The UK’s Chagos Islands Bill is in limbo after the House of Lords delayed proceedings, citing the need for consultations with the Chagossian community and unresolved strategic and legal issues. An amendment by Lord Callanan requires the Government to engage with the UK Chagossians for 30 days before ratifying the agreement to cede sovereignty of the archipelago to Mauritius. In response, Labour pulled the Bill from the Lords, reportedly concerned that Liberal Democrat peers might vote with the Conservatives, potentially embarrassing the government.
The House of Lords International Relations and Defence Committee (IRDC) conducted extensive consultations throughout 2024-25, finding the transfer decision to be politically driven. Committee members raised concerns about the credibility of the government’s position, questioning how advisory judgements could be converted into binding arrangements under international law. They also scrutinised the historical context, noting that Chagossians were forcibly evicted in the 1960s and that current engagement with the community has been described as superficial. The Committee warned that Mauritius’ track record in distributing UK-provided funds to Chagossians casts doubt on whether the £40 million trust fund would reach its intended beneficiaries.
Strategic considerations around Diego Garcia were central to the Committee’s discussions. The base is described as pivotal for UK and US operations in the Indo-Pacific, serving as a “pivot point” between the Middle East and Asia. Committee witnesses emphasised the island’s irreplaceable role in Western defence, raising concerns about future defence and security arrangements, as well as the uncertain status of the Marine Protection Area, a significant ecological asset that Mauritius has yet to formally recognise. Experts also flagged potential Chinese interest in nearby islands and the implications for regional security, although the Committee noted that existing US capabilities could mitigate surveillance risks.
Financial implications were another major point of contention. Critics questioned the long-term costs of the agreement, which government estimates place at around £101 million per year over 99 years, with total expenditures projected at £3-4 billion, though some warn costs could exceed £30 billion. Questions were also raised about lease terms, the right of renewal, and the enforceability of future extensions, highlighting potential vulnerabilities if geopolitical conditions change.
The IRDC also recommended leveraging the agreement to strengthen operational links with Indo-Pacific partners, including India, Australia, and France, to reinforce regional stability. The Committee highlighted India’s investments in Mauritius and the broader strategic value of partnerships grounded in the rule of law.
Additional scrutiny arose over the role of Attorney General Lord Hermer, whose previous legal work supported Chagossian asylum claims, raising concerns over potential conflicts of interest. With these unresolved questions, the Chagos Sovereignty Bill remains unconfirmed, leaving its future in the hands of Prime Minister Keir Starmer’s government as the House of Lords continues to weigh the political, legal, and strategic implications.
