Diego Garcia Military Base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill

Lord Coaker Excerpts

Tuesday 14th April 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

My Lords, this has turned into a very sorry affair. I continue to be sorry for the Chagossian community, which sees that the political turmoil and injustice that it has endured over many years has the potential to continue, because the same international legal position remains, not only in relation to the status of the archipelago but with regard to the rights of the Chagossian community that have been denied by subsequent Governments since their shameful expulsion in the late 1960s and early 1970s.

There has been poor handling from the outset, and the Minister has heard me say so on a number of occasions. I say “the outset” because, in the Statement in November 2022 by Foreign Secretary James Cleverly saying that negotiations would commence on ceding sovereignty, he said they would cover the international legal elements, but in the process of negotiation that then took place the Chagossian community was disregarded far too casually. Indeed, in March 2024, just before the Dissolution of Parliament for the general election, the then Foreign Secretary, the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, confirmed to the Foreign Affairs Select Committee that negotiations were ongoing but he also restated the Conservative Government’s strong opposition to any right of return, settlement, visits or working on Diego Garcia.

With regard to the UK-US security relationship, which has been the trigger now for the Government’s action of pausing the legislation, the previous Government also failed to take up the extension of the UK-US treaty that was allowed for in that treaty, so we are operating under a rollover element of that treaty. It has not been renewed or updated in a substantive form. Is it the Government’s intent that that process will carry on? We have seen the statements from the State Department that were then contradicted by President Trump, but what is the status of the understanding with regard to the treaty? It has been amended on a number of occasions since it was signed but has not been fundamentally reviewed. That was a choice by the previous Government.

Fundamentally, there has been a continual denial of the right of return, and the Labour Government did not properly consult the community, which would be directly affected. Can the Minister clarify whether the Government are content with the text of the treaty itself—separate from the fact that it cannot be brought into force because the legislation has now been withdrawn in this Session—or will they take the opportunity to look at the treaty again? It is important to be clear on that point but it was not clear in the House of Commons yesterday.

There are opportunities to look at the treaty elements to firm up those areas so that they are not simply permissive with regard to Chagossian rights but will enshrine them. The same goes for the test for value for money, scrutiny and accountability. The Minister knows that those are issues that these Benches have focused on relentlessly. Indeed, our amendments to that effect passed this House with cross-party support.

If there is a long delay then the Chagossians’ rights will be continuously denied. There is an opportunity to operationalise those rights and for the Government to right the wrongs of many of their predecessors by bringing into force the mechanisms to do so under our domestic legislation. That would overturn the statement of the former Foreign Secretary, the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, but while we wait for clarity from the United States Administration, which none of us can guarantee, these Benches would support legislation to ensure that Chagossian rights are not put in limbo. They have been denied those rights, but that can be addressed now.

We can also operationalise the funding elements, with regard not to Mauritius but to the Chagossian community itself. There seems to be a commitment by the Government to support a trust fund for the rights of the Chagossians, and it seems an injustice that that should be paused as a result of President Trump. The Chagossian community should be able to benefit from that level of support. We simply cannot trust the Trump Administration, notwithstanding the previous statements by US State Department officials.

Can the Minister state what US processes we will trust? I have a degree of sympathy for the Government; within the space of two days there was a statement from the State Department of the United States saying that it was supportive of this measure, followed by a White House Truth Social posting by the President. What is the mechanism in America that we will now trust?

Lastly, this is a technical point that was raised by my honourable friend Richard Foord yesterday in the House of Commons about the military relationship with the US. There seems to be a degree of uncertainty as to whether the United States has access to the deep-water port at Diego Garcia, which could potentially be a staging post of a blockade of the Strait of Hormuz. Can the Minister be clear about our understanding of what the US is currently using and can use, and what the UK will allow to be used, when it comes to both the port and the military base at Diego Garcia?

I hope the Minister can take up an offer for there to be—at least at this stage, even though it might be difficult—a degree of cross-party consensus that the Chagossian community’s rights that have been denied for so long should not be put on ice. While we await clarity from the State Department of the United States, we should be operationalising those rights now.

[The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Lord Coaker) (Lab)]

I thank everyone for their warm welcome and for the opportunity to respond to those questions. It is an important debate. I say to the noble Lords, Lord Callanan and Lord Purvis, and to everybody contributing—many Members on both sides of the House—that it is an important issue.

Let me say straight away, just to set some context, that the difference between us is not about ensuring that we have a strategic base, which is of crucial importance to the United Kingdom and to our allies, and about doing our best for the Chagossian people. There is a difference of view about how that can be achieved. Clearly, as the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, has outlined in his remarks and the various speeches he has made from the Dispatch Box over the last few months, supported by many of his colleagues, he has a different view from the Government as to how that can be achieved. He has argued for that.

The noble Lord, Lord Purvis, and others have argued for a sort of middle ground but have also raised the issue, as many Members have done, of the rights of the Chagossians themselves. None of us in the House believes that the way the Chagossians were originally treated was something of which any of us can be proud, but any Government have to deal with the situation that they are confronted with and we are dealing with the situation now.

Let me try to answer directly some of the points that have been made. The noble Lord will know that the Bill will not pass in this particular parliamentary Session. As for the King’s Speech, let us see what is in that, but the Government will continue the discussions on how to take this forward. We will continue discussions with the Americans. We have said all along that it cannot proceed without the support of the Americans. The exchange of notes from 1966, although slightly amended, underpins the treaty, so of course we need US support for that. Although originally given, that support is not forthcoming from the President at the current time. I hope that directly answers him: of course we need US agreement with respect to this, were we to take it forward.

On the issue of the money, there will be no treaty payments at all to Mauritius.

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

What about the delegation?

[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.

[Baroness Goldie (Con)]

My Lords, if anyone was left with any lingering doubt about the naivete of losing sovereignty over this base, recent events have emblazoned that folly for all to see. The noble Lord, Lord Robertson of Port Ellen, arguably one of the most respected defence experts in the world and defence adviser to the Government, today accuses the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of “corrosive complacency” over defence, and vents his frustration and anger at the lack of decisive political leadership in defence. That is an excoriating criticism, so can I ask the Minister two questions?

Given this explosive intervention from the noble Lord, Lord Robertson, will the Government respond positively by binning this discredited deal now and redirecting the money, say, for immediate investment in defence? Assuming—I am almost tempted to say “knowing”, but let us stick with “assuming”—that the Minister is in sympathy with the noble Lord, Lord Robertson, will he, as someone whose reputation rightly stands high, ask his Secretary of State to tell the Prime Minister to remove the Treasury’s decision-making from people who know nothing about military strategy and military planning, and order the Treasury to lay out a new plan for a rapid escalation of defence spend during this Parliament and the next one?

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

The noble Baroness will know that we are not binning the treaty—I think that was the word she used. We will look to take it forward and discussions will continue; it just will not happen in the current Session, because parliamentary time will not allow it. As I said to the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, we cannot take this forward without US support, but discussions will carry on.

As for the investment programme, as I have said to the noble Baroness on many occasions, the Government are increasing defence spending and we will continue to do that. There have been various commitments: 3% in the next Parliament, should economic circumstances allow, and then on to 2035, with further investment. As I have said time and again, whatever the argument about the totality of spending, let us recognise that there are significant sums of money being spent on shipbuilding and aircraft, dockyards, and all of our Armed Forces across many parts of our country and indeed abroad. We need to recognise what we are doing, as well as what we are not.

[Baroness Ludford (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, for his presentation. I have considerable sympathy for the situation that the Government find themselves in, subject to the capricious decisions of the US President. I would love to be a fly on the wall in the State Department, to be honest.

However, the fact is that the Government have made some missteps, as my noble friend Lord Purvis said. I hope the Minister recognises that, unlike the Official Opposition, the Liberal Democrats have been constructive and consistent in our position on this issue. If I may, I praise my noble friend—my leader, now—for his role and expertise on this subject. It is a matter of when, not if, this subject comes back—the fundamentals stay the same. Perhaps the Minister might consider whether the Government could be a bit more flexible on the question of Chagossian rights to resettlement and assistance to the community, and help build a sound cross-party basis for the future.

[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?

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

This is a treaty between the UK and Mauritius with respect to the future of the BIOT, without the involvement of the Maldivian Government. If that is wrong, I will write to the noble and gallant Lord and put it on the record, but that is my understanding.

[Lord Boateng (Lab)]

My Lords, the Minister is not so much a sparrer as a knocker-outer, which is why we love him on this side and why even that lot have to respect him, but I wonder whether he will respond to a question that the whole House has. While it is perfectly true that there can be no treaty without the agreement of the Americans, should it not also be true that there can be no treaty without at least the involvement of the Chagossians? Has not the time come to establish some form of formal consultation arrangement with the Chagossian people, who have suffered an injustice over the years, in order that they are involved in the future?

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

My noble friend makes an important point. As far as I am aware, numerous Members of your Lordships’ House have met the Chagossian community and numerous ministerial visits have taken place with representatives of the Chagossian community and Chagossians themselves. No doubt those meetings will continue; they are obviously important as we seek a resolution to the issue that we face. At the end of the day, it is about how the Government take this forward to protect not only the rights of the Chagossians as far as we can but the integrity of the base of Diego Garcia.

[Lord Lilley (Con)]

My Lords, in response to a question from the Liberal Democrat spokesman Al Pinkerton in the other House about what the collapse of the treaty means in practice for the long-promised right of return for Chagossians, the Minister replied,

“we believe that this is the best route, under Mauritius’s guidance, leading to resettlement”.—[Official Report, Commons, 13/4/26; col. 603.]

Will the Minister now confirm that that was misleading? The treaty does not require the Mauritians to resettle, and if they do allow resettlement, which they are against at present, they could resettle it with Mauritian people and not Chagossians.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

My understanding, reading it again in preparing for this Statement, is that there is no right of return as it stands at the present time in the existing arrangements. What is proposed in the treaty allows a right of return for Chagossians to islands other than Diego Garcia. As far as I am concerned, that is what is contained within the treaty.

[The Lord Bishop of Southwark]

My Lords, I fully understand the sensitivities of the status of the islands in the light of the advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice, but will the Minister confirm that such an opinion does not have the force of law? I impress on the Minister that the view from these Benches is to give priority for consultations to Chagos Islanders and their descendants, for the very important preservation of the current marine protected reserve and to begin a fresh approach to a new settlement for the British Indian Ocean Territory.

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

As I said to my noble friend Lord Boateng, discussions with the Chagossians are really important. Numerous meetings have been held with the Chagossians and those will continue in the future. I knew that somebody was going to ask me about the court issue and the binding judgment, so I asked lawyers about it. They tell me that Annex VII of the UNCLOS treaty would be binding were a judgment to be made under that particular provision. If that is wrong then the lawyers who have been advising me are wrong—I asked them because I thought the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, was going to ask me that particular question. Let me say again that Annex VII of the UNCLOS treaty is the binding judgment.

[Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)]

My Lords—

--- Later in debate ---

[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?

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

Again, to show my preparation for this, I have the exchange of notes in front of me. The noble Lord is right about the 1966 exchange of notes, but to reflect the change in the treaty that is proposed, the exchange of notes will need to be amended and adapted. He is right to say that officials, both here and in the US, have agreed on the changes to the exchange of notes; however, not all the American system has agreed with those changes. Whatever our view, it is quite an important part of the American system that has not agreed with the changes.

We will continue the discussions we are having to try to ensure that we take forward something that we believe is in the interests not only of the United Kingdom but of the United States and the security alliances on which we depend. That is the important thing. I do not want to sound pompous—although this does sound pompous—but as a UK Government Minister what I am really interested in is how I work with others across government in the interests of the country and the alliances that we represent. I appreciate that there are many others doing this or that, but my interest is in the defence of the country and the protection of Diego Garcia.

[Baroness Blackstone (Lab)]

My Lords—

--- Later in debate ---

[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?

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

I thank my noble friend for her question. It is in the interests of the country to try to take this forward. It is in all our interests to try to do that, because it is in the interests not only of our country but of the security alliances on which we depend. The point made by my noble friend and the noble Lord, Lord Purvis—which I gently point out again to the noble Lord, Lord Callanan—is that the idea that this started under this Government is simply not the case. There were rounds after rounds of negotiations beforehand, where the previous Government tried to deal with what they regarded as a difficulty that potentially put Diego Garcia under threat. That is what I would like the noble Lord opposite sometimes to recognise, because it is important that it did not start under us.

[Lord Redwood (Con)]

My Lords, why are the Government blocking the delivery of a small fast boat to the Chagossians on the islands? It is much needed in case of a medical emergency that could threaten them.

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

I previously said that I asked directly before this debate whether any humanitarian assistance—

[A noble Lord]

Medical assistance.

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

I think that medical assistance is humanitarian assistance. I asked whether any humanitarian assistance was prevented from going to the island where those six people are, and I have been reassured that that has not been the case. We do not believe that they should be there—we think that they are there illegally—and there is a current court process going on about that. That is what I have been informed on. I gently say to the noble Lord that if what I have said is wrong, I will correct it. He should understand that I have been reassured by civil servants that humanitarian aid has not been stopped.

[Baroness Hoey (Non-Afl)]

I very much welcome the Minister, because he answers very directly. Can he have a word with the Minister in the other place, who said that noble Lords were “game-playing”? Because of the campaigns and work we have done in this House, the public now understand Chagos much more than they did when the Bill was introduced. I think they realise that the people who were torn from their island homes in the 1960s, and those six brave Chagossians there now, should be helped and supported as much as possible. I ask one simple question: does he accept that those loyal British citizens now on the Chagos Islands pose no security threat whatever to Diego Garcia?

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

I thank the noble Baroness for her initial comments. The point about the six people on the atoll we are talking about is that they are there illegally. You must have a permit to go there, the BIOT Administration did not grant them a permit, and so they are seeking to remove them from the island. That is what the current court process is about and the legal process must take its course. The BIOT Supreme Court said that the BIOT Administration do not have a right to remove them; that is being appealed and we will see what happens as a result of the judgment of the BIOT Court of Appeal.

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)]

My Lords, the Minister says that this is a vital base for Britain as well as for the United States. Just how vital is it for Britain? Nearly 20 years ago, I did some work and published a paper on the special relationship and US and UK bases. I recall that the number of British military personnel in Diego Garcia was in single figures and there were no naval or aerial weapons platforms based there. Has that changed? Do we now have units there? Are the military personnel from Britain in triple figures at least? Alternatively, is this really an American base with which we have some co-operation?

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

The noble Lord will know that I will not go into all the detail that he referred to, but the point I am making is that it is a fundamentally important security base for us, the Americans and the alliances to which we belong. All across the world, different bases operate under different arrangements and are made up of different armed forces. People do not go into those details because it would draw attention to them and could help our adversaries. The only point I am making is that it is a strategically crucial base for us, the Americans and the alliances to which we belong. As such, the Government are seeking to protect that. Others have a different way through which they think they would protect it, but we are seeking to ensure that we have the legal certainty that will provide the security to that base that we think is vital.

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)]

My Lords—

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)]

My Lords, I did not intend to speak, but we need to put the record straight on the issue of the 11 rounds of negotiations. I agree with the Minister that the previous Government had discussions with the Government of Mauritius in good faith, but as I have said to him, both inside and outside the Chamber, the issue of the long-term, permanent security of Diego Garcia could not be agreed on. There were peripheral issues too. The Minister alluded to Annex VII of UNCLOS. Its enforcement mechanism is within the jurisdiction of the UN Secretary-General. Ultimately, the only authority carried within the UN structures is within the UN Security Council, on which, of course, the United Kingdom carries a veto.

The previous Government were fully versed with some of these things, so ultimately, it would have come down to a decision on security and political priority. That is important for the record, because this idea that there were 11 rounds of negotiations is a fact. On the fact that they were not concluded, the proof is there for the Minister to see.

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

The noble Lord is one of the most esteemed Members of your Lordships’ House. There were 11 rounds of negotiation. On the fact that—to use the noble Lord’s words—they were not concluded, that happens with negotiations, but there was an intent to try to reach a negotiated settlement on what to do about the future of Diego Garcia. I have been in many negotiations that have not been concluded, but that does not mean that you are not trying to negotiate to get to a conclusion. That is the only point I would make on that.

Going back to Annex VII of UNCLOS, because I knew that people were going to ask what the binding judgment that could be made upon the UK Government would be, and people have made much of the fact that many of the legal things that have been referred to have been non-binding judgments, I ask: what would be a binding judgment? Legal people, who understand these matters and advise me—as they will have advised the noble Lord in his Foreign Office ministerial capacity—have told me that Annex VII of UNCLOS would provide a binding judgment.