Diego Garcia Military Base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill

Lord Howell of Guildford Excerpts

3rd reading
Monday 12th January 2026 Lords Chamber

[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?

[Lord Howell of Guildford (Con)]

My Lords, I have one final question to the Minister, while confessing, quite frankly, that I have taken zero part in the earlier Committee stage—but Third Reading, contrary to what was suggested earlier, is an opportunity to look at the overall aim and underlying strategy of a measure. Some earlier remarks, which were fascinating, about the financial side should have been ones we were allowed to hear a bit more of.

My question is quite simple. Why does the Minister think that, in looking at this issue, we have not heard a single mention of the Commonwealth system, the largest—although not very centralised—organisation in the world? Why does there appear to have been no discussion between the Foreign and Commonwealth Office—its relevant office—and the new and very lively Commonwealth Secretary-General? Why does she think we have not seen any understanding that the Commonwealth, although it has been described as “friends with a purpose”, is of course deeply concerned with the rights of islanders, and the rights of countries as to their status—whether they should be protected and be free and open members of the Commonwealth or associated with the Commonwealth? Such engagement would be in the knowledge that we have many friends and that they could discuss matters with Mauritius, and indeed with India, as well as their own status in an age of delegated and digitalised activity in which very small countries can assume a very important role, as no doubt the Chagos Islands and Diego Garcia will be doing for some years. Given that new and changing pattern of organisations as a new world emerges, as everyone admits, and that entire makeover and difference in our international relations for years ahead, why does she think we have not applied the sensible duty that we should have applied as an active member—not a hub—of the Commonwealth network and left the decisions that we are now being asked to make for much further discussion in a changing world?

[Lord Kempsell (Con)]

My Lords, what a privilege it is to follow the incisive questions of my noble friends who spoke before me and to add my support to the regret amendment in the name of my noble friend Lord Callanan, whose speech crystallised the litany of reasons that there are to oppose the Bill and to continue opposing it. The speeches already made in this debate have been a mirror of the way in which your Lordships’ House has conducted the difficult work of scrutinising the Bill—forensic, effective and in depth.

I will restrict myself only to a point, which occurred to me just now as the Minister was speaking, and which we have not heard so much of in previous stages. As the Minister was delivering her paean to all those who have been involved in working on the Bill, and no doubt they have worked very hard to achieve this outcome, I felt some disquiet at the Government indulging themselves in the way in which they have handled this policy. That is for one reason—the consultation of the Chagossians themselves. We know that only a handful, despite the huge machinery at the Government’s disposal, have been asked for their thoughts and views. Moreover, there is the way in which Ministers have adumbrated reasons, explanations and theories for the deal—first, that it was designed to push back on hostile states, and then we learn that only a week later, representatives of hostile states have visited the Government of Mauritius and openly praised the deal. There was also the argument that the deal was necessary for the policing of the electromagnetic spectrum over Diego Garcia, an argument that we heard so much about and that then fell away when it emerged that the UN Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination—not the International Telecommunication Union this time—criticised the Bill in the sternest possible terms.

Some Governments blunder into historic foreign policy disasters; some have their hand forced by world events; but never have a Government in modern British administration walked so voluntarily into a strategic bear trap, as this Government are doing with this Bill. Can I ask the Minister to clarify, as the Bill returns to the other place, what plans are in place now to make good the deficit in consultation of Chagossians? Even at this very late hour, what plans do the Government have for that?

I say to the Minister that the Bill remains so confusing, including the pace at which the Government brought it forward and the way they handled questions and scrutiny, not least my own Written Question in September 2024, in which I asked the Government to explain their intentions for the Chagos deal. The Minister answered, saying that it was too early to say. Only nine days later, the Government announced the entire plan. These are deficits in consultation and scrutiny. How does the Minister plan to make them good?

There is, of course, a suspicion that behind every great fortune—a fortune in taxpayers’ money is being spent on this deal, as my noble friend Lord Altrincham explained—there is a crime. There are many of us who consider this deal to be a historical crime. I think we will see the final answers that we seek with the implementation of the Bill, as the truth about this deal emerges.