Diego Garcia Military Base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill

Lord Kennedy of Southwark Excerpts

Tuesday 14th April 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

The noble Lord and I have sparred across the Dispatch Box, but not as much as I would like, if I am honest about it. I just say to him that Mauritius is a country: every now and again, any country in the world that the UK has relationships with will have such arrangements: we will have educational visits, exchanges and all those sorts of things. If the noble Lord was standing where I am, he would not be able to say, “There will be absolutely nothing at all spent by the UK on Mauritius”. What I have said, which is what his question was about, is that, with respect to the treaty, there will be no treaty payments. I hope he understood and accepted that point.

The noble Lord also mentioned the FCDO visit. FCDO officials will be going to Mauritius to speak to the Mauritians. That is a perfectly reasonable thing to do; FCDO officials go to various countries all over the world. They will be going to discuss the arrangements and where we are at the current time.

There are six people on the particular island which the noble Lord referred to. I asked a question on this, and I am told—and I accept—that there has been no denial of humanitarian provision to the people on the island at all. I am telling the noble Lord what I have been told: unless people are not giving me accurate information, there has been no denial of humanitarian provision to the people on the island. On the situation with respect to the BIOT Supreme Court, the noble Lord will know that the court rejected the right to remove the people from there by BIOT. That was rejected and it has been appealed, so we await the appeal to see what happens as a consequence. I hope that directly answers some of the questions that the noble Lord posed.

The noble Lord, Lord Purvis, is quite right to point out that the negotiations were not started by this Government; they were started by the previous Government. In fact, such was the determination of the previous Government to get some sort of arrangement that there were 11 rounds of negotiation. It was not one round that just fizzled out; there were 11 separate rounds. Now their defence is, “We wouldn’t have done the deal that’s before us now”. All I say is, “Why on earth would a Government have 11 rounds of negotiation? Was it just a pretence? Were they not actually serious about the negotiations?” Just before the last election, as the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, pointed out, the Foreign Secretary of the time talked to the Foreign Affairs Select Committee about how the Government were negotiating to come to some agreement and some arrangements for that.

In terms of the UK-US extension, I think the noble Lord was referring to the exchange of notes. The noble Lord, Lord Callanan, is quite right: the exchange of notes obviously underpins the existing treaty or any change in the future. Of course, that would need to be negotiated and changed for it to be taken forward.

On the treaty delay and what happens to Chagossians outside of the treaty, the arrangements in the treaty cannot be put in place because it is not in force, so we deal with the existing situation. But I give noble Lords one thing that will happen. We seek to resume the heritage visits as soon as possible. The noble Lord, Lord Purvis, will know that they have not taken place since 2020. We hope that we may be able to restart the heritage visits, including to Diego Garcia, and get them going. As for the £40 million trust fund and the resettlement programme, they await the treaty to be introduced.

I would point out that the treaty that was moving forward and has had to be delayed has a resettlement programme in it that does not exist at the current time. The ability of Chagossians to resettle, not to Diego Garcia but to the wider British Indian Ocean Territory, is enshrined within the treaty that is now not going forward. At the moment, there is no resettlement programme. As the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, said, the Foreign Secretary of the time pointed that out to the Foreign Affairs Select Committee. There are existing arrangements around education, as I pointed out to the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, and other things that will continue, but the things under the treaty cannot go forward because they do not exist in law at the current time.

The noble Lord talked about the status of the deep-sea port. He will know from his reading of the exchange of notes that the US-UK base is governed by that exchange of notes and that all combat operations from that base are subject to joint decision-making. While no Government are necessarily going to talk about the various permissions that are given on specific operations, I hope that gives some confidence that those things are subject to joint decision-making.

Let me finish by thanking again all noble Lords who are wrestling with a difficult problem. The Government’s view is that the security of that base at Diego Garcia is paramount: it is absolutely fundamental to us. His Majesty’s Opposition believe that, if we simply carry on as we are, the security of that base is maintained. His Majesty’s Government’s view is that we need legal certainty to ensure that that base is maintained and that we protect the integrity of a base that is fundamentally important not only to ourselves but to the US and the security of the whole western alliance. That is why we sought to take this treaty forward.

[Captain of the Honourable Corps of Gentlemen-at-Arms and Chief Whip (Lord Kennedy of Southwark) (Lab Co-op)]

My Lords, we will now have up to 20 minutes of questions, but not speeches, from Back-Bench Members. This is set out in chapter 6 of the Companion, at pages 86 and 87, in points 6.7 and 6.8. We will have the Conservative Benches first.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

Let me make one general point. The clash of opinion in this Chamber leads to better policy, done in the way that it is done. I respect challenge from wherever it comes, because that makes for better policy. In that sense, most contributions, even if they are sometimes difficult, are constructive. People could sometimes reflect on the tone in which it is done, but the challenge across the Chamber, from whichever direction, is really helpful.

We will continue to work with the US. We have to update the exchange of notes in order to take anything forward, and, if there are discussions, those discussions have to be about what we can do to bring about an agreement. At the moment, the President and other parts of the US system do not agree with the position of the UK Government. We will continue to discuss with them to see whether we can find a way forward to ensure that the US and the UK can come to an agreement to allow us to move forward.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)]

We will hear next from the Cross Benches. Can we have short, sharp, succinct questions, please, not speeches?

[Lord Craig of Radley (CB)]

My Lords, the Minister has made it clear that the treaty, as it was, has not been “binned”. If and when there is agreement with the Americans to proceed, will the Government consider also the Maldive interest that has been expressed? If so, have the Government had any formal approach from the Maldivian Government over the sovereignty of the British Indian Ocean Territory?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Redwood (Con)]

My Lords—

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)]

My Lords, it is the turn of the Cross Benches.

[Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)]

It has been said that the Americans are against the necessary revision of the 1966 exchange of letters. That is not my understanding. I would be grateful if the Minister could confirm that the text of the revised exchange of letters has been agreed by officials from the Foreign Office, the Ministry of Defence, the Pentagon and the State Department. The Americans are not against the revision—one American is against the revision. Can the Minister confirm that that is correct? Would he also comment on the possibility that that one American has been moved to the position he has taken up by informal contacts, through his MAGA friends, with people in this country who were opposed to the treaty? Would the Minister say whether he, like me, deprecates such informal contacts behind the Government’s back?

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Hoey (Non-Afl)]

My Lords—

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)]

My Lords, we will hear from the Labour Benches, then the Conservative Benches and then the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey.

[Baroness Blackstone (Lab)]

My Lords, thank you very much for letting me get in. My noble friend the Minister is very robust but, from listening to this debate, I find it a bit difficult to imagine the kind of cross-party discussions and sensible debate that the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, asked for. I begin with what the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, said: he started by accusing the Government of doing a U-turn. I think there have been two U-turns on this: the first was from the President of the United States, who is volatile as always—we have heard just how far the negotiations had already gone between the State Department and the FCDO—and the second was from the Conservative Party. It was absolutely clear that the previous Conservative Government, as my noble friend the Minister said, spent 11 rounds of debate on this, and they produced a proposal for a treaty that is full of all the things that were in the treaty that this Government came up with. I think that there is a bit of a U-turn on the noble Lord’s side. Does my noble friend agree, given what has happened, that it is somewhat hypocritical to hear the Conservative Front Benches making the sort of criticisms they have made when they have been through all this themselves?