Live Debate: Commons Chamber

Urgent question: To ask the Secretary of State for Business and Trade, if he will make a statement on the Jaguar Land Rover cyber attack and assistance to businesses to help protect them from cyber attacks

We We now We now come We now come to We now come to the We now come to the urgent We now come to the urgent question.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

To ask the Secretary of State for business and trade to make a business and trade to make a statement on Jaguar Land Rover and

12:39

Chris Bryant MP, Minister of State (Department for Business and Trade) (Rhondda and Ogmore, Labour)

- -

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the cyber attack and what protection will be given to businesses to help protect them. I start by saying I fully recognise the anxiety and deep concern that employees will be feeling at Jaguar Land Rover and across the supply chain. The government and the National Cyber Security Centre will do everything in our power to resolve this as soon On a daily basis to understand the challenges they and customers are facing and I will have a further meeting with the chief executive officer later this week.

Local MPs have been invited to a question and answer session this Friday by the company. The NCSC has been working with them since is ready to provide support. I am sorry there is a limit to what I can say with relation to specifics because they do not want to prejudice the ongoing investigations. UK cyber security is a key priority for government, crucial to protecting the public and our way of life and the successful growing economy. We have been taking significant action to protect businesses against cyber attacks, reducing cyber risk across the economy by making technology more secure by design, including the Product Security Act of 2022, introduced by the previous government, which requires security to be built in to the infrastructure and the Software Security Code of Practice which sets out how ventures should make software more secure and the AI Cyber Security Practice which sets out how AI system should be designed and operated securely.

We are providing businesses with the tools and support to protect themselves from cyber threats, including the Cyber Governance Code of Practice which shows how to manage digital risks to organisations and the Cyber Essential Scheme, to prevent attacks and reduce incidents by 92% and a wide range of tools and support from the Cyber Security Centre which includes tools to check cyber security and pest IT systems for vulnerability and an early warning system to get indicated about threats to the network and Diageo businesses to take up these tools and improve cyber defences.

It's not for me to announce future business to the house but the government will introduce the Cyber Security and Resilience Bill to raise standards in infrastructure standards such as energy, water, the NHS. I'm grateful to you for granting the urgent question and we know how important Jaguar Land Rover is as an employer in the North-West. This cyber attack caused a disruption to seals and staff have been instructed to stay

12:43

Derek Twigg MP (Widnes and Halewood, Labour)

- -

at home. In my constituency, many at home. In my constituency, many have been unable to operate and systems were shut down in response to the attack and dealerships had to the attack and dealerships had been unable to sell cars and vehicles have been unable to order vehicles have been unable to order parts that they needed. The JLR in parts that they needed. The JLR in my constituency is a very important my constituency is a very important employer and many of people have been affected with thousands of jobs in the supply chain effective.

Despite the cyber attack happening Despite the cyber attack happening just over a week ago to one of our most important businesses with over 33,000 direct employees and part of 33,000 direct employees and part of a huge supply chain, and disappointed no action has been disappointed no action has been taken to help deal with the attacks. The latest attack raises wider issues for companies like Marks & Spencer is and one would like to Spencer is and one would like to believe all companies review cyber believe all companies review cyber security after the M&S attack but if the attacks continue, there will be an ongoing and more serious effect on the economy.

What else is the government doing? I have had with the Minister has said today but it's a matter of national security. Is there an underlying weakness in business in dealing with cyber security? We heard from the former head of the National Cyber Security Centre this morning who suggested companies may be focused more on customer data at the expense of security operations. I believe this House is to do more in coming months and look at what the government is doing to work with business to prevent these attacks been

12:45

Chris Bryant MP, Minister of State (Department for Business and Trade) (Rhondda and Ogmore, Labour)

- -

successful. They are a threat to the economy and national security. I commend my honourable friend on securing, seeking this urgent securing, seeking this urgent question and you for granting it, Mr Speaker. He makes the point that not Speaker. He makes the point that not only is Jaguar Land Rover an iconic and important national brand but and important national brand but also a significant employer with some 34,000 people in the UK and some 34,000 people in the UK and 39,000 around the world and also in my honourable friend's constituency.

my honourable friend's constituency. Please write, we must ensure cyber communication -- he is right to say cyber security must be taken very seriously and, in my previous role, I was conscious of the attack on the British Library,, which is one of British Library,, which is one of the most significant financially and the most significant financially and it did point to some of the other issues arising across the economy issues arising across the economy and that is why we are very keen to bring forward the measures, as we stated in the King's Speech, and we stated in the King's Speech, and we will have a bill on this and I think will have a bill on this and I think I can get away with using the word 'is in' and we will introduce the bill soon and it will be no more and certainly no less.

He is right, there are serious issues which must be addressed across the whole economy to get that right. He pointed to one person and I point to another, Richard Hall, the CEO of the National Cyber Security Centre who stressed the UK is facing increased hostility in cyberspace. We cannot afford any degree of complacency in this. Major criminals are operating in this space and malicious state actors and some 40% of companies in the UK last year reported they had faced some kind of cyber attacks so it is important and cyber attacks so it is important and

12:46

Dame Harriett Baldwin MP (West Worcestershire, Conservative)

- -

Can I congratulate the honourable gentleman on securing this question and welcome the Minister to his new role. I will never be able to rival him in terms of his literary quotations but I do think this cyber attack lunch I land Rover is concerning, it is a world leading business and the impact on their business, suppliers, workers has been significant. I hope the Whole House agrees that we must use the full force of the state to crack down on cybercriminals.

Can the Minister, I appreciate years , can , can he , can he inform , can he inform us , can he inform us when , can he inform us when the government and National's were informed of the attack? What kind of support of the government and law- enforcement agencies able to offer Jaguar Land Rover? Is there any assessment of how much longer the government expects this disruption to continue? It is really impacting the supply of vehicles. This attack is just another in a series of attacks that have taken place against British brands, iconic institutions, 40 percent of our businesses, including the attack earlier this year against Marks & Spencer's.

How is the government acting to prevent future attacks? Can he elaborate on that? Has he identified who is responsible for this attack as Mike can he rule out this being a state-sponsored attack? If the group responsible for the two attacks on Jaguar Land Rover and Marks & Spencer's are linked, what Marks & Spencer's are linked, what progress have law enforcement agencies made on pursuing them? Thank you. Thank you.

12:47

Chris Bryant MP, Minister of State (Department for Business and Trade) (Rhondda and Ogmore, Labour)

- -

I'm not sure whether the shadow Minister is in a new role? She is not. I will not welcome her to her new role, but I welcome her to the despatch box nonetheless, she has asked a series of questions, I will try to answer the ones I as precisely as possible, she asked when they were notified I'd engage, they have been engaged since last Wednesday and we do have an undertaking that when people do get in touch with the end CNC, the response will be immediate.

She asked what engagement there is from government, the primary engagement is through the NCSC, they are fully engaged and devoted team to the work there. It is also in public domain that the Information Commissioner's Office were notified, not because jail are certain there has been a data breach, but they want to make sure they have dotted every I and crossed every team to -- dotted every T, that is why they wanted to make sure the information commissioner's office was involved.

This is a live situation, it has been ongoing for a week and I note been ongoing for a week and I note the comments that jail are happy making, there is a Q&A session for MPs on Friday morning when they hope they may be able to provide more information. One of the issues she asked was about what else we are doing, one of the things we did this summer was the Home Office did a consultation on our policy on run somewhere.

I'm not saying that is specifically in relation to this case, we do not know whether it is. I am not coming to any conclusions, it was heartening to see the resolute support there was from companies across the UK on our policies on run somewhere. -- Run somewhere. I do not want to answer questions and impede the investigation. She asked if it was state-sponsored, I do not want to jump to conclusions. I can never confirm or deny anything. She asked whether this case was linked with that of M&S.

I cannot answer that question as fulsomely as I would like to, I do not know and I do not think anyone has come to secure decisions on that. In one sense, all cyber-attacks are linked in that it is the same problem, which is a relatively new problem, although previous government was seeking to tackle it and we are seeking to tackle it in broadly the same way. Some of the techniques used are old-fashioned, like ringing up helplines. Helplines are designed to be helpful.

That's the same as when News of the World were ringing up trying to get pins from mobile phone companies to hack other people's phones. That's an old technique, sometimes they use AI-generated voices which are remarkably accurate and can lead to even further problems. I'm not saying that's what happened in this case, but I'm saying that some of the patterns of what are around are across the whole of the sector.

12:51

Rt Hon Liam Byrne MP (Birmingham Hodge Hill and Solihull North, Labour)

- -

Congratulations to my honourable friend for securing this urgent question and I welcome the Minister in his role. This is an extraordinarily serious issue. The committee will take recommendations on tackling crimes like this shortly. Many companies alike Jaguar Land Rover phase threats like this -- face threats like this in the -- face threats like this in the future. There will be need for new laws to clear up legacy infrastructure that will not be good enough for things like this.

When we said we would cleanup for Marks & Spencer's in the wake of the cyber attack, we were given the impression that more could have been done by agencies to help Marks & Spencer's. Can I asked the Minister for's reassurance that all of the lessons from the way the M&S case were handled have been learnt and the state will bend over backwards to make sure that JL has every assistance it needs to get back up assistance it needs to get back up and running and prosecute the guilty?

12:52

Chris Bryant MP, Minister of State (Department for Business and Trade) (Rhondda and Ogmore, Labour)

- -

The most important thing we can do is make sure we do prosecute the guilty. It is when people are sent to prison, the person in the US he was sent down for 10 years recently as part of the networks, that was important. I should say that whilst I am a Minister in the Department for Business and Trade, my honourable friend for Barnsley North and my honourable friend sitting here on the Front Bench from DSIT, the member for the Vale of Glamorgan are actively engaged in all of these discussions as well.

We need to make sure it is a cross government approach. I look forward to what we will hear from his Select Committee and I was intrigued by what he was saying about investment incentives and I hope he may come up with some clever idea we may be able to put into practice once he has produced his report. The main point he makes is have we learnt all of the lessons from M and S? I certainly think we have. I have read the evidence from the committee, I hope that Marks & Spencer's have also learned the positions he laid bare.

I would hesitate in trying to make a connection between one case and another case, I do not want to prejudge what has happened in these particular set of circumstances. particular set of circumstances.

12:54

Clive Jones MP (Wokingham, Liberal Democrat)

- -

Can I welcome the Minister to his new role. There have been a spate of cyber-attacks on very important UK companies such as Jaguar Land Rover, supermarket and legal aid, what is the government doing to restore public trust? Does he think the public trust? Does he think the attackers come from overseas?

12:55

Chris Bryant MP, Minister of State (Department for Business and Trade) (Rhondda and Ogmore, Labour)

- -

Overseas is a slightly different question from state actors, but again, I'm not going to prejudge the investigation and he knows I'm not going to do that, I can tell, because he is smiling. He referred to UK companies, I think if I were speak to any counterparts in Europe almost countries in the world, they will be going through exacting the same issue. Qantas, Andorra, Adidas, Chanel, these are all companies that have had major attacks in the last number of months.

This is simply a part of modern business, unfortunately. It is a despicable practice, it is a set of criminal actions. We need to prosecute those who are responsible and make sure they go to jail for a very long time so we can protect our industry in the UK and cooperate with other international agencies to make sure we do the same around the world.

12:56

Rt Hon Maria Eagle MP (Liverpool Garston, Labour)

- -

I would like to congratulate my honourable friend for obtaining the urgent question, I used to represent the area until boundary changes, hundreds of my constituents work at the plant, many more bite supplier the plant, many more bite supplier companies, they -- by supplier companies. Worldwide shutdown is costing £72 million a day in lost sales, well local MPs have had -- while local MPs have had no meaningful information. Although we do have 30 minute zoom call on Friday.

What can we do to ensure this disaster is brought to a close as soon as possible? The attacks threaten our economy and national security. What help can he offer the company and my constituents at this worrying time? Things do not seem to be getting any better. be getting any better.

12:57

Chris Bryant MP, Minister of State (Department for Business and Trade) (Rhondda and Ogmore, Labour)

- -

Can I be tribute to my right honourable friend for all the work that she indicted together, in particular in the space area in my old job and her old job. She was an excellent Minister to be able to do business with. I slightly for having her on the backbenches because she is a very redoubtable person to be enquired about. There are many suppliers who are in an even more complex situation than Jaguar Land Rover. I undertake that I will try to coordinate the activity we are doing in our department to make sure we can provide support to them.

I note the tone in which she said we are getting a half-hour zoom call on Friday, I will try to make sure all MPs get the absolute support that they need so they can do the job of reassuring their constituents. I made this point earlier today to jail are. I am intending to have a meeting with the Chief Executive later this week, I hope that we will later this week, I hope that we will want to upkeep MPs in constituencies or the Whole House updated.

12:58

Rt Hon Sir Edward Leigh MP (Gainsborough, Conservative)

- -

Congratulations on surviving the reshuffle, we would miss it if he is gone. Can I ask a general question about the public sector? Can I ask a serious question about the public sector, I'm an enthusiast about the idea of a national digital ID card as a means of countering legal working, but it raises a new spectre if tens of millions of people have an ID card on their mobile phone in their pocket and there are malign forces he would seek to attackers.

What work is the government doing in its bill, in the national security its bill, in the national security centre, to try to get this right?

12:59

Chris Bryant MP, Minister of State (Department for Business and Trade) (Rhondda and Ogmore, Labour)

- -

Is right. On two points, I would say, just to take is quite a bit further, data is a wonderful thing, it is a goldmine in many ways, but also a potential vulnerability. We need to make sure that if we are going to take people into a digital future with digital ID cards, I'm not saying we are, but if we were to go down that route, or a digital driving licences for example, we driving licences for example, we need to make sure it is safe, secure and people's data is not imperilled.

I do not know what he meant about me I do not know what he meant about me surviving, I love him too. surviving, I love him too.

13:00

Sonia Kumar MP (Dudley, Labour)

- -

I would like to warmly welcome the Minister to his place, in light of the cyber breaches survey in April 2025 that reported that 43 percent of businesses and 30 percent of charities experienced a cyber attack last year, what steps is he taking to strengthen national cyber security and will he outline how the government is working with businesses and charities to improve prevention and ensure better sharing prevention and ensure better sharing intelligence is a matter of national security? security?

13:00

Chris Bryant MP, Minister of State (Department for Business and Trade) (Rhondda and Ogmore, Labour)

- -

I'm grateful to the member of the Select Committee who I will be before next week, I think, for her question. On the issue around somewhere, one of the questions is whether we generally know the full extent of what is going on in the UK. That is why we have suggested they should be mandatory reporting. It was interesting that more than 70 percent of businesses in the UK agreed with the consultation that Home Office produced in the summer. There are further measures I hope we will be able to introduce when the bill comes forward and I have already referred to some of the means of providing support to businesses up and down the land but I am happy if she wants to grab me I am happy if she wants to grab me I am happy if she wants to grab me

13:01

Mr Joshua Reynolds MP (Maidenhead, Liberal Democrat)

- -

January a -- Jaguar Land Rover is not the first company to experience cyber attacks and the Minister has said he will work with companies and so can be sure there is a two-way dialogue between the minister and dialogue between the minister and companies like Jaguar Land Rover?

13:01

Chris Bryant MP, Minister of State (Department for Business and Trade) (Rhondda and Ogmore, Labour)

- -

I have spoken to them myself and I intend to have a further meeting with the chief executive later in the week. He is departing in November, of course. We want to make sure it is dealt with. There are two of us from the Department and new ministers and we are determined, it is our job to ensure business can flourish in the country because, in the end, business largely pays the bills to keep the lights on, the NHS functioning, to keep everything functioning, to keep everything going.

That is why we are determined to have a strong working relationship with businesses and this is one area where we have got to do that.

13:02

Bill Esterson MP (Sefton Central, Labour)

- -

We have heard how white the impact of the cyber attack has been impact of the cyber attack has been across the economy. He gave evidence to the Joint Committee on National Security Strategy in his previous role and talked about his confidence about the robust contingency plans in place and he said that when it came to national and infrastructure he had confidence. Does he have the same confidence about cyber attacks? same confidence about cyber attacks?

13:03

Chris Bryant MP, Minister of State (Department for Business and Trade) (Rhondda and Ogmore, Labour)

- -

The context in which my honourable friend is talking was in relation to sub sea cables and I think we have a robust system in place and there was another repair in the summer months and it took place within days and we are one of the best countries in the world at repairing sub sea cables but we are one of the more vulnerable ones because we are an island legend. I assure him -- island nation. I assure him that I am working with the security minister to apply the same diligence and exhibit the same same diligence and exhibit the same lack of complacency with this issue as we did with the sub sea cables.

13:03

Rt Hon Sir Andrew Mitchell MP (Sutton Coldfield, Conservative)

- -

Thanks to the honourable

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thanks to the honourable gentleman for seeking and securing the urgent question. It is good to see the Minister in his place following the reshuffle with his typical demeanour. We are extremely typical demeanour. We are extremely concerned about this in my concerned about this in my constituency and he mentioned WH Plastics, based on my constituency. Plastics, based on my constituency. I spoke to the chief executive yesterday and he has some 3000 employees at eight plants with the employees at eight plants with the vast majority of their business going to Jaguar Land Rover.

Throughout the West Midlands, he will now the supply chain is probably more than 2000 people in probably more than 2000 people in terms of those affected and all of the factories have been shut down. I the factories have been shut down. I will make two points to him and I support what the right honourable gentleman, the chairman of the select committee, said earlier. The select committee, said earlier. The first is a students we have full help from all relevant agencies of help from all relevant agencies of the state and that they are seriously I'm 100% involved in all of this.

Secondly, will he press for the maximum amount of transparency so businesses and staff who are being sent home in large numbers and are naturally very worried about this are reassured to the extent we can offer reassurance? can offer reassurance?

13:05

Chris Bryant MP, Minister of State (Department for Business and Trade) (Rhondda and Ogmore, Labour)

- -

Yes, all the agencies will be engaged to the fullest possible extent as my honourable friend, the chairman for the Select Committee, said earlier, we will bend over backwards to make sure this gets resolved as quickly as possible. I don't want to say when that will be because I simply don't know. I would be happy for him to pass on the be happy for him to pass on the seem to recall the final line of the song is, "And the wonderful thing is, I am the only one." is, I am the only one."

13:06

Mrs Sureena Brackenridge MP (Wolverhampton North East, Labour)

- -

I thank my honourable friend for securing this question and coming to the dispatch box. Jaguar Land Rover is a valued employer in Wolverhampton North-East and iconic British brand until the disruption with production and the impact on the wider supply chain has caused much concern. What action is being taken to protect businesses and taken to protect businesses and supply chains from ransomware and cyber attacks?

13:06

Chris Bryant MP, Minister of State (Department for Business and Trade) (Rhondda and Ogmore, Labour)

- -

I laid out in my answers some of the things the government is engaged in in terms of the NCSC and the involvement they have had since last Wednesday at your Land Rover. There are online aids which can help many companies work through how to protect themselves better and some of the things are relatively simple, some are more complex. It depends on the size of the organisation. We have consulted, as I said earlier, on the issue of ransomware. One thing that I will seem a, as we have thing that I will seem a, as we have said previously, is that paying the criminals does not get you out of the hole.

They are not to be trusted. People should be cautious. We do not recommend people paying ransomware under any circumstances and it only adds to the business model of the criminals, the criminals we want to see behind bars.

13:07

I thank him for recognising the anxiety of staff in the supply chain. Many of my constituents are affected by this and there is a factory which employs many of my constituents, will be very anxious. There is a lack of information coming through and I share the comments made by the honourable lady. Can he reassure my lady. Can he reassure my constituents that he will give the NCSC all the resources necessary to NCSC all the resources necessary to pursue the perpetrators and, given pursue the perpetrators and, given there is so much reporting of losses every day, has been any request for financial support? financial support?

13:08

Chris Bryant MP, Minister of State (Department for Business and Trade) (Rhondda and Ogmore, Labour)

- -

I am tempted to say it is too early to say and there will be a get out clause at the end but I want to ensure all MPs are able to have the information that they need and on a secure basis, so that they can provide the reassurance to their constituents. I am sure there will be all sorts of rumours spreading around, some of which might be very wide of the mark and I want to make sure that JLR can provide the information to everyone.

We are going into recess on Tuesday and I would be happy to have these discussions in a private setting. It is probably best if we see how we go on Friday and I think 30 minutes on Friday and I think 30 minutes will not suffice for as -- a Zoom call with JLR.

13:09

Laurence Turner MP (Birmingham Northfield, Labour)

- -

I thank my honourable friend for raising the question and to the Minister. Many in my constituency are affected by JLR and this is an important time for them and the Department will consider providing information directly to local MPs in addition to that engagement. This attack follows other attacks on Marks & Spencer, the NHS, the British Library, other institutions. I understand why the Minister has set out government focus on making sure companies are supported. Can he assure the House that all steps are taken to identify areas of critical national vulnerability in both the private and public sector to try to private and public sector to try to avoid some of these attacks in the first place?

13:10

Chris Bryant MP, Minister of State (Department for Business and Trade) (Rhondda and Ogmore, Labour)

- -

I assure my honourable friend that we will do that and I should say that I fully understand that the issue comes on the top of other issues for Jaguar Land Rover this year, not least the issue of tariffs in the USA and the Prime Minister was personally engaged in making sure that we got to a better deal sure that we got to a better deal sure that we got to a better deal with USA and that was announced at a JLR factory and I know there are redundancies which are going to be normal process and that has nothing to do with this issue, I assure him, and the way that he asks.

and the way that he asks.

13:11

Rt Hon Sir Gavin Williamson MP (Stone, Great Wyrley and Penkridge, Conservative)

- -

Jaguar Land Rover is the largest employer in the West Midlands and saw every one of our constituencies are impacted by this. The attack on GLR is not the first of its kind and certainly will not be the last. Increasingly, we are seeking state actors using criminal gangs, originating from Russia, North Korea, Iran, using this as a way to get hard cash into those countries. What more can the Minister and the state do to support businesses with the robust defences required? They are fighting states and the state has to be right behind them.

13:11

Chris Bryant MP, Minister of State (Department for Business and Trade) (Rhondda and Ogmore, Labour)

- -

I should apologise to the right honourable gentleman and I apologise to the honourable member. One thing that all businesses can do is get a certificate for cyber essentials because that programme helps businesses to protect themselves better. I'm hesitant to jump to talking about overseas involvement but we take it seriously and we have to keep our eyes very wide open to this issue.

13:12

This is terrible news for Jaguar

**** Possible New Speaker ****

This is terrible news for Jaguar Land Rover and the supply chain and there is a publicly owned insurance there is a publicly owned insurance employer which invests in terrorism reassurance initiatives and has £2.3 reassurance initiatives and has £2.3 trillion of assets on the books.

13:13

Chris Bryant MP, Minister of State (Department for Business and Trade) (Rhondda and Ogmore, Labour)

- -

High is the government considered ensuring their reach to deal with cyber incidents like this one?

13:13

Rt Hon Sir Jeremy Wright KC MP (Kenilworth and Southam, Conservative)

- -

He has stumped me. I will have to write to him with the answer to that one.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I welcome the Minister to his new responsibilities and on behalf of responsibilities and on behalf of the many JLR employs in my constituency, I welcome any steps to get them back to business as quickly as possible. People know that the Computer Misuse Act is 35 years old Computer Misuse Act is 35 years old and there are many who believe that the current provisions impede the work of cyber security professionals work of cyber security professionals almost as much, if not more, than the work of cyber criminals.

Can he the work of cyber criminals. Can he take this incident as an opportunity to look at the provisions of that

13:14

Chris Bryant MP, Minister of State (Department for Business and Trade) (Rhondda and Ogmore, Labour)

- -

to look at the provisions of that act and updated as necessary to ensure cyber security measures are available to help companies with incidents just like this? Speak a marquee mix a good point about --

**** Possible New Speaker ****

He makes a good point about the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

He makes a good point about the legislation which is out of date and we stated in the King's Speech there will be a new cyber security bill

13:14

Dame Chi Onwurah MP (Newcastle upon Tyne Central and West, Labour)

- -

will be a new cyber security bill and my honourable friend is nodding and if we have not done that properly, I'm sure they will table an amendment when the bill comes in.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I congratulate the Minister on his new role and I'm sorry I did not his new role and I'm sorry I did not have the opportunity to welcoming to the Science Select Committee when he the Science Select Committee when he was at DSIT and I look forward to welcoming and congratulating the new minister. The devastating Jaguar Land Rover cyber attack is one of a series of similar attacks which are series of similar attacks which are bringing havoc to British businesses and consumers and undermining and consumers and undermining confidence.

Can the Minister confirm my understanding that neither Jaguar my understanding that neither Jaguar Land Rover nor Marks and Spencers Land Rover nor Marks and Spencers are deemed to be providers of essential services under the existing legislation and not required to meet the highest levels required to meet the highest levels of cyber security under the current requirements? If that is the case, will that change under the new Cyber Security and Resilience Bill, which he mentioned, and, if not, how will he raise the level of cyber

13:15

Chris Bryant MP, Minister of State (Department for Business and Trade) (Rhondda and Ogmore, Labour)

- -

**** Possible New Speaker ****

he raise the level of cyber resilience in our industry and society with such measures? She makes a good point. There is

**** Possible New Speaker ****

She makes a good point. There is a balancing act and we don't want to overburden business with requirements but we want to make sure that they take every action to make sure they are properly detected. My understanding, and I will write to her if I am wrong, but my understanding is they are not currently required but she will have to wait for the bill and the intention for the bill is that it directly relates to things like energy, water supply, things like that.

As I said, it is a balancing act to make sure industry has the freedom to operate as it can file, at the same time, embodying the best practice. -- while. I think businesses, whether large or small, should avail themselves of the early warning tool from the NCSC when they think they have had an attack. It's important we have a real idea of the actual prevalence of this across the whole sector and we join up the dots

13:16

Rt Hon Sir Julian Lewis MP (New Forest East, Conservative)

- -

I welcome the Minister to the world of neither confirm nor deny, but I fear it may crack his style some what. Does he agree there are three categories of hacker, showoffs aiming to boost their egos in the online world, the wreckers who are usually working on behalf of hostile countries or political ideologies and the extortionists he referred to earlier who are out to blackmail people and relieve them of large amounts of money? In every case, is there always not the anxiety that people's personal data is going to be compromised and publicised? To that end, is he really satisfied that so many government services that deal with personal data, the latest being HMRC, are insisting latest being HMRC, are insisting that people go online to supply it to government?

13:17

Chris Bryant MP, Minister of State (Department for Business and Trade) (Rhondda and Ogmore, Labour)

- -

He makes a good point about personal data. When I was the data Minister this is one of the things I was trying to push very strongly. There's no point trying to get people to give data if it is not secure. It is the most important part of what we have to do. If people do not trust their data will be secure, they will not surrender it. That is not just apply to government, although it is very important to government, it applies across all different sorts of companies.

I take issue with the delineation of the groups, I just think there is one, which is a bunch of criminals, their intent sometimes mixes a desire for cash and some spurious information. I just think of them all as criminals. of them all as criminals.

13:18

Dr Scott Arthur MP (Edinburgh South West, Labour)

- -

I wanted to raise concerns about the impact on jobs. And the impact on reputation as a company when two iconic brands have to go off-line. I do not this will be the last attack of the year on a retailer automotive company. Going forward, there will be cars... Security and concerns about the automated features within the car, what that means for driver security. He said that the UK is a security. He said that the UK is a target, is that because we are more susceptible?

13:19

Chris Bryant MP, Minister of State (Department for Business and Trade) (Rhondda and Ogmore, Labour)

- -

Not just that the UK is more susceptible, every country in the world. It is a growing business. The worst thing we can do is feed the business model. The one thing I would urge caution about, it may be we do not know all of the incidents there have been. It is understandable that lots of understandable that lots of companies, if they feel they have managed to deal with the issue swiftly, would not want to make that known publicly. That is why we consulted on the issue of run somewhere earlier this summer and I was gratified by the responses we had from more than 70 percent of businesses.

13:20

David Chadwick MP (Brecon, Radnor and Cwm Tawe, Liberal Democrat)

- -

Fundamentally, this is a question about resilience across British industry. These attacks are costing British industries millions of pounds a day. What is the government doing to facilitate knowledge sharing within industry to boost resilience and guard against operational technology attacks? I know people in the cyber industries like to share information together but require the forum to do so. but require the forum to do so.

13:20

Chris Bryant MP, Minister of State (Department for Business and Trade) (Rhondda and Ogmore, Labour)

- -

He is right. For that matter, I suspect every single member of the House will have had some kind of attempted cyber attack, whether some kind of phishing on their mobile phones, something that comes up that looks remarkably possible and then you go to yourself, 'oh no, HMRC probably would not as me to do that.' I would urge all members to take their own cyber-security personally. The House provide securities for that. There is one other thing we can do, all companies can follow the cyber governance code of practice and provide training.

The more board members that understand these issues, the better.

13:21

Chris Vince MP (Harlow, Labour )

- -

Can I welcome the Minister to his role? In a previous Parliament, I inadvertently implied he was not a national treasure, I would like to set the record straight on that one. Businesses in my constituency are reliant on the internet., Trade and HR services. What reassurances and advice can the Minister give charities and businesses in Harlow if they are worried they may be the if they are worried they may be the next victims of such attacks?

13:22

Chris Bryant MP, Minister of State (Department for Business and Trade) (Rhondda and Ogmore, Labour)

- -

I think every organisation in the country should be considering whether they might be the next under attack. It is possible there may have already been an attempted attack. Iconic brands like Marks & Spencer's and Jaguar Land Rover are possible candidates in that respect. But I would urge all organisations to take the issue seriously because the costs are very dramatic in terms of finances and also in terms of staff power. staff power.

13:22

Carla Lockhart MP (Upper Bann, Democratic Unionist Party)

- -

Cyber-security costs for any company are rarely taken into account. For a company like GLR, it should be easily absorbed because of profit margins. -- Jaguar Land Rover. SMEs cannot do this, their profit margins will not take that. These are the businesses the government should be assisting to ensure there security is industry standard and secure. Can you give me an update on that? an update on that?

13:23

Chris Bryant MP, Minister of State (Department for Business and Trade) (Rhondda and Ogmore, Labour)

- -

You're right, it is not just about big companies, listed companies or big organisations in the public sphere, it is also about much smaller ones, which may have all sorts of different attacks. I'm not sure whether she is asking for financial support. She is. I saw the nod. I am not sure how Hansard records and not other than the fact I have now said it. The important point here is making sure everyone has an understanding that cyber- security is important to every single organisation, big or small, and services of the state are there

13:24

Richard Foord MP (Honiton and Sidmouth, Liberal Democrat)

- -

The Minister talks about a cross government approach, last week, the Ministry of Defence stood up the cyber and specialist operations command, building on the foundations of strategic command and bringing together over 26,000 specialists. Can the Minister comment on what collaboration exists between officials at the Department for Business and Trade and those working in this area at the MoD?

13:24

Chris Bryant MP, Minister of State (Department for Business and Trade) (Rhondda and Ogmore, Labour)

- -

Our primary relationship is between ourselves, because we have responsibility for businesses are making sure they can prosper into the future with DSIT, as represented by my honourable friend, and the Security Minister in the Home Office. He makes a good point, the MoD have an equal responsibility for making sure we are secure. I'm sure some kind of digital identification service will be available for service will be available for identifying the right MP to call. identifying the right MP to call.

13:25

Jim Shannon MP (Strangford, Democratic Unionist Party)

- -

I am pleased to see him in a senior position, it is well earned and we are pleased to see him where he is. He will be aware of cyber- attacks on Marks & Spencer's and others have left people concerned about the security of their information online. These attacks are not Jaguar will heighten these concerns. My constituents have told me that, those concerned about the ramifications of a cyber attack on government systems, particularly in health. What discussions have been heard about the robustness of cyber defence? And what can be shared with cyber businesses to help them defend themselves? themselves?

13:25

Chris Bryant MP, Minister of State (Department for Business and Trade) (Rhondda and Ogmore, Labour)

- -

The first big one of these was on the British library, and Arms Length Body of the Department for Culture, Media and Sport. Some of these lessons were taught immediately to government. Need to make sure that across every government department, not only is personal data and all other kinds of data secure where it needs to be, if it is not open source, we need to make sure that cyber-attacks can be rebuffed, spotted, can be prevented at all costs. That is an ongoing piece of work between the different parts of government.

I hope that when we bring forward the cyber bill in the near future, soon, we will be able to address some of these things and bring them to the round in the

13:26

Ten Minute Rule Motion: Disposable Barbecues (Prohibition of Use in Public Places)

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The clerk will read the orders of the -- orders of the day. British -- Diego Garcia military base.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Diego Garcia military base. I beg to move the bill be read a second time. On 22 May, the Prime

13:27

Legislation: Diego Garcia Military Base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill: Second Reading

second time. On 22 May, the Prime Minister signed a landmark treaty with the Republic of Mauritius, this guarantees the continued UK guarantees the continued UK operational control of Diego Garcia operational control of Diego Garcia for the next 99 years and beyond. So soon... Of course.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank you for giving way. It is important that the outset we understand there has been no change

13:27

Luke Pollard MP, The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Plymouth Sutton and Devonport, Labour )

- -

14:13

Rt Hon Priti Patel MP (Witham, Conservative)

- -

14:53

Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi MP (Slough, Labour)

- -

15:03

Calum Miller MP (Bicester and Woodstock, Liberal Democrat)

- -

that same day, I met with a group of UK-based Chagossians came to Parliament to protest against the deal which had been reached without their involvement. Maxwell said to me in desperation that his people have no state and no power. He said, " All we have is our voice. But that has been silenced for so long. Those were the views of the many Chagossians living here in the UK have not changed since. The right honourable lady member for Witham peppered her speech with breathless peppered her speech with breathless hyperbole.

But let me speak plainly. There has been consistency between the approach of the last government and this one. Conservative members do not want to accept that fact but it is true. Both governments accepted that legal challenges, not only in International Court of Justice, were a threat to the U.K.'s vital security interests. Both governments pursued negotiations over the sovereignty of the Chagos Archipelago with a goal to securing legally our use of Diego Garcia. And both governments failed to protect the interests of Chagossians in the negotiations with Mauritius.

The recent amendments tabled in my name and that the Liberal Democrats seeks and that the Liberal Democrats seeks to address both these facts. From the very start, the process of securing the treaty to be given effect by this bill has been characterised by this glaring omission. Has been the abject failure by successive governments properly to consult the Chagossian people. And to ensure their rights are protected in the final settlement. While we recognise and support the importance of abiding by international law, and do believe it is in the UK interests to negotiate with Mauritius, given the risks that the Conservatives and the Reform Party seek to ignore, a judgement against the UK in any court represents a threat to our security interests in Diego Garcia.

The treaty that has been agreed trampled over the Chagossians. Not only does it failed to provide adequate protection of their rights but it fails entirely to establish a right to return what a program of resettlement on the islands for Chagossians. Much of the history, Chagossians have been denied consultation on who governs and the right to determination. We fear now that this treaty, if enacted, will only reinforce that historic legacy. Mauritius, which let us remember lies only 1,300 miles we are Capello will become new colonial masters of the islanders.

I have grave concerns about the degree to which this deal will genuinely support UK security over the long term. There's a concerning lack of detail regarding the extension of the G8 Diego Garcia beyond this and the 99 year term. Nor does the treaty reckon seriously with generating guaranteed protections against encroachment by revisionist powers such as China which could threaten or undermine UK interests in the region. The unique maritime environment around the Chagos Archipelago is one of the most ecologically valuable regions on earth.

Home to an extraordinary range of wildlife and acting as a sanctuary for many threatened species. I fear the treaty does not afford adequate protection to this precious environment. Protecting and restoring wetlands not only vital for global marine conservation but offers unique opportunities to deepen our understanding of natural systems. Resettlement of the Chagossians could have provided a model for community led conservation in the islands. Instead, shortsighted opposition to two got proposals, the controversial marine protected area designation squander the opportunity.

Finally, there is the cost of this deal. The government shrouded in secrecy when it first announced it then appeared to reopen it to appease the new Mauritian Prime Minister. UK taxpayers are right to ask how ministers justify the sums involved at a time when public finances are so stretched in the UK. This treaty and bill fails to put in place the necessary oversight and accountability mechanisms over that very large sums involved, and annual payments to Mauritius and the Chagossian trust fund.

The government elected not to provide time for a debate and vote on this chamber in the treaty, and I regret members were not given that opportunity. We are also awaiting the statement on the rights of Chagossians which the noble Lords Collins promised would be discussed in both houses before ratification. Hope the Minister will clarify when this will be scheduled. In the meantime, for all the reasons I have set out and have set out in the recent amendment in my name and those of the Liberal Democrat colleagues who have signed the amendments, I believe that this Bill to give effect to the treaty should

**** Possible New Speaker ****

not receive a second reading. I call Peter Lamb. Thank you Madam Deputy Speaker. Can I begin by congratulating the Can I begin by congratulating the Minister on his appointment and thank Ministers for the time they've thank Ministers for the time they've given me to raise matters in relation to this bill and responses they have provided. I see of no they have provided. I see of no logical reason why the government went to the painful process of bringing this to the floor today if they were not 100% convinced it was in the UK national interest.

But I believe no matter how important believe no matter how important those concerns are, I do not believe they give us the right to override the Chagossians people's rights to self-determination. I believe we cannot vote for this because it is not our islands to give away in the first place. I know many members of this House will take interests of applying for the Chagossian people, and in the process. The first recorded contact with these islands is before but the modern history as France who bound colonial ministration with Mauritius.

This is ministration with Mauritius. This is the only basis on which a claim is made of the islands. In the late 18th century, UK planted coconut plantations in the island, and we used slave labour to do that. It is amongst those slaves that the unique island culture began to develop. In 1965, UK divided that colonial entity, hunting the modern state British independent and at the same time, in terms of financial compensation, they agreed to give up any future claim on the islands.

However we had come to determination that this would be a convenient location for a military base joining up with the US. And in order to facilitate the space, the decision was taken. We remove the islands in the archipelago. It began under a Labour government but concluded under a Conservative government. Official documentation stated that the base was too important for the UK for Tarzan's and man Fridays to get in the way. Make clear the islands should only be recognised, and the opposition in the 60s was taking place in the interests of national security.

Islands of the

15:12

Peter Lamb MP (Crawley, Labour)

- -

different culture, and for decades they were abandoned by the British Government. Left in poverty and Government. Left in poverty and facing discrimination. The years they have fought for their rights and they have won some concessions and they have won some concessions in that time gluing the rights to UK citizenship stop with most choosing to said at their home in Crawley. to said at their home in Crawley. This is a move that came with enormous challenges. I have known enormous challenges. I have known and worked alongside members of the British Chagossians unity of almost two decades.

The council leader I two decades. The council leader I promised them that is a part of this committee was my job to be their committee was my job to be their voice in government and not the other way around. It is that promise that leads me to vote against this that leads me to vote against this bill today. It is true to say there are Chagossians who enthusiastically support the deal just as there are those who desperately oppose it. At those who desperately oppose it.

At the same with any community on actually any issue. What is not actually any issue. What is not disputed as the islands belong to the Chagossians, and it is for that the Chagossians, and it is for that people alone to decide the future of their homeland. We have not given them that chance to decide the them that chance to decide the future. Until every Chagossian has had the chance to have their say, I cannot support this deal. But I'm cannot support this deal. But I'm not naive.

I am certain that this bill will pass today. Let me turn to the question. Yes.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

We had a passionate defence of not bringing the Falkland Islands or other British Overseas Territories other British Overseas Territories but Gibraltar has self-determination voted for by the people as does the Falkland Islands. Is it his thesis that that will apply for Chagossians that that will apply for Chagossians and therefore they make the determination whether to be British or to go to Mauritius on that basis?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

or to go to Mauritius on that basis? I believe it is very unfortunate they are not given the opportunity. And I believe had we given them the And I believe had we given them the opportunity, whatever the outcome, I would have no problem honouring that because this is their land.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

because this is their land. I thank the Member for giving way. He is speaking well of half of his constituents. He will acknowledge that the argument for Chagossians having a right of nationality was one that was hardfought for many Chagossians, and hardfought for many Chagossians, and some of us were pleased to support some of us were pleased to support that. Does he also acknowledge that, yes there are differences of opinion amongst Chagossians, including the amongst Chagossians, including the Chagos Refugees Group in which broadly speaking supports this broadly speaking supports this treaty.

Does he not think it is time to bring all the communities together and recognise they have achieved an enormous amount, gaining the right to return and write the residents at least on the archipelago?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

There is an enormous challenge, as I'm sure the honourable member is aware from his many years of working aware from his many years of working with the group, in how many disparate voices are. The borough council had taken it on themselves council had taken it on themselves to try and work with the different communities, to come together and form a coherent voice out of the belief they will only secure what belief they will only secure what they are seeking by having one coherent Democratic Voice of Burma coherent Democratic Voice of Burma is in.

Unfortunately, the deal emerged during the course of this and there is not in the opportunity. and there is not in the opportunity. It has driven a certain rift through the community due to the timing. I'm the community due to the timing. I'm not naive. I am certain this bill will proceed today. Let me turn to the question of what next. On the topic of the treaty itself, why mention is made of Chagossians in mention is made of Chagossians in the wording, I remain concerned, as other members alluded to, there are gaps which leave the people at risk.

While there is the option for Chagossians to be allowed by the Mauritian government to return the islands, there is no requirement for islands, there is no requirement for that to happen. There is no guarantee that any Chagossians who does return to the archipelago will does return to the archipelago will not face restrictions that could prevent permanent habitation even at the subsistence level of economic the subsistence level of economic activity. There is no guarantee that the trust fund that has been created will be under the control of the Chagossians, and is exclusively to address the consequences of their forceful removal from the islands.

There is no guarantee that there will not face a 10 year prison sentence for questioning Mauritian territorial integrity by taking on British Citizenship Bill and many remain upset that Diego Garcia remains off-limits. The view that some creativity could be used, particularly given the prolonged period in which asylum seekers have been present on the island. I say all this because I want to urge ministers to continue to engage with the Mauritian government on these issues and to give the Chagossians a certainty over the place in this deal.

Closer to home there are many challenges facing Chagossians choose to exercise their right to citizenship. Chief among these problems is housing. As part of our national housing strategy, need to ensure that every UK citizen has access to good quality housing. It includes Chagossians. The legal convocation of their citizenship, despite having lost their homes in Chagos, received on the support offered by relocation schemes of other groups. This creates enormous pressures on local authorities and airports leaves many Chagossians living in dilapidated housing conditions if they can find accommodation at all.

The second worst housing crisis in the country, the reality is that Crawley Borough Council cannot on its own over the entire country's housing duties due to Gotze people. There are challenges around access to language training support services which often lead to Chagossians relying on others in the community. And the enormous amount of goodwill of charity towards other groups but we have had instances of that being We need a mechanism for qualifications issued in Mauritius to be recognised in the UK.

Lastly, there is a desperate need for facilities for the Chagossian to preserve their unique cultural heritage. With so few first- generation Chagossian's left, there is not much time left. And let ministers are meeting with churros in groups -- Chagossian groups and I hope that advancement can be made. I would say to all members of the House today, this house has done enormous harm to the Chagossian people. I believe that handing these islands to Mauritius without the consent is harmful.

Regardless of the outcome of the vote today, we must start the process of making things right.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you very much. It's a privilege to follow the Honourable gentleman for crawling. I admire his principles and persistence and his principles and persistence and his advocacy for his Chagossian constituents -- Crawley. There is no constituents -- Crawley. There is no dispute that Diego Garcia is crucial to the UK security and that of its to the UK security and that of its allies. That is not something we are allies. That is not something we are arguing about.

And I do not think it is the government's position that in terms of the day-to-day terms of the day-to-day practicalities of operating the Diego Garcia base, this new arrangement whereby we no longer arrangement whereby we no longer have sovereignty over Diego Garcia, but we will continue to administer it for at least 99 years, I do not it for at least 99 years, I do not think that it is the government position that that arrangement is better than what we had, but rather better than what we had, but rather that it is a more secure arrangement that it is a more secure arrangement because of what has been described as the legal uncertainty describing our sovereignty.

I see the Minister noting and I'm grateful for that. I will give way.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

will give way. I'm grateful to him for giving way. It is more secure legally until 99 years but more deaf -- but at that point, if the Mauritians decide not to have a base there, that is

**** Possible New Speaker ****

their decision. I understand the point that he makes. I think it's reinforced by the point that are right honourable the point that are right honourable friend made in reading from the agreement as to how disputes are agreement as to how disputes are resolved. I want to focus, if I may, on the position now and the legal on the position now and the legal notification the government has already deployed for the arrangement already deployed for the arrangement it seeks to make.

I think there are problems already. It seems to me that if the position the government that if the position the government takes is as I said it out and it takes is as I said it out and it seems the Minister accepts this. seems the Minister accepts this. Renting it will be better than owning it outright according to the owning it outright according to the government view. Everything turns on government view. Everything turns on this question of legal uncertainty, which ministers have often referred which ministers have often referred to as the reason this treaty and this bill are necessary.

Having this bill are necessary. Having spent four years as Attorney General, I'm quite familiar with legal uncertainty. There is a lot of it about in government. It is, I'm afraid, invariably the case that whenever a decision is made in government, someone disagrees with it. Someone will be prepared to go to court and challenge the validity of that decision. And until the court, sometimes the Supreme Court, has resolved the matter, it can be said that there is a legal uncertainty.

Legal uncertainty hangs around government like the clouds and it cannot be allowed to paralyse a government, nor should that sort of atmospheric legal uncertainty be the only cause of a decision as significant as that which this government is now making to give up sovereignty over a vital military facility. So there must be something more substantive, something more tangible. Many of us have tried to find out what exactly that is but with very limited, I'm afraid, success. Given that, the legal certainty referred to here, constitute the reality of the platform which the government relies upon to justify this bill and this treaty.

Surely, before this house approves either of them, it must be given a proper and clear explanation of precisely what legal jeopardy the government is acting in response to. In pursuit of that, it's worth having a look back at the explanations that knitters have given so far. Let's start with the former Foreign Secretary. He told this House, "The issue was becoming more acute. Binding judgement against the UK seemed inevitable." Many of us have been asking aware that inevitable binding judgement might come from.

The only court which had by then been mentioned was the International Court of Justice which issued an advisory opinion on sovereignty over the Chagos Islands and macro Diego Garcia bill stop indeed, there could only have been an advisory decision on the subject because the UK accepted the compulsory jurisdiction of the ICJ. I was the Attorney General at the time. Those decisions, those declarations made it clear the UK did not accept that compulsory jurisdiction in relation to, and I quote, "Any dispute with any other country which has been a member of the Commonwealth.

That includes Mauritius." Any dispute with Mauritius in front of the IG -- ICJ could not result in a judgement against the kingdom. This point has been put to ministers and as far as I know, they have not assented -- dissented from that analysis. So, if the ICJ could not make that judgement, which other court might? On this, I'm afraid we've not had clarity. On 13 November last year, the honourable member for Cardiff South answered an urgent question on the Chagos Islands.

What he said was

15:25

Rt Hon Sir Jeremy Wright KC MP (Kenilworth and Southam, Conservative)

- -

15:39

Graeme Downie MP (Dunfermline and Dollar, Labour)

- -

15:47

Rt Hon Sir Iain Duncan Smith MP (Chingford and Woodford Green, Conservative)

- -

stands at the moment. This stands at the moment. This arrangement is vague and we are arrangement is vague and we are supposed to guess and be able to make the right decisions. It is make the right decisions. It is missing detail on what the Chagossian people want. The other bit is the cost and there is a final bit is the cost and there is a final bet on China and Russia. Quickly, if bet on China and Russia.

Quickly, if I can, I will deal with the legal case. The government has been peppered with requests non-stop peppered with requests non-stop since the process began to explain the legal threat that would mean the legal threat that would mean that we would be in real trouble if we did not seal the deal. They would not explain it but there were not explain it but there were suggestions here and there and my right honourable friend has been right honourable friend has been right about this.

And then the door right about this. And then the door opened. Andy minister, -- and the minister, ISA to him, the other minister made the point that somehow this was to do with something else and it has been a letdown for the UK in terms of the case that would be in terms of the case that would be ruled against them under UNCOS and the first is about government services and disputes at the UN.

-- UNCLOS. The same relates to matters taken up by the UN Security Council and the important thing is that this is not a threat that needs to be recognised. There is no way. It comes back to the Court of Justice and it was an advisory judgement and it cannot refer to an existing or previous arrangement. You keep coming back to this cheque. The idea that this will be spoken about like that is nonsense and, from the legal perspective, I think the government has come unstuck.

I have sat through many debates in the house and it is very rare the government comes unstuck on a case of legality. The second bit that they come unstuck on is the money. On the legal side, they would not tell us but there were suggestions we were in a desperate situation. Then the money, I have never seen a government unable and unwilling to tell us exactly how much things cost of what they are worth. The reality is that I know everyone has been chasing the government for that.

Now we find out that there has been gerrymandering with the figures with regards to the original statement and it is £35 billion in total cost and we must deal with total cost. The problem with the element of what they call the GDP deflator and the so-called social time discounting method, this has been dismissed as a real way of calculating costs for this kind of issue and they have re-emphasised the fact that total cost is the only way for a long-term treaty to be looked at.

It is simple. It relies on cost benefit analysis used for a social project and particularly with the long-term project and the real dispute about the ability of such a method to deal with precisely reasonably well with the overall cost benefit analysis on a long-term period. Therefore, there is concern that it is the right way to go on this at all. It is added to by the fact that they are trying to predict what will happen in Mauritius and over the next many years, this is a 99-year deal, and there is no way we will have control.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Two families have had leadership

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Two families have had leadership over the past 60 years - is there any reason to doubt that will continue?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

continue? There is uncertainty about growth and societal well-being and imagine how difficult it becomes if you how difficult it becomes if you tried to predict what happens with tried to predict what happens with Mauritius? After not answering for so long, suddenly there is a new so long, suddenly there is a new device and if we do not accept it we are dismissing the Green Book are dismissing the Green Book completely? This is not a Green Book completely? This is not a Green Book issue in terms of overall cost because it is about paying someone because it is about paying someone outside of this.

On the money side, outside of this. On the money side, honestly, it has fallen apart again. Thirdly, and I find this appalling, Thirdly, and I find this appalling, the reality is that we have had no real debate on the treaty or the bill. The old system that was meant to be was rushed through without a vote and I've got a huge amount of respect for the honourable gentleman but I have to say it is appalling when we are dealing with something as important strategically as this.

All the legislation today, for orders and counsel, if anybody read that and did not have a huge intake of breath, the point of the rest of this bill is negated by article 5. What is the point of debating it What is the point of debating it when Article 5 says that Article 5 states that the government can't change at all by order of counsel with no vote and no disputes. And so we do not have to consult Parliament anymore.

It is ridiculous. There are sweeping powers. There were complaints about governments that give themselves these powers and even by the standards of previous governments, this is astonishing. It is not democracy any more and we have given up the debate and handed it over to one person. This is appalling and it needs to be appalling and it needs to be refocused. We have spent a long time on the floor of the House talking about different clauses.

It's important. International treaties are vitally important to well-being and it does not work. The last bit is on China. I would say this, and I suspect other colleagues will be sanctioned as well. They are bound to be sanctioned. I look forward to that. I would say that there is no way that China does not benefit from this. China has its eyes on the important flow of commercial traffic that runs below the Chagos Islands and they have all this wanted to control or into seat there.

They have already got a naval base in Sri Lanka which they got by default on the back of Belt and Road and they have been looking under the arrangements for a long time to intercede on this and I will tell the whole house that they are 2-3 steps further forward as a result of the bill and it does not secure as absolutely because we give up control when we decided to hand over control to Mauritius.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank my honourable friend for

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank my honourable friend for giving way. I am not on the giving way. I am not on the sanctions list but perhaps I will be there shortly. Does he share my concern about the lease that has concern about the lease that has been given for 99 years given some adversaries strategise in the long term and it is a short period of time, years.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

time, years. The Chinese government considers this a long-term plan and are clear about it. What were the doing last about it. What were the doing last about it. What were the doing last week when we saw President Xi with the North Korean dictator on one site and the Russian on the other, site and the Russian on the other, talking about the new world order. That is the purpose and continues to That is the purpose and continues to be so.

They should have been taken to the upper tier of the scheme. Why to the upper tier of the scheme. Why they are not there, I have my suspicions. The reason why it has suspicions. The reason why it has not been done is may well have entered the negotiations on the Chagos Islands as well because they would have been huge interventions. In conclusion, I simply say that they honestly think the government needs to pause this now and go back to the drawing board and admit they got it wrong.

And the answer that was given to colleagues on the other side of the house about what the party of government with you, I have reached the conclusion that no matter who is in power, I am in opposition, so I tell you categorically, whatever else happens, and it was ended quite rightly by David Cameron when he became Foreign Secretary, some of us made it clear this should not have gone ahead for many of the reasons I laid out and it is no good to come back later on and say, "I wish we had not the." Now is the time to stand up and say, "This does not work.

It must stop. The government must think again." must think again."

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I rise to support the bill and the bill is not only timely but

15:58

Lillian Jones MP (Kilmarnock and Loudoun, Labour)

- -

the bill is not only timely but essential for national security, international obligations, the strategic future of the UK. It's not just an isolated area at the top of the Indian Ocean but the most geopolitically significant military outpost of the 21st century and serves as a joint base for US-UK operations and is fraught with instability with piracy in the heart of Africa and the growing threat of expansionism of China in the Indo- Pacific. This bill ensures certainty for our Armed Forces, our ability to meet NATO obligations, provide safe trade routes, respond safely to humanitarian crises across Asia and Africa.

In a time of escalating global tensions from the South, Red Sea, the South China Sea, we cannot afford ambiguity with defence infrastructure. I've listened with concern to the arguments laid out from members opposite, some who are acting with a confusion between diplomatic impunity and practical governance. They have access to the same legal advice, security briefings and the same threat assessment as we have now. Only after leaving government and with no deal of their own that they begin to play politics with national security.

The sudden opposition is not principled, but opportunistic and irresponsible. Opposition members talk about international law and talk about guidelines from the International Court of Justice as if they were binding judgements. Sovereignty is a matter of law, treaties, and responsibility, not preference. The UK has administered the territory of the British Indian Ocean for over 50 years and have done so in close coordination with allies, especially the USA. They simply walk away, as some have suggested, would be an act of geopolitical negligence and to those who argue the bays should be handed over to another power under the banner of anti colonialism I would tell them to be careful for what they wish for because the UK and US would not leave behind a vacuum but a price, a strategic duel that would be taken by international resumes who have no regard for human rights, international law, diplomatic principles.

Our responsibility is not to rewrite history by dismantling defences but to shape the future by ensuring we are strong, legitimate, effective. This bill provides clarity and authority for the continued use of Diego Garcia, strengthening oversight and introducing new commitments to environmental stewardship and it importantly establishes a pathway about resettlement and heritage for the Chagossian representatives and it's important we listen to their voices. This bill does not closed doors but opens them, without Opposition for the sake of Opposition for the sake of opposition is not leadership.

With a rather handover strategic influence in the Indian Ocean to those who undermine international rules-based order? Let me remind the House that there are real threats in the world, cyberattacks, terrorist attacks, terrorist networks and legal my terrorist networks and legal my illegal arms trafficking,... Diego garcia is not a relic of the Cold War, it is a strategic capability we rely on today. This Bill is pragmatic, it is proportionate, it is grounded in the national interest and it is fully compatible with our democratic powers.

It does not ignore the past, it confronted. And it seeks to charter a responsible path forward. I add colleagues across the House me, especially those wavering on the fence, to vote not out of the ideological... About a practical necessity. The world is watching, our allies are watching in history to will judge what we choose today. Choose strength, responsibility, regional and global security, choose to back the UK's national security.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

It is a pleasure to see you in the chair, Madam Deputy Speaker. May I daresay, during an intervention to the Minister for Defence Procurement I said he was acting in a I said he was acting in a duplicitous way. I was already tribute by the speaker, you do not need to step in... But I would like need to step in... But I would like to say I did miss speak and I did not think that he was being genuine not think that he was being genuine but I would like to apologise to him because I'm someone that never plays because I'm someone that never plays the man, I always play the ball, and it is a shame he is not here to hear it is a shame he is not here to hear that apology.

What I will say is that his career as Minister of State for defence procurement, which I do welcome, is a good friend of mine welcome, is a good friend of mine and I look forward to serving in his position, really hasn't gone very well to start, has it? Because the parsimony comes to this House in parsimony comes to this House in charge of defence procurement in this country single hard lately -- single-handedly started advocating about disposing about what I think about disposing about what I think is a vital piece of defence infrastructure that is relevant and essential to our country and he stood there to try and defend the indefensible.

I suggested the Whips bench they might want to look at some of his decisions going forward some of his decisions going forward if he is in charge of procuring defence equipment on behalf of this country. Because Soba he has only been successful at getting rid of vital indestructibility country and I hope you does better going forward. The first job and the first duty of any government, any government that serves the great people of this great country, is to keep its people and itself say.

I never thought that I would come to this House, on a day like today, and see a day where a government, this government, is creating the biggest act of self sabotage that I think we have seen in generations of elect did houses in the history of our nation. -- Elected Houses. Not only harming our security but harming the strategic interests of our people

**** Possible New Speaker ****

and our security of this country. ... This is harming our strategic

**** Possible New Speaker ****

... This is harming our strategic interest why is it back by our allies, by the United States, by NATO? Why can't he answer that? If the honourable gentlemen had

**** Possible New Speaker ****

If the honourable gentlemen had bothered to stand up at the -- show up the entirety of the debate, I up the entirety of the debate, I think the first time he has been hit, he would have answer to those questions. By excellent speeches questions. By excellent speeches made across the house. What I would say to him is that I would also ask him why is this backed by so many him why is this backed by so many countries there are malign interests my influences of interest United Kingdom? Such as Russia, China and Kingdom? Such as Russia, China and Iran.

He wants to stay for the rest of the debate he might hear some answers to those questions too. I answers to those questions too. I want to make it very clear to members on other side of the House because it is very easy to stand in because it is very easy to stand in this chamber and read the Labour Party briefing and because you say things time and time again, it must things time and time again, it must be true, and people out there expect it will be true.

I was the Parliamentary Private Secretary to Lord Cameron of Chipping Norton when Lord Cameron of Chipping Norton when he was Foreign Secretary. And he he was Foreign Secretary. And he said Foreign Office officials at the time that Goshen is going on, that time that Goshen is going on, that were being explored, went past his red lines. My right honourable friend the Member for Braintree, who was Foreign Secretary when some of these negotiations happen, said to the Foreign Office officials at the time, as the democratically elected Foreign Secretary, these recommendations go beyond my red lines.

Those negotiations were then stopped by Lord Cameron and I remember him instructing Foreign Office officials to stop those negotiations. And I just saying to members such as the honourable gentlemen for Dunfermline and Dollar, that just because negotiations and conversations have started, it does not mean that you have to accept the conclusion that

**** Possible New Speaker ****

you do not want. I just asked him... ... We have heard already in the debate that we cannot hear a debate that we cannot hear a negotiation, can he explain what those red lines were exactly please?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

those red lines were exactly please? I would say it is not paying £35

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I would say it is not paying £35 billion to another country. And the red lines also to the last Foreign Secretary, who can I just remind him Secretary, who can I just remind him again, in case he wants to read his Labour Party briefing again, the other red lines for the last Foreign Secretary is to stop those Secretary is to stop those negotiations was that he did not accept unilaterally, clearly did not accept unilaterally, that the accept unilaterally, that the sovereignty of the Chagos Islands felt with Mauritius.

That is the key difference between the last government and this government going government and this government going forward. This deal is a bad deal for Britain. It is a bad deal in terms of the cost of 35 been pounds while of the cost of 35 been pounds while the government taxes spend and makes people and country poorer. It is a bad deal in an ever-changing bad deal in an ever-changing international world and security situation, where this country is situation, where this country is unilaterally giving up and strategically important defence base in an area of the world where we are seeing more uncertainty in the geopolitical location.

And as I say, geopolitical location. And as I say, I cannot... This Bill is so bad that I can't put how bad it is into words except to say that it is an act of self sabotage that we have not seen in this House by a democratically elected government elected by the people, in this House, for generations. I just want to make the point again not only is this a bad deal, but it is backed by every malign nation to our national

16:09

Paul Holmes MP (Hamble Valley, Conservative)

- -

16:20

Tim Roca MP (Macclesfield, Labour)

- -

on how he spoke earlier. I believe the answer is yes. Glacier is not just an overseas facility but fundamental to security and we have launched operations against high- value terrorist group from there and it is a logistics hub, telecommunications hub, and where we safeguard oil and trade routes. It is at risk. Ministers have outlined the issues that could be caused by this ruling. It is clear that even the non- binding ICG judgement is a matter of international law and could give opportunity to cause trouble in the islands, and the similar Chinese claims are not recognised.

That is all at risk and there are issues with submarines, controlling what is, it could be compromised. I have been waiting a long term and so I will continue. The vacuum, of course, if we allow it to be created, would be filled by China and others. What China thinks about this treaty is important as well and it has 19 years of guaranteed access with the option to extend by a further 40 and if that is good enough for Lord Salisbury, is good enough for me and it gives us control over communications, logistics, the electromagnetic spectrum and establishes a buffer zone and bands any foreign military presence on the outskirts of the island.

-- bans. We talked about the unique environment and the tangible support with the trust fund for the Chagossian people. I am satisfied on this front. In terms of the backing of allies and experts, Lord Goldsmith, the former Attorney- General, he said it was consistent with national security interests and respect for international law and international support is strong and it has been described as a good outcome for the UK, Australia, Mauritius by Australia and the Foreign Ministry said it secured the long-term, secure and effective operations and, in the US, Fergie did not get much bipartisan support, it is a bipartisan matter and Antony Blinken supports the negotiations and Marco Rubio commended the leadership and vision shown and Lloyd Austin said it would safeguard strategic security and interests into the next century and President Trump himself described it as an amazing deal, a beautiful deal, whatever deal, a good deal, that is the main point.

The international consensus is very clear. Allies, partners, experts back the deal and I was taken by the comments of Professor Benjamin Sachs in the US who said, "I content that the agreement is viewed as a setback by reaching in practical terms and there is little any advantage for them. He added it was a problem for his foreign policy and one that China could exploit and that it undermined the traditional UK support.

Finally, the deal deters the port from being a state of Beijing and I believe that this treaty passes the test. I will not. I don't think I've got the strength to listen to the honourable member again. The final test is on costs and obligations and ministers have powerfully talked about the deal being less than 0.2% of the Defence Budget and in comparison to the French in Djibouti, I am proud of you are getting a better deal than the French and it is larger and it involves immense operational freedom and so it seems to me this is a modest price to pay for an irreplaceable asset and we must balance the risks and the risks of delay or abandonment are vastly greater.

I'm happy to give way.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The honourable gentleman describes Diego Garcia as describes Diego Garcia as irreplaceable asset at the Chagossian people do not see it as that but as the home and even though that but as the home and even though they have been displaced for the best part of 50 years, have told me best part of 50 years, have told me that they see this as a new round of the same colonial humiliation the the same colonial humiliation the experiences in the 1960s and 1970s.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

experiences in the 1960s and 1970s. I thank him for raising this and

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank him for raising this and we should be honest that the history with the Chagossian people is very with the Chagossian people is very poor and if you look at the diplomatic cables, the language used diplomatic cables, the language used was disgraceful and provisions have been put in place and I would seam that it is a matter for the previous that it is a matter for the previous government and there have been negotiations on the issue and there is motivation for them to do that.

is motivation for them to do that. I'm worried about the way that I'm worried about the way that overseas territories are being involved in this and colleagues in Gibraltar told me they were horrified that party politics was being played and I'm glad to see it on the record and the Chief Minister in Gibraltar was clear that there was no recourse for Gibraltar and the Falklands have stated the historical context is very different. I'm confident we meet the criteria.

I'm afraid I will not. In closing, I believe the three tests have been met and I believe it meets national security requirements, has the backing of allies, and I think it would be dangerous to dither or delay any more, given the potential threat that there is.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Can I say that to take part in

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Can I say that to take part in the debate and it is the case that the debate and it is the case that the foreign affairs Commissioner has had the opportunity to question the minister, although I was not entirely persuaded by some of his remarks but I welcome the remarks from two of the Labour speakers and my honourable friend on this site. my honourable friend on this site. There might be a more appropriate body to look at some aspects and also the Defence committee.

The one also the Defence committee. The one thing I think everybody who speaks will agree on is the importance to will agree on is the importance to the UK of Diego Garcia and the Chagos Islands and my honourable friend spoke of his former boss who friend spoke of his former boss who was a minister in the last government and a security adviser to government and a security adviser to the Prime Minister and he said it's the Prime Minister and he said it's no exaggeration to say Diego Garcia is the most strategically important logistics base for the UK and it is vital for the defence of the UK and our allies and I have no doubt honourable members would share the sentiment and would not agree with the statement that surrendering sovereignty would undermine British interests and those of key allies, most notably the US.

We have to heed the warning which he gave. Of course.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Lord West has been referred to twice so far and he may be surprised twice so far and he may be surprised to learn that Admiral Lord West had a letter published in which she a letter published in which she talked about disgraceful decisions on the ownership of the Chagos Archipelago and that he did not Archipelago and that he did not accept it and said it is not as vital for offence and intelligence vital for offence and intelligence as the Prime Minister claims.

Someone of that calibre makes those Someone of that calibre makes those comments, I wonder what the position

16:30

Rt Hon Sir John Whittingdale MP (Maldon, Conservative)

- -

16:46

Phil Brickell MP (Bolton West, Labour)

- -

Britain and the US protects ability across the Gulf and the wider in the Pacific. It has been part of the fight against piracy for many years and today is important in preventing the drawing rich of the Chinese Communist Party. We know that Beijing is increasing naval outposts across the region and the so-called 'string of pearls' is designed to dominate. If we are serious about standing up for human rights, democracy, then Diego Garcia must be allowed to continue.

Colleagues opposite me half and puff, as they have been doing over the last few hours but let's not rewrite history. As has been pointed out already, it was not labour market opened the negotiations with Mauritius. I wanted to intervene earlier and was not allowed to do so, so I will make progress. The Conservatives described the situation, quite rightly, in 2022 as unsustainable and held 11 rounds of talks on sovereignty and the right honourable member, but he was Prime Minister I said that he wanted to conclude a deal soon in 2023.

At the time, members on the benches rightly recognised the legal status of the base was under serious threat and, at the time, they recognised that an internal sovereignty dispute risk paralysis. A quick remark about international law because the right honourable member for Wycombe said earlier that it is an international court that few have heard of and those kind of reckless, throwaway remarks undermine the highest judicial organ of the UN. She mentioned we are a prominent member of the UN Security Council and we have judges who sit on the ICJ, elected by members of the general assembly and through the Security Council and we have not had a judge since 2018 on that international court and we did, since its inception, as a source of much shame and I hope she will take those remarks back about denigrating the international system of law that underpins our work internationally.

It was the UK who was the first country to submit a case for arbitration at the ICG in the 1940s. I would say to members opposite, where were you when the negotiations took place? Two years is a long time in politics but have you already forgotten?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I was not anywhere and I have forgotten nothing. Please be careful

**** Possible New Speaker ****

forgotten nothing. Please be careful about the language that is used in the chamber. Labour has finished what the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Labour has finished what the previous government started, which previous government started, which was left to us after Liz Truss the former prime minister that the genie former prime minister that the genie out of the bottle by starting negotiations and 2022 and this was negotiations and 2022 and this was 'The Spectator' at the time. This government has looked for a deal in the best interests of Britain, given the legal mess it inherited. Let us be clear, the agreement secures the be clear, the agreement secures the agreement of the Diego Garcia base and Britain retains control, as they and Britain retains control, as they minister has already confirmed, in an intervention at the start of the debate.

There is a protective zone debate. There is a protective zone and no foreign security forces will and no foreign security forces will be on the outer edges and there will be robust mechanisms to prevent interference and, for the first interference and, for the first time, Mauritius has agreed to back the operations of the base and that is a huge strategic win. What about costs? Some of this information coming from the party opposite is concerning, including unnecessarily raising concerns about the future of other overseas British territories like the Falkland Islands and Gibraltar.

The overall cost has not changed from that which was negotiated with the former prime minister of Mauritius and suggestions to the contrary are simply false and then reset it against the cost of action, the financial component is modest, far cheaper than the spiralling cost of uncertainty and far cheaper than the price we would be if trainees expansionism went unchecked in the Indian Ocean. For a fraction of the defence budget, we will ensure a cornerstone of global stability. The agreement will have an annual average cost of 0.08% of total government spent, according to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

government figures. I will give way. I'm grateful to the honourable member for giving way and in his carefully crafted speech he mentions the deal protects freedom but one of the deal protects freedom but one of the freedoms to which he has the freedoms to which he has referred, one of the freedoms people must appreciate is the freedom to must appreciate is the freedom to determine their own future. Why does the other I think the Chagossian people should be an exception and denied the right to determine their

**** Possible New Speaker ****

own future. I thank him for his contribution and I'm sure the Minister will come to this in closing remarks that I concur with the remarks made by concur with the remarks made by others which state that the way the Chagossian people were treated in the 1960s and 1970s was shameful. the 1960s and 1970s was shameful. The party opposite claims to be the champion of Defence but this is not champion of Defence but this is not reflected with the facts and shrinking the army to its smallest shrinking the army to its smallest size with a decrease in spending, size with a decrease in spending, how many years was the 2.5% target hit? Please, do not lecture these benches on national security.

This government has been transparent and serious with the largest increase since the Cold War and rebuilding the alliances and acting where there was death and governing in the national interest and securing the long-term future of the Diego Garcia base. It is clear to me that the binding judgement against the UK was inevitable. Since 2015, 28 international judges have expressed views on the sovereignty of the Chagos Islands and that was under the last government but not one of them back the British claim, not one.

Without an agreement, our ability to operate the base width have been compromised and slightly this would have been at risk with access contract uncertain and communication degraded and cost soaring, investment falling. Who would that benefit? I will give them a clue, not Britain and not British allies and the deal secures the ego Garcia and cements the role in the Indo-Pacific and cements the ability to push back against Chinese influence and shows Britain is an ally that takes national security seriously and I wish to make one closing remark on the amendment put down by the Reform Party in the names of the honourable members for Clacton, Boston and Skegness, and Ashfield, who are not present today.

I wish to read part of the amendment which I am gobsmacked has been picked up in the debate today where they say that because the reason for the UK-Mauritius treaty and bringing forward the bill follows judgement from the International Criminal Court for which the UK does not recognise judgements as advisory, they will propose the bill and I would like Reform to answer which case they are referring to. Are they saying they would not recognise the binding judgements of the court? Are they going to take us out of the ICC? They are not here to respond, unfortunately.

The Conservatives opened the door to the treaty and Labour inherited a legal mess and, for a small cost, we have achieved a huge strategic victory. That is why I am proud to support this bill tonight.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

So many honourable gentlemen have forgotten the reshuffle was a couple forgotten the reshuffle was a couple of days ago I had to wait months and possibly years to be rewarded for possibly years to be rewarded for their conceit. Over the last few their conceit. Over the last few hours, we've heard some very clear questions from the honourable member questions from the honourable member who has explained that we are going through an argument on legal through an argument on legal intervention that comes at no risk to us but we are feeling on the

16:57

Rt Hon Tom Tugendhat MP (Tonbridge, Conservative)

- -

to us but we are feeling on the other side that the ChatGPT-

16:58

Phil Brickell MP (Bolton West, Labour)

- -

16:58

Rt Hon Tom Tugendhat MP (Tonbridge, Conservative)

- -

generated press releases, "I rise to speak" That is an Americanism and it speak" That is an Americanism and it makes it clear that this place has deteriorated. This building, this deteriorated. This building, this chamber, it is a waste of time, a complete waste of time. When fellow citizens cured that we have listened citizens cured that we have listened to the arguments. -- Fellow citizens can hear. We have listened to the arguments of China, India, the US, arguments of China, India, the US, but were not willing to listen to the arguments of Britain and we are not willing to stand up for the not willing to stand up for the interests of the British people or look at the strategic interests of look at the strategic interests of UK defence but instead all we hear consistently is that the Americans consistently is that the Americans are for it.

Of course they are. It is a territorial deal and they have no interest in the territory and no interest in the territory and they are leasing the base from us at the moment and will do so into the future and so there is no future for them and I respect the position of the Indian government very highly but I'm not an Indian MP and I have a different perspective because my job, and I thought it was their job, but I was wrong, it is to stand up for the British people.

Instead, all I can hear is that they are standing up for foreign interests and that is fine and worshipping international treaties and standing up for international law and conveniently international law and conveniently forgetting that it is... To get to the end of the sentence, forgetting international law is conflictual, challenging, and regularly in direct competition with itself. It highlights different interests and at different points, different elements champion different aspects of international law to seek different outcomes and this is how it has drawn up and that is why it is the job of sovereign governments to stand up for our interests but, instead, this government does something different and instead it, the moment the government is challenged, it runs away.

And he bravely turned his tail and fled,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Sir Keir. Order. I will not have members referring to the Prime Minister by name. name.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

name. Could have been any Sir Keir. I apologise. This government has apologise. This government has decided that instead of fighting for interest, it will turn around and interest, it will turn around and capitulate. The problem is that this is... I will not. The problem is it is... I will not. The problem is it is not just about these islands or these issues we are debating today these issues we are debating today but it is about the way in which the government approaches the debate and in case there was any doubt as to in case there was any doubt as to the nature, the changing nature of the use of law against us, it is the use of law against us, it is worth looking accidentally and coincidentally at the timeline of coincidentally at the timeline of these events.

We have heard because we have heard the deal was done in the 1960s and the pain was accepted the 1960s and the pain was accepted and be moved on. After the war in the Falklands, just a, illegal the Falklands, just a, illegal action begun using Mauritius and action begun using Mauritius and Just after the Falklands war the KGB started to find the effendi, it's not just me saying, this is in the public... Just after the Falklands war, when the Russians realise, when the Soviets realised they did not have the military power to defeat NATO, they started experimenting with lawfare and we have seen them with lawfare and we have seen them do it again and again and again.

If you would like to read reports on this, policy exchange very kindly published a report by me in 2013 and another one in 2015, fog of law and clearing the fog of law, for those were trouble sleeping. And since them we have seen lawfare grow. We have seen states using the power of lawyers against the interests of the British people time and again. And the trouble with this capitulation, the trouble with the capitulation we are seeing today is that it is not just about Diego Garcia, it is not just about these islands, it is not just about this interest.

It is about the question as to whether or not this government will stand up for British people and for our security and for our interest. Because let me sketch out a hypothetical situation for you. It is possible, I hope it is not necessary, but it is possible that British troops are asked to do some peacekeeping, for example, in somewhere like Ukraine. It is possible that they would have to leave at a moment's notice, with the equipment they have got and not the ability to re-equip but simply to go with the best that they have today.

It is possible countries like Russia It is possible countries like Russia will object. Now, we know, because we have seen it happen in the 90s, late 90s, all the way through tens, 20s and tends, the 2010's, forgive me, that the Russian government and others have encouraged legal action against our Armed Forces. And I will be honest with you, governments since 99 have been poor on this. Labour Government initially, Conservative Government after have been poor on this. But it was very been poor on this.

But it was very welcome that Lord Cameron stop this, recognising that there was a different position that could be taken. Sadly what this does is it reverses that point. It reverses the presumption that our government, the British Government, will represent the legal interests of the British people and fight these cases. And instead what they will do is they will capitulate. The problem is capitulation is what got us to this problem in the first place. You can look at the beachy case from the late 90s from Kosovo, when we settled rather than fighting.

You can look at cases in Iraq and Afghanistan where we settled rather than debating, rather than going to court and finding a judgement. Because what we did is we create a precedent and I'm afraid what this government is doing is creating another precedent. I know that people say, and I'm delighted the governments of the Falkland Islands and Gibraltar and many other places have correctly said that this has no connection to them, and they are right that this has no connection to them.

They are right that this has no connection to them. But they are sadly mistaken in thinking that this means that nobody will test that case. Had he been here at the beginning of the debate he would have been welcome to contribute but I'm afraid given here such a passing interest, I'm sure he will not mind I carry on. But the reality is that it is not up to the person who is pursued by law as to whether or not they will be challenged, it is up to the aggressor.

And we know who the aggressor is, we know who has been using lawfare against us, we have seen it time and again. And I am afraid what this does is concede that point. I am fascinated to see that so many members of the benches opposite feel that they have no choice but to conclude a negotiation admittedly began, mistakenly, in my opinion, by conservative administration. And yes I did write to the then Prime Minister's, both of them, complaining about it and pointing out the error of their ways.

I was a minister and I wrote about it and I complained about it. And actually so did the Lord Murray of Blidworth, I think it is, I'm going to get his name wrong, forgive me, that is one for Hansard. We both wrote because we both thought it was wrong at the time. What can I say... We left office, the civil servants re-presented the same offer and sadly, here we go again. This is why the British people feel so disenchanted and disenchanted at the moment.

Because we see changes of government and no changes of policy. We see a continuation and simply the whips briefings coming out again. We see simply a pointlessness of democracy in this place because frankly, we might as well not bother being here. The Foreign Office stitch this one up, the Minister can't even that -- changed the judgement and has sacrificed this all on something that has no benefit to the British people.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank the Minister for his statement earlier. We have had quite clearly from the benches opposite that they are opposed to this deal, that they are opposed to this deal, so I think it is fair to first outline what sort of deal they are opposed to. They are opposed to a opposed to. They are opposed to a deal that secures our vital national interest on probably the most important base in the entire country, the entire country's history in the Indian Ocean. They history in the Indian Ocean.

They are opposed to deal supported from every one of our four Five Eyes every one of our four Five Eyes closest security partners. And as we have heard from many of them, they have heard from many of them, they are opposed to a deal that they spent 11 rounds negotiating over two years. We have not quite had problem

17:07

Alex Ballinger MP (Halesowen, Labour)

- -

17:17

Rebecca Paul MP (Reigate, Conservative)

- -

suspect more on the others. This is of immense military and geopolitical importance and this bill will give Diego Garcia away at a time of heightened instability and threat around the world. It does not take an expert on defence are foreign affairs to know that this is a terrible decision and one that puts virtue signalling before national interest, plays into the hands of our enemies, and ultimately puts the country and citizens at risk, unforgivable of any government. If this is the final settlement, it this is the final settlement, it does not us of the set up and race.

For decades, Diego Garcia has played a critical role in the security of the UK and our allies in the region. The base at a launch pad to defeat enemies, protect us from threats to the nation and protect economic security, contributing both at home and abroad. In practice, it fulfils multiple essential military roles, supporting approximately 15 key military task including logistics and communications. It acts as a pre-positioning hub and hosts vehicles with munitions, fuel, and medical supplies for rapid deployment where required.

It includes some vessels and allows aerial refuelling and supports key operations across the Indian Ocean. Glacier is indispensable and we have been asked to jeopardise it today. -- Diego Garcia. Parliament has shown nothing of substance to convince members on this side of the House. The House has been asked to vote on the future of one of our most strategically important overseas territories. This matters because the Republic of Mauritius is far from a passive actor in the geopolitics of the region.

Mauritius has repeatedly aligned itself with has repeatedly aligned itself with states hostile to the UK and voted against us on the future of the Chagos Islands at the UN General Assembly. It maintains close diplomatic and economic ties with China, whose utilisation of slave labour and expansionist agenda against Taiwan are no secret. More to the point, they have signed up for initiative proposed by Beijing which has been described as China's attempt to displace UN security partnerships. These concerns have been brushed aside by ministers, keen to remind us Mauritius is an

**** Possible New Speaker ****

ally of New Delhi, not Beijing. The critical thing is national

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The critical thing is national security and national interest are inseparable and both depend on the inseparable and both depend on the sovereignty of the nation and Parliament. Of course international treaties and agreements matter but treaties and agreements matter but they can never matter more than that and you cannot subcontract the and you cannot subcontract the national interest from overseas players who may or may not want to players who may or may not want to defend that interest in years to come, exactly what she is describing.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank my right honourable friend for the intervention and he makes his point well and I agree. makes his point well and I agree. The reality is Mauritius is not reliable as a guarantor of British reliable as a guarantor of British national security interest. It is staggeringly naive to assume staggeringly naive to assume otherwise. It has been raised multiple times - what will happen in multiple times - what will happen in the intervening years is the concern. On top of this, we are not concern.

On top of this, we are not just giving away a centrepiece of our global security but we are our global security but we are paying extraordinarily for the privilege and hard-working constituents will fit the bill for the next 19 years to pay for the £35 billion lease which may be £47 billion which the government has agreed to. In the Russian government has been celebrating shrinking national debt. -- The moment in Mauritius. This is as a result of the benefits we are sending them.

Countries have lost twice and got on to be offered treaties with more generous terms than this but get the front bench calls it a triumph to this House. It's a shame for the government has brought such a damaging, insulting and sensitive document to be House and by moving forward with it, the government is failing with the duty of securing the safety of the nation and this day will go down in history books as the day the UK was diminished by this dangerous Lucy.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Diego Garcia is not just another military facility but the

17:22

Sarah Smith MP (Hyndburn, Labour)

- -

military facility but the cornerstone of British national security and our most important contribution to the security relationship with the US. From tracking terrorist networks to assuring freedom and global trade, it has saved many lives. Let us be clear. The reason we are here if the fielders of the Conservative government on defence and foreign policy. For years, they did it, delete, mismanage, and gambled with our security. 85% of negotiations that delivered the treaty to place under the Conservatives and it was the member for Braintree who was the Foreign Secretary who wants to process and the Leader of the Opposition sat at the cabinet table and received the same briefings are never raised objections, not in Parliament, written questions, social media, the new then as we know now, but without a treaty, Diego Garcia was in risk of being made and operable and he knew the dangers of hostile powers exploiting the vacuum and affecting our ability to patrol the original submarines.

Today, they've not been able to answer the question as to why they started the negotiations and yet in April to 24 Lord Cameron wrote that, "The future administration was subject to ongoing negotiations and shortly afterwards there was a general election. In Opposition, these very same people posture against the deal that they once championed, and they offer no alternative, no plan, no strategy, just opportunism. They play politics with the safety of the British people and this is not leadership, it is pure hypocrisy.

By contrast, this government has delivered a treaty which secures 98 years of guaranteed access with the option of extending for another 14, with rocksolid safeguards secured and command over the electromagnetic spectrum and a nautical buffer zone of 24 miles and a ban on any foreign military presence. Crucially, the treaty is backed by our allies. The United States, of course, welcomes it and President Trump called it a long-term and powerful lease. Partners including India back it because they recognise what the opposite bench once admitted but now the night, it is inapplicable.

We must address the position taken by the Reform Party Hussain they are -- you have said -- who are absent in this event. The British people were told that President Trump would oppose this outright. That was not the case. The US has welcomed it. President Trump has described it as very strong and very long-term and, once again, Reform has missed red our closest ally and talked Britain down. They are risking the very partnerships that keep this country safe.

Let's be clear that the costs are modest when put in context. Less than 0.2% of the annual defence budget and to put it in greater context, the cost of the whole deal is less than the cost of the unused PPE in the first year of Covid under the Tory government. The Conservative party had 14 years in government to get this right and instead wasted and is on mismanagement and left the future of our most critical days to hang by a thread.

This Labour Government has secured it for a century, protected our people, supported the committee and strengthen alliances. Two oppose the bill is to abandon the base and written's security. I will not do that and IRG all members to support the bill and put the safety of the British people above short-term gains and the reckless posturing of the Reform Party.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I could not imagine that the start of this Parliament that we would be asked to consider a bill that is so uniquely detrimental to

17:27

Aphra Brandreth MP (Chester South and Eddisbury, Conservative)

- -

that is so uniquely detrimental to national security, to the British taxpayer, to the Chagossian people, and the environment. Not only are we ceding sovereignty of a critical overseas territory but we are paying a huge financial cost for the privilege of doing so. We have heard much today about the cost of the deal, a cost which the government claims is £3.4 billion of unwanted NGOs but we have heard in reality it is many times greater. -- £3.4 billion over 19 years.

The bill will leave the UK strategically weaker in was contested regions in the world, an area that will shape the future of politics at a time when the world is more vulnerable than ever with 2024 saying the greatest number of concerts around the globe since World War II. Allow me to start with the finances of the deal. It took, as we have heard, a freedom of information act for the government to level but the British people that the deal with in fact cost £35 billion with some analysis suggesting it could be as much as £47 billion.

It would have been far better for the government to have come clean over the true cost of the deal rather than trying accountancy tricks to pull the bill over our tricks to pull the bill over our eyes. -- wool. I would like to draw your attention to the size of the investment which could be used for the schools budget or the Hinckley nuclear reactor project. It could be 70 hospitals. The list could go on. It is worth reiterating that when the Prime Minister negotiates, Britain loses.

The hard-working people of Chester South deserve a better return for the attacks and should not have to watch as the government signs away British sovereign territory and adding to that, the clause removing the ability of Parliament to vote on something that is billions of pounds is strategically wrong. That leaves me to the city to consideration. Diego Garcia is one of seven in the Indo-Pacific region and owing to its position in the Indian Ocean and proximity to shipping lanes, it's vital for national security and regional influence.

It is a key base for which armed forces detectors from hostile states and activity. It is deeply concerning from a security standpoint that we are losing sovereignty over this base and the influence that we can exert from it. According to the treaty, the UK is compelled to notify the government of Mauritius on certain aspects of military activity in and around the base. This does not make us safer. If we think back to earlier this year when American allies conducted strikes against Iran, what if the UK supported allies in such action? The deal would require, as we have had, for us to expeditiously inform the government of Mauritius of our actions.

I appreciate the Minister has qualified no advance notification is required but one might ask why we should have to inform Mauritius at all, expeditiously or not. Perhaps the Minister can clarify the conditions in paragraph 2 and further the extent to Special Forces operations and, if so, what guarantee there would be that highly sensitive security information would not end China, Iran and Russia have all welcomed the deal. As the shadow Minister highlighted, China congratulated the government of Mauritius in a press conference following the deal's announcement, with verses thanking China for its support.

China do not do geopolitical favours so this support should cause the government to pause. Iran has already -- also expressed approval of the deal. Can the Minister share with the House have ministers on that site have somehow come to a different conclusion and deduced that all three of these geopolitical threats opposed this deal. It is not just a huge financial cost nor the significant security implications of this deal that are deeply concerning, but also that it has ignored the voices of the British Chagossian's.

I met with people from the Chagossian community and their message is very clear. They feel let down by a lack of transparency in consultation and are deeply concerned about their future. It's not surprising they feel ignored and betrayed given that the former Foreign Secretary met them only once. Ones with the Chagossian's on a deal that is so important to them. a deal that is so important to them. -- once. The government must consider a close put forward by the House of Lords the urge the government to enhance Chagossian engagement by establishing a formal consultation method with the Chagossian community and ensure meaningful conclusion and decision- making.

Can the Minister confirm whether this recommendation has been implemented? There's still provides British Chagossian with no guarantee that they will be able to return to their homeland. I ask the Minister to state clearly when the government has negotiated a deal where British Chagossian right to return to their homeland are controlled fully by Mauritius? Finally, the Chagos trust fund is to be distributed solely under the control of Mauritius. Yet this bill contains no provisions to monitor whether the rates of British Chagossian's are upheld.

Have ministers secured from the government of Mauritius any firm commitment that British Chagossian's will have a formal role in the oversight decision-making regarding the fund? Indeed, why was a model of joined up government is not agreed so that British Chagossian's have a voice in this? Add to all this is that the deal currently risks leaving a pristine marine environment and protected. The waters around the Chagos our home 220 species of coral come 155 species of fish and 355 species of molluscs.

These waters have been fully protected since 2010 by the UK government, and whilst it's welcomed that there is a commitment to continue with a marine protected area, we don't know what levels of support Mauritius will put into the support Mauritius will put into the NPA -- NPA -- MPA, and there are concerns that the Russian government does not have the resources to does not have the resources to This This treaty This treaty risks This treaty risks unleashing environmental damage.

This is a uniquely bad deal. It asks us to pay mark matter risk more and to gain nothing in return. For the sake of our national interest and a duty to the Chagossian people, I cannot support this bill. support this bill.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I rise to not support the BT

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I rise to not support the BT Speaker -- the Deputy Speaker. I'm a former member of our Armed Forces, former member of our Armed Forces, having devoted more than 20 years of my life in uniform to the safety and my life in uniform to the safety and security of this nation. In particular in intelligence gathering particular in intelligence gathering were UNCLOS is a tool of the trade. That experience shaped my view of the bill and I find it rich to hear the bill and I find it rich to hear lectures on national security or false patriotism from the right Honourable member opposite whose Honourable member opposite whose party spent 14 years hollowing out our Armed Forces.

This bill exemplifies forward-looking come effective and patriotic approach effective and patriotic approach that this government has taken to our security and our place in the our security and our place in the world. It is a major achievement to be implementing an agreement that be implementing an agreement that will ensure our base on Diego Garcia can operate securely in conjunction with our allies, notably the US,

17:37

Mr Calvin Bailey MP (Leyton and Wanstead, Labour)

- -

with our allies, notably the US, until at least 2124. Not yet. Allied naval aviation and communication assets will be able to protect UK interest across a vast area of western Indian Ocean and beyond throughout the next century, no matter the change or insecurity that the coming decades may bring. The agreement provides the UK and our allies with the freedom of action necessary to guarantee the security of the base. This is detailed in a great many ways by the Treaty.

I will highlight just three. First, we will have joint control over the electronic -- electromagnetic spectrum communications and electronic systems. Second, we will have joint control over whether any security forces, military and civilian, will be permitted except for our own and that of the United States and Mauritius. Finally, we will have no control over any land development and construction of sensors, structures or installations at sea. These are very broad and flexible rights. They do not just apply to macro Diego Garcia bill.

They apply to the 12 territory the sovereign extends of the island and 24 mile boundary surrounding it. -- They don't just apply to the 12 sovereign extends. They apply to the whole archipelago. What the opposition have missed, it is not what UNCLOS precludes that is a threat, it is what UNCLOS allows which is the threat. Comes to the activities of third parties, this control will be joint between the UK and Mauritius. Control give us to -- joint control gives us the ability to veto decisions.

After engaging fully with our Russian partners, -- Mauritius partners, we are not satisfied. Within 12 miles of macro Diego Garcia bill our control will be unrestricted, not joint, and the same will apply to our right and same will apply to our right and those to the US -- of the US forces to access macro Diego Garcia bill by air and sea. This gives control to Armed Forces who need to keep this basic year over the decades to come.

In achieving this agreement, we have bolstered our relationships with key allies and partners, including India, which I will come to later, but first and foremost, the United States and it's a shame the honourable member for Tonbridge has left because I have some questions for him. We need to be clear about the games that the opposition have been playing over this issue. Reform and the Conservative Party have attempted to undermine this agreement at every stage, damaging UK interest and trying to drive a wedge between the UK and our allies.

We saw just the same approach from the honourable member for Clapton and his anti-UK PR campaign on Capitol Hill last week, and I don't see them at present. As I've told this House, from personal and professional experience, the United States military and its allies value written agreements and long-term guarantees. Are allies rely upon the same kind of lease agreement to underwrite their own bases so they can see that this model can stand can see that this model can stand Despite huge geopolitical shifts and all of us can see that as well.

Now, we've heard from the member of Tonbridge who says we should save the base for unilateral action, but he didn't once explain how we would pay for operating and maintaining a base unilaterally. Instead of recognising the benefits of these negotiations as a way of bolstering our cross Atlantic allies and alliances, the increase in value of our contribution to Indo-Pacific security, the Conservative party has repeatedly tried to undermine the process that they themselves have started. Thankfully, they have failed.

Are international partners have welcomed this agreement. Is false to us now to ensure that the necessary changes are made in law so that the Treaty can come into force. We do not let -- and we do not let our allies down. The strongest international advocate for this treaty is India. India is, as we know, utterly indispensable partner in ensuring that the region remains free and open for navigation and UK trade. India is already a geopolitical force to be reckoned with, and her power and importance as a balancer preventing Chinese domination will only grow over the decades to come.

Integration of UK and US forces on Diego Garcia was resolving the question of sovereignty helps to counter anti-UK rhetoric from the likes of Russia that can still have influence by playing on the legacy of the anticolonial struggle. Which the opposition conceded by starting negotiations about sovereignty! Something I've asked them all repeatedly and not one of you... One

**** Possible New Speaker ****

of the opposition members... You are so close to succeeding.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

You are so close to succeeding. Let's try to get the language right. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. For which I did not receive a single response from the opposition members. I've mentioned colonial members. I've mentioned colonial history, which is going to get some of the Honourable members opposite of the Honourable members opposite very excited and make them want to use page or big sounding rhetoric about the concept of sovereignty, which I've just explained they don't which I've just explained they don't themselves understand.

I will take that issue head-on because the that issue head-on because the simple fact is this : despite its name, the British Indian Ocean Territory has never been British in Territory has never been British in the way that Gibraltar and the Falkland Islands are. It has never had a resident population who were British and said with one voice that they wanted to remain so. Perhaps the Chagos islanders could have had the Chagos islanders could have had such a population if history had gone differently, but they were robbed of that opportunity when the territory was created.

And I welcomed the apology from the welcomed the apology from the Minister earlier and I'm very grateful to hear from my right honourable friend from Crawley who spoke so powerfully about this and I look forward to hearing the Minister's response on it later. It is never, and sadly, we cannot turn back the clock. What we can do is what we are doing and that is giving the Chagos islanders a pathway to permanent citizenship into integration here if they choose it.

While also supporting resettlement options within the agreement reached with Mauritius. Ultimately, the absurdity of making a big song and dance about sovereignty is reflected in one simple fact is the explanatory notes of the bill point out, the UK has a was committed to returning the islands to Mauritius. I quote, "When it was no longer needed for defence purposes." This was part and parcel of the decisions made when the British Indian Ocean Territory was created in the first place.

All that is happening with the treaty process and this bill is that we have created a more secure and a more durable solution, a solution which safeguards those defence purposes while making good on our promise that the UK sovereignty would only be continued temporarily and not for ever. When the flag of the British Indian Ocean Territory is lowered on Diego, the Territory is lowered on Diego, the flag of a tarnished endeavour will be lowered. The union flag will be raised in its place.

The flag of a modern, forward-looking nation of which this side of the House is Passing this bill will entrench our alliances in our position within the Indo Pacific further in Britain's interests across the world.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you. I'm very pleased to be able to say something in this debate, and I think the point that we made about the history of this really do need to be amplified a bit more. It was a disgraceful deal that more. It was a disgraceful deal that was done in 1975 by the then Labour government, which created by art which led the pathway to expelling which led the pathway to expelling the Chagossian Islanders, with both Diego Garcia and the wider archipelago.

It was done when archipelago. It was done when Mauritius was still a British colony and we were putting pressure on them in order to fuel the Vietnam War. I in order to fuel the Vietnam War. I think that was the context in which the particular deal was done. The treatment of the Chagos Islands, which has been extensively written about by some brilliant writers was about by some brilliant writers was unbelievably brutal. Where they were dragged out of their homes, put onto dragged out of their homes, put onto boats, and sent to either Seychelles or Mauritius with no rights, no acknowledgement and indeed no real support whatsoever.

And for a very long time lived in poverty in both long time lived in poverty in both of those places. Former members of this House now sadly passed on did this House now sadly passed on did quite a lot to try and support them. The former MP Linda SCCO went to Mauritius to meet the new governor general at that time, Glen Williams and asked why these people were sleeping on the street support low- income and he was told, and from that point onwards he took up the cause of the Chagos islanders and he thought they had been so disgracefully treated.

Both of that time and much later, when he became Foreign Secretary. So I think we should pay some regard to them and what they tried to do. But the reality was it was the Chagos Islands as themselves that managed to get some decency and some recognition. Olivia Frankel has become a great friend of mine. He first wrote to me and I think 1988, in his usual handwritten letter saying could you do anything to help the Chagos islanders? And we kept in touch and I met him many times since then and recently at the launch of his book.

And so the Chagos EGS Association was founded, operated from his House, make demands on the motion government, made demands on the British Government and made enormous demands on somebody who later became the British High Commissioner to Mauritius, namely Davidson oxo. He didn't always get along. His pressure on David was enormous, to the extent of locking him in his office until he had a proper meeting with him. He's a feisty guy, and they are feisty

17:50

Rt Hon Jeremy Corbyn MP (Islington North, Independent)

- -

people, think we should recognise that their determination brought about compensation. And a litany of about compensation. And a litany of court cases all over this country and indeed all of the world. I've been to many of the hearings, been to many of the hearings, including arguments on the including arguments on the colonisation committee, arguments at the UN human rights Council, and of course a whole series of processes in Britain to try to get compensation and recognition of the compensation and recognition of the rights of the Chagos islanders.

So rights of the Chagos islanders. So will be at today is the consequences of the unbelievable heroism of the Chagos young people to get their recognition and try to get their sense of justice. I do regret there sense of justice. I do regret there were differences now within the were differences now within the community. Strongly supported the community. Strongly supported the move to get the nationality to amend move to get the nationality to amend the national act at the time.

That was eventually achieved. That's how they now have unfettered access to this country, and I'm very pleased this country, and I'm very pleased that the treaty continues to include that unfettered access. And I hope that unfettered access. And I hope that the Minister when he comes to reply will be able to explain what discussions he's had with all the elements of the Chagos Ian community. It's the last thing anyone wants to see is a division within a community that has suffered so much and deserves so much decency and recognition.

The reality is if the Chagos Islands in their entirety are not passed on to motion sovereignty -- Mauritius and motion sovereignty. Two things will come, even greater dishonesty than we thought that was at the time in 1975, and second, Britain would be in breach of an ICJ judgement. If that's what people one, if that's what Conservative and reform members one, so be it. But they would be actually acting illegally by hanging onto them, so buyer has to go and has now gone and there will be motion sovereignty over the whole area.

I supported the principles behind the marine protection zone, although I did not support the no take element of it that was there at the beginning because I wanted to see the ability of Chagos Islanders to return to the archipelago and have sustainable fishing and someone that goes with it. And I'm assured that the Russian government absolutely supports and recognises the need to preserve the pristine beauty of the ocean around it. I'm less convinced that the military and United States forces are so committed or equally committed to the preservation of the natural world and the environment.

And the record is not good and is not perfect, so I hope the Minister when he comes to reply will be able to assure us that there will be proper inspection, not just of the outer islands but also of the seas and the land of Diego Garcia. I think it is wrong that the islanders were removed in the first place. I think it's right that they have an opportunity to return, which is what they've always been campaigning for, and I find it unfortunately beyond belief that they will only be allowed to visit Diego Garcia.

I imagine you could only visit the home with your parents lived or the graves where your relatives have been buried. There is the motion relationship there which is going to be broken by the refusal of the right in the future. I understood from previous discussions with ministers there could be a possibility for right of abode returning but maybe the Minister can returning but maybe the Minister can reply to that. I'm happy about there being a huge military base in Diego Garcia? No.

I'm happy about the rhetoric used in this debate which seems to be cranking up the idea of getting the Cold War when we should be looking for a bout of peace rather than a welder for? I find depressing and really not fit for this particular debate, but I would just conclude by saying this. There is a right of people living under colonisation to achieve their independence. That is what was achieved by Mauritius, thwarted in 1965 by agreeing now to the return of the whole of the island set archipelago to Mauritius were actually completing a process that should be done in 1965 prior to Mauritius independence in 1968.

At the happen, had there been no separation and creation of by up in 1965, we would not be having to have this debate today because the issue would simply not have arisen.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you can I say how much of an honour it is to follow the Member an honour it is to follow the Member for Islington North because although we don't agree on the policy side, we don't agree on the policy side, I'm always struck by the fact he puts people at the heart of this debate, no more as he eloquently pointed out his long-term pointed out his long-term campaigning on this issue, putting campaigning on this issue, putting the Chagossians right at the heart of any decision-making.

He deserves a lot of acclaim for the aunties right to call out some of the rhetoric within this debate because

17:54

Dr Luke Evans MP (Hinckley and Bosworth, Conservative)

- -

rhetoric within this debate because at the end of the day those people really matter, so I thank him for putting that on the record. And turning to debate itself, there are three broad areas I'd like to cover. Sovereignty, cost and some of the scariest part of the bill. And I must admit listening to the member from Kenilworth and Southam, I'm not nearly as learning experience about it as him, his legal analysis and I'm your doctor so look for evidence base and try to understand a bit of the process about it.

To that end I thought it would be quite useful to write to the foreign Commonwealth and develop an office, which I duly did and received a letter on 20 July, which I duly did and received a letter on 20 July 2025 from the Minister Europe, North America and UK overseas territory and he kindly responded and sat in his place. Imagine my surprise and much to my pleasure actually a lot of what has been written in the letter was formed part of the new minister's speech when he came to the despatch box, so it allows me to walk through some of this letter and pose of the questions that fit me when I've looked into this case because I must admit, stepping into this House back in 2019 this is not a topic only a huge deal about, and I think many on these benches on both sides will say that very quickly became one minute deals with security that one should look into to understand.

So in that letter, it states, " We had to act now because the base was under threat." That implies urgency. But it's loose on the who, for where and how. There is legal uncertainty but as we've heard, we don't know which court or why. It goes on to say the courts avoid you make decisions which undermine our position. Courts, plural. We know the ICJ is there, but as has been stated it was non-binding and there is a carveout for the Commonwealth aspect as well.

The Defence Secretary where he spoke in this debate after being pushed multiple times turned round and said the international tribunal for the law of the sea and class was one of concern. Mike UNCLOS, but you will note that the tribunal supported Alnwick seven back in 2015 agreed with the UK that sovereignty cannot be determined by UNCLOS, and this was all over a marine protection issue. Britons were trying to protect the area and Mauritius wanted to open it up to be able to farm, and we were found against on that treaty, in that court.

So abode is the question at this point in time, and it's a sign of a very important one, or protections are in this bill about the environment? Because it seems scant and not there. Reading into the letter and going further, it states, " In 2021 a special chamber of UNCLOS suggested that sovereignty was with So I had it from the government itself pointing out the case. It also goes on to say, " The UK was not party to this case." Obviously it would be, but that means we haven't had our day in court to explain why we don't think you should apply in the first place.

And it was inferred from the non-binding political judgement that before you heard about and talked about. The letter goes on, " If Mauritius were to take us to court again, the U.K.'s long-standing legal fears that we would not have a realistic prospect of successfully defending its legal position on sovereignty in such litigations." But which court? And if it so long-standing with this advice, why don't we know about it? How have we got this far in the first place to go three years upon years upon years with no agreement without any urgency? It therefore seems sensible and appropriate to release the advice in this particular aspect.

And at the start of the letter, it said if. If Mauritius. The letter states later on, highly likely to further wide- ranging litigation will be brought quickly by Mauritius against the UK. So what evidence does the government have to back that up? What evidence does it say is going to act so quickly? Because we certainly haven't seen this. This was from haven't seen this. This was from 2021, we are now into 23, 24 dates have been set, now in 2025.

I'd be interested to see if the government would release the evidence base on how quickly this will come forward because the government rightly points out there have been 11 rounds of negotiations. Now there are 11 rounds of negotiation, it's clearly time to sort things out before some jumps in and says you have negotiations, we did for the Falkland Islands as well, and I find it amazing that we have trade unionist who build their whole careers about negotiating suddenly chastising the side for listening to the other side of this agreement.

That seems bizarre to me because the whole idea is we want to respect each other, exchange ideas but not have an agreement. And it's been rightly pointed out on the site the agreement wasn't there so we didn't take it. When it comes to the cost of the deal, there is no cost because we didn't have a deal to sign off. In the very next sentence in the letter, it says, " This might for example include further arbitrary proceedings against the UK under annex seven of UNCLOS, a judgement from such a tribunal would be legally binding on the UK." It is, it's true on the legally binding aspect within the area they cover for, but they don't cover sovereignty as we learned in 2015 when they said siding with the British Government.

So we have this farcical situation of House of policy and law shining light reflected back to one side and another, never actually shining on the truth. And this is where my honourable and learned friend is exactly right. If the government was to come forward here and say exactly which court, where and why, they might get more sympathy on this side, but we've been through an entire five-hour debate and we still don't have answers to those questions. Another court that is often cited as the International Telecom occasions union, covering radio and radar.

Article 4.1 statesman estates have their entire freedom with regard to military radio installations, and the government know this. Even in the barns and it's been hinted at before, a written answer, it states, " Individual countries have the sovereign right to manage and use the radio spectrum within their borders by the way they wish subject not causing interference with other countries. This right is recognised in radio regulations. The radio regulations at the international framework for the use of spectrum by radio communication services, defined and managed by the ITU.", " Individual countries, not the ITU make their own sovereign spectrum assignment in accordance with radio regulations.

The ITU has no legal authority over these assignments regardless of the countries civilian or military classification. Of spectrum. The ITU cannot challenge the U.K.'s use of civilian or military spectrum." So it's clear here the government know it in their own answers to the ITU, they have no role in sovereignty. So this all boils down to Waverley British Now, we must talk about the costs and they are much debated. There are three figures in this debate. The 3.4 billion is the net present value using social time preference rate.

The 10 billion is inflation adjusted. The 34 billion is the nominal value by the government's actually department. The question is why use net present value? I put it earlier in the debate, there is no other president in the world of that being used in a solitary -- these matters. It's within the Green Book. It has a perfect place in domestic use for commercial practicalities, not for international sovereignty issues. No other country has looked at this and no other country would look at this because it does not make sense.

The House of Commons Library said "This methodology is mainly used for cost benefit analysis. It's unusual to see it used in this situation where only the cost is being assessed and not been compared to any benefit." On that basis, what cost benefit analysis has been done in this case and would it be put in front of the House so we might be able to see? At the end of the day, it is highly political because it is a discount rate.

And what is the discount rate you should choose? Talks about 3.5% but the yes -- the US would use a different rate which vastly differentiates the figures. It goes further. The social preference rate further. The social preference rate is 3.5% but this deal is for 99 years. How can the government respond in a written parliamentary question that this "Represents good value for UK taxpayers." On what basis are they comparing that if there is no international comparison? We are talking about domestic uses.

As I come to my conclusions, possibly the scariest thing to me, and I tried to highlight this through the debate, which does seem to be falling on deaf ears, as article 13, because I believe this Treaty is legally bombproof. I'm no legal expert as I've attested to. It seems to stand the test of time. This means that when article 30 is explicit in saying that in 99 years, Mauritius can say no and just take control.. That is a big worry.

When I mentioned that, several scoffed on the other side is in it the duty of this House to provide for not only the next generation but for the rest of our country and in the best interests of our country? This is a very scary prospect. There is a caveat. The right of first refusal. Of China decided to do a deal with Mauritius and make it exorbitant, we are over the barrel as the British taxpayers yet again to try and secure the base.

To me, when it takes the sovereignty, the cost, my biggest concern is that we are outsourcing our decision-making for our children and our children's children. This is the modus operandi of this government. You only have to look at the borrowing in the budget. Pushing this decision out for 99 years is not security for now. It creates a far bigger problem than 100 years time. If the government wants to give away our territory, it should be transparent about how and should be transparent about how and why.

But we have not even had our day in court. That's what catches people the most in the British public. I think the British public would be reasonable if court was found against us. It would happily say "We follow the rule of your law." But this government has not even tried that. It won't even try that. And says that there is a risk. As we've been talking, this has been going on for years and still we are looking at the treaty signing.

This does bring up final questions about what happens in Gibraltar, Falklands and Cyprus. The Minister is correct to point out why there are differences the biggest fundamental problem they have in arguing this and arguing to the British people and the people Falklands is exactly trying to understand because if this House cannot understand the legal concept, how do we expect the public understand.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

There have been some fantastic speeches on this side of the house standing up for British interests. I standing up for British interests. I won't go on at length. I just wish to make a few points. This surrender bill is madness. The government has decided to surrender territory to decided to surrender territory to which there is no claim, expose the security and financial to interest security and financial to interest -- financial interests of the UK. It is doing so because "Infomercials is doing so because "Infomercials takes us to court again, the legal takes us to court again, the legal view is that we would not have a realistic prospect of success," According to the Prime Minister.

According to the Prime Minister. Labour is the worst negotiator. Tens of billions of taxpayers money to of billions of taxpayers money to surrender the Chagos Islands and billions of pounds to the unionised billions of pounds to the unionised paymasters. Whatever Labour touches, the cost to the taxpayer goes up and

18:08

Bradley Thomas MP (Bromsgrove, Conservative)

- -

the cost to the taxpayer goes up and the benefits diminish. This is a spectacularly bad deal which will make us less secure was British taxpayers are paying billions of pounds. This is the equivalent of 4% of the immersion -- the Mauritius budget. A staggering £35 billion cost, 10 times more than that originally claimed due to the government's own bad accounting. This was done by applying annual inflation rate over the 99 year lease period despite current inflation running at almost 4%.

This total was then lowered again by between 2.5% and 3.5% per year through a Treasury practice called the social time preference rate. the social time preference rate. This preferences the fact that... It converts future costs into present day value. The government is having to apply this in the case of their surrender deal but they won't use the same methodology to cost their Affordable Homes Programme. The refusal to allow Parliament a separate vote on the financial obligations of this terrible deal.

It could have done but chose not to. £35 billion that could be spent on hospitals or schools or in the case of my constituency, infrastructure to support houses that need to be built. Tax cuts stimulate the economy. Labour is cutting tax for economy. Labour is cutting tax for Mauritius on the back of hard- pressed UK taxpayers. Then you get to the national security risk. Garcia, located on the Chagos Islands, is the UK's most important military base in the Indian Ocean. The geopolitical significance cannot be understated in a world where China seeks to undermine us.

China is a dictatorship that does not share our values. This is a blink of an eye in terms of how they plan their future. China has made no secret of its intent to deepen the relationship with Mauritius. China is a hostile state. Furthermore, Mauritius is working more closely with Russia on research and development and with Iran on developing closer relations. Mauritius has gone on the public record stating that they are grateful to the Chinese for playing a critical role in their pursuit of international recognition of Mauritius sovereignty on these islands.

Was the government and prime ministers trying to paint this as a good deal -- Prime Minister is trying to paint this is a good deal, they know that China, Russia and Iran are watching and taking note. Iran are watching and taking note. Lord West of Spithead said that ceding Chagos Islands to Mauritius would be a strategic risk. Why is it that the government prioritises any interest other than Britain's? Foreign sovereignty over that of the UK? It is leaving the UK poorer, weaker and more exposed.

It does not

**** Possible New Speaker ****

deserve a second reading. Colleagues who have contributed

18:11

Lewis Cocking MP (Broxbourne, Conservative)

- -

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Colleagues who have contributed should be making their way back to the chamber. Thank you. There are no two ways

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you. There are no two ways about it. This is a surrender bill with absolutely no benefits to my constituents in Broxbourne. constituents in Broxbourne. Ministers have shamefully found two attempted to hide the cost of this deal -- ministers have shamefully attempted to hide the cost of this deal from the public. They have spoken in this chamber about this percent 22 billion black hole -- this £22 billion black hole. This deal is £35 million to the Mauritian government.

When the Labour government go after British firms, when they go after... When the increased National Insurance, they could just not do this deal. But they talk in fiction and this is an absolute disgrace. How will Mauritius spend this money? By cutting taxes for its own citizens and paying their debt. Is the Minister proud that the only income tax this Labour government are going to deliver a 6000 miles away at the expense of the British taxpayer? The last time I checked, this was a British Parliament and we were supposed to stand up for British interests.

We should be cutting taxes here. We should be turbocharging the economy, not giving stuff away that we already oh and now we are going to lease it back from... I will not give way because there have been lots of interventions and I'm fed up with the same interventions just because you say something a number of times doesn't make it true. This deal is costing us financially but this bill also has security risks as well. China support this deal and is welcoming Mauritius into its sphere of influence with open arms.

Versus and strengthening relations with Iran and Russia. As a policy exchange report notes, it is even possible to assert with certainty how much influence China will have over Mauritius in the next five or 10 years. Let alone for the duration of this, for the 99 years. What I don't understand is when we have something, we have sovereign territory with a base already, so I cannot understand why we want to go into a negotiation when we've done that negotiation.

Why we are hurting the British people with tax rises and well we are cruel to older people by taking away their winter few -- Winter Fuel Payments, and yet we can find money out of nowhere to give to Mauritius. And what I would gently say in summary to the government, the people out there now that. When you go and knock on doors, they will say to you, "Hang on a minute, how come we are being punished? How come we have to pay more taxes?" That is why the British public have fallen out of love with this government already.

Hopefully, they wake up and start representing remit collecting the people -- start representing the people who elected

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Today second reading debate is not only important, it's not only important, it's historically significant. Sadly for the wrong reasons. We are debating a bill that leaves Britain in a secure, undermines our strategic secure, undermines our strategic interests and leaves British taxpayers out-of-pocket. The decision by this Labour government to surrender sovereignty over the to surrender sovereignty over the Chagos Islands to Mauritius and pay billions of pounds for the privilege with no checks and balances is with no checks and balances is nothing short of a national humiliation.

It's a deal that humiliation. It's a deal that weakens Britain at home and abroad and this one that we, the official opposition will oppose every step of

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the way. Appointees made and has been made consistently by honourable members consistently by honourable members opposite about the red my alleged surrender of sovereignty, she surrender of sovereignty, she accepted the former Prime Minister who they all stood for election under only a year also go, and the under only a year also go, and the Mauritius Prime Minister on 29 April Mauritius Prime Minister on 29 April just weeks before that election discussed negotiations on the exercise of sovereignty and instructed their teams no less to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

continue work at pace? I will perhaps remind the honourable member opposite of two honourable member opposite of two things. Firstly talking and signing are two very different things. And are two very different things. And there are some of us on this side of the House who will remember no deal the House who will remember no deal is better than a bad deal. Now

**** Possible New Speaker ****

before I turn... I thank my honourable friend for

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank my honourable friend for giving way on that point. The honourable gentleman has failed to do because he's admitted some of the

18:17

Rt Hon Wendy Morton MP (Aldridge-Brownhills, Conservative)

- -

18:39

Stephen Doughty MP, Minister of State (Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office) (Cardiff South and Penarth, Labour )

- -

the opposition to be making claims about defence and security when they presided over the hollowing out of presided over the hollowing out of presided over the hollowing out of our Armed Forces. This is changing under this government. Were spending on national defence, we are spending on NATO commitments, we are spending on NATO commitments, we are spending on security relationships with the United States and we will not apologise for not scrimping on national security. One final thing. national security. One final thing.

A financial element was always key to this deal and they can see that -- and they conceded that under multiple prime ministers. Regarding multiple prime ministers. Regarding the marine protected area, Mauritius will determine the area's future. will determine the area's future. The prime minister of Mauritius The prime minister of Mauritius reaffirmed his country's commitment to protecting that unique ecosystem. We are engaged in active conversations with them around that. conversations with them around that. I will keep Honourable members updated on that.

Finally, I really do want to conclude were my do want to conclude were my honourable friend the Minister at honourable friend the Minister at the Ministry of Defence started, which is to pay tribute to the which is to pay tribute to the Chagossian's who are here today. I have repeatedly met with a range of Chagossian communities and I have a deep respect for their dignity and a range of views. There are people who will fundamentally disagree with this treaty. There are many who agree with that.

The government deeply regrets how Chagossian -- Chagossian's removed from the site. Now Chagossian's will lose their right to hold the citizenship. It will be for Mauritius to set the terms of any future resettlement there will be reasonable questions asked. It will be unrealistic for people to settle on Diego Garcia because it is a military base but we will start those heritage visits. I anticipate what the Liberal Democrat spokesperson might ask me. There will be a ministerial statement.

will be a ministerial statement. Factual update will be provided on resettlement. That will enable further discussion and a proper matter. I will give way.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'm grateful to the Minister for clarifying that point. Could he please confirm, as the Honourable

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Lord Collins did in the other place, that there will be time for a debate on the statement? I can confirm that we will be

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I can confirm that we will be happy to discuss that further with him. These decisions are for the usual channels and for the leaders usual channels and for the leaders in both houses. This comes down to in both houses. This comes down to one fundamental question, which is one fundamental question, which is why did the opposition start these negotiations if there was not a negotiations if there was not a negotiations if there was not a problem? Why did they continue the negotiations until just weeks before negotiations until just weeks before the general election? It is because that the fundamental national security interest in the protection security interest in the protection of British people were at risk.

This government recognises that. Our allies recognise that. We have acted allies recognise that. We have acted to secure a deal, we have acted to to secure a deal, we have acted to secure a deal that protects macro Diego Garcia bill protects its operations and protected well into the next century. When Reform and the next century. When Reform and the Conservatives speak about this, it is this Labour government that negotiate and delivers deals with the United States, with India, with the European Union, on new frigates and ultimately fundamentally delivers national security by securing this base on Diego Garcia.

I commended to the house.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Order. The original question was that the bill be now read a second that the bill be now read a second time. Since when an amendment has been proposed is on the Order Paper. been proposed is on the Order Paper. The question is that the amendment be made. As many of that opinion, say "Aye". Those in the contrary,

18:42

Division

19:09

Business of the house

the contrary, say "No". I think the Ayes have it. The Ayes have it. I now go to the frontbench. To the ministers want to shuffle over? -- do the ministers want to shuffle over? I will take the next two motions together. Financial Services And Markets Act the question is as on the Order Paper. As many of that opinion, say "Aye". Those in the contrary, say "No". I think the Ayes have it. The Ayes have it. Motion number five on the modernisation committee.

As many of that opinion, say "Aye". Those in the contrary, say "No". I think the Ayes have it. The Ayes have it. We now go to the presentation of public petition.

19:11

Petitions

19:22

Helen Hayes MP (Dulwich and West Norwood, Labour)

- -

not transparent, and there's no support available for communities to prepare for it. As an example, I've been approached by residents in Dulwich in recent weeks he would like my support in moving forward a proposal for step free access at North Dulwich station, a feasibility is study would be very helpful so we could all understand where lifts could be installed and the broadcasts of doing so. But Southwark Council has no land interest in North Dulwich station and there are no major developing sites in the local area.

At a time when local authority funding is very constrained, it will be helpful to have my honourable friend the minister's advice on how to move such a proposal forward. Another example the urgent need for more joined up preparatory support is Loughborough Junction station, currently being supported by a local community campaign called lift up Loughborough Junction. A tiny station occupying just half a railway arch, Loughborough Junction has a particularly long steep flight of stairs up to its two platforms. It seen an increase in passenger use compared to previous covert levels of footfall, likely as a consequence of new nearby housing development.

Through this developer, some funding has been allocated towards improvements at the station, but there is at present no mechanism to decide how this is to be spent or to Delivering step free access at Loughborough Junction station is complicated. It can be done within the curtilage of the current station because there is insufficient space. The station will need to expand, either into adjacent arches or onto a site to the rear of the current station. The ownership of the sites is complex with the arch company responsible for neighbouring arches, Network Rail responsible for the structural integrity of the arches, the train operating company Southern responsible for the station and private land ownership to the rear.

If we are to solve the problem of accessibility at Loughborough Junction station, there must be a way of joining up these interests. Undertaking feasibility work, creating partnerships they can bid for funding together and moving the As residential development in the local area continues to expand, a station majority feels unsafe at peak times due to the large number of passengers will become more and more dangerously overcrowded and disabled residents, families with young children, and frail and elderly people will continue to be locked out of rail travel.

In 2018 the then government's inclusive transport strategy set out the aim of achieving equal access to the rail network by 2030. That's just four years away. And we are very far away from realising this goal. In the meantime, government policy has continued quite rightly to seek to deliver continued modal shift from private cars to public transport where possible. But modal shift does not happen by encouragement alone. He requires menial levels of government investment to make public transport and accessible, convenient and attractive option.

And accessibility is the basic minimum requirement. The government can encourage people all it likes, but if they are literally locked out of using public transport, it won't make a difference for residents with disabilities, parents need to travel with young children and that less mobile and elderly. So in calling this debate, I am looking for some help for my honourable friend the Minister. Is he considering the criteria for future rounds of accessible funding so areas like mine with many inaccessible stations will not continue to be overlooked by this funding stream because we do not have the highest levels of footfall, major transport interchanges or nearby development sites.

What representations is he making to the chancel in relation to the budget about the overall quantum of access for all funding so the future rounds of the scheme can start to deliver the Stepchange and accessibility of railway stations that is needed across the whole country. As he making reps and patients to the Chancellor that access for all funding should be part of the strategy to support disabled people who want to be able to work to get to work? Will he consider a better approach to pre- bidding support to access for all on a locality basis to help local communities and local councils to understand how best to prioritise their stations access for all bids and create strong local partnerships by multiple agencies need to be involved? And can I ask for his specific support in relation to the complex situation at Loughborough Junction station? The need for a feasibility study for North Dulwich station, and feasibility work at gyspsy Hill station, which only requires accessibility works to one platform.

And finally, can he tell disabled people in Dulwich and West Norwood and across the country when they can expect the equal access to the rail network that is their

**** Possible New Speaker ****

right? Very important debate. Minister, although you may want to take this although you may want to take this opportunity to reflect on their train station in my constituency for its access ability funding.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you. I've made a particular note of that and will be speaking note of that and will be speaking with the rail minister as a priority on that particular station as I'm on that particular station as I'm sure members will understand. I will begin by congratulating my honourable friend the mammoth Dulwich and West Norwood for securing today's debate. She is securing today's debate. She is right to raise the important topic of accessible stations in her of accessible stations in her constituency.

And can I assure her constituency. And can I assure her and all members of this House that this government understands the enormous emotional, social and economic benefits that accessible transport delivers? Not just for the 16 that accessible transport 16 that accessible transport delivers? Not just for the 16 million disabled people in the UK offer families, communities, and for offer families, communities, and for economy as a whole. A railway which works for everyone is not a luxury. It's a necessity. Whether someone is using a wheelchair, has a visual impairment, is pushing a pram, carrying heavy luggage or recovering from injury, their needs matter.

That's why the access for all program is such a vital part of our strategy of improving accessibility. Since its launch in 2006, this program has made tangible improvements to accessibility stations across the country, and I'm pleased to report that this progress is continuing. To date we've delivered step free access at over 260 stations across Great Britain. This means properly installed lifts, ramps, tactile paving, improved signage, and wayfinding changes that make a real difference to the everyday lives of passengers.

In addition to these major upgrades, we've completed over one major upgrades, we've completed over 1,500 smaller scale improvements. This includes everything from accessible ticket machines to better lighting, handrails and help points. These might seem like small things, but for someone with limited mobility or visual impairments, they can make all the difference between a journey that is possible and one that has previously not been. Boston police with this progress, it's not just about numbers. It's about impact. Behind every accessible station as a person who can now get to work, visit friends and family, attend school or simply enjoy a day out without relying on others or facing barriers that others don't even have to think about.

But we know who this work is not finished. We know we must go further, and we know that the pace of change is not always fast enough. Early this year Network Rail completed feasibility work and 50 stations identified a strong candidates for future access for all investment. The stations were chosen carefully based on criteria that reflect demand, need and opportunity for improvement. My honourable friend raised the issue of criteria. As you mentioned, stations are nominated by industry in consultation with local authorities, including TfL.

This ensures that funding benefits as many passengers as possible. They are then assessed by animal footfall, weighted by the incidents of disability in the area, using census data, local factors such as stations near a hospital as my honourable friend said, availability of third-party funding is also considered. An deliverability of the station. Additionally we also aim to ensure a fair geographical spread of projects across the country. I would say at this point I'd be very happy to facilitate a sitdown meeting with the rail minister himself to discuss the real issues in your constituency and about the opportunities for and about the opportunities for future rounds of funding in access future rounds of funding in access

19:30

Simon Lightwood MP, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Department for Transport) (Wakefield and Rothwell, Labour )

- -

While the Minister has his diary out, and if he could do a similar meeting for me.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I enjoy offering meetings to my

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I enjoy offering meetings to my colleagues and members. I am sure colleagues and members. I am sure the rail minister will have heard that request as well. I will tell members across the House we will members across the House we will soon be announcing which of these 50 stations will move into the next design phase. It is a sign of our ongoing commitment to make the railway more accessible, more inclusive and more modern. Accessibility is quite rightly a Accessibility is quite rightly a golden thread embedded in everything the Department does and this extends to how we design, build and maintain our railways.

Any time we install, our railways. Any time we install, renew, or update station renew, or update station infrastructure, whether it is a platform, concourse, footbridge, ticketing system, those works must meet accessibility standards. Managers, station operators and service providers are legally service providers are legally required to ensure these facilities apply with accessibility requirements as laid out in the relevant legislation and guidance. relevant legislation and guidance. And where those obligations are not met, enforcement action can be taken met, enforcement action can be taken by the Office of Rail and Road, the independent regulator.

This approach is absolutely right, because while progress is encouraging, it must be sustained. And consistent. Accessibility standards across the rail network cannot depend on geography or look. Whether you live in a city centre or a rural town, whether your station is a major interchange or a small local stop, the right to access the railway should be universal. This doesn't stop at the stations of course, it includes improvements to rolling stock, including audio and visual announcements, primary seating, -- Priority seating, it also includes staff to change cultures, providing support to disabled passengers, not just in terms of procedures, but also with empathy, understanding and respect.

If I may, I would like to touch on the government's wider commitment to delivering accessibility charter, recognising the importance of consistency across all modes of transport. The charter will bring together, in one place, the guiding principles that underpin the rights and responsibilities of disabled passengers. Regulators, and enforcement bodies and operators. Research suggests disabled people are less confident travelling across modes, the nondisabled people. We are determined working together with stakeholders, to change this. We want to empower disabled people to travel easily, confidently, and with dignity on their entire journey.

I truly accessible transport system cannot rely on a single node being accessible, it must focus on the entire journey. That is why later this year we will be setting out our plans to improve accessible travel across all modes as part of our integrated national transport strategy. Although we have made progress, we know that for too many people, travelling on public transport system and our railways is still not as easy or reliable as it should be. A broken left, and a unexpected platform change, support from staff can -- Lack of support from staff can turn journey into an ordeal.

I want to make clear today that this is not acceptable. It is why the Department for transport will continue to seek every opportunity through targeted investment, improved infrastructure, policy reform, and partnership with industry and communities to improve access across the network. Whether it is through access for all programs, major stationary developments, or ongoing commitments to compliance, we will not stop pushing for railways which are fully

**** Possible New Speaker ****

inclusive. I would be grateful if the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I would be grateful if the Minister could actually say how disabled people accounted in the disabled people accounted in the footfall that count. -- At count.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

footfall that count. -- At count. If I could come back to the honourable friend or not, I will consult with the rail minister and make sure I get you an accurate make sure I get you an accurate answer on that. Our vision is clear. The railway which works for everyone, railway where no one is everyone, railway where no one is left waiting on the platform, railway where opportunity, independence and mobility are not

**** Possible New Speaker ****

privileges, but rights. The question is this House to now adjourn. As many as are of that adjourn. As many as are of that opinion, say, "Aye". The ayes have

19:41

Oral questions: Treasury

19:41

Simon Lightwood MP, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Department for Transport) (Wakefield and Rothwell, Labour )

- -

19:41

Oral questions: Treasury

19:41

Simon Lightwood MP, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Department for Transport) (Wakefield and Rothwell, Labour )

- -

19:41

Oral questions: Treasury

20:01

This debate has concluded

Return to start of debate - Return to top of page