1-8 of 8 results for subject:Mauritius
Librarians' tools
- Search time
- 0.359 seconds
- Solr query time
- 0.003 seconds
- Search query
- subject:Mauritius
- We searched for
- subject_t:Mauritius OR subject_t:"Republic of Mauritius" OR subject_ses:11573
Type
House
Session
Year
Department
Member
Primary member
More
Answering member
Legislative stage
Legislation
Subject
More
Publisher
To ask His Majesty's Government whether it is their policy to inform Mauritius of any armed attack on a third State directly emanating from the base on Diego Garcia.
To ask His Majesty's Government whether it is their policy to inform Mauritius of any armed attack on a third State directly emanating from the base on Diego Garcia.
The UK-Mauritius Agreement has not yet entered into force, and as such standard operating protocols apply.
The requirement to inform a host nation about military action undertaken is a standard element in many such arrangements. However, once the agreement has entered into force it does not require us to notify Mauritius in advance.
To ask His Majesty's Government whether ministers have instructed officials to act in accordance with the terms of the 2025 UK-Mauritius Agreement concerning the Chagos Archipelago including Diego Garcia as though it had been ratified.
To ask His Majesty's Government whether ministers have instructed officials to act in accordance with the terms of the 2025 UK-Mauritius Agreement concerning the Chagos Archipelago including Diego Garcia as though it had been ratified.
No.
To ask His Majesty's Government whether there are any extant agreements, notes or exchanges of letters with the government of the Maldives that impact the governance of the British Indian Ocean Territory or the treaty with Mauritius.
To ask His Majesty's Government whether there are any extant agreements, notes or exchanges of letters with the government of the Maldives that impact the governance of the British Indian Ocean Territory or the treaty with Mauritius.
The Agreement between the UK and Mauritius secures the important UK-US military base on Diego Garcia. The Agreement was tested at the highest levels of the United States' security establishment, across multiple agencies, and it has been backed by our key allies and international partners, including the US and all our Five Eyes partners. Talks are ongoing to update the UK-US Exchange of Letters on the operation of the Diego Garcia Base. There are no agreements with the Maldives that would impact the operation of the base.
To ask His Majesty's Government what assessment they have made of their agreement with the government of Mauritius about the British Indian Ocean Territory in the light of recent developments in the Middle East, and the strategic position of the British Indian Ocean Territory.
To ask His Majesty's Government what assessment they have made of their agreement with the government of Mauritius about the British Indian Ocean Territory in the light of recent developments in the Middle East, and the strategic position of the British Indian Ocean Territory.
The Diego Garcia military base deal is absolutely vital for our defence and intelligence, and therefore for the safety and security of the British people and our allies. All UK overseas bases are operated in accordance with our obligations under international law. This includes Diego Garcia.
Lords motion to resolve, in accordance with section 20 of the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010 and in the light of concerns about the cost of the agreement, the absence of any legal requirement to conclude such an agreement, its impact on international security, and the lack of meaningful consultation of the Chagossian people, and recognising the right of Chagossians to be registered as British Overseas Territory citizens under the Nationality and Borders Act 2022, that His Majesty's Government should not ratify the Agreement between the United Kingdom and the Republic of Mauritius concerning the Chagos Archipelago including Diego Garcia, laid before the House on 22 May. Disagreed to on division (185 to 205).
Lords motion to resolve, in accordance with section 20 of the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010 and in the light of concerns about the cost of the agreement, the absence of any legal requirement to conclude such an agreement, its impact on international security, and the lack of meaningful...
I am grateful to the Minister for that Answer. It is disappointing that the Government seem determined to proceed with this dreadful surrender
policy. It is worth remembering that this whole sorry saga originates from an advisory, non-legally binding ICJ opinion from a panel of judges—including those from Russia and China, who unsurprisingly were fully supportive of the UK giving up its sovereignty of a key strategic asset. Is the Minister not even a little embarrassed at having to find painful cuts in her new overseas aid budget to fund essential extra defence spending, only to then see £18 billion of that funding wasted on leasing back an asset that we already own?
I am grateful to the Minister for that Answer. It is disappointing that the Government seem determined to proceed with this dreadful surrender
policy. It is worth remembering that this whole sorry saga originates from an advisory, non-legally binding ICJ opinion from a panel of judges—including those from Russia and China, who unsurprisingly were fully supportive of the UK giving up its sovereignty of a key strategic asset. Is the Minister not even a little embarrassed at having to find painful cuts in her new overseas aid budget to fund essential extra defence spending, only to then see £18 billion of that funding wasted on leasing back an asset that we already own?
What I am embarrassed by is that we inherited such a mess in our overseas development spend, with asylum accommodation being paid for by our development spend, and an Army that had been neglected—the smallest Army since Napoleon. That is what we inherited. That is what he ought to be ashamed of.
To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the government of Mauritius reopening negotiations on the Chagos Islands.
To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the government of Mauritius reopening negotiations on the Chagos Islands.
My Lords, as we and Mauritius have repeatedly said, including in joint statements on 20 December and 13 January, both sides remain committed to concluding a deal on the future of the Chagos archipelago which protects the long-term effective operation of the joint UK-US base on Diego Garcia. Although it is in everyone’s interest to progress the deal quickly, we have never put an exact date on it and we do not intend to. Following signature, the Government will bring forward a Bill to enable implementation of the treaty, and Parliament will have the opportunity to scrutinise the treaty before ratification.
As the Minister has just confirmed, in 1967 the then Labour Government forcibly evicted 1,700 Chagossian people from Diego Garcia. Can the Minister tell us precisely how many of them or their descendants, now here in the UK, were consulted before the Government took the decision to hand over the islands to Mauritius?
As the Minister has just confirmed, in 1967 the then Labour Government forcibly evicted 1,700 Chagossian people from Diego Garcia. Can the Minister tell us precisely how many of them or their descendants, now here in the UK, were consulted before the Government took the decision to hand over the islands to Mauritius?
My Lords, we have engaged for a long time with Chagossian communities. This was a decision made between Governments, and the noble Lord will know that it is Governments who negotiate international treaties. It is right that we offer citizenship to Chagossians who want it, and a trust fund will be set up for Chagossians. As I have said, they will have the right to return to the other islands and the right to visit Diego Garcia.