Diego Garcia Military Base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill

Debate between Lord Purvis of Tweed and Baroness Ludford

Tuesday 11th November 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Ludford (LD)]

My Lords, briefly, I mentioned last week the Chagos Refugee Group led by Olivier Bancoult, the biggest group of Chagossians. I want to quote two paragraphs from a statement that he has made today:

“I wish to explain how important it is for the British Government to make amends for the cruel treatment of our Chagossian community, by endorsing the Diego Garcia and BIOT Bill at the Committee stage in the House of Lords … With the UK government set to return Chagos to its rightful sovereign, we urge all House of Lords members to support and pass this measure to aid the Chagossian community. To delay or frustrate it will cause further societal damage to our worldwide community”.


I think that injunction is worth taking on board.

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

My Lords, this is the bit of unfinished business from last week—it is a little more temperate too, so far. I note the agreement between the Conservative Opposition and the Labour Government to advance the Bill to its next stages in implementing the treaty. These Benches hold our committees in this House in high regard. I am certain that the IRDC will carry out the work diligently and provide much valued information for us in advance of Report.

I hope that amendments that any Member might wish to bring in Committee will be considered in the normal way, within the scope of the Long Title of the Bill. Questions have been raised consistently by these Benches on right of return, determining the views of the Chagossian community on self-determination, the legal underpinning of the MPA—it is a positive development but we nevertheless seek further information on how it will be guaranteed and underwritten in Mauritian law—oversight of expenditure to the benefit of the Chagossian community in particular, and the mechanisms by which the community, whose rights have been denied them for generations, as my noble friend said, can have rights going forward. We hope that all these aspects can be aired properly in Committee and, if we seek to test the opinion of the House, on Report. I note the agreement between the Opposition and the Government. We should get on with considering the issues that these Benches have raised consistently.

National Security Bill

Debate between Lord Purvis of Tweed and Baroness Ludford

Committee stage
Monday 19th December 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

It is the intention to benefit that foreign power that is in this Bill, and it seems to me that that is a sufficiently clear and adequate definition to afford protection under the proposed section.

[Baroness Ludford (LD)]

My Lords, I was just looking up to see whether the words “intended to benefit a foreign power” were actually in the Bill, but I did not have time. In skimming through, I did not see them.

The Minister’s response has not really reassured me. The lack of definition of “interests of the UK”, with a question mark over what that means and how you could conflate the interests of the country and the interests of the current Government, coupled with the potentially wide definition of “restricted”, suggests, to myself and my noble friends on these Benches at least, a lack of precision and an opportunity that is too wide, especially considering that the penalty that could be faced is life imprisonment. Surely, there is an onus on us to secure a tight definition of offences in this Bill.

The other missing element, which we will come to in further discussions, is the lack of a public interest defence or a whistleblowing defence. What we are facing here is considerable uncertainty about what the real scope of the offence could be. As my noble friend Lord Marks said, the term “restricted in any way” is so undefined, it could cover innocuous but controversial documents, which could be restricted to prevent embarrassment. That is the discussion we keep having on journalism and whistleblowing: we should not open the door to the criminalisation of obtaining or publishing material that could be embarrassing to the ruling party.

I scribbled some notes, but I am afraid I cannot remember which noble Lord made this point. I think it was the noble Lord, Lord Anderson. How are we meant to know what non-classified information is protected? It could apply to anything, however innocent, that was not published. If the Government have a document that they regard as restricted, even though it is not classified, the fact that it has not been published would mean it was restricted, although it may not be damaging except possibly to the reputations of the Government or Ministers.

If I were to get hold of a document saying that a Bill—for the sake of plucking something out of the air, let us say the Northern Ireland Protocol Bill—is designed to assuage some elements of political opinion in the party in power but is highly damaging to the diplomatic and economic interests of the United Kingdom, would that fall within the terms of the offence under Clause 1? In those circumstances, what is the nature of the restriction? What is the harm committed and what is the test of UK interests?

We keep coming back to the considerable grey areas in this whole package around Clause 1 and other clauses. I think we will want to explore this matter further. Otherwise, we are driving a coach and horses through the exercise of freedom of expression and other rights under the European Convention on Human Rights, which for the time being the UK is still a party to.

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

I think my noble friend and I are reading the same version of the Bill, but I am not sure the Minister is. There is no reference to benefiting a foreign power with intent, so I hope that at some stage during Committee the Minister will be able to clarify this position.

[Baroness Ludford (LD)]

I thank my noble friend very much for that extremely useful intervention. I think we will have further discussion on this whole lack of precision in definitions in the Bill, especially considering the nature of the potential penalty: life imprisonment. You cannot afford to be vague about definitions in that context. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.