---

Diego Garcia Military Base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill

My Lords, the amendments in this group relate to issues around the ceding of sovereignty over the Chagos Archipelago to Mauritius. I asked a question on the previous day of Committee about the drafting of this Bill and why it does not mention Mauritius. I wonder whether the Minister has had time to think about that and will be able to give your Lordships’ Committee an answer today. As I mentioned then, there are some previous examples of similar legislation that actually named the state that is gaining sovereignty, so I am keen to know why the precedent was not followed in this case.

My Amendment 33 simply seeks to remove two unnecessary subsections from the Bill. If we remove Clause 3(1) and (2), as my amendment would, we will be left with the simple statement that

“His Majesty has under his prerogative the like powers to make laws for Diego Garcia as His Majesty had before commencement for the British Indian Ocean Territory”.

With that simple statement, the Bill would assert His Majesty’s powers sufficiently and he could use those powers to ensure the continuity of law from the British Indian Ocean Territory to Diego Garcia. Given that these powers are under the prerogative, we cannot understand why a statutory provision is necessary to ensure the continuity of law following the ceding of sovereignty.

Furthermore, if the Bill passes in its current drafting and a future Parliament were to repeal this clause, what would the effect be on His Majesty’s prerogative powers? I understand that the Government’s intention is not to undermine the prerogative with the Bill—that is clear from Clause 5(4)—but why have they not included an identical provision in Clause 3? If the Government are merely confirming His Majesty’s prerogative powers, should the drafting not be simpler, so as not to risk limiting the prerogative?

10 pm

My Amendment 51 is a probing amendment that seeks to understand why Ministers have kept the drafting of Clause 5 so broad. In its current form, the Bill grants:

“An Order under this section may amend, repeal or revoke any legislation of any of His Majesty’s dominions passed or made before commencement”.

Why does this apply to

“any of His Majesty’s dominions”

when the Bill is supposed to relate to Diego Garcia specifically? Does the Minister agree that the language here could be tightened?

Turning to the amendments in the name of my noble friend Lord Lansley, he is seeking to prevent an Order in Council under this section from amending, repealing or revoking any legislation unless it has been approved by a resolution of each House. My understanding of my noble friend Lord Lilley’s Amendment 51BA is that he is seeking to achieve a similar outcome. Yet again, I will be interested to hear my noble friend’s arguments and I certainly want to avoid pre-empting them at this stage.