British Sovereignty Protection (Chagos Islands) Bill [HL]
Lord Weir of Ballyholme Excerpts(2 days, 1 hour ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Weir of Ballyholme (DUP)
My Lords, the purpose of this Bill is to cut through the fog of uncertainty that now hangs over the Chagos Islands to provide a fairer, clearer and more principled way forward for not simply the Chagos Islands themselves but, perhaps more importantly, the Chagossians—and I am delighted that many of them are able to join us here today.
Like many in this Chamber, I was, and remain, highly critical of the previous government Bill on this issue. Without rehearsing all the arguments that were used in connection with that Bill, which sought to implement the Government’s deal with Mauritius, I believe that that Bill would have, in effect, handed over sovereign territory that had been British for more than 200 years to a Government who had never held control or ownership of the islands. Indeed, it did not simply give away the Chagos Islands but presented Mauritius with a large dowry—a very handsome reward—for taking the islands off our hands, without even a compensatory automatic right of resettlement for the Chagossians.
That Bill gave no agency to the Chagossian people themselves, and for many Chagossians that is all too familiar. At times, in our most benign interpretations as a Parliament and as Governments, we have perhaps pretended that we are doing things for the Chagossian people, but far too often we have done things to the Chagossian people—most notably in the 1960s, when they were forcibly removed from the islands. What we have not done—this is what we need to change—is do things with the Chagossian people, respecting their choice and their control over their destiny.
The criticism that has been made of the previous Bill has not been confined to this House. As we have seen recently, even the new Defence Secretary, Wes Streeting, has questioned whether the previous Bill was good enough, given the position of the Americans. The current Prime Minister, who, to be fair to him, played no part in the previous arrangements, has indicated that there needs to be a review of the overall Bill. We know that the progress of the previous Bill was stopped by the position of the American Administration. I appreciate that, at times, many of us in this Chamber see a level of volatility within the American Administration and their foreign policy. However, they have been consistent over the last period of time in their concern that this is not the right way forward. Given the direct interest of the American Administration, through the military base at Diego Garcia, this is not simply an opinion from across the Atlantic but something that is critical to the way forward for the Chagos Islands.
As a result, the issue has been left in a form of limbo. The Government, it would appear, have not resiled from their previous position and potentially remain committed to the Bill, despite the review. But, by the same token, they were not able to bring forward that Bill to progress it whenever it was going through the Lords. Indeed, in the last King’s Speech, there was no mention of the situation as regards the Chagos Islands. In particular, this has left the Chagossians in a form of political purgatory. They have been left with a level of uncertainty. The one thing that we owe above all else to the Chagossian people is certainty and control for the future. That is the purpose of my Bill.
I will outline the contents of the Bill. Although it is relatively short, it has five main components. First, crucially, it provides what might be described as a triple lock on sovereignty—either the transfer of sovereignty or the leasing out of the islands. Before that can happen, for any deal three hurdles have to be overcome. First, it would have to be done by way of an Act of Parliament. Secondly, if there is a representative Government of the Chagossian people, it would have to have their approval. Most crucially, in enshrining the principle of self-determination of the Chagossian people, it would have to be approved by a referendum of the Chagossian people, with the electorate clearly defined in Clause 4, which highlights that British Indian Ocean Territory citizens would have the right to vote in that referendum. This would put the destiny of the Chagos Island and the Chagossian people in their own hands, which is the right thing to do.
Secondly, one of the major concerns in relation to the Chagos Islands has clearly been the military base at Diego Garcia, which is the overriding concern of the Americans and is strategically very important to us. The Bill clearly and explicitly indicates that, whatever rulings may happen in the future, the base itself remains sovereign British territory. It gives a clear sign of certainty about the position of Parliament and the sovereign position.
Thirdly, the Bill enshrines transparency in any future arrangements. Clause 2 deals with the fact that, if there is any proposal to hand over to Mauritius or anyone else, any financial arrangements, both with the Mauritian Government and with agencies or any companies connected with them, are clearly outlined to Parliament. There has been a level of disagreement, shall we say, over the extent of the financial aid that was being given over to Mauritius within that.
Fourthly and importantly, there is the role of the Chagossian people. Although it is critical that we enshrine the rights of self-determination, simply giving the Chagossians a yes or no on any final package is not in and of itself sufficient. So the Bill looks at what other pertinent rights we can give the Chagossian people. It deals with permits to work on the Diego Garcia base and, in particular, with a critical issue for the Chagossians: resettlement. They were torn from their country in the 1960s, and the Bill explicitly gives a right to resettle permanently on Île du Coin and Île Boddam—I apologise to the Chagossians if my pronunciation is not up to scratch—as well as on Diego Garcia itself if at any stage the base there is in some way abandoned.
Allied to and part of that resettlement, the Government would be compelled to discuss with and consult the Chagossian people on a range of issues—from an economic partnership to a partnership on skills, health and education; marine conservation and biodiversity; and the protection of Chagossian culture. So it will be part of putting the Chagossian people at the heart of any level of discussion, because too often in the past they have been regarded as an afterthought, brought in at best to be told what has happened after it has happened. I do not believe that that is an acceptable way forward.
Fifthly, there are specific protections in the Bill for the economic position of the Chagos Islands, security arrangements, and measures to protect the natural environment and biodiversity, along with a range of steps in Clauses 5 and 6 that the Government will have to bring forward. That package of measures offers the best way forward for the Chagos Islands and the Chagossian people.
It is rare in politics, or in life, that we get an opportunity to start again. This is that second opportunity, and Parliament needs to grasp it. I look forward to the debate that lies ahead, and I beg to move.
Lord Weir of Ballyholme (DUP)
My Lords, first, I want to place on the record my thanks to everyone who has spoken to this debate, including the Minister, who was given an unenviable, if unsurprising, position. The reality is that it was not only unsurprising but almost inevitable that the Bill before us today would be, given the juxtaposition, contrasted with what has gone before by way of the previous government Bill.
I want to pick out a few points that came up in the debate. The noble Lord, Lord Lilley, is absolutely right: we would all prefer to be in a position where this was not needed in the first place. As has been highlighted by a number of speakers, we were not facing something that was going to be internationally compelling against us to hand over the islands. The exemptions in the ICJ and UNCLOS have been mentioned. Therefore, a lot of the actions taken were utterly unnecessary.
Like most, if not all, Members of this House, I have a range of opinions. I will offer some as advice to the Government—those are advisable opinions—though I would be astonished if they agreed with some of my opinions, let alone felt themselves to be bound by them.
First, we are being brought to this position by, to a degree, a false premise. Secondly, as has been mentioned by a number of speakers, some people believe, almost benignly, that our actions in handing over this territory to Mauritius are in some way inspired by some noble concept of decolonisation. I sense exactly the reverse. The approach that was previously taken with Mauritius was to treat Chagos almost as a prize that could be handed over by a medieval monarch—at the end of some war, one side gets an additional county while the other loses it—and, beyond that, to treat the Chagossian people as some form of chattel as part of that overall position. If the inspiration is to decolonise, is there anything more anti-colonial than saying, as a country that has sovereign control of a territory, that we are going to give complete self-determination to the indigenous people? To my mind, that is the definition of anti-colonialism, and ultimately it is embraced in the Bill.
Thirdly, mention has been made by the Government that there is no alternative to the route that they have taken. Actually, we are in a position where moving forward on the deal put forward by the Government may be legally questionable, as some speakers have indicated, given the binding commitment with the US Government and whether it can move forward in their absence. It is certainly unimplementable without the support of the US Government. That is the position we are in. It is time that the Government faced up to reality, stopped flogging a dead horse and pursued a positive alternative course of action. That is what is outlined in this Bill.
Fourthly—this has been alluded to only slightly—we should realise that, although this matter holds a high level of significance in the Chagos Islands, it has implications for the wider world as well. If we take the opportunity to enshrine the right of self-determination and simply hand over territory under any level of international pressure, what sort of message does that send out to other territories? For example, in recent days, we have seen yet again sabre-rattling with President Milei in Argentina as regards the Falkland Islands. If we as a country send out a signal that we are not strong on these issues and are not prepared to embrace self-determination, it is inevitable that others will misinterpret our position.
Fifthly, the noble Baroness, Lady Meyer, or perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Bellingham, raised resettlement. Again, there is a contrast between what was contained in the previous Bill and this one. In the previous Bill, there was no automatic right of resettlement. Indeed, the only opportunity for resettlement was at the grace and favour of the Mauritian Government. If you behaved yourself and made the right noises towards them, there might be some possibility of resettlement. Otherwise, however strong your links with the Chagos Islands, you would not be able to resettle. This Bill explicitly guarantees that right of resettlement on two of the main islands within the Chagos Islands. Last night, I had the opportunity, at a meeting, to converse directly via satellite link with Misley. As has been indicated, this is not simply some theoretical or moot point. There are Chagossians now back on the Chagos Islands. They have taken those steps to resettle, and it is time that we faced up to the reality of this.
I will make one other point. The Minister has spoken about a diversity of opinion within the Chagossian community. That may well be true, yet she speaks of diversity of opinion but will not allow a referendum. She speaks about discussions with them on a range of issues but will not grant them power on the most important thing: the right of self-determination. It is time that we gave the Chagossians their place. On a positive note, I was encouraged by the number of speakers who placed at the heart of this the rights of the Chagossian people themselves—that was encouraging—and the acceptance of a need for greater protection of biodiversity. That is also in the Bill.
I mentioned in my introductory remarks that this is a second chance. Whatever disagreements I have with this Government or any other, I suspect that all Governments come in with the intention and desire to do the right thing, possibly with one eye on legacy. We have a situation in which the Prime Minister, unlike the previous one, does not have his fingerprints on the previous deal. So I ask him to look at this with a fresh pair of eyes, to embrace the opportunity for that second chance and to do the right things for the Chagossian people.
It was unsurprising that, in this debate and previous ones, there was inevitably—as is the case in Parliament—a level of ping-pong between different sides on where blame lies. But one thing that struck me very much from previous debates on the Chagos Islands was a spirit and an acknowledgment around the entire Chamber that our treatment of the Chagossian people, over many decades and many Governments, has been shameful—the most shameful aspect being the forced removal in 1967. But we cannot do anything about the past. I am always slightly dubious when Governments make a performative apology for something that happened many years ago in which they were not directly involved. We cannot do anything about the past, but we can do something about the present and the future, and for the rights and needs of the Chagossian people, which do not infringe the military security of the base—let us get rid of that misunderstanding or misappropriation of the legislation and put it in context. It is time that we as a Parliament took forward a fresh approach that puts the Chagossian people first and does the right thing for them.
Israel/Gaza
Lord Weir of Ballyholme Excerpts(3 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Weir of Ballyholme (DUP)
My Lords, I am sure the House will agree when I say that this is a debate which we wish we did not need to have. The world would be in an awfully better place had the terrible events of 7 October not happened and so many families would be spared heartbreak today. But we have been dragged here by the horrific barbarism of Hamas in committing murders, torture, rapes and abductions of an unprecedented scale and nature, killing more Jews in a single day than on any day in history since the end of the Holocaust, and doing so in an almost unimaginable horror inflicted on innocent civilians—men, women, children and even babies.
We also know that Hamas is no friend of the Palestinian people. It has oppressed ordinary Palestinians in Gaza. It has diverted resources, which are much needed in Gaza, towards military attacks on Israel. It has literally rained bombs down on its own people and has used, and continues to use, civilians as human shields. Hamas is simultaneously a barbaric bully and a craven coward. We need to call out Hamas for what it is. No more euphemisms: these are evil terrorists, instigating a pogrom on the Israeli people.
Like everyone in this House, I think, I want a long-term solution for the Middle East. We all crave peace and I join others in saying that, in the long run, a two-state solution is probably best for the area. However, in rightly seeking that long-term peace, we must avoid the temptation of trying to find short-term fixes. Solutions which leave Hamas with the capability of simply striking back at Israel at will are ones that will only store up more death and destruction in the long run. Hamas is an organisation that is not part of the solution. It is not part of peace and it seeks to wipe Israel off the face of the earth. It is an obstacle to peace and to having a long-term better way forward for everyone, Israeli and Palestinian alike.
While our focus is rightly on Israel and Gaza, and particularly the plight of the 200-plus hostages still being held by Hamas, there are also repercussions beyond the boundaries of Israel and Gaza, not least in our own country. For the Jewish communities in the United Kingdom, most have family relations or friends who live in Israel, and many know the victims of the events of 7 October. They are, in many cases, deeply concerned and scared today. So while it is right that every community and individual in the United Kingdom, of whatever background, should be safe from terror, fear, intimidation and violence, we must keep uppermost in our minds the Jewish community. They are frightened, in particular, when they see tens of thousands of people come on to the streets of the United Kingdom, many giving implicit cover, and some implicit support, for Hamas, with the kind of anti-Semitic, hateful rhetoric that the noble Baroness, Lady Eaton, has explained so clearly and which has led to a wide range of complaints. We need to see the police and courts deal with this in a robust manner.
It is also the case that this has not come from a blank page. Earlier this year, with other parliamentarians, I visited facilities which showed the extent to which Jewish properties have to be monitored from a security point of view for their own protection—and this was at a time when there was relative peace in the Middle East. Perhaps most shocking from that visit—I will not be too explicit in the details, for obvious reasons—was when we visited a Jewish primary school where children were being taken through drills on a regular basis of the preparations they needed to take in the event of intruders. I do not wish to go into the details of those procedures, as that would be utterly counterproductive, but noble Lords should reflect on that for a moment. These are five year-olds and older, having to live with this as part of their lives in the United Kingdom in 2023. That is not an isolated example; it is all too redolent of the experience of so many Jewish people in this country. This is why it is right to commit ourselves to long-term peace. It is also right that we send out a clear message that we stand by Israel and the Jewish people of the United Kingdom and beyond.
Ireland/Northern Ireland Protocol: Scrutiny of EU Legislative Proposals (European Affairs Committee Sub-Committee Report)
Lord Weir of Ballyholme Excerpts(3 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Weir of Ballyholme (DUP)
My Lords, I join others in congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Jay, and the committee on this report; I welcome it and am happy to support all the recommendations. However, I do so in a context in which I have deep concern for the present and grave fears for the future.
The report rightly details that we need maximum scrutiny of EU legislation. I welcome in particular those parts of the report that deal with the detail and contents of Explanatory Memoranda, because, too often, Governments of whatever political hue tend to treat a requirement as a tick-box exercise. We must ensure that we have the maximum scrutiny.
However, the very thoroughness of the report highlights the fundamental problem that we have. The most detailed scrutiny that can be provided—if I can use an analogy—will present this Parliament, the Northern Ireland Assembly and the people of Northern Ireland with effectively a front-row seat as a spectator not of the match itself but of the match highlights, because the match has already taken place. Given that the JCWG meets with a level of confidentiality, we will not even get to see part of the match. It does not permit us to participate in the match in front of us. That is the fundamental democratic deficit.
British democracy, and indeed the foundations of world democracy, are based, on the one side, on the relationship between legislation and taxation and, on the other, on direct parliamentary representation and decision-making powers. The protocol renders that asunder. No matter what level of consultation, discussion or seats at tables that we have, unless there is throughout the United Kingdom the opportunity to reject or accept something democratically, we are simply in a position where laws are imposed on us.
Recommendation 7 of the Government’s response, which refers to paragraph 78 of the report, highlights the concern about divergence, in respect both of goods coming from Great Britain to Northern Ireland and of goods coming from Northern Ireland to Great Britain. Much has been said about the Irish sea border and the problems of movement between Great Britain and Northern Ireland. It will mean, for example, that companies in Great Britain either will be at a disadvantage when trading with Northern Ireland or may in some cases be completely prevented from trading. For Northern Ireland, it will lead to increased costs for customers and consumers; it will lead to reduced choice. Even on that flow, it will massively disrupt the UK internal single market, to the disadvantage of Northern Ireland.
The disadvantages for Northern Ireland goods moving to the United Kingdom have perhaps been less understood. If we are in a regime in which there is increasing regulatory divergence, as highlighted by the report, it will mean that Northern Ireland access to the rest of the UK market will again be deeply disrupted, as my noble friend and colleague Lord Dodds indicated—roughly 70% of Northern Ireland’s trade is with the rest of the United Kingdom. As we move towards arrangements with other countries, it will mean that Northern Ireland goods will not be able to be produced to the same standards and regulations. That will mean a reluctance, indeed opposition at times, within the rest of the United Kingdom to take goods from Northern Ireland; it will directly disrupt trade that is there.
These are the fundamental problems. Unless the Government tackle them, and do not see them as just a few checks on trade, we are in danger of disregarding the major problem; we will simply reheat it. If the emperor has no clothes, simply giving the emperor a bit of a makeover and leaving them naked in the future is not to our advantage. Unless we tackle the fundamental problem of ensuring that we get an agreement which has cross-community support in Northern Ireland and genuinely listens to the concerns that are there, we are, at best, taking part in Groundhog Day and, at worst, heading towards a deteriorating situation both for trade and politics in Northern Ireland.