Labour peers suffered a bruising afternoon in the House of Lords on Monday during Third Reading of the Diego Garcia Military Base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill, facing a succession of forensic speeches that attacked the Government’s case on security, cost, self determination and the environment.
The Labour Government ultimately secured passage of the Bill, but only after a sequence of disputed voice votes that prompted accusations of confusion and procedural mishandling in the Chamber, and after Labour ministers were defeated on a Conservative regret motion by 32 votes.
The Bill was read a third time shortly after 4pm, with Baroness Chapman of Darlington declaring the treaty “protects the Diego Garcia military base and ensures that the UK retains full control over this vital asset”, and arguing it was “crucial” to ratify it “in the ever shifting geopolitical landscape of our age”. Yet peers spent the afternoon dismantling that reassurance. Lord Callanan warned the agreement “does not secure the long-term future” of the base and would “create uncertainty over the continuing unrestricted use”. Serious concern was expressed over the Pelindaba Treaty, which Conservative critics warned could be used to obstruct or legally challenge the UK’s and US’s freedom to move nuclear submarines and related assets across the Indo-Pacific. Baroness Goldie said the Government’s reassurances were “not worth the paper they are written on—just a load of flummery”. Lord Lilley subjected the Government’s case to forensic scrutiny, challenging Labour ministers to substantiate their claim that third countries could render the base “inoperable” if the deal wasn’t done, asking pointedly: “what goods and what services, and supplied by which countries?” – a question he later said ministers had conspicuously failed to answer.
Moments later, Conservative Lord Callanan tabled a regret amendment condemning the agreement on multiple fronts, including cost, lack of mandate, uncertainty over base operations and failure to consult Chagossians.
In his speech, Lord Callanan said ministers had repeatedly claimed the deal was necessary for “legal certainty” but had failed to give clear answers on what binding legal threat would actually close the base. He told the House that ministers were treating one UN view as binding while ignoring another, saying: “So we have two diametrically opposed opinions from different UN bodies, one of which is to be obeyed without hesitation while the other, apparently, is to be completely ignored.”
He again pressed the Government on the Pelindaba Treaty issue, arguing that the agreement was “completely silent” on nuclear related constraints and warning that it risked creating legal and military uncertainty rather than resolving it.
Lord Callanan took direct aim at the costs, telling peers the £34.7 billion figure “has now been confirmed in an FoI from the Government Actuary’s Department”, adding that the minister “spent months telling us that the cost is, apparently, only £3.4 billion” and saying: “I hope she will take the opportunity today to apologise and correct the record.”
The debate saw a string of senior and experienced peers question the Government’s assurances.
Baroness Goldie, a former defence minister, said the Government’s approach bore “all the hallmarks of a letter drafted by someone blind to the basic precepts of defence and security but who finds much more comfortable the languorous corridors of the FCDO”.
She said the problem, in her view, was “irremediable” and described bilateral assurances as “not worth the paper they are written on, just a load of flummery”.
Lord Altrincham raised the inflation linked cost exposure, warning: “Inflation in the future is unknown, unknowable and uncapped. That means the payments under this contract are unknown, unknowable and uncapped.” He added that the minister’s previous reference to £3.4 billion “was not correct, because the total cost is not known”.
When Lord Leong, a Labour Government whip, objected during the speech, saying: “This is Third Reading. Arguments made at previous—”, the Chamber responded with “Oh!” before Lord Leong continued: “This is Third Reading and the noble Lord is repeating what has been debated before.”
Lord Weir of Ballyholme said the Bill remained “totally unacceptable”, telling peers: “We are not simply handing over sovereignty to Mauritius; we are paying it an expensive dowry to take over what has been British sovereign territory for 200 years.” He warned that the outcome would be “a military base with a noose around it, ever tightening as time moves on.”
Baroness Hoey said she supported regret but that the word itself was “not nearly strong enough”, calling it “a very sad day if the Bill goes through”.
She attacked what she called the “hypocrisy” of the Government’s approach to self determination, saying: “No Labour Peer can say that it was, and no Labour MP can say that they were elected to do this.” She also said: “We either believe in the right of the Chagossians, in self-determination and in the long-term security of our country, or we do not.”
Lord Lilley questioned the Government’s argument that third countries might restrict supplies, asking: “what goods and what services, and supplied by which countries?” and later complained that ministers had still not answered: “She is the Minister and they are the Government; she must give us the answer and not say that there must be an answer from someone else.”
Lord Deben focused on environmental safeguards, asking the minister: “Why on earth was there not a clear connection between our payments and the upkeep of this, the most important marine environment area in the world?”
Lord Hannan of Kingsclere delivered one of the sharpest interventions, saying: “If, as the upper House and the revising Chamber, we are not prepared to take a stand on something of this magnitude and as permanent in its impact in changing the size of the United Kingdom and changing the maps… then what on earth are we here for?”
In response, Baroness Chapman accused opponents of “wilfully ignoring the facts to score political points” and called that “shameful”. She told peers: “This Government have one priority: the safety and security of our citizens, the British people.” She also conceded a key operational point on environmental enforcement, saying: “It does not have the capability and expertise to do this as it stands, but we will make sure that we work alongside Mauritius so that that important work can be done.”
After the debate, Conservative Lord Callanan’s regret amendment was put to a division and won by 201 votes to 169.
It was what followed that triggered anger and allegations of procedural confusion.
(WATCH THE VIDEO ON YOUTUBE HERE)
At 5.15pm, the Deputy Speaker, Baroness Pitkeathley, put the Question: “That the original Motion, as amended, be agreed to.” Voices were heard for “Content” and “Not content”.
She then told the House: “I am informed that I should take the voices again.” She put the same Question again, and again heard “Content” and “Not content”.
She then said: “I called the original Motion, as amended, as a result of the vote that your Lordships have just taken part in. I will take the voices again.” The same exchange followed.
At that point, the Government Chief Whip, Lord Kennedy of Southwark, intervened from the floor, saying: “The Opposition have put their amendment to the House and it has been carried. They are now going to vote against the Motion that they have just won on. I do not understand that at all.” He added: “It seems to me that the normal thing is that, when a regret amendment is won, the Motion is amended and then the House approves the Motion as amended. We have tried to do that three times.”
During this exchange, signals were made from the Labour and Liberal Democrat benches, and by the Whips, urging Conservative and crossbench peers to remain silent, with peers being told—incorrectly—that voting “not content” would amount to voting against the amendment they had just carried. The effect was to generate confusion at the moment when a further division would ordinarily have been called.
Baroness Pitkeathley then said: “My Lords, I will try putting the Question once again.” On the fourth time, the Motion, as amended, was agreed.
The Great British PAC, which has campaigned against the deal, said the sequence amounted to a serious breakdown in due process and that a further division should have been called. In a statement issued after the sitting, its CEO, Claire Bullivant, said: “Peers were asked four separate times whether it was their Lordships’ wish that the Government’s motion, that the Bill pass its Third Reading, be agreed… You do not get to pause proceedings mid-vote, deliver a speech from the Chair, misstate what is being voted on, and then re-run the question until you secure the answer you want.”
She added: “This Bill could and should have been put to a vote. It could have been defeated.”
Labour peers and ministers deny wrongdoing and insist the treaty is essential to secure the base and protect national security. But the Hansard record shows a Third Reading debate in which ministers faced repeated and pointed challenges, lost the vote on Lord Callanan’s regret motion by a clear margin, and then presided over an unusually tense and contested conclusion to proceedings.
The Bill now returns to the Commons for consideration of the four Lords amendments, though the subsequent “ping-pong” is expected to be brief given Labour’s substantial majority in the House of Commons.
STATEMENT FROM THE GREAT BRITISH PAC REGARDING THE UNUSUAL PARLIAMENTARY INTERFERENCE FROM LABOUR SPEAKER AND WHIP WHICH DENIED A KEY VOTE:
STATEMENT
What happened in the House of Lords during the Third Reading of the Chagos Bill is unacceptable, and it should outrage anyone who believes in democratic process, parliamentary integrity, and basic fairness.
A majority of peers had already just voted in favour of the Conservative regret motion. That alone demonstrated that the House had lost confidence in the Government’s handling of this legislation.
Momentum in the Chamber was clearly against the Bill. At that point, the proper and democratic course was obvious: allow a division on whether the Bill should pass.
Instead, Labour ran roughshod over due process.
Peers were asked four separate times whether it was their Lordships’ wish that the Government’s motion, that the Bill pass its Third Reading, be agreed. On the first occasion, the voices against were plainly audible and stronger than those in favour. So blatant was this that a Clerk had to intervene and require the question to be put again.
On the second and third occasions, it was obvious that the House was divided and that a formal vote was required. Yet instead of calling a division, the Labour Deputy Speaker created confusion, spoke from the Chair inappropriately, and suggested – incorrectly – that peers were somehow voting against their own motion. That was simply untrue. Peers were voting against the Government’s motion that the Bill pass.
You do not get to pause proceedings mid-vote, deliver a speech from the Chair, misstate what is being voted on, and then re-run the question until you secure the answer you want.
That is not how Parliament is meant to function.
By the fourth call, after repeated pressure, confusion and intimidation, those who had clearly and consistently opposed the motion were effectively silenced. Only then was the Government’s desired outcome declared – without a division, without clarity, and without confidence.
Anyone who watches the footage will be disgusted.
This Bill could and should have been put to a vote. It could have been defeated. Instead, Labour chose procedural manipulation over democratic legitimacy. That is not a minor technicality. It goes to the heart of trust in our institutions.
This is not how a serious country conducts itself. It is not how constitutional decisions of enormous consequence – involving sovereignty, national security, billions of pounds of public money, and the fate of an entire people – should ever be handled.
The Great British PAC will not let this pass quietly. What occurred today demands challenge, scrutiny, and accountability. Due process was trampled because Labour was afraid of losing.
That alone tells you everything you need to know.
Claire Bullivant
CEO, Great British PAC
