UK-Mauritius Agreement on the Chagos Archipelago

Lord Murray of Blidworth Excerpts

Monday 30th June 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

My Lords, it is always a pleasure to follow my noble friend Lord Mancroft. The issue of the need for and legal underpinning of the Chagos treaty has been the subject of numerous excellent monographs written by a team of authors led by Professor Ekins, professor of law and constitutional government at Oxford, and published by Policy Exchange. My noble friend Lord Robathan referred to the country as having been undermined by human rights lawyers; I can say to my noble friend, “Not all of them”—including, of course, both Professor Ekins and me.

It is clear to my mind that the risk of an adverse judgment and the real risk to the operation of the UK-US airfield at Diego Garcia are overplayed by those who favour this treaty. Mauritius cannot as a matter of international law secure a binding judgment before an international tribunal establishing that it is sovereign over the Chagos Islands, because the United Kingdom is not required to consent to this dispute being adjudicated by the International Court of Justice.

Accordingly, the Government explain their position by saying that they anticipate that another tribunal, specifically the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea, which has no jurisdiction over questions of sovereignty over territory, will “presuppose” that the ICJ’s 2019 advisory opinion has settled that Mauritius is sovereign and will thus proceed to exercise its jurisdiction in relation to disputes about the law of the sea on the premise that Mauritius, rather than the UK, is sovereign. But there is not a word about sovereignty over the Chagos Islands in that advisory opinion of the ICJ. Moreover, the elements of the opinion that are adverse to the UK’s administration of the islands are, as advisory, not capable of binding the UK to change its position that it had uninterrupted sovereignty over the archipelago for more than 200 years. Hence, any such presupposition by the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea will be erroneous in fact and law.

So, the fabled rules-based international order, lauded by the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, does not in fact require this treaty in the form that it is put before Parliament. I can greatly shorten my remarks by otherwise adopting the remarks we heard from the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra. I share his concerns regarding the obligations that he has set out. I also share the concerns in respect of the Treaty of Pelindaba, in relation to the positioning of nuclear weapons on African soil, raised by the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Houghton. The Government have thus far flippantly dismissed that concern without explaining why. Can the Minister set out in detail why Mauritius will not be in breach of its obligations under that treaty if there are nuclear weapons positioned in the Diego Garcia base?

The noble Lord, Lord Purvis of Tweed, became very excited and suggested that my noble friend Lord Callanan had tabled a fatal Motion. If only that were so—unfortunately, even if the House is minded to pass my noble friend’s Motion this evening, it would, pursuant to Section 20 of the CRAG Act 2010, merely require the Minister or another Minister of the Crown to make

“a statement indicating that the Minister is of the opinion that the treaty should nevertheless be ratified and explaining why”.

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

The noble Lord is a stickler for accuracy. I quoted Hansard from 3 June when the noble Earl, Lord Minto, said that the Conservatives had tabled a fatal Motion.

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

It is an interesting point as to whether my noble friend Lord Minto was correct—

[Noble Lords]

Oh!

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

But the reality is that even if this Motion is passed, it will not, sadly, kill this dreadful treaty.

Finally, can the Minister confirm whether it is correct that, as set out in the Explanatory Notes, in accordance with convention, given that this is a treaty to cede territory and following, most recently, the example of the concession of Hong Kong and Hong Kong Island in 1997, he will repeat the assertion expressed in the Explanatory Notes, that ratification of this treaty will await the completion of the passage of the proposed Bill to implement the measures in the treaty?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

Does the noble Lord agree that our claim to sovereignty stems from the treaty that we agreed in 1814?

[Lord Boateng (Lab)]

A treaty signed under duress.

Let us be very clear: these islands are African islands. These islands are inhabited by African people brought there as slaves in the economic interest of Britain and France. So, it ill behoves the noble Lord or any of us to assume a position of moral or ethical superiority when it comes to the Chagos Islands.

It must also be said, and I say so with great reluctance, to the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, for whom I have the utmost respect, that he described the Chagossians as a people about whom we know nothing. They are a people about whom we—