Diego Garcia Military Base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill

Lord Hannan of Kingsclere Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 4th November 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hannan of Kingsclere (Con)]

My Lords, we have an opportunity to right an old wrong and prevent a new injustice. We have an opportunity to stop the handover of tens of millions of pounds a year—billions in total—to fund tax cuts somewhere else while taxes are rising here. We have an opportunity to prevent the handover of strategic territory to a state that may come under the influence of unfriendly powers. Above all, we have the ability to stand up belatedly for the injured party here: the Chagossian people.

Sitting silently in the Gallery throughout your Lordships’ debate has been a contingent of our friends from the British Indian Ocean Territory. Their role as silent spectators has been eerily symbolic of the role they have played these past 50 years, and especially these past five years, as decisions about them have been made without them. But we have an opportunity to go in a different direction. Article 18 of the treaty makes it clear that it cannot enter into force until both parties have informed each other that they have concluded all the national ratificatory procedures.

I remind noble Lords one more time of what the Labour manifesto said about this. As my noble friend Lord Callanan quoted, it said:

“Defending our security also means protecting the British Overseas Territories … Labour will always defend their sovereignty and right to self-determination”.


I would argue that, under the Salisbury convention, it works both ways. You could at least make the claim that this Chamber has not just the opportunity but the duty to enforce the manifesto on which Labour was elected, and that means recognising the self-determination of the Chagossian people.

Why are we doing this? I will not repeat my noble friend Lord Lilley’s speech. There is no legal obligation. For one thing, military facilities are excluded from the purview of these courts, but even if you set that aside, it was expressly drawn up in the clearest language that our lawyers could devise that there was no purview for a court such as this in a dispute between two present or former members of the Commonwealth. That was expressly put in to prevent challenges of this kind.

I think we all know the answer—we heard it from the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, a second ago. I cannot help noticing from the sparse Benches opposite that there is no great enthusiasm from the governing party for this measure, but there is a clique of people for whom “Decolonise” is everything. It is painful for them to see little union jacks in the upper corners of flags. They approach these questions impressionistically, based on vibes and emotions, almost regardless of the legal rights and wrongs or the interests of the people concerned.

It is very clear from Philippe Sands’ book, in which he wrote about the whole process, how he, the Attorney-General and, I suspect, the Prime Minister, have come at this. You must always back the ex-colony against the ex-coloniser, always back the poorer state against the western one, always back the non-white population against the white one, regardless of the rights and wrongs. This is even though the people being injured here are, of course, the dispossessed Chagossians. Even as a decolonising exercise, it totally fails on its own terms, because here is a territory now being handed to a genuinely colonial power that has no interest in it and no connection except a pecuniary one.

I will not get into the ecological arguments, which were so well stated by the noble Lord, Lord Thurlow, or indeed the strategic ones that we have heard from other people. To emphasise the wrong done to the Chagossian population, I just want to canter very briefly through some of the history.

The archipelago was uninhabited until 1783. The French then populated it with enslaved people taken from the African mainland. It was seized during the Napoleonic Wars—or rather, it was not seized, but the Indian Ocean French-speaking territories were seized—by the Royal Navy, as dramatically rendered in one of the Patrick O’Brian novels.

At the end of that war, in 1814, Mauritius and the Chagos Islands were ceded—separately—to the British Crown. The Chagos Islands were never part of Mauritius. They were administered from Mauritius because there was no suitable administrative seat in the archipelago.

I invite noble Lords to entertain seriously for a moment the argument that, because somewhere was once administered from somewhere else, that creates a sovereignty claim. By that logic, Anguilla would be part of St Kitts; the Turks and Caicos Islands would be part of Jamaica; indeed, come to that, Burma would be part of India. It is a ludicrous argument, an incredibly dangerous precedent that we are setting, not only for our fellow subjects in other overseas territories such as Gibraltar and the Falklands, but for any other country that was ever administered from somewhere else, which is a great many places on the planet.

Let us fast-forward to 1965. As we have heard, the Mauritian Government accepted and gladly pocketed the then huge sum of £3 million in return for renouncing in perpetuity any claim to the Chagos Archipelago. They were far from unhappy about that; this was a territory to which they were unconnected, and they saw this as an extremely good deal. I will quote what the then Prime Minister, Sir Seewoosagur Ramgoolam, said shortly afterwards. He said this was a territory

“of which very few people knew, which is very far from here, and which we had never visited”.

As far as he was concerned, that was that. The deal was done.

Mauritius then pocketed some further funds that were handed over by this country, supposedly for the betterment of the Chagossian diaspora, although a lot of that money somehow never quite trickled through to the people that it was supposed to help. Indeed, a lot of the bad feeling of the diaspora population towards Mauritius stems from the way in which those funds have been disbursed down the decades.

It was really only 15 or so years ago, as China began to become interested in Mauritius, that the claim was pressed again in earnest. There was a state visit from the Chinese Head of State, an unusual thing for a country the size of Mauritius. The first free trade agreement, I think, between China and an African state was with Mauritius. At that point, suddenly, Mauritius became very interested in exercising sovereignty over this territory, and can you blame it? It has been referred to aptly as the Malta of the Indian Ocean. Of the seven great naval choke points in the world, it is within reach of four of them: the Bab-el-Mandeb Strait, the Strait of Hormuz, the Malacca Strait and the Cape of Good Hope. It was from the Diego Garcia base in 1991 that the waves of B52 bombers took off to topple Saddam Hussein’s regime. It was from there that a brave part of the campaign against the Taliban was waged.

It is worth noting, if we are playing the game of decolonise, that for a diaspora Chagossian to dispute Mauritian sovereignty is an imprisonable offence under a law passed in 2021. Simply to say what I am saying would get me a spell in chokey if I were in Mauritius. However, there is an alternative solution, and it was touched on by the noble Baroness, Lady Foster. I want to put this forward because it is not just that we are stopping this; we have to have an alternative. It was one that was initially looked at when Tony Blair was Prime Minister. He commissioned a feasibility study by KPMG into resettling the Chagossian population on the outer atolls. The feasibility study came back much later and said that it could be done for the cost of £3 billion over a century, which, in a rather short-sighted move, the subsequent Conservative Government decided was too big an outlay during the time of austerity. But even if we accept the Minister’s figures on the liability to British taxpayers—and I suspect that my noble friend Lady Noakes is much closer to the actual sum—that is still a lot more expensive than putting in the infrastructure and resettling the Chagossian population as British subjects in a British overseas territory. Then, because it would be an inhabited territory, that would put the sovereignty claim for ever beyond doubt. It would then be up to the people there, and them alone, if they wanted to change their sovereignty.

When this Government took office, they promised growth. What we are seeing is that they are delivering shrinkage in every sense: economically, morally and geographically. If this Bill goes through and we compound the injustice to our fellow subjects of Chagossian descent, we will be in every sense diminished as a country.

Diego Garcia Military Base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill

Lord Hannan of Kingsclere Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 18th November 2025 Lords Chamber

[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.

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

The noble Lord will recall that I had said that it is not in force. I said Parliament had ratified it. I am not sure whether the noble Lord can intervene on an intervention, but I am sure he can intervene on his noble friend in just a moment as a proxy to intervene on me. Parliament has ratified the treaty. The treaty is not in force, but treaty-making is a prerogative power, not a parliamentary power. I am sure the noble Lord will agree with that.

[Lord Hannan of Kingsclere (Con)]

I will, of course, invite an intervention. I do not know what the rules are on intervening on an intervention.

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

I am happy that my noble friend gives way, because, since the noble Lord intervened on me earlier, I have had a chance to check the facts of the case and, unsurprisingly, he is completely wrong. Parliament has not ratified the treaty because Parliament cannot ratify the treaty. The ratification of treaties under the CRaG legislation is a matter for the Government, using the royal prerogative. Parliament can delay the ratification but cannot prevent it. Whatever this House voted, or whatever the House of Commons voted, the Government are entitled, under the royal prerogative, to ratify the treaty in any case. I hope that is helpful to my noble friend.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hannan of Kingsclere (Con)]

That is extremely helpful. I very much welcome my noble friend’s intervention.

[The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Baroness Chapman of Darlington) (Lab)]

I am very much going to regret getting involved in this, but I think it is helpful to understand what this House has and has not done. Both Houses of Parliament have voted that the Government should ratify this treaty. That is the situation as it is. This debate is about making sure we have the right legislation to enable us to enact the treaty.

[Lord Hannan of Kingsclere (Con)]

I think lots of positions will be endlessly stated on that; I am not going to take it any further now. I do not see anyone changing their minds about that, but I would like to address the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, who suggested that this was really about a reluctance ever to cede sovereignty and to allow any colony to go its own way.

One of the peculiar features of British rule overseas was the nature of its dissolution. The British Empire, unlike most others, had a self-dissolving quality because it had the democratic self-determination principle that was adumbrated in this House and then exported. Very few imperial moments ended so peacefully. Yes, there were tragic exceptions in Kenya, Cyprus, India and Palestine, I suppose. Ireland was a slightly different story, because it was not treated as a colony but as part of the country itself. But those were exceptional; in most places, including most Caribbean countries and Malaya, independence happened without a shot being fired in anger because there was that belief in self-determination. Quite often the imperative to decolonise, as my noble friend Lord Lilley suggests, overrode self-determination.

Some noble Lords will, I am sure, remember that in 1956 Malta voted in a referendum, by 77%, to turn itself into three Westminster constituencies and become part of the United Kingdom. It was turned down and, soon after, Malta ended up not just independent but outside NATO and the Commonwealth, and pursuing an extremely unhelpful line. During the Maltese process of accession to the European Union, I discussed this with Dom Mintoff, who was still alive. He was an old and revered figure at that time, and he said, “My wife is British and I love Britain, but how do you expect anyone to respond to being treated in that way?”

I mentioned Malta because there was a similar debate, which I do not think has come up in any of your Lordships’ deliberations, in one of the parties in Mauritius in the 1960s about whether to adhere to the United Kingdom and seek representation at the other end of this building. The idea that this is really about some kind of grasping imperial power refusing to let go is wrong in the generality and especially wrong in this case, because we are refusing to recognise the wishes of the people concerned—the only people who ever formed a permanent population of the Chagos Archipelago between 1714 and the early 1970s.

Self-determination does not always mean independence. It means exactly that: you can self-determine to be part of a larger bloc. The referendum in Scotland in 2014 was an act of self-determination; it did not stop being self-determination because of the referendum result. That is what we mean by democracy. I fear that self-determination, which is a core principle of the United Nations and of the legal order that we have defended even since the Atlantic charter in 1941, is being overridden here for no good reason at all. This is what makes me so frustrated. Every time I sit down to draft what I want to say about these amendments, I start getting angry all over again about the utter needlessness of it all, for the reasons set out by my noble friend Lord Lilley. We are surrendering to a case where there is no jurisdiction over us. If Ministers think that that is wrong, I would love to hear the Minister explain why the Government will not accept my noble friend’s amendments.

It seems that what we are doing here is creating a hierarchy of norms, not by the intrinsic importance of their jurisdictional power, but on the basis of taste and fashion. The principle of self-determination is thus ranked below the principle of general decolonisation—getting out of the way—and that is fundamentally because of a transient public mood. It is considered unfashionable to have flags with little Union Jacks in the top corner, which sets a very dangerous precedent.

It may be—I do not know—that the Government will argue that the reason we are following this non-binding resolution, which is not a legal judgment, is not because there is some hidden reason that we really have to, as my noble friend suggests, but, they may say, because we have to give an example. It would be because the international order is in danger; countries are throwing their weight around; Machtpolitik is prevailing; the whole post-war order is looking shaky; even the United States, on which it rested, is now asserting its interests without recourse to treaties. Therefore, we need to set a lead.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

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

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

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

[Lord Hannan of Kingsclere (Con)]

May I press the Minister on that point? I am very grateful to her for giving way. She said that there was an existential threat to the base. So that I have understood that clearly, is she saying that there was something in addition to the possibility of an adverse UNCLOS judgment? As she conceded a moment ago, UNCLOS has no sovereignty; I just looked up what it says on its website, and it says, “We don’t do sovereignty issues”. That issue was tested with the case between the Philippines and China, when the latter was building reefs over some contested land, and UNCLOS said that it had nothing to do with it. Therefore, is there something else? Is an adverse judgment from a body that cannot decide sovereignty, in her view, an existential threat to the existence of the base? Would it make the existence of that base impossible?

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

What do we mean by existential? We could still have a Diego Garcia—there could be something there. However, it would be existential because, if the operability is compromised, the base as it exists today—it is a unique place and it does things that we do not do anywhere else—would be compromised. To that extent, I suggest that that is an existential threat to the operability of the base.

With that, I hope that noble Lords who have presented their amendments are satisfied. If not, we can of course return to these issues on Report.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Lilley (Con)]

I will speak in favour of Amendments 2, 13, 25 and 28. Amendment 2 is an all-purpose amendment saying that the treaty should not come into force until other conditions in amendments are incorporated. Amendments 13 and 28 call for consultation, and Amendment 25 for a referendum.

As I have mentioned previously, the advisory ruling of the International Court of Justice was based on a non-binding UN resolution about the process of decolonisation. That ruling explicitly says that a colonial state can sever part of a territory if it is the freely expressed and genuine will of the people of the territory concerned that they be separated.

The Chagossians cite the example of the Gilbert and Ellice Islands. The parallel between the Gilbert and Ellice Islands and the situation of Chagos versus Mauritius is striking. When the Government consulted the people of the Gilbert and Ellice Islands before ceasing to be the colonial power, they found that there was considerable opposition in the Ellice Islands to being lumped in with the Gilbert Islands. The parallels between that and the Chagos Islands and Mauritius are very striking. The Chagos Islands are 1,339 miles away from Mauritius, and the Ellice Islands are just 800 miles away from the Gilbert Islands. The Chagos Islands have a different ethnic mix. They are basically populated by people from the African continent, whereas that is not the case in Mauritius. Likewise, with the Gilbert and Ellice Islands, one was Polynesian and one was Micronesian. The disparity of numbers is, if anything, even greater in the case of the Chagos Islands versus Mauritius than it was in the Ellice and Gilbert Islands.

After consulting, the British Government rightly decided that they should test the views of the people concerned. They had a referendum, and the vote was very striking. The people of the Ellice Islands voted to separate from the Gilbert Islands by 3,799 votes to 293. This is a comparatively small number of people—fewer, in fact, than the diaspora of Chagossian peoples in the UK, the Seychelles and Mauritius itself. It surely is possible for us to consult with them and seek their views, ideally through a referendum. The Government may say, “Why have a referendum? It’s so difficult. We can’t do it”. But the Chagossians themselves have today given the results of an opinion poll they have carried out, which 3,500 people responded to out of roughly 10,000 potential respondents. That is a very high proportion. Of those 3,500, an overwhelming proportion were against being lumped in with Mauritius.

The Government may well say that it is still only a minority of the total population. That is fair enough. Again, suck it and see—have a referendum of the total. Who would be the potential electors? The Chagossian nationals would be, as defined in this Bill. We have done that bit for the Government, so that is already there. It is clearly possible over a period to consult them if the Chagossians can organise a poll like this fairly rapidly and with such a high response rate.

The Government often argue that the Chagossians are “not really a people and in any case they’re no longer there”. However, there are precedents in history for people being removed from a place and allowed back. The Acadians were shipped out of Canada because they were thought to be unreliable French-speaking Catholics but subsequently were allowed back and are still a distinctive community in that part of Canada. Similar things have happened with the Chechens and the Crimeans more recently, after the Second World War. In history, we all know the displacement that was suffered by the ancient Israelites. It is possible to say that people who have been removed from a territory still have a right to that territory and should be consulted about its sovereignty.

These amendments seek to ensure that we do have a referendum. Failing that, if the Government can convince us that it is impossible in some way to organise a referendum, let us have a thorough and prolonged period of consultation. I would like to hear more from the Government on what they are doing now, having been provoked into it by the amendment to the committal Motion to ask the relevant Select Committee of this House to carry out a consultation. How are they envisaging that being carried out, and how will they define the Chagos consultation groups and so on? I think your Lordships’ House would almost certainly welcome greater information about that process and how the Government see it happening. If they do not satisfy us on this, I think we need to press ahead with Amendments 13 and 28 on the consultation, but ideally let us go ahead and have a referendum under Amendment 25.

[Lord Hannan of Kingsclere (Con)]

My Lords, I introduce Amendment 29 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Morrow, who is prevented by a family illness from being here. His amendment draws attention to the contradiction between the principles in this Bill and some of the UN resolutions dealing with when it is valid to partition a territory. The legal case on which the Government rest, as we established in the last round of amendments, is fundamentally UN Resolution 1514, which was the basis of the Mauritian claim that it was wrong to have divided the territory at independence.

This is an extraordinary precedent to set. The idea that if a territory, for reasons of administrative convenience, was at one time governed from somewhere else, that creates a lasting claim, would upend borders on every continent and in every archipelago. It would mean that Aden and Somaliland are again governed from India, and that the Cayman Islands are again governed from Jamaica. If we extend beyond British territories, it would mean that the Philippines were governed from Mexico, and that Bolivia was again governed from my native Peru, which was the seat of the viceroyalty. It would be an extraordinary principle.

Indeed, when read in context, the UN is not arguing that. If it did, it would have opposed the split of Czechoslovakia, the independence of Montenegro from Serbia, and so on. Of course it does not argue that. The three resolutions referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Morrow, essentially establish criteria where it is proper to divide a territory for reasons of geography, history, ethnic distinction or nationality—a sense of being a people and wanting to live in your own polity. As we just heard from my noble friend Lord Lilley, all those criteria are plainly met in this case. When the Chagos Islands were ceded by the French in 1814, they were ceded as a separate territory from Mauritius. They are populated by a different population, one that came from the west rather than from the east. The only reason that they were governed from Mauritius was not because they were part of Mauritius but because there is nowhere among those sparse and beautiful atolls suitable for a seat of government. It is similar to some of our continuing overseas territories in the Atlantic today, visited occasionally by a governor because there is no permanent seat there.

This is the key group of amendments—and the crux of the entire debate is the question of consulting the people who have the most at stake. They are the only people who have ever constituted a permanent population of that archipelago and their descendants, the people defined in this Bill as the citizens of the BIOT. My noble friend Lord Lilley gave a very good example: the consultation between the Ellice Islands and the Gilbert Islands at the moment of independence. They felt that they had not enough in common to accept government from each other’s hands, so the Ellice Islands became the monarchy of Tuvalu and the Gilbert Islands became the Republic of Kiribati. The distances here, ethnically and geographically, are much wider. There is not much doubt that if we had carried out a consultation in 1965, we would have had the same outcome as in the case cited by my noble friend.

Why does that suddenly stop being true now? Why does the passage of time invalidate that claim? This is a proposal to hand the Chagossian people to a nation that has never governed them, never seen them as part of their demos, that was very happy to renounce all claims in perpetuity and trouser a cash sum in exchange for doing so, and which has continued to treat the archipelago in essentially pecuniary terms. Why not test the proposition today?

I repeat a point made by my noble friend Lord Bellingham at Second Reading. It is perfectly logistically feasible to conduct a referendum across scattered territories. Last year I voted for our absent colleague—my noble friend Lord Hague of Richmond—to be Chancellor of the University of Oxford. There was a poll that was conducted electronically across five continents, the alumni being dispersed in their tens of thousands. There was a simple enough process. You establish the right of somebody to vote, you establish their identity, you show that they genuinely are an alumnus, then you have the vote. We have established who would be eligible here, and the right of descent that conveys BIOT citizenship.

I refuse to believe that it is logistically beyond us to consult the Chagossian people. I cannot speak for everyone on this side, but I am pretty sure that if the Chagossian people voted overwhelmingly for Mauritian citizenship, opposition to this proposal would dissipate and people would accept it as a valid exercise of self-determination. There is something more than perverse about acting in the name of decolonisation when taking a people against their will and transferring them to the sovereignty of a foreign state, a country whose Prime Minister at the time of the partition said that it is a territory which they never visit and of which they know little.

When I was a Member of the European Parliament, Crawley was part of my constituency. I got to know some of the disparate groups that represent our Chagossian fellow subjects, and it is fair to say that they did not always agree on every issue—like many small communities, they had a broad diversity of opinions on a lot of subjects—but honestly, hand on heart, I do not think I ever recall meeting any Chagossian in this country who wanted to be a citizen of Mauritius. There are reasons for that. The experience of Chagossians in Mauritius was not a happy one: they were confined in slums, and they were subjected to, in their eyes, racism and discrimination. The idea that we are now placing this entire population, against their will, because of a non-binding opinion from a tribunal without jurisdiction is a truly extraordinary and shameful moment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

To clarify: it is the position of the Opposition that the referendum would also be for there to able to be inhabitants on the military base?

[Lord Hannan of Kingsclere (Con)]

My Lords, if I may intervene—

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

I am intervening on the noble Baroness. It is her speech.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Meyer (Con)]

But I allow my noble friend.

[Lord Hannan of Kingsclere (Con)]

The Chagossian people have made it very clear what they want. They had their own opinion poll on the subject, and that has been independently verified: 99.22% of people voted for it. The noble Lord, Lord Purvis of Tweed, asked what the proposition would be. It is for a resettlement on the outer atolls, under British jurisdiction and as British overseas citizens, in accordance with the plan set out in 2015, to which the noble Baroness, Lady Foster, referred earlier.

[Baroness Meyer (Con)]

Yes, and they seem to approve what we are saying. Basically, these amendments are about asking the Chagossian people about the right to self-determination through a referendum. I have never met a Chagossian in my life, but I have received many letters from them over the past few days and feel that this is my moral duty, and I think that, in good conscience, the Government should allow them self-determination.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness. She speaks with great sincerity and consistency in making her arguments, and I share many of her thoughts. I said on the earlier group that I am also awaiting the conclusions of the work of the International Relations and Defence Committee. I hope that it will be able to guide us with some of our thinking on this on Report, after its consultations with the community.

Reference has been made to my honourable friends in the House of Commons, who have also for many years been consistent that we should not repeat the history of making decisions on behalf of the community without involving them. It is our long-held view that that is the basis on which we should go forward.

One of the reasons why I intervened on the noble Baroness, and had the interaction with her noble friend, was that there have been some parts of the debate, especially in the House of Commons, where seeking consideration of the right to self-determination has perhaps been used as a bit of a proxy for other considerations, to try either to prevent a treaty or to prevent the restoration of rights. As the noble Lord said on behalf of his noble friend, we seem to be talking about some form of limited sovereignty, some form of limited and partial right to self-determination.

[Lord Hannan of Kingsclere (Con)]

The proposal has come from the Chagossian population. That is what we mean by self-determination. It is not for us to lay down whether they should have full sovereignty or partial sovereignty; it is for us to listen to what they want.

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

I agree with that. It is a clearer proposition than we have heard—a better proposition, in my view. Actually, “better” is the wrong word; it is a more convincing proposition because of its origination. The reality of how we define self-determination and the rights of the community—and where I think the debate has bled into previously—is that it has been used without that clarification, as a different political impetus with regard to the overall desirability or otherwise of having a treaty with Mauritius.

That is where I come to it. The most vociferous of speeches that we have heard deny the reality of what happened just last year. We can talk about the denial of rights. If we are talking about referendum statistics, I agree with about 90% of what the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, said about rights in her speech. But we do not have to go back to the 1960s to look at the denial of rights. It was in January 2024 that the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, as Foreign Secretary, restated government policy that there would be no right of resettlement, and that was while negotiations on the basis of a treaty were carrying on. If it is an argument to suggest that we wish to restore rights of resettlement and rights to self-determination, I accede to that argument. I think it should be in the acknowledgement that the previous Government and this Government refused to do so in the absence of a treaty with Mauritius.

The context that we are in now is that the first opportunity that we may have for limited right of resettlement and acknowledgement of some form of self-determination is by virtue of a treaty. The Minister knows that these Benches do not consider them to go far enough, and we want to use these stages to see how we can go further. But it is worth recognising that the only opportunity that we have for some form of resettlement is by virtue of there being a treaty.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Hannan of Kingsclere]

3: Clause 1, page 1, line 7, leave out subsection (2) and insert—
“(2) Sections 2 to 4 may not come into force until the Secretary of State sought to re-negotiate the Treaty so that it confers a right on Chagossian people to give birth within the Chagos Archipelago.”

[Lord Hannan of Kingsclere (Con)]

In the absence of the noble Lord, Lord Morrow, I should like to move the amendment standing in his name. Amendments 3 and 4 are about the rights of Chagossians to bear children in the archipelago and the rights of people born in the archipelago to continued British Overseas Territories citizenship. So as not to detain your Lordships any longer than necessary, I will also speak to my own Amendment 50 in this group, which is about registering married Chagossians as British Indian Ocean Territory citizens.

The Minister has just repeated that she deeply regrets the treatment of Chagossians over the decades, and I believe her. She is obviously sincere and has said that on many previous occasions. In our debate last month, she described it as appalling and morally shameful; she said that they had been badly treated over many decades. So I pose the question: what is adequate restitution for this appalling treatment, which all sides seem to agree is deeply shameful? What would constitute a way of making good a wrong in a way that is understood morally and legally? What we mean by restitution, of course, is restoring something. If you have taken something from someone, restitution means giving it back or compensating them to an equivalent value.

I am afraid that all arguments end up in the same place: the restitution sought by Chagossians for those 60 years was the right to return to the homeland from which they had been plucked and then dumped hundreds, or in some cases thousands, of miles away in strange new lands. I want the Committee to think for a moment about what a return would be like: to imagine the resettlement of the atolls around Diego Garcia, if not of the base itself, with the coconut groves coaxed back into order, their fronds trimmed; children born in the islands being taught by their elders how to husk and split the coconuts; villages on the shore, with their bright roofs rising above the takamaka and banyan trees. Imagine the old churches being reconstituted and the coral stone being used. All of that is what is being sought by our fellow subjects of Chagossian origin, as British Indian Ocean Territory citizens, and it is not available under any alternative plan.

Mauritius recognises a right to settle in the island for Mauritians, under whom it includes Chagossians. But what is being proposed by Mauritius is the dissolution of BIOT citizenship into Mauritian citizenship, equivalent in the Seychelles, and now the equivalent for us. This is something that is unprecedented. I do not think that we have ever done this before. Yes, of course, when we have transferred jurisdiction as a withdrawing colonial power, we have transferred citizenship: you become a Kenyan or whatever it is. But I cannot think of any precedent where you remove somebody’s citizenship and instead give them citizenship of a country to which they feel no loyalty at all. As long as this wrong endures—as long as people feel that they do not have the nationality on their passport that they feel in their hearts—there will not be any stability.

The Minister spoke in the last round about why we should not reopen what was defined by the courts as a final, full and binding settlement. Well, it will not be final. By the way, that is what Mauritius agreed to in 1965, when it was paid to renounce all of its claims; reparations are never fully final. The deprivation of Chagossians of the citizenship that they want, that they want for their children and that past Governments legislated for—we amended the Nationality Act 1981 in 2022 in order precisely to create this status—is not going to result in a full and final settlement. On the contrary, there will be as much rejection of that new dispensation from the people most directly involved as there was recently from the Mauritians of the existing status quo. In fact, I would not be at all surprised if the part of the Chagossian population that rejects the deal constitutes itself as a Government-in-exile and begins to seek recognition. The idea that we are doing all of this in order to settle something quietly so that it all goes away is going to be tested by events—I hope I am wrong about this, but I suspect not. We are going to look back and think, “Why did we not see this coming?”

There is a way of going back to what was our plan as recently as 2015: looking at the places in the archipelago that can be resettled without prejudice to the base, allowing those people then to work in the civilian jobs, which are currently done mainly by Filipinos and Sri Lankans and so on, on Diego Garcia itself. It could be that this whole rap becomes what the Falklands war was to that archipelago: the beginning of an economic renaissance as Britain begins to take an interest in its overseas possession and begins to create active economic opportunities for the people there, whether servicing the military facilities or in fishing or whatever it is. But none of that is going to happen if we simply declare that our Chagossian fellow citizens are really just misguided Mauritians and that they have no more particular right to their ancestral homelands and to the graves of their ancestors than any other Mauritian citizen. It is in your Lordships’ power to put a stop to this and not to ratify this treaty. As our national poet said:

“Prevent it, resist it, let it not be so,


Lest child, child’s children, cry against you woe!”

--- Later in debate ---

I appreciate that this is a bit involved and complex, and that noble Lords may wish to come back to some of these issues at later stages, but I think it is helpful to lay it out in a detailed and technical way at this stage. If a letter would be a more helpful format for noble Lords, I will put this into a letter and share it. In light of this, I hope the noble Lord will withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Hannan of Kingsclere (Con)]

I beg leave to withdraw the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Morrow.

Amendment 3 withdrawn.

Diego Garcia Military Base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill

Lord Hannan of Kingsclere Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 18th November 2025 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Hannan of Kingsclere]

5: Clause 1, page 1, line 7, leave out subsection (2) and insert—
“(2) Sections 2 and 4 of this Act do not come into force until the duties outlined in sections (Equality Impact Assessment) and (Implications of treaty on United Kingdom defence spending and United States of America) are discharged.”

[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.

[Lord McCrea of Magherafelt and Cookstown (DUP)]

My Lords, I will refer to Amendment 24 in my name. I thank the Minister for her gracious remarks earlier in the debate. I can assure the Committee that I will not detain it as long this time. The amendment asks a simple and poignant question. Should the British taxpayer be compelled to fund a treaty that actively undermines our position on the international stage and erodes British sovereignty? I believe the answer is as simple as the question: no.

Article 11 of the treaty places the United Kingdom under financial obligations to Mauritius, including annual payments linked directly to the transfer of sovereignty. We are being asked to underwrite, year after year, a settlement that has not been endorsed by the people most deeply affected. In 2008 the Foreign Affairs Committee noted the “profound poverty” experienced by many Chagossians resettled in Mauritius. The United Kingdom Government have recognised the “hardship and suffering” caused by their displacement in the preceding years.

At a time when families across the United Kingdom are struggling with the cost of living, when public services are stretched and defence spending is under pressure, the Government are willing, and obliged under this treaty, to transfer British funds overseas in exchange for the honour of relinquishing sovereignty over a territory that hosts one of the most strategically important military bases in the world. Why would we pay for an island that we already own?

Without the inclusion of this amendment, we will be in the extraordinary position of financing, on an annual basis, a settlement that ultimately advances arguments that have repeatedly undermined British sovereignty. That is why this amendment is undeniably crucial. It protects not only the taxpayer but the constitutional integrity of this country, as well as relegating the overindulgent aspirations of the Mauritian Government, depriving them of even more British taxpayers’ money.

Let us also consider the native islanders—the Chagos people. Have we ever paused to consider how they might feel as this Parliament considers whether we should pay a foreign Government to take control of a territory in which they have never had a stake, all while ignoring the cry of the Chagos community in the UK?

Beyond that, there is also the question of accountability. Once these payments begin, Parliament loses direct control over how they are to be spent. There is no binding mechanism in the treaty to ensure that the native community will be benefited by these payments in a meaningful way. This arrangement risks repeating the injustice of the past, where funds provided in earlier decades did not reach the displaced communities in Mauritius who were living in poverty. Surely, we must learn from that history and not repeat it. That is essential.

I therefore believe we should not rush into binding financial commitments when so many broader questions remain unresolved—about self-determination, defence co-operation, the protection of strategic assets, and long-term political stability in a region where global competition is increasing and where the UK needs to be assertive and confident. The British taxpayer should not foot the bill for decisions that diminish our sovereignty and overlook the rights of sovereign British citizens. For these reasons, I commend my amendment to the House.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

Of course we knew. My understanding is that this pre-dated negotiations and refers to something on the island of Mauritius itself. if I am wrong about that, I will correct the record and inform the noble Baroness.

[Lord Hannan of Kingsclere (Con)]

With the Committee’s permission, I beg leave to withdraw.

Amendment 5 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Weir of Ballyholme (DUP)]

I will speak briefly in support of the amendments tabled by the noble Lords, Lord Lilley and Lord Callanan, in this group. On resettlement, what we have in the treaty may be described as less than useless. I say that because, to a certain extent, it confers a right that is already there, but it underlines it in such a way and denies others that right. The treaty explicitly says that there is a right for Mauritius to resettle people.

If we have handed over sovereignty to Mauritius, people implicitly have a right to resettle on the other islands anyway but, actually, it very much underlines that Mauritius is completely in control; it is completely in the driving seat. There is a lack of reference to the Chagossians: yes, Mauritius may choose to allow some Chagossians back, but it may choose also to deny them. There is no specific right for the Chagossians.

If, as has been mentioned across the Chamber, we are to try to rectify some of the many ills that we have done to the Chagossian people over the years, having at least some level of right of return is the bare minimum that we should be looking for here. The concern is that, from the point of view of Mauritius, the implication will be that, if it is to allow back some Chagossians, they will be the hand-picked Chagossians who have played ball with the Mauritian Government. If you are a good boy or a good girl, yes, you may be allowed back. If, however, you have been part of the awkward squad, you may have a much lesser chance of being resettled on the Chagos Islands than, for example, Chinese contractors. That is the problem.

These amendments would at least take a step towards trying to ameliorate and rectify that situation. If we cannot give the Chagossians an opportunity or a right, which is completely missing in the treaty and missing in the Bill, we are not giving them anything.

[Lord Hannan of Kingsclere (Con)]

My Lords, I just want to add my voice to those of my noble friend Lord Lilley and the noble Lord, Lord Weir. If the Chagos Islands had remained inhabited, this issue of sovereignty would not have arisen. They would have been in the same category as Gibraltar, the Falklands or any other territory with a permanent population that had expressed its right to self-determination.

Now, you could argue that that would solve our problem in terms of the base. Equally, you could argue that it is the obvious way of making restitution; it is the way of giving back what was taken. But if you flip that around and look at it from the point of view of Mauritius, is that not precisely why you would not want to have a Chagossian population—or an exclusively Chagossian population—in a doughnut in the outer atolls around Diego Garcia?

The last thing you would want is to risk a Chagossian secessionist movement, where the people who had returned to their ancestral homes had made it very clear that they felt no loyalty to the state of Mauritius and that—in most cases, with a few exceptions, as the noble Lord, Lord Weir, said—they did not want to be part of it. Therefore, you would have every incentive to settle the place with your own citizens, or with others, so that they were at least a majority.

[Lord Weir of Ballyholme (DUP)]

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Hannan, for his remarks. Picking up a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Lilley—I have a subsequent amendment on the supplementary list, so we may get to it at some point but it is not on today’s list—does the noble Lord, Lord Hannan, agree with me that what makes this lack of provision for resettlement of the Chagossians worse is that we actually have a blueprint, albeit not necessarily perfect, of how this can be achieved, through the KPMG report in 2015? It is not as though we are doing this against a vacuum. We are not only ignoring the right of Chagossians to return but completely ignoring the pathway through which this can happen.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hannan of Kingsclere (Con)]

The noble Lord makes an extremely good point. If you see this purely in fiscal terms, depending on whether we take the Government’s or my noble friend Lady Noakes’s figures, it is an obviously disastrous thing to spend either six times or 60 times as much as in the KPMG report, simply to give to another country.

We keep hearing from the Chancellor of the Exchequer that growth is her priority and so on. Here is a very good way of making a saving: by not giving money away for territory that we already have but, instead, using a much smaller fraction of that sum to make restitution to the people who were removed. It ticks every box.

I mentioned earlier that the Falkland Islands were saved, paradoxically, by the experience of war because it led to investment, it led to fishing and hydrocarbons being exploited around the coasts, and it led to employment opportunities and better transport links. If we had a settled Chagossian population around the base, they would be the obvious people to work as the contractors on the base. Instead of having to import all these Filipinos from Singapore by air, we would have a population there doing the non-military, non-sensitive jobs.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

I agree with the noble Lord that transparency and frankness with the Chagossian community is vital, which is why I have resisted some of the discussions around consultations and referendums. To give the impression that a consultation or referendum can elicit change to a treaty that has already been negotiated in a state-to-state negotiation is wrong. On the noble Lord’s question about how often we have discussed resettlement, it has been discussed throughout and repeatedly—of course it has. It is a very important part of the negotiation that we have had with the Government of Mauritius.

We are coming to some amendments on the operation of the trust fund in the next group, but some news will come from Mauritius shortly on exactly how that will operate. I think that will be reassuring for noble Lords and I hope that we get it very soon so that we can include it in our considerations.

I would point out that resettlement now is non-existent. It has not been possible. They have not even been having heritage visits since Covid; the previous Government did not get round to sorting them out. Having said that, it is good that the Conservative Party is now turning some attention to this.

The noble Lord, Lord Hannan, said, “But consider if the islands had not been depopulated”. In response, I point out that if the islands had not been depopulated then there would not be a base and we would not have a treaty. They probably would have been returned to Mauritius, as part of decolonisation, and be Mauritian now anyway. I am at a bit of a loss—but the noble Lord is going to tell me now what he was getting at.

[Lord Hannan of Kingsclere (Con)]

Forgive me, but I am not sure that is quite true. I do not think the Americans wanted the entire archipelago voided of population; they were satisfied with having Diego Garcia. The Minister and I were not born then, but our predecessors went ahead and volunteered the complete evacuation, which was the beginning of all our problems.

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

But that is what happened, and it cannot be undone. We are in a situation where there is clearly no prospect of resettlement now on Diego Garcia—I am glad that that has not explicitly come up in debate—but there is the possibility of resettlement on the other islands and the prospect of visits to Diego Garcia in a way that has not happened for some years.

Specifically on the amendments in this group, I do not think that Amendments 10 and 72 are necessary, but I should explain why. Under the terms of the agreement, Mauritius is already free to develop a programme of resettlement on islands other than Diego Garcia. It will be for Mauritius to decide whether it takes that forward. We have already committed to making a ministerial Statement in both Houses, providing a factual update on eligibility for resettlement. 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. We know that would be considerable, because of the KPMG report.