Diego Garcia Military Base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill

Lord Lilley Excerpts

Monday 12th January 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Beamish (Lab)]

My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, has just said that this was not part of a Labour manifesto, but it was part of the last Government’s determination to get a deal on the issue of Diego Garcia. I accept that there are genuine arguments in this debate around environmental issues, and issues around the Chagossian people. I have to say that, from certain quarters, that has come a bit late. We have had quietness, certainly during the last Government, about the rights of Chagossians. I accept that there are noble exceptions in this House and in the other place who have campaigned for many years for their rights, but that was never an issue at the forefront of the last Government’s negotiations with regard to the Bill. What the last Government did was very sensible. They wanted to enter into a long-term agreement to ensure the security and long-term use of Diego Garcia, which was under threat, obviously because of the unusual nature of that island territory.

In terms of Diego Garcia, the agreement is vital not only to our national interests but to our international allies, including the United States. Much has been said about the United States being against this deal. It is not; it sees the long-term benefits. I accept what the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, said about the investment, but that pales into insignificance compared to the amount of investment that the US and other allies will be putting in to secure not only the long-term interests of that base but its capabilities. It is not something we can play party politics with. Alas, I accept that some people are playing party politics with this.

[Lord Lilley (Con)]

My Lords, apart from thanking the Minister and her noble colleague for the courteous way in which they have responded the points I made—which she found exuberant and my noble colleague found forensic—I can limit my remarks to four sentences, two of which are questions.

First, the Government have acknowledged that neither the International Court of Justice nor the tribunal of the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea could produce a ruling that was binding on us as to the sovereignty of the Chagos Islands. The Government none the less assert that other countries might respond, even to rulings which were non-binding on us, by withholding goods, services or facilities which could render the base inoperable.

My two questions are: what goods and what services, and supplied by which countries? Secondly, if the base could be rendered inoperable by foreign states withholding goods and services, is it not vulnerable to such action even in the absence of legal rulings and even if we surrender sovereignty if other countries object to our possession or use of the base? Why have the Government not replied to these questions?

[Lord Deben (Con)]

My Lords, I will just come back to the issue of the environment, which is crucial here. I have a direct question to the Minister, whom I particularly respect in this area. Why on earth was there not a clear connection between our payments and the upkeep of this, the most important marine environment area in the world? We have a very proud record on this, yet we are now giving this into the hands of a country which, however good its words, has one of the worst records on marine protection in the entire world. We are giving it power over the most important marine protection area in the entire world, and we have not connected the money we are paying with its ability to pay for the protection of this area. My question to the Minister is very simple: why not? Why on earth have we not done that?

I do not like this agreement at all; I am opposed to it for all the reasons that the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, has so rightly put forward. But at the heart of my concern is that we are letting down the whole of the international community by giving out something which we have protected and which has set the example for marine preservation throughout the world. Without the Chagos agreement, we would never have had all the others which have followed, and which have been crucial to the environmental health of this planet. I ask the Minister again: can she explain how this arrangement has been made when there is no connection between what we pay and what we expect in terms of protection?

--- Later in debate ---

Noble Lords have said that there is no legal reason to negotiate but that this was negotiated all the same. This Government have negotiated and have reached a conclusion. All our Five Eyes partners support the deal, because they understand the need to resolve this to maintain our security. This Government have one priority: the safety and security of our citizens, the British people. The noble Lord opposite has one priority, and that is to play politics with the hopes and dreams of the Chagossian community. That is what he has done, without any concern about what that might mean for this nation’s security.

[Lord Lilley (Con)]

I am sorry that the Minister has chosen to end this debate adopting a totally different tone from that which she pursued during Committee and Report. I asked a clear question: which goods, services and facilities will be withheld by which countries if we do not do this deal? She has not answered. She has said that there must be an answer to that question because the previous Government negotiated. She is the Minister and they are the Government; she must give us the answer and not say that there must be an answer from someone else.

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

I have clearly annoyed the noble Lord, given the finger-pointing this afternoon. My tone comes because this is the conclusion to these considerations. I would invite noble Lords to consider, when we talk about legal jeopardy and our reliance on third states, the remoteness of these islands and the complexity of sustaining a base of this nature. We rely on other states for supplies, for refuelling and for communications purposes. That is why we rest part of our argument on the need to resolve the legal jeopardy that the previous Government, as well as this Government and other states, could see existed here. We were determined to resolve this because, left unresolved, our position becomes weaker and weaker over time. This needed to be settled.