Contribution
My Lords, it is always informative to follow the noble Lord, apart from when he is having his witty barbs against my party, which is often the case. He made a very strong case today, and I hope that he may feel that his points are reflected in part of the text in my Amendment 33.
This has been an important debate and group. Since we are on Report, I will simply focus on the amendments that I have tabled: Amendment 19 and then, although it will be considered consequential, the more substantive Amendment 33. I am aware that for the noble Baronesses, Lady Hoey and Lady Foster, Amendment 33 will be a bird in one hand and half a loaf in the other, but nevertheless I am grateful for their prospective support. I give notice that I will likely test the opinion of the House on Amendment 19, and I understand that the Government have indicated that, if Amendment 19 is supported, Amendment 33 will be considered consequential. For the avoidance of doubt—and I know it is disappointing to the noble Baroness—we cannot support Amendment 33A, as that change would, in effect, link the arguments in my amendment with those on Amendment 32, which I will outline a little bit further.
The House has heard me on many occasions refer to the lack of legislative guarantees of the rights of the Chagossian community, including those that the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, has indicated with regard to the right of participation within Diego Garcia in particular, as well as resettlement into the wider archipelago. Because we are on Report, I will not rehearse the arguments I have previously made, but my amendments seek to resolve this as best as I have been able to draft. I hope that the Government will, even at this stage, reconsider and support them.
Amendment 33 states that, to address the lack of definitive legal right enshrined in statute in Mauritius law and acknowledged in the UK, we need formally to seek the views of the Chagossian community on whether they are willing to consent to the terms of the implementation of the treaty rights, which so far are only permissive in nature within the treaty—that is the essence if we are talking about self-determination. There is no point simply referencing self-determination if there are no legal rights to back it up, and that is the essence of what I am seeking to achieve. That would include the resettlement to the archipelago, distinct from Diego Garcia, the right of participation in opportunities of working in Diego Garcia and statutory involvement in the decision-making of the trust fund for their overall rights as the treaty is implemented.
Amendment 32 in the name of noble Baroness, Lady Foster, has some issues. She spoke with sincerity today, as she has in Committee and all the times we have raised these matters. First, I understand the views and political arguments of the Conservative Benches in support of her amendment, but the amendment would overturn a century of long-standing convention on those Benches that Parliament should not retrospectively fetter the prerogative powers of treaty making. That is not necessarily the view of our Benches, but it is certainly the view of their Benches; this amendment would overturn that. I understand that is the deliberate process, but that is the consequence of what voting for it would bring about. It is an interesting and novel constitutional approach, but one where the consequence is worth recognising. Indeed, that was the point that the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, referred to earlier in his remarks.
Another issue is that, although the noble Baroness, Lady Foster, and the noble Lords, Lord Morrow and Lord McCrae, spoke very strong, powerful, emotive words with regard to the right to self-determination, what they are proposing would be a limited right, because that limited right of self-determination is not about the ability to decide the future of Diego Garcia and the military base. The Official Opposition have indicated that it is non-negotiable that Diego Garcia will be retained in perpetuity as a military base. That is not a decision that has been made with the consent of the Chagossian people about what their territory would be used for. That is a predetermined decision. They have stated that today, and they stated it as recently as April 2024 in the letter from the Foreign Secretary, the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, to the Foreign Affairs Committee in the House of Commons. If there is an argument for self-determination and consent, then presumably the argument of those supporting Amendment 32 is that that consent should include the use of Diego Garcia, but that has been precluded or ruled out. I do not see how that squares in that respect because, presumably, if the principled stance is one where only consent should be applied, then it should be applied also for Diego Garcia and the use of the military base.