UK-Mauritius Agreement on the Chagos Archipelago
Lord McDonald of Salford Excerpts(2 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord McDonald of Salford (CB)
My Lords, the most damaging blow to any country’s international reputation is a justified charge of hypocrisy. The United Kingdom stands for the rule of law in all circumstances. We lose credibility when we seek exceptions to this principle for ourselves.
Opponents of the Chagos agreement claim that the International Court of Justice has no jurisdiction, so the UK can safely ignore its rulings. They point out that, in February 2019, the ICJ handed down merely an advisory opinion. However, although we might choose to ignore it, other bodies of the United Nations cannot: they are bound by it. We have already seen that with the ITLOS judgment of 2021.
As we weigh the merits of the agreement, we need also to take account of the history of the archipelago, which came to the UK with the rest of the colony of Mauritius in the Treaty of Paris 1814. Although Mauritius and Chagos are about 2,000 miles apart, the historic link is strong, perpetuated by the UK as colonial power. Administratively, it suited our predecessors to treat all British possessions in the Indian Ocean as one colony.
At the start of the era of decolonisation, the UN set out the rules of the road. In December 1960, the General Assembly decided that the colonial power could not break up a colony as it was leaving. We ignored that ruling when we decided in 1965 that Chagos would be detached from the rest of Mauritius at independence, which happened in 1968.
Over the next five decades, we did all we could to avoid a case going to the ICJ, but we lost the key vote in the General Assembly in 2017 by 94 votes to 15. Once we were in the arbitration, we could not, in my view, ignore the outcome. The evidence overwhelmingly suggests that trying to invoke protections we had written into the rules decades before persuaded nobody but ourselves.
Opponents dislike the expense of the deal; well, we are paying the going rate as a tenant for a base in the wider Indian Ocean—somewhat more than the French in Djibouti, but we are getting more for more. Diego Garcia is the best defensive real estate in the whole Indian Ocean. Even though £101 million per year is a lot, it is a lot less than the Americans pay to run the base. It is a joint base, and we are paying our way in the joint effort.
Next, opponents claim that the agreement boosts China’s presence in the Indian Ocean. The reverse is true: Mauritius is one of only two of the 55 members of the African Union not to be part of China’s belt and road initiative. While 3% of Mauritius’s population is ethnically Chinese, 67% is ethnically Indian. Our partner in Delhi looms much larger in Mauritian calculations than our challenger in Beijing.
Opponents and supporters agree on one thing: more needs to be done to alleviate the plight of the Chagossians. Over generations, they have been treated monstrously: forcibly transplanted to the archipelago to tend copra plantations, mostly in the 20th century, then forcibly removed in the 1960s and 1970s to make way for the base. We must make amends. The agreement goes partway to doing that and, for the first time, it allows Mauritius to resettle the outer islands.
Confronted with a charge of double standards, some opponents of this agreement shrug their shoulders; they think that they can get away with it and tough it out, but that is what the powerful and unprincipled do. That is what Russia does. Neither the Biden nor Trump Administrations endorsed such a cavalier approach. In effect, they both told us that we had a problem and asked us to solve it. This agreement does precisely that. It gives the UK and our American allies a secure presence in the archipelago for the next 140 years. It enhances our security and restores our reputation as a country that respects international law, even when it is inconvenient and costly.
I agree with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Goldsmith, chair of my committee, the International Agreements Committee: the agreement deserves the support of your Lordships’ House.
Middle East
Lord McDonald of Salford Excerpts(5 months, 3 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
The noble Baroness is absolutely right. We have both been engaged in focusing on the women, peace, and security agenda, which the noble Baroness, Lady Hodgson, has been so committed to, and I am glad to see her in her place. What I tried to convey in my response to the Oral Question was the role in terms of reconstruction of civil society and, as my noble friend points out, women can be an absolutely critical part of that reconstruction and peacebuilding. The noble Lord, Lord Purvis, raised the question of focusing on children and education in particular, but women also have a critical role in delivering that peace process. That is why we are working with the PA as well to ensure that women are involved and engaged, as she says.
Lord McDonald of Salford (CB)
My Lords, the country in the Middle East that had the worst 2024 was Iran. At the beginning of 2025 there are indications that Tehran wants to return to the negotiating table. When Mr Trump was the 45th President of the United States, he took the US out of the JCPOA. Now that he is the 47th President, will His Majesty’s Government urge Washington to re-engage with the JCPOA from a position of greater strength?
Gaza and Lebanon
Lord McDonald of Salford Excerpts(8 months, 4 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
I repeat what I have said: it is absolutely the number one priority. Humanitarian access is what the United States is demanding of Israel and what we have demanded. We want those access routes opened properly and protected, not attacked. It has to be a priority of this Government and all our allies.
Lord McDonald of Salford (CB)
My Lords, it is now less than three weeks until the US presidential election. Hamas and Hezbollah have a history of timing their attacks to generate maximum international attention as well as local disruption. Have His Majesty’s Government considered the possibility that there might be a spike in violence before America votes?
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
We are taking all possible action to defend, protect and not take anything for granted. We are in an incredibly volatile situation, with other actors intervening. We are determined to work with our allies to properly de-escalate the situation. We are prepared for the worst, but we are trying to ensure that it does not happen.
Government Standards
Lord McDonald of Salford Excerpts(11 months, 2 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
Not just the north but from the whole of the country—the nations and regions, including Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland; there is a role for people from every region in the House. In the longer term, the Government have plans to consult the public and try to reach a consensus on how we better represent the country as a whole. In the short term, it is up to all party leaders as they nominate people to look at how we get a better, more representative House. That is one of the things we are we discussing.
Lord McDonald of Salford (CB)
My Lords, in less than two years as Prime Minister, Mr Sunak had 11 political honours lists. Previously, the average since the 1980s was 1.3 lists. Does the Leader of the House accept that fewer political honours lists would be one way to restore some confidence in government?
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
My Lords, it is not lost on these Benches that even the Cross-Benchers have had more appointments than we have had on the political list for this side of the House. As I have said before, I would like to see a smaller House where there is greater balance across the whole House. It is helpful when the main opposition party and the government party are roughly the same size. I hasten to add that that is not an invitation to write to me suggesting that they could serve on the Labour Benches—I do not want the size of the House to increase—but one of the problems under the last Government is that they had so many resignation honours lists that our appointments kept increasing, again and again. I want to see some balance. I want to see Members—just like Members of the House today—with a contribution to make and who want to see the House do its work in the best way possible. That should be the priority for new lists of people coming to your Lordships’ House.