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?