Conservatives lead charge for Chagossians as Labour goes missing in Lords Chagos debate

The House of Lords sat late into Tuesday night to begin Committee Stage of the Diego Garcia Military Base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill, while more than two dozen Chagossians watched from the public gallery, sad, quiet and stoical.

They sat there from 4.30pm, watching peers decide the future of their homeland, their passports and their identity.

In the chamber itself, the picture was very different. Excluding front bench spokespeople, there were at most three Labour peers, a couple of crossbenchers, and no Liberal Democrat backbenchers present. By contrast, Conservative and Unionist peers turned out in numbers and led almost all of the detailed scrutiny of the Bill. 

For many Conservatives, the message could not be clearer. The Chagossians turned up, the Conservatives turned up, Labour did not.

Brilliant Conservative speeches, almost no Labour interest

The debate saw a string of powerful speeches from Conservative and Unionist peers and their allies. Lord Callanan opened proceedings with a forensic critique of the Bill and a purpose clause designed to spell out, in plain English, what the legislation actually does. He pointed out that the Bill

• cedes sovereignty over the Chagos Archipelago to Mauritius,
• dissolves the British Indian Ocean Territory as a British Overseas Territory,
• maintains British administration only on Diego Garcia for the purposes of the US UK military base,
• and curtails previously granted nationality routes for the Chagossian people. 

Lord Callanan stressed that the Bill is “completely silent” on who will be sovereign over the Chagos islands in future, something that breaks with the precedent of previous legislation which openly named the state assuming sovereignty when British territory was handed away.

Lord Lilley followed with a characteristically robust contribution that cut to the heart of the political issue. He highlighted evidence that more than 99 per cent of Chagossians polled want to remain British, drawing on a survey of over 3,500 Chagossians, a huge proportion of a global population of perhaps eight to ten thousand people. This polling has been reported in detail by Conservative Post and the Great British PAC, with independent analysis confirming that over 99 per cent of respondents backed British sovereignty and opposed the current deal.

Lord Hannan of Kingsclere delivered one of the key constitutional points. In remarks widely shared by campaigners, he argued that it is perfectly acceptable to conduct a referendum across scattered territories, and that there was no technical barrier to consulting the Chagossian people directly. The obvious question followed, why has the Government not organised such a vote, and why have Labour not demanded one. 

Baroness Hoey, who has campaigned tirelessly on the issue, gave one of the most moving speeches of the night. Drawing on testimony from Chagossian natives, she described how families were ordered to leave their homes with only what they could carry, pets and livestock were taken and killed, possessions thrown into the sea, families torn apart, and how one islander remembered the moment the ship pulled away and the islands vanished behind them as “the day the world went dark”. 

“The Chagossians were ordered to leave their homes with only what they could carry. Some recall arriving at the jetty to see their dogs and livestock taken from them and killed before they were pushed onto the ship. Others remember family members separated, possessions thrown into the sea, and the moment the islands disappeared over the horizon as, ‘the day the world went dark’.”

Her point was simple. If Parliament knows all this, if the horror of what was done by a previous Labour Government is now accepted, how can a Labour Government in 2025 push through a deal that the Chagossians overwhelmingly do not want, while Labour peers largely fail even to attend the debate.

Lord McCrea of Magherafelt and Cookstown of the Democratic Unionist Party also spoke in ringing terms about sovereignty, remarking, in a line that Great British PAC and others have circulated widely, that Mauritius has as much claim to Chagos as he does to the title of Dauphin of France.

Lib Dem’s Lord Purvis and Labour under fire

A major flashpoint during Committee was the status of the UK Mauritius treaty itself. Lord Purvis of Tweed, leading for the Liberal Democrats, asserted that the treaty had already been ratified and that its terms, including Mauritian sovereignty, were essentially a done deal.

Conservative peers, backed up by external constitutional analysis, pointed out that this is simply not correct. Under long standing practice, now reflected in the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act, the Government does not ratify a treaty until the necessary implementing legislation has passed through Parliament and the 21 sitting day scrutiny period has expired. 

The Lords Library briefing on the Diego Garcia Bill itself confirms that the Bill is part of the domestic process that must be completed before ratification, and explicitly notes that the treaty has not yet been ratified and cannot come into force until both the UK and Mauritius have done so. 

Great British PAC seized on this, challenging Labour front bencher Baroness Chapman of Darlington and urging her to acknowledge that Lord Purvis was wrong and that the treaty is not yet ratified. They accused certain Labour and Lib Dem figures of misleading Parliament on this point and demanded that they “get the facts right”.

Later in the evening, Lord Lilley went further and accused Lord Purvis of aligning himself with Labour, not out of principle, but because he wanted more Liberal Democrat peers appointed to the upper House. According to accounts of the debate, Lord Purvis did not deny this charge when it was put to him, an omission that has been noted with dismay by Conservative peers and campaigners. 

To Conservative eyes, the picture was an unflattering one. A Labour Government pushing ahead with a contentious treaty, Liberal Democrat spokesmen apparently more interested in numbers in the Lords than in the Chagossian people sitting above them, and Labour barely present in the chamber while life changing decisions were debated.

Who pays, and who loses, under Labour’s Chagos deal

Outside Parliament, the Great British PAC has been highlighting what it describes as the absurdity of Labour’s Chagos deal. In one widely shared post, it argued that the United States pays for its own military facilities, yet Labour effectively wants the British taxpayer to pick up the bill for a base used primarily by the US military, while at the same time giving away British territory. The PAC concluded bluntly that this “makes no sense” and said that Keir Starmer will “go down in the history books as a complete fool.”

It is also worth noting that the treaty was not included in Labour’s manifesto pledges. In fact, the party’s 2024 manifesto committed to defending the British Overseas Territories and Crown Dependencies, a stance that directly contradicted by its current approach.

Why are British Taxpayers Being Forced to Pay to Give Away Territory?

Official documents from Parliament and the Government put the deal’s net present value of UK payments to Mauritius at around 3.4 billion pounds over a 99 year period, with an average annual payment of about 101 million pounds in 2025 prices.

However, Conservative MPs, including Andrew Rosindell, and several media investigations have shown that once inflation and full liabilities are factored in, the total cost to Britain over the century long term of the agreement will be closer to 35 billion pounds. 

Great British PAC has echoed that figure in its own campaigning, arguing that Labour is not only giving up sovereignty but committing Britain to an “eye watering” financial settlement of roughly 35 billion pounds, to subsidise Mauritius while retaining no sovereignty over the islands, apart from special rights on Diego Garcia. 

From a Conservative perspective, it is difficult to see how this combination can be defended by Labour. The US gets a secure base, Mauritius gets both sovereignty and vast sums over the long term, while the British taxpayer pays the bill and the British Chagossians lose both territory and clarity over their identity.

Chagossian identity under pressure

Another area of growing concern is the status of Chagossian identity and official records. Great British PAC has said it has seen evidence that Mauritian authorities are already altering Chagossians’ official documents, changing places of birth such as Diego Garcia, Peros Banhos and Salomon to “Mauritius”. Campaigners argue that if this is happening, it risks erasing Chagossian identity and history from the record in advance of any formal sovereignty transfer. 

At the same time, the treaty and Bill will dissolve the British Indian Ocean Territory as a British Overseas Territory, and the nationality clauses in the Bill amend or repeal earlier provisions that were introduced to correct injustices in British nationality law for Chagossians. The House of Commons Library briefing confirms that the Bill’s purpose includes changes to nationality law that reflect the disappearance of BIOT as a territory.

For many Chagossians, this is not a technical matter. Their passports are one of the last tangible links to the islands of their birth or origin. If those links are replaced with generic “Mauritius” labels and if future nationality provisions are weaker or more complicated, then part of their identity is eroded.

Baroness Hoey’s speech, with its description of families forced aboard ships, dogs killed on the quayside, possessions thrown into the sea and the islands fading from view as “the day the world went dark”, captured the emotional reality behind what, on paper, is described as a technical realignment of sovereignty. 

Do the Chagossians support Labour’s deal… NO!

The Government and Labour front bench have repeatedly claimed to be working with a “wide group” of Chagossian representatives in the UK and overseas. Baroness Chapman pointed to a contact group that officials say has “wide representation” from communities in the UK, Mauritius, Seychelles and elsewhere. 

However, the Great British PAC and several other organisations have pushed back forcefully against this narrative. The PAC have questioned Baroness Chapman’s claim that Labour is engaging with a broad group of Chagossians, asking, “Who are these people?”

The PAC have produced evidence independently verified by Whitestone Insight, which surveyed more than 3,500 Chagossians across the global diaspora. More than 99 per cent of respondents said they want to remain British and oppose any treaty handing sovereignty of their homeland to Mauritius, a result that stands in stark contrast to the position Labour continues to advance.

Figures published with the Friends of the British Overseas Territories show that 99.22 per cent of those surveyed supported retaining British sovereignty, with similarly overwhelming majorities backing the judicial review organised by the Great British PAC and currently challenging the treaty in the courts.

Conservative peers repeatedly raised these findings in Parliament. Lord Lilley noted that, in a worldwide community of just eight to ten thousand people, a sample of over 3,500 is exceptionally large. When more than 99 per cent of them express a desire to remain British, he argued, it becomes difficult to claim that Labour’s treaty reflects the wishes of the people most directly affected. 

Lord Hannan’s call for a referendum on the issue sits in the same context. If the community is this small and so consistently in favour of remaining British, why not simply ask them formally, and why are Labour and their allies resisting any such direct consultation. 

Labour’s attitude, in the chamber and beyond

The visual impression on Tuesday evening was unforgiving. On one side, the public gallery, filled with Chagossians who had travelled and waited to see their case debated. Below them, a conspicuously thin Labour presence, no Liberal Democrat backbenchers and only a couple of crossbenchers, while Conservative and Unionist peers carried almost all of the detailed scrutiny. 

As the evening wore on and peers clearly grew tired, the sense that Labour and the Government simply wanted the Bill pushed through became more obvious. Important amendments, including those tabled by Baroness Hoey on bird, fish and environmental protections, were taken late and at speed. To many Conservatives, it looked like a rush to finish rather than a serious attempt to engage with the detail, despite the presence of the Chagossians who had been watching since mid afternoon. 

Outside the Chamber, Great British PAC summed up the wider concern among many Conservatives and Chagossian campaigners. In one series of posts it argued that

• Labour’s Chagos deal gives up sovereignty and piles huge costs onto the British taxpayer,
• the deal does not add up financially, at an estimated 35 billion pounds over the term,
• Chagossians’ birthplaces are already being administratively relabelled as “Mauritius”,
• and Labour is pressing ahead despite overwhelming evidence that Chagossians want to remain British. 

For many on the Conservative side, it is hard to avoid the conclusion that Labour is once again being cruel to the Chagossians in 2025, just as a previous Labour government was cruel in the 1960s and 70s when the islanders were uprooted. The difference now is that the community can see and measure the extent of that cruelty in real time. They can sit in the gallery and count how many Labour peers turn up, they can read the treaty that gives away their homeland, and they can see a government and an Opposition leadership that refuse to pause, listen or consult them properly.

Conclusion, the Chagossians must be consulted

The Diego Garcia Military Base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill is not a routine measure. It terminates British sovereignty over an entire territory, amends nationality law in ways that cut across a long promised correction of past injustices, commits Britain to vast payments over nearly a century, and leaves a small, scattered people uncertain about their legal status and identity. 

On Tuesday night, Conservative and Unionist peers, together with allies such as Baroness Hoey, did the heavy lifting in scrutinising that Bill. They challenged the Government on sovereignty, on cost, on security, on the environment and on the rights of the Chagossians themselves. They corrected factual errors about treaty ratification, questioned Labour’s claims about who they are consulting, and put on record the polling that shows over 99 per cent of Chagossians want to remain British.

Labour, by contrast, looked absent in numbers and attitude. At the very moment when Parliament should be listening hardest, Labour appeared not to listen at all.

If the United Kingdom is to take seriously its obligations to the Chagossian people, then one simple demand must be met. The Chagossians must be consulted, in a clear and formal way, before sovereignty over their homeland is handed away in their name.