Diego Garcia Military Base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill

Debate between Lord Murray of Blidworth and Baroness Chapman of Darlington

Committee stage
Tuesday 18th November 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

I am speaking for myself; other noble Lords may take different views on that point.

Mauritius could also pursue a legally binding judgment through further arbitral proceedings against the UK under Annex VII of the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, or UNCLOS. A judgment from such a tribunal would be legally binding on the UK—and I will come on to the points about the extent of those judgments and sovereignty, too. Such cases could be brought rapidly and include provisional measures, themselves legally binding, which could be introduced within weeks. The long-standing legal view of the United Kingdom is that the UK would not have a realistic prospect of successfully defending its legal position on sovereignty in such litigation.

The other important element to note here is that, even if the UK chose to disregard any legal rulings—that is not something that this Government would want to do, but we could—we rely on third countries to service the base. Therefore, the operability of the base depends on other states taking a view on such rulings. We of course control what we do, but we cannot control what other states do. If we need those states to agree with us and to ignore a legal ruling too, we may not be successful. It may be that we then compromise the operability of the base. That is a very real threat; we were concerned about that, as were our allies and partners, including the United States.

The risk of a binding ruling relating to sovereignty from this type of tribunal is simply too great, given the importance of the base for national security. Some have pointed to the 2015 arbitration between the UK and Mauritius, in which the tribunal was clear that it did not have jurisdiction over the question of sovereignty. That is right. However, that was before the advisory opinion in 2019 and before the 2021 judgment of a special chamber of the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea in a case about delimitating the boundary between Mauritius and the Maldives. In that case, it was ruled that Mauritius’s sovereignty was inferred from the ICJ’s advisory determinations. These have changed the legal landscape.

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

Will the Minister confirm that, in those proceedings to which she just referred, the United Kingdom was not a party and made no submissions?

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

I never said that we did; that was between Mauritius and the Maldives. My point is to make the case to noble Lords that the advisory opinions—advisory though they are—stand to inform subsequent opinions of international tribunals. That is what happened in that case, and that is why I bring that as a supporting argument for the Government’s case—to help noble Lords understand how we have got to where we are.

While an arbitral tribunal under UNCLOS almost certainly would not address the question of sovereignty directly, it may reach decisions on related matters based on conclusions about sovereignty. Noble Lords may disagree, but the Government’s position is that we are concerned about this—and I suggest that the previous Government were also concerned about this; otherwise, what were they doing? We are concerned not just about the effects of a binding judgment on the UK but about the legal effect on third countries and international organisations, which could give rise to real impacts on the operation of the base and the delivery of all its national security functions.

Although I do not expect there to be agreement on this, I believe that we cannot say that the Government have not fully considered all the potential legal jeopardy in which we would place ourselves. Further, we believe that the suck-it-and-see approach that the noble Lord, Lord Lilley, advocates would leave us in a much weaker position when it comes to negotiating with Mauritius.

Palestinian Authority Prime Minister Visit

Debate between Lord Murray of Blidworth and Baroness Chapman of Darlington

Tuesday 29th April 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

That is a really important question. I speak regularly about this issue to our Faith Minister in the Department for Housing, Communities and Local Government , my noble friend Lord Khan. It is a sad fact that we see international events played out on our streets, in our schools and in communities in this country. Whereas debate and free speech are completely legitimate, we are concerned about some of the more abusive behaviour and victimisation that has taken place, and the rise in Islamophobia and antisemitism. We work very closely across departments to make sure that we are doing what we need to do. It is not something that we used to see quite as much as we do today, and we see it played out in our politics, for reasons that we can all try our best to understand. It is very important that the noble Lord raised that and reminds us about it.

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement, in which I noticed the following sentence:

“Prime Minister Mustafa outlined the essential reforms that the Palestinian Authority are currently undertaking”.


Can the Minister help us by identifying what essential reforms he referred to?

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

There are many reforms, as noble Lords can imagine, that the Palestinian Authority know that they need to make. The conversations that I have had have centred on their need to develop their ability to manage money responsibly and how they raise money and accesses funds to be able to deliver the services that they are going to have to deliver in the future. That may feel like high-ambition work from where we are today, and I think they would accept that, but we have to start somewhere, and it is right that we are providing the assistance that we are.