Diego Garcia and British Indian Ocean Territory

Thursday 26th February 2026 Lords Chamber

Commons Urgent Question

11:57

The following Answer to an Urgent Question was given in the House of Commons on Wednesday 25 February.

“His Majesty’s Government’s objective has been, and continues to be, to secure the long-term effective operation of the military base on Diego Garcia. It is a base that is critical for our national security and helping to keep the British people safe. It is a key strategic military asset for both the United Kingdom and the United States. It has enabled our shared security for nearly 60 years.

When we came into government, it was clear that our ability to maintain our interest and control in the base was under threat, so this Government had to take action to protect our military advantage and to stop our adversaries gaining a hold in such a strategically important part of the world. Refusing to act could have exposed one of our most valuable military assets to China, so, as any responsible Government would, we negotiated a deal to protect our interests.

This Government inherited a situation where the operation of the base was in immediate jeopardy, and negotiations on a transfer of sovereignty to Mauritius were well advanced by the previous Government. The deal delivers on our objective of maintaining the secure, effective operation of this vital military base. It would allow us to operate this joint UK-US base as we have always done.

This House knows that the Government worked tirelessly with the United States in developing and testing the treaty to ensure that it met our shared security needs. That is why it was supported by two Administrations and why Secretaries Rubio and Hegseth, and indeed President Trump himself, came out so strongly in favour when the treaty was signed in May last year. I can assure this House that nothing in the treaty has changed since the US Administration gave their original endorsement of the deal, and we continue to work with Mauritius and the United States.

The UK Government have great sympathy for the Chagossian community. They feel a deep emotional connection with these islands. We have been clear in our regrets for the manner in which Chagossians were forcibly removed from the islands in the 1960s and 1970s. We are working to resume a programme of heritage visits for members of the community.

We will continue to work with both Mauritius and the United States on the agreement. As the Prime Minister has said, we have very close relations with the United States. That relationship matters profoundly not just to our security but to the prosperity and stability on which people here at home depend”.

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

My Lords, I warmly welcome the Statement from the Minister in the other place that this dreadful surrender Bill is being paused pending further discussions with the United States. My amendment of a few weeks ago, which the noble Baroness described at the time as “wrecking”, called for exactly that, so it is great that the Government now seem to be in the same place. Does she agree that, had the Government followed the logical sequence of agreeing their new treaty and then amendments to the 1966 treaty with the US before progressing with this Bill, they would not be in this embarrassing position today?

On the subject of pauses, will the noble Baroness pause the no-fault eviction of the group of Chagossians who have returned to take up residence on one of the outer Chagos Islands? Throughout the passage of the Bill, on many occasions she rightly expressed her sadness and shame at the way that a previous Labour Government had evicted the Chagossians from their homes. We will now see just how sincere she was in those comments by whether this current Labour Government carry out another forceful eviction of British citizens from a British territory. Finally, does she agree that the current international crisis and the possible use of Diego Garcia for military strikes against Iran demonstrates the vital strategic importance of the base and why we should retain it under British sovereignty and UK control?

[The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Baroness Chapman of Darlington) (Lab)]

My Lords, the people who have found their way to some of the outer islands should not be there. It is not safe for them and they do not have permission. It is not legal for anybody to visit those islands without a permit. They do not have such a permit and they should leave immediately. It is deeply irresponsible that they are encouraging others to join them and there is a risk to life in doing so. I hope that they leave of their own accord safely, but promptly.

The noble Lord is right that this base is of vital strategic importance. It is an expression of our incredibly close security and defence relationship with the United States, which is why we have gone to such lengths to secure the future of the base.

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

My Lords, I am sure the House will note the fact that Conservative MPs, Nigel Farage and Tommy Robinson, all of whom proclaim to love their country, actively undermine it when they are in the State Department and the White House. However, given President Trump’s statement, it is now necessary for us to be presented with what would be a binding decision with the United States, our key ally in the use of the military base. If there is a pause, does the Minister agree that this is an opportunity for there to be a statutory right for the Chagossian community with regards to resettlement, active participation from the Chagossian community on decisions that affect them, greater clarity on the value for money for our taxpayers if there is to be a long-term treaty, and a greater role for this Parliament in holding any government to account over the lifetime of that treaty?

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

It is very important that we lay out clearly the costings and the value for money points are answered. I am happy that the Government have committed to doing that and will continue to do so.

On the participation of Chagossians, we have discussed this at great length in the past, and for very good reason. We are able to find ways, together with Mauritius, to make sure that Chagossians are properly represented and able to exert influence within the treaty around the trust fund, their ability to resettle in the future, who is entitled to do so and all these issues. It is probably a good idea for us to continue those conversations to make sure that is done as well as it possibly can be.

On the stability of the US position, I take the point. We had secured very clear and firm support for the deal from Secretary Rubio and President Trump. We continue to have close, intense conversations with our dearest allies and partners about the consistency of this decision, in order that we may be able to move forward with this treaty which, as I have said, secures our ability to operate together with the United States from Diego Garcia.

[Lord Bellingham (Con)]

My Lords, on that very point, the Minister said on 12 occasions—and I have a list of them—that the treaty can only go ahead with US support. Well, the US President said last week that this is a “blight on our great ally” and the UK should not give up Diego Garcia. The following day, the President’s senior press officer, Karoline Leavitt, was asked by the BBC whether the President’s statement was now official policy and she said that it certainly was official policy. Can the Minister tell the House what her plan B is?

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

Our plan is to proceed as I have said, which is to speak with our friends, allies, partner, close friend in Washington to establish a stable position. As I have said repeatedly—and it is good to know the noble Lord has been listening and counting so assiduously—it is true that this is all about securing the base for the United Kingdom and the United States to operate together.

[Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)]

Does the Minister agree that the imperative about what happens to the base is the national security of our country, not only for those of us in our generation but for the generations to come in the next hundred years or so? Does she agree that noises off can be distracting and misleading and, at the end of the day, we have to make up our own minds?

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

We do need to make up our own minds and we have done so, but I do not think it is realistic to proceed in a way that does not involve the support of our allies in the United States who pay for the base and its operation, and with whom we work so closely. The noble Lord is right about noises off, and sometimes you do have to wonder about the motivation of some of those conducting themselves in that way.

[Baroness Goldie (Con)]

My Lords, given what the Minister has just said about “our dearest friends and allies”, would the single most sensible gesture to our dearest friends and ally not now be to put this pause on to permanent hold?

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

The noble Baroness will forgive me for not wanting to disclose in this forum the very detailed nature of the conversations we are having with the United States, but it is not for any of us here to tell each other what the best thing to do for the United States would be; it is up to them to talk to us privately at this stage about how we should be proceeding to secure the base.

[Lord Redwood (Con)]

Why do the Government think the international courts can make us give Diego Garcia away to Mauritius when there are very clear defence opt-outs from their jurisdictions in the relevant treaties?

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

It is good to see the noble Lord here in his place—he has not been part of the discussions we have had up to now. If he had been, he might have found some useful exchanges across this Chamber on that very topic. We think there is a legal basis for the decisions we have made. Although noble Lords opposite may disagree with that, there is at least consistency in our position. I am genuinely fascinated by what the previous Government thought they were doing, negotiating around a dozen times, if, as they maintain now, they thought there was no legal jeopardy around the future of the base.

[Baroness Foster of Aghadrumsee (Non-Afl)]

My Lords—

[Lord Mackinlay of Richborough (Con)]

My Lords—

[Lord Lilley (Con)]

My Lords—

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)]

My Lords—

[Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Lemos) (Lab)]

My Lords, we will hear from the noble Baroness, Lady Foster, next.

[Baroness Foster of Aghadrumsee (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I did say the last time we debated this issue, as the Minister probably remembers, that there were consequences to ignoring the voices and the rights of self-determination of the Chagossian people. We now find ourselves in a situation where they have taken matters into their own hands and have gone to the archipelago. Surely it is now long past the time when we need to kill this treaty.

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

I respect the noble Baroness’s steadfast support for the Chagossian community, but as she will know, there is not one single view among the Chagossian community or Chagossian groups, and there are several which support this new agreement. It is not good that people have found their way to this remote island, which is not suitable for habitation. They are putting their own lives at risk, and, more importantly, encouraging others to put their lives at risk too—and they should leave promptly.

[Lord Craig of Radley (CB)]

My Lords, on 5 January, when debating the Diego Garcia Bill, I asked the Minister this question:

“Is there any legally binding agreement between the UK and the United States that it”,


that is, the United States,

“will continue its use of the base or have need of its use for the 99-year duration of the treaty?”—[Official Report, 5/1/26; col. 957.]

The Minister did not answer then. Perhaps she could answer now, because it seems the UK should be aware and assured that the United States is committed for the whole length of the treaty, the 100 years.

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

It is very important that we have an agreement with the United States about the continued use of this base, because it matters so much to our security, and the United States feels the same about it. There is no difference between the United Kingdom and the United States about the need to continue to have that base and to operate it together; we are in complete agreement on that. Where we are coming to talk to them now is about the nature of that agreement and these issues around sovereignty. We will do that, and we will get these issues resolved so that we can move forward.