Diego Garcia Military Base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill

Debate between Lord Grocott and Lord Kempsell

Report stage
Monday 5th January 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Kempsell (Con)]

My Lords, how can I add to the tour d’horizon we have had from the Benches on this side of your Lordships’ House, and indeed all sides, as we consider this group of amendments all about the moral and legal rights of the Chagossian people, who have been ignored, marginalised and set completely out of this Government’s process in the handling of the Bill?

I will add only very briefly, as I know we want to move to the end of the group, to dwell on the double standard now at the heart of this debate after the report by the United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination. If we had a grain of sand for the number of times that this Government have given weight, space and gravity to non-binding opinions, rulings, mandates, exhortations and other statements by international bodies of any form, we would be able to recreate the shoreline of the Chagos Archipelago—except when it comes to the report from the United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination. Noble Lords have adumbrated the brutal nature of the statement released by that body totally condemning the Bill, and my noble friend Lord Hannan has Amendment 24 in his name which I support on this point. This was the United Nations intervening in the legislative process and suggesting that ratification should be paused altogether.

The United Kingdom has been a state party to the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination since 7 March 1969. There are more than 180 states party to that convention. I ask the Minister, who I know is doing her utmost to manage an unmanageable and controversial Bill, just what is the UK Government’s response to the UN Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination? How can the Bill possibly be in line with the commitments that the UK Government made under that convention to work to eliminate all forms of racial discrimination when the committee itself has been so clear in its view on the Government’s policy?

I also add my support to the speech of my noble friend Lord Bellingham, who dwelt on the status of this body in the UN family and system at a time when these questions feel so timely and we feel them so sharply. Are the Government really willing to ride roughshod over that opinion and completely ignore it?

[Lord Grocott (Lab)]

My Lords, I particularly want to speak today because I am on the IRDC. I am proud that we completed a near-impossible task given to us by Parliament, which was to try to summarise the feelings of the Chagossian community on the UK-Mauritius agreement. I do not know precisely, but we had about 10 days to organise that, supervise it and draw up a report. The credit for that, more than anything, should go to our chairman, the noble Lord, Lord De Mauley, and to the secretaries—it was outstanding that they did that job in a few days before Christmas. It was an impossible job which belatedly answered the question of, “Why don’t we ask the Chagossians what they think about all this?”, but a good job was done.

At the heart of everything is the question of the views of the Chagossians or, perhaps more specifically than that, what has happened to them. Throughout all these debates—I have been involved in most of them one way or another—there is this black cloud over all the amendments and speeches, of the awareness of the profound injustice that was done in a short six-year period under Labour and Conservative Governments to remove some 1,400 to 1,700 people from their homeland in the most objectionable circumstances.

I constantly ask myself why it is not more of a cause celebre than it is. I can only answer that by saying that it was a small number of people. But it is not a small number of people if you are one of the people affected; the effect is 100%. I suppose it goes without saying that if more people had been involved, there would have been far more of an outcry about what happened. I will not repeat some of the things that have been said in the past about the way in which it was done.

I think we all recognise that, and subsequent Governments have recognised that, but it begs the question: what, if anything, can we do? It is not some crime committed in the ancient past; it is a crime committed within the lifetime of many people in this House. What can we, in practical terms, do to put it right?

We have heard a lot today—I am not unsympathetic to this—about holding a referendum. We have had something that has many of the characteristics of a referendum by means of our report, though I am sure that there are plenty of statisticians and experts on these things who would say it could be done far more effectively and far better. However, I am 99% confident about what the result of a referendum would be. It would probably be inconclusive in terms of a huge majority—there are divisions among the Chagossian community, which we know about—but our key themes, which Lord De Mauley has already referred to, are the inevitable consequences of holding a referendum. A referendum would undoubtedly find: the profound suffering

“felt by Chagossian communities at their displacement and a yearning for redress. Concern that the Mauritian government may not be able to fulfil the aspirations of Chagossians. A clear wish for greater Chagossian agency in future decisions made about the islands”.

We should therefore not expect anything stunning if the amendment is passed and there is a referendum. It would take time and be challenged by whoever were to lose it should the result be narrow. There are clear and distinct divisions among the Chagossians and there would be the usual arguments about who would be eligible to vote and about referendums, but writ large in this case.

We cannot redress the injustices of the past. We should focus our attention not on speculating about prolonging the process or on further referrals to further committees. We should concentrate on the heart of the practical things that could be done, of which there is one above all else. More than anything, the Chagossians want the right, whether they exercise it or not, to return to their homeland, even if it is only for visits. We are told by the military—I have no reason to dispute this—that that is simply not feasible so far as Diego Garcia is concerned. A Minister from the Commons, Stephen Doughty, who came before our committee when we produced an earlier report, had this to say. Even noble Lords who have not been in Parliament that long or been listening to Ministers’ responses for long will see the flaw in it. I asked, “Why can’t Chagossian people work at the depot? Why can’t they live side by side with the military if that is what some of them wish?” I was told that operationally it is “unsuitable and inappropriate”.

Unsuitable and inappropriate are pretty slippery terms which do not satisfy me unless they can be elaborated upon. That is what I speak to my noble friends on the Front Bench about. Diego Garcia is the only island in practical terms that people will desire to inhabit or re-inhabit. What is it especially about this military base that makes it impossible for civilian workers to live and work on that island but on a different part of it? Wherever you go in the United Kingdom, you will find examples of the military working alongside workers who go into the depot every morning, through security, and go back home in the evening. So far, I have had no satisfactory answer to that question, but an ounce of help is worth a pound of pity. If a practical proposal could be put forward to the Chagossians to say that contract workers work there all the time, and that we will give first refusal for any contract work that is required to native-born Chagossians, that is not an unreasonable request—we mentioned it in our report—but it would be action rather than words.

I close wishing we were not in this position and wishing that this particularly shameful period of British history had not happened, but there is no point in simply emitting words of anguish. What is needed now is one or two practical attempts to make the lives of Chagossians, who were so unjustly treated, more acceptable, and I put that to my Front Bench.