British Sovereignty Protection (Chagos Islands) Bill [HL]

Baroness Meyer Excerpts

Friday 23rd October 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Meyer (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Weir of Ballyholme, for introducing this very important Bill, which I support.

At the heart of this Bill lies the fundamental question: by what right can the British Government transfer sovereignty over the Chagos Islands to Mauritius without first obtaining the consent of the Chagossian people? We must remember that the Chagossians were forcibly removed from their homeland by Britain in the 1960s and 1970s to make way for the military base of Diego Garcia. It was a shameful chapter in our history. Now, more than half a century later, we propose to decide their future once again without even asking for their consent. Have we not learned anything from the past?

The treaty provides no guarantees of return to Diego Garcia, no binding resettlement plan for the Chagossian people as a whole and no requirement for their consent to transfer sovereignty. That is an extraordinary double standard. If an international court suggested that Britain should surrender the Falkland Islands or Gibraltar, would we simply disregard the wishes of their inhabitants? Of course not; we would insist that their right to self-determination was paramount. So why are the Chagossians treated differently? The Government appear to treat the absence of a resident Chagossian population as a reason for their consent not being required. But the only reason they no longer inhabit their homeland is that we forcibly removed them. To use their absence as a reason to deny them a voice in their future would compound the original injustice.

The principle of self-determination cannot be something we invoke selectively. Article 1 of the United Nations charter recognises the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples. The Chagossians have their own language, culture, traditions and distinct identity, which have endured despite their expulsion. A survey organised by the Chagossian campaigners, involving more than 3,500 respondents, reported that 99.22% favoured remaining under British sovereignty. Although this is not a formal referendum, it still demonstrates the strength of feeling among those who participated. To transfer their homeland to another country without obtaining their consent would be nothing short of a scandal.

There are also serious legal, financial and strategic objections to this treaty, as pointed out by noble Lords who spoke before me. The Government originally justified this agreement, warning that without an agreement, Britain faced an imminent legal decision that could render the Diego Garcia military base inoperable. But where is the evidence?

On 25 February 2019, the International Court of Justice issued an advisory opinion, not a binding judgment, as my noble friend Lord Lilley pointed out. Moreover, the court’s jurisdiction over disputes between Britain and Mauritius is restricted, and tribunals under the Convention on the Law of the Sea cannot simply determine questions of territorial sovereignty. Undoubtedly, there are legal and diplomatic difficulties, but they do not establish that surrendering sovereignty was the only possible solution. The decision to transfer sovereignty was a political choice, not a direct consequence of a binding court order. It was an extraordinary choice.

We now propose to surrender a British territory only to pay billions to lease back a military base that we already control. The Government estimated the cost at £3.4 billion in present-value terms, but the TaxPayers’ Alliance, taking into account inflation, has suggested that the payments over 99 years would reach £47 billion. At a time when our public finances and defence budgets are under such pressure, how can this expenditure be justified?

What about our national security? Diego Garcia is one of the most strategically important military bases in the world, yet we propose to surrender sovereignty over it, leaving it to Mauritius. The Government argue that the treaty secures the base for 99 years. What happens after that? What if Mauritius decides not to renew the lease? What if China outbids us? What about safeguarding the marine protected area? Why should Britain surrender sovereignty over a facility so vital to our own security, especially when our ally, the United States, does not agree that we should? Indeed, the treaty has been paused following renewed American opposition and the Government have acknowledged that they cannot proceed without US support. This is surely an opportunity to reconsider the entire agreement.

For a Government who champion human rights, denying Chagossians a meaningful say in the future of their homeland is an extraordinary moral contradiction. The Chagossians have already suffered grave injustice at British hands. We must not compound that with yet another injustice. That is why I support the Bill. Does the Minister not agree that the Government owe the Chagossian people more than an apology for the past? We owe them a voice for the future. I am pleased to see that many of them are here to listen to our debate. I am sure that they too would support the Bill.

As my noble friend Lord Lilley pointed out, do we even need such a Bill? Does the Minister not agree that the best solution of all would be to bin this agreement, as the United States has suggested?