the Bill on the prerogative before we proceed to Report. In the meantime, I will, of course, study her reply in Hansard. Obviously, we reserve the right to return to any unresolved issues on Report.

Clause 2 agreed.

--- Later in debate ---

There is an amazing lack of self-awareness on the part of this Government. So ideologically wedded are they to their perception of past colonial wrongs that they do not see how the Bill looks to the British voter. They are spending millions on this deal, giving these millions to Mauritius, a country with a hugely corrupt governing class, while at home, tomorrow, the Chancellor is going to raise taxes on hundreds of thousands of British voters.

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, for moving this amendment, my noble friend Lord Hannan for his excellent speech and my noble friend Lord Leicester, who also made some very good points.

Amendment 47, from the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, gets to the core of a problem that the Government have so far avoided. When we originally considered passing a Motion requiring the Government to consult the Chagossians, which the Government were totally against, Ministers resisted it, not only because they felt that a consultation might be subject to judicial review but because the challenge of defining the Chagossian community presented challenges.

We have heard throughout our debates on the treaty that the UK Government have mistreated the Chagossians, not least through their forced removal from the Chagos Archipelago. The Government have gone some way to recognising this through the establishment of the trust fund. Does the Minister consider the creation of the trust fund for the Chagossians as the end of the matter, or will her department continue to look at further ways to support the displaced Chagossian community?

This amendment would require the Secretary of State to produce a report projecting the population growth of the Chagossian people over the next 30 years and to assess the implications of the outcome of the report for recognition of their identity. If we are to properly support the Chagossian community, as we believe we should, it is important that the UK Government make a proper effort to understand the community, its growth over time and where Chagossians have chosen to live. Will the Minister take this on board and look closely at ways in which the UK Government can improve their understanding of the Chagossian community? I look forward to hearing her response.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

No, the case that the noble Lord was making passionately was about the faults in the CRaG process, and I agree with him about that. It is just that if he had not had his view, with his noble friends, in 2021, we would have had the enhanced processes for treaty scrutiny.

However, we are we are because the current Government were supportive of changing the CRaG process for up-down votes on treaties, and now they are against. The Opposition, who had been against then, are now in favour of it. It probably has to do with whoever is sitting on the government side of the House, rather than the opposition side, but we are where we are now. The issue is how we go forward, to some extent. That is not denying that there is still Report stage, and there will still be divisions potentially, but I wanted to flag at this stage, in Committee, the proposal to try to address some of the major concerns.

Before briefly addressing that specific part of the amendment, I want to put something on record, as there have been quite a few allusions today to the notion that the negotiations on this treaty were halted by the previous Administration. In a letter to the Foreign Affairs Committee from the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Chipping Norton, on 5 April 2024—just seven weeks before the Dissolution of Parliament—he reaffirmed that negotiations were ongoing and that questions on the future administration of the islands were subject to the ongoing bilateral negotiations between the UK and Mauritius. He also said in the letter:

“We will continue to update Chagossians as negotiations progress”.


The negotiations were ongoing at the time of the election. It is worth stating that on the record, because there has been quite a bit of misleading information today. It is interesting that the Foreign Affairs Committee had been making the case since 2008 for a strong moral case for resettlement. That was denied again in the letter from the Foreign Secretary in April 2024.

We have a moral duty to try to ensure that, whatever circumstances arise from the parliamentary proceedings, we have a mechanism by which we allow the Chagossian community to be represented. Through Amendment 80, my proposal is for an inter-parliamentary committee, with MPs from the Republic of Mauritius and MPs from the UK forming a committee for the duration of the treaty. We know, and I agree with much of what has been said today, that trust is low to non-existent among many in the Chagossian community and suspicion is very high. I acknowledge all of that. A means by which that can perhaps be addressed as the treaty is implemented, if it is brought into force, is one where UK and Mauritian parliamentarians, through dialogue, debate and mutual understanding, can observe and scrutinise their respective Executives. Back in their Parliaments, they can scrutinise how the treaty is operating, the implementation of the treaty, whether rights of return are being implemented, the right to self-determination as understood in customary international law, and access to compensation, resettlement and other forms of support.

The commission in the treaty is executive but this would add a parliamentary oversight function, which I believe would be of value. I hope that the amendment will receive cross-party support. I am open to discussing its particular wording, but I hope that the principle will receive support. We owe a moral duty to that community for ongoing representations to address their concerns and suspicions. I therefore beg to move Amendment 80.

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

My Lords, this is the last group of amendments in Committee. I am delighted to see so many noble Lords opposite taking a close interest in the Bill and what it will do to the Chagossian people. I am delighted that they are taking an interest in what their Government are finally doing to the Chagossians.

I have already spoken to my noble friend Lord Lilley’s amendments, which are similar in drafting to those of the noble Lord, Lord Purvis of Tweed. I must say that I prefer my noble friend’s amendments to his Amendments 80 and 82, principally because they include reference to a referendum of the Chagossians. My noble friend the Earl of Leicester has talked about how deficient the current survey being undertaken by the International Agreements Committee is. I think that we could greatly improve on that, but the best mechanism would be simply to hold a referendum of the Chagossians asking them whether they approve of this treaty.

I know that the Liberal Democrats were previously very supportive of a referendum, but, despite criticising the position of my party, this amendment implies that they may not now be so supportive. I hope to see information to the contrary from the noble Lord, Lord Purvis. His amendment also differs from my noble friend Lord Lilley’s, in that it would apparently come into force after the treaty, whereas that of my noble friend would come into operation beforehand, which seems much more appropriate. I am of course happy to take up the offer of the noble Lord to discuss the wording of amendments because, as is so often the case in your Lordships’ House, we bring about improvements to a Bill only if we work together. I am certainly prepared, from my point of view, to work with him on the drafting of these amendments. I hope my noble friend Lord Lilley would be involved as well, so we can get them into a form where we can support them on Report and ask the Government to move on this.

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, for the considered and balanced contribution that he has made throughout the Bill but particularly on his Amendment 80. The amendment is interesting, and I understand the effect that he is seeking to achieve. It is a welcome addition to our debate today. As I said to the noble Lord, Lord Lilley, earlier, I will also take Amendment 81K into consideration in the comments that I am about to make.

The proposal put forward by the noble Lord is a novel one. I could not recall any examples of where there have been joint committees set up between different legislatures in this way, but the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, mentioned some, and I will reflect on those to see whether there is anything we can glean from them that might be useful.

The noble Lord, Lord Purvis, has made some changes to his amendment, but, unfortunately, we still cannot accept it in its current form today. The structure is not something that the treaty with Mauritius was drafted to contemplate. Of course, there is nothing to prevent parliamentarians in the UK engaging with their equivalents in Mauritius on these matters, but we do not see this as being a matter for domestic legislation in the way that we are considering it at the moment because, obviously, that does not have any effect on what the Mauritians themselves do.

Some elements in the noble Lord’s proposed scope for a joint parliamentary commission seem to be very much for the UK alone, so we could look at them. The Government are committed to building a relationship with the Chagossian community that is based on respect. As noble Lords will be aware, we have established a Chagossian contact group to give Chagossians a formal role that shapes decision-making on the UK Government’s support for their community. We are also providing additional support to build the capacity of community groups so that more are eligible for grants.

There are two elements in the amendment that are an issue for the Government and that we will disagree on at the moment, and those are the right to self-determination and compensation. On self-determination, we have been over this several times in this House and in the other place. To put it simply and plainly, in legal terms no question of self-determination applies. 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. On compensation, again it is legally the case that the UK paid compensation to the Chagossians in the 1980s and the English courts in a series of judgments and the European Court of Human Rights have ruled that this settled the claims definitively.

Having said all that, I recognise and understand the noble Lord’s intentions and his determination with this amendment. He has been consistent about arguing along these lines throughout our consideration of this Bill, and I suggest that we meet to discuss his amendment in more detail to see if we can find a way to move this forward ahead of Report. With that, I hope that for today he would be happy to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

My Lords, I am glad there are so many witnesses who saw my ability to bring the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, and the Minister together with some form of consensus at the end of this Committee. I am grateful for both the noble Lord’s and the Minister’s responses. She will know that I have been keen to see the areas where we can move towards formalisation and a degree of statutory underpinning for some structures of ongoing representation, because this is a special case. Even if it was novel—I am sure officials will now be studying all the examples I have given; by the time we get to Report I will try to find some more—I believe it is justified, given the circumstances are in. I am grateful for the willingness to discuss this. There are ongoing debates on the particular aspects the Minister said she had difficulty with. I will happily give way to the noble Lord.

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

I was just going to give him another example, not at British level but at the European level. There is of course the ACP-EU Joint Parliamentary Assembly, which has Members of the European Parliament and all the representatives of the African, Caribbean and Pacific countries.

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

I am grateful. We have even got some good elements of Brexit incorporated in this debate as well, so we are on a roll. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw, on the basis that we will be returning to this to have what I hope will be constructive discussions with the Minister.

Caribbean: US Military Action

Lord Callanan Excerpts

Wednesday 12th November 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lord for raising an important question. The position of the Government has not changed. We continue to state that the lawfulness of the strikes is a matter for the United States. That is our position and what we believe. The United Kingdom, as far as the Government are concerned, was not involved. We are committed to fighting the scourge of drugs and organised crime, including with our partners in Latin America, such as Colombia, and the Caribbean, in accordance with international law and the UN principles. If we are acting according to UN principles and the principles of international law, the UK Government can be proud of that.

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

My Lords, it seems from all the media reports that the Attorney-General has struck again, now banning the sharing of intelligence with the US on this issue. I am sure that the Minister will not comment on whether the US has retaliated on this. To his credit, he has again today told the House of his commitment to national security and defence. Does he think that putting our crucial Five Eyes intelligence relationship under threat because of a debate over the US use of force against Caribbean drug smugglers is prioritising the security of this country?

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

The Government of the United Kingdom do prioritise the security of this country. We are acting in accordance with international law and the fundamental principles of the UN charter. That is the guiding principle for the Government. As I have said time and time again from this Dispatch Box, the security relationship between the US and the UK is fundamental for this country, for Europe and for global security. That is the important principle to which this Government adhere. The noble Lord is smiling, but he agrees with that and he will know that that fundamental principle guides the actions of the Government.

Ukraine

Lord Callanan Excerpts

Friday 31st October 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

My Lords, I too thank the Government for bringing forward this important debate. Yet again, we have seen some fantastic contributions on this topic. As always, I was encouraged to see virtual unanimity, across those of all parties and none in the House, in support of the valiant Ukrainian people and in condemnation of the vile dictator currently—but, I hope, temporarily—residing in the Kremlin.

It was a pleasure to hear the maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Barrow, who brings so much practical diplomatic experience of the situation on the ground in Russia and Ukraine. For part of my time in ministerial office, I served as the UK representative on the EU’s General Affairs Council, when the noble Lord was the UK’s Permanent Representative in Brussels, and I can certainly testify to his commendable hospitality in the Brussels residence in which I stayed. We had some great late-night discussions on many subjects, but I particularly remember him fondly telling me about his time and experience as an ambassador in Moscow. I know that the House will greatly benefit from that experience in many debates to come. As the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, remarked, he can reassure his family that the speech was fairly brief, but it certainly was not bland.

It is now well over three years since Putin launched his illegal war on Ukraine, a war that has seen a European nation invaded and horrific war crimes committed against the people of Ukraine, as many of the great contributions today have testified. As I said, across this House, we have almost all remained united in our condemnation of that invasion. We as a nation can be proud of that, and we credit the Government for continuing the steadfast support that we gave to Ukraine when we were in office.

However, as has been said, Ukraine’s war is not yet won. Ukraine still desperately needs our full support. One area that has been crucial has been the removal of UK tariffs on Ukrainian goods, which has ensured a vital source of foreign revenue for the Ukrainian Government and wider economy. However, there is a looming deadline on 31 March 2026, when tariff-free access for Ukrainian poultry and egg produce is set to end. Ukraine has increased its poultry exports to the UK in recent years, but this has not impacted British farmers, who face production constraints and cannot meet that rising demand; rather, it has displaced exports from other countries, including China, Brazil and Thailand. The reimposition of tariffs on poultry and egg produce will harm UK consumers and deprive the Ukrainian Government and wider economy of a crucial source of revenue. Facilitating trade should be a key pillar of the support that we provide to Ukraine, as the revenues raised from exports are a crucial source of funding for the Ukrainian Government and the Ukrainian people and directly fund the country’s armed forces. I hope the Minister could speak to some of her colleagues in the DBT on that matter and help ensure a pro-Ukrainian resolution to that.

Although we all remember those fraught weeks in February and March 2022 when Ukraine’s fate hung in the balance, we must not forget that Ukraine’s struggle did not start then; it began much earlier than 2022. They have been fighting for their independence, democracy and freedom from Russian interference since 2014—and before then, some may argue. In 2022, Putin sought to bring an end to Ukraine’s long struggle for independence by force of arms, but the indomitable spirit of the Ukrainian people and the selfless sacrifice of so many brought the invasion to a halt and rolled back Putin’s forces. Those of us watching on our TV screens cheered them along every step of the way. However, sadly, Russian forces remain entrenched today in Ukrainian territory, and Ukraine is still locked in a desperate struggle for its very survival.

Between 2022 and 2024, the previous Conservative Government provided major financial support for Ukraine. We shipped huge quantities of military hardware to Kyiv. We know the crucial role that NLAW missiles played in the early part of the war. I am pleased to say that we have gone on to provide tanks, air defence systems, artillery and long-range precision strike missiles. Every Ukrainian that visits the UK who I get the pleasure of meeting is eternally grateful for the support that we have provided them.

We have brought in tough sanctions against Russia, including some of those individuals close to Putin, who have played their own role in support of that illegal war. I commend the Government on continuing to strengthen those sanctions against Russia. I hope they will continue to do so and that they will perhaps look at sanctions on members of United Russia, Putin’s patsy political party, in the future.

We also took the initiative on protecting those displaced by the war in Ukraine; many Members have referred to the Homes for Ukraine scheme. While leader of the Opposition, the Prime Minister, to his great credit, supported us when we took that action. He has continued to build on our work, and we offer him our support now. Since his Government took office, we have seen further support for Ukraine. We fully support that help.

Across the previous and current Governments, the UK has so far committed up to £21.8 billion in a difficult financial environment to Ukraine, which, in my view, is money well spent. The Government have also worked to establish the coalition of the willing to support Ukraine’s future security and signed the UK up to a slightly bizarre UK-Ukraine 100-year partnership. That is better than some of their other 100-year agreements, I have to say.

All this builds on the strong relationship we fostered with Ukraine when we were in office, and we welcome the steps forward as we continue to support the people of Ukraine in their hour of need. But, despite all our support, Ukraine remains at war. Despite suffering around a million casualties, Russia remains committed to that illegal invasion. I wonder if, in her closing remarks, the Minister could update the House on the latest attempts to use our influence internationally to bring Russia to a position where a just peace can be achieved. Is the Government’s position that peace and, crucially, long-term security for Ukraine can be achieved only through primarily diplomatic means, or do they believe that there is a military solution? What is the Government’s position on the deployment of those frozen Russian assets to further aid Ukrainian defence and eventually to partly help pay for the rebuilding of their country? Finally, can the Minister reassure the House that the UK is working to further develop our intelligence in respect of Russia and her allies? Can she give the House a sense of how well that information is being shared with Ukraine?

Russia’s war on Ukraine is an assault not just on the Ukrainian nation, but on the values of independence, sovereignty and the right of a democratic nation to forge its own future. Ukraine’s security is essential to European security. The Ukrainian flag still flies proudly above government buildings up and down Whitehall, and the rest of the country. It should not come down again until Ukraine enjoys peace on its own land once again. We must continue our firm support of Ukraine until that happy day comes.

Qatar: Israeli Strike

Lord Callanan Excerpts

Thursday 11th September 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

My Lords, of course, it is important to remember that Israel has the right to self-defence under Article 51 of the UN charter. Yesterday saw further strikes by Israel, this time on Houthi targets in Yemen. We know that the Prime Minister met Israel’s leader, President Herzog, yesterday. Could the Minister tell us what was discussed in that meeting and what practical steps the Government are taking to contain the growing instability in the Middle East?

[The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Lord Coaker) (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lord for his question. Of course, Israel has a right to self-defence, but the Government are concerned by Israel’s strike in Doha, we condemn the flagrant violation of sovereignty and stand in solidarity with Qatar. I extend my personal recognition and respect to the Emir for his continued commitment to supporting peace negotiations. In discussions that the Prime Minister rightly had with President Herzog yesterday, he reiterated that condemnation of Israel’s strikes on Doha, which violated Qatar’s sovereignty and risked further escalation in the region. He pressed him to stop the famine from worsening by allowing aid in and halting IDF operations in Gaza City. He also shared his condolences for the horrific terror attacks in Jerusalem on Monday. They both agreed on the need for Hamas to immediately release the hostages, and the UK will continue its work to seek an enduring peace.

Ukraine: Negotiations

Lord Callanan Excerpts

Tuesday 9th September 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lord for the question. The first point that needs to be made is that it is up to Russia as well to engage in meaningful talks, and it is up to Russia as well to be sincere in the efforts that it is making to bring about the ceasefire and, in the end, to come to some agreement. The contribution that we have made is by insisting that Ukraine has a voice in whatever solution we can come to an agreement about; to keep the US involved, which is crucial to the integrity of any agreement or settlement that is reached; and to move towards what we are calling a reassurance force, as the noble Lord will know, to ensure that the security guarantee that Ukraine has after any settlement is real and meaningful. That is what we are trying to do to ensure that we end the war as quickly as possible. We are supporting President Trump in his efforts to do that, but I say again that it also requires Russia to enter the talks meaningfully.

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

My Lords, I join the Minister in paying tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Collins. We enjoyed our exchanges across the Dispatch Box. I know that he spent many years shadowing the job in opposition and only too briefly enjoyed it in government. We wish him well for the future. We are pleased to hear that he is still on the Front Bench.

In recent months, we have seen a massive increase in the number of Russian attacks on Ukrainian civilian targets, often involving hundreds of drones and missiles. Ukrainian air defences are often overwhelmed, as we saw earlier this week. Therefore, can the UK Government can do anything to supply Ukraine with additional military aid, specifically to support its air defences in the light of those attacks?

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

The noble Lord makes an extremely important point about the need for air defences and their crucial nature. The UK, with our friends and our allies, including the Americans, who have just provided Patriot missiles as well, is seeking to ensure that we do everything we can to maintain the ability of Ukraine to defend itself. The noble Lord makes a really important point. While we were negotiating—while the Alaskan talks and other negotiations were going on—we saw an increase in the attacks on Kyiv by the Russians using those missiles. We will certainly do all we can to ensure that Ukraine can defend itself.

Ukraine

Lord Callanan Excerpts

Friday 25th October 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

My Lords, it is a great pleasure to take part in this vital debate on the ongoing, terrible war in Ukraine. It is a conflict that has truly shaken Europe and, indeed, the whole world. On these Benches, as my noble friend Lord Courtown said initially, we stand firmly in support of Ukraine’s sovereignty and right to self-determination.

We have heard some great contributions today. I thought the debate was very well opened by the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, and I agreed with every word he said—which makes a change. We heard other excellent contributions, not least the maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Spellar, which I thought was a witty, erudite contribution. We all greatly look forward to his future contributions to your Lordships’ House. He graced the other place for many years and I am sure he will be in this House for many years to come.

Russia’s illegal and brutal invasion is not only a gross violation of international law but a direct assault on the very principles of liberty, democracy and national sovereignty that we as a nation, across parties, all hold dear. The American diplomat George Kennan famously warned of Soviet expansionism and observed that the Soviet Union was

“impervious to the logic of reason”

but

“highly sensitive to the logic of force”.

This simple truth remains as relevant to Russia today as it was to the Soviet Union back then.

One of the single most important things that my party did during our time in office was to side unequivocally with Ukraine. Under both Boris Johnson and Rishi Sunak, we were often the first mover on vital military aid and we frequently pushed our allies to go further than they initially wanted. We should be proud of that. We were at the vanguard of the sanctions response, we delivered vital humanitarian support and we were constantly looking at new ways of constraining Putin’s war machine. In that spirit, I am truly delighted to see the new Government continuing, in the same vein, to offer unwavering support to Ukraine in terms of both military aid and humanitarian assistance.

As many noble Lords have reminded us, it is imperative that we also recognise the tremendous resilience and courage of the Ukrainian people. Their resistance in the face of Russian aggression has been nothing short of heroic. We all hold in great admiration President Zelensky and his Government because they have demonstrated remarkable leadership and true bravery in the most harrowing of circumstances. Those of us who take part in politics in a free and democratic nation take for granted the right to turn up, take part in debates and go about our normal business. Many Ministers in government in Ukraine—not least President Zelensky—are putting their very lives at risk by doing it. Whatever small criticisms we may have of some of his decisions, we should always bear that in mind. They are defending not only their nation but the future of freedom in Europe.

The UK has played an important role in this defence, of which we should be proud. Through the provision of cutting-edge military equipment, including tanks, artillery and air defence systems, we have helped Ukraine to withstand and—in some cases, happily—actually to repel Russian forces. But we must remain vigilant and proactive. This war is, sadly, far from over. As the situation evolves, so too must our support.

As many others have remarked, I was particularly interested, and not a little depressed, to hear the contribution of the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, about how hard it will be to negotiate an enduring political settlement. As we all know, we really cannot believe a word that Putin says or any treaty that he signs.

Beyond military support, as the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, reminded us, we must not forget the humanitarian aspect of this conflict. Millions of Ukrainians have been displaced, their homes have been destroyed and their future has become increasingly uncertain. Again, the UK has a moral duty to continue offering refuge to those fleeing the horrors of war and to support Ukrainian reconstruction efforts once peace is finally achieved. This will require not just government action but collaboration with many international organisations, NGOs and the private sector. In her summary, will the Minister confirm that His Majesty’s Government are still prioritising the Homes for Ukraine scheme, building on the previous Government’s great work in this area?

I will also touch briefly on a point that is sometimes overlooked in this debate, which is the strategic importance of energy security. Russia has long sought to use its vast energy resources as a weapon of coercion and the war in Ukraine has underscored the urgent need for Europe to wean itself off Russian oil and gas—indeed, to wean itself off oil and gas completely. The previous Government took steps to address this not only through diversifying energy supplies but by increasing our investment in renewable and nuclear energy. Again, I hope the Minister recognises the importance of continuing with those policies.

Finally, while we must remain resolute in our support for Ukraine, we must also be clear-eyed about the path forward because, as many others have said, there is no quick or easy resolution to this conflict. Any lasting peace must be based on justice, on the full restoration of Ukraine’s territorial integrity and on assurances that Russia will not be able to repeat such aggression in the future, which probably means some military guarantees.

We should be under no illusion: this war is not just about Ukraine. It is about defending the principles that have underpinned peace and stability in Europe since the end of the Second World War. It is about ensuring that might does not always make right, and that the sovereignty of nations, no matter their size, is respected by all.

In conclusion, I urge the House and the Government to continue their cross-party support for Ukraine. We have to stand firm in our defence of freedom, and we must remain committed to ensuring that Ukraine prevails in this struggle for, in doing so, we are defending not only Ukraine but the security and future of the entire free world.