Diego Garcia Military Base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill

Baroness Foster of Aghadrumsee Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 4th November 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Foster of Aghadrumsee (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I declare my interest as a member of Friends of the British Overseas Territories, and as an adviser. It is with great sadness that I rise to speak to the Bill. Earlier today I spent some time with my friends from the Chagos Islands, and they have often felt ignored by many Governments of different hues but never have they felt as badly treated as by this Government. They have taken court cases to deal with their lack of agency with this Government, as they were left with no other option; indeed, there is a case still before the courts today.

Even at this late stage, if the Government do deign to consult with the Chagos community living here in the UK, it will be a start, at least, to listening to their needs and aspirations, as opposed to them being told what is happening to their homeland through government statements. I was shocked when I was told today by Chagossians living here in the UK—who are British citizens—that, despite repeated requests to meet their Members of Parliament in person, they have been told there is no time. I think that is absolutely wrong, and I hope the Minister will agree that it is wrong. It is anti-democratic, and if we are going to support a government policy, the Government must at least have the wherewithal to meet those affected by that government policy and defend it to them.

Chagossians, I am very pleased to say, have come along today to hear the debate. They are accompanied by colleagues from other overseas territories, because they too are concerned about what is happening. No doubt, as we have already heard, the Bill is all to do with national security and therefore should not be challenged. I was told as much in this House when I had the temerity to ask about the details of the trust fund being set up in Mauritius with British taxpayers’ money.

I contend that treating people with dignity and addressing their needs does not mean you are challenging national security needs. The two issues can and should exist together, and it saddens me greatly that this Government have chosen a different course. In January 2015, a report commissioned on behalf of the British Indian Ocean Territory—BIOT—and carried out by KPMG undertook a feasibility study for the resettlement of BIOT. Unlike our present Government, that study took the views of a range of stakeholders, including the Chagossian communities in Mauritius, the Seychelles, Manchester, Crawley and London. The study looked in depth at the environmental issues as well. This public document concluded:

“There are no fundamental legal obstacles that would prevent a resettlement of BIOT to go ahead”.


That was in 2015.

The Government of the day decided not to proceed with resettlement because of costs, but, crucially, the costs identified in the report for resettlement at that time are nowhere near the costs associated with this deal. How have the Government arrived at a place where we are now handing BIOT to Mauritius and paying for the privilege? By the way, we have already paid Mauritius, because in 1965, when it agreed to BIOT being created, we paid it £3 million, so this is us paying again for the privilege.

The Government have also told us that they had no option but to conduct and conclude. We have heard a lot about these 11 rounds of negotiations, but none was ever concluded. As someone who has experienced many negotiations throughout the years, the deal is not done until the deal is done. That is the critical issue here. We have already heard from the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, that there is a lack of clarity on the basis for proceeding with this deal, so it is imperative that the legal opinion is shared to bring transparency to what is very murky water. We are also advised by the Government that investment by the US has paused after the advisory judgment due to the lack of certainty. Surely such certainty could have been provided in another way. We could have asserted sovereignty over our territory instead of colluding in handing it away. That surely would have brought certainty for our American allies as well.

The Government also claim that we have to do this deal to protect the joint US-UK exclusive access to the electromagnetic spectrum on Diego Garcia, but the International Telecommunication Union, which supervises global communications technology, has no enforcement mechanisms to either terminate or interrupt our satellite operations on the Chagos Islands. I thank Policy Exchange for its work in this area; in particular, its publication The Chagos Debacle, A Critique of the British Government’s Shifting Rationales. Former NATO commander and Royal Navy Rear Admiral Chris Parry said recently that handing away the Chagos Islands is

“the biggest strategic mistake I have seen in my lifetime”.

Moving to the specifics in the Bill, or rather the lack of specifics, there is very little detail. We are told that there will be secondary legislation and there will be ministerial Statements to deal with a lot of the issues. That means that there will be less scrutiny. It is a matter of record that the Chagossian people were forcibly removed from their homes in the late 1960s. The Government are now telling us that by doing so, they do not have the right to self-determination. I find this very skewed thinking. You remove the Chagos Islanders from their homes by force and now they do not have self-determination. I think it is morally wrong.

At the very least what should be happening is a referendum of those of Chagossian heritage here in the UK, because despite what previous Mauritian Administrations have had to say, the Chagos people are a distinct people on the basis of ethnicity and religion and should be afforded the respect they deserve, not forced into a country that they have no affinity with and which is 1,300 miles away. Let me be clear. Even if Mauritius was the closest country, geography is not political destiny, especially when you have a distinct people, and I want to make that clear for a whole variety of reasons. KPMG, on behalf of BIOT, consulted in a meaningful way with the citizens back in 2014-15, and the Government should do so again. This is an historic decision we are making here and we need to listen to what the Chagossians have to say.

The Bill has nothing to say about the welfare of British Chagossians. Not one clause is drafted to deal with their needs. There is nothing in the Bill about the £40 million which has been sent to set up a trust fund in Mauritius for Chagossians who live there, but we have been told that British Chagossians will not benefit from that trust fund. Many Chagossians have left Mauritius in the past few months as they choose to be British and not live under the authority of Mauritius. Of course, those Chagossians who choose to remain in Mauritius are content with what is happening and are supporters of the Mauritian regime. That is why we should not be surprised that there are statements coming out of Mauritius in support of this deal.

As regards visiting the atoll, that, we understand, will be at the discretion of the Mauritian Government, who denied the very existence of the Chagos people until very recently, telling them that they were Mauritian instead. Having listened to many Chagossians talk about their identity, I can tell the House that the last thing they are is Mauritian.

Finally, there is nothing in this Bill about the very fragile and internationally important ecostructure of the many little islands and their marine area. I recognise that the Minister referenced the environment in her opening speech, and I am pleased to hear that there has been some movement in relation to that. I know that very many are concerned about the stewardship of the environment in the future, given that we are giving away all this to the Mauritian Government without any sanctions if the ecosystem is damaged.

I hope that the Government will take the opportunity to consult the Chagossian people. They deserve to be listened to, even at this late stage.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

I start by thanking the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, for her closing speech. It was exactly the kind of speech I would have expected from her. It was forensic and detailed, asking absolutely legitimate questions that any respectable Opposition should put to a Government proposing this kind of Bill. I will try to answer all her questions— I was writing as quickly as I could—but I may not get through them all. The idea of a letter in the Library, explaining the detail so that everybody can see what we have to say, is a very good one. I would be happy to do that.

I thank all noble Lords for their contributions. It has been lively, as I suspected it might be. I might say that I agreed with some contributions more than others, and some were probably better informed than others, but that is the nature of these things. I will endeavour to respond to all the points raised by noble Lords, and we will, I hope, have further discussions in Committee on many of those.

I would like to remind the House why we are scrutinising and reviewing a Bill sent to us from the other place. The Bill is essential to ensure that the treaty with Mauritius can be ratified, a treaty that is fundamental to safeguarding the operations of a critical UK-US base on Diego Garcia and to the security of British people. As the noble Lord, Lord Jay, said, the Bill is also vital to protecting the British citizenship rights of Chagossians.

Noble Lords have questioned the legal rationale for this deal and asked what court could give a binding judgment. Let me set this out again: as the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, explained well in his speech, if a long-term deal had not been reached, it is highly likely that further wide-ranging litigation would have been brought quickly against the UK. Both the International Agreements Committee and the International Relations and Defence Committee, in scrutinising the treaty, heard evidence of where these binding judgments could come from.

One possibility is that Mauritius would find a dispute under the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea that it could bring before an arbitral tribunal under Annexe VII of the convention. That also raises the prospect that Mauritius would seek provisional measures from the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea. Provisional measures of this type and the decision of an arbitral tribunal would each be legally binding on the UK. A further possibility is that a dispute under a multilateral treaty could be brought before the International Court of Justice. A judgment delivered in the manner by the ICJ in disputes between states may also be legally binding.

There are those—we have had this ever since we started debating this issue—who question where this binding judgment might arise, but they are fundamentally missing the point here. The risk was real. International courts were already reaching judgments on the basis that Mauritius had sovereignty, and this in turn, as my noble friend Lord Browne explained, put the base at real risk. The point is that the treaty with Mauritius prevents that happening in the future.

Noble Lords are perfectly entitled to take a different view on the extent of that risk; that is absolutely their right. The Government’s view is that that risk is real. Having that view, any responsible Government making that assessment has to seek to resolve it and to come to some lasting, legally enforceable arrangement with Mauritius. That is why we did the deal. Noble Lords are entitled to disagree with the Government, and I have absolutely no issue with that, but please do not impute some sort of bad intent or motive around political correctness, colonialism or any of those things. Our intention is to secure that base for the benefit of the security of our country. We did it so an agreement could be concluded on our terms, rather than it being forced upon us so that we would have to accept the imposition of an arrangement that would not have been in our favour.

I am interpreting the questions from the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, on the overseas territories as an invitation to the Government to restate their longstanding and clear commitment to all our overseas territories. The Conservatives, at some points in these debates, although not recently—the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, never did this, but others did—would raise the issue of the Falkland Islands. I thought that that was the height of irresponsibility, and I am very glad that they no longer attempt to bring that question into these discussions, because it was wrong that they did that.

This treaty has a complex resolution process attached to it because it needs to be long-lasting, and we are trying to cover every eventuality that might arise. That is a really good subject for us to get into in Committee, and we must test that to make sure that we have got that right. I have every confidence that the noble Baroness and her colleagues will bring to us situations that we need to hold up against that process, to make sure that we have got that right.

On the notification of activities of third countries with our consent, there is a notification there. I think that is right, but it is not in any way conditional. We do not need consent. It is not about permission or any of those things. I hope that that is helpful.

On the ability to make law, we had an interesting discussion at the briefing about royal prerogative and the ability of the King to make law in Diego Garcia. We need to get into that in Committee. There will be things in the Bill that, when I was sitting in the noble Baroness’s place, I would have been asking questions about, such as powers and flexibilities, the ability of Ministers to make decisions, and the various methodologies. I expect we will be having long discussions about negative and affirmative procedures, for example, and law-making power is one such issue.

I want to address some of the points that were made regarding the Chagossian community. As I stated in my opening speech, this Government deeply regret how the Chagossians were removed from the islands. This is a community that the Government are committed to working with and supporting in the months and years ahead. I pay tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford. She made a compelling and genuine contribution on this important issue, as did the noble Lord, Lord Horam, and I commend those who have been working on this for very many years. She did her party proud, and I respect the longstanding commitment that she and others have had.

The Bill ensures that there will be no adverse impact on Chagossians’ nationality rights as a result of the treaty. Chagossians will not lose their current rights to hold or claim British citizenship, and no one will lose existing British Overseas Territory citizenship status. The Bill does, however, remove Chagossians’ ability to acquire British Overseas Territory citizenship in the future, because once the treaty comes into force, BIOT will not be an overseas territory.

On the trust fund, the noble Lord, Lord Horam, raised the possibility of an exchange of letters on the future treatment of Chagossians under this fund. This is, again, a genuine issue that we ought to explore. I appreciate that noble Lords will want more detail on how the trust fund will operate. I look forward to discussing this in Committee. Who knows? We might be able to reach some sort of agreement on that issue.

On the citizenship law, which was raised by one or two noble Lords opposite—it may have been the noble Lord, Lord Hannan—there have been mentions of section 76B of the Mauritian criminal code and concerns that Chagossians are leaving Mauritius for fear of being prosecuted for their affiliation with the UK. This is really important: no one has ever been prosecuted under this law; but just because no one has ever been subject to it, that does not make it right. Last week, the Mauritian Government repealed this section, and, as of April 2025, 94% of Chagossians with British nationality also had Mauritian citizenship.

On the right to self-determination, there have been questions during the debate, and leading up to it, about consultation with Chagossians. The negotiations on the treaty were necessarily between states—the UK and Mauritius—and it is true that we have prioritised the operation of the base on Diego Garcia. That has been our priority. There may be people here who disagree with that and who would have preferred us to prioritise other issues, and I respect their right to hold that view, but that is not the view of the Government. We wanted to protect the base.

There were some, including the noble Baroness, Lady Foster, who raised the right to self-determination for the Chagossians. I have followed the noble Baroness’s career for many years; I do not know why, but I have always been rather attached to following what she does and says, and I have a real long-standing respect for her. I completely understand why she wants to raise this issue, and why it matters so much to her. The fact is that the Chagos Archipelago has no permanent population and has never been self-governing. No question of self-determination for its population, therefore, legally arises.

The English courts, noting the conclusion of the ICJ in the 2019 advisory opinion, have proceeded on the basis that the relevant right to self-determination in the context of BIOT was that of Mauritians rather than Chagossians. Both the English courts and the European Court of Human Rights have considered, in a series of judgments since the 1970s, the related but distinct question of an alleged right of abode or other rights said to flow from that. On each occasion, the English courts and the European Court of Human Rights have ultimately dismissed these claims. The transfer of sovereignty, therefore, does not deprive Chagossians of any existing rights. This is a long-standing legal position that previous UK Governments have also adopted, including in claims brought as recently as 2020. That all sounds very legalistic and cold; nevertheless, that is the legal position as it stands.

[Baroness Foster of Aghadrumsee (Non-Afl)]

I thank the Minister for addressing this issue, because it has become a real touchpoint in the general populace. Does she agree that, while we might differ on the legality issue, there is a moral duty on the Government to engage with the Chagossians, who feel so let down, not just by this Government—I made that very clear—but by the whole political establishment in this country?

Diego Garcia Military Base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill

Baroness Foster of Aghadrumsee Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 18th November 2025 Lords Chamber

I ask the Minister to clarify that. I think that these amendments, tabled by my noble friend Lord Lilley, go to the heart of this whole discussion. I am very supportive of them.

[Baroness Foster of Aghadrumsee (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I first declare my interest as a Friend of the British Overseas Territories. I support the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, in his efforts to bring clarity to the Bill, at the very beginning of the Bill.

I particularly endorse the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Lilley, in relation to his amendments. It was in the conversation about those amendments that the issue of self-determination came up. I know that we are going to talk about self-determination in relation to amendments later on in Committee. However, there is a fundamental point about self-determination. The noble Lord, Lord Grocott, asked whether we would ever cede British territory. Well, of course we have, when we have had self-determination exercised. In this case—the Minister went through this in some detail in Second Reading, because I raised it—it is deemed not applicable to the British Indian Ocean Territory.

We all received a letter today from 650 members of the Chagossian community here in the United Kingdom. In that letter they say:

“To do so, however, in the context of re-denying the people concerned self-determination while simultaneously paying a country that played a key role in denying that people self-determination in relation to their territory on the previous occasion, more money than is required to resettle the people with the rightful claim to the territory, in order to lease one of their islands, demonstrates extreme moral disorientation”.


I completely agree with that.

I also completely agree with the second point that the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, made on resettlement. We all heard at Second Reading that there had been an exercise looking at resettling Chagossians into the Chagos Islands. Back in 2015, the KPMG report gave the details of the costs and the then Government decided not to proceed, probably based mostly on cost. But now the costs we are paying to the Mauritian Government far exceed the costs of resettlement. There is an opportunity for some Chagossians, if they wish, to resettle on Diego Garcia. In other British Overseas Territories there are civilians on military bases: Ascension Island comes to mind. So it could be the case that it happens in Diego Garcia as well. We will touch on resettlement rights and the right to return in other amendments, but, given that it was raised in this context, I just wanted to make those couple of points. I support the amendments in this group.

[Lord Hannan of Kingsclere (Con)]

My Lords, I will start with the amendment from my noble friend Lord Callanan and the objection to it from the noble Lord, Lord Purvis of Tweed, which was that this wasincompatible with the decision taken by Parliament. I will just quote—because I think it is helpful—Article 18 of the treaty. It states:

“This Agreement shall enter into force on the first day of the first month following the date of receipt of the later note by which the Parties notify each other that they have completed their respective internal requirements and procedures necessary for the entry into force of this Agreement”.


In other words, it cannot enter into force until both Chambers of this Parliament have given their assent.

We have not made any bones about the fact that we do not like the treaty at all. I think it is a bit much to complain about my noble friend making this point in principle.

--- Later in debate ---

The reason why we are here discussing this—let us be blunt—is the influence of a cabal of lawyers operating between Doughty Street Chambers and Matrix Chambers. They became so obsessed with the technical legal arguments, the rules-based world and territorial integrity that the Government have been persuaded by them, lost sight of the big moral picture and let the country down. The chief protagonists of course—I do not need to mention them again—are Philippe Sands and the Attorney-General. This argument about the legal issue that I have already mentioned does not wash with me when it comes to something so morally important as what we are doing to the Chagossian people. The public see just how shamefully this Government have behaved. I am very sorry that it has come to this. I hope that as a result of this discussion, this debate and the myriad amendments, even at this late stage, the Government might realise that they have gone too far, too quickly and are doing down the Chagossian people and, more importantly, even their own morality in the way they have behaved.

[Baroness Foster of Aghadrumsee (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I want to speak briefly on this group. I support a number of the amendments in it, in particular those that call for a referendum for the citizens of the British Indian Ocean Territory—that comes as no surprise, I am sure, given my Second Reading speech—Amendment 37 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord McCrea of Magherafelt, asking for Chagossian representation to liaise with Parliament and Amendment 49, also in his name, adding a new clause for the assessment of Chagossian civic identity and self-determination.

The treatment of the Chagossians in 1965 is being exacerbated by their treatment today by this Government —I think that is a fact. We have talked at length about the lack of consultation and the great haste with which this treaty came about. That has led to claim and counterclaim about how Chagossians feel about the transfer of sovereignty. Surely the simplest way to find out the answer is to hold a referendum among those who hold BIOT citizenship. As I said at Second Reading, geography is not political destiny, especially when the closest country to Diego Garcia is not even Mauritius but the Seychelles. Given the past treatment, taking the views of the Chagossian community is now the very least that this Government should do.

Until now, Chagossians living here in the UK have been pushed aside, as I said at Second Reading, even by their Members of Parliament. That is astonishing. We are supposed to live in an open democracy where Members of Parliament are voted in to the other place and are responsive to people who live in their constituencies. It is dreadful that despite repeated requests to meet in person, they have been rejected. As I said at Second Reading, if you are a Member of Parliament and you are going to vote through a government policy, the very least you should do with your constituents is have the wherewithal to meet them and explain why you have supported the position of the Government. I do not think that is rocket science.

[Lord Horam (Con)]

I should just correct the noble Baroness. When Mr Henry Smith was the Conservative MP for Crawley, he listened very carefully to the people in his constituency. He was also an active member of the APPG on Chagos, of which I am a member.

[Baroness Foster of Aghadrumsee (Non-Afl)]

Yes. I am not speaking about Henry; the noble Lord is absolutely right. I shared a platform with him at a Chagossian event a number of months ago. However, this is direct testimony from my Chagossian friends, who have been very clear about a number of MPs whom they contacted, and they were not listened to and were refused a meeting.

Treating our fellow Britons—that is how I see my Chagossian friends—with dignity and addressing their needs are very important. It certainly does not mean that we are challenging national security issues. The two can and should exist together. Just because we have a marvellous asset in Diego Garcia—I am not suggesting otherwise—for our national security needs and those of our friends and colleagues in the United States of America does not mean that we cannot also have a conversation with Chagossian people about their rights, aspirations and needs. The two can and should exist together.

I have already mentioned that the KPMG report of 2015 on the feasibility of the resettlement of BIOT indicated that

“there are no fundamental legal obstacles that would prevent a resettlement of BIOT to go ahead”.

Of course, that is what the Government of the day should have done. They decided not to, citing cost concerns, but how cost effective and value for money does that not look today when we consider the costs of this treaty and the money that we are going to be sending to the Mauritian Government?

Despite what previous Mauritian Administrations have said, the Chagos people are a distinct people on the basis of ethnicity, culture and religion and should be afforded respect by being asked how they view the transfer of sovereignty of their homeland. If this Government turn their face, as it appears they will, against a referendum, they should pay heed to the referendum carried out by the BIOT citizens, which many friends and colleagues in the House have referred to, because that shows a staggering 99.2% of Chagossians who were polled supporting UK sovereignty over the Chagos Islands.

Chagossians have had to resort to press releases and court challenges to be heard, and it is now long past the time for the Government to step back and put in place a referendum to listen to their voices.

[Baroness Hoey (Non-Afl)]

The noble Baroness said 99.2%—I got it wrong; I said only 99%. Does she think that one of the reasons, or perhaps the reason, that the Government will not even contemplate a referendum of the Chagossian people is that they know that they would get the wrong answer and therefore they would be even more morally bound to tear up this Bill and the treaty?

[Baroness Foster of Aghadrumsee (Non-Afl)]

I pay tribute to my friends in the Chagossian community for raising their voices, which have been very loud. As I said, they have had to find other means by which to raise their voices, whether that be through court challenges or press releases.

I think the Government are well aware of how a number of Chagossians here feel about this. As my noble friend has already alluded to, we have heard that there are Mauritians who are in favour of this deal. I have no doubt that there are those from a Chagos background living in Mauritius now who are in favour of the deal—that is accepted—but I believe that the greater number of those Chagossians want to remain British citizens.

I also support Amendment 37 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord McCrea of Magherafelt and Cookstown, which, as an alternative to a referendum, asks for a Chagossian representative to liaise with Parliament. I know that other later amendments coming up, including from the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, look at ways to be creative about hearing the voice of Chagossians. I commend the noble Lord, Lord McCrea, on mentioning individual names. We are talking about communities but, actually, these are individuals who feel very passionately about their homeland; it is important that we remember that.

Finally, Amendment 49 seeks an assessment of Chagossian civic identity and self-determination, again seeking to underline the distinct nature of the Chagossian people. I support that amendment as well. This has been a good debate but, for me, it is really important to listen to the voices of the Chagossian people.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

My Lords, it is worth restating—and many of the contributions this afternoon have stated this too—that this Government deeply regret the way the Chagossians were removed from the Chagos archipelago. If I can commend just one speech that we have heard in consideration of this group, it would be that from the noble Lord, Lord McCrea. I found that an impactful, passionate speech that was sincerely given and heartfelt. I do not think I am going to make him happy this afternoon, but what he said was sincerely felt and I respect the way he put his argument and many of the things he said.

We remain committed to building a relationship with the Chagossian community that is built on respect and an acknowledgement of the wrongs of the past. I know—and I agree with much of what has been said—that this House clearly feels very strongly about Chagossians and ensuring that their views are properly heard. We have agreed that the International Relations and Defence Committee will undertake an important piece of work looking at Chagossian views on the treaty. We are looking forward to its report and I am sure we will all read it with great interest.

Turning to the arguments we have just debated, Amendments 13 and 28—I think the noble Lord said he was degrouping Amendments 14, 25, 64 and 84—all relate in some way to holding a referendum or some sort of consultation with Chagossians on the transfer of the Chagos archipelago to Mauritius. I know we have said before—there will be some repetition of argument on these issues—that in the negotiations on the treaty between the United Kingdom and the Government of Mauritius, our priority was to secure the full operation of the base on Diego Garcia. I accept that there will be those who disagree with that priority.

The Chagos archipelago has no permanent population and has never been self-governing. Therefore, on the question of self-determination for its population, the English courts have, noting the conclusion of the ICJ in the 2019 advisory opinion, proceeded on the basis that the relevant right to self-determination in the context of BIOT was that of Mauritius rather than of Chagossians. That feels incredibly cold and hard to read from this Dispatch Box, but that is the situation legally as determined by English courts. I do not think it helps anybody, not least the Chagossians, to somehow pretend that that is not the case. That is the situation we are in. We can regret that, we can argue about it, we can say that should not be the case; but that is the legal reality.

In a series of judgments since the 1970s, both the English courts and the European Court of Human Rights have also considered the related but distinct question of an alleged right of abode or other rights that are said to flow from that. On each occasion, the English courts and the European Court of Human Rights have ultimately dismissed the claims. The transfer of sovereignty therefore does not deprive Chagossians of any existing right. This is a long-standing legal position that previous UK Governments have also adopted.

[Baroness Foster of Aghadrumsee (Non-Afl)]

The Minister is repeating what she said at Second Reading, and I acknowledge that that is the case. I said to her then that while the courts have taken a particular view in relation to this matter, it does not rule out Parliament taking a different view, given that we believe in parliamentary democracy and parliamentary sovereignty. Given the way in which this community has been treated for 60 years now, it is fair to say, do we not have a moral obligation to accord them the right to have a say? Regardless of the fact that there have been court judgments on this, can we as not parliamentarians indicate that we believe that the best way forward is to listen to their voices?

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

I think we can. I do not think we can call it self-determination in the legally applicable sense, but I agree, and I think Parliament agrees too, that the Chagossians deserve the respect of a different kind of relationship with the UK Government, and we need to make sure that we engage with them in a respectful and meaningful way. I will get on to whether that means a referendum, but the noble Baroness makes a very strong point about the importance of listening to the voices of Chagossians themselves, however we might choose to do that. I have mentioned this being a long-standing legal position, but as I am trying to explain, we recognise the importance of these islands to the Chagossians, and we are working hard to reflect this in our wider policies, not all of which are reflected in the Bill because they do not require legislation.

Given that the treaty has been signed, however, and the Bill is reasonably well advanced, having been through the other place, I say with great sincerity that any formal consultation at this stage would not be honest or sufficiently meaningful. I think that was what the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, was gently trying to point out to us, because that window was open at one point. It was open when the now Opposition were in government, and they never decided to consult the Chagossians. We agree with that Government, as they were—now the Opposition—that there is no actual legal duty in this situation to do that, but it is vital to respect the many different views within the Chagossian community, including that of several groups that welcome the deal.

Diego Garcia Military Base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill

Baroness Foster of Aghadrumsee Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 18th November 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hannan of Kingsclere (Con)]

My Lords, I beg leave to move the amendment standing in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Morrow.

The financial aspects of this Bill are the easiest for people not involved to understand. It does seem bizarre that at a time when we are borrowing money and scratching around for savings, we are raising taxes here in order to fund tax cuts in Mauritius. I do not want to detain noble Lords, so I will not go over the figures again. We had an expert disquisition from my noble friend Lady Noakes at Second Reading.

Even if we were to accept the Government’s figures, we still face an immense imbalance in where the money is going. I come back to the point that we were making just before dinner, about the wrong that everyone accepts was done to the Chagossians and what restitution would look like. The Minister said they had been very badly treated. Well, badly treated or otherwise, their compensation, if we measure it purely in financial terms, comes to a one-off £40 million settlement for good—whereas, even on the figures offered by the Government, we are paying Mauritius £101 million every year for the next 99 years. Who is the wronged party here? How is it that having done this harm to population A by moving them, we then reward the population that is in fact making permanent their exile and deepening their sense of grievance?

Never mind whether it is £3.1 billion, £35 billion or somewhere in between, at Second Reading my noble friend Lord Altrincham made the point that this is money being sent out of the country. We can argue about whether there is merit in Governments spending cash here to stimulate growth. I personally am of the camp that says it does not work. It is better to leave that money directed by people who are attached to it; they spend it more wisely and the growth impact is much higher. But I will allow that there is some impact in stimulating the domestic economy, even when a Government spend money badly. There is none at all when you just take a sum of money and send it several thousand miles away, which is what is being proposed here.

The amendments from the noble Lord, Lord Morrow, are about impact assessments, particularly on the financial consequences for the United States, as well as for us. I just want to tackle the view that this is a great deal for the US—that, however inconvenient it is for us, we are left with the bill and the US gets to keep the base. Every pound that we send to Mauritius to lease the property that we currently own is a pound that we are not spending on defence. It is a pound taken away from NATO and from the western alliance. That is just the immediate and direct cost of what happens when you take a freehold and then decide to pay for it as a leasehold.

There is then, it seems to me, an underexplored indirect cost: how have we now incentivised future Mauritian Governments to monetise this territory? If they can get this sum of money out of us, why not lease other parts of the archipelago to other powers? The Minister has said, of course, that in the treaty they are not allowed to for military purposes. The treaty says they cannot use these things for defence purposes, but I wonder: down the line, if Mauritius was indeed incentivised to make more money and leased an island for supposedly civilian purposes, then very gradually it was turned in a secret way by an unfriendly power into a more direct military installation, is that something realistically that is then going to trigger a military reaction from us?

It seems to me that the only way of ensuring that we do not have unfriendly neighbours in the Chagos Archipelago is not to have these islands being leased out in the first place, and the best way of preventing the islands being leased out is to hang on to them ourselves.

[Baroness Foster of Aghadrumsee (Non-Afl)]

The noble Lord referred to £40 million. I assume he is referring to the trust fund that is going to be set up.

[Lord Hannan of Kingsclere (Con)]

Yes.

[Baroness Foster of Aghadrumsee (Non-Afl)]

However, as he is fully aware, that is totally in the hands of the Mauritian Government. No Chagossian from here can access that money. Is that not something that should be considered?

[Lord Hannan of Kingsclere (Con)]

I am very grateful to the noble Baroness for that important correction. This would not be the first time this has happened. The sums that were disbursed to Mauritius in the 1970s, supposedly to be spent on the welfare of the Îlois exile community, were hung on to. They were disbursed very late, and their value had been significantly eroded by inflation in the meantime. Indeed, given that record, there is little wonder that there should be bad feeling from a lot of Chagossians towards the Mauritian Government.

Unusually in this House, the noble Baroness and I were on the same side in the 2016 referendum, so we are familiar with the argument that here is a little bit of your money back; we are spending it for you, and you should be grateful. It was an unconvincing argument to the British people in 2016, and I think it will be an unconvincing argument to the British people and to the Chagossian portion of the British family in 2025. I beg to move.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Craig of Radley (CB)]

My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 53 in my name and that of the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Houghton of Richmond, who unfortunately cannot be here this evening. It is clearly a probing amendment to give the Committee an opportunity to consider the implications for the UK of another possibility affecting Article 11, the economic partnership of the treaty. That possibility is that, within the 100 years-plus of the treaty, the Diego Garcia military base might become unusable, due to natural causes or because of a sea level rise triggered by global warming. While the loss of use would have military consequences, due to the wording of the treaty the UK’s financial obligations to Mauritius would appear not to be affected.

As I mentioned at Second Reading, the treaty makes some valiant assumptions about the steadfastness of relationships between the countries concerned. That aside, it would be helpful to understand why, if only as a precautionary principle, no mention of this possibility —the functional failure of the base—or how it might be handled is covered in the treaty. I assume that the possibility was considered by His Majesty’s Government and the United States in their preparations for negotiation. Can the Minister confirm this? Was it decided, based on historical records, that the risk of an earthquake, tsunami or other natural cause was so remote that these need not be considered?

Indeed, in his response in the debate on 30 June, the Minister mentioned that, like all small atoll islands, it is naturally dynamic. While not wishing to speculate on future erosion, he said that scientific surveys had concluded that the overall natural land area of the island had decreased by less than one per cent over the last 50 years. But what about sea level rise? There is a widespread presumption that sea levels will rise in the future. The amount of rise, its timing and spread in the world’s oceans is still speculative, but, based on realistic IPCC global warming projections, estimates for the Chagos atoll indicate rises that would impact on the functioning of the Diego Garcia base. They suggest that, within 100 years of the treaty, the runway and hard standings will not be covered, but some of the domestic and fuel storage areas could become submerged, either intermittently by diurnal tides or on a permanent basis. There could also be difficulties with quayside berthing and the present availability of fresh water. This is but a résumé of findings that were sent to FCDO officials in January, before the treaty was signed in May this year.

Maybe the United States, having done its own assessment, believes that it will be possible gradually to strengthen the sea defences as necessary to maintain the base’s operational capabilities. It would be helpful if the Minister could indicate what assessments the United States has made of sea levels. Looking at the wording of the treaty, as I mentioned at Second Reading, there will be the opportunity to attempt to resolve any issue about payment by the arrangements for settling disputes contained in it. But, whatever arrangement might be accepted by both parties today, it does not follow that the same consensus might be possible later, due to changes in the individuals and their perceptions then. There seems therefore to be good reason to have an agreement with Mauritius now, before ratifying the treaty, on how the eventuality of the base becoming unusable would affect Article 11.

[Baroness Foster of Aghadrumsee (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I rise very briefly to commend the noble and gallant Lord on his amendment. It is an incredibly sensible amendment that should not be contentious because, if there are difficulties arising out of natural causes or disaster, it would be unthinkable for His Majesty’s Government to have to continue to pay large sums of money to the Government of Mauritius. I hope that that will be taken on board.

Secondly, I will refer to the treaty, which, at Article 11, talks about the economic partnership between the United Kingdom and Mauritius. There are three parts to that. The first is the annual sum that has to be paid: there has been lots of conversations around what that is and what it might amount to. The second is the trust fund, which the Minister knows I take a particular interest in and which we will discuss in the eighth group of amendments. The third is the multiyear funding as part of a development framework for projects to be undertaken by the Mauritius Government across 25 years. We have heard very little about this multiyear funding. I wonder whether the Minister could elucidate that and give us some details in relation to what that is and what it is thought to be. In the treaty, it says that the amounts, payments and modality for all those three issues will be agreed separately. So it is important for the House to have some clarity in relation to that and I look forward to hearing from the Minister.

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

My Lords, I was going to say that this has been an excellent debate, but it has not really been much of a debate seeing as nobody from the Labour side has bothered to get up and try to defend the Government’s actions on this matter. Not even the Foreign Office trade union crowd on the Cross Benches have come along to justify the Government’s actions on this. I note from the media reports that apparently the Mauritian AG is in London for discussions, no doubt to celebrate his brilliantly successful negotiation. He will probably find that the Foreign Office has given him another £100 million today for his trouble in coming over here in the first place.

It would not be right for me to begin my contributions without mentioning the excellent forensic speeches of my noble friends Lord Altrincham and Lady Noakes at Second Reading. It seemed to me very convincing that the Government have increasingly got their numbers wrong. I look forward to the noble Baroness attempting to explain her financial figures again.

I am sure that some noble Lords will argue—maybe the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, will—that this agreement has been made and there is nothing we can do about it. They might say that it is an unfortunate oversight, but we cannot change the agreement. However, the treaty, as we have discussed previously, has not yet been ratified; it is not final. The Government could still change their approach. It is unlikely, and it would take political will, but everything is possible.

Now that we know that the treaty is not inevitable and that the overall cost expected when the agreement was reached was wrong, I hope Ministers will take the opportunity to reconsider. In any other walk of life, a decision-maker faced with a significantly higher cost than expected would reassess their position. Why are Ministers failing to take that responsible approach with taxpayers’ money? The Chancellor will get up next week and tell us that the country is bust, and that we need to raise taxes and cut spending, but the FCDO seems to take no account of the extra costs when negotiating this agreement.

My Amendment 22 would require a review of the overall financial cost of the agreement. With such uncertainty about the overall costs, I think this is an entirely reasonable amendment that would give greater transparency to taxpayers on how much of their money will be sent to Mauritius, over time, as we have said before, to fund tax cuts over there. We pay more tax over here, but the Mauritians will be able to cut their taxes with the money that we are very generously sending to them.

As I said, on value for money we are being told to expect spending cuts at the Budget on 26 November. Before the Government cut a single extra service for the British people, Ministers should first consider cutting their surrender deal with the Mauritian Government. In my view, most of the British public would be aghast when presented with the fact that the Government have surrendered territory to a foreign state and simultaneously somehow found themselves paying for the privilege. This is a clear failure to deliver value for money to taxpayers.

My Amendment 70 would require the Government to make a statement explaining why they believe that each payment to Mauritius represents value for money. My Amendment 75 would require the publication of a schedule of expected payments to Mauritius along with their dates. The Government should not resist measures which increase transparency on the financial elements of the agreement.

I gave a wry smile when the noble Lord, Lord Weir, asked the Minister for the breakdown of the costs of this agreement between the MoD budget and the FCDO budget. I hope he has more success than I have in asking this question, because I have asked it five times and she has refused to tell me how much is being paid out of the different budgets. One was beginning to suspect that she does not even know how much money we are handing over on behalf of this deal.

I additionally ask the Minister what powers Ministers have to ensure that the money we hand over to Mauritius is spent as agreed. The noble Baroness, Lady Foster, particularly highlighted the trust fund supposedly set up for the benefit of Chagossians, but how they spend it is entirely within the control of Mauritius. There have been well-documented corruption cases in Mauritius; how do we know how that money will be spent? I think we should be told or Ministers should at least seek to find out.

Finally, Amendment 74 relates to a slightly separate question on the part of the UK-Mauritius agreement relating to the employment of Mauritians on the Diego Garcia military base. I tabled it to ask the noble Baroness some specific questions on the practical effect of the article of this agreement. Can she confirm whether this article means Mauritians will be prioritised for employment on the Diego Garcia military base over, for example, British citizens or Chagossians? Who ultimately would their employer be? This also speaks to value for money. Can the Minister confirm whether her department has made any assessment of the impact of the provisions relating to the employment of Mauritians and how much that will contribute to the cost of running the base?

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

I understand fully the nature of the noble and gallant Lord’s concern. He has explained it well and repeatedly, and I have committed to come back to him with a further response. I do not think I can do any more than that tonight.

[Baroness Foster of Aghadrumsee (Non-Afl)]

Before the noble Baroness leaves that point, I fully respect the noble and gallant Lord’s position on the base not being available due to natural disasters—or, as we called it when I was a solicitor, an act of God—but what happens if the base becomes simply unusable because of an act of aggression by a bad actor in 50 years’ time, which we have no sight of at this moment? The point is that if it becomes unusable for whatever reason, whether by act of God or an act of aggression, will we still continue to pay for a base that we cannot use?

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

I simply cannot answer that because it would depend so much on the circumstances and on who would be culpable. I do not know. I will think about that and come back to the noble Baroness. It is very difficult to respond to hypotheticals. I could create a few hypotheticals that answer those specific questions but I do not think that would necessarily get us anywhere. She is probably after something a little more concrete than that. I will give that some further thought and see whether I can come back to her with something more satisfactory. I guess, ultimately, that if there is some unavailability we have the option of breaching the terms of the agreement through non-payment, which would end the agreement. However, I will look into our legal position in that situation and make sure we have some clarity so that we can consider this further if we need to.

On the issue of the split and how the money will be found, the noble Lord opposite—in his usual charming way—suggests that we have not really thought about this. Some of the money will come from the FCDO and some from the MoD. It is all government money; it is all taxpayers’ money. I really do not understand the preoccupation with this. That split will be fair. We are very used to paying for things jointly. We do it all the time on various things. This is not an unusual situation.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Goldie (Con)]

My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 89 in my name and in support of the amendments in the name of my noble friend Lord Callanan.

At Second Reading, I raised the broad issue of the royal prerogative, and the Minister is aware of my, perhaps inquisitive, interest in that. That broad power is in Clause 3, and the specific reference to His Majesty’s power to make Orders in Council comes in at Clause 5, particularly in Clause 5(1)(a). That is powerful. For the benefit of the Chamber, I repeat what that says:

“His Majesty may by Order in Council … make any provision that appears to His Majesty to be appropriate as a result of the Treaty”.


The following paragraph goes on to explain that that can be a

“consequential, supplementary, incidental, transitional or saving provision in relation to … this Act, or … an Order under paragraph (a)”.

I want to thank the Minister for her letter, which she very kindly sent to me yesterday. In it, she alludes to this particular issue and says that “Clause 5 of the Bill creates a new statutory power for His Majesty to make such provision by Orders in Council as he considers appropriate as a result of the treaty”. This led to my Amendment 89, because I am just trying to seek clarification of this power. In particular, I want to establish whether that power can be used by His Majesty, for example, to withdraw the United Kingdom as a party to the treaty and withhold any payment due to Mauritius if Mauritius violates any terms of the treaty.

This is not a lengthy matter for discussion. In responding, I would ask the Minister, if she opposes my amendment, and I anticipate that she may, to be specific about the ground of objection. It may be that she says, “I don’t want the Secretary of State being mixed up in anything like this, it’s just unnecessary and tiresome and he’s got enough on his plate without being burdened with all that”. On the other hand, she might consider that this is an incompetent use of the royal prerogative. I would be interested in understanding that better.

It would be more alarming if the Minister said that she does not consider that, if Mauritius violates any terms of the treaty, the UK will be able to withdraw and cease payment. It is rather along the lines of the point raised by the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig, who is not in his place. There is a basic issue about whether the thing is working or not. In his case, the thing is not working because the base has disappeared under the ocean. In the dim and distant past in contract law there was something called “frustration of the contract”: if the underlying purpose disappeared, the contract evaporated. The Minister has undertaken to investigate that further and we shall await that.

I really want to understand, if Mauritius violates the treaty, what practical solution is available to the UK: whether it is paying the money, coming out of the treaty or taking whatever other remedial action is necessary. I shall look forward to the Minister’s response.

[Baroness Foster of Aghadrumsee (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I will speak briefly in relation to Amendment 77 from the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, on the process for the establishment of the joint commission. This is critically important because, while the treaty does talk about the process of setting up the joint commission in Annex 3, there is no determination as to whether that person, as the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, said, will be a Member of Parliament, will be accountable to Parliament or will be a civil servant. It would be very helpful if we had more detail in relation to that matter.

It brings me back to my days studying constitutional law at Queen’s University, Belfast, when Professor Brigid Hadfield used to lecture us about the mischief behind the law. She would say, “Read the debate in Parliament to find out what the mischief was”. I was just thinking of her there when I was listening to the noble Lord, Lord Callanan. It would be really useful to find out what the Government’s position is in relation to this joint commission, because it could be a very critical part of the post-agreement scenario, where there is accountability to this place. I would really welcome clarity in relation to that matter.

[Lord Lilley (Con)]

My Lords, I would like to address Amendments 11 and 12 in my name, which both relate to the terms of the lease. Over the years, I have often heard leaseholders wish they had, or propose to acquire, the freehold. They feel that, as leaseholders, they are in a very inferior position and that the freeholder has the whip hand and, of course, at the end of the lease, the freeholder, like as not, gets everything back and leaseholders potentially lose everything. This is the first time I have ever heard of someone wanting to swap a freehold for a leasehold and, at the same time, claiming that they will be more secure as a result. Of course, they will not—and even less secure, given the terms of this agreement. Amendment 11 relates to whether or not the lease is renewable.

The lease is dealt with in Article 13 of the treaty, which says that it has a duration of 99 years. What happens at the end of 99 years? Is it automatically renewable? No. Under Article 13.5, the UK has a right to first refusal for a further 40 years on the same terms as offered to any third state. There we have it. Mauritius can offer the UK-US base to a third state in 99 years’ time and force the UK and USA to outbid some other bidder—it might be China, India, Iran or any other country with interests in the Indian Ocean around it, such as Saudi Arabia. There are lots of countries that can afford and might like to have this base. We would have to outbid them to retain what had been maintained and invested in for the previous 99 years. I have no reason to suppose that it would not be as valuable in the future then as it is now.

--- Later in debate ---

Actually, as transport links have improved since the original wrong was done at the end of the 1960s, I can easily see a luxury holiday industry developing on some of those atolls. It is not so far from the Maldives, there is a premium on both novelty and exclusivity; it would be the last frontier. One could see all sorts of viable industries developing there. It need not be a long-term burden on the British taxpayer. But even if it does end up costing us something, it will be a fraction of what we are paying now. There is the vision of having the Chagossians back among the frangipani and the bougainvillea, the churches growing again, with the coral stone and the crash of the surf; all of them loyal to the Crown and therefore putting utterly beyond question the issue of who has the sovereignty over the archipelago.

[Baroness Foster of Aghadrumsee (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I think Article 6, “Resettlement of Chagossians”, is the most misnamed article in this treaty. It tells us that,

“Mauritius is free to implement a programme of resettlement on the islands of the Chagos Archipelago other than Diego Garcia”.

I am thankful to live in a democracy where I am free to do all manner of things; sometimes I choose not to do all manner of things for various reasons. I am quite sure Mauritius will take the same view in relation to resettlement of Chagossians on the outer islands.

There is no right of resettlement or return in the treaty. I have a later amendment, on the Second Marshalled List, which deals with this. According to the treaty, there is no right of return or no right of resettlement—we need to be very clear on that. I think that is morally wrong. The language in this Bill deals with what I think is a failure of negotiation, to be honest, because I do not think it would have been beyond the wit of man to have had at the very least a right of return, if not a right of resettlement, in the treaty. With the Mauritian AG here in London, what better time to have a discussion about the right of return and the right of resettlement for the Chagossian people?

Amendment 72, in the alternative, seeks to have some accountability for the current aspiration in the treaty—in other words, after it is implemented—to look back and see what is happening in relation to the right of resettlement. That will give some transparency to why the wording in the treaty has been chosen and, again, get to the purpose of the article.

In conclusion, I strongly support both these amendments. It is wrong not to have a right of return and a right of resettlement in the treaty and the way in which it is presented in the treaty is wrong also.

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

I thank my noble friend Lord Lilley for leading on this group. The Chagossian community overwhelmingly wants to see a scheme for the resettlement of the archipelago, reversing the forced removal of the islanders in the late 1960s. As we know, many Chagossians living in Mauritius feel that they are treated, even now, as second-class citizens, and this should not be an acceptable situation. We will probe the treatment of the Chagossians in Mauritius more fully when we debate amendments relating to the trust fund.

Many Chagossians still want, understandably, to return to their homeland. The treaty is clear, sadly, that Mauritius shall be free to arrange for resettlement of Chagossians on all the islands of the archipelago except Diego Garcia, but it is not clear in the treaty what this might look like; nor is it clear how likely resettlement actually is in practice. My Amendment 72 is very simple. It merely requires the Government to publish the findings of a review of all discussions between the UK and Mauritius in respect of the resettlement of the islands. The resettlement under the treaty would be for the islands other than Diego Garcia, so this is not something that should undermine the operations of the base. Given that, we cannot see why the Government would be unwilling to share details of their discussions with the Mauritians on resettlement.

Can the Minister please set out clearly how often resettlement was discussed with the Mauritian Government during the negotiations ahead of the treaty, and what her department’s assessment is of the likelihood that Mauritius will establish a scheme for the resettlement of the islands? Would the UK support a resettlement effort financially? Could some of the existing funds that we are giving to Mauritius be used for resettlement? If not, what is the estimated risk that the Mauritian Government would refuse to undertake a resettlement on cost grounds?

In essence, our question to the Government is: what does this treaty mean for the Chagossian community’s hope of resettlement? If, in the Foreign Office’s view, this treaty effectively kills any hope of resettlement, does the Minister not accept that the Government should manage the expectations of the Chagossians and be very clear and transparent with them that that is what they have agreed? We want to end the lack of transparency around the Bill and I hope that the Minister will be able to do that today.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Leong (Lab)]

My Lords, we are very happy to continue. As I said earlier, the degrouping was done very late. I have been instructed that we have to carry on until the next group.

[Baroness Foster of Aghadrumsee (Non-Afl)]

I note that, in the supplementary Marshalled List of amendments, the noble Lord, Lord Thurlow, has two amendments which pertain to the environment. It would be much better if those were attached to the next grouping. Therefore, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, that this is a good point to adjourn.

[Baroness Hoey (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, following on from that, these amendments coming up are on really important environmental issues that the government party says it cares about very much. I know that there may well have been some agreement, but we Back-Benchers who are not in any political party do not get asked about our agreements on anything, so I would formally like to propose that this House do now resume.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

I wish to oppose the noble Baroness in the suggestion, because I think we have made some good progress this evening and had some good debates. We are about to discuss some very important issues around the marine protected area. I am here and ready to do that, despite the bizarre late degrouping for no apparent reason, when we had a repeat of an earlier debate. I think it would be good to make some progress this evening.

[Baroness Foster of Aghadrumsee (Non-Afl)]

I imagine that the noble Lord, Lord Thurlow, would want his two amendments grouped with the other marine protected area amendments. Unfortunately, he is not here. It would be good to have all those amendments grouped together, so that we could have a thorough exposition of the environment, instead of part of it tonight and part of it next Tuesday. I would have preferred it if my Amendment 20A was grouped with the right of Chagossians to return, which was already debated but, because it was not, it now has to wait until next week. So I think there is an argument to have the next group next week, so that all the marine environment amendments can be heard together.

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Viscount Stansgate) (Lab)]

My Lords, the Question has been put that the House do now resume. I must now put that Question. I think on a show of voices the Not-Contents have it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Foster of Aghadrumsee (Non-Afl)]

Obviously, we are not going to have a vote now, but it would be helpful for those of us who are non-aligned in this House to have more communication than we have had to date in relation to these matters. There seem to be quite a few of us.

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

Perhaps I might say to the noble Baroness that communication with regard to the degrouping was not equally applied to all, so I have sympathy with her. Perhaps if we continue with this group now, we might conclude this evening in an amicable way.

Amendment 15

Diego Garcia Military Base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill

Baroness Foster of Aghadrumsee Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 25th November 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

My Lords, the trust fund set up for the Chagossians is absolutely central to this treaty. Under Article 11, the Mauritians have been given the responsibility for administering the fund, which will be paid for, of course, by the UK. However, we still do not have any clarity on how Mauritius will manage the fund. We seem to have no say in it whatever.

The reality of Mauritius’s past record is also a cause for concern. Since the forced removal of the Chagossians from the archipelago, many Chagossians have lived on Mauritius. As has been pointed out a number of times in the debates so far, in the 1970s the UK Government paid £4 million into a trust fund for the benefit of registered Chagossians. I would be very interested to know the Government’s assessment of whether that trust fund has indeed been a success. Do the Government have any concerns about the way Mauritius has managed that fund before we offer to donate cash for another one? If the Government are concerned about Mauritius’s past actions in this area, what additional assurances have Ministers sought from the Mauritian Government to prevent mismanagement, corruption or failure to properly distribute funds in future?

The domestic reality of this arrangement is also worrying. Many Britons will struggle to understand why we are transferring funds to a foreign Government so that they can manage a trust fund on our behalf. Does this mean that we are transferring funds without proper control over how those moneys are spent? What powers will the UK have under the treaty to ensure that Mauritius is fulfilling its responsibilities? These are all important questions—many Members have raised them in the debates so far—which Ministers should seek to answer, either at the Dispatch Box or in the Bill.

Amendment 17 in my name and Amendments 26 and 78 in the names of my noble friends Lord Lilley and Lord Hannan of Kingsclere relate to the employment of Chagossian citizens on the military base. The treaty makes provision for the employment of Mauritians on the base. We debated issues related to that provision in an earlier group. The treaty, sadly, does not make any provision for the employment of Chagossians on the base. We already know how many Chagossians living on Mauritius feel that they are treated as second-class citizens. Does the Minister agree that Chagossians should have similar protections for their employment on the military base as Mauritians?

Amendment 81, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Morrow, is a very simple amendment that would provide for a report on the impact of the treaty on British Indian Ocean Territory citizens. I see no reason why a Minister would refuse to produce that report. The rights of BIOT citizens are, or should be, central to the future of the islands. We need some clarity on this matter. If the Government cannot commit to a report on the impact of the treaty, will the Minister at least give the Committee an assurance that her department will do everything in its power under the terms of the treaty to ensure that BIOT citizens are properly supported by Mauritius?

I look forward to hearing the rest of the debate and the Minister’s reply.

[Baroness Foster of Aghadrumsee (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, in this group I will speak to my Amendments 20A, 50A and 81A. I also strongly support Amendment 55 in the name of my noble friend Lord Weir of Ballyholme. As the Minister knows, I have asked several questions about the trust fund, which, as I understand it, will be totally in the control of the Mauritian Government. This brings inherent problems, particularly as those Chagossians living here in the UK are often near or below the poverty line and could well do with access to help and assistance. Amendment 55 seeks to probe the fairness of the payments to Mauritians and Chagossians.

I will go further in saying that the Secretary of State should establish a Chagossian advisory council comprised primarily of individuals of Chagossian descent, including members based here in the UK, Mauritius and Seychelles. This council could then be consulted on all strategic programme and spending decisions relating to the trust fund, ensuring that Chagossian communities are directly involved in shaping priorities and oversight. That would promote transparency. The minutes of the council meetings and any recommendations or advice could also be published annually. That goes further than the amendment in the name of my noble friend Lord Weir, but I would be obliged to hear from the Minister on this as it would deal with some of the issues around transparency and accountability as well.

On Amendment 20A, I am not going to labour the points raised as we discussed some of this last week in Committee, but I remind the Committee that the current provisions of the treaty do not grant a right for Chagossians to access their homeland. They leave it up to the Mauritian Government as to whether this happens. Article 6 states that the Mauritian Government are

“free to implement a programme of resettlement”.

That falls far short of right to access the islands. That is what this amendment seeks to do.

Amendment 50A concerns the protection of Chagossian identity and birthplace. I tabled this amendment at the request of the Chagossian community here in the UK, including many native islanders who were born on Diego Garcia, Peros Banhos and Salomon before their forced removal between 1968 and 1973.

This amendment is not theoretical and it is not precautionary. It responds to a real, current and deeply troubling practice that is already happening, and the Committee needs to be aware of the seriousness of this. We have now seen documentary evidence that Mauritian authorities have begun issuing birth certificates to Chagossians in which the true place of birth has been removed and replaced with Mauritius. In each case, the names of islands such as Diego Garcia, Peros Banhos or Salomon have been deleted from the official record. It is not an allegation; it is a matter of record. Chagossian families have shown us the documents and they have been verified by lawyers. Native islanders born on Peros Banhos and Diego Garcia are now being told by a Government claiming future sovereignty over their homeland that they were not born there at all.

This pattern of altering official records is consistent with long-standing concerns expressed by Chagossians who lived in Mauritius, many of whom describe decades of discrimination, marginalisation and a complete lack of constitutional recognition as a distinct people. United Nations human rights experts have previously documented that Chagossians in Mauritius faced entrenched barriers to housing, healthcare, employment and political participation, and continue to experience de facto discrimination as an Afro-descendant minority. Would the Minister care to look at the page on the website of the Mauritian Government which is dedicated to the Chagos Archipelago? There they refer to those who were “forcibly removed” from the islands in the 1960s as

“Mauritians born and residing at the time in the Chagos Archipelago”.

I have seen the passport of a Chagossian who was deported from Diego Garcia to the Seychelles. In that case, the birthplace that was originally recorded as Diego Garcia has been replaced with Mauritius. I am informed by those directly affected that this practice followed political agreements involving the former Mauritian Prime Minister and the former Seychelles President, under which Chagossians living in Seychelles were required to have Mauritius entered on their documents rather than the true place of their birth on the island. Whether these arrangements were informal or formal, the effect is the same: the birthplace of Chagossian natives has been erased, replaced or falsified. That is an act of identity deletion; it is happening now, and the evidence is in front of us.

The way to deal with this is through this amendment, which I believe is essential. The Chagossians were removed once, their homes were demolished, their pets were killed, their possessions were thrown into the sea, and they were shipped to Mauritius and the Seychelles with no warning and no rights. They lost their land, their livelihood and their future. What they ask for today is, I believe, modest in comparison. They ask for the one thing they still possess: the truth of who they are and where they were born. The Committee needs to be cognisant of that. Identity is not a technicality; for a displaced person, it is absolutely everything. It is the final surviving link to their home, lineage, history and dignity. Yet we now know—not just fear or speculate—that the birthplace of Chagossian natives has been altered by an external authority. There can be no more powerful demonstration of why this House must intervene.

The Government have repeatedly argued that decisions about the Chagos should respect international norms—we have heard it many times in this House. International law is absolutely clear on this point. Altering a displaced person’s civil status records without their consent violates the principles laid down in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the UN guiding principles on internal displacement and the fundamental norms to identity as recognised in human rights jurisprudence.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

That is correct, but those payments would not have paid for a legally secure operation of the base alongside our United States allies. Whatever legal geniuses we have opposite us today, those in the White House differed on the analysis now being put forward by the Conservative Party, which is clearly different from what they put forward in the not-so-distant past.

The agreement gives Mauritius the opportunity to develop a programme of resettlement on its own terms, without requiring the UK taxpayer to pick up the bill.

On Amendment 81G from the noble Lord, Lord Kempsell, as I and other Ministers have said on numerous occasions, it will be for Mauritius to establish a programme of resettlement once the treaty comes into force. I am very sympathetic to the way he put his case on this, but it would not be a good use of taxpayers’ money to keep reporting on something that is not in our gift to achieve. The Government are increasing their support to Chagossians living in the UK through new and existing projects. These include Chagossian-led community projects in Crawley and beyond, as well as education and English language support, and have involved the creation of a number of FCDO-funded full-time jobs for Chagossians. The noble Lord, Lord Ahmad, asked me about commitments on this going forward. We are committed to these at least until the end of this Parliament. He will understand that what happens beyond that may depend on decisions of Ministers in the future.

Amendment 31 tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Morrow, and Amendment 55 tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Weir, ask for an equality impact assessment on the payments to be made by Mauritius to Chagossians. The Government have already released the public sector equality duty report relating to the treaty, which addresses all the issues around equalities and the impact assessment.

Amendment 50A tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Foster, raises a really important issue. We do not think it is necessary to make provision for this in the Bill, but we understand her concern. As I said in my letter in relation to the first day of Committee, we will work with relevant authorities to ensure that official documentation reflects historic connections to the Chagos Archipelago wherever possible. British passports issued to Chagossians will continue to display their place of birth and, if they wish, those who already have British Overseas Territories citizenship status can hold a British passport reflecting their status as British Overseas Territories citizens. I am very sympathetic to the arguments put forward by the noble Baroness and commit to making diplomatic representations to the Government of Mauritius to ensure that place of birth is recorded accurately on documentation.

[Baroness Foster of Aghadrumsee (Non-Afl)]

I very much appreciate the Minister’s commitment to do that, because this is such a hurtful thing. Sometimes, those of an Irish republican disposition will say that I am not British but just Irish, so it is something I feel very strongly about. The Chagossians are entitled to have their identity confirmed, and I would be very pleased if she could write to me after she raises those issues through the diplomatic channels.

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

Of course, I would be very happy to do that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Hoey (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I wish to speak to my Amendment 54. I must say to the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, that I think we are all pleased that we are where we are. It seems very strange to say that we cannot be discussing the Bill—that was almost the way it was put.

My amendment really follows on a little from what the noble Lord, Lord Weir of Ballyholme, talked about. During Committee in another place, concerns were expressed that other countries may seek to lease individual Chagos Islands and reference was made to reports that India and China were in consultation with the Republic of Mauritius. At that time, the Minister of State at the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, the honourable Member for Cardiff South and Penarth, responded robustly. He stated:

“I want to say on that point that this is absolute nonsense. Is the shadow Minister willing to provide any evidence that that is going to take place? This treaty protects the security of the outer islands and expressly prohibits foreign forces building bases on them—something on which her Government did not succeed in their negotiations”.—[Official Report, Commons, 20/10/25; col. 686.]


What is this great protection to which he referred?

Noble Lords will find that in paragraph 3 of the first annex to the Mauritius treaty. It states:

“In accordance with this Agreement, in respect of the Chagos Archipelago beyond Diego Garcia, Mauritius agrees”—


this is point d—that,

“except in circumstances of necessity for a response to a humanitarian emergency or natural disaster in instances where the United Kingdom or the United States of America is unable or unwilling to provide such a response, Mauritius and the United Kingdom shall jointly decide on authorisations permitting the presence of non-United Kingdom, non-United States or non-Mauritian security forces, either civilian or military”.

I cannot see anything there to validate the Minister’s assertion that the treaty

“expressly prohibits”

foreign forces building bases on the islands. What it says is that they cannot do so without the agreement of the UK Government.

For me, this presents two real concerns. First, and most importantly, there is nothing in the treaty to provide any kind of safeguard in relation to the leasing of islands for purposes other than security and defence. This would leave the door wide open for other countries to seek to lease the islands, ostensibly for purposes other than security and defence. The argument made by the Minister in the other place was that the suggestion that there was a problem was nonsense. It seems to me to be very well founded. The extraordinary thing about these provisions is the fact that they relate to islands of immense geostrategic importance, yet the protections in relation to them are effectively non-existent. That seems very complacent to me.

There is nothing to prevent a hostile country leasing an island and either combining security and defence purposes with others, in the hope of hiding the former, or on beginning with non-security and defence purposes and then changing over to them. Can the Minister tell me how that could be prevented? What would happen if an island is leased for non-security and defence purposes, yet it subsequently becomes apparent that it is being used for those purposes and that the country has dug in well and has no intention of relinquishing the islands? How could they be dislodged? Would the Minister here like to respond on that? I found the suggestion from that Minister in the Commons that there are no presenting difficulties quite alarming. It suggested a certain otherworldliness with a high degree of disconnection from political reality.

Secondly, the other difficulty is the completely opaque nature of the protection that is provided and the lack of parliamentary scrutiny. At the moment, we would have no knowledge about when or if approaches were made by the Republic of Mauritius to seek UK agreement for other countries to use other islands, and we need to know that. My Amendment 54 would address this concern by requiring the Minister to develop regulations stating that before the UK can agree to a proposal from the Republic of Mauritius—made under Annex 1(3)(d) of the treaty—that any island other than Diego Garcia be used for security and defence purposes by another country, that proposal must be brought to Parliament and endorsed by a vote of both Houses. Will the Minister give me a reason why that should not happen?

In ending, I will ask at this stage about the point made in the debate on the fourth group about whether the Government were asked to give their consent before the deal between Mauritius and India was done. I am not sure that we got a response to that. It was going to give India a defence presence. I would really like to know how long the Government knew before that happened. Did they know and when did they agree to it?

[Baroness Foster of Aghadrumsee (Non-Afl)]

I will speak to my Amendment 81J on behalf of all those who have written to me, urging the House of Lords to look again at the security implications of the Bill. My amendment would require the Secretary of State to consult the Government of the United States before taking any action that may affect the security environment of Chagos or the operation of the facilities on Diego Garcia. It is simple, reasonable and, I think, essential. The Minister may well say that we will of course speak always and at length to our closest ally, but this amendment seeks to put that into the Bill and on a mandatory footing.

We are all aware that Diego Garcia is not an ordinary base; it is the backbone of US and UK operations in the Indian Ocean, the Middle East and east Africa. It is critical for surveillance, early warnings, carrier support and global rapid deployment. Hundreds of thousands of British and American personnel have depended on it for missions authorised by this country, but the Bill does not have any statutory requirement even to consult with the ally whom we seek to stay closest to. Of course, the US is not a passive observer; it is a treaty partner that has kept those waters free from extremism, piracy and hostile influence for decades. Therefore, this is a straightforward amendment. I will not prolong the debate, because I can see the Whips getting nervous. Unfortunately, this is a rather large group of amendments, but I thought that it was very important to speak to my amendment. I hope that it will be considered by the Committee.