Lord Callanan:

Moved by Lord Callanan

3: Clause 1, page 1, line 7, at end insert “, subject to subsection (2A).(2A) Sections 2 to 4 of this Act come into force only when the duties outlined in section (Chagos marine protected area) have been discharged.”Member’s explanatory statementThis Amendment would prevent the provisions from coming into force until the Government has published its plan to ensure the long-term protection of the Chagos Marine Protected Area.

My Lords, I will briefly move Amendment 3 in my name. I will also speak about the other amendments in my name in this group, but I will not seek to pre-empt the arguments of the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, when he gets around to proposing his amendments.

The ocean around the Chagos Islands is a uniquely rich and biodiverse environment. It is home to the UK’s greatest marine biodiversity, with unique species, major sea-bird populations and healthy reefs. As the custodians of that biodiversity, the UK has a proud record of increasing marine biodiversity. I know the Government have ambitions to continue that record, which we support. But by transferring sovereignty of the Chagos Archipelago to the Mauritian Government, Ministers are putting the future of that MPA in an uncertain position. Yes, the treaty provides for Mauritius to maintain the MPA, but what tools do the Mauritian Government have at their disposal to discharge those responsibilities? I do not doubt their commitment, but I doubt their ability to actually enforce it.

Mauritius, as has been said many times, is around 1,300 miles away from the Chagos Islands. It has only a small coastguard. It has very limited resources and very limited assets with which to defend that marine protected area. Can the Minister please explain how the UK Government expect Mauritius to maintain the MPA, given those indisputable facts? She has referred a number of times to the commitment of Mauritius. I do not doubt that commitment, but I doubt its means and resources to actually enforce the MPA against hostile acts.

My Amendment 43 would require the Secretary of State to publish a report on how the Government expect the MPA to be preserved in perpetuity under Article 5 of this treaty.

My Lords, I support Amendments 28 to 31A in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, who very sadly has been struck down by the ghastly flu. I had not intended initially to speak to these amendments, but was very happy to do so after hearing from him and reading the speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, back in November, which horrified me and drew to my attention matters that I know the Chagossians themselves are also absolutely appalled by.

Without the clarity and protection sought by these amendments, this House is being asked to acquiesce not only in technical deficiencies in the Bill but in an act of stark neglect and hypocrisy that would destroy the UK’s credibility as a climate and environmental leader. At COP 29 in Baku, our Prime Minister said that

“the UK has sent a clear message … we are renewing UK climate leadership”.

He said:

“There is no national security, there is no economic security, there is no global security without climate security”— linking climate leadership to national and global security.

We are being asked, despite that very public declaration of climate leadership, to pass a Bill that would allow ratification of a treaty to transfer control of one of the world’s most significant marine protected areas, if not the most significant. The Government admit that the terms of the future protection of that area are not yet dealt with and are to be dealt with later in a separate written agreement, not yet published, not yet scrutinised, not yet agreed and without any sanctions if none of that happens. It is an absolute abdication of responsibility, not only to the Chagossian people and to ourselves and our own principles of climate leadership but to the global concerns around climate.

Amendment 28 addresses the most basic constitutional failure in this process. Parliament is being asked to approve the transfer first and trust that the environmental safeguards will follow. No serious legislature should agree to that. If the protections matter—and the Ministers have agreed that they do—they should be visible, binding and tested before ratification, not promised to be dealt with afterwards.

Amendments 29 and 30, on allocation of funds to environmental protection and the power to withhold funds for non-compliance, should not be controversial if the Government are sincere that environmental stewardship is a priority. Why would we not be willing to hardwire that priority into the financial architecture of the agreement? Why would we resist earmarking funds explicitly for environmental protection? And why would we resist retaining leverage to withhold payments if the marine environment is degraded? Without any of these mechanisms, the UK is powerless to act in respect of the likely failures by Mauritius to protect the MPA.

Regrettably, it has to be stated that Mauritius is not a party likely to be relied on in such matters. According to the Environmental Performance Index compiled by Yale University, Mauritius ranks extremely poorly indeed at 173 out of 180 for the biodiversity and habitat category that measures countries’ actions towards retaining natural ecosystems. For maritime habitat protection, it is 83 out of 129 countries. Most crucially of all, for marine protection stringency it is 131 out of 131—absolutely last.

Amendment 31 tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, confronts an uncomfortable but unavoidable reality—that of enforcement. The waters in question are vast. Enforcement is expensive and technically demanding. Constant enforcement is needed to prevent illegal fishing. Mauritius does not have the technical capacity to provide that. No serious Government should consider proceeding with any of this without a serious published assessment of enforcement capability and a proposal for its execution.

The Chagos marine protected area is not just another marine protected area; it is one of the largest, most intact, least exploited tropical marine ecosystems on this precious planet. Its value lies precisely in the fact that it has been strongly protected—something that the UK should be very proud of and extremely hesitant to throw away. This MPA functions as a global reference point—a living baseline—so that we can understand what marine ecosystems can look like when they are not relentlessly harmed. If, as many experts fear, the result of this treaty is deep-sea fishing across 99% of it, as opposed to the current situation where it is almost 100% protected, the consequences will be catastrophic and irreversible on any human timescale—sea-floor habitats flattened, food webs simplified and predator populations depleted. In the time available, I will not list all the species that will be destroyed.

The noble Baroness is making a magnificent case in her speech. The Blue Belt of marine protected areas is one of the greatest conservation stories in any of our lifetimes—something the UK has been so proud of for so many years. For the reasons the noble Baroness has described, it is a tragedy to see us go backwards when the appetite among the public, particularly after the recent Attenborough programme, is that we should grow, not shrink.

Does the noble Baroness also acknowledge that by removing the near 100% protection and reducing it down to 1%, there will be a flurry of fishing activity in those waters, which will make it impossible, from a security point of view, to protect what is, as we have heard from many speakers, an incredibly important and valuable military base? How do you police things? How do you ensure that those vessels are not spy vessels, kitted up with all kinds of technology to intercept the very important work that is happening? Right now, it is simple; going forward, it will not be.

I agree 100% and could not have put it better myself. I hope that the Minister will address the points raised by my noble friend Lord Goldsmith.

As raised by a number of Oxford academics, there is also the additional, profound danger of deep-sea drilling once the very issues that my noble friend raised become a reality. Once effective control is surrendered and protections are weak or unenforceable, industrial pressure follows. Deep-sea drilling is the archetype of a low-probability, high-impact risk that will destroy and decimate this precious area.

Even routine drilling brings chronic pollution, noise and disturbance incompatible with meaningful protection. If the UK Government insist on proceeding without these amendments, or protections of equivalent force, the UK’s claim to climate and environmental leadership will collapse. We will be that country that lectures the world about marine protection, biodiversity and climate responsibility while quietly signing away one of the most important marine sanctuaries on earth.

Treaties are not acts of faith or promises; they are instruments of law. They need to include all the terms and consequences for their breaches. If environmental protections matter, as Ministers say they do—and we support that statement—it must not be possible to be ratify this treaty without these amendments or protections of equal strength.

Unusually, I will give my last words—noble Lords will not hear me say this often—to the Secretary of State for Energy, Ed Miliband, who stated last July:

“We know that climate change and nature loss are fundamentally linked … but we in this country have helped make a difference”.—[Official Report, Commons, 14/7/25; cols. 29-30.]

That is very true regarding this marine protected area, and we do not want the future difference that we make to be a destructive one. I urge the Government to accept these amendments or similar protections.

My Lords, I remind the House of my interest as a trustee of the Blue Marine Foundation for many years and having been part of the negotiations with the British Government to produce the most exciting and real effect on marine protection that anyone has done. It is a great thing for us to have done. No other nation has done it, and it means that we have been able to bring out of the end of empire something that is really worth while for the future.

This is the crucial place, and the protection of the seas is crucial to the future of humanity. We are not talking about some vague, odd or additional bit; we are talking about a central issue. I cannot understand this Government. I wanted to be helpful to them, but I have to say to the Minister that this is not an acceptable position. We cannot give this up to a state which is unable to do what it—in all validity, I am sure—says it wishes to do. It cannot do it. It has neither the resources to do it nor the history of being able to do it.

My noble friend made the important point about the position and present situation of the state to which we are handing this responsibility. It has a terrible reputation. It has failed even with the seas close to its own homeland. We are handing over to it the safety of a place that is 1,000 miles from the area it does not protect now. How can we possibly agree to this? It is wholly contrary to all that Britain has fought for—the example we have given.

The Minister knows that I am not entirely in favour of some of the changes that my party seems to think would be helpful to the fight against climate change, so she cannot accuse me of being in any way party political on this. This is an unacceptable situation, and she will have to say to this House either that she accepts these amendments or that she will come back with changes at Third Reading which will mean that this, our particular contribution to the world, will be protected. If she does not do that, this will be a major betrayal of what Britain has done—of all political parties right across the board—for the past 25 years. It is a great achievement. We cannot throw it away, and this House should not allow us to do so.

My Lords, we have heard two powerful and moving speeches. I will reference another Miliband—David Miliband, the former Foreign Secretary. One of the very last initiatives he brought forward was the Chagos Archipelago marine protected area. He said at the time that it was by far and away the most important environmental treaty and agreement that any Government had ever enacted. He pointed out that 92% of the UK’s biodiversity is located in the OTs, which is still the case. Some 32% of it is in the Chagos Archipelago.

All the research I did as an incoming Minister at the time completely reinforced the then Labour Government’s decision to launch this initiative and put so much effort and time into it. We are concerned about sea-birds, migratory turtles and coral bleaching, but my biggest concern is around fishing. All the research proved that, if you can put a stop to fishing, you prevent damage to the coral, because modern commercial fishing does untold harm to coral reefs. It will also have a big impact on apex species, such as sharks and rays, which are so important to the environment.

I am sorry to say this, but the Mauritian Government have a dreadful record on environmental protection. We may well give them the benefit of the doubt and say that they will raise their game and suddenly start finding resources to take this matter seriously, but what happens if they go the other way and future Governments in Mauritius, maybe even in 10 years’ time, decide that they can raise a great deal of money from issuing licences to the Chinese, the Taiwanese, the Bulgarians or whatever country wants to fish in these areas? We would have no control over that whatever. Whatever they say now, it could well be ripped up and ignored even in 10 years’ time. What about hydrocarbons? If there are discoveries in this part of the ocean in the region of the archipelago, what is to stop the Mauritian Government issuing licences for exploration of hydrocarbons? In 10 years’ time, when many of us will not be here, we may look back and say: “What on earth did this Government do to take away those vital protections?”

I am very impressed by the noble Lord’s speech. Can he tell us what proportion of the resources of the Royal Air Force and the Royal Navy are currently deployed in the Indian Ocean protecting the area?

I had sat down, but I am perfectly happy to say that the UK Government take their responsibilities incredibly seriously. As I mentioned, the OTs contain 92% of our biodiversity. I cannot think of one example where the UK Government have not stepped up to honour their responsibilities and put in place every form of protection.

I remind my noble friend that not only the British Government but voluntary organisations have been doing this, and it is because of the backing of the British Government that they are carrying this through. Whatever the noble Lord’s views on this issue, he must accept that at the moment this is a very highly protected area, and we are offering it to someone who does not protect anyone.

We can address those concerns by passing at least one of these amendments.

My Lords, Amendments 3, 31A, 42 and 43 from the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, all relate to the marine protected area and the Mauritian intent to establish its own marine protected area. It will be for Mauritius to implement this MPA. However, we welcome the announcement on 3 November by the Mauritian Government of the establishment of the Chagos Archipelago marine protected area, to be known as CAMPA, and particularly their commitment that no commercial fishing will be allowed in any part of the area.

Amendment 31 from the noble Lords, Lord Faulks and Lord Godson, follows a similar vein, seeking to oblige the UK Government to report on the Mauritian MPA. But we have been clear that CAMPA will be for the Mauritian Government to enforce and fund, and the UK will not be providing direct funding to Mauritius to maintain or set up this MPA. Renegotiation of the treaty at this stage is not a practical proposition, as Mauritius has already made this public commitment to the MPA, which covers the protections requested in the noble Lords amendments. We therefore do not think they are necessary. Likewise—

What the Minister repeats is what the Mauritian Government have promised. I do not in any way attack what they have promised, but they cannot do it. They have not done it anywhere else, so why are we not insisting that we provide the resources for them to do it?

I will come on to that. It is a perfectly legitimate question, although I would urge people not to speak about the Mauritian Government, who have said everything we would all want them to say on these matters. We work with them in a positive light, and we want to work in partnership with them to make sure that the commitments they have made are followed through. The right way for us to do that is in a more positive way. I was about to come on to the question the noble Lord put, but I will gladly give way to the noble Baroness.

I am very grateful to the Minister for giving way because the question is related. The Mauritian Government may be saying everything our Government want to hear, but at the moment we have no mechanism whatsoever to enforce it and to ensure that what happens in the future can also be enforced.

The noble Baroness has amplified the point made earlier by the noble Lord; it is an important point, and I will address it. However, at this stage we are going to reject Amendment 28, which seeks to oblige the UK to publish the proposed arrangements on MPA management and security before entry into force of the treaty. The UK and Mauritius are working together to finalise an arrangement on maritime security to ensure that patrolling, which provides enforcement regarding the future MPA, is maintained after entry into force. We will publish relevant MoUs, including on maritime security, once these are finalised, because we accept that it is vital. Everything that David Miliband said—I thank the noble Lord for reminding us of what he said—we stand by.

Amendments 29 and 30, tabled by the noble Lords, Lord Faulks and Lord Godson, seek to ensure that money is set aside in the treaty for the establishment and maintenance of the MPA, and that the Government amend the treaty to allow for non-payment if Mauritius does not protect the marine environment. We agree that the continued protection of the environment is important. As previously set out, the UK is not going to be providing direct funding to Mauritius for this purpose. It is true, however, that the UK-Mauritius Strategic Partnership Framework does provide for technical support and expertise to enable the Mauritian Government to work alongside the environmental partners noble Lords have referred to, including the Zoological Society of London, to make sure that the ongoing protection of the marine environment is secure. This is separate to the treaty.

The noble Baroness asked what we would do if there was a breach. If the UK believes that Mauritius is in breach of its commitments in Article 5, on the environment, it can follow the process set out in Article 14, on settlement of disputes. There is therefore no need to include a further way to settle any disputes over protection of the environment, so we do not accept these amendments.

Before the Minister concludes, my understanding is that Article 14 does not provide for any recourse. There is no sanction, there is no provision, and it is not a mechanism referred to by anyone who has addressed this issue today.

Article 14 has been agreed as the way to settle disputes. A failure to deliver on environmental commitments could be something we would want to challenge, and the process by which we would do that is included in Article 14. In treaties, we do not need to have a sanction or punishment; the right thing to do is to try to resolve these things so that the impact can be changed. What we want is to make sure that the marine protected area is sustained and that what is environmentally special about this place is secured. That is something we all agree on, but where we differ is that I believe that the mechanisms in the treaty are sufficient to allow for that. What will make the real difference is the quality of the partnership we are able to develop with Mauritius on the work with ZSL and other partners, so that it is equipped to comply with the commitments it is making.

How are the Government addressing the fundamental fact—which has not been addressed by the Minister, I am afraid—that Mauritius does not have the capacity to police these waters in any way? We are simply in ignorance about all of this.

She said it, not me. That is why you can buy technical assistance; it is why technical assistance exists. We have a technical assistance partnership with many countries. It is a much better way, working alongside countries to make sure that environmental improvements happen. That is the approach the Government have taken, and it is in the treaty.

I hope that noble Lords will consider withdrawing and not pressing their amendments.

My Lords, the Minister’s remark to the noble Baroness, Lady Cash, was a little uncalled for.

I was joking.

The Minister may say that she was joking, but it was not a very good joke.

I thank all noble Lords who have spoken in this debate. In Committee, noble Lords across the Chamber set out their profound concerns about the practical ability of the Mauritian Government to deliver on their commitments. As I said, nobody doubts what they have said and the statements they have made; however, I think we all doubt their ability to enforce this crucial MPA.

I do not need to repeat all the excellent points that have been made by the noble Baroness, Lady Cash, my noble friend Lord Goldsmith and others in their contributions to this debate; they very closely reflect our concerns. Given the critical importance of the ocean around the archipelago for global diversity, we believe that it is necessary to press the Government on this, so that we can have a formal statement of the Government’s expectations of Mauritius under Article 5 of the treaty. We also believe that we need clarity on what steps Ministers will be willing to take to ensure the maintenance of the MPA in perpetuity by the Mauritian Government. I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment 3 withdrawn.

Amendments 4 to 6 not moved.