---

Diego Garcia Military Base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill

My Lords, I rise to particularly support Amendment 20 in the name of my noble friend Lord Callanan, and, more generally, Amendment 26 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Lilley, who is not in his place, and Amendments 38B and 78. This is an important group because it seeks to remedy the way in which the Bill will not only make the Chagossians stateless, but prejudice their ability to financially provide for themselves and their families for today and tomorrow.

Last month, I travelled to Hamburg on business. At dinner, I was sat next door but one to a gentleman who was involved in business in quite a substantial way in Mauritius. It did not take long for my German colleagues to explain to him that I sat in your Lordships’ House, upon which he leant over and implored me—no, begged me—to do that deal with Diego Garcia, so that, in his words, “our streets can be paved with gold”. Those were his exact words.

4.45 pm

That comment only a few weeks ago gets to the heart of this. The effect of this Bill does nothing to advance the interests of Diego Garcia or the Chagossians. It is certainly not about advancing the British interest. It sacrifices the rights of Chagossians, while harming our own national security, which flows from Cyprus and Diego Garcia in combination, both of which bookend the Suez Canal and underpin our ability to trade globally and generate wealth in our islands. Mauritius has never had a claim on the Chagos—it is the same distance apart as we are from Gibraltar. They are only coupled together on the basis that they were sort of generally in the same direction, and the 19th century desk clerk in the Foreign Office thought they might as well be dealt with together. That is the truth.

The Bill confects a link between the two places. By advancing the self-interest of Mauritius over the interests of our own nation and our subjects in the British Overseas Indian Territories, we see in sharp relief the cowardice of a Prime Minister who will not or cannot stand up to his chums in the legal profession. They think it is rather a good idea to pay to give up land and then ask permission from our enemies to use it, having been kidded that international law requires it, from a case in which the UK was not even a participant, citing approval from maritime and marine bodies that have no nexus over our sovereignty and no business pushing us around.

I thank the Library for pointing out so clearly that the legal basis for giving up the Chagos is not a judgment but an “advisory opinion”. The Government are playing by absurd rules that defy logic and common sense, and are not even rules anyway. This deal is all about Mauritius, in an arrangement where we will pay billions to give away our land so we can pay off their debts and pave their streets with gold, when we do not even have enough money to pay our pensioners their winter fuel allowance. It beggars belief.

Even at this stage, these amendments try to put lipstick on the pig—a reference to the domestic pigs that formerly roamed freely on the islands of the Chagos Archipelago before that base was established. After 200 years of protection, the British Indian Ocean Territory will be ceded to a country in bed with our enemies, and the citizenship rights of the Chagossians will be limited. It is down to us at least to ensure that the trust fund will be used to benefit all Chagossians, to ensure that they have a say in how it is spent to benefit our former subjects, and to ensure that the Chagossians, and their issue, are not just eligible to be employed on the base on an equitable basis, but also have preference for employment. They can then play a role in protecting their ancestral home, in the hope that, one day, it may be returned to them.

This short debate is named for the trust fund. But when we talk about trust, the trust that the British people have placed in this Government to do the right thing has been unnecessarily and inexplicably squandered and abused. In June, the noble Baroness, Lady Liddell, told your Lordships that this was a good deal for the Mauritians, who are truly getting something for nothing and being paid for the privilege. But being good for the Mauritians is not the test. The question is whether it is a good deal for the Chagossians and whether this Bill, which weakens both them and us, can at least safeguard an endowment that will be used for its intended purpose, with the control and consent of those who will benefit from it.

To govern is to choose. The Prime Minister has made a choice: to stand with his learned north London, prosecco-drinking friends, against the wishes of his plain-talking, pie-and-pint caucus in his wider party and the wider interests of the British people and our kinsmen on the Chagos. This is a bad Bill and we should fight it as hard as we can.