Lords Add Oversight, Chagossian Referendum to Diego Garcia Bill

High-Level Summary

The House of Lords held Oral Questions on support for early‑years toilet‑training, screening to prevent sudden cardiac death in young people, the Government’s stance on the Muslim Brotherhood, and reliance on X for communications. Peers then considered the Report stage of the Diego Garcia Military Base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill, debating contingency for base non‑usability, marine protection, security issues, costs, and Chagossian engagement. The House agreed amendments on contingency if the base becomes unusable, enhanced cost transparency and parliamentary oversight of expenditure, and a written referendum of the Chagossian community on rights implementation; a proposed sovereignty referendum was defeated. Ministers also undertook to continue discussions before Third Reading on parliamentary scrutiny of Orders in Council.

Detailed Summary

Arrangement of Business – reminders on Question Time discipline

Lord Kennedy of Southwark reminded Members that “questions should be short and confined to not more than two points” [ref: a943.1/2], and added, “I have also reminded Ministers of the need to be short, sharp, concise and focused” [ref: a943.1/5]. The Lord Speaker, Lord McFall of Alcluith, wished Members a happy and “warm new year” [ref: a943.2/1]. No decisions were sought.

Oral Question: Toilet‑training – support for parents

Baroness Freeman of Steventon asked about support for toilet‑training for children aged 18–30 months. Baroness Blake of Leeds highlighted Best Start family hubs, stating “we are investing in Best Start family hubs across the country” [ref: a943.5/1], and later said government is investing £500 million to deliver “over 1,000 hubs by 2028” reaching “500,000 additional children” [ref: a944.4/1]. She declined to mandate labelling on nappy products: “I am not in a position to give the commitment that she is asking for at this time” [ref: a944.0/1].

On special educational needs and disabilities, she said support must be “bespoke, tailored to the specific needs of families and children” [ref: a944.2/1], with remote access to advice through hubs and digital channels [ref: a945.6/1]. Peers raised environmental impacts, screen time and school readiness, and links to child poverty, which the Minister said is a “top priority for this Government” to tackle [ref: a946.5/1]. No policy changes were announced.

Oral Question: Screening to prevent sudden cardiac death in young people

Lord Hampton asked about screening policy. Baroness Blake of Leeds said the UK National Screening Committee “will open a public consultation on this in the spring” [ref: a947.3/1] and emphasised reliance on evidence. She added, “I am not convinced that the evidence is as categoric as the noble Lord asserts” [ref: a948.1/1], and praised the NSC’s “well‑earned international reputation for rigour” [ref: a948.3/1].

International comparisons were discussed; the Minister said Italian data were unclear and the UK had requested further information [ref: a948.5/1]. On response capability, she cited “over 110,000” defibrillators and the importance of maintenance and training [ref: a949.1/1]. Condolences were expressed regarding a recent tragedy in Switzerland [ref: a949.3/1]. Next step: public consultation in spring; no interim screening rollout was announced.

Oral Question: Muslim Brotherhood – potential designation and wider counter‑extremism tools

Lord Godson asked whether the UK would follow US moves regarding the Muslim Brotherhood. Lord Hanson of Flint reiterated the “long‑standing position not to comment on the detail of security and intelligence matters… including whether or not a specific organisation is being considered for proscription” [ref: a950.3/1], adding that proscription is “kept under review” [ref: a950.5/1].

He highlighted a “wide range of offences and powers” to counter threats, including in the charity, broadcasting, education and immigration spheres [ref: a951.2/1]. He undertook to examine the counter‑extremism commissioner vacancy and “get back” to the House [ref: a951.4/1], and said proscription removes “legitimate support for organisations that foster terrorism” [ref: a951.6/1]. On US positions, he stated, “We are an independent nation” and will assess US evidence when complete [ref: a952.1/1]. No policy change was announced.

Oral Question: Government communications on X (Twitter)

Lord Pack asked about reducing reliance on X. Baroness Anderson of Stoke‑on‑Trent said, “Paid advertising on X has been suspended since April 2023; the platform is used only for organic content” [ref: a953.5/1]. She argued government presence is needed where audiences are: “19.2 million British citizens use X” [ref: a954.0/1], and “10.8 million families use X as their main news source” [ref: a955.0/1].

The Government affirmed multi‑channel communications; print “remains a key part of our communication strategy” [ref: a954.4/1]. On governance, there is a new Permanent Secretary of the Government Communication Service with annual and ad hoc platform reviews [ref: a955.4/1]. Defending use of X, she said “it is incredibly important that there is a counter‑narrative” [ref: a956.3/1]. No change in policy beyond the suspension of paid advertising.

Diego Garcia Bill – Report: contingency for base non‑usability (Amendment 1)

Lord Craig of Radley sought to ensure UK payments to Mauritius could cease if the base became unusable. Baroness Chapman of Darlington cited treaty law, saying international law “permits the termination of a treaty” where performance is impossible [ref: a964.0/5], and quoted Article 61 of the Vienna Convention: “‘A party may invoke the impossibility of performing a treaty’ … where there is “the permanent disappearance or destruction of an object indispensable for the execution of the treaty” [ref: a964.0/11].

Outcome: On division, Amendment 1 was agreed (Ayes 132, Noes 124) [ref: a966.0/2; a966.2/1]. Next steps: not stated in the transcript.

Diego Garcia Bill – Report: Chagossian engagement, consultation and referendums (Amendments 2, 19, 32, 33)

Debate covered consultation duties and proposals for Chagossian referendums. Lord Callanan argued for formal consultation on citizenship and wider issues [ref: a968.2/1]. The International Relations and Defence Committee (IRDC) reported strong feelings among Chagossians, including a sense of injustice, scepticism towards Mauritius and a desire for greater agency [ref: a970.0/8; a970.0/9; a970.0/10].

The Minister said international law provides Chagossians “no right to self‑determination… [and] no legal entitlement to a referendum” [ref: a991.1/5], and described the treaty as “the only viable path to resettlement on the archipelago” [ref: a991.1/15]. She outlined the Trust Fund Board’s Chagossian majority with a UK‑based representative [ref: a991.1/8; a991.1/9].

Outcomes: Amendment 2 (consultation) was withdrawn [ref: a995.0/6]. Amendment 19 (tying commencement to a written Chagossian referendum on rights implementation) was agreed (Ayes 210, Noes 131) [ref: a1020.3/2; a1020.5/1]. Amendment 32 (sovereignty referendum) was defeated (Ayes 168, Noes 178) [ref: a1023.2/2; a1023.4/1]. Amendment 33 (consequential “Referendum No. 2”) was agreed [ref: a1026.2/2].

Diego Garcia Bill – Report: Marine Protected Area (MPA) and enforcement (Amendments 3, 28–31A, 42, 43)

Peers queried Mauritius’s capacity to maintain protections. The Government noted Mauritius has announced the Chagos Archipelago Marine Protected Area and that “no commercial fishing will be allowed in any part of the area” [ref: a1001.1/2]. The UK will not fund this directly but will provide technical support; environmental disputes could follow Article 14 procedures [ref: a1001.5/3]. The Minister said, “We will publish relevant MoUs… once these are finalised” [ref: a1001.5/1].

Outcome: Amendment 3 and related proposals were withdrawn or not moved [ref: a1003.2/4].

Diego Garcia Bill – Report: Costs transparency and parliamentary oversight (Amendments 7, 39, 47, 50)

Peers raised concerns about the treaty’s fiscal impact and methodology. The Government stated the net present value is “£3.4 billion in today’s money” with an “average annual payment… £101 million”, using Green Book methods confirmed by the Government Actuary’s Department [ref: a1007.0/3].

Outcomes: Amendment 47 (requiring publication of the total real‑terms cost and methodologies) was agreed (Ayes 194, Noes 130) [ref: a1031.0/2; a1031.2/1]. Amendment 50 (estimates and supply scrutiny, five‑yearly updates and a mechanism to seek to cease payments if dispute resolution is exhausted) was agreed (Ayes 131, Noes 127) [ref: a1033.2/3; a1034.1/1]. Amendment 7 was withdrawn [ref: a1008.0/4].

Diego Garcia Bill – Report: Security, hostile actors and Pelindaba Treaty (Amendments 8, 14, 21, 22, 44, 49)

Peers probed risks from hostile state influence and the Pelindaba Treaty’s implications. Lord Coaker, for the Government, cited allies’ support, quoting a US statement that the deal “secures the operational capabilities of the base… We are confident the base is protected for many years ahead” [ref: a1014.0/4; a1014.0/5]. He said the treaty is compatible with existing obligations and “will not reduce our ability to deploy the full range of advanced military capabilities” [ref: a1014.2/8].

On India, he clarified there was no new defence presence on the Chagos Islands: it was “a renewal of previous agreements on an Indian satellite station on the Mauritius mainland” [ref: a1014.2/10]. Outcome: amendments in this area were withdrawn or not moved [ref: a1017.0/2].

Diego Garcia Bill – Report: Orders in Council and parliamentary scrutiny (Amendments 34–37)

Lord Lansley sought enhanced scrutiny of Orders in Council affecting Diego Garcia. The Government said Clause 5 creates a statutory power: orders “will… be statutory instruments” with the negative procedure where primary legislation is amended; otherwise no procedure, citing precedents in the Cyprus and Hong Kong Acts [ref: a1029.1/2; a1029.1/4; a1029.1/5]. The Minister agreed to continue discussions before Third Reading [ref: a1030.0/1]. Outcome: Amendment 34 withdrawn; related amendments not moved [ref: a1030.0/2].

Diego Garcia Bill – Report: Inter‑parliamentary committee proposal (Amendments 51, 54, 55)

Lord Purvis of Tweed proposed a UK–Mauritius inter‑parliamentary committee on treaty implementation and Chagossian rights. The Government declined, noting potential overlap with the treaty’s Joint Commission and existing parliamentary scrutiny, and warning of delay to ratification [ref: a1038.0/3; a1038.0/4]. Outcome: Amendment 51 withdrawn [ref: a1038.1/3]. The House adjourned at 8.43 pm [ref: a1038.1/7].