Diego Garcia Military Base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill

Debate between Luke Evans and Jeremy Wright

2nd reading
Tuesday 9th September 2025 Commons Chamber

[Sir Jeremy Wright (Kenilworth and Southam) (Con)]

It is a privilege to follow the hon. Member for Crawley (Peter Lamb). I admire his principles and his persistence in his advocacy for his Chagossian constituents, and I know that he would recognise that his predecessor did the same.

There is no dispute that Diego Garcia is crucial to the UK’s security and that of its allies; that is not something we are arguing about. I do not think—although I will be corrected if I am wrong—that it is the Government’s position that, in terms of the day-to-day practicalities of operating the Diego Garcia base, this new arrangement whereby we no longer have sovereignty over Diego Garcia but will continue to administer it, at least for 99 years, is better than what we have now. Rather, it is a more secure arrangement because of what has been described as the legal uncertainty surrounding our sovereignty over it. I see the Minister nodding, and I am grateful for that.

[Dr Evans]

I am grateful to my right hon. and learned Friend for giving way and using his legal background. It is more secure legally for those 99 years but, more definitively, at that 99-year point, if the Mauritians decide not to have a base there, categorically that is their decision. Therefore, by proxy, it is actually more unsafe, just in 100 years’ time.

[Sir Jeremy Wright]

I understand the point that my hon. Friend makes, and it is reinforced by the point made by our hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex (Sir Bernard Jenkin) in reading from the agreement as to how any disputes are resolved. But I want to focus on the position now and the legal justification that the Government have already deployed for the arrangement that they seek to make. My hon. Friend is right that there will be further problems down the road, but there are problems already.

It seems to me that if the position the Government take is as I have set it out and as the Minister accepts that it is, that must be right because it would surely be difficult to argue that, were it not for that legal uncertainty, renting Diego Garcia back from someone else would be better than owning it from a security point of view. So for the Government to persuade us in this House, and indeed the country as a whole, that this is a good deal for Britain, everything turns on the question of legal uncertainty, which Ministers have often referred to as the reason why the treaty, and therefore the Bill, are necessary.

Having spent four years as Attorney General, I am quite familiar with legal uncertainty—there is a lot of it about in Government. It is, I am afraid, invariably the case that whenever a decision is made in Government, someone disagrees with it, and some of those who disagree will be prepared to go to a court and challenge the validity of that decision. Until the court—sometimes until the Supreme Court—has resolved the matter, there can fairly be said to be legal uncertainty about it. Legal uncertainty hangs around Government like the clouds, and it cannot be allowed to paralyse a Government. Nor should that sort of atmospheric legal uncertainty be the only cause of a decision as significant as that which this Government are now making to give up sovereignty over a vital military facility.

There must be something more substantive—more tangible—to the legal uncertainty to which Ministers have referred. Many of us have tried to find out what exactly that is, but with very limited success. Given that, as far as I can tell, the legal uncertainty that is being talked about constitutes the entirety of the burning platform on which the Government rely to justify the Bill and the treaty, surely this House, before we approve either, must be given a proper and clear explanation of precisely what legal jeopardy the Government are acting in response to. In pursuit of that, it is worth having a look at the explanations that Ministers have given so far.

Let us start with the former Foreign Secretary, the right hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy), who of course is now the Deputy Prime Minister. He made a statement on the British Indian Ocean Territory negotiations on 7 October last year. He told the House that the issue of contested sovereignty over Diego Garcia was becoming more acute, and that

“A binding judgment against the UK seemed inevitable”.—[Official Report, 7 October 2024; Vol. 754, c. 45.]

Many of us have been asking where that binding judgment might come from. The only court that had by then been mentioned was the International Court of Justice, which had issued an advisory opinion on sovereignty over the Chagos Islands and Diego Garcia. Indeed, on this subject it could only have been an advisory decision, because the UK accepted the compulsory jurisdiction of the ICJ by declarations dated 22 February 2017—I was Attorney General at the time. Those declarations made it clear that the UK did not, however, accept that compulsory jurisdiction in relation to

“any dispute with a Government of any other country which is or has been a Member of the Commonwealth”.

That involves and includes Mauritius, so any dispute with Mauritius before the ICJ could not result in a binding judgment against the United Kingdom. That point has been put to Ministers and, as far as I know, they have not dissented from that analysis.

If the ICJ could not make the binding judgment that the former Foreign Secretary told us was inevitable, which other court might? On that, again, I am afraid that we have not had clarity. On 13 November last year, the Minister of State at the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, the hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty)—who I see has the misfortune of having to defend this position once again today—answered an urgent question on the Chagos Islands. He said:

“International courts were reaching judgments on the basis that Mauritius had sovereignty over the Chagos archipelago.”—[Official Report, 13 November 2024; Vol. 756, c. 793.]

The Minister did not at that point say which courts, but I have done some digging, and I think I am supported in my assumption by what the Minister of State, the hon. Member for Plymouth Sutton and Devonport (Luke Pollard), said in opening this debate. I think that he may have been referring to a determination made in January 2021 by the special chamber of the International Tribunal of the Law of the Sea when considering a dispute between Mauritius and the Maldives. Tragically, I do not have time to go into the fascinating detail of that case, but in essence it was a dispute about the delimitation of maritime territory between those two states. The Maldives argued that the special chamber could not determine the case in question because there was an ongoing dispute about the sovereignty of the Chagos Islands between Mauritius and the UK. The special chamber decided, however, that it could treat Mauritius as the coastal state in the dispute before it, because of the ICJ’s advisory opinion on the matter, which it said had legal effect.

If that ITLOS case is what the Government are relying on, I think there are a few problems: first, the UK was not a party to that case; and secondly, the ITLOS chamber was seemingly basing its decision on that of the ICJ, which, as I have already indicated, could not make a binding ruling on the matter. I am not expecting the House, much less the Government, to accept my opinion on this, but it seems to me that, at the very least, the UK would have the basis of a decent legal argument here. It does not seem to be that this ITLOS decision demonstrates that there was no further hope for UK claims of sovereignty over Diego Garcia.

After a bit more prodding, the Government’s argument moves on and introduces the issue of access to the electromagnetic spectrum. On 5 February this year, the Minister of State at the Foreign Office answered yet another urgent question on the subject.

Sentencing Guidelines (Pre-sentence Reports) Bill

Debate between Luke Evans and Jeremy Wright

Committee of the whole House & Report stage
Wednesday 30th April 2025 Commons Chamber

[Sir Jeremy Wright]

It is worthwhile at the outset of all debates on this Bill to restate that it is about pre-sentence reports that give information to sentencers that may be used in sentencing decisions, not about the passing of sentences themselves. Specifically, the Bill is about the guidelines issued by the Sentencing Council to sentencers about the circumstances in which a pre-sentence report should normally be asked for, and about the sort of information about an offender which such a report may provide and which may be appropriate to consider and take into account before deciding on an appropriate sentence in that offender’s case.

There has been broad agreement—I see the Mother of the House, the right hon. Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott), in her place, so I will not say unanimity—that an offender’s ethnicity, race, culture or faith are on their own not that sort of information and that the Sentencing Council was wrong to suggest that pre-sentence reports should be awarded on that basis. I would argue that is because, even if there may be points to make about the treatment or experience of members of the ethnic, faith or cultural group to which the offender in question happens to belong, what is relevant to the sentencing of that offender can only be the treatment or experience to which the particular offender has themselves been subject, not whether they have arisen in the cases of other members of the same group who are not before the court. That is effectively the impact of amendment 4 in the name of the shadow Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle (Dr Mullan). That is why the Government are right to seek to exclude even from the process of asking for a pre-sentence report—let alone from passing sentence itself—the making of decisions based only on membership of such a group. That is after all what the Government have said this Bill is for.

These groups are described in the explanatory notes to the Bill as “particular demographic cohorts”. Paragraph 8 says,

“The Bill is intended to ensure that Sentencing Guidelines are drafted in such a way as to prevent differential treatment and maintain equality before the law. It does this by preventing the creation of a presumption regarding whether a pre-sentence report should be obtained based on an offender’s membership of a particular demographic cohort, rather than the particular circumstances of that individual.”

Despite that explanation in the explanatory notes, the Bill goes further than that by prohibiting the Sentencing Council from including in a sentencing guideline any

“provision framed by reference to different personal characteristics of an offender.”

That is what clause 1(2) says in inserting language into the Coroners and Justice Act 2009. I think that language is significantly wider in impact than reference to membership of particular demographic cohorts—undesirably so, in my view. That is why I have tabled amendment 1, which would adopt the language used in the explanatory notes.

Let me explain why I think that would be preferable. My starting point is that I do not believe all personal characteristics are inappropriate to consider in a sentencing decision. There is, of course, much more to be considered in a sentencing decision than simply information about the offender, particularly the seriousness of the offence and its consequences, but relevant information about the offender is needed as part of the process. It surely cannot be right, then, to prohibit the Sentencing Council from encouraging sentencers to find out more about some of the personal characteristics that are relevant in reaching a more informed and therefore better sentencing decision—for example, a physical or learning difficulty, or a brain injury from which an offender will not recover.

The relevance of that information is not just in forming a fuller picture of the offender to be sentenced, but in assisting a sentencer to know whether that offender is capable of carrying out aspects of a community order, including work in the community, which the sentencer may want to consider as a potential sentencing option. It is worth underlining of course that the ordering of a pre-sentence report—whatever it says when it is produced—does not bind the hands of a sentencer to do as it recommends, but in reality, without one a sentencer’s options are often more limited. That is why guidance on when to ask for a pre-sentence report matters.

[Dr Luke Evans (Hinckley and Bosworth) (Con)]

I defer to my right hon. and learned Friend’s experience, but is there not an argument for every case to have a pre-sentence report in order to truly understand what an individual has faced and whether there are any mitigating factors? I appreciate that that could create a backlog for these services, but is it not one possible solution to the problem that the Sentencing Council was worried about—namely, that different cohorts might have different sentencing outcomes?

[Sir Jeremy Wright]

My hon. Friend makes a fair point in relation to offenders who hover on the border between community sentences and custodial sentences, but he will know that, in the Crown court at least, the majority of such offenders already have a pre-sentence report. Of course, there are also offenders who come before the courts for sentencing and it is blindingly obvious either that a custodial sentence will follow, or that neither a community sentence nor a custodial sentence is realistically in prospect, so I do not think it right to say that we should have a pre-sentence report in every case, but there is already in law a presumption that pre-sentence reports should be ordered unless it is unnecessary to do so. What we are seeking to do here is respond to a very specific set of circumstances that have arisen as a result of a Sentencing Council decision. As he may have heard me say on Second Reading, I do not think that the Sentencing Council handled this well, and as a result we are having to do something that we would otherwise not have to do.

Sentencing offenders is, in all circumstances, a difficult business. The fact that different offenders receive different sentences, even for the same offence, is not necessarily evidence of a defect in sentencing practice as a result of guidelines or otherwise, but is more likely a reflection of the reality that every case and every offender is different. We should not, I suggest, try to stop judges reaching the appropriate conclusion, assisted by Sentencing Council guidelines, in each case before them.

Royal British Legion

Debate between Luke Evans and Jeremy Wright

Tuesday 1st April 2025 Westminster Hall

[Sir Jeremy Wright (in the Chair)]

Before I call Dr Luke Evans to move the motion, it will be apparent to everyone that a good number of speakers want to participate. To give fair warning to all Back-Bench speakers, I am afraid we will have to limit you to about two and a half minutes. We will start doing so informally, and if everyone can keep to that, we should be able to get everyone in. If not, we will have to impose a formal time limit.

[Dr Luke Evans (Hinckley and Bosworth) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the contribution of the Royal British Legion.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Jeremy.

The poppy stands tall, with bended head—the perfect personification of honouring our dead. Every year, one of the most iconic flowers is seen and respected across this nation, and it is down to the work of the Royal British Legion. Today, I am honoured and humbled to mark the contributions of the RBL to this country in Parliament. Looking at Hansard for the last time the Royal British Legion was a topic of debate, I had to scroll back to 2013, so it is a pleasure to bring this debate to the House ahead of the 80th anniversary of VE Day, which is just around the corner. I will talk about the role of the RBL nationally, but I particularly want to reflect on my local branch, as its story exemplifies and typifies what is happening up and down the nation to support our veterans and influence people’s heads and hearts. It was Thornton Wilder who said:

“The greatest tribute to the dead is not grief, but gratitude”,

and the RBL embodies that sentiment perfectly.

At this point, I must declare an interest: I have the great privilege to be the president of the Hinckley branch of the Royal British Legion. That is particularly fitting, as I took up the role in 2023, which was the centenary of the formation of Hinckley and district’s Royal British Legion. Who was the first president in 1923? It was the then Conservative and Unionist Member for Bosworth and my predecessor but three, Major Thomas Guy Paget.

In 2023, I talked in the main Chamber about the RBL and the work of local volunteers around Remembrance Sunday, and highlighted the particular work of Elaine Ward, who received a medal from the RBL to commemorate her five decades of service in fundraising for the poppy appeal. I asked the then Leader of the House if we could have a debate on the volunteers who support the RBL. It took some time, but I am pleased to say that we finally secured today’s debate.

I know that Members present will be aware of the fantastic contributions that the RBL makes to all our communities nationally, but it would be remiss of me not to talk about some of its great work and the history behind it. The Royal British Legion is the largest armed forces charity in the UK. It was formed in May 1921 to care for those who were suffering as a result of their service during the first world war, and brought together four national organisations for ex-servicemen. Of those who came back from the first world war, 1.75 million suffered some form of disability, and half of them were permanently disabled, so the legion had important work to do right from its beginning. The first ever poppy appeal was held in 1921 and raised over £106,000, and it is a proud tradition that carries on 100 years later.

In 1971, the Queen declared that the organisation would be granted royal status and become the Royal British Legion, and the charity now has 180,000 members and 110,000 volunteers. In the past year alone, the RBL has awarded over £18 million-worth of grants, helping thousands of veterans and families through the cost of living crisis. It has provided expert financial guidance, legal representation and essential aid during hardship, securing £39 million in war pension awards.

Beyond financial support, the RBL is a lifeline for wellbeing. The Battle Back Centre in Shropshire has empowered hundreds of veterans through recovery programmes, and its six homes, including specialist dementia services, ensure dignity and comfort for those who have served. Community is at the heart of the RBL’s mission. Whether it is through independent living services, telephone buddies for the lonely or the 96 global branches that support service personnel worldwide, the RBL is always there.

The RBL’s unwavering commitment reminds us that we owe our veterans more than gratitude; we owe them action. Possibly the greatest action that the RBL facilitates is that of a nation remembering. Remembrance is the active process of keeping the past alive in our present. It is so important, now more than ever, that we continue to educate the next generation about the first and second world wars, and the incredible sacrifices made by so many to ensure our freedoms today. Why? As the last surviving veterans of the second world war become fewer and fewer—only a few weeks ago the last surviving battle of Britain pilot, John “Paddy” Hemingway, passed away—we must not let that knowledge of the impacts of war fade away. Future generations must be reminded; as the famous quote says, “Lest we forget.”

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Luke Evans]

Let us reflect on the quiet, steadfast work of the Royal British Legion. It is a pillar of remembrance, a shield for those who served, and a voice for those who can no longer speak. In paying tribute to that, we affirm our collective duty to support it, just as it has supported so many. We will remember them.

[Sir Jeremy Wright (in the Chair)]

I am very grateful to the hon. Member, and to all who have contributed to this understandably popular debate.

Question put and agreed to. 

Resolved,  

That this House has considered the contribution of the Royal British Legion.