Diego Garcia Military Base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill

Debate between Al Pinkerton and Chris Coghlan

Committee of the whole House
Monday 20th October 2025 Commons Chamber

[Dr Pinkerton]

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his intervention. I am aware that he has a long history in advocating for this particular cause, but I am relentlessly surprised by the position he takes on this point. He would seek to effectively reinscribe the colonial construction that was British Mauritius and in doing so ignore the right of Chagossians as a people to self-determine their own future. I do not see the colonial convenience of administration as anything other than overwriting a people’s right to determine their own future.

On that point, in 2019 the International Court of Justice issued an advisory opinion that concluded that the decolonisation of Mauritius had not been legally completed and that the United Kingdom should end its administration of the Chagos islands as rapidly as possible. The General Assembly subsequently endorsed that same view. But I say to this House that the ICJ opinion, however well intentioned, poses a profound problem. It proposes to hand sovereignty not to the Chagossians themselves but to Mauritius, without consulting those who were born of the islands or who are descended from them. That is not self-determination but the transfer of sovereignty over a people without their consent. The right to self-determination belongs to peoples, not to Governments. It is not and should not be a device for tidying up the diplomatic ledger of empire, but a recognition that every community has the right to shape its own future. To remove the Chagossians once was a horrific wrong. To barter away their sovereignty now without their voice compounds that wrong.

If we truly honour the UN charter and the principles that this country has long championed, the Chagossians themselves must be placed at the centre of any future settlement. They must have a say over their citizenship, over the governance of their islands and over the prospects of return. The commitment to a referendum that sits at the heart of amendment 9 seeks to address that long and burning injustice by providing Chagossians with the opportunity to exercise their right to determine their own future.

[Chris Coghlan]

I entirely agree with my hon. Friend on the importance of having a right of referendum. I have had Chagossian constituents contact me with their outrage about the compounding of injustice in the new treaty. How realistic does my hon. Friend think it is to find people eligible to vote in a potential referendum, given the length of time that has passed since they were moved from Diego Garcia?

[Dr Pinkerton]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his question. He is right that, were a referendum able to be secured, it would be unusual because of the nature of the displacement of the Chagossians. But there have been previous international consultations, and with the collective will and intelligence of a House like this, the terms of a referendum could undoubtedly be negotiated. After all, Chagossians are not backwards in coming forwards and making themselves known to all of us.

For Chagossians, this is not a geopolitical abstraction, but a deeply human matter: one of belonging, fairness and justice. Requiring a report to be made to the House would ensure their voices are not lost amid the technical language of treaties and transfers. Amendment 9 would enable transparency, accountability and, above all, genuine recognition of the rights of Chagossians to self-determination. I encourage right hon. and hon. Members across the House to think carefully when they vote tonight.

New clause 9 speaks to another vital principle: our shared moral duty to protect the natural world. The Chagos archipelago is among the most biodiverse marine environments on Earth. Its coral reefs, migratory species and rich ecosystems are a global ecological treasure and a testament to what nature can be when left largely untouched by human exploitation. In recent months, I have spoken with scientific advisers who are deeply concerned about the Bill’s lack of provisions for establishing and governing marine protected areas. The environment and sustainability institute stresses that very large marine protected areas are vital for global conservation goals. Its research shows the archipelago’s exceptional role in protecting diverse mobile species across the Indian ocean.

New clause 9 would require the Government to publish an annual report produced with the Mauritian Government setting out the progress made in establishing and managing marine protected areas and the meetings held between the two Governments on the issue. Such reporting is critical to ensure that environmental protection does not fade into the sotto voce diplomatic arrangements. It must remain a visible, audible and measurable commitment to international conservation standards. If the Government are to honour their biodiversity beyond national jurisdiction pledge, future Governments must ensure stronger marine conservation, sustainable stewardship and shared responsibility. I believe that the new clause would achieve that.

New clauses 10 and 11 would build on the principle of accountability by ensuring regular oversight of how the Bill and its associated treaty arrangements are implemented. We believe that the Secretary of State should, within 12 months, lay before both Houses a report detailing the expenditure of public funds made under the treaty during the most recent financial year and the progress made by the UK in implementing the treaty’s obligations.

[Chris Coghlan]

At a time when the cost of living is so high, does my hon. Friend agree that the cost of maintaining and operating the Diego Garcia military base and military operations must be evaluated by the House against the expenditure of public funds made under the treaty each financial year?

[Dr Pinkerton]

The maximum possible financial transparency around the treaty arrangements is essential, not least for securing and establishing public trust. I fear that, without those high levels of accountability, public trust would rapidly dissipate. Furthermore, once every financial year, the Secretary of State should present to the House an estimate of the expenditure expected to be incurred in connection with the treaty, including payments or financial commitments to the Government of Mauritius and the cost of maintaining and operating Diego Garcia. If actual payments exceed those estimates, a supplementary estimate must be laid before the House for approval and parliamentary scrutiny. I reassure Conservative colleagues that the Liberal Democrats will support any amendment to the Bill that would increase financial transparency of the treaty.

However, our moral duty extends beyond matters of territory and finance. New clause 12 would require a comprehensive review of the welfare, integration and general needs of Chagossians living in the UK. Many Chagossians here face significant challenges, including housing insecurity, barriers to employment and limited access to public services. The review would assess what support is needed and ensure a full debate in this House and the other place on its findings. That is how we show genuine care for those displaced by the actions of our predecessors in the Chamber and in Whitehall.

Finally, new clause 13 would require the Government within six months to consult with Chagossians residing in the UK and the organisations that represent them on how the Act and the treaty affect their community socially, economically and legally.

Children with SEND: Assessments and Support

Debate between Al Pinkerton and Chris Coghlan

Monday 15th September 2025 Westminster Hall

[Chris Coghlan (Dorking and Horley) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Allin-Khan. In Dorking the other day, a mum called Jenny came to see me about her daughters, Isabelle and Sienna. They are severely learning disabled, epileptic, blind, non-verbal and tube fed. Isabelle and Sienna have difficult lives, but they thrive when they are together. Jenny had to take Surrey county council to tribunal four times to fight for their rights—not only to get their needs met, but simply to get them together in the same school. Although she ultimately won her fight, that cost Jenny her life savings and her marriage. I said to her that if she were my mum, I would be incredibly grateful. I hope she is proud of what she is doing, because she should be.

It is not only profoundly disabled children who are mistreated by local authorities. I have today published almost 500 family testimonies of unlawful, harmful and unethical behaviour on SEND by 92 local authorities across the entire country. I will continue to collect these testimonies and I will be taking this further. These local authorities are led by every major political party, including my own, so this is not a party political issue. Rather, it suggests that there is something systemically wrong with local authority governance in this country—a failure of accountability to locally elected councillors. My own local authority, Surrey, hid for over 14 months the fact that it had the highest level of complaints on SEND in the country.

We know that local authorities are financially overwhelmed on SEND, but too often their response to the suffering of children such as Isabelle and Sienna is to be desensitised and to breed a culture of denial and dishonesty—a brutalised system. If we reduce SEND rights and throw children away to local authorities we cannot trust, we throw away their lives. The answer is early intervention.

[Dr Al Pinkerton (Surrey Heath) (LD)]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way, especially during such a powerful speech. He raises the issue of early intervention. I have seen this in my own constituency, where if people can catch special educational needs early enough, they can get the right packages of support in place. Does my hon. Friend recognise, as I do, that early intervention is critical to the future of our children and the next generation?

[Chris Coghlan]

I entirely agree, because by the age of three a child has 1,000 trillion brain connections, but that declines to 500 trillion by adolescence. That is why the earlier the intervention, the more effective the outcome and the lower the total cost. That is even before we consider the cost of a parent who has to leave work to look after a child unable to cope at school, or an adult who ends up in social services instead of a job.

The Government must resist the siren calls of local authorities to reduce SEND rights. There are too many people in despair right now, but if the Government focus on early intervention for our children, they can set out a path for hope.

Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill

Debate between Al Pinkerton and Chris Coghlan

Wednesday 8th January 2025 Commons Chamber

[Chris Coghlan]

I pay tribute to my hon. Friend as Sara’s MP for raising the horror that has taken place. Of course, I agree that data sharing between public authorities is vital to ensure that such a case does not happen again. But it is not enough, and, alone, it will not prevent the catastrophic and systematic negligence of Surrey county council. This is the same department that had the highest number of statutory breaches relating to children reported to the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman for over two years. The department covered information up from its own county council and scrutiny committee for more than 14 months, and only disclosed it when my five Liberal Democrat Surrey MP colleagues and I publicly called it out.

Surrey county council objectively contributed to the deaths of Jennifer Chalkley, Oscar Nash and Sara Sharif by ignoring existing legislation.

[Dr Al Pinkerton (Surrey Heath) (LD)]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way, especially during such a powerful and meaningful speech. One of my constituents, whom I shall refer to as Claire in order to protect her identity, is only 16 years old and has attempted to take her own life 12 times. Her desperate mother has had to take Surrey county council to a tribunal 10 times to try to secure the appropriate educational, therapeutic and social care that she needs. Does my hon. Friend agree that, while we welcome the tightening of legislation presented in the Bill, it is only as good as the willingness and ability of schools and councils to implement it?

[Chris Coghlan]

I fully agree with my hon. Friend. Surrey county council failed to abide by existing legislation, so how on earth are we meant to believe that new legislation alone will be enough? I share his concerns about Claire. I know from my constituents that there are children in Surrey who are at risk right now. That is why I am speaking today.

This morning, Jennifer Chalkley’s mother, Sharon, texted me to say:

“Even though you didn’t get to meet Jen, her story is a powerful one and needs sharing to save other young lives. I raised Jen to be the change you want to see in the world and she’s still doing this.”

I replied, “She will be”.

I ask the House to consider this: is this Bill alone enough to save our children’s lives, or does the children, families and lifelong learning department at Surrey county council also need root and branch reform immediately?