Diego Garcia Military Base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill

Lord Hay of Ballyore Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 25th November 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)]

My Lords, I speak briefly in support of my noble friend Lady Foster, based on insight and experience. The Chagossian package that we, the previous Government, negotiated was for £40 million over 10 years. Part of the challenge faced by the previous Government was around administration and governance and who would have a say on how that money was spent. For example, the delivery partners included the British Council for packages on English language training. We worked with universities, including Middlesex University, on delivering skill sets for Chagossian communities, and there was some insight provided on governance by local communities right here in the United Kingdom. I share that insight and experience because it remained a big challenge as to how the money would be administered.

Perhaps I can ask the Minister about some specifics. The £40 million Chagossian support package was, as she will know, administered by the FCDO—in other words, the UK Government. In the £40 million now being proposed, that will shift, so the issue of accountability, particularly for the Chagossian people, will be a vital component. I have some probing questions on the existing schemes that are already operational. Going purely from memory, about £30-odd million had been allocated. Will those schemes run to the end of their project period? What has happened to that extra £10 million? Has it been reallocated to the £40 million now being proposed in the trust fund by the Government?

[Lord Hay of Ballyore (DUP)]

My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 38A and 38B in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Weir. The amendment before the Committee in my name would require that this Government

“shall seek to permit limited commercial and chartered flights for British Chagossians to and from Diego Garcia, using the existing runway facilities”,

and is of great importance. Like many colleagues have already mentioned, the islanders themselves ought to be at the very heart of this conversation. I was privileged to receive correspondence from many members of the Chagossian community living in the United Kingdom, asking that I reflect their concerns on this issue. I believe this would be a modest but vital step towards addressing the historic injustice inflicted on the Chagossian community.

I shall explain why the Government should accept this amendment and why the Bill in its present form is inadequate without it. Noble Lords will be aware of the history of the British Indian Ocean Territory, and I do not intend to repeat it today. However, we must be continually mindful of what happened to the inhabitants of these islands from 1968 to 1973, then numbering around 2,000: they were removed from their homes so that Diego Garcia could become the site of a UK-US military base.

Since then, the Government have repeatedly recognised that these are British Overseas Territories citizens, some native, but many descendants of deceased islanders who never returned, and the Government have provided certain support measures throughout the years, or so they might contend. Yet, in spite of this, they have failed to take into account the undeniably important right of the Chagossians to have any meaningful access to their former homeland. They have been denied what we consider an expectation to return home at the end of the day.

This amendment is about more than symbolic flights; it addresses infrastructure, reconnection and justice. It taps into the Chagossian people and their campaign for representation throughout this long process, during which His Majesty’s Government have continually left them very much outside in the cold. This amendment would allow limited commercial or charter traffic, especially for the Chagossian community in the United Kingdom. This would not be a wholesale opening of the island, nor would it challenge the base operations; it would simply permit members of the community, many of whom live in the United Kingdom, to visit, reconnect and maintain their culture and family ties to the Chagossian community.

Those opposed to this amendment may argue that additional flights raise security and other major issues. I respectfully suggest that this argument cannot be used to stonewall all access. Instead, this amendment demands a managed, limited and regular scheme—for example, scheduled charters once or twice a year. Under vetting, with government oversight, this is entirely compatible with defence interests. Indeed, recognising the ties of displaced people is part of Britain’s international human rights obligations. The amendment would permit family members to see where their parents were born and to grieve, remember and connect with their roots. That matters more than any of us could ever know. It gives the Chagossian community a tangible and practical link to their homeland. Practically speaking, the Government should include reporting requirements on how many flights, who operates them, capacity and cost. We should ensure a transparent and accountable process. I therefore urge noble Lords to consider this amendment carefully. Without it, the Bill will proceed without a tangible measure of access and leave the Chagossian community with yet another broken promise.

I turn to Amendment 38B in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Weir. In its current form, the Bill fails to provide even the most basic protections for a community whose treatment by successive Governments has been one of the most regrettable chapters in our modern history. The proposal in this amendment is simple. All employment on the Diego Garcia military base must include fair and equal opportunities for the Chagossians as British Indian Ocean Territory citizens, and conditions must be in line with UK labour standards. Those conditions are the bare minimum we should expect for individuals working under the authority of the United Kingdom, particularly in the case of British Chagossians, who have just as much claim to Britishness as we do. Although the Government like to point out that Chagossians can apply for jobs on Diego Garcia, in reality very few have ever had meaningful access to stable, fair and properly regulated employment on the island. Much of the labour force is made up of contracted or sub-contracted workers from elsewhere. Where Chagossians have been employed, concerns have been raised in relation to pay disparity and unclear contractual safeguards. Without explicit protection in legislation, these inequalities will simply continue unchecked. We cannot allow that to happen.

The British Overseas Territories should reflect British values, and those include adherence to UK recognised labour standards. These standards cover fair pay, safe conditions, rest periods, paid leave and protection from discrimination. I completely disagree with the claim that a military base “complicates” and creates a problem for workforce regulations. Civilians work on UK and allied military installations right across the world.

This amendment is about treating the Chagossian community with fairness and basic justice. It is a chance for Parliament to ensure that the community that paid the highest price for Britain’s historical decisions in the British Indian Ocean Territory is no longer marginalised from its own homeland.

This amendment may not ensure self-determination or the maintenance of sovereignty, and nor is it likely to affect the security of the region. But what it does seek to do is to put the Chagossian people first. If the Government are serious about righting the past wrongs, surely, they must begin by guaranteeing equal treatment in employment.

Armed Forces Commissioner Bill

Lord Hay of Ballyore Excerpts

2nd reading
Wednesday 5th March 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hay of Ballyore (DUP)]

My Lords, the Armed Forces do a remarkable job keeping the people of this United Kingdom safe and secure in an ever-changing and increasingly dangerous world. We owe them a great debt of gratitude for their courage and their devotion to duty. The sacrifices of our Armed Forces at home and abroad must never be forgotten.

I congratulate the Minister on the way he has presented the Bill to the House. I hope that this legislation will improve the lives of our Armed Forces personnel. I hope the Armed Forces commissioner will be an important advocate for service personnel and their families. Regrettably, too often, promises made have not matched the reality experienced by our service communities. Many service personnel and their families have felt forgotten and very much neglected.

The Bill’s main provisions will be to establish an independent Armed Forces commissioner with wide-ranging powers to carry out their role independently from government. I welcome that the Armed Forces commissioner will be on a statutory basis reporting directly to Parliament.

I want to touch on an issue that was briefly touched on by the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, and the noble Lord, Lord Browne. Across the United Kingdom, there are around 2.5 million veterans. It is vital that they are not simply left behind. Our veterans should enjoy our strongest possible support, as should serving members of our Armed Forces. I ask the Minister: if we are making provisions on a statutory basis for serving members of the Armed Forces, why are we not making the same statutory provisions for veterans’ commissioners across this United Kingdom, giving them the power to carry out their role independently from government?

We are to have a commissioner on a statutory basis for serving members of the Armed Forces, so why can it not be the same for veterans? If that happened, it would be a huge step forward for the Government in how they value our veterans community; it would give them the equality of treatment they very much deserve. Without the bravery and long-lasting commitment of our security personnel, the reign of terror in Northern Ireland would have led to the deaths of many more innocent victims. In Northern Ireland we possibly have more veterans than in any other part of this United Kingdom, with many thousands who served in the Armed Forces.

I welcome the recent appointment of the new Northern Ireland Veterans Commissioner, David Johnstone, and I wish him well in his new role. He is also somebody who has served in the Armed Forces with distinction. This is a part-time appointment, for two days a week with staff from the Northern Ireland Office. It is not possible for the Northern Ireland Veterans Commissioner, on a part-time basis, to be responsible for looking after the interests of the thousands of veterans in Northern Ireland. If the Government are serious about looking after our veterans community, surely this should be a fully funded post with a full-time appointment, given the needs of our veterans in Northern Ireland.

The Bill will give independence to the Armed Forces commissioner, which I believe is vital. There is a case to be made for the veterans commissioner to have the same independence from government. I can speak only for Northern Ireland. For example, the staff of the Northern Ireland Veterans Commissioner are appointed by the Northern Ireland Office, as is the commissioner. The Northern Ireland Veterans Commissioner needs the same independence in challenging and holding the Government to account without fear of oversight from the Northern Ireland Office.

If it is right to have a commissioner on a statutory basis for serving personnel, why can the same case not be made by government for veterans? The creation of an Armed Forces commissioner is certainly a positive step forward for the Government, but surely they should do the same for our veterans. All forces personnel and veterans across these islands should be able to avail equally of the same quality of service. We must work together to provide the services and protections that our Armed Forces and services personnel need, now and in the future.

I repeat that it is not possible for our veterans commissioner to service all the needs of our veterans in Northern Ireland, and to do the job that he needs to do. He needs independence from government, especially from the Northern Ireland Office, to do what he needs to do.