Beta This is a new service and it is still being tested. Tell us about a problem.

Parliament's record since 1997: debates, questions, statements, votes, bills, committees and members' interests

Where MPs Stand

Sourced briefings on the record of Parliament

Diego Garcia Military Base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill - Question

House of Lords, 13 October 2026.

Lord Bellingham (Conservative)

To ask His Majesty’s Government what plans they have, if any, to reintroduce the Diego Garcia Military Base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill.

Baroness Winterton of Doncaster (Labour)

Diego Garcia is a key strategic military asset for both the UK and the US and is vital to our shared national security. Maintaining its long-term operation has been the UK’s driving objective since negotiations began in 2022. We have always been clear that an agreement with Mauritius must protect UK interests and command US support. As the Prime Minister has said, we continue to work with both the US and Mauritius to find a diplomatic resolution. We will return to the Bill in due course.

Lord Bellingham (Conservative)

Can the Minister confirm that when John Healey told the Commons last year that the UK was facing an immediate threat of a binding decision on Chagos from UNCLOS he was exaggerating, as UNCLOS’s constitution prevents it adjudicating on disputes involving military bases? Can she also confirm that, under Article 36.2 of the ICJ statute, there is a specific exclusion around sovereignty disputes between the UK and Commonwealth countries? Can we be quite clear that there is no viable or credible threat to the UK in any UN court or tribunal? Rather than just pushing this treaty into the long grass, can she not now bin it completely and reallocate the money to the defence budget?

Baroness Winterton of Doncaster (Labour)

My Lords, the Government are determined to secure the integrity of one of the most important bases, regionally and globally. We will do everything we can to maintain the integrity of the base. The previous Conservative Government were so concerned about the future of the base that Ministers entered into negotiations. The noble Lord opposite will know that the previous Government acknowledged the fundamental principle that negotiations were necessary for the reasons set out.

Lord Weir of Ballyholme (DUP)

My Lords, obviously I do not believe that the previous Bill, or indeed a variation of it, is the right way forward, but one of the problems in previous processes regarding the Chagos Islands has been the treatment of the Chagossians themselves, with a lack of respect and a lack of giving them agency seeing them often treated, in effect, as an afterthought. Will the Minister outline what recent discussions have taken place to engage directly with the Chagossians and their representatives?

Baroness Winterton of Doncaster (Labour)

The noble Lord raises a very important point. The UK Government have great sympathy for the Chagossian community. We have made clear our regret for the manner in which they were removed from the islands in the 1960s and 1970s. We worked very hard to ensure that the agreement reflects the importance of the islands to the Chagossians. We also note that there are different views within the Chagossian community. I am sure that he will be aware of the discussions that took place during the course of the Bill, and I pay tribute to my noble friend Lady Chapman for the discussions that were held. I can assure him that we will continue to engage regularly with the Chagossian community, including through the Chagossian Contact Group, which was established under this Government.

Lord Bruce of Bennachie (Liberal Democrat)

My Lords, the Chagos Islands are a British imperial legacy from which the United States derives benefit. When the Bill was in front of the House, the commitment was made that the Chagossians’ rights should be protected—their right to live there and their right to return and visit and work there. Will the Government, if they introduce the Bill back, include that in the Bill, ensure that the Chagossian are consulted and ensure that the Americans understand that that has to be part of any agreement?

Baroness Winterton of Doncaster (Labour)

I thank the noble Lord for that question. As I say, this Government established the contact group so that these issues could be raised. The treaty enables Mauritius to develop a programme of resettlement. The agreement is the only viable path to resettlement on the archipelago. UK-based Chagossians who do not hold Mauritian citizenship and who meet the criteria will be eligible for Mauritian citizenship and therefore able to participate in any future programme of resettlement. We continue these discussions with the contact group in our efforts to find a diplomatic solution to suit all sides.

Lord Beamish (Labour)

My Lords, my noble friend outlined the importance of Diego Garcia, not just for the military but for the intelligence community as well—something that was recognised by the Benches opposite when they were in Government. A stable future for that base is important, not just for the UK but for the US and Five Eyes partners. Would she agree with me that trying to get an agreement sooner rather than later would be in the interests of not only UK security but international security?

Baroness Winterton of Doncaster (Labour)

My noble friend has absolutely put his finger on it; he has great experience in this area, with his chairmanship of the ISC. It is true that the military base is vital for the UK’s defence and intelligence, and, through that, for the security of the British people. Quite frankly, this has, as I have said, been recognised not only by this Government but by the previous Government. It is vital that we work to find a solution to the issue now, so that we can secure the future of the base for this country’s defence.

Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Conservative)

My Lords, I was part of the previous Government. Prior to the formal negotiations, in 2019 I met with the then Mauritian Prime Minister. The red line throughout all the negotiations, informal and formal, was the issue of security. It could not be satisfied in the Bill that was proposed and that is why this party opposed it. We said no not once but 11 times; the Government should say no again.

Baroness Winterton of Doncaster (Labour)

From what the noble Lord has said—I know he knows a lot about this, given the history that he has outlined—it is vital that we protect the base to secure the future defence and intelligence security of this country. His Government recognised that this needed to be sorted out and that we needed to find a solution. We must continue to try to do that. The Prime Minister has made it very clear that he wants to make sure that we have US support and Mauritius support to take this forward. We will continue to undertake those negotiations to find a diplomatic solution. Let us be clear that this is about the future security and defence of this country.

Baroness Ludford (Liberal Democrat)

My Lords, despite the efforts of the noble Lord, Lord Ahmad, to present the case of the Official Opposition rather differently, does the Minister agree with me that throughout the proceedings of the Bill, and now, what they are really saying is that they have never agreed with the principle of negotiations with Mauritius? But they started them, and they have never owned that contradiction. Does she agree that the Official Opposition are deeply hypocritical on this matter?

Baroness Winterton of Doncaster (Labour)

The noble Baroness makes a very important observation. I note that her party entered into the discussions that were held during the course of the Bill, and my noble friends Lady Chapman and Lord Coaker, who is also here, tried to find a way through on a cross-party basis. It was important that that happened. I reiterate that the previous Government were concerned about the future of the base. That is why they started the negotiations in the first place.

Lord Callanan (Conservative)

My Lords, in his meeting with President Trump, the Prime Minister confirmed that Keir Starmer’s failed Chagos surrender Bill will be reviewed in the light of continued US opposition, 24 hours after he told the Mauritian Prime Minister that he was still committed to it. Will the Minister say when this review will be complete and when, if ever, Ministers expect to conclude a new treaty between the UK and Mauritius?

Baroness Winterton of Doncaster (Labour)

First, even though we worked in lockstep with the US throughout the process of finalising the agreement, and it was tested at the highest levels of US security, it is obvious that the treaty and the negotiations can succeed only if the US is supportive of them, so we are continuing the negotiations. The Prime Minister has made it absolutely clear that he wants this resolved, and that is what we will do.