British Sovereignty Protection (Chagos Islands) Bill [HL]

Debate between Baroness Winterton of Doncaster and Lord Bellingham

Friday 23rd October 2026 Lords Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Baroness Winterton of Doncaster) (Lab)]

My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Weir, on securing this Second Reading debate and bringing forward his Bill. I thank all noble Lords who have contributed to the debate for their contributions, which certainly reflect the deeply held views about this issue among noble Lords. I will try to address as many of the points raised as I can in my response.

Before I do that, I will once again set out the vital importance of the base on Diego Garcia. As noble Lords have heard on many occasions, Diego Garcia is a key strategic military asset for both the UK and the US which has protected our shared security for nearly 60 years. The base enables the rapid deployment of operations and forces across the Middle East, east Africa and south Asia, helping the UK to combat some of the most challenging threats we face, including from terrorism and hostile states. Diego Garcia’s unique strategic location grants us real military advantage across the Indo-Pacific. Put simply, the base makes an essential and irreplaceable contribution to keeping the British people safe and protecting our global interests. Many noble Lords have raised the issue of the legal rationale and arguments behind that. I am sure noble Lords will accept that the base has been operating at increasing risk for decades: UK sovereignty has been challenged, and international courts have already made decisions that undermine our position.

[Lord Bellingham (Con)]

How can an advisory opinion by a court, which can under no circumstances lead to a binding judgment by a court, undermine the security of the base? I do not understand that.

[Baroness Winterton of Doncaster (Lab)]

I will come on to address that issue. Let me first return to what I was setting out, which is that, because of the legal position—which, as I say, I will come back to—negotiations were started by the previous Conservative Government. There were 11 rounds of talks, conceding the principle of UK sovereignty and establishing the model of direct payment to Mauritius to lease back Diego Garcia.

When they came to power in 2024, the Labour Government inherited a draft treaty that was close to completion and a political context in which the risk to base operations had never been greater. Nevertheless, the Government were able to secure much stronger provisions in the treaty to protect the base well into the next century. I should say that in drawing this up, the UK and the US worked hand in glove in developing the treaty, and we continue to work together. When the Diego Garcia treaty was signed by Prime Minister Keir Starmer, we had US support. However, as the noble Lord, Lord Weir, said, it is clear that the US, through President Trump, has taken a different view, so we will continue to work together, as has been made clear by both the Defence Secretary and the Prime Minister. We need the support of both Mauritius and the US to find a solution that works for everyone.

The noble Lords, Lord Callanan, Lord Lilley, Lord Bellingham and Lord Hannan, asked why we are handing over sovereignty on the basis of a non-binding legal opinion. This is not just about a legal judgment; it is about the long-term safety and security of the UK. The only way to maintain the base safely in the long term is through this agreement. There is no alternative, whereby we just hang on to the base without an agreement. The previous Conservative Government tried to do that under Boris Johnson and when that failed, they started the negotiations.

I accept that there are those who argue that we should ignore the legal challenges, but there is no question that we can do that. Doing nothing is simply not an option and threatens the UK’s safety. Some argue that there are carve-outs and exemptions that the Government have missed. We have heard these arguments before, and I am afraid we have to reject them. On the ICJ exemption, although the 2017 amendment does indeed mean that the International Court of Justice cannot rule on disputes between the UK and Commonwealth countries, this is not the only viable route to a binding judgment and not the one we consider most likely.

With regard to the UNCLOS—

Falkland Islands

Debate between Baroness Winterton of Doncaster and Lord Bellingham

Monday 7th September 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Winterton of Doncaster (Lab)]

First, let me thank the noble Lord for his kind words and fond memories of the CPA visit. I also echo what he said about my noble friend Lady Chapman.

With regard to the US, I assure him that we, of course, engage regularly with the US on a range of foreign policy issues. I am sure he will understand that I cannot give a running commentary on all of our engagement with the US, but it is our closest ally. We engage on a number of issues, including this one, and of course I take on board the points that he has made about the areas that may be of particular concern to the Falkland Islanders.

[Lord Bellingham (Con)]

The Minister is aware that the UK is a prominent member of the CPTPP. Argentina applied to join a few weeks ago. Is this a point of leverage that can be used against a country that is threatening our sovereignty?

[Baroness Winterton of Doncaster (Lab)]

The noble Lord raises an important point but, just to be clear, accession to the CPTPP is a matter for the member states themselves. We do not comment on individual applications for accession.