Diego Garcia Military Base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill

Committee of the whole House
Monday 20th October 2025 Commons Chamber

Considered in Committee

[Ms Nusrat Ghani in the Chair]

Clause 1

Commencement of Treaty and main provisions of this Act

[The Chairman of Ways and Means (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I remind Members that in Committee, they should not address the Chair as “Deputy Speaker”; please use our names when addressing the Chair. “Madam Chair” or “Madam Chairman” are acceptable.

Before we begin proceedings on the Bill, I can inform the House that I, as Chairman of Ways and Means, am minded to select amendment 7 and new clause 1, in the name of the right hon. Member for Witham (Priti Patel), and amendment 9, in the name of the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Dr Pinkerton), for separate decision at the end of the debate.

18:35

[Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)]

I beg to move amendment 1, page 1, line 7, leave out subsection (2) and insert—

“(1A) The Treaty and sections 2 to 4 of this Act do not come into force until the duties outlined in section [The additional period and right to extend: duty to publish legal advice and risk assessments] are discharged.”

This amendment together with NC2 would prevent the Treaty from coming into force until the Government has published any legal advice or risk assessments regarding the UK’s ability to extend its rights over Diego Garcia after the initial period specified in the Treaty.

[The Chairman of Ways and Means]

With this it will be convenient to consider the following:

Amendment 7, page 1, line 7, leave out subsection (2) and insert—

“(1A) The Treaty and sections 2 to 4 of this Act do not come into force until the Secretary of State lays before Parliament a memorandum on the obligations under international law which require the UK to cede sovereignty of the British Indian Ocean Territory to the Government of Mauritius.

(1B) The memorandum specified in subsection (1) must include—

(a) a summary of the legal advice received by the UK Government on this issue;

(b) an analysis of the status of UK's sovereignty over the British Indian Ocean Territory under international law;

(c) the legal argument for the cessation of British sovereignty over the British Indian Ocean Territory; and

(d) the risks which the UK Government may have faced had it not reached an agreement with the Government of Mauritius.

(1C) The report specified in subsections (1A) and (1B) must be laid before Parliament no later than two months after this Act receives Royal Assent.”

Amendment 9, page 1, line 7, leave out subsection (2) and insert—

“(1A) Before sections 2 to 4 of this Act come into force, the Secretary of State must—

(a) seek to undertake negotiations with the Government of Mauritius on whether Mauritius will establish a right for Chagossians to return and reside in the Chagos Islands; and

(b) seek agreement to a referendum for Chagossians on self-determination within any negotiations which take place under paragraph (a); and

(c) lay before both Houses of Parliament a report on progress on establishing negotiations with the Government of Mauritius and the outcome of any that take place.

(1B) Within two months of the report being laid before the House of Commons under paragraph (1a), the Secretary of State must table a substantive motion in the House of Commons on the contents of the report.”

This amendment requires that the Government must undertake negotiations with Mauritius on a Chagossian right of return and on a referendum, with a report laid before Parliament on the outcome of the negotiations. The Government must subsequently table a substantive motion in the House of Commons on the content of that report.

Amendment 10, page 1, line 7, leave out subsection (2) and insert—

“(1A) The Treaty and sections 2 to 4 of this Act do not come into force until the Secretary of State establishes a public consultation of Chagossian people residing in the UK on the Treaty.

(1B) The public consultation under section (1A) must be established within two months of this Act receiving Royal Assent.”

This amendment requires the Government to establish a public consultation with the Chagossian people residing in the UK, before the Treaty and sections 2 to 4 of this Act can come into force.

Amendment 11, page 1, line 7, leave out subsection (2) and insert—

“(1A) The Treaty and sections 2 to 4 of this Act do not come into force until the Secretary of State makes a statement before Parliament outlining proposals for a public consultation on the Treaty.

(1B) A statement made under subsection (1A) must be made within two months of this Act receiving Royal Assent.”

This amendment requires the Government to make a statement before Parliament outlining proposals for a public consultation on the Treaty within two months of this Act receiving Royal Assent, before the Treaty and sections 2 to 4 of this Act can come into force.

Amendment 14, page 1, line 7, leave out subsection (2) and insert—

“(1A) The Treaty and sections 2 to 4 of this Act do not come into force until the Secretary of State lays before Parliament an impact assessment detailing the benefits and costs to the United Kingdom, including in financial and security terms, of the Treaty.

(1B) The Secretary of State must lay the impact assessment under section (1A) within 2 months of the passing of this Act.”

This amendment requires the Government to publish an impact assessment detailing the benefits and costs to the United Kingdom, including in financial and security terms, of the Treaty within two months of this Act receiving Royal Assent, before the Treaty and sections 2 to 4 of this Act can come into force.

Clause stand part.

Amendment 13, in clause 2, page 1, line 17, leave out subsection (b).

This amendment removes section 2 (b) of the Bill which aims to remove citizens of the British Indian Ocean Territory from the list of British Overseas Territories recognised under the British Nationality Act 1981, thus preserving British Chagossian’s nationality and associated rights.

Clauses 2 to 4 stand part.

Amendment 3, in clause 5, page 3, line 29, leave out subsections (1) to (4).

Amendment 4, page 3, line 36, at beginning insert—

“With the exception of the subject matters listed in subsection (3A),”.

Amendment 8, page 3, line 40, leave out subsection (3) and insert—

“(2A) An Order under this Act may not be made unless a draft of the order has been laid before Parliament and approved by a resolution of each House.”

This amendment provides that any order made under the Act would need to have the approval of each House of Parliament.

Amendment 6, page 3, line 40, leave out

“is subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament” and insert “may not be made unless a draft of the order has been laid before Parliament and approved by a resolution of each House”.

Amendment 5, page 4, line 3, at end insert—

“(3A) An order under this section relating to Diego Garcia, or the rights of Chagossians residing in the United Kingdom, may not be made unless a draft of the order has been laid before Parliament and approved by a resolution of each House.”

Clause 5 stand part.

Amendment 2, in clause 6, page 4, line 17, leave out “see section 1(2)” and insert “see section 1(1A)”.

This amendment is consequential on NC2.

Clause 6 stand part.

New clause 1—Approval of payments to Mauritius by the House of Commons—

“(1) No payment may be made by the Government of the United Kingdom to the Government of Mauritius under Article 11 (1)(a) of the Treaty without the approval of the House of Commons.

(2) No development framework under Article 11 (1)(c) may be agreed by the Government of the United Kingdom with the Government of Mauritius without the approval of the House of Commons.

(3) No payment may be made under any development framework agreed between the Government of the United Kingdom and the Government of Mauritius without the approval of the House of Commons.

(4) The approval required by subsections (1), (2) and (3) must be in the form of a resolution of the House of Commons.”

This new clause requires parliamentary approval for any payment by the UK Government to the Government of Mauritius under the Treaty.

New clause 2—The additional period and right to extend: duty to publish legal advice and risk assessments—

“(1) Within six months of this Act receiving Royal Assent, the Secretary of State must lay before both Houses of Parliament any legal advice and any risk assessments given to the Government relating to—

(a) the ability of the United Kingdom to extend the duration of the Treaty’s provisions for the additional period of 40 years (“the additional period”) specified in Article 13(2) of the Treaty, including—

(i) any advice pertaining to the automaticity, or otherwise, of the UK securing the additional period;

(ii) any obligations placed on both parties to negotiate the additional period;

(iii) any risk assessment of the impact on the United Kingdom’s strategic interests of not securing the additional period; and

(b) the ‘right of first refusal’ offered to the United Kingdom should the additional period not be negotiated at the end of the Treaty’s initial duration under Article 13(5) of the Treaty, including whether such a right exists if the additional period expires without a further extension being agreed.”

New clause 3—Written instrument on the Marine Protected Area: approval by the House of Commons—

“(1) No written instrument on the establishment and management of its Marine Protected Area in the Chagos Archipelago provided for by Article 5 of the Treaty, including any changes to current restrictions on fishing, commercial and extractive activities, may be agreed to by the Government of the United Kingdom unless—

(a) a Minister of the Crown has laid before Parliament a copy of the written instrument,

(b) the written instrument and an explanatory memorandum has been published, and

(c) period A has expired without the House of Commons having resolved, within period A, that the written instrument should not be agreed.

(2) Period A is the period of 21 sitting days beginning with the first sitting day after the date on which the requirement in subsection (1)(a) is met.

(3) ‘An explanatory memorandum’ has the meaning given in section 24 of the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010.”

This new clause provides that any written instrument on the Marine Protected Area will be subject to the approval of the House of Commons in a process equivalent to that required for treaties under section 20 of the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010.

New clause 4—Ecological status of the Marine Protected Area—

“(1) The Secretary of State must, within two years of the passing of this Act and within every subsequent two years, lay before both Houses of Parliament and publish a report on the status of the Marine Protected Area (the ‘MPA’).

(2) Any report made under subsection (1) must include, but not be limited to—

(a) numbers of different species of coral, fish and molluscs in the Marine Protected Area;

(b) coral reef resilience;

(c) fish stocks;

(d) ocean acidification;

(e) any degradation of the marine or terrestrial environments; and

(f) a complete record of the vessels (nature and flag) that enter the MPA.”

This new clause requires the Secretary of State to report regularly on the status of the Marine Protected Area.

New clause 5—Reports to the Intelligence and Security Committee—

“(1) The Secretary of State must, within twelve months of this Act receiving Royal Assent, and every year subsequently, report to the Intelligence and Security Committee of Parliament, established under section 1 of the Justice and Security Act 2013, on the security of the military base on Diego Garcia and the buffer zone.

(2) The report in subsection (1) must include, but shall not be limited to—

(a) the security of the buffer zone;

(b) the management and use of the electromagnetic spectrum;

(c) the presence of any foreign security forces on the islands, whether civilian or military;

(d) a complete record of the vessels, including their nature and flag, that enter the Marine Protected Area;

(e) a complete record of the notifications the United Kingdom has given the Government of Mauritius about activity on Diego Garcia;

(f) a complete record of any information passed from the United Kingdom to the Government of Mauritius, including any military operations, personnel movements, infrastructure development, communications, and logistical support.

(3) For the purposes of this section, ‘buffer zone’ has the meaning of the 24 nautical miles surrounding the island of Diego Garcia.”

This new clause requires the Secretary of State to report annually to the Intelligence and Security Committee about the security of the military base on Diego Garcia and the security of the buffer zone.

New clause 6—Report on the impact of UNCLOS on the operation of the Treaty—

“(1) The Secretary of State must report to Parliament within one year of the passing of this Act, and each subsequent year, on the impact that the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (‘UNCLOS’) has had on the operation of the Treaty.”

This new clause requires the Secretary of State to report to Parliament annually about the impact that the United Nations Conventions on the Law of the Sea has on the operation of the Treaty.

New clause 7—Rights of Chagossians—

“(1) The Secretary of State must consult the Chagossian community based in the United Kingdom on the implementation of the Treaty.

(2) The matters the Secretary of State must consult on shall include, but not be limited to—

(a) the Government of the United Kingdom’s response to any consultation by the Government of Mauritius on the regulations to establish a Trust Fund under Article (11)(b) of the Treaty; and

(b) any areas of dispute concerning the rights of the Chagossian people that arise between the Governments of the United Kingdom and Mauritius, before such disputes are formally discussed in the Joint Committee under the dispute settlement process established in Article 14 of the Treaty.

(3) Within six months of the passing of this Act, and at least once every subsequent year, the Secretary of State must lay before Parliament a report containing an assessment of the efforts of the UK Government to uphold the rights of Chagossians under the terms of the Treaty.”

This new clause requires the Secretary of State to consult the Chagossian community in the UK on the discharge of the UK Government’s obligations under the Treaty, and to report annually on how the UK Government has upheld the rights of Chagossians.

New clause 8—Report on compliance of the Treaty and the Act with UN General Assembly Resolutions on Decolonisation—

“(1) Within six months of this Act receiving Royal Assent, the Secretary of State must produce a report on the compliance of the Treaty agreed with the Government of Mauritius, and the provisions of section (2) of this Act, with the following Resolutions of the United Nations General Assembly—

(a) Resolution 567 (VI),

(b) Resolution 648 (VII),

(c) Resolution 742 (VIII),

(d) Resolution 1514 (XV).

(2) The report specified in subsection (1) must be laid before both Houses of Parliament and, within two months of its publication, the Secretary of State must ensure that a substantive motion relating to the report is tabled, and moved, in both the House of Commons and House of Lords.”

New clause 9—Marine Protected Area: Progress Reports—

“(1) Within twelve months of this Act receiving Royal Assent, and every twelve months thereafter, the Secretary of State must lay before Parliament a report on—

(a) the progress made in establishing; and

(b) managing a Marine Protected Area in the Chagos Archipelago.

(2) The reports required under subsection (1) must include—

(a) a list of any meetings held during the twelve-month period between the Governments of the United Kingdom and Mauritius in which the Marine Protected Area was discussed;

(b) a summary of the non-financial support and assistance provided by the Government of the United Kingdom in the establishment, and management, of a Marine Protected Area; and

(c) the costs incurred by the United Kingdom, including any money paid by the Government of the United Kingdom to the Government of Mauritius, in connection with the establishment, and management, of a Marine Protected Area.

(3) Within two months of a report being laid before the House of Commons under subsection (1), the Secretary of State must table a substantive motion in the House of Commons on the contents of the report.

(4) Within twelve months of this Act receiving Royal Assent, the Secretary of State must seek to undertake negotiations with the Government of Mauritius to secure additional guarantees of its commitment to the development and preservation of a Marine Protected Area.”

This new clause requires the Government to produce an annual report on progress in establishing and managing, and to seek negotiations on securing further guarantees of Mauritius’s commitment to, a Marine Protected Area in the Chagos Archipelago.

New clause 10—Annual report: Treaty implementation—

“(1) The Secretary of State must, within twelve months of commencement and every twelve months thereafter, publish and lay before both Houses of Parliament a report on—

(a) the expenditure of public funds made under the Treaty during the most recent financial year; and

(b) progress on the UK’s implementation of the Treaty.”

This new clause requires the Government to publish an annual report on the expenditure of public funds made under the Treaty and on the progress of the UK’s implementation of the Treaty.

New clause 11—Annual Parliamentary Oversight and Approval of Expenditure—

“(1) The Secretary of State must, once every financial year, lay before the House of Commons, for its approval, an estimate of the expenditure that is anticipated to be incurred by the Government of the United Kingdom in connection with the commitments made under the terms of the Treaty, including, but not limited to—

(a) any payments made or to be made, or financial commitments entered into, with the Government of the Republic of Mauritius in accordance with the Treaty; and

(b) the costs associated with the continued administration, maintenance, and operation of Diego Garcia.

(2) If the payments incurred by the Government of the United Kingdom are greater than those anticipated in the estimate specified in subsection (1), the Secretary of State must lay before the House of Commons, for its approval, a supplementary estimate.”

This new clause provides for an estimates and supply scrutiny process for expenditure to be incurred by the UK Government as a result of the Treaty and the UK’s continued involvement in Diego Garcia.

New clause 12—Review of the welfare and needs of Chagossians residing in the UK—

“(1) Within a year of this Act receiving Royal Assent, the Secretary of State must undertake, and publish the findings of, a review of the welfare, integration, and general needs of Chagossians residing in the United Kingdom.

(2) In undertaking the review specified in subsection (1), the Secretary of State must consult representatives of Chagossians residing in the UK, including community organisations.

(3) Within a month of publishing the report specified in subsection (1), the Government must make time available for a debate in both the House of Commons and the House of Lords on a substantive motion relating to the report.”

This new clause requires the government to undertake a review of welfare and integration of Chagossians in the UK within a year Act receiving Royal Assent with a substantive motion relating to the report of the review tabled in both Houses of Parliament.

New clause 13—Impact of this Act and the Treaty on Chagossians residing in the United Kingdom—

“(1) The Secretary of State must, within six months of the day on which this Act is passed, consult with—

(a) Chagossian persons residing in the United Kingdom; and

(b) bodies representing, or working with, the Chagossian community residing in the United Kingdom regarding the impact of this Act and the Treaty on the Chagossian community residing in the United Kingdom.

(2) The terms of reference for the consultation specified in subsection (1) must include, but not be limited to the impact of this Act and the Treaty on—

(a) the socio-economic status of Chagossians residing in the United Kingdom;

(b) the family life of the UK based Chagossian community; and

(c) any implications for the Chagossian community residing in the United Kingdom, of changes to British nationality law.

(3) Within twelve months of the passing of this Act, the Secretary of State must lay a report before Parliament summarising—

(a) any findings from the consultation; and

(b) any steps the Government intends to take as a result of those findings.”

This new clause requires the Government to consult the UK based Chagossian community on the impact of the Act and the Treaty, and to publish the findings of the consultation.

New clause 14—Duty to produce proposals for a referendum of Chagossians residing in the UK—

“(1) The Secretary of State must, within six months of this Act receiving Royal Assent, lay before both Houses of Parliament proposals for an advisory referendum of Chagossians residing in the UK, seeking their opinions on the Treaty signed with the Government of Mauritius and the provisions of this Act.

(2) Within a month of publishing the proposals specified in subsection (1), the Secretary of State must make time available in both Houses of Parliament for a debate on a substantive motion relating to the proposals.”

New clause 15—Review of the operation of the Treaty—

“(1) Within five years of this Act receiving Royal Assent, the Secretary of State must commence a review of the operation of the Treaty.

(2) The review must include, but need not be limited to, an examination of whether it is in the UK’s national security interests to continue being a signatory to, or to seek the termination of, the Treaty.

(3) A report summarising the findings of the review must be published and laid before both Houses of Parliament.”

This amendment would require the Government to undertake, within five years of the Act receiving Royal Assent, a review of the operation of the Treaty and publish its findings, including whether it is in the UK’s national security interests to continue to be a signatory to the treaty.

New clause 17—Access to the archipelago under the Treaty—

“In any discussions with the Government of Mauritius relating to the provisions of Annex 1(3)(d) of the Treaty, the Secretary of State shall not give consent to the presence of any Indian or Chinese security forces, either civilian or military in nature, in the Chagos Archipelago.”

This amendment would require the Government to withhold consent, in any discussions with Government of Mauritius held under the provisions of Annex 1 (3) (d) of the Treaty, to the presence of any Indian or Chinese civilian or military security forces in the Chagos Archipelago.

[Wendy Morton]

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Madam Chairman, and to speak to the amendments that stand in my name and in the names of other right hon. and hon. Members, as we open this Committee of the whole House to debate Labour’s Chagos surrender Bill.

It has been more than a year since the surrender of the Chagos islands was announced, with the Prime Minister, the then Foreign Secretary—now the Deputy Prime Minister—and the Attorney General waving the white flag of surrender and putting the demands of their left-wing lawyer friends above the British national interest. Since then, Labour has denied this House a vote on the whole treaty under the 21-day process in the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010, and has kept details secret from us.

Over in Mauritius, the Prime Minister of that country has been bragging about how he squeezed concession after concession after concession out of Labour. It is shameful that we have found out more about the treaty from debates in the Mauritius Parliament and statements by its politicians than from Ministers accountable to this House. It has been five months since the Prime Minister of this country signed away £35 billion of British taxpayers’ money, stumbling through a press conference rather than coming to this House to face scrutiny and challenge.

At a time of serious fiscal challenge for the public finances, Labour has imposed a £35 billion surrender tax on our country—money that could fund public services here in Britain or support an easing of the tax burden. Instead, it will be handed over to a foreign Government who are using this resource to cut taxes for their citizens. Not only is it shameful, but Ministers have tried to pull the wool over the eyes of the British people by using accountancy methodologies and valuations to try to show a far lower cost. Even then, it is an extraordinary figure of £3.4 billion. The Chancellor may struggle with numbers, but the British people do not. They can add up, and they see what the real cost of this is. On top of that, Ministers still cannot tell us from which budgets in the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office and the Ministry of Defence the money will come.

[Phil Brickell (Bolton West) (Lab)]

Is the simple truth not that this deal is cheaper than what was proposed by the Conservative party in government, and actually has more protections baked into it?

[Wendy Morton]

I think the hon. Gentleman needs a little memory check, because we did not propose a deal.

The British Chagossians, some of whom are watching from the Gallery—I pay tribute to them for their dignified and strong campaigning over many, many years—have been betrayed by Labour. Their rights have been ignored, as have their fears, leading to hundreds fleeing Mauritius and coming here. Labour’s surrender Bill, as presented, does nothing for them. It does nothing for the marine protected area—one of the most important and largest marine environments in the world—which has been protected while under British sovereignty and has become a centre for scientific research and development. That is at risk, and promises and aspirations announced by Ministers to ensure that it continues are not reflected in the Bill.

Shockingly, Labour’s surrender Bill as drafted does nothing to safeguard, defend and protect our national security. Labour is surrendering British sovereignty and territory to a country that is increasingly aligned with China.

[Graeme Downie (Dunfermline and Dollar) (Lab)]

The right hon. Lady describes this as a surrender Bill. Can she please tell me which flag will be flying over the Chagos islands if this is a so-called British surrender? It will be a British flag that is flying. Is that a point she understands?

[Wendy Morton]

There will be one flag that is flying, and that is the white flag of surrender.

Thousands of Mauritian public officials are being trained—or should that be “indoctrinated”?—by China on courses the Chinese are paying for. Both Russia and China are signing partnerships with Mauritius, but Labour’s surrender Bill fails to protect our interests.

[Paul Holmes (Hamble Valley) (Con)]

Reports today suggest that China and India are entering into negotiations to sign leases to islands surrounding those on which British military operations will continue under the proposed lease agreement. Does she think that connection to China would be a risk and pose a threat to national security?

[Wendy Morton]

My hon. Friend is 100% right, and that is one of the reasons why we oppose this Bill and have done so from the very start.

The promises given by Ministers that nothing can happen in the Chagos archipelago that threatens our interests are already being undermined. Mauritius is in discussions with India about a security role that it can play in the archipelago, and the UK is not even in the room. If these discussions with a friendly country are taking place without the UK, one can only wonder what discussions are taking place in secret with China and Russia. There has been a report that China is already negotiating with Mauritius for Peros Banhos. When he speaks, perhaps the Minister can tell us what he knows about that.

[The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Stephen Doughty)]

I want to say on that point that this is absolute nonsense. Is the shadow Minister willing to provide any evidence that that is going to take place? This treaty protects the security of the outer islands and expressly prohibits foreign forces building bases on them—something on which her Government did not succeed in their negotiations.

[Wendy Morton]

I am grateful to the Minister, but can he actually give me the reassurance that no discussions are taking place? Perhaps he can answer that question when he responds to the debate later.

The promises given by Ministers that nothing can happen in the Chagos archipelago that threatens our interests are already being undermined. If these discussions with a friendly country are taking place without the UK, I can only wonder what discussions are taking place in secret. If such discussions are taking place, that would undermine the assurances Ministers have given to this House and be an act of bad faith on the part of Mauritius. The House knows that this Government kowtow to the Chinese Communist party, leading it to threaten our interests here. Now, they are failing to take seriously the warnings about China, and the threats it poses to Diego Garcia, our military assets and our interests in the Indo-Pacific.

[Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)]

My right hon. Friend has highlighted the Prime Minister misleading—perhaps I have to say inadvertently misleading —us about the cost of this, when the Government Actuary’s Department has shown that it is £35 billion. More than that, he was suggesting in his press conference that China, Russia and others—

[The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Caroline Nokes)]

Order. The right hon. Member may like to rethink his words about the Prime Minister.

[Graham Stuart]

I bow to you, Ms Nokes. Having misrepresented—I think I am allowed to say that—

[The Second Deputy Chairman]

No.

[Graham Stuart]

Oh, I cannot say “misrepresented”. Having inadvertently confused the £35 billion that is actually going out with the £3.5 billion he claimed was going out, the Prime Minister, equally inadvertently, Ms Nokes, made out that China, Iran and Russia were in the column—he used the word “column”—of those opposing this deal, although I think each and every one of them came out publicly to say how much they welcomed it. Can my right hon. Friend share any knowledge about that with us?

[Wendy Morton]

I think my right hon. Friend makes some very interesting points, and perhaps not surprisingly, one might ask the question: are the Government sleeping with the enemy here?

[Stephen Doughty]

Will the shadow Minister give way?

[Wendy Morton]

If the Minister will allow me, I will just finish this point. The key thing we are asking for is a reassurance from the Minister, and he will have more than ample opportunity later to respond to the points I am making.

[Stephen Doughty]

I thank the shadow Minister for giving way, but she and the right hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness (Graham Stuart) have raised China, Russia and Iran. Why does she think that the United States, our closest security ally, backs this deal if there is any possibility of any of the fantasy things she is suggesting taking place. They cannot take place, because the treaty prevents them. She clearly has not read it.

18:40

[Wendy Morton]

It can be very easy to back something when you do not have to pay for it, but let us move on.

Now, the Government are failing to take seriously the warnings about China, and the threats it poses to Diego Garcia and our military assets and interests in the Indo-Pacific. Labour’s surrender Bill is bad for British taxpayers, bad for our national security, bad for the marine environment and bad for the Chagossians. It also grants Ministers huge powers to make further decisions and avoid parliamentary scrutiny.

Amendment 1 would in effect block Labour’s surrender treaty coming into force and the dissolution of the British Indian Ocean Territory unless and until Ministers reveal the legal advice they have received about Britain’s ability to extend and exercise sovereign rights over Diego Garcia after the initial 99-year period. The Government constantly claim they have secured the military base, but they have totally failed to do that. All they have done is pay Mauritius £35 billion to lease back a base we currently own, but only for 99 years. We have no certainty whatsoever about the fate of the base after the 99-year period. After paying Mauritius £35 billion, it would kindly give us the option to extend the treaty for another 40 years, but on what terms? If we extend it, will Mauritius make it conditional on more extortionate payments? What if we are outbid by a hostile power? In fact, what is to stop China putting in a bid? If no agreement is reached before the specified deadline and the base is offered to another country, what will happen to all the fixed assets belonging to Britain? We have had no answers from the Government on any of these vital points, which is unacceptable, and the terms of the treaty and the Bill, as they stand, are reckless.

Amendment 7 is necessary because the Government’s legal justification for surrendering the Chagos islands constantly shifts, because it has no legal basis. As my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kenilworth and Southam (Sir Jeremy Wright) explained on Second Reading, the Government’s entire legal case is spurious. Many of us have been asking where the binding judgment we are constantly told is inevitable would actually come from. No credible answers have been forthcoming. We know it cannot be the International Court of Justice, and we know that a case at the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea would see the UK able to put forward a decent legal argument. Then the Government completely contradicted their own argument about the electromagnetic spectrum. They are planning to dissolve a strategically invaluable British overseas territory, and they cannot even tell us on what legal basis they are doing so.

It looks as though this is part of a wider sinister picture—the Government’s relationship with China. We know that the Government are desperate for Chinese investment to help grow our economy, which they are trashing with their reckless economic policies. The Deputy Prime Minister of Mauritius has credited China for its support in enabling Mauritius to gain sovereignty over the Chagos islands. Why? Because China wants to deepen its strategic partnership with Mauritius, which it believes to have strategic advantages. Once again, the Prime Minister does not have the backbone to stand up for our strategic interests against China. Amendment 7 would flush out the truth once and for all.

Taken together, amendments 3, 6 and 5 would delete a huge and unacceptable Henry VIII power that the Government are brazenly trying to award themselves, and would give this House the oversight it is entitled to on the implementation of the treaty. It is wholly unacceptable—in fact, it is quite outrageous—for the Government to give themselves such a sweeping power that they could, through an Order in Council,

“make any provision that appears to His Majesty to be appropriate as a result of the Treaty”.

This is a totally open-ended power. The military base itself is in scope, and so are the rights of Chagossians. The House should not be deprived of a voice on these matters of huge concern. Our amendments would ensure that this House has a voice and a vote. That is totally right and proper.

Turning to our new clauses, the Government could have inserted a money authorisation clause into the Bill. They chose not to and no wonder. The Government want to spare their own disgruntled MPs the ugly spectacle of having to vote in favour of spending tens of billions of their constituents’ money to Mauritius, as Britain’s economy sinks under the weight of the Chancellor’s inflation, unemployment, debt and taxes. Labour is asking the hard-pressed British taxpayer, already struggling under the weight of the Chancellor’s punitive tax rises, to stump up £35 billion to lease back a territory we already own and which we are not legally obliged to give away. As it leaves pensioners vulnerable and cold, destroys family farms and crushes businesses, the Minister is content to send our constituents’ hard-earned money to Mauritius with no strings attached, allowing the Government there to cut taxes—tax cuts over 6,000 miles away and tax rises at home. And Labour is inflicting this surrender tax on the British people because of its abject failure to negotiate. We all know that when Labour negotiates, Britain loses, but this is a new low. At seemingly every twist and turn, this Government have rolled over and capitulated to the demands of the Government of Mauritius.

[Graeme Downie]

The right hon. Lady mentions that she does not believe there is a legal basis. What was the legal basis for the previous Government, when they conducted 11 rounds of negotiation and achieved absolutely nothing?

[Wendy Morton]

I am not sure where the hon. Gentleman has been for the past year and several months, but we have gone over this time and again in this Chamber. There was no legal basis. We stopped—[Interruption.] Maybe I will repeat this very slowly for his benefit: we stopped the negotiations.

[Stephen Doughty]

I thank the shadow Minister for giving way, but I must, Ms Nokes, correct the record here. This has been a repeated argument, by the shadow Minister and others, claiming that the then Government stopped the negotiations. They did not. In fact, they carried them on. There was a gov.uk statement on 24 February reflecting the continuing of the negotiations by the former Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Richmond and Northallerton (Rishi Sunak). Indeed, they carried on into May, just before the election. It is there in writing on the previous Government’s own website.

[Wendy Morton]

We have made it very clear, repeatedly, at the Dispatch Box. Lord Cameron, the then Foreign Secretary, stopped the negotiations.

[Mr Calvin Bailey (Leyton and Wanstead) (Lab)]

rose—

[Wendy Morton]

I am going to make some more progress.

[Sir Andrew Mitchell (Sutton Coldfield) (Con)]

My right hon. Friend is doing a very good job of forensically demolishing the Government’s case, such as it is. May I just correct what the Minister has said from the Dispatch Box? There is a very great difference between carrying on and discussing negotiations, and doing a deal. As I was the Deputy Foreign Secretary under both my right hon. Friend the Member for Braintree (Sir James Cleverly) and my noble Friend Lord Cameron, I can tell the House that the then Government would never, ever have done this deal. Secondly, I do hope my right hon. Friend will probe the Minister further on where this extraordinary amount of money is coming from. Is it the defence budget or is it the development budget? Since the Labour party—a Labour Government—has slashed development spending from—

[The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Caroline Nokes)]

Order. That is a very long intervention. Perhaps the shadow Minister should take over.

[Wendy Morton]

My right hon. and gallant Friend and constituency neighbour makes some very, very important points. He adds a certain weight and clarity to these discussions, and I urge Labour Members—certainly the newer Members—to listen to his wise counsel.

The House of Commons should be given a vote on the payments and that is the purpose of this amendment. In scope will also be the Chagossian trust fund, which, inexplicably, British taxpayers capitalise and Mauritius then distributes. We pay and Mauritius has total control over how it is spent. We will have no say over its governance and British Chagossians have no guarantees that they will benefit from it. How can that be right? The least this House and British Chagossians deserve is a vote on sending the money. What possible explanation could the Government provide against that?

[Mike Kane (Wythenshawe and Sale East) (Lab)]

The former Government set up a trust fund of £40 million for the Chagos islanders. After four years, only £12,000 had been spent. That is how they treated Chagossians under the last Government.

[Wendy Morton]

The point, though, is where is this money coming from? This House has not had a vote. Where is the transparency? Where is the democracy ?

Turning to new clause 2 and amendment 2, as we have already discussed, the duration of the agreement is a matter of serious national security concern. There are too many unanswered questions about what could happen to the base. We need to understand the basis on which the Government have settled that, especially as the then Foreign Secretary told this House on 7 October 2024 that the Government would have a right to extend the lease, which we do not, and the Mauritian Government claim the UK gave up a unilateral right of extension at their request. If that is true, it would be a scandal. No wonder we never get straight answers from Ministers. But then, it was also a scandal for Labour to sign the agreement with a previous Mauritian Government just before that country went into an election, only for there to be a change of Government who then wanted to change the deal and extract more money. Extending the agreement is essential, because we simply cannot lose the base. The House deserves to see the advice that the Government are relying on when they ask us to sign this £35 billion blank cheque.

[Dr Luke Evans (Hinckley and Bosworth) (Con)]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that under the Bill, if there is no agreement, although we can be first offer, Mauritius can decide simply to close and fold the base, leaving it completely void, so there is no protection against that?

[Wendy Morton]

My hon. Friend is 100% right. This goes to the heart of the Bill. There are so many unanswered questions, which Conservative Members have been raising time and again. For example, how likely are we to be able to extend the base? What will the structure of the negotiations be? What conditions could Mauritius impose, given that it will have our negotiators over a proverbial barrel? How watertight is the first right of refusal?

[Phil Brickell]

Will the right hon. Lady give way?

[Wendy Morton]

I will make a little more progress.

What happens if the base is not secured? Will it need to be decommissioned? How could we prevent an adversary inheriting our fixed assets? What is the role of the United States in all this? These are serious matters, and the House needs serious answers. The purpose of the amendment is to secure those answers.

[Dr Caroline Johnson (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)]

In this House, there is often talk about millions of pounds for this and billions of pounds for that. It is difficult sometimes to get in one’s mind the scale of the money. Last year, the Chancellor said that she was going to raise national insurance and lower the threshold. We know how much damage that has done to the country, yet it was said at the time that it would raise £25.7 billion. That would not even pay for this deal. That is the amount of money they are going to give away today.

[Wendy Morton]

My hon. Friend makes a really valid point by putting that into context. There is only one thing that will result from the Government insisting on pushing this through: tax rises. I reiterate my earlier point that we still do not know which budget the money is coming from: FCDO or MOD. Who is going to pay for it?

New clause 3 will give Parliament a vote over the agreement on the Chagos marine protected area. The Chagos MPA is one of the jewels in the crown of the Blue Belt programme, a magnificent achievement of the last Conservative Government and a globally significant contribution to marine protection. It should not be altered without consent. At present, we apply among the strictest criteria to the Chagos MPA and it has been very well preserved, unlike much of the Indian ocean, which has suffered terribly in recent years.

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Ind)]

Will the right hon. Lady give way on that point?

[Wendy Morton]

I will make a little more progress.

We are not talking about a small area. The British Indian Ocean Territory spans 640,000 square kilometres of ocean. The Government’s treaty with Mauritius compels the UK to help Mauritius to establish and manage a new MPA, but we are being asked to fly blind with this Bill, because no agreement has been reached on what the MPA managed by Mauritius will look like.

[Jeremy Corbyn]

The marine protection zone was agreed by all parties. It is a sustainable protection zone. There has never been any debate or dispute about it; Mauritius has fully supported it all along and guaranteed its continuation. I do not understand why the shadow Minister is raising these matters. Does she believe that Mauritius will not look after the area properly? It seems to me that there is an attitude that is disrespectful of Mauritius and its determination to preserve the pristine nature of the ocean around the islands.

18:59

[Wendy Morton]

I have to disagree with the right hon. Gentleman on many of those matters. We have raised questions about this issue time and again, and we have simply not received the answers from Ministers.

[Dr Luke Evans]

This issue has been disputed. Is it not the point that the United Nations convention on the law of the sea cannot pass judgment on sovereignty because of the ruling that was made between Mauritius and the UK on marine protection back in 2015? That was under annexe VII, which was tried and tested. Britain was found wanting on that, because we had not properly talked through what should happen with the Mauritians. What the Mauritians actually wanted to do was to open it for fishing. How can we assure the protection for this area? That is why we need to amend the Bill.

[Wendy Morton]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. That is exactly why we have continued and will continue to probe the Government on the MPA. We have not had answers to our questions; we have not had the transparency that I think this House deserves.

It is very possible—in fact, it is very likely—that Labour has committed Britain to helping Mauritius dismantle an MPA that we ourselves established. There are no assurances that we will not be committing British resources to actively harm our own interests and undo our work. Mauritius does not have the capability to manage, monitor or enforce an MPA. It does not have the infrastructure at sea or any such experience. It would leave the stocks in those waters exposed to real risk of pillaging, including by Chinese vessels. It is not likely to have the will to do so either, as we know the economic potential of the waters is of interest to Mauritius.

Despite the Government’s ludicrous and insulting claim that those who oppose this deal side with Russia and its friends, Mauritius has been developing closer ties with Russia on marine matters, announcing as recently as May 2025 that the two countries are strengthening their ties on marine innovation, including marine research, while Mauritius’s close relationship with China—a strategic partnership, no less—opens up the possibility of Chinese fishing trawlers in these waters. It is therefore absolutely right that this House gets a say over the fate of the MPA, and the CRaG-equivalent process set out in our new clause would provide for an appropriate level of scrutiny.

New clause 4 would require regular reporting on the ecological status of the Chagos MPA, which is necessary for the same reason as new clause 3. The Government have bound us to support Mauritius to manage the MPA, so there must be scrutiny of what the Government are doing and the ecological consequences. There are widespread concerns across the House on the future of the MPA, and Ministers have so far failed to give any answers or any assurances; when asked, they have said that they do not know about the future and cannot tell us what resources and costs will be incurred to meet these obligations. Given our role in managing the MPA, the UK should be able to access the data required for this report. This new clause reaffirms our commitment to the MPA.

We recognise the sensitive nature of the military arrangements on Diego Garcia, but oversight of the agreement is none the less essential. New clause 5 would allow for appropriate parliamentary scrutiny while respecting the need to protect critical information. The new clause covers the key areas of security consideration and will act as a catalyst for the Government to maintain their own monitoring of each area. We believe that that is critical as there are holes in the provisions. There must, for example, be agreement on upgrading infrastructure in the buffer zone, such as sensors—but what if there is no agreement? Likewise, the treaty stipulates that Mauritius and Britain must jointly decide on the management and use of the electromagnetic spectrum.

Of particular importance in new clause 5 are paragraphs (d) and (e). On (d), we must ensure that only vessels that should be in the area are in the area, and that Russian and potentially even Chinese vessels are deterred from entering—I have already mentioned the closer ties and partnerships between Mauritius and those countries, which should concern all of us.

With reference to paragraph (e), the treaty states that the United Kingdom agrees

“to expeditiously inform Mauritius of any armed attack on a third state directly emanating from the base on Diego Garcia”.

Given the huge range of security threats in the Indo-Pacific and the middle east, it is far from impossible that in future this mechanism may need to be used. It is important that the notifications are presented to the Intelligence and Security Committee, as once again it would force the Government to log and monitor the mechanism, including any operational impacts it might have. We know that there are genuine concerns that third countries—potentially even China—might try to establish themselves in the archipelago, and the arrangements in the treaty must be monitored to ensure that they are sufficiently robust to stop that happening.

New clause 6 probes the Government’s argument that a legally binding ruling under UNCLOS would have an impact on our ability to operate the electromagnetic spectrum, and impede air and sea access as well as the ability to patrol the area around the base. We take issue with that assertion, not least because there is an argument that provisions under article 298 of UNCLOS allow for exemptions relevant to disputes concerning military activities. The Government have not addressed this issue when we have probed, including on Second Reading, so we have had no choice but to table this new clause to test the Government’s assertion.

I turn finally to new clause 7. The British Chagossian community have been treated appallingly by this Labour Government. Twice the deal has ended up in the courts because of the way Labour has ridden roughshod over their concerns. This Bill sells them short, too. The resettlement programme for the Chagos islands under this treaty is entirely in the hands of Mauritius—a country to which, I should add, Chagossians feel little affinity. Indeed, we have seen many Chagossians arriving in the UK from Mauritius in recent weeks. I hope the Minister will respond to that from the Dispatch Box, because it is clearly concerning that they have been moved to take this action.

The Bill also stops British overseas territories citizenship being awarded on the basis of descent from a person born on the Chagos archipelago. Sadly, we cannot amend the treaty through the Bill; it just is not within the parliamentary rules. However, new clause 7 would require the Government to consult the Chagossian community on the implementation of the treaty—including on the establishment of the trust fund, which we capitalise and Mauritius distributes—and on areas of dispute arising between the UK and Mauritian Governments prior to their being discussed at the joint committee created by the treaty. It also requires the Foreign Secretary to present a report to Parliament within six months of the Act becoming law, and in every subsequent year, on how Chagossian rights are being upheld under this agreement. We have a national obligation and responsibility to the Chagossian community, and the Conservatives will always stand up for their rights.

To conclude, taken together, our amendments and new clauses will hold the Government to account. Let us be clear: the Conservatives oppose this surrender Bill, its colossal costs and the adverse impact on our defence and security. Accepting these amendments and new clauses will simply strengthen accountability and transparency.

[Mr Calvin Bailey]

I have set out the security and geopolitical importance of the treaty many times in this place, and would therefore have appreciated the opportunity today to engage with detailed scrutiny of the treaty and the defence arrangements it enables. Sadly, that is not the line that the Opposition are going down. Instead, we are faced with a series of wrecking amendments that do not attempt to improve the Bill in any way. They are designed to force the Government to let our allies down, undermining our international credibility and reputation, and creating greater geopolitical risk and legal and security risks to our base on Diego Garcia.

If Opposition amendments were passed today, it would be impossible for us to meet our commitments in a timely way by implementing the agreement with Mauritius that Ministers have completed—an agreement that the Conservative Government started and carried through 11 rounds of negotiations but now want to throw back, no matter the damage that it would do to our nations. At no point have they made clear the legal basis for starting the 11 rounds of negotiations in the first instance.

I fully understand and sympathise with the motivation behind amendment 9. The creation of the Chagos islands as a separate territory created a deep injustice, because it was bound up in the dispossession of the Chagossians, but that historical injustice cannot simply be undone. We cannot turn back the clock, however much we might want to do so. The question of a right to return is not remotely simple, because access to Diego Garcia is inevitably a serious question of security. People obviously cannot return to exactly where their families lived, because of the highly sensitive military facility that now stands in their place. Perhaps a limited right of return could be negotiated, but that would engage security procedures that are secret and involve the UK and the US as well as Mauritius, as was acknowledged by the right hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Wendy Morton). The amendment imagines that if the negotiations were rejected by even the narrowest of margins, the entire treaty would fall apart and would need to be renegotiated afresh, significantly increasing geopolitical risk to the base and our interests. Perhaps the Minister could invite some assistance on this point from those who conducted the first 11 rounds of negotiations.

Let us get real: there are reasons why international treaties are negotiated by the Government and subject to democratic scrutiny in this House and through these procedures. What the Liberal Democrats are proposing amounts to making a UK foreign and defence policy dependent on a referendum, and that includes vital defence interests that are shared with the US and other allies. That referendum would apparently comprise non-UK citizens just as much as it would British Chagossians. Frankly, I would have thought that the Liberal Democrats more than others would have learned from the disastrous experience of Brexit that making foreign policy by referendum is not the wisest course of action.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mr Bailey]

There is already a barrage of misinformation coming from the Opposition, and I am not going to invite any more of it to flow across the Floor. There are a multiplicity of bad actors internationally who would benefit from the collapse of this Bill—and just imagine how many more there would be if we took the course the Opposition urge us to take.

[Chris Coghlan (Dorking and Horley) (LD)]

The hon. Member just said that foreign policy should not be made by referendum. Does he disagree, then, with article 1(2) of the UN charter—that the right to self-determination is a core principle in international relations and that we should therefore have a referendum for Chagos?

[Mr Bailey]

I thank the hon. Member for his intervention. The Bill has been before the House already, and at the moment we are discussing the amendments that have been tabled. The hon. Member will soon have the opportunity to discuss the amendments he has tabled. However, abdicating this Chamber’s decision—[Interruption.]

[The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Caroline Nokes)]

Order. There is far too much noise and many private conversations, which make it very difficult to hear the hon. Gentleman.

[Mr Bailey]

Abdicating this House’s responsibilities to a referendum is not something on which we will agree. This treaty is a vital step to secure UK interests. It puts the Diego Garcia base on a secure footing for at least 100 years. I understand that Opposition colleagues have a range of objections to this treaty, not all of which are jaw-droppingly hypocritical, however—

[The Second Deputy Chairman]

Order. I will give the hon. Gentleman the same warning that I gave the right hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness (Graham Stuart). He needs to be very careful with his language.

[Mr Bailey]

Not all the objections are jaw-droppingly confused, but some colleagues will vote against the Bill tonight on the basis of them. That is no reason to support an amendment that would undermine the Government’s ability to navigate the difficult and chaotic world we live in today and keep our country safe.

19:15

[The Second Deputy Chairman]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Dr Al Pinkerton (Surrey Heath) (LD)]

I will speak in support of seven amendments tabled in my name. For too long, decisions about the Chagos islands have been made without the consent of Chagossians. My grave concern is that the treaty to be given effect by the Bill fails to rectify that historical and ongoing injustice. Not only does it fail to provide adequate protection of their rights, it fails to establish a legally binding right to return or a binding programme of resettlement of the islands for Chagossians.

Turning to amendment 9, we recognise and support the importance of abiding by international law and believe that the UK was indeed right to open a process of negotiation with Mauritius—especially so given the risk that a judgment against the UK in any court could threaten our sovereignty over and security interests in Diego Garcia and the wider Chagos archipelago. However, the treaty that has emerged not only falls short in addressing past injustices, but introduces new injustices of its own.

At the very core of the United Nations charter—a document that this country helped to shape—lies the right of all peoples to self-determination. Article 1(2) could not be clearer: one of the purposes of the United Nations is to

“develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples”.

Yet for the Chagossian people that right has been denied for more than half a century. They were exiled from their homeland in the Chagos archipelago, scattered across the globe, and left without the means or permission to return. It was, and remains, a moral stain on our modern history.

[Jeremy Corbyn]

I absolutely agree with the hon. Gentleman about the lack of morality in how the Chagossian people were treated—he is correct on that. Would he accept that there was something fundamentally wrong in 1965 in separating Diego Garcia and the archipelago from Mauritius when the whole area had always been administered from Mauritius as part of Mauritius, and that under decolonisation statutes they should have been included in the independence of Mauritius at that time?

[Dr Pinkerton]

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his intervention. I am aware that he has a long history in advocating for this particular cause, but I am relentlessly surprised by the position he takes on this point. He would seek to effectively reinscribe the colonial construction that was British Mauritius and in doing so ignore the right of Chagossians as a people to self-determine their own future. I do not see the colonial convenience of administration as anything other than overwriting a people’s right to determine their own future.

On that point, in 2019 the International Court of Justice issued an advisory opinion that concluded that the decolonisation of Mauritius had not been legally completed and that the United Kingdom should end its administration of the Chagos islands as rapidly as possible. The General Assembly subsequently endorsed that same view. But I say to this House that the ICJ opinion, however well intentioned, poses a profound problem. It proposes to hand sovereignty not to the Chagossians themselves but to Mauritius, without consulting those who were born of the islands or who are descended from them. That is not self-determination but the transfer of sovereignty over a people without their consent. The right to self-determination belongs to peoples, not to Governments. It is not and should not be a device for tidying up the diplomatic ledger of empire, but a recognition that every community has the right to shape its own future. To remove the Chagossians once was a horrific wrong. To barter away their sovereignty now without their voice compounds that wrong.

If we truly honour the UN charter and the principles that this country has long championed, the Chagossians themselves must be placed at the centre of any future settlement. They must have a say over their citizenship, over the governance of their islands and over the prospects of return. The commitment to a referendum that sits at the heart of amendment 9 seeks to address that long and burning injustice by providing Chagossians with the opportunity to exercise their right to determine their own future.

[Chris Coghlan]

I entirely agree with my hon. Friend on the importance of having a right of referendum. I have had Chagossian constituents contact me with their outrage about the compounding of injustice in the new treaty. How realistic does my hon. Friend think it is to find people eligible to vote in a potential referendum, given the length of time that has passed since they were moved from Diego Garcia?

[Dr Pinkerton]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his question. He is right that, were a referendum able to be secured, it would be unusual because of the nature of the displacement of the Chagossians. But there have been previous international consultations, and with the collective will and intelligence of a House like this, the terms of a referendum could undoubtedly be negotiated. After all, Chagossians are not backwards in coming forwards and making themselves known to all of us.

For Chagossians, this is not a geopolitical abstraction, but a deeply human matter: one of belonging, fairness and justice. Requiring a report to be made to the House would ensure their voices are not lost amid the technical language of treaties and transfers. Amendment 9 would enable transparency, accountability and, above all, genuine recognition of the rights of Chagossians to self-determination. I encourage right hon. and hon. Members across the House to think carefully when they vote tonight.

New clause 9 speaks to another vital principle: our shared moral duty to protect the natural world. The Chagos archipelago is among the most biodiverse marine environments on Earth. Its coral reefs, migratory species and rich ecosystems are a global ecological treasure and a testament to what nature can be when left largely untouched by human exploitation. In recent months, I have spoken with scientific advisers who are deeply concerned about the Bill’s lack of provisions for establishing and governing marine protected areas. The environment and sustainability institute stresses that very large marine protected areas are vital for global conservation goals. Its research shows the archipelago’s exceptional role in protecting diverse mobile species across the Indian ocean.

New clause 9 would require the Government to publish an annual report produced with the Mauritian Government setting out the progress made in establishing and managing marine protected areas and the meetings held between the two Governments on the issue. Such reporting is critical to ensure that environmental protection does not fade into the sotto voce diplomatic arrangements. It must remain a visible, audible and measurable commitment to international conservation standards. If the Government are to honour their biodiversity beyond national jurisdiction pledge, future Governments must ensure stronger marine conservation, sustainable stewardship and shared responsibility. I believe that the new clause would achieve that.

New clauses 10 and 11 would build on the principle of accountability by ensuring regular oversight of how the Bill and its associated treaty arrangements are implemented. We believe that the Secretary of State should, within 12 months, lay before both Houses a report detailing the expenditure of public funds made under the treaty during the most recent financial year and the progress made by the UK in implementing the treaty’s obligations.

[Chris Coghlan]

At a time when the cost of living is so high, does my hon. Friend agree that the cost of maintaining and operating the Diego Garcia military base and military operations must be evaluated by the House against the expenditure of public funds made under the treaty each financial year?

[Dr Pinkerton]

The maximum possible financial transparency around the treaty arrangements is essential, not least for securing and establishing public trust. I fear that, without those high levels of accountability, public trust would rapidly dissipate. Furthermore, once every financial year, the Secretary of State should present to the House an estimate of the expenditure expected to be incurred in connection with the treaty, including payments or financial commitments to the Government of Mauritius and the cost of maintaining and operating Diego Garcia. If actual payments exceed those estimates, a supplementary estimate must be laid before the House for approval and parliamentary scrutiny. I reassure Conservative colleagues that the Liberal Democrats will support any amendment to the Bill that would increase financial transparency of the treaty.

However, our moral duty extends beyond matters of territory and finance. New clause 12 would require a comprehensive review of the welfare, integration and general needs of Chagossians living in the UK. Many Chagossians here face significant challenges, including housing insecurity, barriers to employment and limited access to public services. The review would assess what support is needed and ensure a full debate in this House and the other place on its findings. That is how we show genuine care for those displaced by the actions of our predecessors in the Chamber and in Whitehall.

Finally, new clause 13 would require the Government within six months to consult with Chagossians residing in the UK and the organisations that represent them on how the Act and the treaty affect their community socially, economically and legally.

[Graham Stuart]

The hon. Gentleman is giving a powerful speech on the Chagossians and marine protected areas, as well as the need for transparency. But it is not just about transparency. What I have not heard from him, on behalf of the Liberal Democrats, is any sense of outrage at the very fact that we are to pay out £35 billion for sovereign British territory on which we have arguably the most important base in the whole Indian ocean.

[Dr Pinkerton]

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his question. It is precisely in order to cast the strongest possible spotlight on the financial transaction involved that we are asking for financial accountability to be magnified. On his geopolitical point, nobody can question the significant geopolitical importance of the base—it is vital to our national security and to global security. It is essential that it is maintained in British hands, but that must be achieved with the consent of the Chagossians.

The resulting report to be laid before Parliament within 12 months would allow us to evaluate whether the Government’s legislative intent has translated into justice and inclusion in the lives of those who are most directly affected.

These amendments would address critical shortcomings with the Bill. They would embed accountability, environmental protection and a commitment to the right to self-determination within its framework for implementation. I urge Ministers to ensure that the Chagossians are not treated as diplomatic collateral in any future discussions with Mauritius. They are not a footnote to be managed between states; they are a people deserving of justice, agency and dignity.

The Chagossians have waited more than 50 years to go home. The least we can do now is let them decide freely and finally what home means for themselves and ensure that they have the tools they need to exercise their rights. The amendments tabled in my name seek to afford those protections and ensure that those rights are respected.

[Stuart Anderson (South Shropshire) (Con)]

I am delighted to be called so early. I will speak to the amendments in the name of the official Opposition, specifically on the reports going to the Intelligence and Security Committee, especially on security of the buffer zones, foreign security forces, military operations and personnel movements. The ceding of Diego Garcia is a monumental strategic error that will diminish the UK’s standing on the world stage, and I will gladly set out why I believe that is the case.

If anybody thinks they can predict what will happen in the next five years, they have learned nothing from the last five years. When we start extending that to 10-plus years in the current global geopolitical situation, that is so hard to look at. Everybody is playing by a set of rules and working to a past system, which is currently changing.

Strategic leadership is the ability to shape the environment we are in. Let us take two strategic leaders, regardless of our view of them at the moment: President Trump and Xi Jinping. They both want the world to change from where it is, and they want to adjust the shape of what it looks like. The world is currently seeing a disruption to the world order as we know it. The international rules-based order is being challenged. We are setting out a deal and a treaty based on an older system that we being asked to believe will be honoured for the next 99 years, but I do not believe it will be.

19:39

China, Russia, Iran and North Korea all have a massive interest in and around the Indo-Pacific. We talk about Russia looking at Ukraine, but only 25% of Russia is in that space; 75% of Russia is in the Indo-Pacific. Russia is now providing training services to the Chinese military in airborne operations. North Korea is on the battlefield in Ukraine at the moment. We are seeing all the CRINK nations, as they are known, coming together, not adhering to the international rules-based order and not working as we would expect them to do. The Indo-Pacific area—I was recently there with Pacific Command —at 100 million square miles, is vast. There are 76,000 US Marines in the Indo-Pacific alone. That is phenomenal; it is bigger than our Army. Half the world’s population sits in this space. At Pacific Command, we can see the clock showing Diego Garcia’s time zone and all the multiple other time zones between there and the US.

Anyone who believes that China will honour its deals as we expect should look at the rare earth metals and critical minerals it is supplying, because 90% of some of those rare earth metals are processed in or by China. The average car contains $200-worth of rare earth metals, as I learnt when I was on the Defence Committee and we visited Australia to look at this, but I am more interested in how much is in an F-35—it contains about 450 kg, give or take, of rare earth metals, many of which have a limited supply. All of this gives China huge leverage over the countries that need them. We are seeing a polarisation in the Indo-Pacific. The Philippines is now looking at hosting a permanent US base, and the same is true in northern Australia. Things that would never have been believed four or five years ago are happening now.

I am proud to have served in the UK’s armed forces, and I believe the British Army is the most professional in the world, but it is a shadow of its former self. I believe it is getting harder for the UK armed forces to stand on the world stage because of the depletion of the military. Everyone will say that it is been hollowed out for 14 years, but a great book, just out, “The Rise and Fall of the British Army, 1975–2025” by Brigadier Ben Barry, shows that the UK armed forces have been in decline since 1981.

When we look at the UK armed forces’ decline, and then we start looking at ceding our sovereign bases, that brings us to the table; that brings us to a foothold. Without them, we would not have the capability to stand in the Indo-Pacific and support our allies. A report released in the last two weeks by the NATO Parliamentary Assembly, to which I contributed, talks about the Indo-Pacific and the Euro-Atlantic. They are intrinsically linked. It is not a question of going to one space and leaving the other for the Americans. The rise of China and its defence industrial base is phenomenal, and the speed at which it is growing is huge. There are so many concerns and uncertainties at the moment. Key strategic locations include Cyprus, Hawaii, Svalbard, the Ascension Islands, and Diego Garcia and the Chagos islands.

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)]

I just want to re-emphasise the point that my hon. Friend is making about the growth of the threat. Is he aware that China today has 130 times the capability to build naval ships that America does? One shipyard in China in this last year has built more naval ships than the whole of the United States. We talk about the threat to the South China sea. It is done.

[Stuart Anderson]

My right hon. Friend makes a great point. I spoke to one of the submarine commanders from the US navy only about six weeks ago. He told me that 15 years ago he would see one Chinese ship or submarine per week, and now he sees 100 a week. The whole area is full of them. When we start looking at the security of buffer zones, we see that we cannot move in this area for Chinese submarines. The whole space is swamped with them.

We are doing a deal that will remove our ability to sit at the table where we used to have such strength. Our armed forces now would have trouble supporting our allies in any area, particularly the Indo-Pacific—[Interruption.] The Minister for Defence Readiness and Industry says that is not true. We have HMS Spey and the carrier strike groups, but we have no permanent presence in the Indo-Pacific. With our current commitments, we would need a brigade strength or more to enable us to have a permanent base, to rotate troops through and to have a credible offering without burning out the UK armed forces, given the numbers who are currently on sick at the moment and the strength of the military. I want to see larger armed forces, but we do not have the ability to offer the level that we want.

We believe that the world is playing by an international rules-based order, but not all countries will do that. An international rules-based order is a set of rules set out by, normally, the largest countries around the world. When countries such as Iraq or Kosovo do not adhere to them, they expect everyone else to accept it, but the rise of China, Russia, Iran and North Korea is throwing everything into the mix. I believe that this will be a huge loss for us strategically. I reiterate my point that the ceding of Diego Garcia is a monumental strategic error that, in the next decade, we will come to regret.

[The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Caroline Nokes)]

I call the Father of the House.

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

I commend my hon. Friend the Member for South Shropshire (Stuart Anderson), who has spoken with great authority about the military threat. I also commend the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Dr Pinkerton). I agree with everything he said; he spoke with great good sense and moderation.

I wish to speak to my new clause 14—I am grateful to my friends who have signed it—which states:

“(1) The Secretary of State must, within six months of this Act receiving Royal Assent, lay before both Houses of Parliament proposals for an advisory referendum of Chagossians residing in the UK, seeking their opinions on the Treaty signed with the Government of Mauritius and the provisions of this Act.

(2) Within a month of publishing the proposals specified in subsection (1), the Secretary of State must make time available in both Houses of Parliament for a debate on a substantive motion relating to the proposals.”

An advisory referendum would be a moderate and sensible proposal, and I am not sure why anybody would disagree with it. Surely we in this House have a moral duty to the Chagossian people, not to bureaucratic convenience or diplomatic horse trading. My new clause simply calls for the Chagossians to be consulted on their own future. That is not unreasonable. It is a modest and entirely proper request. After decades of exile and neglect, it is indefensible to negotiate their homeland’s fate without even asking them. Have we ever handed over a people to a foreign power without even consulting them?

Proponents of paying Mauritius to take the island cite international law, but the entire point of decolonisation was to assert the self-determination of peoples. The United Nations was founded upon the principle that nations and peoples should be free to determine their own destiny in a peaceful way. Chagossians, as we now all agree, were wronged by both the British and the Mauritian authorities. By the way, I am probably the only person sitting in this Chamber who has actually been to the islands—[Interruption.] I am sorry; I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Romford (Andrew Rosindell). I went there with the Defence Committee 40 years ago.

We kicked those people out of their homes, albeit for perfectly the legitimate reason of promoting the stability and security of the free world, and Mauritius accepted money to help look after displaced Chagossians. No one can dispute the fact that Chagossians are treated as having second-class status in Mauritius. Chagossians who have been living there are fleeing in increasing numbers to the United Kingdom. Many of them happily assert that they want the sovereignty of the United Kingdom to continue over the British Indian Ocean Territory, but they also want a right to return.

Righting the wrongs we have committed means listening to the Chagossians directly, and that is all I am asking for. The amendment would give Parliament the chance to ensure that justice is finally done for those who suffered most. Britain should not repeat the sin of dispossession under the guise of decolonisation. I repeat, Britain should not repeat the sin of dispossession under the guise of decolonisation. To hand the territory to Mauritius would not “end empire”, but merely pass the islands from one remote capital to another; from one imperial power to another. The United Kingdom must not compound historic injustice by ignoring the only people with a legitimate moral claim to these islands.

The Chagos islands are of course a linchpin of regional security for Britain, the United States and our allies in an increasingly contested Indo-Pacific. Undermining that strategic position would embolden hostile powers and weaken our ability to uphold freedom of navigation. Those who call this a colonial relic misunderstand it. It is a forward defence post, not a backward-looking possession. As has been said time and again, the International Court of Justice’s advisory opinion carries no legal binding force and should not dictate British policy. Allowing unelected judges in The Hague to override Parliament’s responsibilities is an abdication of national sovereignty. The Government should resist any creeping judicial globalism that seeks to erode British self-government under the cloak of “international law.”

I will end on this point, and I believe it is a very powerful point: consultation with the Chagossians through a UK referendum is an act of basic democratic respect, not a legal technicality. My new clause would strengthen rather than weaken Britain’s moral standing by showing that we act with fairness and consent. We should not wash our hands of responsibility for British subjects in favour of imagined diplomatic convenience. The right course is to combine justice for the Chagossians with the preservation of Britain’s strategic obligations, not to sacrifice one for the other. Parliament should back these new clauses and amendments as an affirmation that Britain remains a nation that keeps faith with its peoples and its allies alike.

[Nigel Farage (Clacton) (Reform)]

Before I speak to amendment 10, which stands in my name on the amendment paper, I have a quick reminder: the International Court of Justice made an “advisory” judgment—it has no force in law. Quite why the previous Government sought to enter 11 rounds of negotiation off the back of it is beyond me, but it is even more extraordinary for a Government that is full to the rafters with human rights lawyers. They believe in human rights so much that somehow they are seeking to follow a court that is part of the United Nations in total contrast, as the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Dr Pinkerton) pointed out, to one of the most basic principles of the United Nations: namely, national self-determination. We thought it mattered so much 40 years ago that we sent a taskforce 8,000 miles away to defend the rights of the people of the Falkland Islands.

I feel great sympathy for the Chagossians. They got a rotten deal 50 years ago, and in many ways they are perhaps getting an even worse deal now. They should be consulted. The fact they are not being consulted is shameful for a Government who go on endlessly about human rights and the international rule of law. That is the human cost of this.

As to the economic cost, well, lots of sums have been bandied about, from £3.4 billion from the Prime Minister to £35 billion, but it all depends on the rate of inflation. If the average rate of inflation over the next 100 years is 3%, it will be over £50 billion, but that may be as nothing to the opportunity loss here. This marine park should have been turned decades ago into the greatest marine tourism site in the world.

[Peter Prinsley (Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket) (Lab)]

The hon. Member will be aware that his friend President Trump is in favour of this deal, so would he tell us whether he disagrees with him?

[Nigel Farage]

I certainly will, and I will come to that in short order.

The opportunity for marine tourism is massive; it is worth billions of pounds a year, and it would provide a lot of jobs for Chagossians. On top of that—perhaps more controversially—I have little doubt, having spoken to some geologists who work for the world’s biggest mining companies, that within those waters we would find cobalt and many of the minerals needed for the very green revolution that this Government say that they are in favour of, so economically we are not just paying £50 billion or whatever the number is; we are losing out on a huge future opportunity.

19:45

As was mentioned by the hon. Member for South Shropshire (Stuart Anderson), strategically this is a disaster. Right at the moment, the American President is somewhat busy, having recently struck a remarkable peace deal in the middle east, and—whichever way people think he is going on it—being obsessed with ending the Ukraine war. This issue is very low down on his agenda, but he and America will wake up and realise that something they think now to be minor and not worth spending their time on actually will imperil the safety of their base. India has already negotiated a satellite observation deal, and China is currently negotiating.

It does not matter what the Minister says about what is in the treaty; Mauritius will not honour the terms of this treaty. Mauritius is poor. It is on the verge of bankruptcy. It will be bought by Chinese money, and China is negotiating leases already. If you want further proof of what will upset the American President, Huawei, which of course he railed against getting into the UK’s 5G system, is already installing its “safe city” cameras all over Mauritius. None of this makes any sense. I do wonder what the role of our National Security Adviser, Jonathan Powell, is in all of this.

[Stephen Doughty]

I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman has the gall to come here and talk about national security today, when the former leader of his party in Wales admitted to taking bribes from Russia, and when again he has been using talking points that come right from the Kremlin in blaming NATO for Russia’s invasion of Ukraine—absolutely shameful. The Mauritian Attorney General was interviewed on Mauritian TV today, and he said regarding the hon. Gentleman’s tweets claiming that Mauritius was negotiating a lease on Peros Banhos that that was a gross falsehood and a political gimmick. The hon. Gentleman talks about the United States. The Secretary of War, Secretary Hegseth, said:

“Diego Garcia is a vital military base for the United States.

The UK’s…deal with Mauritius secures the operational capabilities of the base and key US national security interests in the region.

We are confident the base is protected for many years ahead.”

Why is the United States backing this deal, if anything that the hon. Gentleman says is true?

[Nigel Farage]

I can assure you that America is not backing this deal. What it is saying is, “What we have is what we hold.” That is the American attitude at the moment, but as I said, when it wakes up to the satellite observation deal done with India already, as reported in The Economic Times of India on 12 September this year, and once you realise—

[The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Caroline Nokes)]

Order. When the hon. Gentleman says “you”, he is referring to me. Perhaps he would refer to the Minister as “the Minister”.

[Nigel Farage]

When the Americans realise that, actually, Mauritius is not a trustworthy nation—it is bankrupt; it needs the money; it will not honour this treaty—we will be in a very different place. I do ask the question about the role of our National Security Adviser, somebody very much in the news in the last few days. He was seemingly very happy that a trial against two alleged Chinese spies, operating at times within this building, had disappeared. Not only is he honouring the Labour manifesto, which is very soft on China, but apparently he is very for this Chagos deal.

I put it to Members that this deal is un-British, it is against our national interest, and there is no upside or gain. I can assure them that a future that a future Reform Government will not honour this treaty—end of.

[Graham Stuart]

I refer the Committee to my interests, having observed the Mauritian elections last year as a guest of the Mauritius Labour party.

It is hard not to feel a little bit sorry for the beleaguered Minister at the Dispatch Box today, sent to defend something that is so clearly a betrayal of this country and its interests. Out of the grand total of 400-plus Labour Members of Parliament in this House, he was backed by just one—the hon. Member for Leyton and Wanstead (Mr Bailey)—who sat with his face glued to his iPad, reading the words put there by Lord knows who, and who struggled so much when he finally took an intervention and had to speak off the cuff. Indeed, he has fled now, doubtless to lick his wounds. Not one single other of those 400 Government MPs wanted to come here and defend this Bill.

The Minister is in fact a decent man, and he will know that this Bill has no defence and brings no benefit to this country. Last week, too, we had a Minister sent out to answer for the China spy case. He had never spoken at the Dispatch Box before; it was his very first outing, but he was thought the best person to defend the Prime Minister’s blushes by knowing nothing about the topic in hand and denying things—without lying—by dint of ignorance. It was indeed a triumph, of sorts.

Armando Iannucci and “The Thick of It” cast could not script something as cynical, empty and damaging as this Government’s behaviour in so many spheres. As we can see in the amendments and new clauses before us, which will doubtless all be rejected by the Minister, amidst the betrayal of first-time buyers, farmers, small businesses, special needs children, pensioners, young workers—

[The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Caroline Nokes)]

Order. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman might stay within the scope of the Bill.

[Graham Stuart]

Thank you, Madam Chair. I was setting the context for the amendments to the Bill that we are rightly proposing to ensure that the Government report back on the money that they plan to spend and to ensure that the Mauritius taxpayer is not the only taxpayer to benefit from this.

As I say, the amendments and new clauses come amidst the betrayal of those first-time buyers, farmers, small businesses, special needs children, pensioners, young workers, restaurants and pubs, and amidst the expense grifting, tax dodging, scandals and resignations packed into 14 busy months. Amidst all that, this Chagos sell-out is still a stand-out disaster for this country, and the Ministers on the Front Bench know it. That is why not a single one of their 400-odd colleagues—bar one, glued to his iPad—has been prepared to come to this Chamber tonight and speak in favour of the Bill.

That is why there is no provision to allow a vote on the £3.4 billion—sorry, not £3.4 billion; the £35 billion that has now been set out. As the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage) rightly says, that is based on a rather small c conservative estimate of the interest, but that is what the Government themselves have said it is likely to cost. This Labour Government decided to give away UK sovereign territory and the location of a critically important military base to another country, and to pay £35 billion for the privilege.

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith]

On the argument about the money, which comes up throughout all this and which we had in the last debate, the Government have used a dodgy system to calculate it. It is called the GDP deflator. Their own actuarial department has dismissed that completely because, of course, it is all about a forecast of where social issues will go on an island that will never have anything to do with us after all this, so we have no idea how to predict it.

Finally, clause 5 makes this whole debate meaningless, because the Government can change anything they like whenever they wish to, so what the heck are we doing debating this even now?

[Graham Stuart]

My right hon. Friend makes an extremely powerful point. The Henry VIII powers in the Bill are not limited at all. I heard so many complaints when I was a Minister from the Labour party about Henry VIII powers. The Bill literally gives Ministers the ability to change any existing piece of legislation in any sphere whatsoever if it is necessary to implement this deal. There can never have been a Henry VIII power as powerful as that given to Ministers by this legislation, which is all to do with the surrender of Chagos and the transfer of tens of billions of pounds to a foreign power—a foreign power that is in a strategic partnership with China and in close workings with other countries that are not on our side. What on earth was the Prime Minister thinking? As the Minister lay in bed last night tossing and turning in anticipation of the debate, I am sure that that was the question that went round and round in his head.

So many questions remain to be answered. Why did the Prime Minister say that the payment would be £3.4 billion when the Government’s own offices now show that it will be at least £35 billion? Is this the most important strategic base in the Indian ocean? Can the Minister confirm that Diego Garcia is effectively a US base, manned by thousands of Americans, with at most a few dozen Brits there in liaison? If this is in fact a United States base and not operationally—

[The Minister for Defence Readiness and Industry (Luke Pollard)]

It is a joint base.

[Graham Stuart]

It might be a joint base technically, but what is it in reality? I would love an intervention from the Defence Minister; he could tell us. How much do we use it operationally, because there are thousands of Americans there and, as I understand it—unless he corrects me—at most dozens of Brits. In other words, it is a United States base on sovereign UK territory that we will pay tens of billions of pounds for over the next 100 years to provide it to the Americans for free. It makes no sense, and I do not see why we have had no answer from Ministers as to why that is a sensible use of public money.

[Stephen Doughty]

rose—

[Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)]

rose—

[Graham Stuart]

I will give way to the Minister and then to my right hon. Friend.

[Stephen Doughty]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his generous comments. He and I have always had robust but friendly discussions on many issues. However, I do have to correct him on this point. The US pays for the operations, and the value to the British taxpayer, the US taxpayer and, indeed, all our allies is priceless in that it protects the people of this country from multiple threats, so what he says simply does not make sense.

[Graham Stuart]

The United States plays a critical role as a member of NATO and as a key ally—if not the key ally—of ours, but despite the priceless nature of the service it provides, we do not typically pay for it. We do not normally pay for its bases; we pay for our own.

[Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)]

Will the right hon. Member give way?

[Graham Stuart]

I said I would give way to my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis).

[Sir Julian Lewis]

My right hon. Friend is quite right. On the face of it, this does not make sense, unless we look at it in one particular way. If the Government have made a decision that they wish to have a strategic economic partnership with communist China, this makes sense, the closing of the case with the China spies makes sense, and the willingness for China to have the biggest embassy of any country in Europe makes sense. Even though the Government say that that is a quasi-judicial decision, it is interesting that for political reasons, they put it off till December. None of it makes sense, or all of it makes sense, as long as the National Security Adviser wants us to suck up to communist, totalitarian China.

[Graham Stuart]

My right hon. Friend makes a powerful point. That is at the heart of it. There are so many questions but one question is: why? Why would a deal like this be done by the Government? He puts forward a credible case as to why it might be.

[Phil Brickell]

Will the right hon. Member give way?

[Graham Stuart]

Perhaps the hon. Gentleman, who is not brave enough to speak fully but is prepared to intervene, can tell us why he would like to vote, if only he was given the chance, to give £35 billion to Mauritius and hand over a sovereign British base to someone in strategic partnership with China.

[Phil Brickell]

Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman can enlighten me on which of the amendments he is speaking to. New clause 4, which his party tabled, mentions coral, fish stocks, molluscs and ocean acidification in the marine protected area. Even the cynic in me is somewhat flabbergasted by the official Opposition’s apparent interest in environmental and climate change all of a sudden, given their desire to ride roughshod over the Climate Change Act and frack our countryside.

20:00

[Graham Stuart]

That is rather desperate. I give way to the right hon. Member for East Antrim.

[Sammy Wilson]

The Minister described this asset as “priceless”, yet he is giving it away—and not only is he giving it away; he is paying someone to take it! Is this the kind of decision people would expect from a rational Government? More importantly, if it is priceless in security terms, why are we compromising it?

[Graham Stuart]

The right hon. Gentleman is quite right to ask that question. That is what we are trying to get to the bottom of, and we hope to hear answers from the Minister this evening so that ordinary citizens of this country can understand how it is in the UK’s interest to do this.

Of course, other points have been touched on, including, quite rightly, the Chagossians. Why is the Labour party—the party so committed to human rights and which very much sees itself as champion for the underdog—absolutely disregarding the Chagossians? As the hon. Member for Bolton West suggested, Labour also sets itself out as a nature and climate champion, yet it is handing this asset over to a country without the wherewithal—I do not know about the will, but it is certainly without the wherewithal—to ensure that the protection of that marine area continues. That is the problem, and it is why we need answers from the Minister. The Government may be unable to get anyone to speak in favour of the Bill, but they should think again, accept the amendments and new clauses, and bring some light to bear on this rather murky issue.

[Aphra Brandreth (Chester South and Eddisbury) (Con)]

The treaty that the Bill will implement is shocking for so many reasons: the security implications, the staggering costs, and the voices that it has ignored—the voices of British Chagossians. Their views and concerns are many and varied. I had the privilege of meeting members of the community when they came to Parliament, while the former Foreign Secretary, the right hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy), met British Chagossians only once, and that was on the very day that the treaty was signed—far too late for their voices to have any influence. They are rightly frustrated that they have been excluded from negotiations and denied meaningful engagement. It is painfully clear that their voices were not considered; if they had been, the treaty might have placed their rights at its very centre.

Instead, article 6 gives Mauritius the freedom to resettle Chagossians, but not the duty to do so. After half a century of waiting for it, their right of return is left entirely at the discretion of a foreign Government. Under article 11, despite the billions of pounds that the Bill will transfer to Mauritius, only a fraction—in the form of a trust fund—is intended for Chagossians. Even then, it will be administered solely by Mauritius, with no guarantee that British Chagossians will have any say in how it is spent.

The treaty says that the UK and Mauritius want to

“recognise the wrongs of the past”,

but how can we recognise a wrong if we refuse to listen to those who suffered it? New clause 7, tabled by the shadow Foreign Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Witham (Priti Patel), is vital because it would require the Government to listen to and consult the Chagossian community here in the UK, and to report back on how their rights are being upheld. That would give British Chagossians the voice that they have been denied again and again.

Another vital issue is the risk that the Bill poses to one of the most precious marine environments on earth. The waters around the Chagos Islands form one of the world’s largest and most pristine marine protected areas. As we have heard, it is a haven of biodiversity, untouched by industrial fishing since 2010. Yet the treaty places that fragile ecosystem in jeopardy. Mauritius has promised to establish a new marine protected area, but it lacks the capacity to enforce it. It has no navy, and its coastguard of nine vessels is already stretched by patrolling waters thousands of miles away. By contrast, the UK has spent over £1.2 million since 2022 on monitoring and protecting those seas, developing world-leading expertise in remote enforcement through ships, sensors and satellite imagery.

Illegal fishing is already rife across the Indian ocean. China’s distant-water fleet is the largest in the world and the worst global offender for illegal fishing, according to the illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing index. What confidence can we have that Mauritius—a close ally of China—will be able or willing to resist such pressure and protect these fragile waters?

[Jerome Mayhew (Broadland and Fakenham) (Con)]

Is my hon. Friend aware that Mauritius does not have a navy?

[Aphra Brandreth]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. It has no navy and only nine coastguard vessels; it is not able to protect those waters.

Even if illegal fishing were controlled, the Mauritian Fisheries Minister has already spoken of wanting to issue fishing licences around the Chagos Islands. The agreement provides no guarantees; the extent of future protections will be decided only after the Bill has passed. New clauses 3 and 4 are essential to ensure parliamentary oversight of any future agreement and regular reporting on coral health, fish stocks and biodiversity.

As it stands, the Bill would hand billions of pounds of UK taxpayers’ money to Mauritius, with no guarantees of protection of the marine environment, no provisions to safeguard the rights of British Chagossians, and no mechanism for Britain to monitor whether the safeguards around the strategic military base on Diego Garcia are effective. The Conservative amendments offer a chance for the Government to be transparent, publish the legal advice on which they surrendered the Chagos Islands, and give the House a vote on the payment of £35 billion to Mauritius. The treaty is damaging in so many ways, but let us not make the damage worse by waving it through unchecked.

[Blake Stephenson (Mid Bedfordshire) (Con)]

Since this House first learned of the disastrous terms of the Chagos surrender deal, there has been significant focus on the spiralling cost and on the defence and security implications—we have heard many such arguments today. The Government’s weakness has compromised our national security. They are surrendering British territory to an ally of China and paying £35 billion—or perhaps as much as £50 billion—for the privilege. Their failure to defend the British national interest is shameful.

Equally shameful is the Government’s failure to consider the impact that the deal will have on environmental protections for marine areas. Members from across the House have reflected on that today, but it is a shame that so few Labour Members came to stand up for our environmental protections in the Indian Ocean Territories. I will address the importance of new clauses 3 and 4, two sensible amendments tabled by the shadow Foreign Secretary to strengthen oversight of the marine protected area.

The region of the Indian ocean that hosts the unique and remarkable Chagos Islands is of critical importance to wildlife. The archipelago is a biodiversity hotspot. The 640,000 sq km marine protected area, which has been monitored by the UK for the past 15 years, has kept the surrounding waters in near-pristine condition. The coral reefs in the untouched marine protected area are some of the healthiest in the world. They are a sanctuary for marine life, including endangered species such as hawksbill turtles, green turtles and reef sharks, and they are located along hugely significant migratory routes for species of tuna, whales and seabirds. The remarkable resilience of the reefs to coral bleaching events also makes them highly significant for scientific research to better understand resilience to changing climates.

[Peter Prinsley]

Like me, the hon. Member is a new Member, so I am puzzled: why does he consider that his party started these negotiations, if the whole thing is such a terrible idea?

[Blake Stephenson]

There is a difference between talking with other countries and doing a deal. I know that those on the Opposition Front Bench who formed part of the previous Government were not going to do this deal. They may have been talking, but as we have heard, there was going to be no agreement. I thank the hon. Member for his intervention and reflecting that I was not part of the previous Government, but he knows full well that this agreement would not have been made under these terms if the Conservatives were in government now.

The marine protected area is one of the largest untouched marine ecosystems, and it is globally significant. As such, instead of heedlessly driving this hopeless surrender deal through Parliament, the Government should have been ensuring that protections for wildlife and the marine environment were watertight. When answering questions before the Foreign Affairs Committee in June, the Minister would not give any clear assurances or guarantees on the future of the marine protected area. Within his obfuscation about separate agreements with Mauritius, which hope we can “share objectives and values”, he admitted that we can only

“take it on trust that there will be a Marine Protected Area”

after sovereignty has been surrendered.

We absolutely do not need to take that on trust. The Government have failed to secure any meaningful safeguards or guarantees, and are instead hoping—merely hoping—that a memorandum of understanding will somehow protect that pristine ecosystem. How on earth can we have any confidence in that at all?

A simple change of Government in Mauritius, or even just a change of heart, would render the UK powerless to stop Chinese trawlers turning up and devastating the marine environment. Given the evidence of China plundering the high seas, for example in the south Atlantic, just outside the Falkland Islands zone of economic interest, it absolutely will do the same in that territory.

[Sammy Wilson]

The hon. Gentleman is making a powerful point about the marine environment in the area, but does he accept that we do not even need a change of heart by Mauritius? We do not need it to decide that the treaty was not worthwhile—it does not have the ability to give the protection. Even if there was no change of heart, there is no ability to give such protection, which is why this is a bad deal for the environment.

[Blake Stephenson]

I absolutely agree, and I note that the right hon. Gentleman and I are the only Members in the Chamber from the Environmental Audit Committee, which I think is a damning indictment on those Members in this House who are here to protect our environment and hold the Government to account on environmental protections.

Will the Minister now explain what will happen to the MPA in future, and say whether the Government will commit resources to support the protection of the MPA? If so, where will those resources come from? With the fisheries Minister of Mauritius talking of issuing fishing and trawler licences, it is more important than ever that we have lasting confidence in marine protections before British territory is surrendered to Mauritius. When the Minister sums up the debate, will he say whether he shares my concerns over new fishing and trawler licences?

New clause 3 would require that any written instrument on the establishment and management of the marine protected area be subject to the approval of this House to ensure that it is fit for purpose. Will the Minister say what progress has been made with developing the “separate…instrument”, referenced in article 5.2 of the treaty? Will it be in place before Mauritius assumes sovereignty? Any agreement on the Chagos MPA must be scrutinised like a treaty and presented to Parliament.

New clause 4 would require the Secretary of State regularly to report on the status of the marine protected area. Reports from Committees in the Lords have raised concerns about Mauritius’s track record on environmental protections. Does the Minister agree with those concerns, and therefore agree that the ecological status of this extraordinary environment must remain on the British Government’s agenda, and will he reflect on that in his summing up of the debate? Will he now accept that, as well as costing British taxpayers £35 billion, betraying British Chagossians and undermining our security, without better protections secured in the treaty, the Government’s Chagos surrender deal will harm the marine environment? All of this at a time when the Government argued that the state of public finances required tough choices—choices that punished pensioners, family farmers, and taxed education for the very first time.

The annual cost of the surrender of the Chagos islands could pay for 3,068 new teachers, 3,253 new nurses or 1,975 police officers. In the first year, the money paid to Mauritius could deliver a new GP surgery in 30 communities —communities such as Wixams and Wootton in my constituency of Mid Bedfordshire, which are still waiting for improved access to local healthcare. This was all a choice—a choice to prioritise ideological surrender over our communities, over our security, and over marine protections. It is shameful, and I encourage hon. Members across the House to support new clauses 3 and 4.

20:15

[Danny Kruger (East Wiltshire) (Reform)]

I speak in support of new clause 1, which would ensure that this House had a vote before any money was paid to the Government of Mauritius under the treaty. I support the new clause because it demonstrates the important principle of this House asserting its rightful role as the guardian of both public money and British sovereignty. The privileges of this House have been serially insulted in the debates we have had today, which I want to mention quickly. With this new treaty we see the height of what we saw earlier: a dereliction of the responsibilities of this House and the Government. Earlier, in the urgent question on the China spy case, we heard that politicians should not be consulted—

[The Second Deputy Chairman]

Order. The hon. Gentleman will keep within the scope of this Bill, and not seek to rehash urgent questions held earlier.

[Danny Kruger]

I understand, Madam Chairman, and of course you are quite right. The point I was making is that there has never been a Government who are so reluctant to govern as the one we have today. We have heard from hon. Members how baffling the decision is to surrender the Chagos islands. The only rational reason that could account for it is some kind of secret deal with China. I do not know if that is the case. The Government’s obeisance to international law might well trump national sovereignty, and in fact there is no rational calculation behind this decision except that of submission to their ideas of international law.

[Stephen Doughty]

Again, I have to take serious issue with what the hon. Gentleman is suggesting. If what he is suggesting is true, why do the United States, our Five Eyes partners, and other key allies support this deal? It protects our national security, and it secures the base on Diego Garcia. Why would they support it? There is no secret deal—this is absolute nonsense.

[Danny Kruger]

I am grateful to the Minister. I suspect there has been a private conversation with the American Government as well, and that in recognition of the fait accompli that this Government have yielded to Mauritius, the Americans have extended this somewhat limited statement of support for the deal as some kind of favour to the Prime Minister, in exchange for support he has given them on other matters. The fact is that this deal is bad for Britain and bad for Britain’s sovereignty, and behind the scenes we know that the Americans do not support it.

I want to talk about secret deals, because my only addition to the debate—very powerful points have been made already—is to say that secret deals have been done with respect to the Chagos islands in the past. Under the 30-year rule, archival evidence has come out recently of a secret deal with respect to the base at Diego Garcia between the British Government of the day—the Thatcher Government—and the American Administration. That deal was done in the national interest. The renewal of the nuclear deterrent—the Trident programme—was being set up, and there was an agreement with the Americans whereby they could expand their access and the use of Diego Garcia in exchange for a reduction in the fee, essentially, that the British Government were charged for collaboration on the Trident programme. We had to pay significantly less than we would have paid otherwise because of the expanded access that we were giving to the Americans in those years. It was called the Diego-Trident package in the negotiations and the correspondence between the British and the Americans at that time. It was kept quiet for understandable reasons, and we only know about it now. I worry that there is a similar lack of transparency around this deal because, as I say, it cannot possibly be a deal that is in the national interest.

[Graham Stuart]

We are trying to get to the bottom of precisely why the Labour Government would make this deal. The hundreds of people who worked at the Vivergo plant in my constituency were sold out by the Prime Minister who, in a personal call with the President of the United States, surrendered the entire bioethanol market of this country to the United States, with nothing in return, at the end of an already concluded trade deal negotiation. It is things like that that make us worry what is behind this Bill, what is the secret deal and exactly who has been sold out.

[Danny Kruger]

The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. The key demand that this House is making is for greater transparency about what is going on behind the scenes with this deal. I implore the House to insist that, before Parliament accepts any new arrangements for the sovereignty of the Chagos islands, Ministers explain what is going on. Specifically, is the Minister aware of any effect on our nuclear posture? Is there any relationship between the deal that is being done today and implications for our deterrent? The base is vital to our national interest, and I would be grateful to understand whether any discussions have been had with reference to the deals that were done many years ago about the relationship with the nuclear deterrent.

[Dr Luke Evans]

I will speak to the amendments, starting with amendments 1 and 7, and take a canter through my position, as my constituents will have an interest in that.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Beverley and Holderness (Graham Stuart) asked the important question why. Amendments 1 and 7 try to address the most important issue: context. As my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis) pointed out, our signing this deal does not make sense. The Government have been weak in presenting the evidence for why they think we should sign the deal. I wrote to the Government to ask them to explain, and I was able to pull their response apart on Second Reading, one step at a time, explaining why their reasons do not fit.

Context is really important. I thought that the deal did not make sense, but factoring in the collapsed spy trial, the billion pounds provided to the steel factories, the pending decision on the embassy—yes, maybe no—and the change in the language used around the subject of China, we need to get to the heart of what is going on. The amendments are an attempt to do that in the name of transparency, which is hugely important.

[Blake Stephenson]

Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government are treating China like it is our friend, rather than the threat that it is?

[Dr Evans]

I would be interested to hear an answer to that, as we have tried several times to get the Government to quantify whether China is a threat, a friend, an ally or a foe.

Amendment 7 tries to look at

“an analysis of the status of UK’s sovereignty over the British Indian Ocean Territory under international law;”.

From talking about this previously, we know that UNCLOS, which is often used as the example of why we have to secede the territory, cannot preside over sovereignty, as was said in 2015 when dealing with the marine protected area. We have also heard the Government stress the importance of the International Telecommunications Union, saying that the issue is to do with spectre and spies. However, we know that there is a carve-out, because we heard about that on Second Reading.

That leaves us with the International Court of Justice, which is often held up as the key point. On Second Reading, I was taken by the fact that it is alleged that we have an opt-out under the Commonwealth, so I went away to have a quick look. On the ICJ website, as hon. Members can see, the “Declarations recognising the jurisdiction of the Court as compulsory—United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland” were published on 22 February 2017. I quote:

“1. The Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland accepts as compulsory ipso facto and without special convention, on condition of reciprocity, the jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice, ln conformity with paragraph 2 of Article 36 of the Statute of the Court, until such time as notice may be given to terminate the acceptance, over all disputes arising after 1 January 1987, with regard to situations or facts subsequent to the same date, other than:”—

these are critical points—

“(i) any dispute which the United Kingdom has agreed with the other Party or Parties thereto to settle by some other method of peaceful settlement; (ii) any dispute with the government of any other country which is or has been a Member of the Commonwealth;”.

That is there in black and white.

However, the Government have yet to mention that in any of debates or letters about their legal position. We need amendments 1 and 7 to be able to understand why the Government do not see that as a strong enough argument to hold up. This nonsense about whether or not there are negotiations is answered there too, because those declarations say:

“any method of peaceful settlement”.

Any good Government would try to resolve the dispute in a peaceful manner.

I am surprised at that from a Labour party whose Members pride themselves on being trade unionists, who make a living from negotiating and trying to come to a solution without the matter going to a court. That is exactly what they should be doing, but the Conservatives are being chastised for trying to have a conversation to resolve the situation. The fact was that we did not come up with a deal because the deal was not good enough.

The Labour Opposition moved into power and have now put forward this horrendous Bill that gives away power, but at what cost? They are not even going to try in court or use some of the simple arguments which I, as a doctor, have found after spending time researching. I am sure that in this great country we have many legal buffs that could put forward that argument, but if the government do not feel that it stands, they should come to this House and tell us why—put it in evidence, write it out and tell us all, and we will go quietly. However, we are not hearing or seeing that from this Government, which is why we need amendments 1 and 7.

Turning to amendments 3, 4 and 6, as has been rightly pointed out by my right hon. Friend the Member for Beverley and Holderness it is clear that the Bill gives carte blanche to this Government, or any other, to do whatever they want. We may as well not even bother having a debate about the Bill—it is not worth the paper it is written on—because the Henry VIII powers mean that Ministers can do what they will, when they will without coming to Parliament. At least these amendments try to ensure some accountability of the Executive to this House, because this House should be making these decisions, especially given their magnitude. We have heard from the Government that it is a priceless base and we have heard from the Conservative Benches about its geopolitical and security importance. Should the House not be making decisions about what that looks like?

New clause 1 talks about the payments. On Second Reading, I asked the Minister whether he could give me any example, from any part of the world, of when we have dealt with sovereignty using net present value. He said it was in the Green Book, but that is for domestic sites and used by the Treasury to look at civil development. I hope the Minister has gone away and done some research, because I think he will find that there is not a precedent, as net present value is not the correct measure and is open to political interference. For example, we use 3.5% and America uses 7%. We can fudge the numbers to fit the narrative that we would like to set.

There is one other problem. The explanatory notes stipulate only 30 years. Unless I have misquoted, this deal goes for 99 years, so what happens in the remaining 70 years? That is why new clause 1 would bring in a robust check to ensure that when the finances are paid out, we know exactly why we are paying, who we are paying and what we are paying for. Most importantly, we would know the mechanism of how the finances were calculated, because the Government still have not come to this place and set that out exactly.

Let me turn to new clause 2. What happens at the end? I raised that as my final point when I spoke on Second Reading. We have heard about long-term security, but in this place we think only on a five-year cycle; this is a 99-year cycle. My biggest fear is that my children’s children’s children, if they are ever elected to this Parliament, will be having a debate in 99 years with the same issues about what happens. It is a dereliction of duty on our behalf in this House not to think things through.

[Sir Julian Lewis]

My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech. I am surprised that nobody has referred to Hong Kong. When the decision was taken and the agreement was reached in 1984 for the handover in 1997, China agreed that it would be “one country, two systems” for at least 50 years. Within less than half that time, Britain came to the conclusion that all those safeguards were being deliberately violated.

20:30

[Dr Evans]

As ever, my learned right hon. Friend has pipped me to the punch. That is exactly a good example of the kind of sites we are worried about. What has that meant? We have taken on British nationals overseas and invited them in to give them security, because they feared for political interference and, worse still, for the safety of themselves and their families.

We are not doing our duties if we are not thinking about these things, because, as we have already seen, it is hard enough to predict things in two or three years’ time, let alone 100 years. At that point, as it is written, we will get the best offer, but it will be only offered to us. We could be outstripped by China, Russia or a BRIC country in the future—we do not know; it is 100 years away—and there is no mechanism to solve that. Worse still, Mauritius could simply say, “We do not want a base here at all,” and there is nothing in this Bill that would stop that. The Government repeatedly have been asked those questions, and they cannot set that out. That is why new clause 2 asks for those impacts to be considered and looked at.

New clause 3 would move the marine protected area. I will return to a point I made earlier. The fact is that when Britain and the United Kingdom were taken under UNCLOS in 2010 by Mauritius under annex VII, we wanted to implement protections in the area. Mauritius felt that that impeded on its ability to make its own decisions, which the court found in favour of, and it also wanted to fish in the area. Hang on a second! We are putting weaknesses into this Bill when we know that Mauritius has set its intent. I hope it has moved on, as the debate on climate has, but this new clause would be a guarantee to ensure that that has been thought about.

Let me turn to new clause 5. I appreciate the Minister stepping up, because there has already been debate about the Peros Banhos islands, and he has said there are no concerns that they will be leased to China. Let us be real: this Bill has only just come out—the ink is barely dry—and we already hear stories. Many journalists have already talked about this issue. Maybe I am wrong, but that shows the examples of what could and will come without paying attention to the security and the geopolitical and strategic advantage that these islands have, which my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for South Shropshire (Stuart Anderson) talked about. All new clause 5 asks us to do is ensure that that is reported on and looked at. Again, there is a dereliction of duty by not having that reported.

I could go on, because there are many more amendments, but the salient points in this debate have been made. All the amendments tabled in the names of Conservatives— and, to be fair, in the names of Members of many other Opposition parties—ask for one simple thing: transparency and explanation. They ask for a simple way of seeing what the legal advice does and where the financial outcome comes.

[Stephen Doughty]

indicated assent.

[Dr Evans]

The Minister is nodding along, but there must be something wrong if the public and Opposition Members cannot simply understand the arguments for what is being put in place. We cannot see the wood for the trees. It is a Government’s duty to show those arguments, and I look forward to the Minister doing that in his response and putting these arguments to bed once and for all. Otherwise, the British public will not forgive him.

[Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)]

I will primarily focus on new clause 8, which is in my name and the names of colleagues. First and foremost, this Bill is about perfecting the decolonisation of the British Indian Ocean Territory—that is self-evident in clause 2—but it does that in a way that ignores a primary component of decolonisation. We subscribe to United Nations resolution 1514. That resolution talks about respecting not only the integrity of territory, but self-determination. The British Indian Ocean Territory has existed, de facto and de jure, for over 50 years, yet the Government’s approach in justifying this completion of decolonisation is to focus solely on territorial integrity by claiming that the Chagos islands are, in fact, part of Mauritius.

Resolution 1514 contains a number of components. Its first point is that

“The subjection of peoples to alien subjugation, domination and exploitation constitutes a denial of fundamental human rights”.

Its second point is that

“All peoples have the right to self-determination”.

The question for this House is surely this: are the Chagossians a people? I certainly think that they are. They are distinct from the Mauritians by their ethnic background, by their religion and by geography. Mauritius and the Chagos islands are over 1,300 miles apart, approximately as far as it is from this House to north Africa, so after 50 years of the existence of the BIOT, it really is a stretch to say that the sole defining issue is that of territorial integrity. To say that is to ignore the right to self-determination.

This nation has dealt with decolonisation before, and we did not approach it on the basis that it is only about territorial integrity. Take the example of India. We decolonised in India, but we allowed it to be subject to self-determination—that is why we have India, Pakistan and Bangladesh. It is quite clear that this is not a situation in which territorial integrity trumps everything else. It does not trump self-determination. An experience of decolonisation such as India’s shows that territorial integrity is secondary to self-determination, yet the right of the people who claim the Chagos islands as their homeland to any measure of self-determination is the one thing that has been utterly ignored in this process. We have in our history the shameful episode of their forceful removal from the Chagos islands, and now under this treaty, we are going to compound that shame by legitimising that removal. Saying that this is only about territorial integrity is to legitimise their forceful removal from the Chagos islands—that is how we get around the question of self-determination. That is wrong. The people of the Chagos islands are a people. They are a people with a homeland; therefore, under international law, they are a people with a right to self-determination, so why do this treaty and this Bill trash that right? That is the fundamental haunting question when it comes to the humanity and international legal requirements of the situation that prevails.

The Government are obviously holding to the line, “It is only about territorial integrity,” but they are hoisted by their own petard, because they have recognised the Chagossians as a people by setting aside some millions of pounds for them. They cannot say it is only about territorial integrity, and there is no people to whom to give the right to self-determination, and then say, “For those people to whom we deny the right to self-determination, here is some conscience money.” They cannot do that, yet that is what the treaty does.

The BIOT recognised the separateness of the people of the Chagos islands, and even the much-vaunted advisory judgment of the International Court of Justice gives respect and acknowledgment—to an extent—to the question of self-determination. At one point, the judgment states:

“It follows that any detachment by the administering Power of part of a non-self-governing territory, unless based on the freely expressed and genuine will of the people of the territory concerned, is contrary to the right to self-determination.”

Even that advisory judgment recognised the exception of the freely expressed and genuine will of the people, but that is what we have not had on this issue. This Government have gone out of their way to deny the free and genuine expression of opinion by the people whose homeland is the Chagos islands. That shameful indictment compounds what we did to those people at the end of the 1960s. The Government now totally dehumanise their human rights by saying, “You have no rights whatever when it comes to self-determination.” That is fundamentally wrong.

If the splitting of that wider colony in 1965 was illegitimate because there was no self-determination, according to the advisory judgment of the Court, then equally the Chagos islands rejoining Mauritius without self-determination is illegitimate. The Government cannot have it both ways, but that is what this Bill is seeking to do. The Government say that because it was illegitimate to split the Chagos islands off from Mauritius in 1965 because there was no self-determination, the Bill is about territorial integrity only, but if the basis of rejoining the Chagos islands to Mauritius is without self-determination, then that equally is illegitimate. Those are some of the points that this Government have not faced, and if they have faced them, they have not answered them. This House is legitimately asking those questions tonight, and waiting for answers. If those answers do not come, it will illustrate how this is the tawdry, unacceptable and unenforceable Bill that it will ultimately be seen to be.

[Jerome Mayhew]

The Minister will try his best in a few minutes to defend this wholly indefensible Bill, but the public know what it is: they see it as an absolute sell-out. I suspect that the Government Members who are not filling the green Benches see it as a sell-out, too. That is why every single one of them failed to support the Bill in Committee, save for one brave or perhaps misguided Member.

The public can see that they are a weak Government without the backbone necessary to stand up for the British public’s interests. They see this Bill as the sell-out that it is geopolitically, with the Government blind to the associated security risks, the sell-out that it is financially, with £35 billion going to a foreign Government, and the sell-out that it is of the Chagossian people, with their exclusion from negotiations.

20:44

The public are baffled by the Government’s arguments in relation to this agreement, as indeed am I. Let us look at the legal rationale for capitulation. It has collapsed under scrutiny. We were told by the Minister at the Dispatch Box that the primary reason why this deal was needed was the “imminent threat of a binding judgment”, yet no such tribunal exists. Originally, I believe, the Minister thought that it was to be the International Court of Justice, but we now know, as the Minister should know, that the ICJ does not have binding capacity when the UK is dealing with a former Commonwealth country, so it is not the ICJ.

We have also heard it said from the Dispatch Box that perhaps it is the United Nations convention on the law of the sea, but we also now know that in 2015 UNCLOS excluded itself from the ability to have jurisdiction on land-based disputes. So, my goodness, don’t we need amendment 7, which would require the Government to publish the legal arguments behind their currently baffling decision to go through with this deal?

[Graham Stuart]

We are all wrestling with the question “Why?” As my hon. Friend has said, the Government’s position was clear in 2017: namely, that the ICJ had no power over a deal we made with a Commonwealth member. Perhaps this Prime Minister has, without telling us, reversed that in some way, and the Government have decided that this should be subject to the ICJ, in which case the Minister would have a point, but should we not know that we made ourselves subject to the ICJ when previously we were not? What other answers are there?

[Jerome Mayhew]

My right hon. Friend is absolutely right to ask those questions—questions that have been asked of the Government time and again throughout this legislative process, but to which we simply have not had an answer.

The Government seem to be blind to the risk of the craven withdrawal of influence from the Indo-Pacific region. This is more Jonathan Powell. He was, of course, the Prime Minister’s envoy, and the architect of the negotiation and the deal. The more I learn of Jonathan Powell, the more I realise that he seems to have a long-term instinct to downplay the threat from China—a threat in the Indian Ocean through this negotiated deal. Let us not forget that this is the same Jonathan Powell who now wears a different hat. He is now the National Security Adviser, and that, very unusually, was a political appointment. There is the question of his involvement—or perhaps it is not his involvement— in the collapse of the Chinese spying case. We are asked to believe that he was not involved in it, and that seems baffling as well.

[Dr Evans]

Was my hon. Friend as surprised as I was to find out that the National Security Adviser does not speak to his deputy? [Interruption.]

[The Chairman of Ways and Means (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Order. I do not think we need this chuntering from the Front Bench. Can we ensure that the speech remains within the legislation that we are debating and voting on tonight?

[Jerome Mayhew]

I will endeavour to do so, Madam Chair. In fact, I will more than endeavour; I will do so.

The reason this is relevant is that it speaks to new clause 5. While the Government have their head in the sand in respect of Mauritius’s relations with China—this is why it is important, Madam Chair—their first argument is that Mauritius will not be influenced by China, and is it not awful of us to suggest that it might be. I raised this question with the former Foreign Secretary, the right hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy), back in October last year. I raised concerns that Mauritius was an ally of China and was open to influence from that country. With the disdain for which he is now famous, the right hon. Gentleman pooh-poohed that. He said that Mauritius was not a Chinese ally because it was not part of the belt and road agreement in Africa.

When we look at the relationship between China and Mauritius, however, we see that they have strong bilateral ties that go back to 1972, on economic co-operation and diplomatic support. China is the largest trading partner of Mauritius, which entered into a free trade agreement with China—the first such free trade agreement that China has entered into on the African continent. Perhaps it did not need to belong to the belt and road agreement in addition to its free trade agreement.

There is influence expressed through investments, loans and grants. China built the international airport terminal for Mauritius. It has invested in the Jinfei economic and trade co-operation zone—a flagship belt and road initiative—and between 2000 and 2012 China also funded 47 development projects in Mauritius through loans and grants. So forgive me, Madam Chair, if I do not swallow the argument that Mauritius is wholly beyond the influence of China.

The Government say, “If Mauritius is under the influence of China, don’t worry, because China don’t support this deal. China will be arguing against this deal.” We were told by the Prime Minister that China, Russia and Iran do not support the Chagos deal. Therefore, presumably my geopolitical security fears must be wrong. Well, Ministers have repeatedly been asked for the evidence that China does not support this deal, and none has been provided to date. If I am wrong on that, perhaps the Minister will say from the Dispatch Box where China has expressed its concerns about this deal.

If you were to listen to the Chinese ambassador to Mauritius, even you, Madam Chair, would be forgiven for thinking that China is thoroughly in favour of this deal, because he sent “massive congratulations” to Mauritius and said that China “fully supports” Mauritius’s attempt to “safeguard national security.” That is the definition of doublespeak if it does not mean that China is wholly in favour of this deal and is celebrating it with Mauritius. I am not convinced, and neither are the Government.

[Mike Kane]

I am fond of the hon. Gentleman, who speaks of “doublespeak”. It was not long ago in my political lifetime that the former Member for Witney, the then Prime Minister, invited His Excellency Xi Jinping for a pint in The Plough at Cadsden, in Oxfordshire. As he departed back to China from the airport in my constituency, I sat with the Prime Minister as he fawned over the Chinese Administration like it was some papal visit. What is going on with the Conservatives? Are you divided on what our approach to China should be?

[The Chairman of Ways and Means (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Order. Mr Kane, do not use the word “you”, because that refers to me.

[Jerome Mayhew]

I am not often compared to the noble Lord Cameron, but it is absolutely right that as the geopolitical environment changes, so should our policies. We on this side of the House are realists.

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith]

As I was in government at the time, I can answer the hon. Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East (Mike Kane): the golden decade proposed by the then Chancellor, with whom I did not get on very well, was a disaster. If anything should have been learned by that, his Government should have learned that when you sup with the Chinese, you better have a very long spoon, because they suck you in. We got nothing out of those 10 years, and now look at us.

[The Chairman]

Order. Mr Mayhew and colleagues who hope to intervene, let us remember the scope of the debate in front of us.

[Jerome Mayhew]

It is for exactly those reasons that we so desperately need new clause 5, which would require an annual security report to the Intelligence and Security Committee. That would mean that we are not caught with our heads in the sand again.

We are beginning to build a picture of a slippery Government who are not being honest with the British people, not being honest about the legal justifications for this deal and not being honest about the security risk associated with the deal, and who are now being slippery about the financial cost as well. Again, the Prime Minister himself said that this slippery deal was going to cost the taxpayer £101 million a year for 99 years. He rounded that down from £10 billion, which my maths would have come to, to £3.4 billion. Through a freedom of information request, the Government Actuary’s Department has confirmed that the actual cost is £34.7 billion. Did the Prime Minister just get the decimal point in the wrong place, or was it something more sinister?

Madam Chair, you could be forgiven for thinking that the Government should no longer be trusted. They are changing their story in relation to this agreement, and they changed their story in relation to the China spy trial collapse. We need new clause 1 so that no payments can be made without direct approval from the House of Commons. At least then the Government would have to explain the real figures and be open to transparency and scrutiny.

The public see through Labour’s deal, and they know a sell-out when they see one. The Opposition amendments and new clauses bring transparency to expose this sell-out from a weak Prime Minister without the backbone to stand up for Britain. No wonder Labour Members are about to vote against them.

[Jeremy Corbyn]

I will be brief, but I am very pleased to be able to speak in this debate as chair of the all-party parliamentary group on the Chagos islands, which last week had its 103rd meeting. It has been ably supported by David Snoxell, the former British high commissioner to Mauritius, who has done incredible work with his knowledge of and empathy for the Chagossian people. There are two former chairs of the group in the Committee at the moment—the hon. Members for Romford (Andrew Rosindell) and for Wythenshawe and Sale East (Mike Kane)—and the former Member for Crawley was also chair of the group at one time.

We founded that group a long time ago to listen to, and take action in support of, the Chagos islanders, who were angry that they had been forcibly removed from their homes, angry at the way they had been treated by successive British Governments, and very angry at the initial decision that was taken and the sheer brutality that went with it. To give Members a brief example, in 1973 a 20-year-old Chagossian woman, Liseby Elysé, while carrying her unborn child, was forcibly removed from the Chagos island of Peros Banhos. She lost her unborn child soon after her traumatic upheaval and the journey, and she and her husband survived with considerable uncertainty and in very precarious living conditions, like all other Chagossians. However, 45 years later, in 2018, she represented her community at The Hague when she spoke about her life and her losses. Her story was compelling and memorable, like those of so many other Chagos islanders, because of the personal horror, trauma and abuse that they suffered. They have always demanded and fought for their right of return, and that is the central core of what the all-party parliamentary group on the Chagos islands has done.

I realise there are now different opinions in the group about the sovereignty or otherwise of the islands, but there has always been a fundamental agreement on the right of return. That led to massive legal actions, which were bravely fought by the Chagos islanders with very little support. There were a few people such as Richard Gifford, their solicitor, who were fantastic in their support. Eventually, we gathered wider support, and we got favourable decisions at all levels of justice around the world, including at the United Nations General Assembly.

It is worth recalling, as many Members have done, the 1965 decision made by Harold Wilson, then Prime Minister. In offering Mauritius its independence, he came to this extraordinarily complicated deal, which essentially involved the United States getting a base on Diego Garcia and, in return, Mauritius getting its independence. Somewhere along the line, as the hon. Member for East Wiltshire (Danny Kruger) pointed out, there would either be a discount on the next generation of nuclear weapons, or free delivery of weapons at some point in the future. A lot of this was shrouded in mystery, in the private conversations between Wilson and Prime Minister Ramgoolam at the time, so there is a lot of confusion surrounding that.

Somewhere at that time the idea was to set up the British Indian Ocean Territory, and somewhere at that time the decision was made that the archipelago—including Peros Banhos, which is a considerable distance from Diego Garcia—would be separated from Mauritius as well and that it would have to be depopulated, hence the utter brutality of the removal of the entire population from the islands. So the question that many Members have brought up is this: should the Chagos islands be separate from Mauritius or part of Mauritius? Interestingly, during the 1965 discussions Mauritius never accepted the separation. It never accepted that the Chagos islands should be separated either constitutionally or in any other way from Mauritius. As we know, the decision was basically forced on the Mauritians in return for their independence.

We now have a situation in which we have finally got a treaty. It has its imperfections—of that everyone is agreed. Personally, I am less than happy about the idea of a massive military base on Diego Garcia, and even less happy that it might be there in 100 years’ time. However, a treaty has been agreed that will ensure the right of Chagos islanders to return to the Chagos islands, but unfortunately only a limited right of return to Diego Garcia itself. I am looking forward to the Minister’s speech, and I would be grateful if was able to say a bit more about the rights of access to Diego Garcia for Chagos islanders, their right to visit the church and the graves of their ancestors, and whether there is some possibility of a degree of residence on Diego Garcia. There is no other place in the world where a military base is surrounded by an entirely depopulated area, in this case an island, and I would be grateful if the Minister was able to say something about that.

21:00

We have fought for the right of return. I fully understand that Chagos islanders—some resident here, some in the Seychelles, many in Mauritius, and others in a diaspora all around the world, in France and many other places—probably all have different views and different memories, but in the surveys that were done when this issue was discussed at great length about 10 years ago, they were all in favour of the right of return. The issue of sovereignty under Mauritius was not really a great feature of those discussions, although it appears to be now.

We should listen to the Chagos Refugees Group, based in Mauritius and led brilliantly by Olivier Bancoult, who has been through every court case. Indeed, he started the whole process of demanding the right of return, which has eventually been successfully achieved. The statement that the Chagos Refugees Group made last week said:

“The Agreement therefore meets the aim of our community to be reunited with our Islands. It has been concluded after nearly 3 years of negotiation between Mauritius and the UK and extensive consultation. Unless, therefore, the Agreement is approved and implemented, our exile will continue with no hope of restoring our fundamental human right to return. It was the creation of BIOT on 8 June 1965, 60 years ago, which led to our exile.”

We are seeing another page in the dramatic history of the Indian ocean. Surely we should recognise the human rights of the people who were so disgracefully treated by Britain—and by the United States, but principally by Britain. They, at last, will see some degree of justice and the ability to return to their islands. I hope, when the Minister replies, that he will be able to give me some hope and comfort on the question of access to Diego Garcia, and also explain why it is necessary to have these incredibly long leases for the US to continue its operations on Diego Garcia. It seems to me that we should be working towards the Indian ocean being an ocean of peace, not an ocean of conflict between rival powers.

[Ben Obese-Jecty (Huntingdon) (Con)]

For no apparent reason, and in a crowded field, the Government have chosen the Chagos islands as one of the many hills they wish to die on. The surrender of the sovereignty of the Chagos islands has been a puzzling mis-step for months, with today’s votes the culmination of it.

There was a clumsy rush to try to force the deal through, first before the elections in Mauritius and then before the US elections, and there now appears to be an attempt to salvage some dignity, having seemingly surrendered

“meekly to a Mauritian shakedown”,

as my right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge (Tom Tugendhat) has put it, while trying to upsell the deal to a US Government that publicly backs it, given that it will not cost them a penny, but privately must have concerns over the impact of allowing Chinese encroachment in the region. With recent developments shifting the focus of US foreign policy to the Indo-Pacific, the Chagos islands deal surely takes on greater significance. The base is now more important to US policy, not less.

Last December, the previous Armed Forces Minister, the hon. Member for Plymouth Sutton and Devonport (Luke Pollard), who is in his place, announced that the deal

“secures the future of the UK-US base on Diego Garcia”,

and said that

“when everyone looks at the detail of the deal, they will back it”.—[Official Report, 2 December 2024; Vol. 758, c. 28.]

Indeed, the Minister for the Overseas Territories, the hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty) confirmed to me that

“There has been no change to the substance of the deal”.—[Official Report, 5 February 2025; Vol. 761, c. 764.]

That is strange, because the new Prime Minister of Mauritius, Navin Ramgoolam, described the deal struck with the previous Mauritian Government as a “sell-out”, stating that the deal should be indexed to inflation, take exchange rates into account and fully recognise Mauritius’s ownership of the islands, which could affect the UK’s unilateral right to renew the lease. That was in mid-January. Less than a fortnight later, the Minister confirmed to me in a written answer that the UK would not have the unilateral ability to extend the agreement at the end of the lease. What changes were made to the original deal during discussions with the Government of Mauritius, and why have the Government gone on record as saying that the deal has not changed, in direct contradiction with the statements of the Prime Minister of Mauritius? Surely the Minister for the Overseas Territories is not suggesting that Prime Minister Ramgoolam is mistaken.

In January, when I asked the Prime Minister whether he had ever discussed the Chagos islands with Philippe Sands KC, his answer was a brusque, “No.” Brevity is key when trying not to give too much away. Philippe Sands has represented Mauritius at the International Court of Justice in multiple disputes over the Chagos islands. In 2022, Mr Sands published “The Last Colony: A Tale of Exile, Justice and Britain’s Colonial Legacy” about Chagos. It is worth highlighting that Philippe Sands and the Prime Minister have apparently been very good friends for several years; they even interviewed one another at the Hay festival.

Earlier this year, The Telegraph reported that the national security justification for surrendering the Chagos islands used by the Prime Minister came from Philippe Sands, who wrote about it in the 2023 book, “The International Legal Order in the 21st Century”. With Mr Sands apparently no longer representing Mauritius following the change in regime, it does make one wonder if that was the reason why there was such a rush to conclude the deal before the election, after which Mr Sands’ services were no longer required—did the Government lose their in?

I would be interested to know how the Government think the International Telecommunication Union would block our use of the electromagnetic spectrum. How would it block communications equipment on Diego Garcia without encroaching on our territory? What active blocking of electromagnetic frequencies is a UN agency capable of doing anyway? What steps would the ITU have taken to block the US military’s use of the electromagnetic spectrum had we not progressed this deal? The national security argument simply does not stack up.

New clause 6 would require the Secretary of State to report annually to Parliament on the impact of UNCLOS on the operation of the treaty. The Government have previously stated that it is ITLOS that would pose the greatest threat to the operation of Diego Garcia. It was cited specifically by the Defence Secretary for the first—and only—time on 22 May, when he said:

“There are a range of international legal challenges and rulings against us. The most proximate, and the most potentially serious, is the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea.”—[Official Report, 22 May 2025; Vol. 767, c. 1291.]

In July, the Minister for the Overseas Territories referred to ITLOS for the first time since he was a shadow Minister for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs, when, in December 2022, he had stated that the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea

“did not have competence on territorial disputes”,

going on to say:

“It is a fact that China has made increasing encroachments into the territorial waters of its neighbours and vast claims in the South China sea while ignoring judgments against itself. That has been matched by a growing assertiveness, and even belligerence, towards some of our allies and partners in the region”.—[Official Report, 7 December 2022; Vol. 724, c. 162WH.]

He asked for assurances then. Now, nearly three years later, with a belligerent China flexing its naval muscle in the region and adopting a robust posture towards us over the delay to the decision on its London embassy and the obvious ongoing spy debacle, what assurances can the Government give the Committee that this opportunity will not be exploited by the Chinese Communist party?

As recently as August, the Mauritian Government referred to

“The strategic role of Mauritius as an investment gateway to Africa and a trusted partner for Chinese enterprises seeking to expand their footprint therein”.

Mauritius is committed to working closely with China—far closer, it would appear, than it is to working with us. Why are the Government prepared to embolden Chinese ambition in the Pacific? Why are they prepared to embolden Chinese spying in Parliament? Why are they prepared to allow the Chinese to build an embassy in London without absolute clarity on its structural plans? With all that in mind, why will the Government not include China in the enhanced tier of the foreign influence registration scheme? The shadow of Jonathan Powell looms large over this deal, as it has over every aspect of the Government’s dealings with the Chinese Communist party.

Across the globe, we are seeing changes in the rules-based order. We must navigate this better. My fear, which is shared by all on the Conservative Benches, is that this capitulation shows no understanding of the changes we are facing. We need to ensure that this great nation stands up for safety, freedom and security across an increasingly dangerous world, and this opaque and furtive deal puts that at unacceptable risk.

[Sammy Wilson]

A deal of such implication, one would have thought, would have been hotly debated in this House, yet as has been pointed out, there has been no attempt to defend it by the Government. In fact, one could hardly call this a debate—it has all been one-sided. In a debate, people usually argue in favour of whatever the proposal happens to be and listen to and rebut the arguments from the other side. We have had no rebuttal from the other side—the Government—today, despite the fact that this is such an important deal.

For some people outside the House, this deal might seem to be an unimportant issue—where are the Chagos islands, and why do they matter? However, even if the attitude taken by Government Members is to say, “Our constituents are not all that interested in the issues around the Chagos islands,” there are issues with this deal that have been raised this evening that should concern them all.

Let us look at the issues, because they are addressed by the amendments. The first is human rights—the human rights of the people who were displaced in the 1960s and who are ignored in this deal. Their rights to self-determination and to decide where they live are being ignored, yet we are not getting any response from the Government—the party that talks about human rights all the time. They say that we cannot leave the European convention on human rights because human rights are so important, but they are ignoring the human rights of the people who are affected by this deal.

[Stephen Doughty]

Will the right hon. Member give way?

[Sammy Wilson]

Since we are going to have a debate, I will listen to the Minister.

[Stephen Doughty]

I thank the right hon. Member for giving way. He says that he wants a debate, and I have given a number of rebuttals. He mentions the Chagossians, whom I will come to in my concluding remarks. I respect what he has to say, but I point him to remarks from the Chagos Refugees Group, which said in its communiqué to all of us: “We urge all Members of Parliament to support the Bill at its final stages and deliver long overdue justice to all our people. Passing this Bill will mark a turning point and the moment when Parliament stands on the right side of history and begins to restore what was unjustly taken from us.” There are a range of views within the Chagossian community, and I think it is important that those are put on the record.

[Sammy Wilson]

Of course there are many who take a totally different point of view and whose wishes are not reflected in this Bill. The amendments that have been tabled to seek to remedy that situation are being ignored and opposed by the Government.

The second issue is the economy. On a regular basis, we hear how difficult the fiscal position is for this country—black holes we have to fill by taking money off pensioners, reducing benefits, cutting here and cutting there, and taxing people to the hilt. Yet when amendments are tabled that simply request transparency and the opportunity to look at the expenditure involved in this treaty, we hear no support from the Government. Either we are concerned about the fiscal position of this country or we are not. I would suggest that £35 billion—and rising—is a significant figure that we should be looking at.

[Dr Luke Evans]

The right hon. Member is making a powerful point. Is not part of the problem that we do not even know which budget the money is coming out of? That is the kind of simple question that the man or woman on the street would expect us to be able answer.

[Sammy Wilson]

We may not know which budget it is coming from, but we know whose pockets it is coming from: the pockets of taxpayers. To a certain extent it does not really matter, because all our constituents will pay for this deal. The Minister said that the Chagos islands were priceless, yet we are giving them away and giving away taxpayers’ money for them—and we do not even know how much we will be giving in the long run. I would have thought that some Government Members have concerns, if not about human rights then about the financial implications of the deal.

Especially at this time, national security is an important issue for every Member of the House, yet amendments that seek to ensure that there is scrutiny over what happens to these islands, who has influence in them and whether the treaty that has been entered into guarantees that our security will not be jeopardised are being refused. The Government are not even attacking the amendments or explaining their opposition.

[Paul Holmes]

Does the right hon. Member share my dismay that, despite a Government majority of over 170 and the fact that there are over 400 Government MPs, on an issue of national security only one Government Back Bencher spoke in this debate? Does he think that is an indication of how the Labour party views national security and an overseas territory being given away for nothing?

[Sammy Wilson]

I do. Since the hon. Member has given me the opportunity, I will make the point now—I was going to make it later on—that while no Government Members have been rushing to defend the Bill in the Committee, hundreds of them will be rushing through the Lobby at 10 o’clock or half-past 10 to vote for it. That is the worrying thing. Defence of it, there is none; support for it, despite the issues we have highlighted, there will be.

21:15

I hear time and again that the Government are the greenest Government there has ever been. Some people will say, as they already have, “Well, you can hardly talk about green government given your attitude towards man-made climate change.” The fact that I do not support the policies of net zero does not mean that I do not care about the environment. Indeed, we need to protect many aspects of our environment, and some of the green policies actually destroy the environment, but I will leave that there.

On the Environmental Audit Committee, we recently called for an end to bottom trawling because of the damage it does to the marine environment.

[Phil Brickell]

Will the right hon. Member give way?

[Sammy Wilson]

I will in a minute, but let me finish this point. Yet here we have a Bill that does not give any long-term security to one of the pristine marine environments. Indeed, we are handing over responsibility for it to a Government who could not even get a boat to put a flag up, yet we are supposed to believe that they will be able to protect the marine environment if foreign countries attempt to destroy it by doing deep-sea trawling, bottom trawling and so on. I would have thought that the environmentalists on the Government Benches might at least have asked some questions about the treaty, or would have supported some of the amendments that seek to do that, yet we find that is not the case.

This is a bad Bill. It will have long-term implications for our country financially and it will have long-term implications for those people who felt that perhaps there was an opportunity for their rights to self-determination to be granted. They have not been. Of course, there are also dangers to our long-term security.

I will finish with this point. I have no doubt that the Minister will repeat the point he made. Sure, the Americans support it—as if the Americans always make good strategic decisions. They do not. Given the time tonight, I know that you would stop me, Madam Chairman, if I started going through some of the bad strategic decisions the Americans have made that we and the world have lived with and their consequences. Just because the Americans—for short-term gain or short-term interest—have supported the deal, let us not say it is okay. It is a bad deal. Amendments were made to try to improve the Bill. The shame is that those amendments were not debated. The Bill goes contrary to the beliefs of many Members on the Government Benches. Unfortunately, I suspect the Bill will go through with a huge majority.

[The Chairman of Ways and Means (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

For the final Back-Bench contribution, I call Mr Jim Shannon. If people have contributed, they should make their way back to the Chamber. Danny Kruger, I am looking at you to whip your colleague.

[Danny Kruger]

indicated assent.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

Thank you for allowing me to speak on this issue once again, Ms Ghani. I will prefix my comments with this. It is always good to see the Ministers—the Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, the hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty) and the Minister for Defence Readiness and Industry, the hon. Member for Plymouth Sutton and Devonport (Luke Pollard)—in their place. They are both honourable men whose friendship I value. Being ever respectful, and with great respect to both hon. Gentlemen, I wish to make some comments that will be very contrary to what they have put forward today.

It will be no surprise that I rise at the last hour and as the last Back-Bench speaker—that is often the case, but none the less it is always a pleasure to make a contribution —to ask the Government again to reconsider their decision and ask the Committee to oppose the Bill, even though I know that the numbers game does not stack up.

As we all know, the treaty provides for Mauritius to exercise full sovereignty over the Chagos archipelago, with the UK exercising rights on Diego Garcia during an initial 99-year period. Over those 99 years, the UK will pay Mauritius a total of around £3.4 billion in 2025-26 prices, and that will probably rise. At a time when the Government are taxing farmers, taxing widows’ pensions and taxing the middle class into oblivion, handing over £3.4 billion with a benefit that is not tangible is unacceptable. Our constituents will be worse off in the next financial year. Indeed, a typical British family are as much as £15,000 a year poorer than they were five years ago, according to recent Telegraph Money analysis. Why, then, have we entered into this agreement, which may fluctuate and cost substantially more than the figure that has been predicted?

I want to make it clear that I believe this treaty should be renegotiated from beginning to end, but if the Bill is to go ahead, it is essential that any increases in payments should come through this House, and that whatever Government are in place at that time should present that. I therefore support new clause 1, which would give certainty and security that increases would not take place without the approval of this House.

Turning to new clauses 2, 5 and 7, I have long stated that there are now substantial risks to our military bases, and that has been reiterated by every person bar one in the Committee today. I am anxious to understand our legal standing on this. I believe it is right and proper for the Committee to understand the nature of how renting from Mauritius will give us the safety and security needed to ensure that those stationed on the base, or relying on support from the base in that area, will not feel vulnerable or exposed. I believe that this deal does expose us, and that we need to be very much aware of our standing and take the necessary steps. That begins with having full knowledge and not simply empty assurances. The recent debacle with the Chinese spies decisions has shown that openness, transparency and accountability are needed even more tonight than they have been in the other statements and urgent questions today. New clause 2 would enforce that as a minimum.

New clause 9 is similar to new clause 8, tabled by the hon. and learned Member for North Antrim (Jim Allister) and my right hon. Friend the Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson). I support new clause 9, given its similarity to the new clause brought forward by my Northern Ireland colleagues, who are intimately aware of how issues on the ground can be vastly different from those that are reported. This addition to ensure that a report is made on the compliance of the treaty and the Act with the UN General Assembly resolutions on decolonisation is vital and, I believe, underlines the words of support that have been given to those in the area who are fearful of the removal of British influence and support and fearful of the Mauritian ideals, which were flagged by our American allies in their human rights report in 2023.

As the chair of the all-party parliamentary group on international freedom of religion or belief, I know that the two issues of human rights and persecution are married together as one, because when we highlight the issue of human rights, we also highlight the issue of persecution of religious beliefs, and vice versa. I really have to express some concerns over human rights in this context. I understand that the Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, the hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth will reply to the debate. Although I believe he understands and believes in these issues as strongly as I do, I still have great concerns about human rights. It is essential that we do not simply hand over control and abandon not just the military base but all in the region who have relied on our support and friendship over the years.

Unfortunately, this has been a bad treaty from beginning to end. Our Chagossian citizens remain unhappy, our armed forces remain unhappy and the families who are footing the bill are unhappy. I believe that the Government have made the wrong decision on this. The recent Chinese debacle has heightened the need to continue to have boots on the ground and eyes wide open against those who would seek to thwart British interests and the interests of freedom and democracy worldwide. We have recently seen the result of appeasement when the Israeli Deputy Prime Minister highlighted the difficulties brought about by this Government’s decision to recognise terrorism and a Palestinian state with no borders, no working non-terrorist Government and no social care system. The handing over of Chagos and renting it back will prove to be a costly and dangerous exercise in capitulation, and even at this very late stage I urge the Government to think again and, at the very least, accept additional protection for the sake of all our collective security.

[Stephen Doughty]

I thank all hon. and right hon. Members for their contributions. I will attempt to respond to the specifics of the amendments and new clauses in due course, but I want to come back to some of the fundamental points that have been raised during the debate first, and I also want to respond to some of the specific questions that were raised.

With the exception of some genuine questions in relation to the Chagossians, the MPA and the environmental protections, and the implementation of this treaty, it was a shame to see the rehash of the same arguments that were made on Second Reading. There were some outrageous and nonsensical arguments and claims, particularly relating to the costs and to other matters, which I will come to.

I was shocked by some of the anti-American, conspiracy-fuelled nonsense that we heard at various points during the debate. The base is critical to the United Kingdom, the United States, our allies and our national security, and the Bill and the treaty protect the functioning of that base. It does not surrender it; it secures it into the future. This is a Government who inherited a mess from the former Ministers on the Opposition Benches. We are getting stuff done. We are a patriotic Government; our first duty is to protect the national security of this country, and that is why we have got this deal done. It is why it is backed by the United States. It is why it is backed by our Five Eyes partners. It is absolutely crucial to protect the British people and our allies.

We have been very transparent about the reasons for it, and they are the exact opposite of what has been suggested. I come back, as I always have done, to the fundamental question: if there were not a problem and a risk to the operations of this crucial base, why did the previous Government start the negotiations, why did they continue them through 11 rounds of negotiations, and why did they continue them right up until the general election? Those are the facts.

[Dr Evans]

Will the Minister give way?

[Stephen Doughty]

I will happily take interventions, but first I want to respond to the points that have been made. This agreement has been backed by our key allies and international partners, including the US and our Five Eyes allies. India, Japan and South Korea have also made clear their strong support.

Many questions were asked about the robust security provisions that we have in place to protect the UK and the base for decades to come. The treaty and the Bill secure full operational control of Diego Garcia, a strict ban on foreign security forces across the archipelago and an effective veto on any activity that threatens the base on Diego Garcia. It has been welcomed by the International Agreements Committee and the International Relations and Development Committee in the other place, which said that they

“were assured that the Agreement preserves the UK’s and the US’s freedom of action.”

The legal rationale has been referred to many times, but legally binding provisional measures from the courts could have come within weeks, for example, affecting our ability to patrol the waters around Diego Garcia, and even if we did not comply, international organisations and other countries would. We have set out the legal rationale on a number of occasions. We have been very clear. We also published documents around it.

[Paul Holmes]

Will the Minister give way?

[Stephen Doughty]

I will respond to some points first. Hon. Members have had plenty of time to make their case. I have also responded to many of their points during the course of the debate, and I am going to respond to the questions.

China has been raised erroneously on many occasions, but we have negotiated robust security provisions to protect the UK and the base for decades to come, and that includes a strict ban on any foreign security forces, including the Chinese, across the archipelago.

The question of finances was raised by a number of Members, and indeed a number of the amendments refer to it. I have to be absolutely clear, as I was on Second Reading: the £30 billion to £35 billion figure quoted by some from the Opposition is totally inaccurate and wildly misleading. It is utterly wrong to ignore the effects of inflation and the changing value of money on the real costs of a deal that lasts 99 years. We published the full costs alongside the treaty. [Hon. Members: “How much?] They ask how much. I have been very clear about that throughout the debate and at the earlier stages. The average cost per year in today’s money is £101 million, and the net present value of payments under the treaty is £3.4 billion. Just for comparison, the costs compare favourably to other international basing agreements. France, for example, as I said, recently announced an €85 million a year deal with Djibouti. This base is much larger and has much more capabilities, so it compares very favourably.

Conservative Members ask about costs. The total expected cost of the treaty using that NPV methodology, which is the same that has been agreed by the Government Actuary’s Department and others, is just over one third of the value lost by the Department for Health and Social Care under their Governments on PPE that was wasted in the first year of the pandemic, if they want to talk about costs and wasting money. This is a clear investment in our national security. We will not scrimp on our national security, and we will not apologise for keeping our base safe.

21:30

[Dr Evans]

Could the Minister give any example worldwide where NPV has been used for sovereignty purposes?

[Stephen Doughty]

I have been clear throughout. We have set and published the methodology. It has been backed by the Office for Budget Responsibility, the statistics regulator and others, and I am happy to set that all out again in writing for the hon. Member if that would be helpful.

I was quite surprised to hear some of the unfortunate remarks made by some Members about the United States and its commitment to this base. The United States pays for the operating costs. We have a crucial national security relationship, which keeps us, the United States and our allies safe. This is a joint base on Diego Garcia. It is absolutely right that those arrangements are in place. As I said, the value from the capability of the base is priceless. This is absolutely the right investment to make.

I was appalled by some of the comments being made. I remind the Committee that President Trump, Secretary of War Hegseth and Secretary Rubio have publicly supported the treaty, as have Five Eyes partners and others.

[Richard Tice (Boston and Skegness) (Reform)]

Will the Minister give way?

[Stephen Doughty]

No, I will not give way to the hon. Member. He was not even here throughout the debate. His leader, the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage), is missing in action—oh, he’s turned up now. He came up with so many figures throughout this process, but he has finally turned up; it is good to see him here.

Questions were raised about the Chagossians, and I want to respond to them seriously because I recognise, as I have done, the very sincere feelings that are felt among different parts of the Chagossian community. We have heard a range of views expressed today by different Members, and I acknowledge the Chagossians who are here in the Gallery. I understand many of them will not support this treaty, but other Chagossians and Chagossian groups do support it, as we have heard during the debate. But I repeat again for the record that the Government deeply regret the way Chagossians were removed from the islands. We are committed to building a relationship that is built on respect and acknowledgment of the wrongs of the past. The negotiations were between the UK and Mauritius, with our priority being to secure full operation of the base on Diego Garcia, but we will finance a new trust fund for Mauritius to use in support of the Chagossian communities. We will work to start a new programme of visits, including to Diego Garcia. Of course, Mauritius will be able to develop a programme of resettlement on the islands other than Diego Garcia. We will continue our support to Chagossians living in the UK through new and existing projects.

[Mike Kane]

I hope the whole Committee can unite around this point. I pay tribute to the Chagossians in the United Kingdom for the contribution they make to the schools in their communities and to the Catholic churches where they live and, in my constituency, for their work at Wythenshawe hospital and Manchester airport—it is second to none. They are welcome here, and we value them very much, despite our political differences in this Chamber.

[Stephen Doughty]

I completely and wholeheartedly associate myself with those comments from my hon. Friend. I know he has been a passionate advocate for Chagossians in the UK, and particularly in his constituency, over many years. We have spoken about this matter many times, and I know he and other Members speak passionately on the matter.

[Sir Edward Leigh]

Will the Minister reply to the point made by the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Dr Pinkerton), myself and others that not in the last 100 years since the exchange of colonies after the first world war has a people been transferred from the sovereignty of one empire to another without being properly consulted?

[Stephen Doughty]

The right hon. Member knows that we regret what happened historically in relation to the Chagos Islands. He will also know that the islands are not permanently inhabited. That was necessarily a negotiation between the United Kingdom and Mauritius.

Let me respond to the many points about the environment, on which many amendments were tabled. We are absolutely clear that the United Kingdom and Mauritius are committed to protecting one of the world’s most important marine environments. Indeed, the Mauritian Prime Minister met the former Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, my right hon. Friend the Member for Streatham and Croydon North (Steve Reed), in the margins of the third United Nations ocean conference in Nice on 9 June, where he reaffirmed his commitment to the creation of that marine protected area around the Chagos archipelago. That will be supported by an enhanced partnership with us. The treaty has been welcomed by leading conservation NGOs, including the Zoological Society of London. We continue to work with Mauritius on the implementation of that measure. We are considering seriously the many genuine concerns that right hon. and hon. Members, including the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee and members of the Environmental Audit Committee, have raised. They are serious and important questions, and I assure the Committee that we are taking them seriously, and I will try to update the House on them in due course.

[Graham Stuart]

I am grateful to the Minister for giving way—he is being very generous. In 2017, the clear position was that the International Court of Justice was not in a position to adjudicate on the relationship between us and a member of the Commonwealth. Has that changed, and, if so, when?

[Stephen Doughty]

We have been very clear about the legal position and the legal risk. The right hon. Gentleman’s Government knew this; it is why they started the process. I do not want to detain the Committee by going through all the arguments that I made on Second Reading—[Interruption.] But he knows that we faced the comprehensive rejection of our arguments at the ICJ in 2019, we lost votes at the UN General Assembly, we had the maritime delineation judgment binding on Mauritius and the Maldives—[Interruption.]

[The Second Deputy Chairman]

Order. I will hear the Minister.

[Stephen Doughty]

Thank you, Madam Chairman. The Opposition ask questions and then make so much noise—they do not even want to hear the answers.

I have mentioned the obligations placed on the BIOT Administration by UN bodies to cease specific activities. I have mentioned the series of procedural complications and blockages at international organisations, including the comprehensive nuclear-test-ban treaty. There are many examples of clear risks. I have explained before the potential under annex VII of UNCLOS—

[James Cartlidge (South Suffolk) (Con)]

Potential.

[Stephen Doughty]

The hon. Gentleman chunters “potential”, but is he willing to gamble with our national security? Is he willing to gamble on the operational effect? [Interruption.] Oh, he is willing to gamble! I find it absolutely extraordinary that he is willing to gamble with our national security and that of our allies. That is exactly why the United States and our Five Eyes partners back this deal: it settles that debate.

I will turn to the amendments. The right hon. Member for Witham (Priti Patel) tabled amendments 1, 2 and 7 and new clause 2 on the publication of legal advice. She will know from her time in government that it is highly unusual for the Government to publish legal advice that they have obtained. That advice is privileged, and it is important that the Government are able to take frank and confidential advice, as she well knows. In some circumstances, the Government may publish a statement of their legal position, as we did in the case of the Diego Garcia treaty, on the day it was signed. As I have repeatedly explained—Members keep chuntering about it—if a long-term deal is not reached between the UK and Mauritius, it is highly likely that further wide-ranging litigation would be brought quickly by Mauritius against the UK. It might include, for example, further arbitral proceedings against the UK under annex VII of the UN convention on the law of the sea. A judgment would be binding on the UK.

Let me turn to amendments 11 and 14. The hon. Member for Clacton, who has finally turned up but is not even listening, tabled several amendments that appear to serve no function other than wasting Government and parliamentary time. The public consultation proposed in amendment 11, and the impact assessment, would be needlessly costly and time-consuming. They would only confirm the conclusion—on which he had no answers—already reached by our closest ally, the United States, by the International Agreements Committee and the International Relations and Defence Committee, and by our Five Eyes partners. The public already know that the treaty secures the future of the critical base on Diego Garcia. The strategic value has been debated at length and is well understood. We are not willing to gamble with our national security, even if the Member for Clacton is willing to. Quite frankly, he has some gall to turn up after his comments on NATO and Russia—I find it quite extraordinary.

In amendment 13, the hon. Member for Clacton offers an ill-conceived proposal that would keep Diego Garcia listed as an overseas territory while accepting that His Majesty the King would no longer be sovereign. Not only is that constitutionally inaccurate, but in the context of the British Nationality Act 1981 it would have serious consequences for the nationality rights of Chagossians born on different islands in the archipelago. Surely his intention cannot be for individuals born on Diego Garcia to be treated differently from those born on Peros Banhos or the Salomon Islands.

Amendments 3, 4, 5 and 6, tabled by the right hon. Member for Witham and amendment 8 tabled by the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Dr Pinkerton), seek to change or remove the statutory powers to make an Order in Council. It is, of course, absolutely right that Parliament should be able to scrutinise the use of power, which is why the Bill provides for the negative procedure to be used. The vast majority of changes that the Government will make using that power will be technical and operational amendments on matters to ensure that our domestic law is consistent with the new status of Diego Garcia—those are matters as varied as police pensions, copyright law, and changes to student finance. The proposed amendments would mean that the House would be obliged to spend valuable parliamentary time on each change to legislation for 99 years. Members surely cannot wish us to spend that amount of time on all those things, and that approach is consistent with powers taken to amend existing legislation in previously comparable situations.

New clauses 1, 11, and 10 regard the prior approval of payments. I have set out clearly the costs, and the absolutely nonsensical figures that have been put forward by the Opposition and the hon. Member for Clacton, and we wholly reject the new clauses. It is entirely usual and proper for payments under international treaties to be made under the royal prerogative, and requiring a separate distinct vote before payments can be made would create unacceptable risk for the long-term sustainability of the treaty. Without the certainty that the Bill and the treaty provide, the UK and US military would not be able to invest in vital capabilities. That would have major operational implications for the base. On new clause 11 tabled by the hon. Member for Surrey Heath, the House of Commons will scrutinise our annual estimates in the usual way, and spending under the treaty will be included in that process. New clause 10 is not necessary either.

New clauses 3, 4 and 9 are on the marine protected area. There is no requirement for the UK to consent to Mauritius establishing such an area or to its management, and that would be inconsistent with the treaty. Although the UK will be playing a different role in respect of the future MPA, both the UK and Mauritius remain committed to protecting that vital marine environment. That is why, under the terms of the treaty, we will provide technical support and assistance to Mauritius, in accordance with a separate written instrument. We will not make any additional direct payments to Mauritius as part of that activity.

On Chagossians and the right of self-determination, amendments 9 and 10, and new clauses 7, 8, 12, 13, and 14 concern the Chagossian community, and I understand and share the strength of feeling on the wider subject, and the historical treatment of the Chagossian communities. That is why the Government have put the preservation of nationality rights at the heart of the Bill. I am sympathetic to the concerns put forward about resettlement. I understand the intention of amendment 9, but it is not necessary. Under the agreement we have already agreed that Mauritius will be able to develop a programme of resettlement on islands other than Diego Garcia—I refer the hon. Member for Surrey Heath to comments from Olivier Bancoult and the Chagos Refugees Group. They have been clear that that is why they support this measure, and are urging us all to support the treaty. I also understand the questions on consultation, but as I have said, those negotiations were between the UK and Mauritius. The islands that make up BIOT do not have, and never have had, a settled population and have never been self-governing. No question of self-determination for a population therefore arises now.

New clauses 5, 6, 15 and 17 relate to national security issues, but they are simply not needed because the treaty protects our national security and secures the base. We have maintained full operational control of Diego Garcia with all the necessary rights and authorities, as well as a series of additional protections. In closing, the Bill and the treaty have been thoroughly scrutinised—

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Stephen Doughty]

No, I am not going to give way now. There have been plenty of debates and questions, and plenty of discussion. The Government have provided all the information necessary for Parliament to hold us to account, including publishing the full costs of the treaty and the legal rationale for the deal. The International Agreements Committee and the International Relations and Defence Committee have confirmed their agreement that the Bill does what we have set out, and the Government do not take risks with our national security, as the Opposition or Reform would do. That has been our priority throughout. I reject the amendments and urge the passage of the Bill.

[Priti Patel]

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment proposed: 7, in clause 1, page 1, line 7, leave out subsection (2) and insert—

“(1A) The Treaty and sections 2 to 4 of this Act do not come into force until the Secretary of State lays before Parliament a memorandum on the obligations under international law which require the UK to cede sovereignty of the British Indian Ocean Territory to the Government of Mauritius.

(1B) The memorandum specified in subsection (1) must include—

(a) a summary of the legal advice received by the UK Government on this issue;

(b) an analysis of the status of UK's sovereignty over the British Indian Ocean Territory under international law;

(c) the legal argument for the cessation of British sovereignty over the British Indian Ocean Territory; and

(d) the risks which the UK Government may have faced had it not reached an agreement with the Government of Mauritius.

(1C) The report specified in subsections (1A) and (1B) must be laid before Parliament no later than two months after this Act receives Royal Assent.”—(Priti Patel.)

Question put, That the amendment be made.

21:44

Division 314

Ayes: 174

Noes: 321

Amendment proposed: 9, page 1, line 7, leave out subsection (2) and insert—

“(1A) Before sections 2 to 4 of this Act come into force, the Secretary of State must—

(a) seek to undertake negotiations with the Government of Mauritius on whether Mauritius will establish a right for Chagossians to return and reside in the Chagos Islands; and

(b) seek agreement to a referendum for Chagossians on self-determination within any negotiations which take place under paragraph (a); and

(c) lay before both Houses of Parliament a report on progress on establishing negotiations with the Government of Mauritius and the outcome of any that take place.

(1B) Within two months of the report being laid before the House of Commons under paragraph (1a), the Secretary of State must table a substantive motion in the House of Commons on the contents of the report.”—(Dr Pinkerton.)

This amendment requires that the Government must undertake negotiations with Mauritius on a Chagossian right of return and on a referendum, with a report laid before Parliament on the outcome of the negotiations. The Government must subsequently table a substantive motion in the House of Commons on the content of that report.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

21:59

Division 315

Ayes: 83

Noes: 319

Clause 1 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 2

Dissolution of the British Indian Ocean Territory

Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

22:12

Division 316

Ayes: 318

Noes: 174

Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 3 to 6 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

New Clause 1

Approval of payments to Mauritius by the House of Commons

“(1) No payment may be made by the Government of the United Kingdom to the Government of Mauritius under Article 11 (1)(a) of the Treaty without the approval of the House of Commons.

(2) No development framework under Article 11 (1)(c) may be agreed by the Government of the United Kingdom with the Government of Mauritius without the approval of the House of Commons.

(3) No payment may be made under any development framework agreed between the Government of the United Kingdom and the Government of Mauritius without the approval of the House of Commons.

(4) The approval required by subsections (1), (2) and (3) must be in the form of a resolution of the House of Commons.”—(Priti Patel.)

This new clause requires parliamentary approval for any payment by the UK Government to the Government of Mauritius under the Treaty.

Brought up, and read the First time.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.

22:25

Division 317

Ayes: 172

Noes: 322

The Deputy Speaker resumed the Chair.

Bill reported, without amendment.

Third Reading

King’s consent signified.

22:41

[The Minister for Defence Readiness and Industry (Luke Pollard)]

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.

In a world that is growing more dangerous, this Labour Government will always put Britain’s security first, and if there is one thing that Members should take away from today’s debate, it is the absolute necessity of this Bill to secure the military base on Diego Garcia, which has played a critical role in defending the UK and our allies for over 50 years. Both the treaty and the Bill guarantee the long-term, secure operation of our military base and ensure that it will continue protecting our national security for generations to come.

Let me take this opportunity to thank Members on both sides of the House for their scrutiny of the Bill throughout its passage. I am grateful to those who contributed to the vigorous debate on Second Reading in September and to those who participated in today’s Committee proceedings. I thank the International Agreements Committee and the International Relations and Defence Committee for their thorough inquiries into the substance of the treaty. In particular, I want to thank the Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty), for his tireless efforts in guiding the Bill through the House.

I would also like to thank the officials who worked on the Bill and the treaty, both under this Government and under the previous Government. Lastly, I would like to express my sincere gratitude to our international allies, especially the United States, for their support throughout the treaty negotiation process. Their backing was crucial in ensuring that this treaty, in the words of the US Defence Secretary Hegseth,

“secures the operational capabilities of the base…for many years ahead.”

This treaty also recognises the importance of the islands to the Chagossians. This Government respect the diversity of views within the community, so we will continue to engage with the Chagossian groups over the coming months and years. We have also committed to increase our support through new and existing projects. The US, our Five Eyes partners, India, Japan and the Republic of Korea have all supported this deal. Our adversaries would have loved to see this deal fail and the military base placed under threat, but this Government are not risking our national security, as the Opposition parties would claim we are.

Let me make it clear why we are here today. We inherited a set of negotiations started by the Conservatives. They chose to start negotiations to deliver what Lord Cameron said in January 2024 would be the

“safety, security and long-term viability of this base”.

The right hon. Member for Braintree (Sir James Cleverly) explained the objectives at this very Dispatch Box. He also said they were to

“secure an agreement on the basis of international law…to strengthen…cooperation”

with Mauritius on

“maritime security…the environment…and to tackle illegal migration”.—[Official Report, 3 November 2022; Vol. 721, c. 27WS.]

That is what this deal secures, and that is why I wish it a speedy and successful passage through the rest of its parliamentary proceedings.

Let us be absolutely clear: the Conservatives started the negotiations. They held 11 rounds, but they failed to secure a deal. It is a question that not a single Tory MP wanted to answer today: why did they start these negotiations if it was so bad? If it was such a threat to national security, why was it a Conservative Government who started the negotiations? Why did they hold 11 rounds? It was a Labour Government who secured the deal; it is a Labour Government who are going to secure the future of our military base, and that is why I commend the Bill to the House.

[Priti Patel]

Let me begin my remarks by once again paying tribute to the heroic Chagossian community who have joined us once again for this debate and have been here for a good four hours. In response to the Minister’s last point—he may have heard us say this previously on Second Reading and during Opposition day debates—no deal is better than a terrible deal, and the Conservative party would never have put this deal forward.

Throughout the process, the Government—[Interruption.] They can all make as much noise as they want on the Government benches. None of them were here—[Interruption.] They can point their fingers as much as they want; none of them were sitting here earlier to defend their Government on this terrible deal.

Let me come back to the Chagossian community, because throughout this process, they have been silenced and ignored by this Government, and they have faced decades of pain and hurt. [Laughter.] This is not a laughing matter at all. Hon. Members may want to sneer about this, but they should pay some respect to the Chagossian people, because we praise them and are grateful to them for their dignified campaign. There are some Members in this House, even on the Government Benches, who have Chagossians as their own constituents, who they have made representations on behalf of as well. I think we should thank them for the work that they have done.

I also want to thank hon. Members from across the House for their interest in this Bill and their diligent scrutiny. I say that because the Labour Government have sought to keep debates on their surrender treaty as short and restricted as possible, and we have seen that again. [Interruption.] They have not been here to contribute to those debates—what would they know? I am particularly grateful for the efforts of hon. Members who have challenged and debated the Bill, including the interest in the Foreign Affairs Committee evidence session. Opposition Members on the Environmental Audit Committee and the Science and Technology Committee spent valuable time in Select Committees—let me emphasise that: in Select Committees—scrutinising this treaty. Opposition Members have been relentless and I thank them for their forensic questioning and for exposing the scandalous way in which this Government have acted. These debates have benefited from the legal expertise and knowledge of former Ministers and Law Officers, and I am thankful to them for their contribution and support.

I also want to pay tribute to the Minister for the Overseas Territories, the hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty). He has been diligent in responding to questioning, and he has probably spent more time in the House debating this issue, as well as responding to written communications, than he originally expected. He has become the Minister for defending the indefensible. Although we do disagree robustly on this treaty, we thank him and respect him for his contributions.

Let us be clear: this is a bad Bill for Britain; the Opposition will continue to oppose it, and our colleagues in the other place will give it further scrutiny. It leaves Britain weaker and poorer, it gives succour to our enemies, and it has shown the world that, under Labour, Britain is being governed by weak Ministers who appease the whims of left-wing lawyers and activists, rather than standing up for our national interest. Friend and foe alike will now see Britain as a soft touch that can be bullied by lawfare into waving the white flag of surrender, rather than proudly flying the Union flag.

For Britain’s standing in the world, for our defence and national security, and for our suffering British taxpayers, I bitterly regret the passage of this Bill. For months we have been calling on Labour to step back from the brink and ditch this mind-boggling surrender deal, but this Government have arrogantly blundered on. Britain comprehensively lost in these negotiations, the treaty and the Bill that we have considered today as a result. Ministers have squirmed and rolled over at every turn and have been eaten for breakfast by the Mauritian Government.

Let me be clear: we will oppose this Bill every step of the way in this House and in the other place. It is worth noting that within weeks of coming to power, this soft-touch Government decided that they would end more than 200 years of British sovereignty over this vital territory for our country’s security and national interest, and for no justifiable reason. We are not just giving up the islands of the archipelago; more than that, the national interest is being squandered, and so is peace and stability in that area.

The Government are asking British taxpayers, whom they have already thrashed with vindictive taxes, now to shoulder the burden of this scandalous deal, and it is simply not on. Labour Governments often bang on about the redistribution of wealth, but today they take it to a new level with the redistribution of wealth from Britain to Mauritius. How much of the money will be plundered from the Defence budget, hindering our armed forces’ ability to procure new capabilities at the worst possible time? It comes as the Minister for Defence Procurement has overseen a freeze on procurement as the world gets more dangerous, and we do know that the world is getting more dangerous. The much-vaunted strategic defence review, which Labour pledged would see off all the major threats, was overdue and underfunded—but guess what? Labour has no plan to pay for it now.

Here we are now: the Government have found it within themselves to spend £35 billion on this deal. This is not just money from down the line in the future; it is hundreds of millions of pounds each year within this Parliament. Today the Government have sunk to a new low: Labour MPs have voted against giving Parliament, this House, a say over sending £35 billion of our constituents’ money to Mauritius with no strings attached. Mauritius will now use our money to reduce its debt and cut taxes because of this Government. Labour MPs have voted to block the publication of a summary of legal advice on which the Government relied to make this dodgy deal. We might have thought that they had learnt from the current China debacle that this is not the right way, but no, they still cannot offer a sound legal explanation for why they have rushed through this deal.

The Government have refused to adopt our amendments to ensure the monitoring of how the rights of Chagossians will be safeguarded. The Chagossians, to whom we have a special responsibility, have been neglected and ignored by Labour since the election, so it comes as no surprise—and it is now a bitter blow for them—that there is no cost implication or, indeed, any good reason as to why we are going down this route.

The Government have also declined to adopt our amendment to keep the Intelligence and Security Committee apprised of the security protections in this treaty, again denying hon. Members the scrutiny to which we are entitled. It is astonishing, in the light of the national security concerns that this terrible deal now brings, and it leaves our country weaker and poorer. This is a deal that this Government and our country will come to regret.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

22:52

[Dr Al Pinkerton]

It gives me no pleasure to say that this Bill fails the Chagossian people. For decades, decisions about the Chagos Islands have been taken without the consent of those most affected. The treaty continues that injustice, offering no guaranteed right of return, no legally binding resettlement plan and no meaningful protection of Chagossian rights.

The Liberal Democrats support negotiations with Mauritius and support respect for international law, but never at the expense of Chagossian dignity. The treaty, as it stands, lacks transparency, environmental safeguards and accountability for the substantial public expenditure that it entails. That is why we tabled seven amendments to inscribe parliamentary oversight, to protect the marine environment and to uphold Chagossian rights to self-determination. That includes provisions for scrutiny of ministerial decisions, mandatory environmental reporting and a referendum of the Chagossian people themselves. We also called for full financial transparency and a review of the welfare of Chagossians living in the UK, many of whom continue to face hardship as a direct result of their historical displacement. This is not merely a matter of geopolitical assets or territorial claims; it is about justice, belonging and moral responsibility to those who call the Chagos islands home.

I thank the Minister of State at the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, the hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty), for the numerous conversations that we have had during the passage of the Bill—he has been generous with his time. I am disappointed, however, that he did not feel able to accept some of my amendments and suggestions during that process.

I will finish with words lifted from the UN charter, a document that this country helped to shape:

“The Purposes of the United Nations are…to develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples”.

That right has been denied to the Chagossian people for more than 50 years, so I urge Members across the House to think carefully when voting this evening about whether they wish to compound that half century of injustice or embrace the foundational principles of the UN. [Interruption.] If this House wishes to do the latter, we cannot allow the Bill to pass without ensuring that Chagossians themselves are sovereign over their citizenship, the governance of their islands and the prospect of return. [Hon. Members: “How are you voting?”] I ask Conservative right hon. and hon. Members on my right-hand side, who have lauded the efforts of the Chagossian people but sat on their hands when they had the opportunity to give Chagossians the right to a referendum, whether they wish to keep chuntering from a sedentary position.

In direct response to the Minister, who challenged this in Committee, I say that the forced displacement of a people does not and cannot annul the identity or the rights of the Chagossians as a people. To suggest otherwise perpetuates the disgraces of the past and, as a sentiment, that is unworthy of this Bill and of this House.

22:56

Division 318

Ayes: 320

Noes: 171

Bill read the Third time and passed.