Diego Garcia Military Base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill

Baroness Meyer Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 4th November 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Meyer (Con)]

My Lords, as I look at the empty Benches opposite, I wonder whether some Labour Peers are just realising how unnecessary and reckless the Bill is.

First, the people of the Chagos Islands were not even consulted about the future of their homeland. Having already suffered the injustices of forced removal half a century ago, they have now been denied a voice in deciding its fate. For a Government who claim to uphold human rights, this is an extraordinary moral failure. The treaty claims to allow a programme of resettlement on some of the outer islands but not on Diego Garcia itself, the very heart of their former homeland. It provides no detail on where, when or how such a return might occur. The Government concede that settlement remains “necessarily uncertain”. In reality, the Chagossians’ right of return depends entirely on the discretion of the Government of Mauritius, who have shown little interest in their welfare. So those who were exiled more than 50 years ago will once again be denied any guarantee of justice or a true homecoming.

Secondly, this Government have chosen to give away British territory to Mauritius, even though there was no legally binding obligation on the United Kingdom to do so. In February 2019, the International Court of Justice issued only an advisory opinion—a political statement that carries no legal force, not a judgment. I will not go on about all the legal bases for why there was no need for us to sign any legal agreement, which the noble Lord, Lord Lilley, pointed out earlier.

In short, the Government are acting not out of legal necessity but by choice, while jeopardising one of the most important axes in the defence of the free world. The Government insist that this is about the long-term security of the base, but under Article 13 the lease expires in 99 years. What happens if Mauritius decides not to renew the lease? Only last month, its Prime Minister publicly questioned the duration and terms of the lease, suggesting that it may not guarantee long-term British or American access. A poor country will always be tempted by Chinese money. What if Beijing simply outbids us? Without a right to extend, this deal does not secure Diego Garcia, safeguard the marine protected area or protect the rights of the Chagossian people.

This is not an investment; it is an expensive and humiliating surrender made at a time when British taxpayers are already struggling. The Prime Minister has admitted that it will cost around £3.4 billion but, as my noble friend Lady Noakes so clearly set out, it will be at least £35 billion. Why are we giving away billions of pounds for territory that we already administer while the Americans keep the base? In other words, Britain pays, America stays and China watches.

Thirdly, the freehold now rests with a non-nuclear power. What if Mauritius objects to nuclear-powered or nuclear-armed vessels using the port or airstrips, or imposes restrictions on operations vital to our defence? What if Chinese trawlers, granted fishing rights close to Diego Garcia, begin gathering intelligence under the cover of commerce? China, Russia and North Korea all have an interest in this vital region. This is not only a very expensive concession but a very dangerous one.

We have weakened our position, undermined our allies, burdened our taxpayers and silenced the Chagossians. This is quite simply the worst deal for Britain in living memory—a moral outrage, a legal folly and a strategic danger.

Does the Minister not agree that it is time to pause, admit that the Government have got it wrong and stand up for what is truly in our national interest? Will the Minister not agree that, before relinquishing sovereignty over any British territory, the Government have a duty to ensure the consent of its people? Can the Minister explain why the Government are proceeding with this Bill without first consulting the Chagossian people—those most directly affected by it? Will the Government commit to rectifying this omission—maybe, as suggested earlier, by a referendum? Will the Minister also confirm whether the Government recognise the Chagossian right to self-determination under international law, and if so, why their right of return has been made dependent on the discretion of Mauritius rather than on a clear guarantee within the treaty itself? Lastly, I remind the Minister that the trust fund is controlled by Mauritius and will not necessarily go to the British Chagossians.

Diego Garcia Military Base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill

Baroness Meyer Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 18th November 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord McCrea of Magherafelt and Cookstown (DUP)]

I am coming to a conclusion. I understand what it is like to feel ignored and sidelined; to have someone in Government tell you that your identity is second class; that you cannot really be a full British citizen. I know what it is like to have fought for your rights to represent your people when a foreign state wades in against you. I understand the struggle to be heard more than most. Parliament therefore has a responsibility to correct that course. These amendments do not ask for much.

[Baroness Meyer (Con)]

My Lords, I shall speak in support of Amendments 14 and 25. This treaty and the Bill that will enact it is bad for our country, for our security and for British taxpayers. As we have already discussed, it will leave Britain poorer, weaker and strategically exposed.

This treaty is also bad for the Chagossian people. Half a century ago, they suffered the terrible injustice of forced removal. This treaty compounds that injustice by offering no guaranteed right of return, no legally binding resettlement plan and no meaningful protection of their rights. This is truly shameful. For a Government who claim to uphold human rights, it is an extraordinary moral failure.

Dr Al Pinkerton, the Liberal Democrat spokesman, said at Third Reading in the House of Commons that

“we cannot allow the Bill to pass without ensuring that Chagossians themselves are sovereign over their citizenship, the governance of their islands and the prospect of return”.—[Official Report, Commons, 20/10/25; col. 756.]

He is right, and I am surprised that no Liberal Democrat in this House has put down any amendment in support of a referendum. To deny the Chagossians their right of self-determination and to shape the future of their homeland is unworthy of a country that champions justice, fairness and democracy. This amendment would give them a chance, but it would also give us, a nation that prides itself on a centuries-old democratic—

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

I am grateful to the noble Baroness. I make the assumption that, in her defence, she did not read my amendment before making her statement, because the right to self-determination is there under proposed new subsection (3)(b)(ii). Can she clarify what her referendum would be? Would it include the sovereignty, the possession and the inhabitation of the military base on Diego Garcia?

[Baroness Meyer (Con)]

I presume that a referendum would actually ask the Chagossian people what they want for their future and self-determination.

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

To clarify: it is the position of the Opposition that the referendum would also be for there to able to be inhabitants on the military base?

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Meyer (Con)]

But I allow my noble friend.

[Lord Hannan of Kingsclere (Con)]

The Chagossian people have made it very clear what they want. They had their own opinion poll on the subject, and that has been independently verified: 99.22% of people voted for it. The noble Lord, Lord Purvis of Tweed, asked what the proposition would be. It is for a resettlement on the outer atolls, under British jurisdiction and as British overseas citizens, in accordance with the plan set out in 2015, to which the noble Baroness, Lady Foster, referred earlier.

[Baroness Meyer (Con)]

Yes, and they seem to approve what we are saying. Basically, these amendments are about asking the Chagossian people about the right to self-determination through a referendum. I have never met a Chagossian in my life, but I have received many letters from them over the past few days and feel that this is my moral duty, and I think that, in good conscience, the Government should allow them self-determination.

[Baroness Hoey (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I support all the amendments in this group, but I particularly like Amendment 64, because it goes to the heart of the issue and is very simple and straightforward: we want a referendum. I think the noble Lord, Lord Hannan, answered the noble Lord on the Front Bench who asked about what a referendum would mean; I concur exactly with that, and I hope that that has satisfied him.

When we are trying to get an argument for providing the people of the Chagos Islands with self-determination, sometimes it is useful to consider the arguments being put against it. There are two key arguments that the Government seem to deploy for backing the Mauritius treaty and the Bill, rather than a self-determination referendum, the provision of which would be not necessarily easy but technically possible and would include all the Chagossians not just in the UK but around the world.

The Government’s first argument would seem to be that we are excused from the need to provide the Chagossians with self-determination because we removed them from the Chagos Islands and so they can no longer be offered self-determination. So long as the Government say that it was very wrong that the Chagossians were removed, the Government seem to think that the fact that they no longer live on their islands relieves us of the moral obligation to provide them with self-determination on their future. For me, this constitutes a pretty appalling logic that lays bare not only the complete moral failure of the current Government but the deployment of a rather dreadful logic in a way that I believe really lets down the people of our country, the United Kingdom, in a very humiliating fashion.

The Chagossians themselves call this out in a very powerful statement on self-determination, which I am sure the Minister will have read, that they issued yesterday. I am going to quote from it, because I think it is really important. They say:

“In recent years there has been much repenting of colonialism within certain parts of the West, including the United Kingdom. The problem with colonialism is one of alienation. In its conventional form it is problematic because it alienates a people from the dignity of self-government of their home territory, but not from that territory. They can continue to live on the territory that is their home and nurture the hope that at some point they might be afforded the dignity of self-government. The colonialism to which we have been subjected, however, presented a far more extreme and unusual alienation because it alienated us not just from the dignity of a measure of self-government but far more problematically, from our territory, our home, by taking it from us.


If the international community is serious in its commitment to decolonise then it cannot afford to accommodate either alienation. To do so, however, in the context of re-denying”—


I emphasise this—

“the people concerned self-determination while simultaneously paying a country that played a key role in denying that people self-determination in relation to their territory on the previous occasion, more money than is required to resettle the people with the rightful claim to the territory, in order to lease one of their islands, demonstrates extreme moral disorientation.

In this context the policy of the current Government to state that what happened between 1968 and 1973 was deeply wrong but then not lift a finger to put that right, even as they demonstrate that the resources are more than available to do so, not only makes the condemnation of what happened between 1968 and 1973 completely hollow, but also necessarily has the effect of affirming the validity of what happened”.


I think every noble Lord should read that statement carefully; there is more in it.

If we put this another way, attempts by His Majesty’s Government to claim that the United Kingdom is relieved of any obligation to provide the people of the Chagos Islands self-determination in relation to their islands because they are not living there is just another way of saying that we are relieved of the responsibility for having prosecuted the most extreme form of colonialisation because we prosecuted the most extreme form of colonialisation. I think it is plain for all to see that, if we are justifying ourselves in not providing self-determination to the Chagossians—which we would do by at least asking people in a referendum—because we removed them from their islands, we are suggesting that removing them from their islands validates this, as if the crime of their forced removal constitutes a source of validity. Rather than providing a source of validity for not providing self-determination to the people of the Chagos Islands, I believe that this logic lays bare the complete moral failure of the current Government and the way in which it shames us as a nation.

The other argument that the Government provide against affording the Chagossians a self-determination referendum is implicit in their references to Chagossians who support the Mauritius treaty, as if the Chagossians supporting it means that providing the Chagossians self- determination is unnecessary because we already know what they want. I do not doubt that there are some Chagossians, particularly some in Mauritius, who support the Mauritius treaty. There has never been, in my opinion, a self-determination referendum in which 100% of people voted in one way. However, what is incontrovertible is that we have to engage with the fact that not only do we have some 650 Chagossians who have been involved here in the United Kingdom but the survey of over 3,000 Chagossians living in the UK, Mauritius and the Seychelles demonstrates over 99% opposition to being given away—just think about that—to the Republic of Mauritius and support for self-determination as a resettled British overseas territory such as Anguilla or Montserrat. That is 99%. They do not want to be given away to Mauritius; they want to stay British.