Diego Garcia Military Base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill

Lord Bellingham Excerpts

Report stage
Monday 5th January 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Meyer (Con)]

My Lords, I support Amendment 32, to which I have added my name. Giving the Chagossian people a say before their homeland is transferred to Mauritius is not an unreasonable demand; it is basic justice. At its heart lies the principle of self-determination embedded in international law and central to the United Kingdom’s own foreign policy tradition. Article 1 of the United Nations charter affirms

“the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples”.

It is the very principle on which the United Kingdom has relied in relation to the Falkland Islands and Gibraltar, where referenda were rightly held and the will of the people to remain British was respected.

Self-determination is not a modern invention. It has underpinned the constitutional settlement of all Britain’s overseas territory. There is no principled reason why it should not apply here. The Chagossians are a people; they have their own language, culture and traditions, and a distinct identity that has endured despite expulsion. Above all, they have a profound and enduring connection to their islands. Despite their expulsion between 1968 and 1973, they have remained a cohesive people, the majority of whom oppose the transfer of their island to Mauritius, as the noble Lord, Lord De Mauley, so clearly indicated earlier. It is therefore extraordinary that a Government who claim to champion human rights and the rule of law are asking this House to approve legislation that enables the most profound constitutional decision imaginable for the Chagossian people—the disposal of their homeland—without giving them any opportunity to vote on their future.

As mentioned earlier, even the United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination has expressed serious concerns about the lack of consultation, calling for the ratification to be suspended and for the free, prior and informed consent of the Chagossian people to be secured. This Government speak readily of historic injustice and reparation. I therefore ask the Minister: why are those principles not applied to the Chagossian people—a people who were expelled from their homeland? This is an injustice. It is an old grievance, and a living one. It shapes how this Bill will be judged, not only by the Chagossians but by the wider world.

International law does not require the silencing of people; on the contrary, it protects their right to determine their own future. To hand over their islands and to extinguish their British-Chagossian identity, without first asking their opinion, would be a terrible injustice, and it would not go unnoticed. It would be remembered by other people, not least those in the British Overseas Territories who look to this Parliament to uphold the principle that their future is theirs to decide. This amendment offers the House a chance to uphold that principle, to break the cycle of exclusion and to begin to right a historical wrong. For the sake of the Chagossians and for the integrity of this House, I urge noble Lords to support the amendment.

Briefly, I also support Amendment 13, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Lilley, which states that the Act will come into force

“only once all outstanding legal actions, including appeals, by the Chagossian people have been determined”.

The failure of the Bill in that regard is bizarre. A judicial review challenging the exclusion of the Chagossians from meaningful consultation has been heard, and we are awaiting the judgment, as many noble Lords have mentioned. The arguments have concluded and the ruling is imminent—possibly as soon as 12 January, one week’s time—yet the Government are pressing ahead regardless. This is not a technicality; it is a vital democratic safeguard. Proceeding with legislation and a treaty ratification before the court has ruled raises serious constitutional concerns.

Can the Minister say why this debate has been tabled before the court ruling has been delivered? Why not wait one week? Why has the usual three-day rule between Report and Third Reading been ignored? Other noble Lords raised this point. Do the Government wish to conclude the treaty and lock in the transfer before the court has had its say, possibly in favour of the Chagossians’ right to self-determination? If this is not the Government’s intention, they must explain their actions to this House.

[Lord Bellingham (Con)]

My Lords, I will please the Government by being extremely brief, because I spoke at length at Second Reading and in Committee and have contributed to every Question we have had on this subject.

I agree entirely with the noble Baronesses, Lady Hoey and Lady Meyer. Why do we have this indecent rush? Why can the Government not wait until the UK High Court case judgment? Why are we having Third Reading so quickly after Report? I just do not understand why the Government are pushing this so quickly, particularly when they know that many noble Lords and noble Baronesses are still away for the first part of this week.

Two very important developments have taken place, which have been referred to already, particularly by the noble Lord, Lord Hannan. The UN Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination has 18 independent experts. Their role is to monitor the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination. It is an important UN committee in Geneva—as a tribunal, it is equivalent to a court within the wider UN family—and its opinion is advisory.

I suggest to the two Ministers that they have made great play of the fact that, even though the other two UN court decisions were advisory, the Government felt compelled, for many reasons, to go along with them. We heard a lot about the rules-based system—although I do not know where that stands now after what has happened in Venezuela. We heard a lot about the global South and about our reputation in the UN. The Government have said that, for those reasons and many others, they have to go with those UN advisory judgments. Why are those judgments different from this one? If the Government are taking those advisory decisions so seriously, why do they not pause and listen to what the UN Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination has just said in what was, frankly, an excoriating judgment? Anyone who reads it can go away concluding only that this UN committee is very concerned about the treatment of the Chagossian people.

I would certainly echo the points made by a number of noble Lords—it is excellent to see my noble friend Lord Lilley here, after his travails in getting here from France—but one thing that struck me when I first dealt with this case as the Minister for the Overseas Territories, when I started meeting different groups of Chagossian people, was the extraordinary way in which they were forgiving of the UK Government in spite of the way in which they had been treated. Surely, therefore, Amendment 32 is not asking for a great deal. They deserve a referendum.

My second point concerns something else that has changed significantly in terms of the overall climate in which we are looking at this matter: the Chagossian Government who have been set up in exile. I have had a look at them. Every single one of the Chagossian groups that has commented on this initiative has said that this is a very good idea indeed. Some of the many aspects of dealing with the Chagossian people have been the in-fighting between different factions, the number of factions in different countries and the extent to which they often do not agree on anything. However, they agree on one thing: that this Chagossian Government in exile are a good thing and should be listened to. They are taking it incredibly seriously. In that spirit, we have had two major changes in the overall situation: first, the UN committee in Geneva; and, secondly, the setting up of this Government in exile.

For those reasons, I very much hope that the Minister will agree to postpone the whole progress of this Bill. I also urge the House to vote for Amendment 32—because that would send an incredibly strong signal not just to the Chagossian people, that we feel deeply about them, but to the Government—so that we can have a proper referendum, hear and consult the Chagossians and make up for some of the wrongs of the past.

[Lord McCrea of Magherafelt and Cookstown (DUP)]

My Lords, like my colleague, I support Amendment 32 in the names of the noble Baroness, Lady Foster and Lady Meyer, and the noble Lords, Lord Callanan and Lord Hannan; I also support Amendments 19 and 33 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Purvis.

The proposal that Amendment 32 addresses is of major importance. It states:

“The Secretary of State must arrange a referendum on whether the British Indian Ocean Territory should … remain a British Overseas Territory, or … be transferred to and become the sovereign territory of the Republic of Mauritius”.


Then there are other actions as well. Surely the opinion of the Chagossians is of fundamental and undeniable importance; in fact, this should have been the very first step in the Government’s approach to the issue.

On 18 November, I had the honour of speaking in the Chamber about the Chagossian community—an entire group of people omitted from the process and left outside in the cold. It was my absolute privilege to meet many of them during their visit to Parliament. Their personal stories have left an indelible mark on my mind. I reiterate that precious right to self-determination and consultation by affirming my support for this amendment.

If accepted, this amendment will provide that no transfer of sovereignty over the British Indian Ocean Territory may take place until a majority of Chagossians support it; and that all eligible Chagossians, wherever they live, must be able to take part. That principle should be neither controversial nor awkward. The right of peoples to self-determination is not a slogan to be deployed selectively: we either fundamentally believe in self-determination or do not. It is a cornerstone of international law—one which this country has consistently championed. We need only to cast our minds back to the Gibraltar referendum in 2002 and the Falkland Islands referendum in 2013, both of which concerned the maintenance of British sovereignty.

It is entirely in the spirit of constitutional referenda that this process should be conducted. The sacred right of self-determination ought to go hand in hand with the sacred British sovereignty of overseas territories. They should not be treated as spectators to their own fate, spectators to a decision principally and directly affecting only their homeland and not ours. They deserve to have a say in the future of their own land.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

Not that I am aware of. I point out that the committee to which the noble Baroness and others have referred is not a legal body of the UN; it does not speak for the UN or for any UN member states. It is important for noble Lords to be aware of that, so that they are not labouring under a misapprehension.

[Lord Bellingham (Con)]

Before the Minister sits down, could I clarify one point? She is aware that the committee was set up under the UN charter to monitor the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination. All UN members signed up to that and, although it is advisory, it carries a huge amount of influence, as do the other two tribunals, which are also advisory and which the Government have said they need to go along with.

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

They are very different things. I encourage the noble Lord to investigate this a little further and am happy to work with him on that. The fact is that this particular committee does not speak on behalf of the UN and there are many equivalent committees across the UN that also do not speak on behalf of member states. If noble Lords want to verify that, it is entirely up to them to do so, but that is the situation.

To continue, the Government’s priority remains the protection of the British people, including British Chagossians. As the location of a military base with sensitive capabilities and assets vital to the UK’s national security, it would not be appropriate for Diego Garcia to be included in Mauritius’s programme of resettlement. However, both the UK and the Republic of Mauritius remain committed to facilitating a programme of heritage visits to the Chagos Archipelago, including Diego Garcia. Chagossians will also retain the opportunity to work on Diego Garcia through contracted employment at the base.

In respect of Amendments 9, 16, 24 and 48 concerning the 2 December decision by the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, the Government’s position is clear. The CERD is an independent body of experts that—I am repeating myself, but I want to make it absolutely clear for noble Lords—does not speak on behalf of the United Nations or of UN member states. The UK does not agree with the approach that the CERD has taken. The UN Secretary-General and the African Union chairperson have both welcomed the agreement. The treaty protects the base and our national security, which is why it has also been welcomed by the US, our Five Eyes partners and other important partners who appreciate the strategic importance of the base. Mauritius has also firmly and categorically rejected the CERD decision, and the Government therefore reject the tabled amendments.

Amendment 5 on migrants and asylum, from the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, is not necessary and therefore we do not accept it. The treaty already ensures Mauritian responsibility for and jurisdiction over all migrants arriving to the Chagos Archipelago, including Diego Garcia. The treaty closes a potential illegal migration route to the UK. The UK Government are already in the process of agreeing with Mauritius the separate arrangements referenced in paragraph 10 of annex 2 of the treaty to assess and facilitate that exercise of Mauritian jurisdiction. There are ongoing negotiations; I will not provide a running commentary, but both Mauritius and the UK agree that it would be for Mauritius to take responsibility for any migrants, including for any asylum or international protection claims. There is therefore no need for the Government to provide a report on the negotiations through an amendment to the Bill. I hope that answers noble Lords’ queries about that issue at this stage and that the noble Lord will withdraw his amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Bellingham (Con)]

My Lords, we have heard two powerful and moving speeches. I will reference another Miliband—David Miliband, the former Foreign Secretary. One of the very last initiatives he brought forward was the Chagos Archipelago marine protected area. He said at the time that it was by far and away the most important environmental treaty and agreement that any Government had ever enacted. He pointed out that 92% of the UK’s biodiversity is located in the OTs, which is still the case. Some 32% of it is in the Chagos Archipelago.

All the research I did as an incoming Minister at the time completely reinforced the then Labour Government’s decision to launch this initiative and put so much effort and time into it. We are concerned about sea-birds, migratory turtles and coral bleaching, but my biggest concern is around fishing. All the research proved that, if you can put a stop to fishing, you prevent damage to the coral, because modern commercial fishing does untold harm to coral reefs. It will also have a big impact on apex species, such as sharks and rays, which are so important to the environment.

I am sorry to say this, but the Mauritian Government have a dreadful record on environmental protection. We may well give them the benefit of the doubt and say that they will raise their game and suddenly start finding resources to take this matter seriously, but what happens if they go the other way and future Governments in Mauritius, maybe even in 10 years’ time, decide that they can raise a great deal of money from issuing licences to the Chinese, the Taiwanese, the Bulgarians or whatever country wants to fish in these areas? We would have no control over that whatever. Whatever they say now, it could well be ripped up and ignored even in 10 years’ time. What about hydrocarbons? If there are discoveries in this part of the ocean in the region of the archipelago, what is to stop the Mauritian Government issuing licences for exploration of hydrocarbons? In 10 years’ time, when many of us will not be here, we may look back and say: “What on earth did this Government do to take away those vital protections?”

[Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)]

I am very impressed by the noble Lord’s speech. Can he tell us what proportion of the resources of the Royal Air Force and the Royal Navy are currently deployed in the Indian Ocean protecting the area?

[Lord Bellingham (Con)]

I had sat down, but I am perfectly happy to say that the UK Government take their responsibilities incredibly seriously. As I mentioned, the OTs contain 92% of our biodiversity. I cannot think of one example where the UK Government have not stepped up to honour their responsibilities and put in place every form of protection.

[Lord Deben (Con)]

I remind my noble friend that not only the British Government but voluntary organisations have been doing this, and it is because of the backing of the British Government that they are carrying this through. Whatever the noble Lord’s views on this issue, he must accept that at the moment this is a very highly protected area, and we are offering it to someone who does not protect anyone.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Bellingham (Con)]

We can address those concerns by passing at least one of these amendments.

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

My Lords, Amendments 3, 31A, 42 and 43 from the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, all relate to the marine protected area and the Mauritian intent to establish its own marine protected area. It will be for Mauritius to implement this MPA. However, we welcome the announcement on 3 November by the Mauritian Government of the establishment of the Chagos Archipelago marine protected area, to be known as CAMPA, and particularly their commitment that no commercial fishing will be allowed in any part of the area.

Amendment 31 from the noble Lords, Lord Faulks and Lord Godson, follows a similar vein, seeking to oblige the UK Government to report on the Mauritian MPA. But we have been clear that CAMPA will be for the Mauritian Government to enforce and fund, and the UK will not be providing direct funding to Mauritius to maintain or set up this MPA. Renegotiation of the treaty at this stage is not a practical proposition, as Mauritius has already made this public commitment to the MPA, which covers the protections requested in the noble Lords amendments. We therefore do not think they are necessary. Likewise—