British Sovereignty Protection (Chagos Islands) Bill [HL] Debate

Full Debate: Read Full Debate
Department: Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office

British Sovereignty Protection (Chagos Islands) Bill [HL]

Lord Callanan Excerpts
Friday 23rd October 2026

(1 day, 16 hours ago)

Lords Chamber
Read Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Callanan Portrait Lord Callanan (Con)
- View Speech - Hansard - -

My Lords, this has been a great, if somewhat one-sided, debate. It is quite sad that nobody from the Labour Benches or the Liberal Democrat Back Benches, not even their Front-Bench spokesmen, have bothered to turn up and give us their opinion on this Bill. Nevertheless, we have benefited from some great speeches from the noble Lord, Lord Weir, in introducing it, and from my own Benches and the non-aligned Members.

I pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Weir of Ballyholme, for introducing the Bill. He has a been a constant presence in our debates about the future of the BIOT. His work on the catastrophic Diego Garcia Military Base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill in the previous Session contributed in large part to the failure of the Government’s Chagos surrender. He is to be lauded for his commitment to our common cause, the continuation of British sovereignty over the Chagos Islands and the righting of historic wrongs perpetrated against the Chagossian people by the British state. It is a true pleasure to speak in support of his excellent Bill today.

As the noble Lord, Lord Weir, has explained, this Bill would protect British sovereignty over the British Indian Ocean Territory and give the Chagossian people the voice that they deserve. If this Bill were to become law, the UK would be prevented from transferring the sovereignty of the islands, or leasing them to another state, unless three tests have been met. These tests are that, first, the approval of any lawful BIOT Government has been signified; secondly, a referendum of the Chagossian people approving the transfer has been held; and, thirdly, an Act of Parliament has been passed. All those steps seem eminently sensible and would give future Governments pause for thought before proceeding to agree another surrender treaty like the one signed by Keir Starmer’s failed Government.

I have no doubt that the Minister will oppose this. It is, after all, a triple lock, and we know how the Prime Minister feels about triple locks. We on these Benches are much more open to the Weir triple lock for the Chagos Islands, in light of the persistent efforts by the Mauritian Government to undermine British sovereignty over the Chagos Islands. The noble Lord’s Bill also puts Parliament in the driving seat when it comes to any planned expenditure connected to the transfer of sovereignty. For months, we were in dispute over the Government’s previous plan to spend £35 billion on their hopelessly unpopular treaty with Mauritius. Ministers denied that figure until the Government’s own response to an FoI request in fact confirmed that that figure was correct.

Giving away islands that are British by right, and then paying for the privilege, was always an unacceptable position, and there was widespread opposition to it in this House during our debates on the Government’s Bill. It is clear that this Government cannot be trusted to negotiate a good deal for the British people, and it is no wonder that the EU is so keen to talk about closer ties when it sees such negotiating weakness from the United Kingdom. It is only right that Parliament should have the final say on any Chagos-related expenditure. Perhaps that way, we will prevent Ministers from signing off on treaties that are tantamount to total capitulation.

That brings me to the legal status of the islands. Ministers have constantly parroted the line that the islands are subject to legal uncertainty as a result of judgments in the international courts, but they have been strangely reluctant to tell us which judgments. My noble friends Lord Lilley, Lord Bellingham and Lord Murray and others have roundly discredited that position, and we will see when the Minister responds whether she can do better than her colleagues when we were considering the previous Bill. My noble friends are right that this Bill explicitly reaffirms Britain’s unquestionable sovereignty over the islands in Clause 1(2), and we support that. We are clear that the islands are British and see no problem with Parliament making that plain in primary legislation. Indeed, as many of my noble friends have pointed out, particularly the noble Lord, Lord Lilley, the United Kingdom is already subject to the obligation to maintain sovereignty over the Chagos Islands under the famous 1967 exchange of notes with the United States. This Bill merely confirms in domestic law something that is already set out in international law, which the Government keep telling us that they are so obedient to.

Finally, I want to say a word on the Chagossians, who have been so appallingly treated by successive Governments. As my noble friend Lord Hannan has pointed out many times, their quiet dignity in the light of the great injustice done to them is truly humbling, and I am delighted to see so many of them sitting in our Public Gallery today. It is high time that the Government put their mind to the views and the future of the Chagossians who were so cruelly removed from those islands.

Now that the Government have confirmed their review of the UK-Mauritius Chagos agreement, will the Minister commit to a proper consultation of Chagossian people before confirming any future policy in this area? The Government have plenty of time to do that now; their previous argument that there was not enough time falls apart. The Government previously resisted a formal consultation for fear that a judicial review might be brought, delaying their planned transfer of the islands to Mauritius. Now there is no such urgency, can we please put the Chagossian people back in the picture on the future of their own homeland?

I know the Minister will tell us that the Government have established the Chagossian Contact Group. That is a good thing, but she knows that we feel it is not enough. Since I imagine she will mention the group, will she at least tell the House when this contact group last met?

I wish the noble Lord, Lord Weir of Ballyholme, every success as he takes this Bill forward, and I hope the Government will listen to his heartfelt calls for us to draw a line under this sorry saga and say, once and for all: the Chagos Islands are British, and British they shall remain.