Diego Garcia Military Base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill

Baroness Foster of Aghadrumsee Excerpts

Report stage
Monday 5th January 2026 Lords Chamber

If I am wrong, and they are happy to be numbered as so many Mauritian citizens, so be it. I do not think a single voice would be raised against a deal of the kind proposed if that were the case. However, if, despite all the wrongs and grievances that they have suffered, the people most involved want to retain British sovereignty, should we not, in a structured and formal way, allow them to make that position clear in a referendum?

[Baroness Foster of Aghadrumsee (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, my Amendment 32 would require a referendum of the Chagossian people, which we have heard about already, before any transfer of sovereignty of the British Indian Ocean Territory could take place. I thank those noble Lords who have added their names to the amendment. I also thank the noble Lord, Lord De Mauley, for bringing us the results from his committee; they have been very instructive to this debate. At its heart, the amendment is very simple. It asks whether a people who were shamefully removed by force from their homeland and who have been denied a voice that the rest of us enjoy should be finally allowed to speak for themselves. I believe the answer to that question is yes, absolutely.

Of course, the Chagossian community did not leave their islands by choice. They were removed by the British state and scattered across the world. Since that moment, decisions about their future, and about a homeland they were forbidden to return to, have been taken over their heads, in rooms to which they were not invited. If there was ever a community entitled to the clearest expression of self-determination, it is this one.

The Minister has argued that a referendum could not alter the terms of the treaty, but that is to misunderstand the purpose of this amendment, or indeed any other amendment which calls for the right of self-determination for the Chagossian community. The issue before us is not whether a referendum rewrites international law but whether Parliament is prepared to authorise the transfer of sovereignty without the consent of the people most directly affected by it. This House has both the historic right and the responsibility to insist that consent comes first.

We have already heard that the UN Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination published its opinion on 8 December. That is something new in the international sphere that we hear so much referred to in this House. It gives its opinion on the process of this treaty and some of its contents, especially in relation to the explicit prevention of the return of the Chagossian people to their ancestral lands in Diego Garcia. In relation to the process which the Government have engaged in, the committee said that the lack of meaningful participation of the Chagossian people is

“affecting their rights and lands, restricting the exercise of their right to self-determination”.

The UN committee clearly believes, despite all that we were told in Committee, that Chagossians have a right of self-determination. I would be very much obliged to hear from the Minister on this specific point when she responds.

I also worry greatly that to proceed without consent from the Chagossian people would establish a deeply troubling precedent—one that I know is already feared by other populations across our cherished overseas territories. If sovereignty of one overseas territory can be transferred without the freely expressed will of its people, then no territory can be entirely reassured. Self-determination cannot be conditional on convenience or on the balance of diplomatic pressure exerted on the UK by a coalition of our adversaries, either through an international court issuing a non-binding advisory opinion or by other means.

In all other parts of our British Overseas Territories, there is a simple principle that is acknowledged by everyone: people get to decide their own future. But the Chagossians are told that this principle does not apply to them because they are not a permanent population. That argument cannot possibly stand because it was our Government who made them not a permanent population; the UK Government ensured that they could not be. To deny them self-determination on that basis is to compound a historic injustice with a present one.

Of course, the Government will be aware that there is now a Chagossian Government in exile. Denied a voice yet again by a Government who trumpet their respect for international law, the Chagossians have now elected their own leader here in the United Kingdom—a Government in exile, if you will. Surely our Government must now acknowledge that they have got it wrong in not seeking the views of Chagossians before handing away their homeland to Mauritius.

What is striking is that the Chagossian community are united in a call for a referendum. The Minister will refer to a broad range of views on sovereignty within the Chagossian community, and that is absolutely true, but the Chagossian community has consistently referred to the right to self-determination, whether they live in the UK, the Maldives or the Seychelles. The Chagos Refugees Group, which seems to be the only group that the UK Government engage with, has only ever called for self-determination. Similarly, the UK Chagossian groups, including Chagossian Voices, BIOT Citizens and others, have echoed that call. Across generations and across the diaspora, they are asking for the same thing: not special treatment but equal treatment; not a veto over foreign policy but a voice for their own destiny.

Taking that wide range of views into account—a point repeated frequently by the Minister in this place, and in the other place—it is clear that this amendment does not dictate the outcome of a referendum. It does not presume what the Chagossians will decide, as the noble Lord, Lord Hannan, has said. It simply says that they must be asked, and the answer must matter. If we are serious about self-determination and believe that it is a principle, not a slogan, then we cannot exempt the Chagossians from it. I urge the House to support this amendment in a cross-party spirit and affirm that no people, especially one wronged so grievously by the UK Government, should be denied the right to decide its own future.

In closing, I refer to Amendment 33 on “Referendum No. 2” in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Purvis. While, of course, I believe my amendment is better as it is a condition precedent to the treaty being implemented, I will also support his amendment because, as we say in Ulster, half a loaf is better than no bread. Despite that, I hope noble Lords will support Amendment 32.

[Lord Craig of Radley (CB)]

My Lords, I regret that I missed the opportunity to add my name in support of Amendment 32 from the noble Baroness. It is remarkable and significant that there is sufficient interest in the Chagossian community, after so many years since they and their forebears were evicted, to form with due process a Government in exile. I have already exchanged emails with the nominated First Minister, Mr Misley Mandarin.

The Minister was perhaps too optimistically dismissive in Committee when she suggested that there was insufficient Chagossian presence on the atoll to form or justify an independent authority. There is none there; they were evicted in the 1970s. There is also the recent finding of the UN Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination to consider. Have the Government considered whether this might influence the thinking and advisory findings of the international court, which triggered this Government’s search for a long-term arrangement for Diego Garcia as a military base?

I note that the other far neighbour of the Chagos Archipelago, the Maldives, has raised seemingly legitimate human rights concerns about the Government’s methods of rushing these matters through this House. The number of amendments on Report is a reasonable measure of the many concerns held in this House. Though the treaty has been agreed, I urge the Government to proceed at a measured pace to allow these many concerns to be properly and fully considered. Will they reassure the House that there is no set time limit for these national procedures to be considered, as, if they were to be conceded, it might invalidate the treaty as signed on 22 May 2025?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

My Lords, it is always informative to follow the noble Lord, apart from when he is having his witty barbs against my party, which is often the case. He made a very strong case today, and I hope that he may feel that his points are reflected in part of the text in my Amendment 33.

This has been an important debate and group. Since we are on Report, I will simply focus on the amendments that I have tabled: Amendment 19 and then, although it will be considered consequential, the more substantive Amendment 33. I am aware that for the noble Baronesses, Lady Hoey and Lady Foster, Amendment 33 will be a bird in one hand and half a loaf in the other, but nevertheless I am grateful for their prospective support. I give notice that I will likely test the opinion of the House on Amendment 19, and I understand that the Government have indicated that, if Amendment 19 is supported, Amendment 33 will be considered consequential. For the avoidance of doubt—and I know it is disappointing to the noble Baroness—we cannot support Amendment 33A, as that change would, in effect, link the arguments in my amendment with those on Amendment 32, which I will outline a little bit further.

The House has heard me on many occasions refer to the lack of legislative guarantees of the rights of the Chagossian community, including those that the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, has indicated with regard to the right of participation within Diego Garcia in particular, as well as resettlement into the wider archipelago. Because we are on Report, I will not rehearse the arguments I have previously made, but my amendments seek to resolve this as best as I have been able to draft. I hope that the Government will, even at this stage, reconsider and support them.

Amendment 33 states that, to address the lack of definitive legal right enshrined in statute in Mauritius law and acknowledged in the UK, we need formally to seek the views of the Chagossian community on whether they are willing to consent to the terms of the implementation of the treaty rights, which so far are only permissive in nature within the treaty—that is the essence if we are talking about self-determination. There is no point simply referencing self-determination if there are no legal rights to back it up, and that is the essence of what I am seeking to achieve. That would include the resettlement to the archipelago, distinct from Diego Garcia, the right of participation in opportunities of working in Diego Garcia and statutory involvement in the decision-making of the trust fund for their overall rights as the treaty is implemented.

Amendment 32 in the name of noble Baroness, Lady Foster, has some issues. She spoke with sincerity today, as she has in Committee and all the times we have raised these matters. First, I understand the views and political arguments of the Conservative Benches in support of her amendment, but the amendment would overturn a century of long-standing convention on those Benches that Parliament should not retrospectively fetter the prerogative powers of treaty making. That is not necessarily the view of our Benches, but it is certainly the view of their Benches; this amendment would overturn that. I understand that is the deliberate process, but that is the consequence of what voting for it would bring about. It is an interesting and novel constitutional approach, but one where the consequence is worth recognising. Indeed, that was the point that the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, referred to earlier in his remarks.

Another issue is that, although the noble Baroness, Lady Foster, and the noble Lords, Lord Morrow and Lord McCrae, spoke very strong, powerful, emotive words with regard to the right to self-determination, what they are proposing would be a limited right, because that limited right of self-determination is not about the ability to decide the future of Diego Garcia and the military base. The Official Opposition have indicated that it is non-negotiable that Diego Garcia will be retained in perpetuity as a military base. That is not a decision that has been made with the consent of the Chagossian people about what their territory would be used for. That is a predetermined decision. They have stated that today, and they stated it as recently as April 2024 in the letter from the Foreign Secretary, the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, to the Foreign Affairs Committee in the House of Commons. If there is an argument for self-determination and consent, then presumably the argument of those supporting Amendment 32 is that that consent should include the use of Diego Garcia, but that has been precluded or ruled out. I do not see how that squares in that respect because, presumably, if the principled stance is one where only consent should be applied, then it should be applied also for Diego Garcia and the use of the military base.

[Baroness Foster of Aghadrumsee (Non-Afl)]

On what the noble Lord has said, surely limited self-determination is better than no self-determination, which is what is being put forward by the Government. Surely he must be concerned by the United Nations recent report in December last year in relation to the issues that have been stated there.

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

I read it carefully and I think my amendment covers the concerns in that committee’s report and the concerns raised in the IRDC. That is why my amendment has been drafted carefully. The noble Baroness is right in indicating that limited self-determination is better than no self-determination. The point is that her amendment does not have any limits to it, and it is her inability to square that aspect that I simply raise as an issue. However, that is, with respect, decisions that she and those that will be supporting it will make. I think it is worth recording that Amendment 32 would not give the Chagossian community the right of self-determination about part of the archipelago. That is worth stating categorically.

Amendment 32 also does not address rights. Indeed, what I feel we should be morally bound to address is the right that has been denied to that community for a long period, which is that of resettlement, and the right to be involved in decisions being taken going forward. We can only correct rights that are in our power to do so, and that would be by securing the consent of the Chagossian community before the treaty is ratified in order to ensure that there is statutory underpinning of the permissive elements of the rights that are in the treaty.

It is worth reflecting on the fact that the only rights that the Chagossian community may potentially have ahead of them are those that are provided for in the treaty. Indeed, the letter that I referred to from the former Foreign Secretary in April 2024 reiterated the previous Government’s view that the right of resettlement would not be accommodated. We are close to having rights enshrined for the Chagossian community for the first time in a very long time, but the treaty only goes as far as giving the potential ability for the Chagossian community if the Mauritian Government choose to do so.

Now that we hand over from our parliamentary processes, these Benches believe that it is correct to make the case that those rights should be underpinned in law, so I respectfully hope that the Government will be able to see this and accept it. If not, I will test the opinion of the House, and I do so respectfully, understanding the sincerity of the arguments being made so far by the noble Baroness, Lady Foster, and others.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Foster of Aghadrumsee]

32: After Clause 1, insert the following new Clause—
“Referendum(1) The Secretary of State must arrange a referendum on whether the British Indian Ocean Territory should—(a) remain a British Overseas Territory, or(b) be transferred to and become the sovereign territory of the Republic of Mauritius.(2) No transfer of sovereignty may take place under section 2 unless the number of Chagossians voting to transfer the islands to Mauritius exceeds those of the Chagossians that wish to remain a British Overseas Territory.(3) The franchise for the referendum must consist of persons entitled to citizenship under section 4 who are over 18 years of age, wherever they are resident.(4) The Secretary of State must ensure that eligible persons resident outside the United Kingdom are able to participate in the referendum.(5) The Secretary of State must lay before Parliament a statement of the result of the referendum as soon as reasonably practicable after it has been held.”

[Baroness Foster of Aghadrumsee (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I beg to move.