Diego Garcia Military Base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill

Lord Beamish Excerpts

3rd reading
Monday 12th January 2026 Lords Chamber

Therefore, there are so many reasons why we should be regretting this, and even going further. This is your Lordships’ House and I accept that there are certain precedents here, but I urge every Peer to support this, whatever their party is saying. This is not a party-political issue; it is about giving away part of our country’s British territory and then paying Mauritius to take it. It is very simple. We either believe in the right of the Chagossians, in self-determination and in the long-term security of our country, or we do not. There is a Government-in-waiting of the Chagossians—this is not going to go away. It will continue to fester away at the Government. I urge noble Lords to realise that there is still time for change and for His Majesty’s Government to recognise that this is a very bad Bill and should be dropped.

[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?