Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)

My Lords, I have a Motion in my name in the debate. I thank the Minister for the open way in which we have had discussions since the agreement was laid before Parliament and put on record my thanks to the noble Baroness, Lady Chapman, for her willingness to host briefings in the department. I commend the International Agreements Committee and the International Relations and Defence Committee of this House for their work and the extremely helpful findings and recommendations they have made. So far they have not been referred to, but we will doubtless hear more about them in the next contribution. I reiterate what I have said on many previous occasions: that the clerks, in particular of the International Agreements Committee, serve Parliament with distinction. They carry out a vital role for this House and for Parliament as a whole. I look forward to the contributions from my noble friends Lady Ludford and Lord Alderdice, with the experience and perspective they bring, and thank my noble friends on the respective committees for their consideration. I too am looking forward to the maiden speech of the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Prentis of Banbury, and thank the noble Lord, Lord Boswell, for his many years of very distinguished service, in particular as chair of the House’s European Union Committee. I congratulate them both on securing the family handover with such elegant precision today. If the usual channels failed in one thing, they have succeeded in another for this debate. I want to consider three main areas: first, the circumstances that led us to this debate; secondly, the treaty itself, the issues it raises and why there needs to be further consideration of some of them; and thirdly, what we as a House should do going forward, including why the Motion in my name has been tabled and should, I hope, be supported. We are here today because of the decision by the previous Conservative Government on 3 November 2022 to “begin negotiations on the exercise of sovereignty over the British Indian Ocean Territory … /Chagos Archipelago”. That Statement by Foreign Secretary James Cleverly, repeated here by the noble Lord, Lord Goldsmith—the other one—specifically referred to “taking into account relevant legal proceedings” and the “intention to secure an agreement on the basis of international law to resolve all outstanding issues, including those relating to the former inhabitants of the Chagos Archipelago”.—[Official Report, Commons, 3/11/22; col. 354WS.] That Statement, which apparently is now “obscene”, “dangerous”, “self-harm” and “a surrender”, was made by the noble Lord Callanan’s Government. This was a major change of policy. If the Benches on my right are in any doubt about that, it was a change of policy because the position was, to quote from a Written Answer from the previous Government made on 20 April 2021: “There are no current plans for discussions with the Government of Mauritius on the future of the Chagos Islands”. In March 2022, just weeks before the policy change, the Government said: “The UK has no doubt about its sovereignty over the British Indian Ocean Territory”, and on Mauritius, that “we do not recognise its claim. However, we stand by our commitment, first made in 1965, to cede sovereignty of the territory to Mauritius when it is no longer needed for defence purposes”. So, since the Government—the Conservative Government—still needed it for defence purposes but made the decision in November that year to open negotiations to cede sovereignty, the change of policy was significant. The treaty is a consequence of now completing the previous Conservative Government’s policy. Some who agreed with it then disagree with it now, but that does not change the fact that the Conservatives made a major policy choice to cede sovereignty and to do it under the context of the International Court of Justice decisions. This was also a major legal decision, as, up to the change of policy in 2022 to cede sovereignty, the Government relied on their previous argument that the 1965 agreement to separate the archipelago was held to be legally binding by the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea arbitral tribunal in 2015. This was therefore reversed, and the relevant legal proceedings referred to was the process of the ICJ, which had responded to the request by the United Nations General Assembly for a determination on the lawfulness of decolonisation and had reported its advisory opinion in 2019. We know that it was found in the opinion that decolonisation was not completed lawfully, and the General Assembly responded to the advisory opinion by adopting resolution 73/295 on 22 May 2019. In this debate, some noble Lords may well delve deeper into previous history, and may challenge the ICJ opinion—which am sure all noble Lords have read fully. It gives a clear factual history, and some of it, I have to be frank, makes very uncomfortable reading. Others may opine on the ICJ mechanisms and the significance of the opinion and the associated General Assembly resolutions—it is their right to do so. But none of that will change the fact of the November 2022 decision of the Conservative Government. So, we have established that the previous Government decided to recognise in principle the case for the exercise of sovereignty by Mauritius over the archipelago, and they pursued this over many rounds of discussions on the terms of bilateral relations going forward on how our defence and security interests would be maintained. We may hear in the debate that, after 11 attempts, there was no agreement. But that was not changing the view of the principle of ceding sovereignty; it was no agreement on the actual terms. There is a difference. As we have settled that, we can now turn to the terms before considering the position we should take on them. The question is: does a deal with deficiencies negate the principle of Mauritian sovereignty? The answer is no, as James Cleverly’s Statement is recognised in principle internationally. The issues are the implications of it, its application and the protection of Chagossian rights under it. One implication presented is whether this treaty raises questions on other overseas territories. The IAC addressed this in paragraph 26, saying that “the Agreement would not have any direct read-across”. Another implication is the question of whether this limits our security or defence. Questions have been raised so far in the debate. The committee concluded that none of the witnesses it heard contested the Government’s view that the treaty will not, for so long as it remains in force, materially change the ability of the UK and US to operate the base at Diego Garcia. We now know that the United States agrees. Maintaining protection of marine biodiversity has also been raised. In 2010, the UK declared 640,000 square kilometres of marine protected area around the territory. It has some of the most biodiverse waters on the planet and I noted that the committee welcomed the Government’s assurance that they will work closely with the Mauritian Government to establish a well-resourced and patrolled marine protected area. The committee added: “We consider it vital that an appropriate portion of the annual development grant funding is allocated towards projects to support the new MPA”. I hope that the Government agree with that. The committee makes the case for more financial scrutiny, and I agree. It is worth, for colleagues on my right, putting on record, because the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, forgot to, that when he was a Minister, his department was the largest disburser of UK overseas aid to Mauritius—we thank him for his work. It is also the case that these financial provisions are of a larger scale, and it is necessary to have further clarity and details on this commitment. The Government should have been, and should now be, more transparent, including on the basis for establishing the funds in Article 11, but a critical part now is the recognition and restoration of rights to the diverse Chagossian community. I note the 11 June call from the Human Rights Council for the agreement to be renegotiated because it does not respect the rights of the Chagossians. I also note that the committee’s conclusion was that the UK should not be bound by this, but feels that we should all acknowledge the years—in fact, the generations—during which the community has been denied rights, from forced removal in the 1970s to the denial of resettlement in the 2000s. We owe that community both an apology and restoration of rights. As both communities noted in a round-table event held by the IRDC in December 2024, representatives from members of the community based in the UK and Mauritius expressed unanimous dissatisfaction with the consultation on the part of both the UK and the Mauritian Governments, and were frustrated by their exclusion from the negotiations. Paragraph 46 of the report concluded with a regrettable perception that, it said, had some basis in reality: that, over many years, the interests of the Chagossians had been subordinated to the national security interests of the UK and its allies. It went on to say that it agreed with some witnesses that more could have been done, including in relation to employment at the base, and that the agreement does not provide a clear route to the resettlement of Chagossians in the Chagos Archipelago. It called on the Government to engage with Mauritius to establish a programme of resettlement of the islands, including for members of the community currently based in the UK. Paragraph 49 called on the Government to clarify what oversight and accountability mechanisms would be put in place to ensure transparency and the equitable and effective allocation of funds. In particular, it sought clarification of how Chagossians would be consulted in the administration of the trust fund and whether those based in the UK will benefit. I agree with all of those points; indeed, I agree with the committee’s letter to the Foreign Secretary: “More meaningful engagement would have helped rebuild trust and lend greater legitimacy to the final arrangements”. My Motion, therefore, would require the Government to fulfil recommendations of the IRC and also the requests in points 4, 5, and 6 in the IRDC letter to the Foreign Secretary to enhance Chagossian engagement by establishing a formal consultation mechanism and meaningful inclusion in decision-making: and how resettlement “will” be provided for, not just “may” be provided for. It would address the request for transparency and accountability. I hope that both the Government and, indeed, the Conservative Opposition will support this Motion. If this is our last opportunity in this House to speak on this treaty, I hope that we can at least agree for further protections of the community to be outlined before the Government ratify. We have therefore established that the previous Government agreed in principle to cede the exercise of sovereignty in a manner consistent with international law. We have also seen that there are areas where, under this Government, more information and scrutiny are needed on their terms for the conclusion of that ceding. The question now is how we proceed. We heard plenty of fire and brimstone from the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, who seemed rather incensed. He sought to give the impression that all routes for the Conservatives to secure a debate in the House of Commons under CRaG had been exhausted, blaming the failure of the usual channels and the Government’s intransigence. That is not entirely true, because the Conservatives had two opportunities during this scrutiny period to secure time in the House of Commons; we know through the Library Note guidance on CRaG that if the Government do not provide time, it can be done in opposition time. Yes, there were coat-tails to hide behind when it came to the Government not providing time, but I am afraid that the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, must have had a meeting with his Commons colleagues when they said that this was not important enough to use their time during the scrutiny period in the House of Commons. I think that we must all have sympathy with the noble Lord. I can imagine that he was not too happy when they said that it would be for the unelected House to take this up. Students of political history will know that this would have been an impossible course of action. The Conservatives would never use the unelected House to limit the prerogative power to make treaties and to refuse ratification. Do not take my word for it; take theirs. In the debate on the Rwanda treaty, we debated the Motion in the name of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Goldsmith, for conditions on ratification. The noble Lord, Lord Wolfson of Tredegar, whose contribution we look forward to later on, sought to give me and everybody else very respectful and lengthy legal advice as to why we definitely should not have a Motion to delay ratification of a treaty. I look forward to his altered legal advice later. Winding that debate, the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe of Epsom, called the Motion from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Goldsmith, constitutionally “unnecessary and misguided”. Presumably, this far wider Motion by his colleague is necessary and well informed. Setting aside the amnesia epidemic sweeping the Benches on my right, and in all seriousness, I thank them for the announcement made on 3 June in this House by the noble Earl, Lord Minto, that a fatal Motion had been laid and that they would press it to a vote. I can only commend him and the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, on being brave. They have reversed generations of Conservative policy never to have fatal Motions in this House. They have reversed generations of policy not to seek to interfere with the prerogative powers, and this major constitutional moment today has not gone unnoticed. We have an opportunity to restore some of the rights that have been denied a community, which we should all be ashamed of. We have the ability to honour a commitment given by James Cleverly in November 2022 that we would abide by international law and would cede sovereignty. We also have an opportunity to ensure that, at this stage, we do it right. We should therefore honour our commitments, ensure rights and provide clarity, and we hope that the Government can do this before ratification.