Commons Chamber

Monday 20th October 2025

(began 1 month, 2 weeks ago)

Share Debate
Watch Live
Skip to latest contribution
This debate has concluded
14:35
Josh MacAlister Portrait Josh MacAlister MP, The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Whitehaven and Workington, Labour)
-
-
I I thank I thank the I thank the Minister I thank the Minister for I thank the Minister for his response. Vaughan Deane Sixth Form College in Brighton is the only state funded IB provider in Sussex. It has warned that without the large programme uplift, the IB will become programme uplift, the IB will become financially unviable. Many Mid Sussex students have gone from Vaughan Dean to study engineering, medicine and maths at leading medicine and maths at leading universities. Does the Minister think it right that this world class qualification becomes available only qualification becomes available only in the private sector, entrenching a two tier education system? And will he meet with me and Vaughan Dean he meet with me and Vaughan Dean students to discuss the benefits of the IB for the state educated pupils and why this decision must be reversed.

 I thank the honourable member for her question. Mr Speaker, the government has made big decisions at the Spending Review to increase the overall amount of funding available to 16 to 19 courses. That means that next financial year, there will be an increase of over £800 million. That means that the per pupil funding is going up substantially. The large programme uplift sits on top of that, and the government has made the decision to prioritise the large programme uplift on students who are doing multiple A-levels in Stem subjects.

We still support the International Baccalaureate and recognise it as a programme that can Anderson.
14:36
14:37
14:37
14:38
14:38
14:39
14:39
14:40
14:41
14:41
14:42
14:42
14:43
14:43
Munira Wilson Portrait Munira Wilson MP (Twickenham, Liberal Democrat)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. We Liberal Democrats warmly welcomed this government's decision earlier this year to finally adopt our long standing policy of extending free school meals to all children in households in receipt of Universal Credit. Now, at the time, ministers repeatedly refused to confirm how they were funding this extension. And now research from Northumbria University shows on average, every primary will have to find £11,000 and every secondary about £25,000 to fund this policy at a time when they're already cutting teaching assistance and extracurricular activities to balance the books.

So, Mr Speaker, given the Secretary of State has made both this policy and rolling out school breakfast clubs the centrepiece of her bid for deputy leader of the Labour Party, will she confirm when she's actually going to fund them? Mr Speaker, I'm grateful to the Liberal Democrat spokesperson for drawing attention to the fantastic Labour policies that this government is rolling out. We are expanding free school meals to half a million more children, to half a million more children, backed up with an extra billion pounds of funding through this spending review.

That is the spending review. That is the difference a Labour government is making, and I am delighted that we now have 750 new free breakfast now have 750 new free breakfast clubs from April onwards. Next year another 2000 will open, reaching another 2000 will open, reaching half a million more children, lifting children out of poverty and backing families. And that is the difference a Labour government makes. makes.
14:45
14:45
14:45
14:46
14:46
None Portrait Q4. What steps her Department is taking to improve support for children with special educational needs and disabilities in mainstream schools. (905854)
-

Jo Platt.
14:46
14:47
14:47
14:48
14:48
14:49
14:50
14:50
14:50
14:51
14:51
14:52
14:53
14:53
14:53
14:54
14:54
14:55
14:56
None Portrait Q5. What steps her Department is taking to help improve the SEND system. (905855)
-



**** Possible New Speaker ****

Doctor Danny Chambers, I want to speak. About.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

About. Minute apologies, Mr Speaker,
14:56
14:56
14:57
14:57
14:58
14:59
14:59
15:00
15:00
15:01
None Portrait Q6. What steps her Department is taking to ensure that it meets its target of two-thirds of young people participating in higher-level learning. (905856)
-



**** Possible New Speaker ****

Anneliese Midgley. Question number six, please. Mr Speaker. Sir, stay. Thank you, Mr Speaker. With your permission, I will answer question
15:01
15:01
15:02
15:02
15:03
15:03
15:04
15:04
15:05
15:05
15:06
15:06
15:07
Bridget Phillipson Portrait Rt Hon Bridget Phillipson MP, The Secretary of State for Education (Houghton and Sunderland South, Labour)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

There. Mr Speaker, I'll be setting out through the white paper and the statement later on today, the action statement later on today, the action that we will be taking to make sure that the regulator, the office for students, has the power to ensure students, has the power to ensure high quality courses and good outcomes for young people going to university. What I would say to the honourable gentleman, however, the honourable gentleman, however, the policy that he's just outlined was in their last manifesto was roundly rejected by the British people, was roundly ridiculed for being completely financially illiterate because the funding system simply because the funding system simply doesn't work in that way.

The message that I want to come across loud and clear from this despatch box is that of young people have got what it takes, and they've got the qualifications to go on to university. That is a good route for university. That is a good route for them, and they shouldn't have their prospects and their opportunities dismissed in such a casual and

**** Possible New Speaker ****

snobbish way by the party opposite. Secretary of State. I don't cough for my benefits. It's to help.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

It's to help. You rather me having to get up. Let's have a Shadow Minister. Nick Timothy. Thank you. Mr Speaker. On higher.
15:08
15:08
15:09
None Portrait Q8. What plans she has for the free school application decisions that were paused in October 2024. (905859)
-

Blush.
15:09
15:09
15:10
15:10
15:11
15:11
15:12
15:12
15:12
15:13
15:13
15:14
15:14
15:14
15:14
15:15
15:16
15:16
15:17
15:17
15:18
15:18
15:18
15:19
15:19
15:19
15:20
15:21
15:21
15:21
15:22
15:22
15:23
15:23
15:24
15:24
15:25
15:25
15:26
15:27
15:27
15:28
15:28
15:28
15:29
15:29
15:29
15:30
15:31
15:31
15:31
15:32
15:32
15:33
15:33
15:33
15:34
15:34
15:34
15:35
15:35
15:36
15:36
15:36
15:37
15:37
15:37
15:38
15:38
15:39
15:39
15:40
15:40
15:40
15:40
15:41
15:42
15:42
15:42
15:43
15:44
15:44
None Portrait Urgent question: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if she will make a statement on the Home Office’s involvement in the alleged case of spying against Members of Parliament
-

about Home Office involvement in the alleged China spying case.
15:44
Dan Jarvis Portrait Dan Jarvis MP, The Minister of State, Home Department (Barnsley North, Labour)
-
-
Minister.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you, Mr Speaker, for the opportunity to respond to it today. As I have.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

As I have. Repeatedly set out to the House, the Prime Minister, Home Secretary, the wider government are extremely disappointed that this case will not be heard in court. I have heard the strength of feeling right across the strength of feeling right across the House, and I share members concern about the threats that we face from about the threats that we face from espionage. The witness statements released last Wednesday vindicate what the Prime Minister and other what the Prime Minister and other members of the government have stated repeatedly.

The Deputy National Security Adviser, National Security Adviser, faithfully and with full integrity, set out the various threats posed by set out the various threats posed by the Chinese state to the UK and did so in order to try and support a so in order to try and support a successful prosecution. Now, this Urgent Question asked about the Home Office's involvement following the charging decision being made in early 2024. Under the previous early 2024. Under the previous government, the CPS advised the witness that he could not share the evidence with others in government.

Therefore, the Home Office's involvement following the charging decision that was taken under the decision that was taken under the previous government, was heavily restricted to avoid breaching the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

CPS requirements. Now, I have we. We don't need any help from the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

We don't need any help from the side. Please. This is a very important statement that really does affect members of this House.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Minister. Mr Speaker, as I have repeatedly

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Mr Speaker, as I have repeatedly made clear in this House, ministers and special advisers were not and special advisers were not involved in any aspect of the production of the evidence. And I stand by that statement today. The stand by that statement today. The Prime Minister has also made clear that he was informed of the CPS decision only a matter of days before the case collapsed. There is nothing that the Prime Minister or nothing that the Prime Minister or any other minister could have done at that point and would have changed at that point and would have changed what the law and what the policy was under the previous government under the previous government between 2021 and 2023.

Now, Mr Speaker, for those that have read the NSA's statements, they will see that they clearly articulated the threats posed from China based on the previous government's policy at the time and detailing the damage the time and detailing the damage that was caused by the alleged offences. Ultimately, it was an entirely independent decision by the CPS to discontinue the case, and they have confirmed that they came under no outside pressure to do so. Mr Speaker, like members on all sides of the House, I remain very frustrated that this case won't be heard in court.

Mr Speaker, we wanted to see this trial. Go ahead. And I have made clear on many occasions the decision not to proceed was an independent one for the Crown Prosecution Service, and the DPP has given assurances that there was no government interference in their decision. I note that the Joint Committee on the National Security Strategy will be undertaking an inquiry on the case and intends to hold public evidence sessions. The Intelligence and Security Committee have also invested, have also indicated that they will also investigate.

We welcome the launch of the inquiry and the investigations, which the government will, of course, fully cooperate with. And, Mr Speaker, I have already set out the range of activity this government is taking to combat Chinese espionage threat. I hope that that is well understood. But let me provide this House with the reassurance that the government will take all necessary action to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

keep the UK safe and secure. Shadow Home Secretary, Chris.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Shadow Home Secretary, Chris. Thank you, Mr Speaker. Last Wednesday, the Prime Minister told
15:48
Chris Philp Portrait Rt Hon Chris Philp MP (Croydon South, Conservative)
-
-
Wednesday, the Prime Minister told this House that no minister or special adviser was involved in the handling of the China spy case. Yet the Sunday Times has since reported that the Home Secretary had quotes, heard the case might collapse, and had made representations to ensure the evidence put forward was as strong as possible. So I ask the minister, when did the Home Secretary become aware the case might collapse? And what representations did the Home Secretary or her proxies make about the evidence and to whom? Why has the House been told, including just now, that ministers and advisers were not involved in any way? When the Sunday Times reports that they were? The Sunday Times also reported on a key meeting that took place on September 1st, a meeting the government originally denied took place.

Is it true Jonathan Powell chaired that meeting? Did the meeting discuss the C.p.s. View that the evidence provided to that point was inadequate? And did that meeting discuss the possibility of providing further evidence in the case? And will the Minister agree to publish the minutes of all meetings in which this case was discussed and the correspondence relating to it? The Sunday Times reported that following the meeting, the Attorney General's Office was asked to speak to the CPS. Did anyone from the Ago speak directly or indirectly to the CPS after that meeting? And can the Minister confirm that Dan Chugg from the Foreign Office was at that 1st September meeting? And can the Minister also confirm it was the same Dan Chugg who approached the Lord speaker with a proposed deal in which the Chinese ambassador would be allowed back into Parliament? The Sunday Times also reported that the DNC is understood to acknowledge privately that the decision not to say China is an ongoing threat was political in nature.

Is that true? Finally, the current government's position has been that all the evidence provided related to the last government's policy. But we now know that is categorically not true. We know from Matt Collins third statement of August this year in paragraph eight, that he copied and pasted from the Labour manifesto, and he stressed the importance the current government attaches to a positive relationship with China, weakening the evidence compared to 2023 and bringing in current government policy. Contrary to what we have been told in recent weeks.

So why has the government been providing this House with inaccurate information, and why did ministers know what the CPS wanted but refused to give it to them?
15:51
Dan Jarvis Portrait Dan Jarvis MP, The Minister of State, Home Department (Barnsley North, Labour)
-
-
Mr Speaker, with great respect, a lot of what has just been said doesn't actually relate to the question that was initially asked by the shadow Home Secretary. And I have to say, the opposition's position is confusing. They initially criticised the government for intervening. Then when it became I will answer the question, I am answering the question. I think it is important that on these matters of national security, that we try and debate these things in a reasonable and sensible way.

That is the approach that this government will seek to take if members opposite.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I think we've had enough. Mr. Thank you, Mr Speaker. The

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you, Mr Speaker. The opposition's position is confusing. They initially criticised the government for intervening. Then when it.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Then when it. Became absolutely clear that we hadn't done that, they criticised us hadn't done that, they criticised us for not intervening. They asked for greater transparency. And then when we provided it, they accused the we provided it, they accused the government, wrongly, of hanging people out to dry. And given that people out to dry. And given that this Urgent Question related to the activities of the Home Office, I'm not at all clear why the Shadow Home not at all clear why the Shadow Home Secretary thinks it's appropriate, given accusations that have been made previously about hanging made previously about hanging officials out to dry, to name an official in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office.

How does that relate to the Urgent Question that was asked? Now, I do wonder. I do wonder, Mr Speaker, when could.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

wonder, Mr Speaker, when could. Sorry, I think I need to help a little bit. It is in order to mention another department. You mention another department. You can't ring fancy without the people. I'm sorry. It might not be comfortable, but the fact is, the comfortable, but the fact is, the questions being asked that is within order and that's what matters. Minister, I'm.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'm grateful to you, Mr Speaker, for your guidance. And I'm simply pointing out to the shadow Home pointing out to the shadow Home Secretary that members opposite had previously criticised ministers and previously criticised ministers and the government to use their words for hanging out to dry officials. And the shadow Home Secretary has And the shadow Home Secretary has just named twice an official from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. I do wonder it's not. I've said to this side I don't need chipping in. I certainly don't

**** Possible New Speaker ****

need chipping in. I certainly don't need it starting it this way and all along the bench. Speaking, I do wonder whether at

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Speaking, I do wonder whether at any point the shadow Home Secretary and certain members, not all of them, but certain members opposite, them, but certain members opposite, have considered the need for some humility to acknowledge their part humility to acknowledge their part that these activities took place on their watch when they were in government, and under the government, and under the legislation of the of the time. Now. It's a.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

It's a. Sorry, sorry, Mr. Philp, you've had the benefit of an Urgent had the benefit of an Urgent Question about the benefit, some might say, of listening to you, in which case I want you to have the benefit of listening to the minister. Minister.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you, Mr Speaker. The shadow Home Secretary would be well advised to listen to the points that are to listen to the points that are being made. I'm seeking to respond to the questions that he and other Right Honourable and honourable members have raised, and I'm doing members have raised, and I'm doing that in good faith, and I'd be grateful for the opportunity to do that. Now, I remind the shadow Home that. Now, I remind the shadow Home Secretary that we're only here today because the previous Conservative government didn't move quick enough government didn't move quick enough to fix the glaring holes that existed within our national security existed within our national security laws.

The charges in this case, as is well known, I hope, were brought under the Official Secrets Act of under the Official Secrets Act of 1911. This antiquated legislation was drawn up before the First World was drawn up before the First World War. It's why the party opposite began reviewing the legislation in began reviewing the legislation in 2015, because it was widely known that it was not fit for purpose, but that it was not fit for purpose, but it took eight years, eight years to introduce the 2023 National Security introduce the 2023 National Security Act.

Now, fortunately, the law has now been updated with cross-party now been updated with cross-party support, but not in time to protect our Parliament from Chinese espionage. Now, if the party opposite had acted faster and the National Security Act had been in place when these alleged offences happened, the prosecution would likely have proceeded and the Right Honourable gentleman and members

**** Possible New Speaker ****

opposite. Sorry. Look. I'm trying really hard and people

**** Possible New Speaker ****

in positions should know better. Minister. Let me make this point crystal

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Let me make this point crystal clear. Mr Speaker, no member of this government, nor any special adviser government, nor any special adviser was in any way involved in the evidence submitted to the CPS or the evidence submitted to the CPS or the decision by the DPP not to proceed with the case. And, Mr Speaker, with the case. And, Mr Speaker, there was an important omission from the shadow Home Secretary's remarks just now. As members will know, the just now.

As members will know, the first substantive witness was provided under the previous

**** Possible New Speaker ****

government when the Right Honourable member was a Home Office minister. Yet neither he.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Nor the leader of the opposition had taken the opportunity to say what involvement Conservative ministers and Conservative special ministers and Conservative special advisers had in the main tranche of the evidence. Now the Prime Minister has confirmed that no Labour ministers or special advisers were involved with the provision of involved with the provision of evidence for this case. And last Wednesday, during Prime Minister's Questions, the Prime Minister asked Questions, the Prime Minister asked the leader of the opposition to confirm if that was also the case under the previous government.

Now, I was in the House last Wednesday, Mr Speaker, and I think that I heard the leader of the opposition confirming from a sedentary position that she did know the answer to that question. But the party opposite have refused to confirm if any Conservative ministers or special advisers were involved in the provision of evidence under the previous government. I wonder if any of the former ministers here can provide the answers today. Mr Speaker, as ministers have repeatedly said from this despatch box, this government is extremely disappointed that the case did not proceed to trial.

I gently say to the opposition frontbench they need to stop throwing mud and start

**** Possible New Speaker ****

coming to terms with what happened on their watch. Andy Slaughter. Thank you very much, Mr Speaker,
15:57
15:58
15:59
16:00
Dan Jarvis Portrait Dan Jarvis MP, The Minister of State, Home Department (Barnsley North, Labour)
-
-
grateful for him for the points that he has raised. Let me take them in turn. I lead on behalf of the government on the issue of vetting. And there has been a lot of work that has taken place in government since we came into office, in order to ensure that the systems and processes that underpin of our vetting are fit for purpose. He's right to ask about it, because although it may seem like a reasonably niche point, it is actually a very important one because our national security is underpinned by our ability to vet those who have access to privileged information.

He, for reasons that I completely understand, drew reference to a link between that work that we're doing in government and the importance of making sure that the appropriate vetting procedures are in place for this House, I know that he will understand that fundamentally, that will be a matter for the speaker and for this House. But I give him an absolute assurance that we work very closely with Mr Speaker and with the Deputy Speakers and all those in this place to make sure that we look carefully at what happened and satisfy ourselves that the vetting arrangements are absolutely fit for purpose.

His second point related specifically to two members of this House. And let me say to him, I don't believe that either of those two members are in their place today. I'm keen to work closely with them, and I'm keen to meet with them and to ensure that the government are providing the support that they may want or require. And I'm very happy to speak to him and to those members about the point that he's made with regard to the final point that he made, which was specifically about China, I hope that he will acknowledge that the government have been crystal clear about what our position is with regard to China and Right Honourable, honourable members.

Chuckle. We've had this debate. We've had this debate previously. If there are members who think that the nature of our relationship with China can be defined by a single word, then I don't believe that they are serious about the nature of the relationship. The specific point all members in this House have an absolute responsibility to decide for themselves what meetings that they take. I don't believe with great respect to him, it's for government ministers to opine from the despatch box about whether

**** Possible New Speaker ****

individual members should take meetings or not. Fred Thompson. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.
16:02
16:03
Dan Jarvis Portrait Dan Jarvis MP, The Minister of State, Home Department (Barnsley North, Labour)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

Minister. Well, I'm grateful to him, not only for his question, but for his previous previous service and for previous previous service and for the work of his constituents with regard to underpinning our national security. I think he does make a very important point. He will know, as will you, Madam Deputy Speaker, that the MPs are published guidance just recently, which is designed specifically to provide honourable members with the advice and the guidance to ensure that they are best able to deal with the nature of the risks and the threats that all of us in this House face.

But to come to the second part of his question. This is something that the government takes incredibly seriously. We inherited the Defending Democracy Task Force from the previous government. That was a good institution. And I, on many occasions previously have paid tribute to all of those opposite who were involved with the setting up of that particular institution. The Prime Minister has renewed the mandate of the Defending Democracy Task Force. It is the fulcrum point across government that brings the different departments and law enforcement together, alongside with members of this House, to ensure that we are doing everything that we can to address and tackle the threats that we face.

I've always believed and always maintained that that should be a shared endeavour right across this House, and my door will always be open to members of this House who would like to discuss

**** Possible New Speaker ****

it. It's a rapidly. I rather thought
16:04
16:05
16:05
16:06
16:07
16:08
Dan Jarvis Portrait Dan Jarvis MP, The Minister of State, Home Department (Barnsley North, Labour)
-
-
hon. Gentleman. And genuinely the remarks that I made earlier about the ISC that he sits on are or genuinely meant. I think that the IC has got an important role to play in terms of looking at precisely what has happened here. And I give him an absolute commitment that we want to work very closely with his committee on this specific issue and on others. Let me try and give him a bit of detail, because I think he's asked this question in an entirely reasonable way.

Let me reiterate the point that I hope is understood by him and His committee that the final evidence went in August of this year, and there was nothing that any minister could have done. Post that, and hopefully he's crystal clear as I am that there was no political interference. But let me say this to him in each of the three statements, the NSA. Let me just say something about him, because he is an outstanding public servant who does a very important job and does a very important job very well.

And I think it is a terrible shame that there has been commentary about him as an individual. He has acted with integrity throughout this process, and we as a Parliament owe him a debt of gratitude for the service that he's offered. But let me say something about the evidence that he gave, because in each of the three statements, the NSA makes it crystal clear that China poses wide ranging threats to the UK. In his third statement, he says that the Chinese intelligence services are highly capable and conduct large scale espionage operations against the UK to advance the Chinese state's interests and harm the interests and the security of the UK.

Very clear about that. He adds that China's espionage operations threaten the UK's economic prosperity and resilience, and the integrity of our democratic institutions. So he's been very clear in terms of the evidence statements that he provides. I don't think there is much more that I can add to that other than to reiterate that it was

**** Possible New Speaker ****

DPP. Thank you. Thank you very. Much.
16:10
16:11
16:11
16:12
16:13
16:14
16:15
16:16
16:17
16:17
16:18
16:19
16:20
16:21
16:21
16:22
16:23
16:23
16:23
16:24
16:24
16:25
16:25
16:26
16:26
16:27
16:28
16:28
16:29
16:30
16:31
16:31
16:32
16:33
16:33
16:34
16:35
16:35
16:35
16:36
16:36
16:37
16:38
None Portrait Urgent question: To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will make a statement on the decision to ban Maccabi Tel Aviv F.C. fans from attending their fixture against Aston Villa
-



**** Possible New Speaker ****

Huddleston. Thank you. Madam Deputy Speaker. To ask the. Secretary. Sport.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Sport. If she will. Make a statement on the decision to ban Maccabi Tel Aviv FC fans from

**** Possible New Speaker ****

to ban Maccabi Tel Aviv FC fans from attending their fixture against Aston Villa. Just state. Thank you. Madam
16:38
Lisa Nandy Portrait Rt Hon Lisa Nandy MP, The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Wigan, Labour)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

Just state. Thank you. Madam Speaker. Last week Aston Villa released a statement that away fans would not be permitted to attend the game event against Maccabi Tel Aviv game event against Maccabi Tel Aviv on the 6th of November. This decision was taken by Birmingham City Council on the advice of the Safety Advisory Group and based on a risk assessment by West Midlands Police. The risk assessment

**** Possible New Speaker ****

considered a range of factors such as the risk of protests, the threat of wider disorder, previous. Fixtures with.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Fixtures with. Maccabi Tel Aviv fans and the impact on the wider community. It is a long. Established principle, set out in

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Established principle, set out in law, that the Police and Safety Advisory Group are operationally independent of government, and it is independent of government, and it is for them to take decisions on safety. However, this decision has safety. However, this decision has far wider implications. In any situation there is a risk that must be assessed, but in this case, the be assessed, but in this case, the risk this event prevent presents is in no small part down to the risk in no small part down to the risk inherent in where the away fans come from and who they are.

It is in that from and who they are. It is in that context that the solution that is proposed to exclude a group from attending is wrong. It chooses attending is wrong. It chooses exclusion rather than looking at the full options available to manage that risk and include. And Madam Deputy Speaker, this is about who we are as a country. A lot of the public discussion around this game public discussion around this game has focussed on events in the Middle East. Let me be clear.

It is perfectly. Legitimate to hold and perfectly. Legitimate to hold and express strong views about what is happening in Israel and Gaza. People happening in Israel and Gaza. People are free in this country to protest peacefully. They are free to lobby government and event organisers about which countries can participate in tournaments, and they are free to choose not to attend events or purchase products that they find unacceptable. But they are not entitled to dictate who can participate in competitions, attend the football match or walk the streets for fear of threats or reprisals.

Whatever your view on the events overseas, this is a fundamental principle that this government will fiercely defend. And let me be clear, this decision was not made in a vacuum. It is set against the backdrop of rising anti-Semitism here and across the world, and an attack on a synagogue in Manchester in which two innocent men were killed. It has a real world impact on a community who already feel excluded and afraid. It is therefore completely legitimate to support the independence of the police, to conduct that risk assessment, and to question the conclusion that follows when it excludes the people at the heart of that risk.

Following the decision last week, the government has been working with West Midlands Police and Birmingham City Council to support them to consider all the options available and to tell us what resources are needed to manage the risks to ensure fans from both teams can attend safely. If the assessment is revised, the Safety Advisory Group will meet again to discuss options. In the last few days, I have spoken to Jewish community groups, sporting organisation, fan groups and Aston Villa Football Club to ensure we have the fullest picture possible.

The Home Secretary and the Community Secretary have had extensive discussions with the police, local government and others. Ultimately, the law is clear that responsibility for this decision lies with local agencies. It is not for the government to assess the risks surrounding this football match, but we are clear that resources will not be the determining factor in whether Maccabi Tel Aviv fans can be admitted, and that this fundamental principle that nobody in our country will be excluded from participating in public life because of who they

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Huddleston. Yeah. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker,
16:41
Nigel Huddleston Portrait Nigel Huddleston MP (Droitwich and Evesham, Conservative)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I thank the Right honourable lady for those comments, because I'm sure most of us in this House will sure most of us in this House will believe that the decision to ban Maccabi Tel Aviv fans from the upcoming Europa League game against Villa is the wrong one. It's also embarrassing and a disgrace. Have we really reached the point where we cannot welcome visitors from overseas to our second city, because we cannot guarantee their safety on British streets? In British football grounds? This is not how modern Britain should present itself to the world.

And some, astoundingly, including some in this House, have claimed that the ban on Israeli fans is for their own safety. Safety that has been put at risk precisely because of the anger and hatred being whipped up by some of those very same people demanding a ban, equating football fans with terrorists, for example. We cannot give in to this kind of rhetoric, and I hope the Minister will join me in condemning it. Football and all sport has incredible potential to bring people together.

It should not be used as a deliberate tool to divide. The UK has a great and hard won reputation for hosting major international sporting events, banning an entire fan base sends the wrong signal and may jeopardise our ability to host such events in the future. And how disappointing is this decision to the residents of Birmingham, who only three years ago welcomed from people from around the world to the Commonwealth Games, which showcased Birmingham and the West Midlands and its diverse, vibrant and hospitable best.

We therefore call on the government to intervene and get this ban reversed. But Aston Villa and the Safety Advisory Group may only be able to do so, with guarantees of additional support from the government. So can the minister confirm what additional resources may be provided and who will pay for these additional resources? Can she confirm when the Home Office and DCMS were first made aware of the intent of the Safety Advisory Group to make this obviously controversial decision, and is she confident that they talked to all the right people before making the decision? And if the decision is reversed, what practical steps will be taken to ensure the safety of all fans and residents? And while many football teams have some undesirable supporters intent on causing trouble, let's recognise the vast majority of fans want nothing more than to enjoy a good game of football.

And if we are to truly wrap our arms around the Jewish community, as the Prime Minister promised following the attack on the synagogue in Manchester, does the Minister agree? We need to take action and not just warm words? Finally, is the Minister confident that this incident will not

**** Possible New Speaker ****

jeopardise our ability to host major future? Thank you. OK.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

OK. Well, first of all, can I thank him for bringing this Urgent Question to the House? I know it's
16:44
Lisa Nandy Portrait Rt Hon Lisa Nandy MP, The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Wigan, Labour)
-
-
Question to the House? I know it's of concern to so many parliamentarians and so many people outside of this place. And can I thank him for the tone that he has adopted? I've watched with dismay, as there have been people in this debate who have sought to use this moment to heighten tensions, and I want to commend him for the way that he's conducted himself and his part in this. He asked a particularly important question about who will pay across government.

We are united. The Home Secretary, myself, The Chancellor, the Prime Minister and the community secretary are united in saying that we will find the resources that need to be made available once the West Midlands Police has come forward with the risk assessment and will work with one as one government to make sure that those resources are forthcoming because of the important principle, fundamental principle that is at stake about what sort of country we are. He asked if I was confident that the decision was made based on the right information.

I've seen a lot of facts flying around that don't seem to have any evidential basis, particularly on social media. In recent days, we're working with our international partners to make sure that West Midlands Police have the fullest range of information on which to base an assessment. He he mentioned also the impact that this is having on the Jewish community. I absolutely feel and understand that, and I've had numerous conversations with members of the Jewish community over the last few days. We have experience of policing events in this country, vast experience of policing events in difficult circumstances.

And he's right to say that there are a minority of supporters in every club and in this club in particular, who, who, whose behaviour is reprehensible. But that is not the case for all fans. And what is astonishing in this case is that it is unprecedented in modern times that all the way funds have been banned because of the behaviour of a small minority. So we're working with the police to try and support them, to be able to look at that in the round.

He's right to say that we need action, not just warm words. I am particularly concerned, having met with Jewish funds, about the way that some of the events in the Middle East are not just having an impact on national competitions, but are also having an impact on grassroots sport as well. And it's something that I've committed to working with them on to make sure that young people in this country can turn up to local grassroots events and not feel anxious about participating or not being able to participate because of who they are.

And finally, Madam Deputy Speaker, he asked if we he he asked about the signal that this sends to others around the world that is not lost on us. We are a tolerant, diverse nation and Birmingham, as one of our great cities is a great example of that. That is what we're fighting to uphold and defend. That's the Britain that we believe in. And the message from this government is that this government will always defend that country. We are a better country than some of the comments that have been made and the actions that have been taken in the last

**** Possible New Speaker ****

week, and we determined to uphold that. Graham Stringer thank you.
16:47
16:48
16:49
16:50
16:51
16:52
16:53
16:54
16:54
Paula Barker Portrait Paula Barker MP (Liverpool Wavertree, Labour)
-
-
I'd like to pre-cursor my comments by saying everybody in this place was horrified by the attack on the synagogue.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

today. Are purely based on safety, because the year before the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

because the year before the Hillsborough. Disaster safety concerns at Sheffield. Wednesday Stadium were raised by an official, but.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

an official, but. The ex council safety officer was told by bosses in 1988 to.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Keep his nose out of such concerns. Nobody in. This place needs to be reminded. What happened as a result.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

What happened as a result. Of. Ignoring that safety advice. 97 innocent men.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

97 innocent men. Women and children lost their lives. We have safety advisory groups for a reason, and it's a groups for a reason, and it's a slippery slope when safety concerns are ignored and I believe, unprecedented for a government to unprecedented for a government to try to overturn such advice. And I will just respectfully disagree with the Secretary of State. When she.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the Secretary of State. When she. because. We have a we've had a lot of cases, both. Nationally and.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Nationally and. Internationally, the. Most recent one being Napoli versus Frankfurt. So can the versus Frankfurt. So can the Secretary of State be explicitly clear? Has she seen the safety advice? If so, does she disagree.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

advice? If so, does she disagree. With the safety advice? And if she. Does disagree. Can she tell the House on what

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Can she tell the House on what grounds she disagrees? Because it is imperative. This House is clear. Because if you.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Are successful, if the government is successful in having the decision overturned, particularly after the scenes we witnessed last night with the Israeli derby, then people are going to ask.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

going to ask. Questions, well, can I can I thank the honourable friend? And as somebody who represents the Hillsborough, some of the
16:56
Lisa Nandy Portrait Rt Hon Lisa Nandy MP, The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Wigan, Labour)
-
-
Hillsborough, some of the Hillsborough families, and I say to her that we as a government and I as an individual member of that government, take the safety of all fans and the wider community with the utmost seriousness. We would never treat safety as the secondary consideration. But she says that we're trying to overturn the police advice. We're doing absolutely no such thing, and I think I made that completely clear in the statement that I just made. We are working with West Midlands Police and local partners to make sure that we take into account the risks that they have raised in order to ensure that this game can go ahead safely with both sets of fans present.

And I would say to her that yes, in the discussions and the consideration that I've given to the risks that West Midlands Police have highlighted, what is completely different about this case. It's not just that it's the first time since the early 2000 in this country that a decision has been taken to ban entirely away fans from attending a game. It's that the risk assessment is based in no small part on the risk posed to those fans that are attending who support Maccabi Tel Aviv because they are Israeli and

**** Possible New Speaker ****

because they are Jewish. Now, we should be appalled by that and never allow it to stand. The Andrew Mitchell. Yeah.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yeah. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, can I commend the Secretary. Of.
16:58
16:58
16:59
Gareth Snell Portrait Gareth Snell MP (Stoke-on-Trent Central, Labour )
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

Gareth Snell. Thank you very. Much, Madam Deputy Speaker. It was reported over. The. Weekend that. In August.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

In August. A legal. Observer to. One of the. Protests was arrested simply for wearing a. Star of David because.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Star of David because. It was considered to be antagonising. Now, with. The decision to ban the Maccabi

**** Possible New Speaker ****

fans from coming. To the UK. There is a genuine cumulative people.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

people. In this country. And the effect that it has on those people that are family of those people that are family of Jewish people in this country who watched their friends and family tortured about whether or not they have a role in this country anymore.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

That we should all be. Significantly aware of. But I. Also think, Madam Deputy Speaker,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

there is a the challenge will be if this ban is allowed to go ahead. The game after.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The game after. The Maccabi game is with the Swiss based Young Boys. Their fans have been involved in two riots, including hospitalisations. If they're away, team is not banned. The question should be what is different between the Maccabi fans

**** Possible New Speaker ****

different between the Maccabi fans and the young boys fans? And what is it that we want to talk about? Yeah. I think the honourable gentleman
17:00
17:00
17:01
17:02
17:02
Lisa Nandy Portrait Rt Hon Lisa Nandy MP, The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Wigan, Labour)
-
-
I'm really happy to give her that assurance. Muslim who grew up in Birmingham in the West Midlands and did my did my business there, I was deeply business there, I was deeply saddened by this decision. I was saddened for the British Jewish community. We are a tolerant, diverse nation and tolerant, diverse region. And this decision was bad for two reasons. It was bad for Birmingham, it was bad for the West Midlands, and it was actually bad for the British Muslim community.

for the British Muslim community. Many of them have reached out saying they did not want to be dragged into this, and they feel they feel that similar amounts of anger. My worry now is there's a flashpoint that's been created, which is the second problem with this decision, because now there will be those who will want to take advantage of the fact that this is now in the headlines. They will be those who will want to They will be those who will want to come and cause trouble and drag Birmingham's name and the West Midlands name through the mud.

 No. Look, can I really acknowledge that and say I too am saddened by the way in which this has played out? And I'm saddened about the impact on people in Birmingham who I've always found to be extremely welcoming, tolerant and know that they're stronger for their diversity, not weakened by it. He's right to say that the recent events, and the way in which a number of people have sought to prey on them, has heightened the level of risk. That's something that West Midlands Police of course, have to consider.

But my commitment to him and to all members of this House and to the people of Birmingham, is that resources will not stand in the way of this going ahead.
17:04
17:04
17:05
17:06
17:07
17:07
17:07
17:08
17:08
17:09
17:09
17:09
17:10
17:10
17:11
17:12
Lisa Nandy Portrait Rt Hon Lisa Nandy MP, The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Wigan, Labour)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

Overturn decisions like this? Yeah. Well, sir. There is a long established principle in this country as set out in law, that the police are operationally independent. And I am surprised to hear the honourable gentleman seek to question that. I've been really clear that this the risk assessment and the decisions around safety and what would be needed for this game to go ahead needed for this game to go ahead safely with all fans present is for the police. But what is a right and proper role for the government is to work with them, to support them, to ensure that that happens.

That's not just a question of resourcing. We are looking at a whole range of factors and practices that are well established in this country and across Europe, including making sure that you have transportation that gets fans safely to and from the game. We're looking at the numbers of ticket sales that are made available to away fans. We are looking at the measures, many measures that have tried and tested in order to ensure that elements who would seek to create trouble are excluded from the game.

It is absolutely not right to characterise the position of this government as simply standing on the sidelines when it comes to this fundamental principle about who is entitled to walk the streets and attend football games in our country because of who non-negotiable.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Lukman. Thank you, Madam Speaker. I'm sure the Secretary of State will
17:13
17:14
17:15
17:15
17:16
17:17
17:18
17:18
17:19
17:20
17:21
17:21
17:22
17:23
17:24
17:24
17:25
17:26
17:27
Adnan Hussain Portrait Mr Adnan Hussain MP (Blackburn, Independent)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. Government politicians from. Across the House. And the media establishment have condemned the proposed ban and condemned the proposed ban and Maccabi Tel Aviv funds as an antisemitic. Yet this group has a record of violent behaviour, racist chants including death. To Arabs and the mocking of the killing of Gazan children. Given the UK's adoption of the.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Ei hra. Definition. Which rightly warns against holding Jewish people

**** Possible New Speaker ****

against holding Jewish people collectively responsible for Israel's actions, does the minister. Agree that.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Agree that. Criticism of Israel with its ongoing genocide, war crimes, breaches of international law and

**** Possible New Speaker ****

breaches of international law and current genocide trial at the ICJ. With anti-Semitism. Against British Jews. Or.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Or. Jewish people in general. Actually undermines that definition?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Actually undermines that definition? I won't sit down. And if the UK rightly. Is that the question, is that the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Is that the question, is that the question quickly put the question. And if the UK rightly imposes cultural and supporting sporting cultural and supporting sporting boycotts on countries like Russia over war crimes, why should Israel be treated differently?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yeah. I made absolutely clear that it is perfectly acceptable for people
17:28
17:28
Shockat Adam Portrait Shockat Adam MP (Leicester South, Independent)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you. Madam Speaker. Antisemitism is vile and no one should be prevented from enjoying their sporting game, from enjoying their sporting game, whatever it may be, simply because of their faith. And as a football fan, I take the decision to ban any

**** Possible New Speaker ****

fans very, very seriously. But the Prime Minister's decision to. Interfere with.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Interfere with. The independence of Westminster, West Midlands Police and SAG should concern all of us in this House, concern all of us in this House, especially when the same Prime Minister failed to. Intervene when British aid workers were killed,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

when they were volunteering for the World Central. Kitchen, when. He failed to intervene. When his own. MPs were denied

**** Possible New Speaker ****

When his own. MPs were denied access to Israel and the West Bank. And when. He failed to intervene. When the IDF boarded. Flotillas with British. Citizens

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Flotillas with British. Citizens entertaining them, millions now will be spent on a football match defending some hooligans, not all defending some hooligans, not all who chant there are no schools in Gaza because there are no children in Gaza. So does the minister agree

**** Possible New Speaker ****

in Gaza. So does the minister agree with me? The Prime Minister should respect the independence of the police and the safety advisory. Him.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Him. Yes, I really do wonder whether the West Midlands Police made a different decision, whether he would
17:29
Lisa Nandy Portrait Rt Hon Lisa Nandy MP, The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Wigan, Labour)
-
-
have come to this House to question the decision that had been made on a suspect. I am afraid that the answer is yes. And look, this is part of the problem with this debate is that, you know, the chance that he he talks about, I think, appal absolutely everybody in this House, he characterises the government in a particular way. He fails to make reference to the very many robust actions that we've taken around the Israeli government's actions in Gaza. We have condemned them.

We've sanctioned members of the Israeli government, we have restricted arms sales to Israel, and we have been out there on the ground playing the part in peace negotiations and pushing for aid to get in at pace and still are. But he doesn't reference that because frankly, sadly, I think he is trying to, to gain political support for his position. What I would say to him is honestly, and there's only a few of them have bothered to listen to any of this debate.

But what I would say to them is, if you really do want to resolve this, then work with us in order to make sure that all communities can express their passionate, deeply held views in appropriate and peaceful ways, but that this country can remain an open, tolerant, diverse place where everybody is free to walk the streets and attend football games regardless of who they are.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Final question Iqbal Mohamed. Thank you, Madam. Deputy Speaker. After the.
17:31
Iqbal Mohamed Portrait Iqbal Mohamed MP (Dewsbury and Batley, Independent)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

After the. Conflation of. Anti-Semitism with the banning. Of football hooligans.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Of football hooligans. Who happen to come from Israel and the abuse that I've received. And other.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

And other. supporting. The ban. For on safety grounds, I must put on record.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

on record. That I and those people are not anti-Semitic, never have been and anti-Semitic, never have been and never will be the Prime Minister, if I may, the Prime Minister called the decision to ban the violent Maccabee hooligans by West Midlands Police

**** Possible New Speaker ****

and Birmingham City Council's safety advisory. Group as anti-Semitism.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The leader of reform said the police gave. In. To extremist intimidation. The leader of the. Liberal Democrats.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Liberal Democrats. Called for the decision to. Be reversed, saying you don't tackle anti-Semitism by banning its tackle anti-Semitism by banning its victims and racist comment from the would be leader of the Tories said he was wrong, that the integration he was wrong, that the integration has failed in Birmingham. Madam Deputy Speaker, let me ask this is Deputy Speaker, let me ask this is it anti-Semitic for the Israeli police to cancel a football derby in police to cancel a football derby in Tel Aviv last night after these same hooligans forced the match to stop through violence and injury to fans and the police? Do we want these

**** Possible New Speaker ****

and the police? Do we want these scenes to be repeated in our stadiums and on our streets? yeah.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

yeah. The decision that was made last night, as I understand it, it was on
17:32
Lisa Nandy Portrait Rt Hon Lisa Nandy MP, The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Wigan, Labour)
-
-
the basis of rioting that was occurring at a live event. It was not a decision that is unprecedented in the UK from the Safety and Safety Advisory Group in recent times to back. Sorry. Does he want to know? Yes. OK. Well, in that case, can we just have a little bit more decorum? Because there are people outside of this place whose lives are being directly affected by the debate that we're having, and the tone of the debate that we're having, he he he tries to equate the two, but the truth is that he reveals himself in the language that he use.

Uses. He refers to the banning of football hooligans. He referred specifically to the decision to ban violent football hooligans. But this isn't a decision to ban football hooligans. This is a decision to ban all away fans from a game which a safety advisory group has not done for nearly 25 years in this country. And it was a decision taken not on the grounds that he suggests, which was the risk posed by Maccabi Tel Aviv fans. It was a decision taken in no small part because of the risk posed to them, because they support an Israeli team and because they are Jewish.

And I would just gently say to him that if he is conflating everybody who supports an Israeli team, the vast majority of whom by definition will be Jewish with being violent football hooligans, then he should consider whether he can really stand in front of this House

**** Possible New Speaker ****

and say that he is not behaving in a way that is anti-Semitic.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

That is the end of the statement. And I'll give the points of order. I And I'll give the points of order. I do not want to order. Please be seated. I do not want do not want to continue. This debate is a point of

**** Possible New Speaker ****

continue. This debate is a point of order is absolutely necessary right. Now and. Relevant. Ian Byrne Point of order.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Ian Byrne Point of order. To you, Madam. Member. For. Chingford and Woodford Green
17:34
17:35
17:35
17:36
Bridget Phillipson Portrait Rt Hon Bridget Phillipson MP, The Secretary of State for Education (Houghton and Sunderland South, Labour)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

with. Permission, I will. Now make a statement to update the House on this government's work to transform further and higher education in this country. And being no doubt, transformation is what we

**** Possible New Speaker ****

need because the world is changing. Artificial intelligence. Machine learning, green energy, new and exciting technologies. Global forces are reshaping the world of work more and more quickly.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

world of work more and more quickly. They bring fresh and exciting. Chances for growth and opportunity. But Madam Deputy Speaker, unless education and Speaker, unless education and training in this country change to we miss, we risk missing those we miss, we risk missing those chances. Our young people risk being left behind. And we've seen this before under the last government who before under the last government who thought colleges and technical education were for other people's children, where apprenticeship starts for our young people starts for our young people plummeted.

They talked down our universities. They were more interested in headlines for culture interested in headlines for culture wars than head starts for students. Madam Deputy Speaker, we will never Madam Deputy Speaker, we will never take that path. I know members on all sides of this House will agree that we have a duty in this country, that we have a duty in this country, a duty to our people, to our businesses, and to our great history. A duty not just to keep up, history. A duty not just to keep up, but to lead the way.

And so that is why today we publish our Poole 16 Education and Skills White Paper to seize the opportunities of this changing world, to deliver growth changing world, to deliver growth for our economy and opportunity for our communities to lead the way. So here is my vision for post 16 education in this country, a skill system that drives growth more balanced, more responsive, more reflective of the evolving world of work that adds dynamism, invention and expertise to our economy. But the course further that invites working people to be part of that economic strength, to add to and to share in that success.

The young person who's just left school, not sure what's next. He deserves a range of quality options to choose the route that's right for him, a great apprenticeship, a top course at his local Fe college, or to go off to university, or the working mother who deserves the opportunity to upskill and to make the most.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Of her talents. For them, that would mean more than a job. It's a it's a career than a job. It's a it's a career security opportunity, and I want to see that opportunity cascade into our communities, local businesses becoming more productive, taking on more people, paying higher salaries, hustle and bustle, returning to our

**** Possible New Speaker ****

hustle and bustle, returning to our high streets, the skilled workforce we need to build more local homes and powered. NHS staff.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

NHS staff. With the right skills to deliver a transformed service fit for the future. Getting this country moving future. Getting this country moving again. That's why the skills system is fundamental to national renewal. is fundamental to national renewal. And so today's white paper is the turning point, how we go from a quarter of a million skilled vacancies sitting unfilled to a pipeline of top quality training to fill these jobs and create new ones fill these jobs and create new ones from a muddle of confusing pathways to a coherent system meeting the needs of the modern economy from further education, treated as the poor relation to our colleges, poor relation to our colleges, standing side by side with our world class universities.

But the public will have heard these warm words about skills before, and they'll

**** Possible New Speaker ****

about skills before, and they'll know that often warm words fizzle out into. Nothing. No action, no change, but no

**** Possible New Speaker ****

No action, no change, but no longer. Madam Deputy Speaker, because our reform of the skills system has already begun. Skills England established the Growth and Skills levy. Reformed red tape on apprenticeships, slashed technical excellence. Colleges introduced. University finance has stabilised and the youth guarantee rolling out. And today we're going further guided by our industrial strategy. Will

**** Possible New Speaker ****

fill gaps and meet needs through our through. Shorter courses. In priority sectors, which from

**** Possible New Speaker ****

In priority sectors, which from April will be funded through the Growth in Skills Levy and for Growth in Skills Levy and for investing to deliver growth. £187 million for our Teach First Digital Skills and AI learning. £182 million for engineering, 180 million for the for engineering, 180 million for the Defence Talent Pipeline. £625 million to train 60,000 more construction workers, all backed up construction workers, all backed up by 29 new technical excellence colleges, clean energy, defence, colleges, clean energy, defence, digital.

Advanced manufacturing, construction. What we need is technical excellence and that's what technical excellence and that's what our colleges can provide. And so through this white paper, we'll work with our fantastic Fe staff. We'll with our fantastic Fe staff. We'll draw on their passion and expertise. We're strengthening professional development in our colleges, development in our colleges, partnering with industry and building on the evidence of what works. We'll pair that support with

**** Possible New Speaker ****

works. We'll pair that support with improved performance measures to bring our. Colleges. Out of the shadow of the university route, to make it a pathway of equal importance, equal value and equal pride in the eyes of value and equal pride in the eyes of our nation. Just as the Prime Minister has said, this will be a defining cause for this Labour government. No longer a Cinderella service, but rather a. System of high esteem, matching high support with high challenge, spreading best practice from across the country to deliver high standards in every college.

Because to seize the opportunities of the tech revolution, this country needs not just lawyers, economists, scientists. We need wind turbine technicians, video editors and builders careers that we on this side of the House respect work that pays and lifts up communities. So we're introducing rigorous study pathways, giving young people a

**** Possible New Speaker ****

clear line of sight into great levels. The brand. New vocational pathway unveiled

**** Possible New Speaker ****

New vocational pathway unveiled in our white paper today, sitting proudly alongside A-levels and T levels, building the skills and the knowledge that employers value. And we're backing these changes with £800 million of extra investment for young people in our colleges and sixth forms this year, next year. sixth forms this year, next year. Above and beyond what was planned for this year, supporting 20,000 more students. That's why the target more students. That's why the target for 50% of our young people to go to university is evolving.

Because to compete in this changing world, we compete in this changing world, we need to nurture a much broader range of talent. So as the Prime Minister has announced, we have a new ambition. No longer just half. We want two thirds of our young people to get into high level learning, be to get into high level learning, be it academic, be it technical or be it and apprenticeship. But Madam it and apprenticeship. But Madam Deputy Speaker, pro technical, pro vocational does not mean being anti academic.

Our universities are a

**** Possible New Speaker ****

academic. Our universities are a stamp of quality recognised across the world. A source of. Immense national pride, a driver

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Immense national pride, a driver of economic strength in our regions. So to any young person growing up in So to any young person growing up in England today, I said if you want to go to university, if it's right for you, if you meet the requirements, this government will back you. That's why we're introducing new targeted maintenance grants for students most in need, funded by a levy on international students fees. Because in this country, opening up access for domestic students from disadvantaged communities is my priority.

Madam Deputy Speaker, we need a system that delivers for working people living busy lives to. That's why we're making higher level learning more flexible. Available in bite sized chunks, break points in degrees to and supported by the lifelong learning entitlement. But Madam Deputy Speaker, it's not only degrees that matter. I want to see our universities working with colleges to deliver more level four and level five qualifications to spread that excellence far and wide, making it easier for people to take on those vital courses in their local further education colleges.

Delivering the missing middle of skills so important for our economy and for our people seeking their next promotion, and to safeguard the excellence in our universities for future generations. Last November, I announced that tuition fees would increase by £285 this academic year, and today I can confirm that we will increase undergraduate tuition fee caps for all higher education providers in line with forecast inflation for the next two academic years, and we will futureproof our maintenance loan offer by increasing maintenance loans in line with forecast inflation every academic year to provide long term certainty for the future funding.

We will then legislate when parliamentary time allows to increase tuition fee caps automatically in the future. Linked to quality. We will not allow institutions who don't take quality seriously to make their students pay more. Charging full fees will be conditional on high quality teaching. Balancing stability for universities with fairness for students and for taxpayers. So within this white paper is a challenge to our universities to build on what makes them great, to drive up access, to drive out low quality provision, to improve collaboration, and to push forward innovation to deliver the research breakthroughs that will revitalise our economy, and to feed that energy back into our local communities.

We will support every young person to take the pathway that's right for them technical, academic or vocational. But what I won't accept, Madam Deputy Speaker, is if they have no pathway at all. Far too many of our young people find themselves not in employment, education or training, and from there they become isolated from society, disconnected from success, their hope fading. And that must change will strengthen the part played by schools in the transition to post 16 education. We will improve accountability with a bigger role for strategic authorities and will introduce a new guarantee.

Any 16 or 17 year old not in educational training will automatically get a place at a local provider. I won't let opportunity slip away just as they're getting going in life. And Madam Deputy Speaker, this White paper delivers on that promise to our young people to give them the skills they need. But the task of revitalising our school system, that's not the isolated work of this or that department. It's the collective undertaking of local and national leaders, together with our workforces, with our businesses and with our trade unions.

Its mission led government in action. And the prize, Madam Deputy Speaker, is huge opportunity for our young people, growth for our economy and renewal

**** Possible New Speaker ****

for our nation. And I commend this statement to the House. I call the shadow sector Steak Laura Trott.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Laura Trott. Yeah. Thank you. Madam. Deputy Speaker, And I thank the Secretary of State for advance sight.
17:46
Laura Trott Portrait Rt Hon Laura Trott MP (Sevenoaks, Conservative)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

State for advance sight. Of her statement. Let me start with. B levels. If this is a continuation of the reforms, we

**** Possible New Speaker ****

continuation of the reforms, we began to simplify the post 16 qualification landscape. Then I welcome it. But without the white. Paper.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Paper. It is hard to. Understand whether that is actually the case. There are fundamental questions

**** Possible New Speaker ****

There are fundamental questions regarding the announcement which the hope. That. She. Will be able to.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Will be able to. Shed some light on today. Is this a continuation. Of the reforms we began simply rebranded.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

rebranded. Or is a completely. New qualification. That it will take years and years.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

years. To develop? What is happening with BTECs. Cambridge Technicals and other applied generals? Are they all

**** Possible New Speaker ****

other applied generals? Are they all being scrapped and if so, on what timeline? She says.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

She says. qualifications. But. employers. Be involved in shaping these new

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Be involved in shaping these new courses? Madam Deputy Speaker, I raised this in oral session earlier this afternoon.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

this afternoon. But I am. Deeply concerned with the reports today about the introduction of the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

so-called lower. Level qualification aimed specifically. At white.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

At white. Working class pupils. There has. Long been. A term for this in. Education policy. The soft.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Education policy. The soft. Bigotry of low expectations. We reject this.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

We reject this. So let me be clear. If this. Is. The plan, it is an insult.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Are we. Really saying that white working class children are less capable of achieving the same.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Qualifications as their peers? That the answer to disadvantage. Is to. Lower expectations rather than to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Lower expectations rather than to raise ambition. We should inspire. We should. Aspire for. The best qualifications. The best teachers, the best

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The best teachers, the best backgrounds. We should not hard. Bake

**** Possible New Speaker ****

We should not hard. Bake accepting second best into government policy. So it asks the. Secretary of State directly, can

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Secretary of State directly, can she guarantee that pupils who fail their English or Maths GCSE will be expected to retake them? Or is she content to assign them to second tier qualifications? And will she tier qualifications? And will she ensure that every single pupil, whatever their background, is expected and supported, to achieve expected and supported, to achieve the same high standards? The truth is this under Labour, young people

**** Possible New Speaker ****

are being badly let down. Youth unemployment is rising. Job prospects are.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Job prospects are. Sinking and it's the result of this government's choices.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

this government's choices. On this side of the House. We have a clear plan to put an degrees.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

And double the. Budget for apprenticeships. Their plan is all over the place. At the party conference.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

At the party conference. The Prime Minister declared the ambition for 50% of young people to ambition for 50% of young people to go to university is not right for our times. The Prime Minister clearly hasn't been paying attention

**** Possible New Speaker ****

clearly hasn't been paying attention conservatives. Had already got rid of. And what's.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

And what's. More, today's plan, as set out will mean two thirds of young. People in high. Level learning. But as I

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Level learning. But as I understand it, with only 10% in higher technical education or apprenticeships.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

This would actually. Increase the proportion of going to university from 50% to around

**** Possible New Speaker ****

to university from 50% to around 57%. Madam Deputy Speaker, only a Prime Minister. Like this could abolish a target.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

That. Doesn't exist, then accidentally announce one that goes further than the non-existent target he just.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

he just. Pretended to get rid of. It's also rather rich. For. The Secretary of State to boast

**** Possible New Speaker ****

that she's taken decisive action to fix university finances. Madam Deputy Speaker. Forgive me.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Forgive me. If I take that with a pinch of salt. Before the election.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Before the election. She promised graduates will pay less under Labour. Well, it turns

**** Possible New Speaker ****

less under Labour. Well, it turns out they will pay more. Quite a lot more. And every penny of that extra cost this year. Is swallowed.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Is swallowed. By their National Insurance. absolutely. Clear, the rise in tuition fees.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Clear, the rise in tuition fees. Is a spending commitment. As it. Costs the Exchequer. Significant sums.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The cost doesn't just fall on students, it's. Speaker.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Speaker. When we were in government, we introduced T levels. We introduce degree level apprenticeships, and we put English and. Maths at the heart.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Maths at the heart. Of all vocational qualifications because this is what. Ensures young people have.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

people have. The best start in life. All this government is doing is embedding soft. Bigotry of. Low expectations.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Low expectations. Into our system. And does. Nothing. To help young people with. Debt. Trap degrees.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

It is. Not good enough. Yeah.
17:51
Bridget Phillipson Portrait Rt Hon Bridget Phillipson MP, The Secretary of State for Education (Houghton and Sunderland South, Labour)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yeah. Madam Deputy Speaker, it's a real shame that the right hon. Lady can't bring herself to welcome anything that we've announced today. It's par for the course. But that's how she likes to do things in government. They talked about how they valued Paul, 16. Education. The record, of course, was very, very different. And the difference between record and rhetoric is the difference between our parties. And it is clear for all to see. We're investing £800 million more in further education.

When colleges were cut to the bone under the Tories, we are putting a real focus on vocational education and restoring its esteem, giving it proper respect and simplifying the qualification landscape that they made even more muddled. And we are securing the future of our world renowned universities. I didn't hear whether she accepted or disagreed or welcomed or didn't support what I've set out today around university funding. If she doesn't support it, then I'd like to know how she intends to safeguard our world leading universities into the future.

But as usual, we heard plenty from her about debt trap degrees. We often hear a lot of talk about low value courses or Mickey Mouse degrees, with never any answer given as to which young people shouldn't be going to university. Which courses this applies to, or which institutions she has in mind when she makes sweeping generalisations of that kind, it is always working class kids and other people's children who will lose out from the snobbery that comes of saying that education is not for people like them.

And what this Labour government will deliver is a world leading university system, alongside brilliant technical and vocational routes, so that all of our young people have got access to brilliant careers, training opportunities, including throughout their lives. It is about choice for young people, about finding the route and the path that is best for them. So this Labour government says to young people, further study is important. It is for you, it matters to us and it should matter to you as well.

And that is why we are bringing changes to the qualifications landscape. And to answer the Right honourable ladies question, we believe that T levels were a welcome and important addition to the qualifications landscape, providing high quality technical qualifications with strong work placements alongside it, sitting alongside well-established A-levels. But what is missing is the rest of that system. Alongside it, we are making sure that we have good, strong routes of through V levels that young people will be able to combine with a level study.

For those young people who aren't quite so clear at the age of 16, whether they want to specialise in one particular area, because, as she will know, T levels the equivalent of three A-levels require young people at 16 to make a definitive choice about the future of their career. And we want to make sure that there are there are a range of high quality options, so those 900 will move towards becoming part of that new V level system, and we will launch a consultation on that.

And, Deputy Speaker, on how we deliver that. And we are keen to hear from businesses as a part of it. She asks about GCSEs and English and maths research, and she criticises our plans to get more young people through their English and Maths GCSE. But in order to do that, there has to be a stepping stone to making it happen and an endless cycle of unnecessary risks is not the way to support more young people, including those from disadvantaged backgrounds, to get English or maths GCSEs.

She and her party were happy to consign a generation of young people to failure, to endless resets and to that sense of desperation. We want to make sure they make progress, master the basics, then move on to getting that good, strong GCSE pass. Madam Deputy Speaker, this government will make sure that all of our young people have the opportunities and the chances that they need to get on. They might be determined to ensure that fewer young people have the chance to go onto university.

They might want to make sure that our businesses don't have the skills that they need. But this Labour government will make sure that apprenticeship starts. Are there, good at good, strong for options alongside our world leading

**** Possible New Speaker ****

universities. And that is what this white paper is all about. Hayes thank you, Madam.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Hayes thank you, Madam. Secretary of State, for her statement today. And I welcome the government's focus on further. Education and skills.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Which has been overlooked for far too long and which is critical to the delivery of the government's missions. My committee has recently
17:56
Helen Hayes Portrait Helen Hayes MP (Dulwich and West Norwood, Labour)
-
-
missions. My committee has recently undertaken an inquiry on Efsi and skills, and I am pleased to see a number of our recommendations reflected in the statement today, particularly in the commitment to address the vortex of failure in which the current system of English and maths resets traps far too many young people. I welcome the priority on increasing the quality of further education, but there are two key contributors to quality, which the Secretary of State has not mentioned today in her statement.

The first is the 15% pay gap between teachers in schools and teachers in Fe colleges, which is a barrier to recruitment and retention for colleges. And the second is the inability of colleges to reclaim VAT. A situation for which my committee found no justification and which City College, Norwich told us, had made the difference of a whole floor to a new building that they had recently completed. So can I ask the Secretary of State, how does she plan to ensure that the further education sector has not only the policy framework, but also the resources needed to improve quality? I am grateful to the Chair of the Select Committee, and we, of course, continue to keep all such matters continue to keep all such matters under review.

I can be clear with her that we believe that further education colleges are engines of education colleges are engines of growth and opportunity in our communities, and this white paper is about ensuring a prestigious world class system, where we will also reform initial training and further education, continue to invest in whole career professional whole career professional development for teachers, but will also build ties with industry to make sure that teachers have the make sure that teachers have the greatest opportunity to develop their teaching skills and subject expertise, to help young people to expertise, to help young people to achieve and thrive.

And alongside that, we will match the support with appropriate challenge so that we continue to raise the bar on continue to raise the bar on standards through the new Ofsted system. With the backstop of the FA Commissioner.
17:58
17:58
Ian Sollom Portrait Ian Sollom MP (St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire, Liberal Democrat)
-
-
statement. Now, there is far too much in this White Paper to respond comprehensively in two minutes. So comprehensively in two minutes. So let me throw on three critical issues. Firstly, levels the Secretary of State talks about Secretary of State talks about ending confusion, yet is introducing a new qualification that sounds a new qualification that sounds remarkably like BTECs. Flexible sector based can mix with A-levels. sector based can mix with A-levels. BTECs already work 200,000 students took them last year. 99% of took them last year.

99% of universities accept them. 1 in 5 UK workers has one. If we are recreating BTECs, why scrap them first? Keep both until 2030 so we first? Keep both until 2030 so we can compare outcomes. T levels reached 1% uptake after five years, so let's not repeat that mistake. Second, lifelong learning. The Secretary of State rightly speaks Secretary of State rightly speaks about the working mother needing to upskill. But will the support be sufficient to make that real? sufficient to make that real? Lifelong learning entitlement is welcome, but the government has also cut over 21 apprenticeships, cut over 21 apprenticeships, including in shortage professions like nursing and social work.

What confidence does the government have confidence does the government have that there? Lee can cover the cost of providing that vocational education, particularly in subjects with high operating costs. And third, the international student Levy, we support maintenance grants. It's another manifesto commitment that we made that the government has adopted. But funding them by taxing international students is self-defeating. This is incredibly tricky to model, but analysis does show that this levy could cut to 135,000 domestic student places over five years and reduce our economy by £2.2 billion.

That is not helping disadvantaged students. So will the Secretary of State make the modelling transparent and promise that opportunity will not be narrowed by this levy? There are many more questions. Madam Deputy Speaker, I appreciate I don't have time to ask them all, but I will say there is much to welcome in this White Papers ambition. But we must guard against unintended consequences and missed opportunities. And the Lib Dems stand ready to work with the government to get this right.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yeah. I'm grateful to the honourable gentleman for his questions. The
18:00
Bridget Phillipson Portrait Rt Hon Bridget Phillipson MP, The Secretary of State for Education (Houghton and Sunderland South, Labour)
-
-
gentleman for his questions. The levels will replace around 900 qualifications for 16 to 19 year olds at level three. The current system is fragmented, with a vast array of qualifications that are too difficult for employers and for young people to navigate. So we will introduce new levels. That is a new vocational option to sit alongside A-levels and T levels at level three. And that is about making sure that we have the right qualification mix available for young people. We will keep funding for most existing qualifications in place until new levels and other qualifications come in, but funding for all qualifications in in other T level areas under review will continue on the current timeline and we will confirm the list of qualifications which will have funding removed soon.

On the lifelong learning entitlement. This is an important change and it will transform the student finance system in England. It will broaden access to high quality, flexible education, including for adults who want to go back into education. It will launch in academic year 2627 for learners studying courses starting on or after the 1st of January 2027. This will allow learners to use this new entitlement more flexibly than ever before to fund individual modules, as well as full courses at levels 4 to 6, regardless of whether they are provided in a college, university or independent provider.

And on the questions that the honourable gentleman asks around international students and the international students. Levy, I can be clear, Madam Deputy Speaker, that international students make an important contribution to our country, to our communities, to our towns and cities, and to our society. But I do think it's right that through the contribution we are seeking through the International Students Levy, we will be able to reinvest back in new targeted maintenance grants for domestic students. And whilst I welcome his support for the introduction of such new grants, they will have to set them.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

Another 30 minutes or so off this, because we've got a big debate later on. Two colleagues must keep their questions short Sureena
18:02
18:03
18:03
18:03
18:04
18:05
18:05
18:06
18:06
18:07
18:07
18:07
18:08
18:09
18:09
18:09
18:10
18:11
18:11
18:11
18:12
18:13
18:13
18:14
18:14
18:15
18:15
18:16
18:16
18:17
18:17
18:18
18:19
18:19
18:20
18:21
18:21
18:22
18:22
18:23
18:23
18:24
18:25
18:25
18:26
18:27
18:27
18:28
18:28
18:29
18:29
18:30
18:30
18:31
18:32
18:32
18:33
18:34
18:34
18:34
18:35
18:36
Wendy Morton Portrait Rt Hon Wendy Morton MP (Aldridge-Brownhills, Conservative)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

move amendment one. Thank you, Madam Chairman, and it's a pleasure to see you in the it's a pleasure to see you in the Chair and to move the amendments which stand in my name and the names of other honourable and Right Honourable members as we open the committee of this whole House to debate Labour's Chagos surrender Bill. It's now been more than a year since the surrender of the Chagos Islands was announced, with the Prime Minister, the then Foreign Secretary, now Deputy Prime Minister and the Attorney General waving the white flag of surrender and putting the demands of their leftwing lawyer friends above the British national interest.

Some, then some since then. Labour denied this House a vote on the whole treaty under Craggs 21 de process, and have kept secret details from us while over in Mauritius their Prime Minister has been bragging about. He squeezed concession after concession after concession out of Labour. It's shameful that we have found out more about the treaty from debates in the Mauritius Parliament and statements from their politicians, than from ministers accountable to this House. And it's been five months since the Prime Minister of this country signed away £35 billion of British taxpayers money, stumbling through a press conference.

Rather than come to this House to face scrutiny and challenge at a time of serious fiscal challenge for the public

**** Possible New Speaker ****

finances, Labour has imposed a £35 billion surrender tax on our. Country.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Country. Money which could fund public services here in Britain. Our support and easing tax burden, support and easing tax burden, easing off the tax burden. Instead, this will be handed over to a foreign government who are using foreign government who are using this resource to support cutting taxes from their citizens. Not only is it shameful, but ministers have is it shameful, but ministers have tried to pull the wool over the eyes of the British people by using accountancy methodologies and valuations to try to show a far lower cost.

But still, even then, lower cost. But still, even then, it's an extraordinary figure of £3.4 billion. The Chancellor may struggle with numbers, but the British people with numbers, but the British people don't. They can add up and they see what the real cost of this is. And what the real cost of this is. And on top of this, ministers still cannot tell us from which budgets in the Fcdo and the Mod the money will

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the Fcdo and the Mod the money will come from the. Of course I will. Have to give it away. Isn't the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Have to give it away. Isn't the simple truth, actually, that this deal is cheaper than what was proposed by the party opposite in government and actually has more

**** Possible New Speaker ****

protections baked into it. Yes. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chairman. I think the honourable Chairman. I think the honourable gentleman needs a little memory check here because we didn't propose a deal. And now the British Chagossian some some of whom are here today watching from the gallery and who I pay tribute to for their dignified and strong campaigning over many, many years have been betrayed by Labour, their rights ignored and their fears leading to hundreds fleeing Mauritius and

**** Possible New Speaker ****

has. As presented, does nothing for them. It does nothing for the marine Protected Area, one of the most important and largest marine environments in this in.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

environments in this in. The world. This has been protected while under British sovereignty and has become a centre sovereignty and has become a centre for scientific Research and Development. This is at risk and promises and aspirations that were promises and aspirations that were announced by ministers to ensure it continues and not reflected in this continues and not reflected in this Bill. Shockingly, Labour's surrender Bill, as drafted, also does nothing Bill, as drafted, also does nothing to safeguard and defend and protect our national security.

Labour are our national security. Labour are surrendering British. Sovereignty and territory to a country that is

**** Possible New Speaker ****

increasingly aligned with China, of course. Thank you. Much and thank. The honourable lady for giving

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The honourable lady for giving way. She describes us as threatened, broken. She. Please tell me which flag will be flying over the Chagos Islands. If flying over the Chagos Islands. If this is a so-called British said it will be a British. It will be a British flag that's surrendering. Is

**** Possible New Speaker ****

that a point? She understands. Thank you. There will be one flag that's

**** Possible New Speaker ****

There will be one flag that's that's flying over. And that's the white flag. Of surrender.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Now. Of Mauritian public officials are being trained or should or should that be indoctrinated by China on courses the Chinese are paying for? Both the Chinese are paying for? Both Russia and China are signing partnerships with Mauritius. But Labour's surrender bill fails to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Labour's surrender bill fails to protect our interests. Of course. I say. I thank. You. Right honourable friend for

**** Possible New Speaker ****

giving way. Reports today suggest that China and India are now entering into negotiations to sign leases.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

negotiations to sign leases. To surrounding. Islands in which the. military. Operations will continue.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Operations will continue. Under this proposed lease agreement. Does she think that. That connection. To China. Would risk and pose a threat to.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Would risk and pose a threat to. National security? My honourable. Honourable friend is 100% right, and that is one of the reasons why and that is one of the reasons why we oppose this bill and have done from the very start, because promises given by ministers that promises given by ministers that nothing can happen in the Chagos Archipelago that threatens our interests, are already being interests, are already being undermined. Mauritius is already in discussions with India about a role they can play in security in the they can play in security in the archipelago, and yet the UK is not even in the room if these discussions are taking place without the UK.

With a friendly country, one can only wonder what discussions are taking place in secret with China and Russia. There has been a report that China is already negotiating with Mauritius for Perot's banos. Perhaps when he speaks, the minister can tell us what he knows about this, because if there are discussions taking place.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I want to say on that point, Madam Chair, that this is absolute nonsense. And is she willing to nonsense. And is she willing to provide any evidence that this is going to take place? This treaty protects the security of the outer islands and expressly prohibits islands and expressly prohibits foreign forces building bases on them, something that her government did not succeed in their

**** Possible New Speaker ****

negotiations. I'm grateful to the to the to the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'm grateful to the to the to the minister, but so can he actually give me the reassurances then that no discussions are taking place? Perhaps that's the question that he Perhaps that's the question that he can answer when he comes to respond to this debate later on. OK, so promises given by ministers that nothing can happen in the Chagos Archipelago that threatens our interests are already being undermined if these discussions are taking place without the UK with a friendly country, I can only wonder what discussions are taking place in what discussions are taking place in secret.

Because if there are discussions taking place, it would undermine the assurances that undermine the assurances that ministers have given to this House and be an act of bad faith on the part of Mauritius. The House knows part of Mauritius. The House knows that this government kowtow to the Chinese Chinese Communist Party, leaving them to threaten our leaving them to threaten our interests here. Now they are failing to take seriously the warnings about China and the threats it poses to Diego Garcia and our military assets and our interests in the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Indo-Pacific. Labour's, of course. The Honourable friend. She's

**** Possible New Speaker ****

already. Highlighted the Prime Minister misleading. And. Perhaps, I have to say. Inadvertently.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Inadvertently. Inadvertently misleading us as to the cost of this. When the government actuary department showed it is 35 billion. But more than

**** Possible New Speaker ****

that, suggesting. In his press conference. That. Actually are. China, Russia and others.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

China, Russia and others. Perhaps the honourable member might like to rethink his words. And what I'm saying about the Prime Minister.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Minister. I bow to you, Madam Chair, but having misrepresented, I think I'm allowed. Oh, not misrepresented allowed. Oh, not misrepresented having, having, having inadvertently confused £35. out.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

out. With 3.5 billion, which he claimed was going out. He then, equally inadvertently, Madam Chair clearly made out that China, Iran

**** Possible New Speaker ****

clearly made out that China, Iran and. Russia were in the column. I think. He. Used the word column, didn't he? The column of. Those actually.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Those actually. and. Every one of them, I think, was claiming, came out publicly and said claiming, came out publicly and said how much they welcomed it, can my friends share any knowledge with us?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Madam chairman, I think the honourable of the Right Honourable Gentleman makes some very interesting points there, and I

**** Possible New Speaker ****

interesting points there, and I think one could wonder what. Perhaps, perhaps be not surprised to ask the question is, is the government sleeping with the enemy here? But I will I would like to I here? But I will I would like to I would like to leave it for if I just finish this this point, Minister, because the key thing here we were because the key thing here we were asking for was reassurances from the minister. And I know that later on he will have more than ample

**** Possible New Speaker ****

he will have more than ample opportunity to respond to the points that I am making. The minister, the Shadow Minister, for giving way. But she's Minister, for giving way. But she's she and the other honourable member have raised China, they've raised Russia, they've raised Iran. Why Russia, they've raised Iran. Why does she think that the United States are closest to security ally back this deal? If there was any back this deal? If there was any possibility of any of the fantasy things that she's suggesting taking place, they can't take place.

The treaty prevents them. She clearly

**** Possible New Speaker ****

treaty prevents them. She clearly has already. They don't know. That's the key point.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

It can be very easy to back something when you don't have to pay for it. Anyway. Let's move. Moving for it. Anyway. Let's move. Moving on. Now they are failing to take seriously the warnings about China and the threats it posed to Diego and the threats it posed to Diego Garcia and our military assets and interests in the Indo-Pacific. Labour's surrender bill is bad for British taxpayers. It's bad for our national security, it's bad for the marine environment, and it's bad for the Chagossians.

And it's also grants ministers huge powers to make further decisions and avoid parliamentary scrutiny. So turning to amendment one, madam Chairman, this amendment would effectively block Labour's surrender tree to coming into force and the dissolution of the British Indian Ocean Territory. Unless and until ministers reveal the legal advice they have received over Britain's ability to extend and the exercise of sovereign rights over Diego Garcia. After the initial 99 year period, the government constantly claims it has secured the military base, but it has totally failed to do that.

All they have done is to pay Mauritius £35 billion to lease back a base that we currently own, but only for 99 years. We have no certainty whatsoever about the fate of the base after the 99 year period. After paying Mauritius 35 billion, they would then kindly give us the option to extend for another 40. But on what terms? If we extend, will Mauritius make it conditional on more extortionate payments? What

**** Possible New Speaker ****

if we're. Outbid. By a hostile power? In fact, what's to stop China putting in a what's to stop China putting in a bid if no agreement is reached before the specified. Deadline and the base is offered to another country, what will happen to all the fixed assets belonging to Britain? We've had no answers from the government on any of these vital points, so it's unacceptable. And points, so it's unacceptable. And the terms of the treaty and the bill as they stand are reckless.

So I'll as they stand are reckless. So I'll now come to amendment seven. This amendment is necessary because the government's legal juristic jurist justification, even for surrendering the Chagos Islands, constantly the Chagos Islands, constantly shifts because it has no legal basis, as my right hon. Friend the member for Kenilworth and Southam member for Kenilworth and Southam explained at Second Reading, the government's entire legal case is government's entire legal case is spurious. Many of us have been asking where the binding judgement we are constantly told is inevitable we are constantly told is inevitable would actually come from.

No credible answers have been forthcoming. We know it can't be the forthcoming. We know it can't be the International Court of Justice, and we know that a case at the International Tribunal of the law of International Tribunal of the law of the sea would see the UK able to put forward a decent legal argument, then the government completely contradicted its own argument about electromagnetic spectrum. So they're planning to dissolve a strategically invaluable British overseas territory, and they can't even tell us on what legal basis it looks like.

This is part of a wider, sinister picture. The government's relationship with China. We know the government is desperate for Chinese investment to help grow our economy that they are trashing with their reckless economic policies. The Deputy Prime Minister of Mauritius credited China for their support in enabling Mauritius to gain sovereignty over the Chagos Islands. Why? Because China wants to deepen its strategic partnership with Mauritius, which they believe to have strategic advantages. Once again, the Prime Minister does not have the backbone to stand up for our strategic interests against China.

This amendment would flush out the truth once and for all. Now turning to amendments three, six and five. These amendments taken together, delete a huge and unacceptable Henry VII power that the government is brazenly trying to award itself and give this House the oversight it is entitled to on the implementation of the treaty. This is wholly unacceptable. In fact, it's actually quite outrageous for the government to give itself such sweeping powers that it could, in order of council and, I quote, make any provision that appears to His Majesty to be appropriate as a result of the treaty.

This is a totally open ended power, and the military base itself is in scope. So are the rights of Chagossians. The House should not be deprived of a voice on these matters of huge concern. Our amendments would ensure that this House has a voice and a vote that is totally right and proper. Now, if I turn to our new clauses, Madam Chairman, the government could have inserted a money authorisation clause into this bill. It chose not to. And actually, no wonder, because the government wants to spare its own disgruntled MPs the ugly spectacle of having to vote in favour of spending tens of billions of their constituents money to Mauritius as Britain's economy sinks under the weight of the Chancellor's inflation, her unemployment, debt and taxes.

Labour is asking the hard pressed British taxpayer, already struggling under the weight of the Chancellor's punitive tax, rises to stump up £35 billion to lease back a territory we already own and which we are not legally obliged to give away as it leaves pensioners vulnerable and cold, destroys family farms and crushes businesses. The minister is content to send our constituents hard earned money to Mauritius with no strings attached, allowing the government there to cut taxes. These tax cuts, over 6000 miles away and tax rises at home and Labour is inflicting this surrender tax on the British people because of its abject failure to negotiate.

We all know that when Labour negotiates, Britain loses. But this is a new low. At seemingly every twist and turn, this government has rolled over and capitulated to the demands of the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

government of Mauritius. Of course. Thank you. Can I thank the honourable lady for giving way? She mentioned that there was. She mentioned that there was. She doesn't believe there's a legal basis for this. Can I ask her what the legal basis was for the previous the legal basis was for the previous government? When they conducted 11 rounds of negotiation and achieved absolutely nothing?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Right. I'm not sure where the honourable gentleman has been for the past year gentleman has been for the past year or the past several months, but we have gone over this time and time again in this chamber. There was no again in this chamber. There was no legal basis. We may have started. We may, we stopped, we stopped. We if may, we stopped, we stopped. We if we are, maybe I'll repeat this very slowly. For his benefit, we stopped slowly.

For his benefit, we stopped the negotiation.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the negotiation. So, no. This. Would be good. And I thank the Shadow Minister for giving way. But I must, Madam for giving way. But I must, Madam Chair, correct the record here, because this has been a repeated argument both in the Shadow Minister and others claiming that they and others claiming that they stopped the negotiations. They didn't. In fact, they carried them on. There was a government UK on. There was a government UK statement on February 24th, reflecting the former Prime Minister, the honourable member for Richmond and Northallerton, continuing of those negotiations.

And indeed they carried on into May, just before the election. It's there

**** Possible New Speaker ****

in writing on the government previous government's own website. So we. Saw them.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Saw them. Madam chairman, we've made it very clear time and repeatedly at this despatch box, Lord Cameron, this despatch box, Lord Cameron, then Foreign Secretary, stopped the negotiations. Now this I'm going to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

negotiations. Now this I'm going to make some more progress. This House. Of I will actually. Oh, no.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Of I will actually. Oh, no. I'm most grateful. My right honourable friend is doing a very good job forensically

**** Possible New Speaker ****

demolishing the government's case. On this. Such as it is. But but. But.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Can I can I just. Correct what the Minister has said from the despatch box? There's a very great difference between carrying on and difference between carrying on and discussing team negotiations and doing a deal. And as I was in as I doing a deal. And as I was in as I was the deputy Foreign Secretary under both the for member Braintree and my Noble friend, Lord Cameron, I and my Noble friend, Lord Cameron, I can tell the House that the then government would never, ever have done this deal.

Secondly, can I just

**** Possible New Speaker ****

done this deal. Secondly, can I just say, can I just say. To my. Right honourable friend, I do hope she's going to probe the minister further on where this minister further on where this extraordinary amount of money is coming from. Is it the defence budget or is it the development budget? Since the Labour Party, a budget? Since the Labour Party, a Labour government, has slashed order?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

It's very long intervention. Perhaps the Shadow Minister should take over Wendy Morton. Thank you, take over Wendy Morton. Thank you, Madam Chairman. My, my gallant and right. Honourable friend and constituency neighbour make some very, very important. Points and I very, very important. Points and I think he adds a certain weight and clarity to these discussions to day. clarity to these discussions to day. And I would urge members, certainly the newer members on the opposite the newer members on the opposite benches, to listen to.

His wise counsel. Now. This House of Commons counsel. Now. This House of Commons should be given a vote on these payments. And that is the purpose of payments. And that is the purpose of this amendment in scope will also be the Chagossian Trust Fund, which is the Chagossian Trust Fund, which is inexplicably Britain, British taxpayers capitalised, and then Mauritius distributes. We pay and Mauritius distributes. We pay and Mauritius has total control over how it's spent. We will have no say over it's spent.

We will have no say over its governance and British Chagossians have no guarantees that they will benefit from it. How can that be. Right the least? This House and British Chagossians deserve is a vote on sending the money. What possible explanation could the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

government provide against this? Of course, so.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Of course, so. The former government set up a trust fund for. £40 million for. The Chagos Islands.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The Chagos Islands. After four years, only. £12,000 of it. Had been spent. That's the way. They. Treated Chagossians.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Treated Chagossians. Under the last government. Autumn. Thank you. But the point here is, though, that where is this here is, though, that where is this money coming from? And this House? Madam chairman, has not had a vote. Where is the transparency? Where is Where is the transparency? Where is the democracy here? So turning now to new clause two, an amendment to, as we've already discussed, the as we've already discussed, the duration of this agreement is a matter of serious national security concern.

There are too many concern. There are too many unanswered questions about what could happen to the base. We need to understand the basis on which the understand the basis on which the government has settled this, especially as the then Foreign especially as the then Foreign Secretary told this House on the 7th of October, 2024, that the government would have a right to government would have a right to extend the lease, which we do not. And the Mauritian government claims the UK gave up a unilateral right of extension at their request.

If this is true, it would be a scandal. And

**** Possible New Speaker ****

is true, it would be a scandal. And no wonder we never get straight answers from. The ministers. But then it was also a scandal for Labour signing the agreement with the previous Mauritian government just before that country went into an election, only for there to be a change of government, which then wanted to change the deal and extract more money. Extending the agreement is essential because we simply cannot lose the base. The House deserves to see the advice the government is relying on when it asks us to sign this £35 billion blank check.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yes of course. Does she agree with me that the way the bill is written at this point in time.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

point in time. Means if there is no agreement at that point? Actually, while we can be first offer, if Mauritius decide not to do that, they.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

not to do that, they. Could simply. Close and. Fold the base, leaving. It. Completely void in itself. There

**** Possible New Speaker ****

is no protection against ensuring agree? Wendy Morton my honourable friend

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Wendy Morton my honourable friend is 100% right and this goes to the heart of this bill. There are so many unanswered questions that we many unanswered questions that we have been raising from on these benches time and time again. For benches time and time again. For example, how likely are we to be able to extend the base? What will the structure of the negotiations the structure of the negotiations be? What conditions could Mauritius impose given it will have our impose given it will have our negotiators over a proverbial barrel? And how watertight is the first right of refusal? I'm just first right of refusal? I'm just going to make a little more progress.

And what happens if the bill, if the base is not secured, bill, if the base is not secured, will it need to be decommissioned? How could we prevent an adversary inheriting our fixed assets? And inheriting our fixed assets? And what is the role of the United States in all of this? These are States in all of this? These are serious matters, and the House needs serious answers. The intention of

**** Possible New Speaker ****

answers. Yes. Lord Caroline Johnson, thank you. I thank you for giving. I thank the I thank you for giving. I thank the honourable lady for giving way in this House is often talk about millions of pounds for this and billions of pounds for that. And billions of pounds for that. And it's difficult sometimes to get in, in your mind the scale of this money. But last year The Chancellor money. But last year The Chancellor said she was going to raise National Insurance below the threshold.

We know how much damage is done to the country in doing so. And yet that country in doing so. And yet that was said at that time, it would raise £25.7 billion. That wouldn't even pay for this deal. Again, the amount of money that they're going to give away today, Wendy Morton and my Right Honourable, my honourable friend makes a really valid point there. By putting this into context. To me, there's only one thing that will result from this. If the will result from this.

If the government consists on pushing, insist on pushing it through. And that is tax rises. And I reiterate

**** Possible New Speaker ****

that is tax rises. And I reiterate the point I made earlier, which is we still don't know which budget. The. Money is coming. Out from.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Out from. Is it Fcdo or is it a Mod? Who is going to pay for it? So now moving on to new clause three. This on to new clause three. This amendment will give Parliament a vote over the agreement on the Chagos Marine Protected Area. The Chagos Marine Protected Area. The Chagos MPA is one of the jewels in the crown of the Blue Belt, a magnificent achievement of the last Conservative government and a globally significant contribution to marine protection. It should not be altered without consent.

At present. We apply. We apply among the strictest criteria to the Chagos MPA, and it's been very well preserved. Unlike much of the Indian Ocean, which has suffered terribly

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'll. Make. A little bit more progress. But

**** Possible New Speaker ****

A little bit more progress. But Chair, we are not talking about a small area. The British Indian Ocean small area. The British Indian Ocean Territory spans 640,000km² of ocean. The government's treaty with Mauritius compels the UK to help Mauritius compels the UK to help Mauritius establish and manage a new MPA. But we are being asked to fly MPA. But we are being asked to fly blind with this bill because no agreement has been reached on what the MPA managed by Mauritius will look like.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

look like. Thank the Shadow Minister for giving way. The Marine Protection giving way. The Marine Protection Zone was agreed by all parties. It is a sustainable protection zone. There's never been any debate or There's never been any debate or dispute about it. Mauritius has fully supported all along, guaranteed its continuation. I don't guaranteed its continuation. I don't understand why the minister is raising these. Or does she believe that Mauritius will not look after that Mauritius will not look after it properly? Because it seems to me that there's a sort of attitude here that is disrespectful of Mauritius that is disrespectful of Mauritius and its determination to preserve the pristine nature of the ocean around the islands.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

around the islands. Wendy Morton thank you, Madam Chairman. I have to disagree and many of those areas with the Right many of those areas with the Right Honourable gentleman and I do I and time and again we have been again raising questions about this, and we have simply not been receiving the answers from ministers.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Briefly. And they are now. Giving way because isn't the point is, we have had this disputed because actually one of the reasons we know that uncle US can't pass judgement on sovereignty is because judgement on sovereignty is because the ruling that was made between Mauritius and the UK when it came to Mauritius and the UK when it came to the marine protection back in 2015, this was under annexe seven, which this was under annexe seven, which was tried and tested and actually Britain was found wanting on that because we hadn't talked properly through with the Mauritius about

**** Possible New Speaker ****

through with the Mauritius about what should happen. But actually what the Russians wanted to do was opening it for wanted to do was opening it for fishing. So how can we assure. The protection for this area? That's why

**** Possible New Speaker ****

we need this amendment in this bill. My honourable friend is absolutely right here. This is exactly why we have continued and exactly why we have continued and will continue to probe the government on this particular area about the MPA, because we have not about the MPA, because we have not had answers to questions. We've not had the transparency that I think had the transparency that I think this House deserves. Now, it's very possible, in fact, very likely, that Labour has committed Britain to help Mauritius dismantle an MPA that we ourselves established because there are no assurances that we will not are no assurances that we will not be not be committing British resources to actively harm our own interests and undo our work.

Mauritius does not have the capability to manage, monitor or enforce an MPA. It does not have the infrastructure at sea or any such experience, and it would lead to stocks in those waters exposed to real risk of pillaging, including by Chinese vessels. And nor will it, nor will it likely have the will, as we know, the economic potential of the waters is of interest to Mauritius now, despite the government's ludicrous and insulting claim that those who oppose this deal side with Russia and its friends, Mauritius has been developing closer ties with Russia on marine matters, announcing as recently as May 2025 that the two countries are strengthening their ties on marine innovation, including marine research.

And while Mauritius close relationship Mauritius is close relationship with China, a strategic partnership no less opens up the possibility of Chinese fishing trawlers in the waters. So it's absolutely right, Madam Chairman, that this House gets a say over the fate of the MPA and the CRAG equivalent process set out in our amendment would provide for an appropriate level of scrutiny. Now, turning to new clause four, because this amendment would require regular reporting on the ecological status of the Chagos MPA, and it's necessary for the same reason as new clause three, because the government has bound us into supporting Mauritius to manage the MPA.

So there must be more security, security of what the government is doing and the ecological consequences. There are widespread. There are widespread concerns across the House on the future of the MPA, and so far ministers have failed to give any answers or any assurances. Ministers, when asked if said they don't know about the future and cannot tell us what resources and costs will be incurred to meet these obligations. So, given the role in managing the MPA, the UK should be able to access the data required for this report and this amendment reaffirms our commitment to the MPA.

Now, turning to new clause five. We recognise the sensitive nature of the military arrangements in Diego Garcia, but oversight of this agreement is nonetheless essential and our amendment allows for appropriate parliamentary scrutiny while respecting the need to protect critical information. This amendment covers the key areas of security consideration, and it will act as a catalyst for the government to maintain its own monitoring of each. This is critical, as we do believe there are holes in the provisions. For example, there must be agreement on upgrading infrastructure, the buffer zone like sensors.

But what if there is no agreement? Likewise, the treaty stipulates that Mauritius and Britain must jointly decide on the management and use of electromagnetic spectrum. Of course, importance in the amendments. Of particular importance in the amendments of points D and E, so on. D we need to ensure that only vessels that should be in the area are actually in the area, and that Russia, not potentially even Chinese vessels, are deterred from entering. And I have already mentioned the closer ties and partnerships between Mauritius and those countries about which we all should be concerned.

And then with reference to E within the amendments, the treaty states that the United Kingdom agrees to expeditiously inform Mauritius of any armed attack on the third state directly emanating from the base on Diego Garcia. So, given the huge range of security threats in the Indo-Pacific and Middle East, it's far from impossible that in future this mechanism may need to be used. Used. It's important that the notifications are presented to the ISC because, again, it will force the government to log and monitor this, including any operational impacts it may have.

We know there are there are genuine concerns that third countries, potentially even China, may try to establish themselves in the archipelago and the arrangements in the treaty have to be monitored to make sure they are sufficiently robust to stop this happening. Now. A new clause six. This amendment probes the government's argument that a legally binding ruling under on cloth would impact our ability to operate electromagnetic spectrum and impede on air and sea access, as well as to patrol the area around the base.

We take we take issue with this assertion, not least because there is an argument that there are provisions under article 298 of on clause allowing for exemptions relevant to disputes concerning military activities. The government has not addressed this issue. When we have probed, including its Second Reading, so we have no choice but to table an amendment to test the government's assertion. And finally, new clause seven. Madam Chair, the British Chagossian community has been treated appallingly by this Labour government twice. This deal has ended up in the courts because of the way Labour has rode roughshod over their concerns.

This bill sells them short to the resettlement programme for the Chagos Islands. Under this treaty is entirely in the hands of Mauritius, which I should add, is a country to which Chagossians very little affinity indeed. We've seen many Chagossians arriving in the UK in recent weeks from Mauritius, and I hope the Minister will be able to respond to that from the despatch box, because clearly it's very concerning that they have been moved to take this action. Madam Chair, this bill also this bill also stops British Overseas Territories citizenship being watered on the basis of descent from a person born on the Chagos Archipelago.

We cannot amend the treaty through this bill. Sadly, it just isn't within the parliamentary rules. However, this amendment would require the government to consult the Chagossian community on the implementation of the treaty, including on the establishment of the trust fund, which we capitalised and Mauritius distributes, and also on areas of dispute arising between the UK and Mauritian governments prior to their being. They're being discussed at the joint committee created by the treaty. It also requires the Foreign Secretary to present to Parliament a report to Parliament on how Chagossian rights are being upheld under this agreement, within six months of this act becoming law.

And then every year we have a national obligation and responsibility to the Chagossian community. And conservatives will always stand up for their rights. So to conclude, these amendments and new clauses taken together will hold the government to account. Let us be clear on this side of the House. We oppose this surrender bill. Its colossal costs and the adverse impact on our defence and security. But accepting these amendments will

**** Possible New Speaker ****

transparency. The question is that amendment

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is that amendment one be made Calvin Bailey. Thank you, Madam Chairman. At this point, I've. Set out.
19:09
Calvin Bailey Portrait Mr Calvin Bailey MP (Leyton and Wanstead, Labour)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

Set out. The security and geopolitical in. This place.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

This place. And I would therefore. Have. Appreciated an opportunity. To engage with. Detailed scrutiny. Of the treaty.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

And the. Defence arrangements it. Enables today. Sadly. However.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

However. It is not the line that the. Opposition are going down. Instead. We are. Faced. With a series.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

With a series. Of wrecking amendments that. Do not intent attempt to. Improve the.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the. Bill in any way. Instead. They are designed to force the.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Government to let our allies down, undermining our. International credibility and our reputation.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

credibility and our reputation. And creating greater geopolitical

**** Possible New Speaker ****

And creating greater geopolitical risks. Legal and security risks to our base. On Diego Garcia. If the opposition. Were.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Were. To win today's votes, that. Would make it impossible for us. To meet. Our.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Our. Commitments in a timely way by. Mauritius. That the ministers have

**** Possible New Speaker ****

completed. An agreement which, as we all. Know, the Conservative. Government started.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Government started. And carried forward through 11 rounds of. Negotiations. But which. Now they.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Now they. Want to throw back. No matter the damage. That it would. Do.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Do. To our nations. And at no point, at no point have. They made. Clear what the.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

They made. Clear what the. Legal basis was for starting the 11 rounds of negotiations in the first instance.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

first instance. On amendment nine? I fully. Understand and sympathise the motivation. As we know, the creation motivation. As we know, the creation of the Chagos Islands as a separate territory created a deep injustice territory created a deep injustice because it was bound up in the disposition of the Chagossians. But disposition of the Chagossians. But that historical injustice cannot be simply undone. We cannot turn back simply undone. We cannot turn back the clock on this, however much we might want to, and the question of a right to return is not remotely simple, because access to Diego Garcia is inevitably a serious Garcia is inevitably a serious question of security.

People obviously cannot return to exactly where their families lived because where their families lived because of the highly sensitive military facility which now stands in their place.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Perhaps a limited right of access of return could be negotiated, but this would that would engage involving.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Both. The UK, the US as well as Mauritius, as was acknowledged by Mauritius, as was acknowledged by the previous speaker. The amendment that imagines that if as a result of these negotiations, if these negotiations were rejected by even the narrowest of margins, the entire treaty would fall apart. It would then need to be renegotiated afresh, significantly increasing geopolitical risk to the base and geopolitical risk to the base and our allies and our interests. And perhaps our ministers could invite some assistance from those that some assistance from those that conducted the first 11 rounds of negotiation the first time.

So let's negotiation the first time. So let's get real. There are reasons why international treaties are negotiated by the government and negotiated by the government and subjected to democratic scrutiny through this House and the procedures that we are going through now, what the Liberal Democrats are now, what the Liberal Democrats are proposing amounts to making a UK foreign and defence policy dependent on a referendum, including vital defence interests that are shared with the US and other allies. That referendum would apparently comprise non UK citizens just as much as it would British Chagossians.

Frankly, I would have thought that they, more than anyone, would have learned from the disastrous experience of Brexit that making foreign policy piracy by the Brexit referendum is not the wisest course of action. There is already a barrage, there is already a barrage of misinformation and I am not going to advise any more of it to flow across the floor about this deal and a multiplicity and a multiplicity of bad actors. And bad actors internationally who would benefit from its collapse.

Just imagine how much more would come if we took the course. The opposition

**** Possible New Speaker ****

are urging us on. Madam Chair, I will give. You a.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

You a. I thank you for giving way. You just. Said, if I remember. Correctly, the foreign policy

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Correctly, the foreign policy shouldn't be made by referendum. So does he disagree then with article

**** Possible New Speaker ****

does he disagree then with article two of the UN charter? The right to self-determination is a core principle of international relations. Therefore, we should have a referendum. For.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

For. Chagos a good question. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Speaker. That is

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you, Madam Speaker. That is a I thank him for his intervention and for the offering. We this has passed through the House already, and at the moment we are discussing and at the moment we are discussing the amendments in which are a which have been made, and you will have the opportunity to discuss and put the opportunity to discuss and put forward the ones that you have. However, however, abdicating this chamber's decision.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

chamber's decision. So there is far too much noise

**** Possible New Speaker ****

So there is far too much noise and many private conversations that make it very difficult to hear. The honourable gentleman Calvin Bailey. Thank you, Madam Chair.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you, Madam Chair. Abdicating this House is. Responsibilities to a referendum is not something on which we will is not something on which we will agree. This treaty is a vital step to secure UK interests. It puts the Diego Garcia base on a secure footing for at least. 100 years. I

**** Possible New Speaker ****

understand that colleagues in the opposition have a range of objections to this. Treaty.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Not all of which are jaw droppingly hypocritical. However.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

However. I will keep you on. The same warning as I gave the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

member opposite. He needs to be very Bailey. Thank you, Madam Chairman.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you, Madam Chairman. Not all of which. Are jaw droppingly. Confused. But some.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

But some. Colleagues will will therefore vote against the bill tonight. But that is no reason to support the amendment that would undermine the government's ability to navigate the difficult and chaotic world we live

**** Possible New Speaker ****

difficult and chaotic world we live in today, and keep. Our. Country safe.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

As opposed to. Doctor Al Pinkerton. Thank you.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair. Today I. Speak in. Support of seven amendments

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Support of seven amendments tabled in my name for too long. Madam Chair, decisions about the Chagos Islands have been made without the consent.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

without the consent. Of Chagossians. My grave. Concern is that the treaty to be given effect.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

given effect. By this bill fails to rectify that Historic and ongoing injustice.
19:17
Al Pinkerton Portrait Dr Al Pinkerton MP (Surrey Heath, Liberal Democrat)
-
-
Not only does it fail to provide adequate protection.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Right. To return or a. Binding programme of resettlement of the islands. For Chagossians. Speaking to amendment nine, tabled in my name, we recognise and support in my name, we recognise and support the importance of abiding by international law and believe that the UK was indeed right. Open a

**** Possible New Speaker ****

process of negotiation with. Mauritius. a. Judgement against the.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Judgement against the. UK and any court could threaten our sovereignty over, and security interests in Diego Garcia and the interests in Diego Garcia and the wider Chagos Archipelago. But the treaty that has emerged not only falls short of in addressing past injustices, it introduces new injustices of its own at the very injustices of its own at the very core of the United Nations Charter, a document this country helped to shape lies the right of all peoples to self-determination.

Article 1.2 could not be clearer. One of the could not be clearer. One of the purposes of the United Nations is to develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples. Yet self-determination of peoples. Yet for the Chagossian people, that right has been denied. For more than half a century. They were exiled half a century. They were exiled from their homeland in the Chagos Archipelago, scattered across the globe and left without the means or permission to return.

It was, and remains a moral stain on our modern history, and will give way to that.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

What we require. Now you agree with the statement he just made about the lack of morality in the way in which the Chagossian people were treated, and he's absolutely correct on that. But what he accepts that there was what he accepts that there was something fundamentally wrong in 1965, in separating Diego Garcia and the archipelago from Mauritius, when the whole area had always been the whole area had always been administered from Mauritius as part of Mauritius and under decolonisation, and under an under decolonisation, and under an under decolonisation statutes, they should have been included in the independence of Mauritius at that

**** Possible New Speaker ****

time. Grateful to the honourable gentleman for his intervention, and I am aware that he has a long history in in advocating for this particular cause. But I am always particular cause. But I am always and relentlessly surprised by the position that he takes on this point that he would seek to effectively re that he would seek to effectively re inscribe a colonial construction that that was British Mauritius, and that that was British Mauritius, and in doing so, ignore the right of in doing so, ignore the right of Chagossians as as a people to have a right to self determine their own future.

I do not see the colonial convenience of administration as anything like overwriting a people's right to determine their own future. And on that point in 2019, the International Court of Justice did issue an advisory opinion which concluded that the decolonisation of Mauritius had not been legally completed and that the United Kingdom should end its administration of the Chagos Islands as rapidly as possible. The General Assembly subsequently endorsed that same view. But I say to this House the ICJ opinion, however well intentioned, poses a profound problem.

It proposes to hand sovereignty not to the Chagossians themselves, but to Mauritius, without consulting those who are born of the islands or who were descended from them. That is not self-determination. It's the transfer of sovereignty over a people without their consent. The right to self-determination belongs to peoples, not to governments. It is not and should not be a device for tidying up the diplomatic ledger of empire, but a recognition that every community has the right to shape its own future.

To remove the Chagossians once was wrong, a horrific wrong to barter away their sovereignty now without their voice. Complaints that wrong. If we truly honour the UN charter and the principles this country has long championed, then the Chagossians themselves must be placed at the centre of any future settlement. They must have a say over their citizenship, over the governance of their islands and over the prospect of return. The commitment to a referendum, which sits at the heart of amendment nine, seeks to address this long and burning injustice by providing Chagossians with the opportunity to exercise their right to self-determination, their own

**** Possible New Speaker ****

future. And I will give with. I thank my friend for giving away and giving away, and I entirely and giving away, and I entirely agree with him that the importance of having a right of a referendum, and I've had Chagossian constituents contact me about their outrage about contact me about their outrage about this compounding of the injustice of this new treaty. But how does my honourable friend consider how honourable friend consider how realistic it is to find people eligible to vote in the in a

**** Possible New Speaker ****

potential referendum, given the length of time that has passed since they moved from Diego Garcia? I'm grateful to the honourable

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'm grateful to the honourable gentleman for his question, and he is absolutely right to say that this would be a referendum. We are able to be secured. It would be an to be secured. It would be an unusual referendum because of the nature of the displacement of Chagossians themselves. But there Chagossians themselves. But there have been previous international consultations and I think with the collective will and intelligence of collective will and intelligence of a House like this, that I think the terms of a referendum could undoubtedly be negotiated.

After all, Chagossians are not backwards in coming forwards and making in coming forwards and making themselves known to all of us. For Chagossians, this is not a geopolitical abstraction, but a geopolitical abstraction, but a deeply human matter, one of belonging or fairness and of belonging or fairness and of justice, requiring a report to be made to this House would ensure their voices are not lost. Amid the technical language of treaties and transfers. Amendment nine enables transparency, accountability and, above all, genuine recognition of the rights of Chagossians to self-determination.

And I would

**** Possible New Speaker ****

encourage members and Right honourable members across this House to think very carefully when they're voting tonight.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

If you knew, clause nine speaks to another vital principle. Our to another vital principle. Our shared, our shared moral duty to protect the natural world. The Chagos Archipelago is among the most Chagos Archipelago is among the most biodiverse marine environments on Earth. It's coral reefs, migratory species and rich ecosystems are a species and rich ecosystems are a global ecological treasure, a testament to what nature can be when left largely untouched by human exploitation. In recent months, I've spoken with scientific advisers deeply concerned by the bill's lack deeply concerned by the bill's lack of provisions for establishing and governing marine protected areas, the environmental, the Environment the environmental, the Environment and Sustainability Institute stresses that very large marine areas are vital for global areas are vital for global conservation goals.

With its research showing the archipelago's exceptional role in protecting diverse mobile species across the Indian Ocean. New clause nine would require the government to publish an annual report produced with the Mauritian government setting out the progress made in establishing and progress made in establishing and managing marine protected areas and the meetings held between the two governments on this issue. Such governments on this issue. Such reporting is essential. It is critical to ensure that environmental protection does not fade into the sotto voce diplomatic arrangements.

It must remain visible and audible and measurable commitment to international conservation standards. If the government is to honour its biodiversity beyond national jurisdiction, pledge future governments must ensure stronger marine conservation, sustainable stewardship and shared responsibility. And I believe that new clause nine achieves that. New clauses ten and 11 build on the principle of accountability by ensuring regular oversight of how this act and its associated treaty arrangements are implemented. We believe that the Secretary of State should, within 12 months, lay before both houses.

A report detailing the expenditure of public funds made under the treaty during the most recent financial year, and the progress made by the UK in obligations.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

One will frank give way? I will give it. Thank you. Thank you, Madam

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you. Thank you, Madam Speaker. Madam Chair, at a time when the cost of living is so high, does the Honourable friend agree with me the Honourable friend agree with me that the cost of maintaining and operating a Diego Garcia military base and military operations must be base and military operations must be evaluated by the House against expenditure of public funds made under the treaty each financial year.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

year. Al Pinkerton I. Am grateful to the honourable gentleman for his question, and I think the maximum possible financial think the maximum possible financial transparency around this treaty arrangement is essential, not least for securing and establishing public for securing and establishing public trust. And I fear that that with those high levels of accountability, accountability, that public trust accountability, that public trust would rapidly dissipate. Furthermore, once every financial year, the Secretary of State should year, the Secretary of State should present to this House an estimate of the expenditure expected to be incurred in connection with the treaty, including payments or treaty, including payments or financial commitments to the Government of Mauritius and the cost of maintaining and operating Diego Garcia if actual payments exceed those estimates, a supplementary estimate must then be laid before this House for approval and this House for approval and parliamentary scrutiny.

And to my colleagues on my right hand side, are reassurance that we will support are reassurance that we will support any amendment to this bill that increases the financial transparency of this treaty. But, Madam Chair, our moral duty extends beyond matters of territory and finance. New clause 12 would require a comprehensive review of the welfare, integration and general need of Chagossians living in the UK. Many Chagossians here face significant challenges housing insecurity, barriers to employment and limited access to public services.

The review would assess what NI, what support is needed and ensure a full debate in this House and the other place on its findings. This is how we show genuine care for those displaced by the actions of our predecessors in this chamber and in Whitehall. Finally, new clause 13 would require the government within six months to consult with Chagossians residing in the UK and the organisations that represent them, on how this act and the treaty

**** Possible New Speaker ****

affect their community socially, give. Way to them. Extremely grateful to the honourable gentleman. He's giving a powerful. Speech on the issue Chagossians and of the marine protected areas.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

protected areas. transparency. But what. I haven't heard from the honourable gentleman on behalf of honourable gentleman on behalf of his party, the Liberal Democrats, is any kind of sense of outrage at the £35 billion, not just the transparency. Around it, but the transparency. Around it, but the very fact that we're paying it out for sovereign British territory and on which we have the most important

**** Possible New Speaker ****

on which we have the most important base, arguable in the whole Indian Ocean. Al Pinkerton.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Al Pinkerton. Thank you. I am grateful to Right honourable gentleman for his question. It is precisely in order to cast the strongest possible spotlight on the financial transaction involved that we are asking for financial accountability to, to be to be magnified. And on his point, on his geopolitical his point, on his geopolitical point, nobody can question the very significant geopolitical importance of this base. It is vital to our national security, is vital to global security, and it is essential that it is maintained in British that it is maintained in British hands.

But that must be achieved with the consent of Chagossians themselves. The resulting report, to themselves. The resulting report, to be laid before Parliament within 12 months, would allow us to evaluate whether the government's legislative intent has translated into justice and inclusion in the lives of those who are most directly affected. Madam Chair, these amendments address critical shortcomings with this bill. The embed accountability, environmental protection and a commitment to the right to self-determination within its framework for implementation. I urge ministers to ensure that in any future discussions with Mauritius, that the Chagossians are not treated as a diplomatic as diplomatic collateral.

They are not a footnote to be managed between states. They are a people deserving of justice and agency and dignity. So, Madam Chair, the Chagossians have waited more than 50 years to go home. The least we can do now is to let them decide freely and finally, what home means for themselves, and to ensure that they have the tools they need to exercise their rights. The amendments tabled in my name speak seek to afford those protections and

**** Possible New Speaker ****

respected. Thank you.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Here Stuart Anderson. Thank you, Madam Chair. I'm delighted to speak so high up on the delighted to speak so high up on the Order Paper. So thank you. But I want to speak to the amendments in want to speak to the amendments in the name of the official opposition and looking specifically at the Intelligence and Security Committee, Intelligence and Security Committee, the reports going to them, especially around security of the buffer zones, foreign security buffer zones, foreign security forces and military operations and personnel movements.

So I first want

**** Possible New Speaker ****

personnel movements. So I first want to set out that I believe that the ceding of Diego Garcia is. A.
19:29
Stuart Anderson Portrait Stuart Anderson MP (South Shropshire, Conservative)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

A. Monumental strategic error that will diminish the UK standing on the world stage, and I will quite gladly set out why I believe that that is the case. So if anybody thought that they could predict what will happen in the next five years, they've learned nothing from the last five years, then you start standing that for ten years. Plus in the geopolitical situation globally at

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the moment, that is so hard to look at, and everybody is. Playing. By a set of rules and working to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

By a set of rules and working to a set or a. System that has been in the past, and that's currently

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the past, and that's currently changing at the moment. No strategic leadership is. The ability.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The ability. To shape the environment that you are in. And so let's take two strategic leaders, regardless of strategic leaders, regardless of what your viewpoint is them at the moment. But if you look at President Trump and XI Jinping, they are both Trump and XI Jinping, they are both at the moment wanting the world to change from where it is, and they are wanting the shape of what it are wanting the shape of what it looks like to adjust. So the world is currently seeing a disruption to is currently seeing a disruption to the world order as we know it.

The international rules based order is being challenged, and we are setting being challenged, and we are setting out a deal on a treaty that is based on an older system that we believe will be honoured for the next 99 will be honoured for the next 99 years, which I do not believe it will be. So if we look at China, Russia, Iran and North Korea all at

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the moment have. A massive interest in and around. The Indo-Pacific. We're looking at Russia when

**** Possible New Speaker ****

We're looking at Russia when we're saying about Russia looking at Ukraine, only 25% of Russia. Is in in that space, 75% of Russia is in the Indo-Pacific. Russia are now providing training services to the Chinese military in airborne operations. North Korea is on the battlefield in Ukraine at the moment. So we are seeing shrink, as it would be known, all of them coming together, not applying by the international rules based order and not working as we would expect them to do.

So. The Indo-Pacific recently was there with Pacific Command, and we have seen that it's 100,000,000mi². The size of it is vast. There is 76,000 US Marines in the Indo-Pacific alone. That is phenomenal. That's bigger than our our army. And half of the world's population sits in this space. When you go to Pacific Command, you see the Diego Garcia clock, the time zone all the way over to the US and all the multiple time zones in between. And if you think that actually we believe China will honour deals as we expect, look at the rare earth metals and the critical minerals of which their supply and some of the rare earth metals that are 90% are processed in or by China.

So that start you start thinking, well, maybe we're not so interested. The average car has $200 of rare earth metals. And when we were on the Defence Select Committee, when I was on it before, went to Australia, and we looked at this now, they said $200 in the average car, more interested in how much is in the F-35, of which there's about 450kg, give or take, of rare earth metals, of which many is a limited supply of where we can get them.

So all this gives China huge leverage on the countries that they are around. And we're seeing a polarisation in the Indo-Pacific. So the Philippines are now looking at a permanent US base, northern Australia looking at permanent US based things that we were spoke about 4 or 5 years ago would have

**** Possible New Speaker ****

never been believed that are. Happening now. So the UK's armed forces, I'm

**** Possible New Speaker ****

So the UK's armed forces, I'm proud to have served, and I believe the British Army is the most professional in the world. Yeah. But it is a shadow of its former

**** Possible New Speaker ****

But it is a shadow of its former self and I do not believe it is getting or I believe it's getting getting or I believe it's getting harder and harder for the UK armed forces to stand on the world stage. forces to stand on the world stage. Because of how the depletion of their military has been. And everyone will say, well, it's been hollowed out for 14 years. There's a hollowed out for 14 years. There's a great book by it's just out, and it's the rise and fall of the UK it's the rise and fall of the UK Armed Forces over the last 50 years by Brigadier Ben Barry.

Since 1981, the Armed Forces UK armed forces the Armed Forces UK armed forces have been in decline. When we start looking at the UK armed forces decline, and then when we start decline, and then when we start looking at ceding sovereign bases that we've had, that brings us to that we've had, that brings us to the table, that brings us to a foothold. We would not have a capability to stand in the Indo-Pacific and support allies. And Indo-Pacific and support allies. And there is a report just released in the last two weeks by the NATO Parliamentary Assembly that I Parliamentary Assembly that I contributed to, that talked about the Indo-Pacific and the Euro-Atlantic.

They are intrinsically linked. It's not go to one space and leave the other. For the Americans, the rise of China and their defence industrial base is phenomenal and it is huge. The space that they are, the speed that they are growing at at the moment. So there is so many concerns and uncertainties at the moment. This key strategic idea, obviously not all of them are ours, like Cyprus, Hawaii, Svalbard, Ascension Islands. They Diego Garcia the Chagos, they,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

they. Yes. So we'll. Do that. I'm grateful for them giving way just to re-emphasise the point that just to re-emphasise the point that he's making and the threat and the growth of the threat. I don't know

**** Possible New Speaker ****

whether he's aware that China today has 130. Times the. Capability to build. Naval ships, that America does.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Naval ships, that America does. Any one shipyard in China, in. His last year, builds more. Naval ships than the whole.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Naval ships than the whole. Of the United States. Him about the threat to the South. China Seas. It's done. Thank you.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you. The Right honourable member makes friend makes a great point. And friend makes a great point. And actually, I spoke to one of the submarine commanders from the US Navy only, what, six weeks ago, 15 years ago, he would see one Chinese ship or submarine per week. They ship or submarine per week. They seize 100 a week. At the moment, the whole area is full of them. And if we're looking at buffer zones, as I we're looking at buffer zones, as I pointed out on the amendments earlier, when we start looking at security and buffer zones, you security and buffer zones, you cannot move in this area for Chinese ships or submarines, the whole space is swamped with them.

So we have we're questioning here, we're doing a deal that removes our ability to a deal that removes our ability to sit at the table where we were in such strength, and our armed forces now would have trouble of supporting our allies in any real area, particularly in the Indo-Pacific. So I want to I want to set out where what we've got HMS, the honourable member is saying that's not true. We have HMS Spey, we have the carrier strike groups. We have no permanent presence in the Indo-Pacific.

We would need a brigade strength or more to be able to have a permanent base with our current commitments and rotate troops through to have a credible offer and without burning out UK armed forces with what we have who are currently on sick at the moment with the strength of the military, I want to see a larger armed forces, but we do not have the ability to be able to offer. That that level that we would want. And I'm going to conclude by highlighting the point that we're playing or believe that the world is playing by an international rules based order and an international rules based order.

Not all countries will do that is a set of rules set out by normally the largest countries around the world. And when they don't adhere to them, such as Iraq or Kosovo, they expect everyone else to accept it. But when you see the rise of China and Russia, Iran, North Korea, this is throwing everything in the mix. And I believe it's a huge loss for us strategically. And I will reiterate my point that I do believe that ce of this Diego Garcia is a monumental

**** Possible New Speaker ****

strategic error that in the next decade we will come to regret. Father of the House Edward Leigh.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Father of the House Edward Leigh. yeah. I commend my honourable friend. He's spoken. With great authority about the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

With great authority about the military threat, and I commend the honourable gentleman for Surrey said.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

said. He spoke with great good sense. And moderation. I just want to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

And moderation. I just want to speak to my new clause 14, and I'm grateful to my friends who have
19:38
Edward Leigh Portrait Rt Hon Sir Edward Leigh MP (Gainsborough, Conservative)
-
-
grateful to my friends who have signed it. It says the Secretary of State must, within six months of this act, receiving Royal Assent, Labour for both Houses of Parliament. Proposals for an advisory referendum of Chagossians residing in the UK, seeking their opinions on the treaty signed with the Government of Mauritius, and the provisions of this act. Within a month of publishing the proposals specified in subsection one, the Secretary of State must make time available in both Houses of Parliament for a debate on a substantive motion relating to the proposals.

So an advisory referendum very moderate, very sensible. I'm not sure why anybody should agree with it, because surely we in this House have a moral duty to the Chagossian people, not to bureaucratic convenience or diplomatic horse trading. My amendment simply calls for the Chagossians to be consulted on their own future. Not unreasonable. This is a modest and entirely proper request. After decades of exile and neglect. It is indefensible to negotiate their homelands fate. Without even asking them.

Have we ever handed over a people to a foreign power without even consulting them? Now, proponents of paying Mauritius to take the island cite international law, but the entire point of decolonisation was to assert the self-determination of peoples. The United Nations is founded upon the principle that nations and peoples should be free to determine their own destiny in a peaceful way. Chagossians, we all agree now, were wronged by both British American authorities. And by the way, I'm probably the only person sitting in this chamber who's actually been to these islands.

I went to the Defence Committee 40

**** Possible New Speaker ****

years ago. To down that. I pay tribute to my honourable

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I pay tribute to my honourable friend. We kick them out of their homes, albeit for perfectly legitimate reasons, of promoting the legitimate reasons, of promoting the stability and security of the free world. Mauritius accepted money to help look after displaced Chagossians. No one, no one can dispute Chagossians are treated with dispute Chagossians are treated with a second class status in Mauritius. Chagossians who have been living there are fleeing increasing numbers to the United Kingdom. Many of them happily assert that they want the sovereignty of the United Kingdom to continue the British Indian Ocean territory, but they also want a territory, but they also want a right to return, righting the wrongs we have committed means listening to we have committed means listening to the Chagossians directly.

And that's all I'm asking for. This amendment all I'm asking for. This amendment gives Parliament the chance to ensure justice is finally done by those who suffered most. Britain those who suffered most. Britain should not repeat the sin of should not repeat the sin of dispossession under the guise of decolonisation. I repeat, Britain should not repeat the sin of dispossession under the guise of decolonisation. Hand the territory to Mauritius would not, quote, end empire, but merely passing islands from one remote capital to another, from one imperial power to another.

The United Kingdom must not compound historic injustice by ignoring the only people with a legitimate moral claim to these islands. The Chagos Islands are, of course, a linchpin of regional security for Britain, the United States and our allies. In an increasingly contested Indo-Pacific. Undermining that strategic position would embolden hostile powers and weaken our ability to uphold freedom of navigation. Those who call this a colonial relic misunderstand it. It is a forward defence post, not a backward looking possession.

As has been said time and time again. The International Court of Justice advisory opinion carries no legal binding force and should not dictate British policy, allowing unelected judges in The Hague to override Parliament's responsibilities is an abdication of national sovereignty. The government should resist any creeping judicial, globalist globalism that seeks to erode British self-government under the cloak of, quote, international law. Now, end on this point, and I believe it is a very powerful point. Consultation.

The Chagossians for a UK referendum is an act of basic democratic respect, not a legal technicality. This new clause of mind strengthens rather than weakens, Britain's moral standing. By showing that we act with fairness and consent, we should not hand wash our hands of responsibility for British subjects in favour of imagined diplomatic convenience. The right course is to combine justice for the Jurassic skins with the preservation of Britain's strategic obligations, not to sacrifice one for the other. Parliament should back these new clauses and amendments as an affirmation that Britain remains a nation that keeps

**** Possible New Speaker ****

faith with its peoples and its allies alike. Yeah. Nigel Farage.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Nigel Farage. speak. To amendment ten, which is in my name on the Order Paper, just a

**** Possible New Speaker ****

name on the Order Paper, just a quick reminder. The International Court of Justice made an. Advisory judgement.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Advisory judgement. It has no force of law. Quite why. The previous. Government sought to enter.
19:44
Nigel Farage Portrait Nigel Farage MP (Clacton, Reform UK)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

11 rounds. Of negotiation. Off the back of. It. Is beyond me. But it's even more extraordinary

**** Possible New Speaker ****

But it's even more extraordinary for a government. That is full to the rafters of human rights lawyers. They believe human rights lawyers. They believe in human rights so much that they seek.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Somehow to follow a court. That is part of the United Nations. In total, total.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Nations. In total, total. Contrast. As was pointed out. By the honourable member for

**** Possible New Speaker ****

By the honourable member for Surrey Heath to the very basic principles of the United Nations, namely, national self-determination.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

namely, national self-determination. We thought it mattered so much. 8000. Miles away to. Defend the.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Defend the. Rights of people in the. Falkland Islands. So I. Feel great sympathy. For the Chagossians.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

For the Chagossians. They got a rotten. Deal 50. Years ago. They're perhaps getting an. Even worse deal in. Many ways

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Even worse deal in. Many ways now, so they should be consulted. The fact they're not being, I think, is shameful for a government think, is shameful for a government that goes on. Endlessly about human. Rights and the international. Rule Rights and the international. Rule of law. That's the human cost of this, the economic cost of this. Well, lots of sums have been bandied Well, lots of sums have been bandied about from £3.4 billion from the Prime Minister to £35 billion.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Prime Minister to £35 billion. inflation. If the average rate of inflation

**** Possible New Speaker ****

If the average rate of inflation over the course of the next 100 years is 3%, it'll be over £50 billion. But that may be as nothing to the. Opportunity loss here. This marine power should decades ago, have been turned into the greatest

**** Possible New Speaker ****

marine tourism site. In the world. Those that have been to Chagos, I. Will give way.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Will give way. I'm grateful to the honourable member for allowing an intervention. member for allowing an intervention. He will be aware that his friend, President Trump is in favour of this

**** Possible New Speaker ****

deal. So would he tell us whether he disagrees with him? I suggest. I'll come to that. I certainly will, and I'll come

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I certainly will, and I'll come to that in short order. This the. Opportunity for marine tourism is massive. Worth billions of pounds a year, and would provide a lot of jobs for Chagossians. On top of

**** Possible New Speaker ****

jobs for Chagossians. On top of that, perhaps more controversial. Is that within those waters I have little. Doubt.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Doubt. And I've spoken to some geologists who work for the world's biggest mining companies. You would biggest mining companies. You would find cobalt, you would find many of the minerals needed for the very

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the minerals needed for the very green revolution, that this government says. That it. Is in favour of. So economically,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Is in favour of. So economically, we're not just paying away 50 billion or whatever the number is, we're losing out on a huge future we're losing out on a huge future opportunity and has been mentioned by the for member South Shropshire. Strategically, this is a disaster. Strategically, this is a disaster. The American president right at the moment is somewhat busy, having recently struck a remarkable peace deal in the Middle East. And whichever way you think he's going on, it is obsessed with ending the Ukraine war.

This is very low down on his agenda. But when he wakes up, when he wakes up and realises what America wake up and realise that something they thought right now was minor and not worth spending their time on actually will imperil, actually will imperil the safety of

**** Possible New Speaker ****

their base. And when you think. That India already have. Negotiated a satellite

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Negotiated a satellite observation deal, when they realise that China are currently negotiating and it doesn't matter what the and it doesn't matter what the minister says about what's in the treaty, Mauritius will not honour treaty, Mauritius will not honour the terms of this treaty. Mauritius Mauritius are poor. Mauritius are on the verge of bankruptcy. They will the verge of bankruptcy. They will be bought by Chinese money and China and are negotiating leases already. and are negotiating leases already. And if you want further proof of what will upset the American president, Huawei, which of course president, Huawei, which of course he railed against getting into the UK's 5G system.

Huawei are already UK's 5G system. Huawei are already installing their safe city cameras all over Mauritius. None of this all over Mauritius. None of this makes any sense. But I do wonder. I do wonder what the role of our do wonder what the role of our National security adviser, Jonathan Powell, is in all of this. He was, of course, I would give away.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

of course, I would give away. The minister. You minister doubted. I'm Chair. I'm surprised that the honourable gentleman has the gall to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

honourable gentleman has the gall to come here and talk. About national. Security today. When the. Former leader of his party in

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Wales admitted taking bribes from Russia, and when he sits again, he has been using. Talking points right from.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The Kremlin, blaming NATO for Russia's invasion. Of Ukraine. Absolutely shameful. The Mauritian Attorney General was interviewed on Mauritian TV today, Madam Chair, and he said regarding

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Reuters. Was negotiating. A lease on Paris Banos, that this was an, I quote, a gross falsehood. And.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

And. A political gimmick. And he talks about the. United States. Hague.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Hague. Set for war. He has. Said Diego Garcia. Is a vital military base for the United States. The UK's deal with.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The UK's deal with. Mauritius secures the. Operational capabilities. Of the base and. Key US national security

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Key US national security interests in the region. We are confident the. Base is protected.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Base is protected. For many. Years ahead. Why is the United States backing this deal? If anything that he says is true?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yeah. Oh yeah. I can assure you America is not backing this deal. What it's saying backing this deal. What it's saying is what we have is what we hold. That's the American attitude right at the moment. But of course. But of at the moment. But of course. But of course, as I say, when they wake up to the deal, the satellite observation deal done with India observation deal done with India already, as reported in the Economic Times of India on the 12th of

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Times of India on the 12th of September this year. And once you realise, once you realise that they. Realise order.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yes. When the honourable gentleman says you, he's referring to me. Perhaps he'd refer to the minister as the minister.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

When the Americans realise that actually Mauritius are not a trustworthy nation. They're bankrupt. They need the money. They bankrupt. They need the money. They will not honour this treaty. Then it will be in a very different place. But I do ask the question about the But I do ask the question about the role of our National Security Advisor. Somebody very much in the news of the last few days who news of the last few days who seemingly was very. Happy that a.

Trial against two alleged Chinese Trial against two alleged Chinese spies operating at times within this building had disappeared. Not only not only is he honouring the Labour manifesto, which is very soft on China, but apparently he's very for China, but apparently he's very for this Chagos deal, I would put it that this deal is un-british. It's that this deal is un-british. It's against our national interest. There is no upside, there is no gain. And I can assure you that a future reform government will not honour this treaty and not.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

this treaty and not. Yes, yes. Graham Stuart. Thank you, Madam Chair.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you, Madam Chair. May I begin by referring the House to my interest? Having observed the Mauritian elections. Last year of the Mauritius.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Labour Party. It's hard not to feel sorry. A little bit.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

little bit. Sorry for the beleaguered minister. The despatch. Box today sent. Sent to defend something.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

So clearly a betrayal. Of this. Country and its interests and backed, as we've seen, by a grand total.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

by a grand total. Of the 400. Plus Labour Members of Parliament in this House by just one. Yes.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yes. Who sat with his face. Glued to his iPad, reading the words. Put there by Lord knows. Who and
19:51
Graham Stuart Portrait Rt Hon Graham Stuart MP (Beverley and Holderness, Conservative)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

who. Struggled so much as soon as he finally took an intervention and had to speak.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

to speak. Off the. Cuff and indeed he's he's fled now. Doubtless to lick his wounds.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Doubtless to lick his wounds. But there's not another not a single one of those 400 opposite. Wanting to come here and defend.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Wanting to come here and defend. Us and the minister. And Madam Chair, as you know, is in fact a decent man.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

And, you know, and. He will know that this has no defence. No no benefit to this defence. No no benefit to this country. And last week, Madam Chair two, we had a minister sent out to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

answer for the China spy case. He'd never spoken, he'd never. Spoken at the. Despatch box before.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Despatch box before. It was his very first outing, but. He was thought. Best to defend the. Prime Minister's.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Prime Minister's. Blushes by knowing nothing about the topic in hand and denying things. Madam Chair.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Madam Chair. Without lying by dint of ignorance. It was indeed a triumph

**** Possible New Speaker ****

of sorts. Armando Iannucci. And The. Thick. Of It cast couldn't script

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Of It cast couldn't script something as cynical, as empty and as damaging as this government's behaviour in so many spheres. As we

**** Possible New Speaker ****

can see. In the amendments. And new clauses before us today. That was. All of which will be rejected by

**** Possible New Speaker ****

All of which will be rejected by the Minister. Yet amidst the betrayal of first time buyers, farmers, small time buyers, farmers, small businesses, special needs children, pensioners, young workers.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

pensioners, young workers. Perhaps the honourable gentleman might say within the scope of this bill. Graham Stuart.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

bill. Graham Stuart. Thank you, Madam Chair. So I was going to I'm setting in the context, madam Chair, of amendments to this madam Chair, of amendments to this bill which we are proposing, which we are quite rightly proposing today, to make sure that we hear today, to make sure that we hear that the government reports back on the money that it is planning to spend, that it and that it makes sure that Mauritius isn't the only taxpayer, not the only taxpayers who benefit from this.

But so, as I say, these these amendments and new clauses come amidst the betrayal of those first time buyers, farmers, small businesses, special needs children, pensioners, young workers, restaurants, pubs and amidst the expense grifting the tax dodging, the scandals and resignations packed into 14 busy months. Amidst all that, this Chagos sell-out is still a standout disaster for this country, and the ministers on the front bench know that that's why not a single one of their colleagues, bar one glued to his iPad, has been prepared to come to this chamber tonight out of 400 odd and actually speak in favour of this.

That's why, Madam Chair, there is no provision to allow a vote on the 3.4 bill in a sorry, not 3.4 billion, the £35 billion has now been set up, depending, quite rightly, as the member for Clacton says. That's on a on the rather Conservative, small sea Conservative estimate of interest. But that is what the government itself has said it is likely to cost. The government decided this Labour government decided to give away UK sovereign territory, the location of a critically important military base to another country, and pay 35

**** Possible New Speaker ****

billion for the privilege. Give way to my right hon. Friend. So I. Can. Help my running friend. The

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Help my running friend. The argument about the money that comes up throughout all this which we had in the last debate. The government.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

in the last debate. The government. Has used. A. Very dodgy system. Of calculating. It's called. The GDP deflator. Now.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The GDP deflator. Now. Their own. Actuarial department. Has dismissed that completely because of course it is all about because of course it is all about your forecast of where social issues will go in an island. That is never

**** Possible New Speaker ****

will go in an island. That is never going to be anything to do with us after this, and. Will. Have no idea of. Predicting it.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Predicting it. And the final that I just want to ask him as well is article five in here makes the whole point of this.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

here makes the whole point of this. Debate meaningless. Because they can change anything they like at any time, whenever they wish to.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

So what the heck are we doing debating this even now? Well, my right hon. Friend Madam Chair makes an extremely powerful Chair makes an extremely powerful point that the King Henry the Eighth powers in this bill are not limited at all. I'm not sure I've heard so many. I had so many complaints when many. I had so many complaints when I was a minister from the other side about King Henry the powers they can literally. This gives ministers, literally.

This gives ministers, Madam Chair, the ability to change any existing piece of legislation in any sphere whatsoever necessary to implement this deal. I mean, there can never have been a King Henry the Eighth Power, as powerful as that given to ministers by this legislation. That is all to do with a surrender of Chagos and the transfer of tens of billions of pounds to a foreign power, foreign power, in a strategic partnership with China. In close working with other countries who are not on our side.

So why? What on earth, Madam Chair? Was the Prime Minister thinking? As the Minister lay in bed last night, tossing and turning in anticipation of this debate, I am sure that was the question that went round and round and round in his head. There are so many questions that remain to be answered. Why did the Prime Minister say that the payment would be 3.4 billion, when the government's own offices now show that it will be at least 35 billion? Is this, Madam Chair, the most important strategic base in the Indian Ocean? Can the Minister confirm that Diego Garcia is effectively a US base manned by thousands of Americans and at most a few dozen Brits therein? Liaison.

And if that is the case, if this is in fact a United States base and not operationally, it might be a joint base technically, but in reality, perhaps I'd love an intervention from the defence minister who could tell us, do we? How much do we use it operationally? Because there are thousands of Americans there. And as I understand it, unless he corrects me, there are at most dozens of Brits there. In other words, it's a United States base on sovereign UK territory that we are going to pay tens of billions of pounds for over the next hundred years to provide that base to the to the Americans for free.

It makes no sense. And I don't see why we've had no answer from ministers as to why that is a sensible use of public money. I give way, first of all to the minister

**** Possible New Speaker ****

member. For giving way. And thank you for his generous, generous comments in. He and I have always had some robust He and I have always had some robust but friendly discussions on many issues. I do have to correct him on this point. The US of course pays

**** Possible New Speaker ****

this point. The US of course pays for the operations and of course. The value. To the British taxpayer and indeed the US taxpayer and indeed all of our allies.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

all of our allies. Is priceless. In terms of protecting the people of this. Country from multiple threats.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Country from multiple threats. So what he's saying simply just does not make sense. Well, Madam Chair, I mean, the United States plays a critical role United States plays a critical role as a member of NATO, as a key ally, not the key ally of ours, but not the key ally of ours, but typically, Madam Chair, we do not, despite the priceless nature of the despite the priceless nature of the service that they provide, we don't typically pay for it. We don't we typically pay for it.

We don't we don't normally pay for their bases. What we do is normally pay for our own. I said I would give way to my right honourable friend. I'm grateful my right honourable friend and he's quite right. On the face of and he's quite right. On the face of it, this doesn't make sense unless you look at it in one particular

**** Possible New Speaker ****

you look at it in one particular way. And that is if this government has made. A.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

A. Decision that it. Wishes to have a strategic economic partnership with Communist China, this makes sense. The closing of the case with the China spies makes sense. The

**** Possible New Speaker ****

willingness to have China have the biggest embassy of any country. In Europe makes.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

In Europe makes. And even though they say that is a quasi judicial decision, it's interesting that for political interesting that for political reasons, they put it off till December. None of it makes sense or December. None of it makes sense or all of it makes sense. As long as the National Security Advisor wants

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the National Security Advisor wants us to suck up to Communist. To yeah. Well, my right hon. Friend makes

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Well, my right hon. Friend makes a powerful point, and that is also at the heart of it. There are so many questions, but the one question many questions, but the one question is why, why, why would a deal like this be done by the government and this be done by the government and my right hon. Friend puts forward a credible case as to why that might credible case as to why that might be and but, but, but if the honourable gentleman who is one of the.

He's not brave enough to speak fully, but he's prepared to fully, but he's prepared to intervene if the honourable gentleman wants to tell us, why does he why would he like to vote if he he why would he like to vote if he was only given the chance to give £35 billion to Mauritius and put £35 billion to Mauritius and put hand over a sovereign British base into the hands of someone in strategic partnership with China, perhaps he can answer that question.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

perhaps he can answer that question. I'm the honourable member for giving way. I'm curious to know perhaps, which of the amendments on the paper he's talking to. Maybe he could elucidate me to that effect. But I wanted to talk. I was wondering whether New clause four, which is his party has put down, speaks to coral fish stocks, molluscs. Ocean acidification in the marine protected area. Even the silicon me would seem somewhat flabbergasted at the official opposition. Somewhat interest in the environment and climate change.

All of a sudden, given their party decides to ride roughshod through

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the Climate Change Act and frack our countryside. Yeah, it's totally relevant.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yeah, it's totally relevant. Madam Chair. Rather desperate. I give way to the honourable gentleman. Thank you. Great. Thank.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank. Thank you for giving you. The. That the. Minister described this

**** Possible New Speaker ****

That the. Minister described this asset as priceless. And yet. He's giving it away.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

That's price underpriced. I'm not only is he giving. It away, he's paying someone to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

It away, he's paying someone to take it. Is that's the kind of statement you would. Expect from a.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

you would. Expect from a. importantly. If it is priceless in security terms, why are we.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Compromising that? Well, the honourable gentleman is quite right to ask that question, and that's what we're trying to get and that's what we're trying to get to the bottom of. And we hope to hear answers from the Minister this evening. Just so, so ordinary evening. Just so, so ordinary citizens in this country can understand how it is in the UK interest to do this. And of course, interest to do this. And of course, other points have been touched on the Chagossians, quite rightly.

How does the Labour Party, a party so committed to human rights and want to see itself very much championing to see itself very much championing the underdog? Why is it so absolutely disregarding the interests of the Chagossians? It is also, as the honourable gentleman suggested, setting itself out as a nature and climate champion. And yet it is handing over to a country without the wherewithal. I don't know about the will, but certainly without the wherewithal to ensure that that marine protected area continues.

That is the problem, and that is why we need answers from the minister tonight, and why the government should accept it may be unable to get anyone to speak in favour of this bill, but they should think again. They should accept the amendments and new clauses and bring some light to bear on this rather

**** Possible New Speaker ****

murky issue. Well done. Brandreth. Yeah. He you, madam Chair. The treaty.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The treaty. Which this bill implements is shocking for so many reasons. The shocking for so many reasons. The security implications, the staggering costs and the voices. It staggering costs and the voices. It has ignored the voices of British Chagossians. Their views and concerns are many and varied. I have concerns are many and varied. I have had the privilege of meeting members of the community when they came to Parliament, but we know that the Parliament, but we know that the former Foreign Secretary met British Chagossians only once, and that was on the very day the treaty was on the very day the treaty was signed, far too late for their voices to have any influence.

They
20:03
Aphra Brandreth Portrait Aphra Brandreth MP (Chester South and Eddisbury, Conservative)
-
-
voices to have any influence. They are rightly frustrated, excluded from negotiations, denied meaningful engagement. It is painfully clear that their voices were not considered, because if they had been, this treaty might have placed their rights at its very centre. Instead. Article six gives Mauritius the freedom to resettle Chagossians, but not the duty to do so. Their right of return after half a century of waiting is left entirely to the discretion of a foreign government, and under article 11, despite the billions of pounds, this bill will transfer to Mauritius, only a fraction in the form of a trust fund is intended for Chagossians.

Even then, it will be administered solely by Mauritius, with no guarantee that British Chagossians will have any say over how it is spent. The treaty says the UK and Mauritius want to, and, I quote, recognise the wrongs of the past. But how can you recognise a wrong if you refuse to listen to those who suffered it? That is why new clause seven, tabled in the name of the shadow Foreign Secretary, is so vital it would require the government to listen, to consult the Chagossian community here in the UK, and to report back on how their rights are being upheld.

It would give British Chagossians the voice that they have been denied again and again. Madam Chair, I also want to raise another vital issue the risk this bill poses to one of the most precious marine environments on earth, the waters around the Chagos Islands, from one of the world's largest and most pristine marine protected areas, are a haven, as we have heard of biodiversity untouched by industrial fishing since 2010. Yet this treaty places that fragile ecosystem in jeopardy.

Mauritius has promised to establish a new marine protected area, but it lacks the capacity to enforce it. It has no navy, and its coast guard of nine vessels is already stretched, patrolling waters thousands of miles away. By contrast, the UK has spent over £1.2 million since 2022. Monitoring and protecting these seas, developing world leading expertise in remote enforcement through ships, sensors and satellite imagery. Madam Chair, illegal fishing is already rife across the Indian Ocean. Yeah, take China's distant water fleet, which is the largest in the world and the worst global offender for illegal fishing, according to the illegal, Unreported and Unregulated Fishing Index.

What confidence can we have that Mauritius, a close ally of

**** Possible New Speaker ****

China, will be able or willing to resist such pressure and protect these fragile waters? I will give way.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I will give way. It's the honourable member. Aware that Mauritius currently does not have a Navy.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

does not have a Navy. Absolutely. My hon. Friend makes an important point. They don't have a Navy. They've only got nine a Navy. They've only got nine coastguard vessels. They are not able to protect these waters. And able to protect these waters. And even if illegal fishing were controlled, the merchant Fisheries minister has already spoken of minister has already spoken of wanting to issue fishing licenses around the Chagos Islands. The agreement provides no guarantees. agreement provides no guarantees. The extent of future protections will only be decided after this bill will only be decided after this bill has passed.

That is why new clauses three and four are essential, ensuring parliamentary oversight of ensuring parliamentary oversight of any future agreement and regular reporting on coral health, fish stocks and biodiversity. As it stands, this bill would hand billions of pounds of UK taxpayers billions of pounds of UK taxpayers money to Mauritius with no guarantees to protect the marine environment, no provisions to environment, no provisions to safeguard the rights of British Chagossians, and no mechanism for Britain to monitor whether the Britain to monitor whether the safeguards around the strategic military base in Diego Garcia are effective.

The amendments to this bill, put forward by the conservatives, offer a chance for this government to be transparent, publish the legal advice on which it surrendered the Chagos Islands, and give this House a vote on the 35 billion payments to Mauritius. This treaty is damaging in so many ways, but let's not make the damage worse today.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you Blake Stephenson. Thank you, Madam Chair. Since this House first learned
20:08
Blake Stephenson Portrait Blake Stephenson MP (Mid Bedfordshire, Conservative)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

of. The disastrous terms of. The Chagos surrender deal, there has been a significant.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Focus on the spiralling. Costs and the defence and security implications. We've heard many. Arguments today. The government's

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Arguments today. The government's weakness is compromised. surrendering. British territory to.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

British territory to. An ally of China and paying £35. Billion. For the privilege, or indeed. Perhaps as. High.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

High. As £50 billion for. The privilege. Their failure on. The government. Benches to defend the British

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Benches to defend the British national interest is shameful. Equally shameful. Is their failure to consider the impact. This.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

This. Deal will have. On environmental. Protections for marine areas. And I know members from across

**** Possible New Speaker ****

this House. Have reflected. On this today. It's a shame. government. Benches didn't turn up to stand

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Benches didn't turn up to stand up for our environmental. Protections in. The Indian Ocean Territories. So I would like.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I would like. To speak to the importance of new clauses three. And four. Table in clauses three. And four. Table in the name of the Shadow Shadow Secretary of State, which. Relate to the marine protected areas. Two

**** Possible New Speaker ****

sensible. Amendments to strengthen. Oversight of. The Marine Protected. Area.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Area. The region of the Indian. Ocean that hosts the. Unique and remarkable. Chagos Islands. Is of critical importance.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Is of critical importance. For wildlife. The archipelago is a biodiversity. Hotspot monitored by

**** Possible New Speaker ****

a biodiversity. Hotspot monitored by the UK over the last 15 years. The 640,000 square. Kilometre. Marine protected.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Kilometre. Marine protected. Area has. Kept the surrounding. Waters in near pristine

**** Possible New Speaker ****

condition. Coral reefs in the untouched Marine. Protected Area are some of the healthiest in the world. There are.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Sanctuary for marine. Life. Including endangered species. Like hawksbill. Turtles. Green turtles.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Green turtles. And reef sharks, and they're located. Along hugely significant migratory routes for species of.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

migratory routes for species of. Tuna, whales and seabirds. The remarkable resilience. Of the reefs. To.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

To. Coral bleaching events also. Makes them highly. Significant for scientific research, to.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

research, to. Better understand resilience. To changing climates. Thank you. I absolutely will.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I absolutely will. Thank I'm grateful to the member for taking an intervention. Like like myself. The member is a new like myself. The member is a new member. So I'm also puzzled why he would consider that his party started these negotiations. If the whole thing is such a terrible idea.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

intervention. There's a difference between talking. With other. Countries and actually.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Doing a deal. Yeah. Quite right. I know that the frontbench sitting here who form part of the government, the last

**** Possible New Speaker ****

part of the government, the last government, were not going to do this deal. They may. Have been talking, but as we've heard from the frontbench, there was heard from the frontbench, there was going to be no agreement. So I thank the honourable member for his interventions and reflecting that I interventions and reflecting that I wasn't part of the previous government, but he knows full well that our agreement, this agreement would not have been made under these

**** Possible New Speaker ****

would not have been made under these now. About that.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

About that. As such. So the marine protected area being one of the largest untouched marine ecosystems, is

**** Possible New Speaker ****

untouched marine ecosystems, is globally significant. As such. Instead of heedlessly. Driving this hopeless surrender

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Driving this hopeless surrender deal through Parliament, the government should have been making sure that protections for wildlife and the marine environment were and the marine environment were watertight. Answering questions to the Foreign Affairs Committee in June, the Minister for Overseas June, the Minister for Overseas Territories would not give any clear assurances or guarantees on the future of the marine protected area. Within the Minister's obfuscation about separate agreements with Mauritius that hope we can share objectives and values, the Minister admitted that we can only, and I quote, take it on trust that there will be a marine protected area after sovereignty has been surrendered.

We absolutely do not need to take this on trust. The government has failed to secure any meaningful safeguards or guarantees, and is instead hoping, merely hoping that a memorandum of understanding will somehow protect this pristine ecosystem. Well, Madam Chair, how on. Earth can we have any confidence in this at all? A simple change of government in Mauritius, or even just a change of heart, would render the UK powerless to stop Chinese trawlers from turning up and devastating the marine environment. And given the evidence of China plundering the high seas, for example, in the South Atlantic, just outside the Falkland Islands zone of economic interest, they absolutely will do the same in this territory.

I will give way.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

He's making a really powerful. Point about the marine environment in the area. But does he environment in the area. But does he accept that we don't even need a change of heart by militias? We don't even need them to decide that don't even need them to decide that the treaty wasn't worthwhile. They do have the ability to give the protection. Even if there is no change of heart. There's no ability to give the protection. And that's

**** Possible New Speaker ****

why this is a bad deal for the environment. Thank you. I absolutely agree with the honourable gentleman. And with the honourable gentleman. And can I note that the honourable gentleman and I are the only members in this chamber from the Environmental Audit Committee, which Environmental Audit Committee, which I think is a damning indictment on those members in this House that are here to protect our environment and here to protect our environment and to hold the government to account on environmental protections. Will the Minister now explain what will Minister now explain what will happen to the NPA in the future, and whether the government will commit resources to support the protection resources to support the protection of the NPA? If so, where will these resources come from? With the resources come from? With the Fisheries Minister of Mauritius talking of issuing fishing and trawler licences, it is more trawler licences, it is more important than ever that we have lasting confidence in the marine protections before British military protections before British military is British territory is surrendered to Mauritius? Does the Minister share my concerns over new fishing and trawler licences? I would like the Minister to answer that.

In summing up, new clause three will require that any written instrument on the establishment and management of the Marine Protected Area be subject to the approval of this House to ensure it is fit for purpose. What progress has been made with developing a separate instrument referenced in article 52 of the treaty? I would like the Minister to answer that in summing up. And will it be in place before Mauritius assumes sovereignty? Any agreement on the Chagos MPA must be scrutinised like a treaty and presented to Parliament.

New clause four will require the Secretary of State to regularly report on the status of the marine protected area. Reports from committees in the Lords have raised concerns about Mauritius track record on environmental protections. Does the Minister agree with these concerns and therefore agree the ecological status of this extraordinary environment must remain on the government? British government's agenda. I would like the Minister to reflect that in his summing up. Will the Minister now accept, as well as costing British taxpayers £35 billion, betraying British Chagossians and undermining our security without better protection secured in the treaty, their Chagos surrender deal will harm the marine environment.

All of this at a time, and the government argued that the state of public finances required tough choices, choices that punish pensioners, family farmers and taxed education for the very first time. Well, Madam Chair, the annual cost of the surrender of the Chagos Islands could be paying for 3068 new teachers, 3253 new nurses for 1975 police officers in the first year, the money paid to Mauritius could deliver a new GP surgery in 30 communities. Communities like Wixams and Wootton in my constituency of Mid Bedfordshire, still waiting for improved access to local health.

Well, this was all a choice, Madam Chair. A choice to prioritise ideological surrender over our communities, over our security and over marine protections. It is shameful. I encourage honourable members from across this House to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

support new clause three and new clause four. Danny Kruger.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Danny Kruger. Thank you very much indeed, Madam Chair. I rise to speak in support of new clause one, which would ensure that this House had a vote before any money was paid to the Government of Mauritius under this.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

of Mauritius under this. Treaty, and. I support it because this demonstrates a very important

**** Possible New Speaker ****

principle of this House asserting its rightful role both. As the. Guardian of public money, but

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Guardian of public money, but also as the guardian of British sovereignty. And the. Privileges of this House, Madame

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Privileges of this House, Madame Chair, have been serially insulted in a series of debates we've had
20:17
Danny Kruger Portrait Danny Kruger MP (East Wiltshire, Reform UK)
-
-
in a series of debates we've had today. I want to quickly mention, I mean, we see here with this this new treaty, there's sort of the height of what we've seen today, which is a dereliction of the responsibilities of this House and of the government. So we heard earlier in the urgent. Question on the China spy case that

**** Possible New Speaker ****

politicians should not be consulted on the. The honourable gentleman will

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The honourable gentleman will keep in scope of this bill and not seek to rehash Urgent Questions held earlier.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

earlier. Chair. And of course, you're quite right. The point I was simply making

**** Possible New Speaker ****

is that there has never been a government so reluctant. To actually. Govern as the one we have today, and we have heard from honourable and we have heard from honourable members how baffling this decision to surrender the Chagos Islands is, to surrender the Chagos Islands is, and the only rational decision that can account for it is some kind of secret deal with China. I don't know secret deal with China. I don't know if that's the case. That is what has happened.

It might well be that they're absolute, you know, that. Their obeisance.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Their obeisance. To international law trumps national sovereignty. And in fact, there is no. Rational decision behind this.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Rational decision behind this. Behind this, no rational calculation behind this. Decision. Except that. Of their submission to their

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Of their submission to their ideas of international law having to give way. But I do again have to.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Take very serious. Issue with what he is suggesting, because if he is, what he's suggesting is true, why then does suggesting is true, why then does the United States, our Five Eyes partners, or other key allies partners, or other key allies support this deal? It protects our national security. It secures the base on Diego Garcia. Why would they

**** Possible New Speaker ****

support it? It's no secret deal is absolute nonsense. Yeah. Yeah, well, I'm grateful to him.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yeah, well, I'm grateful to him. private. Conversation with the American government as well. And they have. Extended in.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Extended in. Recognition of the fait. yielded. To Mauritius. of.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

of. Support for the deal. As some kind of favour. To the Prime Minister in exchange for other support that he's given

**** Possible New Speaker ****

for other support that he's given them on, on. Other matters. The fact is, the fact is this deal is bad for Britain. Bad for Britain's

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Britain. Bad for Britain's sovereignty. And behind the scenes we know that the Americans. Do not support it. But I want to. Talk about secret deals and my

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Talk about secret deals and my only real addition to the debate. It's a very. Very powerful, powerful points have been made in it already.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Madam Chair. Is it actually it's secret deals have been done with respect to the Chagos Islands in the past, and Chagos Islands in the past, and there is archival evidence that's come out recently under the 30 year rule of secret deals done with rule of secret deals done with respect to the basic Diego Garcia between the British government of the day, the Thatcher government and

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the day, the Thatcher government and the. American administration. That. interest. What it was was that the renewal

**** Possible New Speaker ****

What it was was that the renewal of the nuclear deterrent, the Trident program. Which was being set up in those years. Was there.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Was an agreement with the Americans whereby they could expand. Garcia. In exchange.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

For a reduction. In the fee, essentially. That the. British government was. Charged for.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Charged for. Collaboration on the Trident program. So we had to pay significantly less than we would

**** Possible New Speaker ****

significantly less than we would have otherwise because of our. Expanded access that we were. Giving to the Americans in those

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Giving to the Americans in those years. That was called the Diego. Trident package. In the in the negotiations, in the. Correspondence negotiations, in the. Correspondence that was going on between the British and the Americans at that time, it was kept quiet for understandable reasons. We only know understandable reasons. We only know it now. I won't worry that there is a similar lack of transparency going on around this deal, but as I say, it cannot possibly be one that is in the national interest.

Happy to give the national interest. Happy to give way to the gentleman giving way, and it's precisely trying to get to the bottom of why. Why would they do bottom of why. Why would they do this? And the hundreds of people who work, who worked at the Virgo plant work, who worked at the Virgo plant in my constituency, sold out by the Prime Minister in a personal call with the president of the United with the president of the United States when he surrendered the entire bioethanol market in this country to the United States with nothing in return, at the end of an already concluded negotiation for a trade deal.

It's things like that that make us worry. What is behind that make us worry. What is behind this? What is the secret deal and exactly who is being sold out? I'm very, very grateful to the to the right honourable gentleman. He's absolutely right. And the key demand that clearly.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

This House is making. Is for greater transmission. About what is going on behind the scenes with this deal. And I. Do implore the House to insist that before Parliament accepts any new before Parliament accepts any new arrangement for the sovereignty over the Chagos Islands, that the ministers will explain what is going

**** Possible New Speaker ****

on. And specifically, I'd be the. Minister. The Minister is aware of any

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The Minister is aware of any effect on our nuclear posture, any any relationship between the deal that's being done today and its implications for our deterrent. Is

**** Possible New Speaker ****

implications for our deterrent. Is the basis vital. To our. National interest. And I would be very grateful to understand if any discussions have understand if any discussions have been had with reference to those deals that were done many years ago about the relationship with the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

nuclear deterrent. Thank you. Evans. Yeah. Thank you. Chair and.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Chair and. I will speak today to. The. Amendments and slowly take account of. Through. My position as I believe
20:22
Luke Evans Portrait Dr Luke Evans MP (Hinckley and Bosworth, Conservative)
-
-
my constituents will have. But but I want to start by in addressing amendments one and seven.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My honourable friend from Right honourable friend from Beverly Holderness says why? And I think. This. Is. Really.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Really. Important because one and seven. Try to address the. Most

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Try to address the. Most important thing, which is context. And as my friend from New Forest East pointed out. When I first. Looked at this, it.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Looked at this, it. Doesn't make sense why you would sign this deal. And the government

**** Possible New Speaker ****

sign this deal. And the government has been weak on explaining why we should do. It by presenting. The evidence. When I wrote. To the government to ask them to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

To the government to ask them to explain, I went through that letter in the Second Reading and was able to pull. It apart. Apart one.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Apart one. Step at a time, explaining why it doesn't fit. So context is really important. And I.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

And I. Thought this doesn't really make sense. But actually, when you start to factoring the collapsing of the to factoring the collapsing of the spy, the steel factories and the billion pounds. Yeah, the embassy

**** Possible New Speaker ****

billion pounds. Yeah, the embassy pending. Yes. Maybe. No. The language change. Around China. We need to get to. The heart of.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The heart of. What's going on. And these. that. In the name. Of transparency. Because that.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Of transparency. Because that. Is hugely important. So if we turn. Then I will if.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Then I will if. My honourable friend agree with me that the government are treating China like they're our friends rather than the threat that they

**** Possible New Speaker ****

are. Yeah, I'm very. Grateful a lot. To. Be very interested, because we've tried several. Times to get the government.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Times to get the government. To. Actually quantify. Whether China is indeed a threat, a friend. An.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

An. Ally or a foe. All of these are really important. But if we turn to. Amendment seven in particular.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Amendment seven in particular. It tries to look at point B, the analysis of the status of UK sovereignty over. The. British. Indian Ocean Territory

**** Possible New Speaker ****

British. Indian Ocean Territory under international law. Now, we actually know. From. Talking about. This previously that uncross. Which. Is.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Is. Often used as the example of why we have to. Secede, actually can't. Preside over sovereignty.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Preside over sovereignty. As it said. In 2015 when dealing. With. The. Marine Protection Area.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Marine Protection Area. We've also heard the argument from the government as well. From the ITU.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The International. Telecommunications Union, over. Actually, it's to do with Spectra

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Actually, it's to do with Spectra and Spies, but we know specifically there is a carve out because we heard it in the Second Reading. So heard it in the Second Reading. So that leaves us with the ICJ, which is often held up as the key point. is often held up as the key point. And I was very taken in Second Reading by the fact. That it's alleged we have an opt out under the alleged we have an opt out under the Commonwealth.

So I went away to have a quick look. And as you can see on the 22nd of February 2017, on their website, declarations recognising the jurisdiction of courts as compulsory, the United Kingdom of

**** Possible New Speaker ****

0.1. I will quote. The government of the United

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The government of the United Northern. Ireland accepts as a. Compulsory, ipso facto. conditions.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

conditions. Of reciprocity, the jurisdiction of the international courts of Justice, in conformity with

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Justice, in conformity with paragraph two of article 36 of the. time. As a notice may be given to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

As a notice may be given to terminate the acceptance. Overall disputes arising after the 1st of. January 1987.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

With regards to situations or facts subsequent to the same date, other than and these are. The.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The. Critical points 0.1 any dispute which the United Kingdom has agreed with other parties or parties

**** Possible New Speaker ****

with other parties or parties thereto to settle by some other method of. Peaceful settlement, or.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Peaceful settlement, or. 0.2, and in disputes with the government or any other country which is or has been.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

A member of the Commonwealth. Yeah. So it's there in black and white.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

white. And yet the government has yet to ever mention this in any of its debates, in any of its letters about its legal position. This is. Why we need amendment one and seven to be able to try and understand why the government doesn't see that as a

**** Possible New Speaker ****

strong enough argument to hold up and this nonsense about. Whether or not you. Have negotiations is answered in this question. Two because it says it says any method of.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Peaceful settlement, any good government would try. To resolve the disputes in a peaceful manner. And I'm surprised

**** Possible New Speaker ****

peaceful manner. And I'm surprised to hear. This from a. Labour Party who prides. Itself on being trade unionists,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Itself on being trade unionists, who make a living on negotiating, trying to come to a solution without trying to come to a solution without it going to a court. That's exactly what you should be doing. So we're being chastised on this side for trying to have a conversation to trying to have a conversation to resolve it. The fact was, we didn't come up with the deal because the deal wasn't good enough. The opposition have come moved into power and now have put forward this horrendous bill that gives away the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

power. And for what cost. And to not even try it in.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

And to not even try it in. of. The simple arguments this doctor. Can. Find with spending time

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Find with spending time researching. I'm sure in this great country we have many legal buffs that could put. That. Forward, and if they don't feel

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Forward, and if they don't feel it stands, come to this House and tell us why. Put it in evidence.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

tell us why. Put it in evidence. Write it out. Tell us. Oh, we'll go quietly. But we're not hearing that from this government. We're not. Seeing. That from this government. And that's why we need amendment one and seven.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

move. On to amendments three, four and

**** Possible New Speaker ****

On to amendments three, four and six. And it's been rightly pointed out by my honourable friend who is no longer in this place. This is absolutely clear. It gives carte. Blanche to this government or.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Blanche to this government or. Any other for that matter. bill. We may not be even bother.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

We may not be even bother. Having the debate about this piece of paper. It's not worth. Henry. The eight powers.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The eight powers. Mean ministers sat on the other side can. Do. What they will when they will, without coming to Parliament. At without coming to Parliament. At least these amendments. Try to make sure that there is some accountability from the executive to accountability from the executive to this House, because this House should be deciding on these decisions, especially on the magnitude that we've heard. It's a magnitude that we've heard. It's a priceless base from the other side. We've heard from the back here about

**** Possible New Speaker ****

its geopolitical importance and the least. This House should. Be making decisions on.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

What that looks like. Turning again, we come to new clause one, which talks.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

About the payments. Now. I put it to the minister in Second Reading. Could he give me any example in any part of the world, when we've dealt with sovereignty.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

That net. Present value is used, he said. It's in the Green Book. Yes. The It's in the Green Book. Yes. The Green Book is for domestic sites used by the Treasury to look for civil development. I hope he's gone

**** Possible New Speaker ****

civil development. I hope he's gone away and done some research, Because I think he will find that there isn't one, because it's not there isn't one, because it's not the correct measure of how to assess whether this is right and it's open to political interference. For example, we use 3.5%, America uses example, we use 3.5%, America uses 7%. You can fudge the numbers to fit the narrative that you would like to the narrative that you would like to set.

There's also one other problem. It stipulates again in the explanatory notes. It only goes for explanatory notes. It only goes for 30 years. Well, unless I misquoted this deal goes for 99 years. Yeah. So therefore what happens on those So therefore what happens on those remaining 70? This is why this amendment, new clause one, would amendment, new clause one, would bring in a robust check to make sure when the finances are paid out, we when the finances are paid out, we know exactly why we're paying it, who we're paying it to and what.

And most importantly, the mechanism of how it was calculated, because the government still haven't come to this place and set out exactly why this place and set out exactly why it should do. If we then turn to new clause two, and I raise this as my final point when I was speaking in the Second Reading, what happens at the end? We've heard about long term security, but in this place we only think on a five year cycle. This is a 99 year cycle.

My biggest fear my children's children and children, if they're ever elected to this Parliament, are going to be having a debate in 99 years with the same issues about what happens. And that's a dereliction of duty on our

**** Possible New Speaker ****

behalf in this House, not to think things through. I'm very grateful.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'm very grateful. To my honourable friend is making an excellent speech. I'm surprised nobody has referred to Hong Kong when the decision was taken. The agreement was reached in 1984 for the handover. In 1997, China agreed the handover. In 1997, China agreed that it would be two systems, one country for at least 50 years, country for at least 50 years, within less than half that time, Britain came to the conclusion that

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Britain came to the conclusion that all those safeguards were being deliberately violated. Sorry.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

As ever, my learned friend has picked me to the punch, because this is exactly a good example of the kind of sides that we are worried about. And what has it meant that we have had taken on their note, to have had taken on their note, to invite them in, to give them that security because they fear for political interference and worse still, their safety of themselves still, their safety of themselves and their families. And we are not doing our duties if we are not thinking about these things, because thinking about these things, because it's hard enough to predict that in 2 or 3 years time, as we've already 2 or 3 years time, as we've already seen, let alone 100 years.

And at that point, as well as it is written, we get the best offer, but it's only offered to us. We can be outstripped by China or Russia or a brick country in the future, because we don't know, 100 years away and there's no mechanism to solve it. Or worse still, Mauritius could just simply say we don't want to base here at all, and there is nothing in this bill that stops that. And the government repeatedly has been asked these questions and can't set that out, which is why New clause two asks for those impacts to be considered and to look at new clause three moves to the Marine Protection Area.

And I want to return back to what I've made, a point I made earlier, which is when Britain and the United Kingdom was taken under UN close in 2010 by Mauritius under annexe seven, about the fact that we wanted to implement protections in the area. But Rohingyas felt that it was impeding on their ability to one make their own decisions, which the court found in favour of, but two because they wanted to fish.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

In the area. So hang on a second. We're

**** Possible New Speaker ****

putting weaknesses into this bill when we know Mauritius has set its intent now. I hope. They've.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Moved on, as has the debate on climate. But this is a guarantee to make sure that has been thought make sure that has been thought about. We turn to new clause five, and I would appreciate the minister and I would appreciate the minister stepping up, because there has already been debates about the Peronist ban Banjo's Island, and he Peronist ban Banjo's Island, and he says there is no concerns that this is going to be leased to China. But is going to be leased to China.

But let's be real, this bill's only just come out. It's barely the ink has barely dried and already we're barely dried and already we're hearing stories. Now, many journalists have already talked about this, and maybe I'm wrong, but about this, and maybe I'm wrong, but it shows the examples of what could come and what will come without paying attention to this security. paying attention to this security. As my Right honourable friend and gallant friend talked about the geopolitical and strategic advantage these islands have, all this is asking us to do is make sure that's asking us to do is make sure that's reported on and looked at again, another dereliction of duty by not another dereliction of duty by not having that reporting.

Now, I could go on because there are few more many amendments in here. But the salient points in this debate have been made. All these amendments tabled in the conservatives name. And actually, to be fair, many on the other opposition parties are asking for one simple thing transparency. An explanation, a simple way of saying what does the legal advice do? Where does the financial outcome come? And the ministers are nodding along, but there must be something wrong. If the public and this side of the House can't simply understand the arguments of what's being put in place, because.

We can't see the wood for the trees, it's a government's duty to show that. And I look forward in his response that he will do that for once and for all. Put these arguments to bed, because otherwise the British public

**** Possible New Speaker ****

are not going to forgive him. Alister.
20:35
Jim Allister Portrait Jim Allister KC MP (North Antrim, Traditional Unionist Voice)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

Alister. Care a I would primarily focus on new clause it in my name and that of new clause it in my name and that of colleagues. This bill first and foremost, and it's self-evident in clause. Truth is about perfecting the decolonisation of the British Indian overseas territories. But it is doing it in a way which ignores a primary component of decolonisation. We subscribe to United Nations Resolution 1514 and that resolution not just talks about respecting the integrity of territory.

It also talks about respecting self-determination. But we're dealing with the situation where the British, Indian overseas territories have existed de facto and de jure for over 50 years. And yet the approach of the government to justify this completion of decolonisation is to focus solely on the territorial integrity by claiming that the Chagos Islands are claiming that the Chagos Islands are in fact part of Mauritius. The resolution 1514 as a number of components, and it says in the first point it deals with the subjection of peoples to alien subjugation, domination, exploitation constitutes a denial of fundamental human rights.

But then in the second part, it says this all peoples have the right to self-determination. Another question for this House is surely this are the Chagossians a people? I certainly think they are. They are distinct from the Mauritanians by their ethnic background, by the religion, by geography. Mauritius and the Chagos Islands are over 1300 miles apart, apart approximately as far as it is from this House to North Africa. So when it comes to discussing and thinking about the issue of territorial integrity, it really is a stretch.

After 50 years of the existence of the BIOT, to say that the sole defining issue is that of territorial integrity. And in saying that to ignore the right to self-determination, now this nation has dealt with decolonisation before and we didn't approach it on the basis that it's only about territorial integrity. Take India, we decolonised in India, but we allowed it to be subject to self-determination. That's why we have India. We have Pakistan with Bangladesh.

So it is quite clear that it is not a situation where territorial integrity trumps everything else. It does not trump self determination. Indeed, and the experience of decolonisation, such as in India, it is itself secondary to self-determination. And yet that is the one thing which has been utterly ignored in this process. The right of the people who claim the Chagos Islands as their homeland to any say of self-determination we have in our history the shameful episode of their forceful removal from the Chagos Islands.

An.i. Under this treaty, we're going to combine that compounded by legitimising it, because it is by legitimising their forceful removal. Let me Chagos Islands that we say it is only about territorial integrity. That is how we get round the question of self-determination. That is wrong. Madam Chair, people of the Chagos Islands are a people. There are people with a homeland. There are people. Therefore, in international law with a right to self-determination. So why does this treaty, why does this bill trash that right of the people of the Chagos Islands? That is the fundamental haunting question when it comes to the humanity of this and indeed the international legal requirements of this situation which prevails.

The government are obviously holding to the line, or it's only about territorial integrity, but they're then hoisted on their own petard, because at one point say that, and then they recognise the Chagossians as the people by setting aside some millions of pounds for them. You cannot say there is only about territorial integrity. There is no people to whom to give the right to self-determination and then to say, but for those people to whom we deny the right to self-determination, here's some conscience money.

Yeah, we kind of do that. And yet that is what this treaty does. And of course, it was the BIOT that recognised the separateness of the people off the Chagos Islands and even even the much vaunted advisory judgement of the International Court gives respect and acknowledgement, to an extent, to the question of self-determination. At one point in the judgement it says this. It follows that any detachment by the administrating PA of part of a non-self-governing territory on West, based on freely expressed and genuine will of the people of the territory concerned, is contrary to the right to self-determination.

So even that advisory judgement recognised the exemption. The exception of a freely expressed and genuine will of the people. But that is what we have not had on this issue. That is what this government has gone out of his way to deny the free and genuine expression of opinion by the people whose homeland is the Chagos Islands, and that is a shameful indictment that combines what we did to those people in the end of the 1960s to not totally dehumanise their human rights by saying you have no rights whatsoever when it comes to self determination.

God, I believe, is fundamentally wrong. And if the splitting of that wider colony in 1965 was illegitimate because there was no self-determination, according to the advisory judgement of the court, then equally the Chagos Islands, rejoining Mauritius without self-determination is a legitimate. You cannot have it both ways. And that is what this bill is seeking to do. It is saying, oh, because it was illegitimate to split this Chagos Islands off from Mauritius in 1965 because there was no self-determination then, its territorial integrity only.

But equally. If the basis of rejoining the Chagos Islands to Mauritius is without self-determination, that not echoing is our chairman, and those are some of the points that this government has not faced, and if it is faced them has not answered, and which this House legitimately tonight is asking and waiting for answers and answers, which, if they do not come, illustrate that this is a tawdry, unacceptable,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

unenforceable bill, as it will be. Yeah. Matthew.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Matthew. Thank you for having me. And that the Minister is going to try his best in a few minutes to defend this wholly indefensible bill. But the public knows what it is. They see it

**** Possible New Speaker ****

as an absolute sell-out, and I suspect the members opposite who are not filling. The. Green benches, see it as a sell-out as well. That's why every single one of them has failed to support this in in committee stage.
20:45
Jerome Mayhew Portrait Jerome Mayhew MP (Broadland and Fakenham, Conservative)
-
-
support this in in committee stage. Say for one brave or perhaps misguided member there you can see the public can see that this is a weak government without the backbone necessary to stand up for the British public interests. They see it as a sell-out, the sell-out that it is both geopolitically, with the government blind to the security risks associated with this. They see it as a sell-out financially, the £34 billion, £35 billion going to a foreign government, and they see it as a sell-out of the Chagossian people and their their exclusion from negotiations.

So the government and frankly, myself, Madam Chair, we're baffled by the government's arguments in relation to this agreement. Look at the legal rationale for capitulation. It has collapsed under scrutiny. We were told by the minister at the despatch box that the primary reason why this deal was needed was because of an imminent. Threat of a binding judgement. That's a quote. And yet no such tribunal exists. Originally, the minister, I believe, thought that it was going to be the International Court of Justice.

But

**** Possible New Speaker ****

we now know. As. The Minister should have know. That the.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

ICJ does not. Have binding capacity when the UK is dealing with a former Commonwealth country. So

**** Possible New Speaker ****

a former Commonwealth country. So it's not the it's not the International Court of Justice. We've also. Had it said. From the despatch box. That

**** Possible New Speaker ****

From the despatch box. That perhaps it's unclosed. And yet we also know now the UN class has. also know now the UN class has. Itself excluded itself from being able to have jurisdiction on land able to have jurisdiction on land based disputes that happened in 2015. So goodness me, Madam Chair, 2015. So goodness me, Madam Chair, don't we need amendment seven. Requiring the government to publish

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Requiring the government to publish the legal arguments behind that currently baffling decision to go through this? Still.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Still. The government's taken. Yes, I would agree, friend, because we're all just wrestling with this. Why? all just wrestling with this. Why? And I suppose the other thing could be in 2017, as my hon. Friend laid out, it was absolutely clear out, it was absolutely clear government position that the ICJ had government position that the ICJ had no no power over us, over a deal made with a Commonwealth member. Perhaps this government, perhaps Perhaps this government, perhaps this Prime Minister, without telling us, has in some way reversed that.

And the government has decided that it should be subject to the ICJ, in which case the Minister would have a point. But shouldn't we know that we

**** Possible New Speaker ****

were made ourselves subject to the ICJ when previously we were not? What are the answers? Are there? The Bible.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The Bible. questions. Questions which have been asked. Of the government time and time again throughout this legislative process. But we simply haven't had an answer. The government seems to an answer. The government seems to be blind to the. Risk of the craven withdrawal of influence from the withdrawal of influence from the Indo-Pacific region. This is more Jonathan Power. He was, of course, the Prime Minister's envoy. He was the Prime Minister's envoy. He was the architect of this negotiation, the deal.

He the more I learn of

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the deal. He the more I learn of Jonathan Powell. The more I. Realise that he seems to have a

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Realise that he seems to have a long term instinct to downplay the threat from China. A threat in. The Indian Ocean through this

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The Indian Ocean through this negotiated deal. Don't forget, Madam Chair. This is the same Jonathan Powell

**** Possible New Speaker ****

This is the same Jonathan Powell who now wears a different hat. He is the national security adviser, a political appointment, very political appointment, very unusually. And it's his involvement. Or perhaps it isn't his involvement in the Chinese spying case in its

**** Possible New Speaker ****

collapse. We're asked to believe that he wasn't involved in it. Well, that's.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Well, that's. He's baffling as well. The risk is at that point. Yes, as I was to find out, the director doesn't speak

**** Possible New Speaker ****

to his deputy director. I will. Yeah. I get I was like, frontbench. Can

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I get I was like, frontbench. Can we ensure that the speech remains within the legislation that we are debating and voting on today?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

debating and voting on today? I to do you say, Madam Chair, in fact, I would more than endeavour I will do so. And the.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Reason. Why it's relevant, Madam. Chair, is because it speaks to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Chair, is because it speaks to new clause five, because we have we have a first argument from the government because whilst they have

**** Possible New Speaker ****

government because whilst they have their head in the sand in relation to Mauritius relations with China. This is why it's important.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

This is why it's important. Madam Chair, their first argument is that Mauritius will not be influenced by China. And isn't it

**** Possible New Speaker ****

influenced by China. And isn't it awful of us to suggest that. Mauritius might be? I raised this question with the former. Foreign Secretary.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Foreign Secretary. The Right honourable member for Tottenham, back in October of last year. I raised concerns that year. I raised concerns that Mauritius was an ally of China and was open to influence by that country, and with his disdain for country, and with his disdain for which he is now famous, he proved that. He said they're not a Chinese that. He said they're not a Chinese ally and therefore, because they weren't part of the Belt and Road in Africa agreement. But when you look Africa agreement.

But when you look at the relationship between China and Mauritius, you can see that they have strong bilateral ties, which go back to 1972 on economic

**** Possible New Speaker ****

cooperation, on diplomatic support. China is the largest trading partner. Of Mauritius.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Of Mauritius. They entered into a free trade agreement with China. In fact, that is the first such free trade agreement that China.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

agreement that China. Has entered. Into and the African continent. Perhaps they didn't need to belong to the Belt and Road Agreement. In to the Belt and Road Agreement. In addition to their free trade agreement. And those influence expressed through investments, loans expressed through investments, loans and grants. China built the international airport terminal for Mauritius. They've invested in the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Mauritius. They've invested in the economic and trade cooperation zone. They built the. That was. A flagship, also road initiative.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

A flagship, also road initiative. And between 2000 and just 2012, they all say funded 47 development all say funded 47 development projects in Mauritius through loans and grants. So forgive me, Madam and grants. So forgive me, Madam Chair, if I don't swallow the argument that Mauritius is wholly beyond the influence of China. But beyond the influence of China. But the government says, well, if they are under the influence of China,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

are under the influence of China, don't worry, because China doesn't support this deal. China will be arguing against this deal. We were told. By the Prime.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

By the Prime. Minister, we were told by the Prime Minister that China, Russia Prime Minister that China, Russia and Iran do not support the Chagos deal. Therefore, presumably. My

**** Possible New Speaker ****

geopolitical security fears must be wrong. Well, minutes had been. Ministers have repeatedly been

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Ministers have repeatedly been asked for the evidence that China did not support this deal. And none has been provided today. And if I'm

**** Possible New Speaker ****

has been provided today. And if I'm wrong on that. Perhaps the Minister. Will say from the despatch box in his winding up, where China has his winding up, where China has expressed their concerns about this deal, because if you listen to the Chinese ambassador to Mauritius, Chinese ambassador to Mauritius, even you, Madam Chair, would be forgiven for thinking that China was thoroughly in favour of this deal thoroughly in favour of this deal because he said, massive congratulations to Mauritius that China fully supports Mauritius China fully supports Mauritius attempts to safeguard national definition.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

definition. mean. That China is wholly in favour, and they celebrating with Mauritius, they're still.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

So I'm. Not convinced, Madam Deputy Speaker, and neither is the government. I will give way. But when he speaks of doublespeak, it's not long within my political not long within my political lifetime that I think the member for Witney, the then Prime Minister, had His Excellency President XI Jinping His Excellency President XI Jinping for a pint in the Plough in Camden in Oxfordshire, and as he departed in Oxfordshire, and as he departed back to China from the airport in my constituency, I sat with the Prime

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Minister forming over the Chinese administration, like some people side? Are you.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Are you. Divided on what our approach to China should be?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

China should be? Because that will refer to me. Jerome Mayhew. Well, I've not often been

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Well, I've not often been compared to a noble Lord, Lord Cameron, but the it is absolutely right that as.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

right that as. The cheery political environment changes, so should. Our policies. We are realists in

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Our policies. We are realists in the side of the House. I will give way time. It's an answer to an old gentleman the golden decade. But gentleman the golden decade. But that's why The Chancellor, who I didn't get on with very well, I have to tell him, was a disaster. And if

**** Possible New Speaker ****

to tell him, was a disaster. And if this anything should be learnt by that this lot your government. His government I think. Is pardon.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Is pardon. Should have learnt that this when you sup with China you better have a very, very long spoon.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Because they suck you in. We got nothing. Out. Of that ten years. And now look at this.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

And now look at this. Yeah. And folly to intervene. Let's remember the scope of the debate in front of us, Mr. Heng. Thank you.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you. Thank you. these. Arguments, Madam Chair, that we need so desperately.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

need so desperately. New clause five, an. Annual security report to the Intelligence and Security Committee. Which means that we won't be

**** Possible New Speaker ****

caught with our heads in the sand again. So we're beginning to build. A picture of a. Slippery

**** Possible New Speaker ****

government. Not being honest with British. People. Not being honest about the legal.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Justifications for this deal. Not being honest about the. Security risk associated with. Deal, and now slippery about the.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Deal, and now slippery about the. Financial cost of this deal as well. Because, again, the Prime

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Minister himself. this. This. Deal, this. Slippery deal was

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Deal, this. Slippery deal was going to cost the taxpayer. £101 million a year for 99 years.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

£101 million a year for 99 years. And he rounded that down from 10 billion, which my maths would come to, to 3.4 billion.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Now the government actuary department, from a Freedom of Information request, has confirmed Information request, has confirmed that the actual cost is 34.7 billion. Did the Prime Minister just get the decimal point in the wrong get the decimal point in the wrong place, or was it something more sinister than that? I don't say you sinister than that? I don't say you can be. Forgiven for thinking that the government should not be trusted any longer. They're changing their

**** Possible New Speaker ****

any longer. They're changing their story in relation to this agreement. They change their story in relation to the China spy. Trial collapse.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Trial collapse. We need a new. Clause. One where no payments can be made without direct approval from the House of Commons. At least then the government will have to explain the real figures and be open to transparency and scrutiny. Yeah, the public sees through Labour's deal they know a sell-out when they see one. The opposition amendments. New clauses bring transparency to expose this sell-out a sell out from a weak Prime Minister without the backbone to stand up for Britain.

No wonder Labour is about to vote against them.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yeah. Jeremy Corbyn. Yeah. Thank you very much, Madam Deputy

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you very much, Madam Deputy Speaker and I will be brief, but I'm very pleased to be able to speak in this debate as Chair of the all-party group on the Chagos all-party group on the Chagos Islands, which last week had its 103rd meeting, ably supported by 103rd meeting, ably supported by David Snorkel, the former British High Commissioner to Mauritius, who High Commissioner to Mauritius, who I think has done incredible work with his knowledge and empathy for the Chagossian people. And there are the Chagossian people.

And there are two former chairs of the group in the House at the moment, the for member Romford and the member for member Romford and the member for Wythenshawe, and the former member for Crawley was also Chair of the for Crawley was also Chair of the group. At one time. We founded that group a long time ago in order to
20:56
Jeremy Corbyn Portrait Rt Hon Jeremy Corbyn MP (Islington North, Independent)
-
-
group a long time ago in order to listen to and take action in support of the Chagos Islanders, who were angry that they'd been forcibly removed from their homes, angry at the way they'd been treated by successive British governments, and very angry at the initial decision was taken and the sheer brutality that went with it. I give you an example, just very briefly, and 1973, a 20 year old Chagossian woman, Liz Betty Ellis, was carrying her unborn child whilst forcibly removed from the Chagos Islands of Paris, Venice.

She lost her unborn child soon after her traumatic upheaval and the journey, and her and her husband survived with considerable uncertainty and very precarious living conditions. Like all other Chagossians. However, 45 years later, in 2018, she represented her community at The Hague when she spoke about her life and her losses. Her story was compelling and memorable. Like so many other Chagos Islanders, the personal horror, trauma and abuse that they suffered and they've always demanded and fought for their right of return.

And that has been the central core of what the Chagos all-party group has done. I realised there are different opinions now within the group about the sovereignty or otherwise of the islands, but there's always been a fundamental agreement on the right of return. And this, of course, led to massive legal actions bravely fought by the Chagos Islands is with very little support. A few people like Richard Gifford, their solicitor, was fantastic in their support and eventually we gathered wider support and we got favourable decisions at all, all levels of justice all around the world, including at the UN, including in the General Assembly of the United Nations.

But I think it's worth just recalling, because many members have done so already. The 1965 decision made by Harold Wilson, the then Prime Minister, in offering Mauritius its independence, came to this extraordinarily complicated deal, which essentially involved the United States getting a base on on Diego Garcia and in return, Mauritius would get independence. And somewhere along the line, as the member for East Wiltshire pointed out earlier, there would either be a discount on the next generation of nuclear weapons, or there would be free delivery of weapons at some point in the future.

A lot of this was shrouded in mystery of private conversation between Wilson and Prime Minister Ram Gulam at the time, so there is a lot of confusion surrounding that somewhere at that time, the idea was to set up the British Indian Ocean Territory, and somewhere at that time there was a decision that the archipelago, which includes Paris, Paris, which is a considerable distance away from Diego Garcia, would be separated from Mauritius as well, and it would have to be depopulated. Hence the utter brutality of the removal of the entirety of the population from the islands.

And so then, the question that many members have brought up tonight is, should the Chagos Islands be separate from Mauritius or part of Mauritius? Interestingly, in the 1965 discussion, Mauritius never accepted the separation, never accepted that the Chagos Islands should be separated either constitutionally or in any other way from Mauritius. And the decision, as we know, was basically forced upon them in return for them gaining their independence. And so we now have a situation where we've finally got to the position of a treaty that has its imperfections, of that everyone is agreed.

Personally, I'm less than happy about the idea of a massive military base on on Diego Garcia, even less happy that it might be there in 100 years time. But there has been a treaty agreed, which will ensure the right of return of Chagos islanders to the Chagos Islands, but unfortunately only limited rights of return to Diego Garcia itself. And I'd be grateful if when the Minister comes to speak later on, I'm looking forward to his speech. He's able to say a bit more about the rights of access to Diego Garcia by Chagos Islanders, their right to visit the church and visit the remains of the graves of their ancestors, and also whether or not there is some possibility of a degree of residence on Diego Garcia, because there's no other place in the world where a military base is, is surrounded by an entirely depopulated area, or in this case, an island.

I'd be grateful if the Minister would be able to say something about that. We fought for the right for return, and I fully understand that. Chagos Islands, some resident here, some in the Seychelles, many in Mauritius and others in a diaspora all around the world, in France and many, many other places all have probably different views. Probably all have different memories. But when surveys were done, when this issue was discussed in great length about ten years ago, were all in favour of the right of return.

The issue of sovereignty under Mauritius wasn't really a great feature of those discussions or those debates, although it appears to be in some cases. Now, what I would say is that we should also be listening to the Chagos Refugee Association, based in Mauritius, led by brilliantly led, in my view, by Olivier Bancoult Hall, who has been through every court case. And he indeed started the whole process of demanding the right of return, which is eventually has been successfully achieved. And if I could quote from the statements that the Chagos refugee Group made last week, they said the agreement therefore meets the aim of our community to be reunited with our islands.

It has been concluded after nearly three years of negotiation between Mauritius and the UK, and extensive consultation. Unless, therefore the agreement is approved and implemented, our exile will continue with no hope of restoring our fundamental human rights and return. It was the creation of the British Indian Ocean Territory on the 8th of June 1965, 60 years ago, which led to our exile. We are seeing another page in the dramatic history of the Indian Ocean. But surely we should recognise the human rights of those people who are so disgracefully treated by Britain and by the United States, but principally by Britain.

They at last will see some degree of justice and the ability to return to their islands. I hope when the Minister replies, you'll be able to give me some hope and comfort. On the question of access to Diego Garcia, and also explain why it is necessary to have these incredibly long leases for the US to continue its operations on Diego Garcia, because it seems to me we should be working towards the Indian Ocean being an ocean of peace, not an ocean of

**** Possible New Speaker ****

conflict between rival powers. Yeah. Here. Yeah.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Here. Yeah. Thank you, Madam Chair, for no apparent reason, and in a crowded field, this government has chosen the Chagos Islands as one of the the Chagos Islands as one of the many hills it wishes to die on. The surrender of the sovereignty of the Chagos Islands has been a puzzling Chagos Islands has been a puzzling misstep now for months with this vote. Today is the culmination of it. The clumsy rush to try and force it. The clumsy rush to try and force the deal through first before the elections of Mauritius, then before the US elections.

Now it just appears to be an attempt to salvage some dignity. Having seemingly
21:04
Ben Obese-Jecty Portrait Ben Obese-Jecty MP (Huntingdon, Conservative)
-
-
some dignity. Having seemingly surrendered meekly to a mauritian shakedown. As my right hon. Friend the member for Tonbridge has previously stated, whilst trying to upsell this to a US government that publicly backs the deal, given it will not cost them a penny, but privately must have concerns regarding the impact of allowing Chinese encroachment in the region. With recent developments regarding US foreign policy shifting focus to the Indo-Pacific, the Chagos Islands deal surely takes on greater significance. The base is now more important to US policy, not less.

Last December, the previous armed forces minister there in his place announced that the deal secures the future of the UK. US based on Diego Garcia. And when everyone sees the detail of the deal, they will back it. Indeed, the Minister for the Overseas Territories confirmed to me that there has been no change to the substance of the deal, which is strange because the new Prime Minister of Mauritius, Naveen Raghuram, described the deal struck with the previous Mauritian government as a sell-out, stating that the deal should be indexed to inflation, take exchange rates into account and should fully recognise Mauritius ownership of the islands, which could affect the UK's unilateral right to renew the lease.

That was in mid-January. Less than a fortnight later, the minister confirmed to me in a written answer that the UK would not have the unilateral ability to extend the agreement at the end of the lease. So what changes were made to the original deal during discussions with the Government of Mauritius? Why is the government gone on record as saying that the deal has not changed, in direct contradiction with the statements from the Prime Minister of Mauritius? Surely the Minister for the Overseas Territories is not suggesting that Prime Minister Ghulam is mistaken.

In January, I asked the Prime Minister whether he had ever discussed the Chagos Islands with Philippe Sands KC. His answer was a brusque no. Brevity is key when you don't want to give too much away. Philippe Sands is representing Mauritius at the International Court of Justice in multiple disputes over the Chagos Islands. In 2022, Mr. Sands published The Lost Colony, a tale of exiled justice and Britain's colonial legacy about Chagos. It is also worth highlighting that Philippe Sands, a Keir Starmer, has

**** Possible New Speaker ****

apparently been very good friends for several years. They even Festival. Coincidence?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Coincidence? Earlier this year, The Telegraph reported that the national security justification for surrendering the Chagos Islands used by the Prime Chagos Islands used by the Prime Minister came from Philippe Sands, who wrote about it in his 2023 book The International Legal Order in the The International Legal Order in the 21st century. Given the apparently no longer represents Mauritius following the change in regime, it following the change in regime, it does make one wonder if that was the reason why there was such a rush to conclude the deal before the election, following which Mr.

Sands services were no longer required. Did the government lose its aim? Yeah. I would be interested to know how the government understands the International Telecommunication Union would block our use of the electromagnetic spectrum. How would they block communications equipment they block communications equipment on Diego Garcia without encroaching on our territory? And what active blocking of electromagnetic frequencies is a UN agency capable frequencies is a UN agency capable of doing anyway? What steps would the ITU take to block the US military's use of the electromagnetic spectrum? Have we electromagnetic spectrum? Have we not progressed this deal? The national security argument simply does not stack up.

New clause six does not stack up. New clause six requires the Secretary of State to report to Parliament annually regarding the impact that it has on the operation of the treaty. The the operation of the treaty. The government has previously stated that it is it lost the International Tribunal of the law of the sea that Tribunal of the law of the sea that would pose the greatest threat to the operation of Diego Garcia. This was specifically cited by the Defence Secretary for the first and only time on May the 22nd, when he said there are a range of international legal challenges and rulings against us.

The most proximate and the most potentially serious is the International Tribunal for the law of the sea. In July, the Minister for Overseas Territories made reference to it, lost for the first time since he himself was a Shadow Minister for foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs, when, in December 2022, he stated that the International Tribunal for the law of the sea did not have competence on territorial disputes. He went on to say that it is a fact that China has made increasing encroachments into the territorial waters of its neighbours and vast claims in the South China Sea, while ignoring judgements against itself.

That's been matched by growing assertiveness and even belligerence towards some of our allies and partners in the region. He asked for assurances then. So now, nearly three years later, and with the belligerent China now flexing its naval muscle in the region, as well as its adoption of a robust posture towards us regarding the delay to the decision on their London embassy and the obvious ongoing spy debacle, what assurances can the government give the House that this opportunity will not be exploited by the Chinese Communist Party? As recently as August, the Russian government stated the strategic role of Mauritius as an investment gateway to Africa and a trusted partner for Chinese enterprises seeking to expand their footprint there in Mauritius, is committed to working closely with China.

Far closer, it would appear, than they are to working with ourselves. Why is the government prepared to embolden Chinese ambition in the Pacific? Why is it prepared to embolden Chinese spying in Parliament? Why is it prepared to allow the Chinese to build an embassy in London without absolute clarity on its structural plans? With all this in mind, why won't the government include China within the enhanced tier of Firs? The shadow of Jonathan Powell looms large over this deal, and has over every aspect of the government's dealings with the Chinese Communist Party across the globe.

We are seeing changes in the rules based order. We must navigate this better. And my fear shared by all on these benches is that this capitulation shows no understanding of the changes we are facing. We need to ensure that this great nation stands up for safety, freedom and security across an increasingly dangerous world. And this deal, this opaque and furtive deal, puts that at

**** Possible New Speaker ****

unacceptable risk. Sammy Wilson.
21:09
Sammy Wilson Portrait Rt Hon Sammy Wilson MP (East Antrim, Democratic Unionist Party)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

Madam Deputy Speaker, a. Deal of such implication. One would have thought, would have. Been hotly debated.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Been hotly debated. In this House. And yet, as we pointed out, there has been no

**** Possible New Speaker ****

pointed out, there has been no attempt to defend. This deal. From the other side of the House.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

In fact, one could. Hardly. Call this. A debate. Because it's all been one sided, and the bill is usually where people argue in favour of whatever the proposal happens to be, and listen to the arguments and rebut the arguments of the other side. We have had no rebuttal from the other.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Side today. Despite the fact that this is such an important daily. I.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I. For some people I'd say this House. This might seem to be an on

**** Possible New Speaker ****

House. This might seem to be an on unimportant issue. Where are the Chagos? Why do they matter? But for.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

But for. Members of the government, even if that's the attitude that they take, our.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Constituents are not. around. The Chagos Islands. There are issues.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

There are issues. In this daily, and. There are issues which have been raised here this evening.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

What should concern. All members on the other side?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Let's just look at them, because the amendments address. These issues. The first one, human rights. The human rights of.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The human rights of. The people who were displaced in the. 1960s and who are ignored in the. 1960s and who are ignored in this day. The right to the termination.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

To the right to the side. Where they can. Live. Etc. Are being ignored. And the government is.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

government is. And yet we are not getting. Any response at all. From the other side.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

From the other side. Of the House. A party. Of that. Talks about human rights all the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

time. You can't. Leave the. EC because human rights are. So important. But the human rights.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

But the human rights. For the people who are affected by this are ignored.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

by this are ignored. debate. Yes, I. Listen to the minister. I thank the honourable gentleman for giving way. He does want to debate, and I have given a number of rebuttals and he mentions the Chagossians, and I'll come to remarks in my concluding remarks about them, and I respect what he has to say. But I would point him to the remarks from the Chagos Refugees Group. And they the Chagos Refugees Group. And they say in their communique to all of us, we urge all Members of Parliament to support the Bill at Parliament to support the Bill at its final stages and deliver long overdue justice to our people.

Passing this bill will mark a turning point at the moment when Parliament stands on the right side Parliament stands on the right side of history and begins to restore what was unjustly taken from us. There are a range of views within

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the Chagossian community, and I think it's important those are put on record. Well, of course there are. Many.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Many. Who take a totally different point of view and who's whose wishes are.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Not reflected on this. And even the amendments between put forward, which. Would seek.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Would seek. To remedy that situation, are. Being. Ignored and. Being opposed by the government. The second.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The second. Issue, of course, is. The whole issue. Of the economy.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

difficult. The. Issues are for. And.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

And. The fiscal position for. The country. Black holes. That we.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

That we. Have to fill by taking money off. Pensioners. By reducing. Benefits.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Benefits. By cutting here and cutting there, and by taxing people to the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

there, and by taxing people to the hilt. And yet when amendments go. Forward simply to ask. For some transparent.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

For some transparent. Transparency and some. Opportunity to look. At the expenditure.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

At the expenditure. Which will be involved in this treaty. Again, we don't. Hear any support from the other

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Hear any support from the other side either. We are concerned. About the. Fiscal position.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Of this country or we're not. And I would. Say suggest that. £35 billion.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

£35 billion. And raising is probably a. Significant figure that we should be looking at and look.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

be looking at and look. Every year. It's making a very powerful point, isn't part of the problem is we don't even know which budget this is coming up. So simple questions. You'd expect the man or woman on the street would be able to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

woman on the street would be able to ask us. We should be surprised. What we may not know. What. Budget they're coming from. But we know whose.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Pockets it's coming from. And that's the pockets of the tax payers. So it really doesn't matter.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

payers. So it really doesn't matter. To a certain extent. All of our constituents will pay

**** Possible New Speaker ****

All of our constituents will pay for this and pay for a deal which. As we pointed out.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

As we pointed out. Before, the. Minister said that the. Chagos Islands were.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Chagos Islands were. away. And giving taxpayers. Money. For it. And we don't even know how much. We're giving.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

We're giving. In the long run. Now, I would. members. On the other side. May have.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

May have. Had some concerns, if not about the human rights, then about the financial. Implications of.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Implications of. This particular deal. They again, we. Especially at this particular.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Especially at this particular. Time. National security. Is an important issue. It's an. Important issue for every member of

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Important issue for every member of this House. And yet yet the. Amendments which.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Seek to ensure that there is. Scrutiny of what happens to these these. Islands. Who has.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Who has. whether. Or not the treaty which has. Been entered. Into guarantees.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Into guarantees. That. There won't be jeopardy.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Put to our. Security situation. Again. Those amendments. Are refused. They're not even. Don't even get anybody attacking.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

anybody attacking. Them or explaining them, and we'll get away. I thank. You for giving way. Does he share

**** Possible New Speaker ****

You for giving way. Does he share my dismay that actually with a government majority of over 170 and with over 400 government MPs, does

**** Possible New Speaker ****

with over 400 government MPs, does he share my disappointment that on an issue of national. Security.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Only one government backbencher actually spoke in this debate? And does he think that that's an indication on how this party views

**** Possible New Speaker ****

indication on how this party views national security and overseas territories being given away for nothing? It does. And the point I.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

And the point I. Was going to make later on, but. I'll. Make it nice since you've given me the.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

me the. Opportunity to do so, is. That whilst. No one was. Rushing to defend. This bill in this.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

This bill in this. House, there'll be hundreds of 10:00. Or half.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Or half. Ten to vote for it. Yeah. And that's the that's the. Worrying. Thing, that.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thing, that. Defence of it. There's none but support of it. Despite the issues that.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

that. We have highlighted. There will be the last. Point. I want to. Make is this.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I want to. Make is this. We have we have, we have been. And I hear. Time and time again that. The government.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Is the. Greenest government that there's ever been. Now, I know what some people raise.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

And the. Hope is that. During this. Well. You can hardly talk about green.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

You can hardly talk about green. Government given your attitude. Towards manmade. Climate change.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The fact that I don't support. The. Policies of net zero doesn't. Mean I.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Mean I. Do not care about the. Environment. And indeed, there. Are many. Many aspects of our environment.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Many aspects of our environment. That we need to protect and deal. Some of the green policies. They. Actually destroy the environment.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Actually destroy the environment. But leave that low. Recently on. The Environmental Audit Committee, we called for.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

An end to bottom. Trawling because of the damage. Which. It does. I'll get 1.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Or 2. But let me just. Finish this point, because the damage to the marine environment. Yet here we. Have a bill which does

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yet here we. Have a bill which does not give any. Long term security to one of the.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Long term security to one of the. Pristine marine environments. Indeed, we're handing over

**** Possible New Speaker ****

responsibility for that to a government that. Couldn't even. Get a boat to. Put the.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Flag up. Yet it's supposed to have a. We're supposed to believe that it will be able to. Protect the.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Marine environment, to if there. Are attempts. To.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

To. Destroy it by foreign. Companies doing deep sea trawling or. Bottom trawling, etc.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Bottom trawling, etc. I would have thought that at least the environmentalists on the other side might have been asking other side might have been asking some questions about this treaty, or would have been supporting some of

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the amendments to the treaty which. Seek to do that. And yet we don't. We find that that's not the case. This is.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

This is. A bad bill. It's going to have long term

**** Possible New Speaker ****

It's going to have long term implications for our country financially. It's going. To have long term implications for those long term implications for those people who felt that. Maybe there was an opportunity that the rights was an opportunity that the rights to self-determination. Would be granted and yet have not been. And granted and yet have not been. And of course, in the long and a long term security, there's they're dangerous. Now, I just want to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

finish with this. Last point. Because the Minister, I have no doubt, will quote and repeat the point he's made. Well, sure, the Americans support it, as if the Americans always make good strategic

**** Possible New Speaker ****

decisions. Yeah. And they don't. And if we're time tonight and I know that you would you would stop me, Madam Chairman, if I did start going through some of the bad strategic decisions that the Americans have made, which we have lived with and the world has lived with and the consequences. So let's not just say, because the Americans, for a short term gain or for a short term interest have supported this date. So therefore it's OK. It's a

**** Possible New Speaker ****

bad deal. Yeah. Yeah, it's a little amendments were made to try and. Improve it tonight.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Improve it tonight. And the shame is that those amendments were not developed. Yeah. They go contrary to the beliefs of They go contrary to the beliefs of many people on the other side of this chamber. And unfortunately, I suspect that it'll go through with a

**** Possible New Speaker ****

huge majority. Final backbench contribution, Mr. Jim Shannon. And if people have contributed, they should make their
21:19
Jim Shannon Portrait Jim Shannon MP (Strangford, Democratic Unionist Party)
-
-
contributed, they should make their way to the chamber. Danny Kruger, I'm looking at you to whip your colleague Jim Shannon.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you. Madam Deputy Speaker, for allowing me to speak on this

**** Possible New Speaker ****

for allowing me to speak on this issue once again. It's always good. I prefix. My comments. It's always. Good to. See the ministers.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

See the ministers. In their place. Both honourable man and whose friendship I value. So, with great

**** Possible New Speaker ****

friendship I value. So, with great respect to both the honourable gentleman, I. Wish to. Make some. Comments, which of course would

**** Possible New Speaker ****

be very contrary to what's dinner. So I do. Not, and I prefix. Up right away so that I can say

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Up right away so that I can say what I have to say and ever, ever. Be respectful. It will. Be no surprise that.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Be no surprise that. I stand here and. At the last. Hour, as the last backbench Speaker, very often the case, but

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Speaker, very often the case, but nonetheless always a pleasure to. Make a contribution. To ask government. Again to reconsider this

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Again to reconsider this oppose. The bill, even though I know the numbers game don't.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

numbers game don't. And doesn't stack up. As we all know. The treaty. Provides for Mauritius to. Exercise full. Sovereignty over.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Sovereignty over. The Chagos Archipelago. While. The UK. Extreme right exercising rights on.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

on. year. Period, and over. Those 99 years,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Period, and over. Those 99 years, the UK will pay Mauritius. billion. And 2526 prices.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

And will probably raise a new class one. And just say.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

And just say. This at a time when we are taxing, let's say we as government. Are. Taxing farmers, taxing widows and

**** Possible New Speaker ****

their pensions, taxing. The middle class into. Oblivion. To see. 3.4 billion been handed over with

**** Possible New Speaker ****

3.4 billion been handed over with a benefit that is not tangible. And is not acceptable. Our constituents will be worse off in the.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

off in the. Next financial year. Indeed, a typical British. Family is as much as. £15,000 per.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

£15,000 per. Year poorer than they were five years ago. That's according to. Money Telegraph analysis just recently.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

recently. Why, then, have we entered into this agreement? Which money. Which. May fluctuate. And cost substantially more.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

And cost substantially more. Than the figure. That has been predicted? If this bill goes ahead tonight, I want to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

bill goes ahead tonight, I want to make it clear. And I think. I believe that this treaty should be renegotiated from. Its.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Its. Beginning to the end. But if the bill is to go ahead, it is essential, I believe, that. Any increases and. Payments would.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Payments would. Come through this. House and whatever. Government is in place at that time should present it. Therefore, I

**** Possible New Speaker ****

time should present it. Therefore, I will support new. Clause. One to give certainty and security that increases do not take

**** Possible New Speaker ****

security that increases do not take place without the approval of this House. New clause two new clause paid on

**** Possible New Speaker ****

nuclear on Saturn. I've long stated that I believe that there are substantial risks now. Terrible business. And that's been. Reiterated by every person bar one in this House. So I'm anxious to understand our legal standing on this, and I believe it is right and proper for this House to understand the nature of how renting from Mauritius will give us a. CFD on the security that is needed to ensure those stationed on the base are relying on support from the PSNI and

**** Possible New Speaker ****

area will feel vulnerable or exposed. So I believe. That still does expose. Us and we need to be.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Us and we need to be. Aware, very much aware of our standing and take the necessary steps. That begins with having full steps. That begins with having full knowledge and not simply empty assurances. The recent debate on with the Chinese spies decisions has

**** Possible New Speaker ****

with the Chinese spies decisions has shown that openness. And transparency. And the kind of building. Are needed even more so tonight.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Are needed even more so tonight. As they have been. And the. Other statements in UK today, this new clause. Will.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Will. Enforce that. As a minimum new clause nine I. Would. Put forward. As well. It's very similar.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

As well. It's very similar. To the new clause. It that. The honourable member for North Antrim Nottingham East put forward.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Antrim Nottingham East put forward. So I support this. New clause nine. As brought. Forward and. In the similarity by my Northern

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Ireland colleagues who are intimately aware of how. Issues on the ground. Can be vastly different than

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Can be vastly different than those reported, the suggestion to ensure that a report is made. On the compliance of.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

On the compliance of. The treaty and the act with the UN General Assembly resolutions and decolonisation is vital, and I believe, on the lines of words of believe, on the lines of words of support that have been given to those who those in the area who are fearful of the removal of British fearful of the removal of British influence and support, and fearful of the mercenary bills which were

**** Possible New Speaker ****

flagged by our American allies in 2023, in their human rights report. And this House, as Chair of the. Appg for.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Appg for. Freedom of Religious. Belief, the. Two issues of human rights and together.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

together. As one. But when we are highlighting the issue of human rights, you're also

**** Possible New Speaker ****

issue of human rights, you're also highlighted in the issue of persecution of religious beliefs. As you are. Vice versa. So I really have to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

express some. Concerns over the human rights. And I do. And I understand that the minister. Will reply, and.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

minister. Will reply, and. I know that. He. issues. As strongly as. I do and believes him as strongly

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I do and believes him as strongly as I do. But I do have absolutely great concerns about the human rights and what. Will be.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Will be. So it is essential that we don't just hand over control and abandon. Not simply the military base, but all in the region who have relied on our support, our friendship. Over the years. This has.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Been, I believe. Unfortunately, Madam Deputy. Speaker. Deputy Chair, from beginning to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Deputy Chair, from beginning to end, our Chagossian citizens remain unhappy. Our armed forces remain

**** Possible New Speaker ****

unhappy. Our armed forces remain unhappy. The families who are footing the bill. Are unhappy. And government.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I have, I believe, have made the wrong decision on this. The recent. Chinese debacle has.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Chinese debacle has. Heightened the need to continue to have. Boots. On the. Ground and. Eyes wide open against those who

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Eyes wide open against those who would seek to thwart British interest and the interests of freedom and democracy worldwide. We freedom and democracy worldwide. We have recently seen the result of appeasement when there's really Deputy Prime Minister highlighted the difficulties brought about by the difficulties brought about by this government's decision to recognise terrorism and the Palestinian state. No borders, no working non terrorist government and no social care system. The handing

**** Possible New Speaker ****

no social care system. The handing over of Chagos and running it back will, I. Believe. Be proven to be a costly and

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Be proven to be a costly and dangerous exercise and capitulation. And even this very, very late stage. I urge government to think again and I urge government to think again and at the very least, to accept additional protection for the sake of all our collective security.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

of all our collective security. Thanks very. Much. Minister. OK.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you, Madam Chairman, and I want to thank all honourable members want to thank all honourable members for their contributions today, and I will attempt to respond to the specifics of the amendments and new clauses proposed and in due course. But I did want to come back to some of the fundamental points that have of the fundamental points that have been raised during the course of the debate. First, and also to respond to the specific questions that were
21:26
Stephen Doughty Portrait Stephen Doughty MP, Minister of State (Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office) (Cardiff South and Penarth, Labour )
-
-
raised. And I'm, you know, with the exception, Madam Chair, of some, I think, genuine questions in relation to the Chagossians in relation to the MPAA and the environmental protections. I mean, some questions about the implementation of this treaty. It was a shame to see the rehash of the same arguments that have being made before at Second Reading and indeed and indeed, Madam Chair, some quite frankly, outrageous and nonsensical arguments and claims, particularly relation to the costs and other matters which I'll come to.

And I have to say, Madam Chair, I was shocked at some of the, quite frankly, anti-American, conspiracy fuelled nonsense that we heard at various points during this debate as well. This base is critical to the United and to the United States and our allies and our national security, and this bill and this treaty protects the functioning of that base. It doesn't surrender it. It secures it into the future. Madam Chair. And this is a government that inherited a mess from the foreign ministers opposite.

We're getting stuff done and we're a patriotic government. Our first duty is to protect the national security of this country. And that is why we have got this deal done. It's why it's backed by the United States. It's why it's backed by our Five Eyes partners. And it's absolutely crucial to protect the British people and the people in our allies. We've been very transparent about the regions, the reasons for it, and it's the exact opposite of what has been suggested. And I do come back,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

as I always have done, madam Chair, to the fundamental. Question, if there was not a problem and if there was not a risk problem and if there was not a risk to the operations, this crucial base, why did the previous government start the negotiations? government start the negotiations? Why did they continue them through 11 rounds of negotiations? Why did they continue them right up until they continue them right up until the general election? That's the facts, Madam Chair. No, I'm going to make some points.

I'm gonna make make some points. I'm gonna make some points first, then I will, I will, I will happily take interventions, but I, I want to respond to the points. And as I respond to the points. And as I said, ma'am, Chair, this agreement has been backed by our key allies and international partners, including the US. Our Five Eyes including the US. Our Five Eyes allies, India, Japan and South Korea have also made clear their strong supports and many questions ever asked about the robust security provisions that we have in place to protect the UK and the base for protect the UK and the base for decades to come.

The treaty and the bill secure full operational control of Diego Garcia, a strict ban on the foreign security forces across the archipelago, and an effective veto on any activity that threatens the base on Diego Garcia. It's been welcomed, Madam Chair, by the International Agreements Committee and International Relations and Development Committee. And the other Development Committee. And the other place you said, and I quote, they were assured that the agreement preserves the UK's and the United preserves the UK's and the United States freedom of action, and the legal rationale has been referred to many times, Madam Chair, but legally binding provisional measures from the courts could have come within weeks, for example, affecting our ability to patrol the waters around Diego Garcia.

And even if we did not comply, international organisations and other countries would. We set out the legal rationale. On a number of occasions, we've been very clear. We also published documents around it. And I'm going to I'm going to respond to some points. First, the honourable members have had plenty of time to make their case. I've also responded to many of the points during the course of the debate, and I'm going to respond to the questions, madam Chair. And China has been raised erroneously on many occasions, Madam Chair, but we have negotiated robust security provisions to protect the UK and the base for decades to come.

And this includes a strict ban on any foreign security forces, including the Chinese, across the archipelago. Chair. The question of finances was raised by a number of members, and indeed a number of the amendments refer to this. And I have to be absolutely clear, as I was at Second Reading, Madam Chair, the 30 to 35 billion figure quoted by some in the opposition is totally inaccurate and wildly misleading. It is utterly wrong to ignore the effects of inflation and the changing value of money on the real costs of a deal that lasts 99 years.

We publish the full costs alongside the treaty, the average cost. They ask how much? I have been very clear about this throughout this debate, and at the earlier stage, is the average cost per year in today's money is 101 million, and the net present value of payments under the treaty is 3.4 billion. And just for comparison, Madam Chair, the cost favour compare favourably to other international basing agreements. France, for example, as I've said, recently announced an 85 million deal per year deal with Djibouti.

This base is much larger, has much more capabilities. This compares very, very favourably. And they ask about costs, Madam Chair. They ask about costs. The total expected cost of the treaty using that NPV methodology, which is the same. It's been agreed by the government actuaries department and others, is just over one third of the value lost by the Department for Health and Social Care under their governments on PPE. That was waste in the first year of the pandemic. So if they want to talk about costs and wasting money, this is an investment in our national security.

It's a clear investment in our national security. And we won't apologise. We won't scrimp on our national security, and we won't apologise for keeping our base safe. I won't get the writing in way. Yeah.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Could you give any example worldwide where NPV has been used

**** Possible New Speaker ****

worldwide where NPV has been used been. Very, very clear throughout the methodology. We've set it, we've methodology. We've set it, we've published it. It's been backed by the Oga. It's been backed by the statistics regulator and others. And I'm happy to set that all out again for him in writing if that would be helpful. And I was quite surprised, helpful. And I was quite surprised, Madam Chair, to hear some of the very unfortunate remarks made by some members about the United States some members about the United States and their commitment to this base.

The United States pays for operating costs. We have a crucial national costs. We have a crucial national security relationship, which keeps us and the United States and our allies safe. This is a joint base on Diego Garcia. It is absolutely right that those arrangements are in place. And as I said, the value from place. And as I said, the value from the capability at the base is priceless. This is an absolutely right investment to make. And I was right investment to make. And I was appalled.

I was appalled, Madam Chair, by some of the comments that were being made. And I remind I were being made. And I remind I remind the House, Madam Chair, I remind the House that President Trump, Secretary of War Hegseth, and Secretary Rubio have publicly supported the treaty, as have five vice partners and others. No, I'm vice partners and others. No, I'm not going to give way to anyone who wasn't even here throughout the debate. And his leader is missing in action. Oh, he's turned up now.

I mean, he's come up with so many different figures throughout this. I mean, you know, but but he has finally turned up. It's good to see him here. Questions were raised about the Chagossians, madam Chair, the government and I do want I do want to respond to these very seriously because I do recognise, as I have done, the very sincere feelings that are felt amongst different parts of Chagossian community. We've heard the range of views expressed today by different members like acknowledge the Chagossians who are here in the gallery.

I understand many of them will not support this treaty, but there are other Chagossians and Chagossian groups who do support this treaty, as we've heard during this debate. But I repeat again, for the record, Madam Chair, the government deeply regrets the late Chagossians were removed from the islands. We are committed to building relationship that is built on respect and acknowledgement of the wrongs of the past. The negotiations were between the UK and Mauritius, with our priority being to secure full operational base on Diego Garcia.

But we will finance a new trust fund for Mauritius to use in support of the Chagossian communities. We will work to start a new programme of visits, including to Diego Garcia and of course, Mauritius will be able to develop a programme of resettlement on the islands other than Diego Garcia. And of course we will continue our

**** Possible New Speaker ****

support to Chagossians living in the UK through new and existing projects. So we're looking for. Right now.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Right now. I thank the Minister for giving way. I just want to make this point and I hope the whole House can unite and I hope the whole House can unite around this point. I want to pay tribute to the Chagossians in the United Kingdom for the contribution United Kingdom for the contribution they give to the. Schools. In their communities, to the Catholic churches in where they live and in churches in where they live and in my constituency for the work with Inshore Hospital and for Manchester Airport, it is second to none.

They Airport, it is second to none. They are welcome here and we value them very much. Despite our political differences. This.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

differences. This. Well, Madam Chair, I would completely and wholeheartedly associate myself with those comments from my honourable friends. I know from my honourable friends. I know he's been a passionate advocate for Chagossians in the UK and particularly in his constituency over many years. We've spoken about this matter many, many times and I know he and other members speak. I

**** Possible New Speaker ****

know he and other members speak. I will give way, of course. And will you. Reply to the point made by the Ombudsman for Surrey made by the Ombudsman for Surrey Heath and myself and others, that not in the last 100 years, since the exchange of colonies after the First World War, has a people been transferred from the sovereignty of one empire to another without being properly consulted.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Here, here? Yeah. And he knows that we regret what happened historically in relation to the Chagos Islands. And he will also know. He will also know that the islands are not permanently inhabited. This was necessarily a negotiation between the United Kingdom and Mauritius. I wonder, Madam Chair, to the response to many points made about the environment, which many amendments are down on. We are absolutely clear. The United Kingdom of Mauritius are committed to protecting one of the world's most important marine environments.

And indeed, the Mauritian Prime Minister met with the former Secretary of State for Defra in the margins of the third United Nations Ocean Conference in Leith on the 9th of June, where he reaffirmed his commitment to the creation of that marine protected area around the Chagos Archipelago. That's going to be supported by our enhanced partnership with us. The treaty has been welcomed by leading conservation NGOs, including ZSL. We're continuing to work with Mauritius on the implementation of that. We're looking very seriously at many of the genuine concerns that have been raised by honourable members around the House and, of course, the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee and the members of the Environmental Audit Committee.

These are serious questions. They are important questions. I can assure them we're taking them sincerely and trying to respond to them in due course. And I hope to be able to update the House in due course around that. Mr Speaker, I want I wanted to come specifically

**** Possible New Speaker ****

to the amendments, but I will give my first. In 2017.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

In 2017. It was the clear position. That. The ICJ. Did not was not in a position to adjudicate where there was a relationship between us and a member of the Commonwealth. Has that

**** Possible New Speaker ****

of the Commonwealth. Has that changed and if so, when? We have been very, very clear about the legal position. I'm a legal risk. His of course, his government knew this. That's why they started the process. And he knows I don't want to take my House by going through all of the by going through all of the arguments I made at the Second Reading. But he knows that, and we face the comprehensive rejection of our arguments. The ICJ in 2019, we our arguments.

The ICJ in 2019, we lost votes in the UN General Assembly. We had the maritime delimitation judgement binding on

**** Possible New Speaker ****

delimitation judgement binding on Mauritius and the Maldives. I will hear the Minister.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I will hear the Minister. You, Madam Chair, I mean, they asked the questions and then they making so much noise they don't even making so much noise they don't even want to hear. I mentioned previously the obligations placed on the by administration by UN bodies to see specific activities. I mentioned the series of procedural complications and blockages at international organisations, including the C and TVT, and there are many, many examples of why there were clear risks are explained before the potential.

And chapter seven and seven of it loss. But Madam Chair, I have each hunter's potential. Is he willing to play gambles with our national security? Is he willing to gamble the operation of faith? Oh, he is, he is.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

He is. He is. Willing to gamble it, I mean, I fine, Madame Chair, I, I find this I fine, Madame Chair, I, I find this I find this absolutely extraordinary, absolutely extraordinary that he is willing to gamble with our national security and that of our allies. And that is exactly why the United States and our five wise partners back this deal, because it secures the debate. I'm the speaker, Madam Chair. I'm going to turn particularly to the specific particularly to the specific amendments that have been tabled.

The Right Honourable Member for with them tabled amendments 1 to 7 and new clause two in relation to the publication of legal advice, she publication of legal advice, she will know and she will know from her time in government. It is highly unusual for the government to publish legal advice it's obtains. publish legal advice it's obtains. The legal advice is privileged. It's important the government is able to take frank and confidential advice, as she well knows in some as she well knows in some circumstances.

The government, Madam Chair, may publish a statement of its legal position and that is what we did in the case of the Diego Garcia treaty on the same day as it was signed. And as I've repeatedly explained, members keep chuntering explained, members keep chuntering on this. If a long term deal is not reached between the UK and Mauritius, it's highly likely that Mauritius, it's highly likely that further wide ranging litigation would be brought quickly by Mauritius against the UK, and that Mauritius against the UK, and that might include further arbitral proceedings against the UK under annexe seven of the UN convention on the law of the sea, and that would be binding on the UK.

Madam Chair, I'm going to turn to amendments 11 and 14 now. The member for Clacton, who finally turned up, proposed several amendments. He's not he's not even listening. They appear to serve no function other than wasting government and parliamentary time. The public consultation proposed an amendment 11, and the impact assessment would be needlessly costly and time consuming, and they would only confirm the conclusion which he had no answers on. Madam Chair, that has already been reached by our closest ally, the United States, and indeed the International Agreements Committee and the International Relations and Defence Committees, and indeed our Five Eyes partners and the public already know the treaty secures the future of our crucial base on Diego Garcia.

The strategic value has been debated at length and is well understood. And we're not willing, Madam Chair, to gamble with our national security, even if the member for Clacton is willing to do so. And quite frankly, the gall of him turning up after those comments regarding NATO and Russia, I do find quite extraordinary. Madam Chair, amendment 13. He also offered a very ill conceived proposal at amendment 13 that will keep Diego Garcia listed as an overseas territory, while accepting that His Majesty the King would no longer be sovereign.

It is not only constitutionally inaccurate, but the context of the British Nationality Act would have serious consequences for the nationality rights of Chagossians born on different islands in the archipelago, and surely it cannot be his intention that individuals born on Diego Garcia should be treated differently to those born on para, Spaniards or the Solomon Islands. Madam Chair, I turn to clause five, amendments three, four, five, six and eight from the members. For with them, and indeed from Surrey Heath they proposed a series of amendments seeking to change or remove the statutory powers to make Order in Council.

And it's of course, absolutely right. Parliament should be able to scrutinise the use of power, which is why the Bill provides for the negative procedure to be used. But, Madam Chair, the vast majority of changes that the government will make using this power will be technical and operational amendments on matters to ensure our domestic law is consistent with the new status of Diego Garcia on matters as varied as police pensions, copyright law, changes to student finance and the proposed amendments would mean that the House would be obliged to spend valuable parliamentary time on each change to legislation.

For 99 years now, they surely can't wish us to spend that amount of time on all of these things. And that approach is consistent with powers taken to amend existing legislation in previously comparable situations. And Madam Chair, new clause one, new clause 11, new clause ten regarding the prior approval of payments. I've set out very clearly the costs are the absolute nonsensical figures that have been put forward by the opposition, indeed by the honourable member for Clacton we wholly reject clauses and new clauses one, 11 and ten.

It is entirely useful and proper for payments under international treaties to be made under the Royal prerogative, and, of course, requiring a separate, distinct vote before payments can be made. Would it create unacceptable risk for the long term sustainability of the treaty, and without the certainty that this bill and this treaty provides the UK and US military would not be able to invest in vital capabilities, and that would have major operational implications for the base new clause 11 from the honourable member for Surrey Heath.

The House of Commons will scrutinise our annual estimates in the usual way. Spending under this treaty will be included in that process, and new clause ten is not necessary either. I'm coming to the final amendments here, but there were a number, Madam Chair. The amendments new clause three, new clause for new clause nine on the marine protected area. There's no requirement for the UK to consent to margaritis establishing such an area or to its management, and it would be inconsistent with the treaty.

But although the UK will be playing a different role in respect to the future NPA, both the UK and Mauritius remain committed to protecting this vital marine environment. And that is why, under the terms of the treaty, we will provide technical support and assistance to Mauritius in accordance with the separate written instruments and we won't make any additional direct payments to Mauritius as part of this activity on Chagossians and the right of self-determination amendments 910 equals seven you. Clause eight new. Clause 12 new 1314.

A number of those amendments concern the Chagossian community, and I understand and share the strength of feeling on the wider subjects and the historical treatment of the Chagossian communities. And that is why the government has put at the heart of this bill the preservation of nationality rights. And I am sympathetic regarding the concerns put forward regarding resettlement. And I understand the intention of amendment nine. But it isn't necessary, because under the agreement, we've already agreed that Mauritius will be able to develop a programme of resettlement on islands other than Diego Garcia.

And I am against the comments from Olivier Bancoult, Bancoult and the Chagos Refugees Group. He's been very clear that that's why they support this and are urging us all to support the treaty. And I also understand the questions on consultation. But as I've said, these negotiations were between the UK and Mauritius. The islands that make up Biot do not have and have never had a set of population and have never been self-governing and no question of self-determination for a population therefore arises now on national security.

New clauses five, six, 15 and 17 A number of amendments were tabled relating to national security issues, and these are simply not needed because this treaty protects our national security and secures the base. We have. Madam Chair, maintain full operational control of Diego Garcia with all the necessary rights and authorities, as well as a series of additional protections. So, in closing, Madam Chair, this bill and this treaty have been thoroughly scrutinised. And I'm not I'm not going to give way now.

There's been plenty of debate. There've been plenty of questions. There's been plenty of discussion. The government is providing all information necessary for Parliament to hold us to account, including publishing the full cost of the treaty and the legal rationale for the deal, the International Agreements Committee and the International Relations and Defence Committee have confirmed their agreement. The bill does what we have set out that it does, and the government does not take risks as the opposition or indeed reform would do with our national security, and that has been our priority throughout.

And I reject these amendments and urge the passage of this bill.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Is it your pleasure that amendment one?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

amendment one? Is it your pleasure that the. Main one be withdrawn? Amendment

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Main one be withdrawn? Amendment by leave withdrawn? We now come to amendment seven to clause one, which has been selected for separate has been selected for separate decision. I called Priti Patel to move amendment seven formally. The

**** Possible New Speaker ****

question is that amendment seven be made, as many are as of that opinion, say. I are.
21:45
None Portrait Division
-



**** Possible New Speaker ****

I are. Of the contrary. No.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The The question The question is The question is that The question is that amendment

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is that amendment seven be made as many as of that seven be made as many as of that opinion, say aye of the contrary. No, no. Tell us, for the eyes of David Reid and Jerome Mayhew tell us David Reid and Jerome Mayhew tell us for the nos Deirdre Costigan and

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I. Thank. You.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The. Order.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the ayes to the right, 174. The nose to the. Left.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

321. Oh.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Oh. And the ayes to the right were

**** Possible New Speaker ****

And the ayes to the right were 174. The noes to the left 321. So the noes have it, the noes have it,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

and unlock. It. We now come to amendment nine to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

We now come to amendment nine to clause one, which has been selected for separate decision. I call Doctor

**** Possible New Speaker ****

for separate decision. I call Doctor formally. Formally is.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Formally is. That amendment nine be made? As

**** Possible New Speaker ****

That amendment nine be made? As many as that opinion say I of the contrary. No. No reason. The The question The question is The question is that The question is that amendment The question is that amendment nine be made as many as that opinion say I of the contrary. No, no. But tell us, for the eyes are Zoe Franklin and Susan Murray the tellers for the noes, Deirdre Costigan. I I.

I I. I. I. I. I. I. I. I. I.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Order. the ayes to the right 83. The noes to the left.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

noes to the left. 391. Nick Thomas-Symonds in.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

391. Nick Thomas-Symonds in. the ayes to the right were 83 the noes to the left 319 so the noes noes to the left 319 so the noes have it, the noes have it unlock. The question is that clause one The question is that clause one stand part of the bill. As many as of that opinion, say aye. I of the of that opinion, say aye. I of the contrary. No, I think the ayes have it, the ayes have it.

The question it, the ayes have it. The question is that clause two stand part of the bill. As many as of that opinion,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

bill. As many as of that opinion, say aye. I of the contrary. No. No. Division.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

No. Division. Is Is that Is that clause Is that clause two Is that clause two stand Is that clause two stand part Is that clause two stand part of Is that clause two stand part of the bill. As many areas of that opinion say. I have the contrary. No, no. But tell us, for the eyes of Deirdre Costigan and Stephen Morgan that tell us for the nose. Jerome Mayhew tell us for the nose.

Jerome Mayhew

**** Possible New Speaker ****

No, No, no, I. I. And I. And I. I. I. Can. I. Can. I.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

In don't order, order! Be nice to the right to 318 the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Be nice to the right to 318 the no. To left 174.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

no. To left 174. the ayes to the right with 318.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the ayes to the right with 318. The noes to the left 174. So the ayes have it. The ayes have it unlock.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

unlock. With the. Leave of the committee, I will put the questions on clauses 3 to 6 put the questions on clauses 3 to 6 stand part together. The question is stand part together. The question is that clauses 3 to 6 and part of the bill, as many as of that opinion, bill, as many as of that opinion, say aye. I of the contrary. No, I think the ayes have it, the ayes have it. New clause one has been have it.

New clause one has been selected for a separate decision. I call Priti Patel to move new clause one formally. one formally.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Be formally. Thank you. Approval of payments to Mauritius by.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The House of Commons. The question is that new clause one be read a second time, as many heirs of read a second time, as many heirs of that opinion say. I. I of the that opinion say. I. I of the contrary. No. No decision. Clear the The The question The question is The question is that The question is that new The question is that new The question is that new clause The question is that new clause one be read a second time as many as of be read a second time as many as of that opinion I.

I of the contrary. No, no. The tell us, for the eyes No, no. The tell us, for the eyes are David Reed and Jerome Mayhew the tellers for the noes, Deirdre Costigan and Stephen Morgan. Are Are part.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The The order. The order. Order.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The order. Order. The order. Order. The The order. Order. The ayes The order. Order. The ayes to The order. Order. The ayes to the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The order. Order. The ayes to the right 172. The noes to the left 322. The ayes to the right for 172. The

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The ayes to the right for 172. The noes to the left 322. So the noes have it. The noes. Have.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

It unlock.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Order! Whip to report. I beg to report.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Whip to report. I beg to report. But the committee has gone through the bill and directed me. To report the same amendment.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Under the order of 9th of September. We shall now move to September. We shall now move to Third Reading of the Bill. No kings

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Third Reading of the Bill. No kings consent. Minister to move. Third Reading Luke Pollard. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I beg to move that the bill now be read a third time in a world that is growing more dangerous, this Labour growing more dangerous, this Labour government will always put Britain's
22:43
Luke Pollard Portrait Luke Pollard MP, The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Plymouth Sutton and Devonport, Labour )
-
-
government will always put Britain's security first. And if there's one thing that members should take away from today's debate, it is the absolute necessity of this bill to secure the military base on Diego Garcia, which has played a critical role in defending the UK and our allies for over 50 years. Both the treaty and the Bill guarantee the long term, secure operation of our military base and ensure that it will continue protecting our national security for generations to come. Let me take this opportunity to thank members on both sides of the House for their scrutiny of the Bill throughout its passage, I'm grateful for those who contributed to the vigorous debate at Second Reading in September and to those who participated in today's committee proceedings.

I thank the International Agreements Committee and the International Relations and Defence. Committee for their thorough inquiries into the substance of the treaty, and I want to thank in particular my hon. Friend for Cardiff South and Penarth for his tireless efforts in guiding the Bill through the House. I would also like to thank the officials who worked on the bill and the treaty, both under this government and under

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the previous government. Lastly, I would. Like to thank and express my sincere gratitude to our

**** Possible New Speaker ****

sincere gratitude to our United. States. For. treaty.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Negotiation process. Their backing was. Crucial in ensuring. That this treaty, in the words of the US Defence Secretary Hegseth, secures the operational capabilities of the base for many years to come. of the base for many years to come. This treaty also recognises the importance of the islands to the Chagossians. This government Chagossians. This government respects the diversity of views within the community, so we will continue to engage with the continue to engage with the Chagossian groups over the coming months and years.

We have also committed to increase our support through new and existing projects. The US are Five Eyes partners. India, Japan, the Republic of Korea have all supported this deal. Our adversaries would have loved to see adversaries would have loved to see this deal fail and the military base placed under threat. But this. Government is not risking.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Government is not risking. Our national security. As the party talks, it. Will play. With it.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

With it. So let me make it very clear why we are here today. We inherited a set of negotiations started by the conservatives. They chose to start negotiations to deliver what Lord Cameron said in January 2024 would be the safety, security and long term viability of their base. The Right Honourable Member for Braintree also explained the objectives at this very despatch box. He said they were to secure an agreement on the basis of international law to strengthen cooperation with Mauritius on maritime security and the environment, and to tackle illegal migration.

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

**** Possible New Speaker ****

us be absolutely clear. The conservatives started. The negotiations. They held 11 rounds, but they

**** Possible New Speaker ****

They held 11 rounds, but they failed to secure a deal. It's a question, Madam Deputy Speaker. Then

**** Possible New Speaker ****

not a single Tory MP wanted. To answer today. Why did they start these negotiations if it was so bad, if it

**** Possible New Speaker ****

negotiations if it was so bad, if it was such. A. Threat to national security, why was it a Conservative government

**** Possible New Speaker ****

was it a Conservative government that started the negotiations? Why did they held 11 rounds? It was. A. Labour.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Labour. Government that secured the deal. It's a Labour government that. Is going to. Secure the. Future of our military base. And

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Future of our military base. And that is why I commend this bill to the House. Minister, have you the House. Minister, have you concluded the question, is the bill be not read a third time I come to
22:46
Priti Patel Portrait Rt Hon Priti Patel MP (Witham, Conservative)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

the shadow Foreign Secretary, Jane Priti Patel, to. Well, let me begin my. Remarks by once again paying.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Remarks by once again paying. Tribute to the heroic Chagossian community who have. Joined us once.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Joined us once. Again today for this debate. And they have. Been here for. A good four hours. If I. May, Madam Deputy Speaker, just

**** Possible New Speaker ****

in response. To the Minister's last. Point. He may have heard us say this

**** Possible New Speaker ****

previously at Second Reading and Opposition day debates, that no. Deal is better than a. Terrible. Terrible deal. And this.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Side of the House would never have put this door forward. So throughout this process, this

**** Possible New Speaker ****

So throughout this process, this government let me just let me just be clear about this. They can all make as much noise as they want on the opposite benches. None of them the opposite benches. None of them were here. You can point your fingers as much as you want. None of them were sitting here. Anyone today defending their. Government on this terrible deal. But let me come back to the Chagossian community, because

**** Possible New Speaker ****

to the Chagossian community, because throughout this process, they have been silenced and. Ignored by this government. And they have faced decades of.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

And they have faced decades of. Pain and hurt. This is not a laughing matter at. may. Want to sneer about.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Want to sneer about. This, but they should pay some respect to the Chagossian people. Because we praise them and are.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Because we praise them and are. Grateful to them for their dignified campaign. And there are some. Members in this House. Even if I.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Even if I. May say so, on those benches opposite that have Chagossians. Is. Their own constituents who they

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Their own constituents who they have made representations on behalf. Of as well. And I think we should thank them for the work that they have done. I also want to.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I also want to. Thank. Honourable members. From across the House for their interest in this bill and their

**** Possible New Speaker ****

interest in this bill and their diligence, scrutiny. And I say that because the Labour government has sought to keep. treaty. Short and.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Short and. Restricted as possible, we've seen that again. They've not been here to. Contribute to those debates. What

**** Possible New Speaker ****

would they know? And I'm. Particularly grateful. For the efforts of honourable members that are actually put some challenges in debate into this bill, including the interest in the evidence session that took place at the Foreign Affairs Committee, and also honourable members on this side also honourable members on this side of the House from the Environmental Audit Committee, the Science and Technology Committee, who spent Technology Committee, who spent valuable time in select committees. Let me emphasise that in select committees scrutinising this treaty committees scrutinising this treaty and of course, members on this side of the House, you've been relentless, and I thank them for their forensic questioning and exposing the scandalous way in which this government has acted.

These debates have.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

debates have. Benefited from the legal expertise and knowledge of former ministers and law officers, and I'm thankful to them for their thankful to them for their contribution and support. I do also. Madam Deputy Speaker, I want to pay tribute to the Minister for the tribute to the Minister for the Overseas Territories, the honourable member for Cardiff South and Penarth. He has been diligent in the Penarth. He has been diligent in the way in which he's responded to questioning, and he's probably spent more time in the House debating this more time in the House debating this issue than he probably expected to do originally.

And I'd like to say that in terms of written communications as well, he has communications as well, he has become the Minister for defending the indefensible. And while we do disagree robustly on this treaty, we do thank him and respect him for his contributions. But, Madam Deputy Speaker, let's be clear. This is a bad bill for Britain, and this side of the House will continue to oppose it, and our colleagues in the other place will give it further scrutiny. It leaves Britain weaker and poorer.

It gives succour to our enemies. It has shown the world that under Labour, Britain is being governed by weak ministers who appease the wing whims of left wing lawyers and activists, rather than standing up for our national interests, friends and foe alike will now see Britain as a soft touch who can be bullied by law. Friends who are waving the white flag of surrender rather than proudly flying the Union flag for Britain's standing in the world and for our defence and national security, and for our suffering British taxpayers.

I bitterly regret the passage of this bill. For months, we've been calling on Labour to step back from the brink and ditch this mind boggling surrender deal. But this government has arrogantly blundered on Britain, comprehensively lost in these negotiations. The treaty and the bill we have considered today. As a result, ministers have squirmed and, I have to say, rolled over every term. And beneath him for breakfast by the Russian government. And let me be clear, we will oppose this bill at every step of the way in this House and the other place.

And I think it's worth noting, Madam Deputy Speaker, within weeks of coming to power, this soft touch government decided it would end more than 200 years, 200 years of British sovereignty over this vital territory for our country's security and national interests, for no justifiable reasons, we're given up not just the islands of the archipelago, but more than that, the national interest is being squandered, and so is peace and stability in that area. The government is asking British taxpayers who it is already thrashed with vindictive taxes, to now shoulder the burden of this scandalous deal.

And it's simply not on because Labour governments often bang on about the redistribution of wealth. But today they're taking it to a new level about redistribution of wealth from Britain to Mauritius. And how much of the money is going to be plundered from the defence budget, hindering our armed forces ability to procure new capabilities at the worst possible time, when the minister has overseen a freeze on procurement as the world gets more dangerous, and we do know the world is getting more dangerous, and the much vaunted SDR, which Labour pledged would see off all the major threats, was overdue.

Underfunded. But guess what? Labour has no plan to pay for it now. So here we are. Now they find themselves, find it within themselves to spend £35 billion on this deal. And this is not just money from down the line in the future. It's hundreds of millions of pounds each year within this Parliament. And today the government has sunk to a new low. Labour MPs have voted against giving Parliament this House a say over spending £35 billion of our constituents money going to Mauritius with no strings attached.

Mauritius will now use our money to reduce its debt and cut taxes. Because of this, government Labour MPs have voted to block the publication of a summary of legal advice on which the government relied to make this dodgy deal. You'd have thought they would have learned from the current China debacle that this is not the right way. But no, they still cannot offer a sound legal explanation for why they've rushed through this deal. They've refused to adopt our amendments to ensure the monitoring of our rights of Chagossians will be safeguarded.

To whom? We have a special responsibility. The Chagossians have been neglected and ignored by Labour since this election, so it comes as no surprise. And it's now a bitter blow for them that there is no cost, implication, or indeed any good reason as to why we're going down this route. They've also declined to adopt our amendment to keep the Intelligence and Security Committee appraised of the security protections in this treaty, again denying honourable members the scrutiny to which they are entitled to.

It's astonishing, in light of the national security concerns that this terrible deal now brings, and it leaves our country weaker and poorer, I'm afraid. Madam Deputy Speaker, this is a deal, this government, and I have to say our country will come to regret it.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Pinkerton. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. It gives me no pleasure to say it that this bill fails to Chagossian people. For decades, decisions about the Chagos decades, decisions about the Chagos Islands have been taken without the consent of those most affected. The
22:54
Al Pinkerton Portrait Dr Al Pinkerton MP (Surrey Heath, Liberal Democrat)
-
-
consent of those most affected. The treaty continues that injustice, offering no guaranteed right of return, no legally binding resettlement plan, and no meaningful protection of Chagossian rights. The Liberal Democrats support negotiations with Mauritius and respect for international law, but never at the expense of Chagossian dignity. The treaty, as it stands, lacks transparency, environmental safeguards and accountability for the substantial public expenditure it entails. That's why we tabled seven amendments to inscribe parliamentary oversight to protect the marine environment, to uphold Chagossian rights to self-determination.

These include provisions for scrutiny of ministerial decisions, mandatory environmental reporting and a referendum of the Chagossian people themselves. We also called for full

**** Possible New Speaker ****

financial transparency and a review of the welfare of Chagossians living in the UK. Many. Of whom continue to face hardship

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Of whom continue to face hardship as a direct result of historic displacement. This is not merely a displacement. This is not merely a matter of geopolitical assets or territorial claims. It's about justice, belonging and moral justice, belonging and moral responsibility to those who call the Chagos Islands home. I thank the Minister for Europe, North America and the Overseas Territories for the numerous conversations that we've numerous conversations that we've had during the passage of this bill. He's been generous with his time.

I am disappointed, however, that he am disappointed, however, that he didn't feel able to accept some of the amendments and suggestions that the amendments and suggestions that I made during that process. But to finish, I finish with the words lifted from the UN charter, a lifted from the UN charter, a document this country helps to shape. The purpose of the United Nations is to develop friendly relations among nations based on relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of rights and self-determination of peoples.

That right has been denied to the Chagossian people for more than 50 years. So I urge members and than 50 years. So I urge members and right honourable members across this House when voting this evening to think carefully about whether they wish to compound that half century wish to compound that half century in justice, or whether they embrace the foundational principles of the UN. If they do, and if we do as a House, then we cannot allow this bill to pass without ensuring that it is Chagossians themselves who are sovereign over their citizenship, over the governance of their islands, and over the prospect of return.

And I would ask the honourable and Right honourable members to my right hand side who have lauded the efforts of the Chagossian people, but then who sat on their hands when they had the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

opportunity to give Chagossians the right to. A referendum.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Whether they wish to keep Chuntering from sedentary positions. Chuntering from sedentary positions. So, in direct response, in direct response to the minister who made a response to the minister who made a challenge at the committee stage, I would just say that the forced displacement, the forced displacement of a people does not displacement of a people does not and cannot, and no, the identity or the rights of the Chagossians as a people. To suggest otherwise perpetrates the disgraces of the past and as a sentiment that is

**** Possible New Speaker ****

past and as a sentiment that is unworthy of this bill and of this House, then. The question is that the bill be.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is that the bill be. Now read the third time it's made that pin and say. I can't, you know.
22:57
None Portrait Division
-

that pin and say. I can't, you know.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Sit Sit down. Sit down. I'm Sit down. I'm on Sit down. I'm on my Sit down. I'm on my feet Sit down. I'm on my feet to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Sit down. I'm on my feet to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Sit down. I'm on my feet to colleague to be seated. Seated. Mr. Brooke, are you exiting or are you Brooke, are you exiting or are you seating. Well done, well done. The question is, as on the Order Paper question is, as on the Order Paper on the back row, is that Shockat on the back row, is that Shockat Adam there? I can see no. Oh, well, don't worry, we'll work it out. don't worry, we'll work it out. We'll work it out, whoever that was.

The question is, as on the older Country.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

No no, The either Deirdre Costigan and Stephen Morgan tell us where the nos Stephen Morgan tell us where the nos are. David Reed and Jerome Mayhew.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

And.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

That.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

To To us

**** Possible New Speaker ****

To us To us that. Order. Order. Order!

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The Ayes to the right 320. The

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The Ayes to the right 320. The Noes to the left 171.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yeah. The Ayes to the right 320. The Knowsley left 171. So the ayes have it. The ayes have it. Unlock. I would allow the frontbenchers a few moments to shuffle over as we few moments to shuffle over as we move on to the next bit of business for the day.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Right? All right. Petition Janet Daby.
23:11
23:11
23:12
Jacob Collier Portrait Jacob Collier MP (Burton and Uttoxeter, Labour)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. And I refer the House to my register of interest. And I'm grateful for the opportunity to raise the the opportunity to raise the important issue of the A50/A500 corridor, a route that is vital to our industry and our people, both in Staffordshire and the wider Midlands. Can I welcome the new Minister to his portfolio? And I hope that he hasn't already got earache. From the amount of times that I've mentioned this road to him already.

The previous roads minister, my honourable friend the member for Nottingham South saw the chaos of the road for herself, and the same pleasure awaits him if he so wishes to visit. This corridor is more than a road. It connects our communities, links our manufacturers to markets, and sustains thousands of jobs across the Midlands. Every day, more than 60,000 vehicles travel along it, moving people, goods and opportunity between Derby, Uttoxeter, Stoke on Trent and the M1 and M6. It is a route that serves some of Britain's best known businesses, including JCB, Toyota and Rolls-Royce.

Leading

**** Possible New Speaker ****

universities and tourist attractions like Alton Towers. Yet this key. Will be one heaven.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Will be one heaven. I thank my Honourable friend for giving way. The A50 500 Growth corridor offers a massive amount of corridor offers a massive amount of potential for growth. In my constituency of Stoke-on-Trent South, I have junction 15 of the M6. I have the City Way roundabout joining the A500 with the A50 and on through to the Mair Tunnel and on through to the Mair Tunnel and on towards Uttoxeter. It is often congested but it is a vital part of the supply chain in the advanced the supply chain in the advanced manufacturing corridor.

It is my right Honourable friend my right. Sorry, I've been promoted you by Honourable friend agree with me that Honourable friend agree with me that it is really important that we start investing in improvements in this part of the road network.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

part of the road network. Well, I absolutely agree and she's been a great champion for these improvements alongside me these improvements alongside me because congestion around you talk to Blythe Bridge and Sudbury now undermines productivity growth and turns commutes into nightmares. Queues stretch for miles at peak Queues stretch for miles at peak hours, average speeds for below 20 miles an hour, and local roads bear

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the pressure of diverted traffic. My constituents experience this on a daily basis. But. I will.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I will. I thank my wonderful friend for giving way. I thank my honourable friend for Burton and Uttoxeter for securing this important adjournment debate. I was recently contacted by my constituent, who regularly travels between Castle Donington and Little over who says every evening. Last year the A50 even closed, restricted or the access slip roads are closed. Does my Honourable friend agree with me that everything possible needs to be done to improve

**** Possible New Speaker ****

this part of the vital network for the East Midlands as well into your constituency? Thank you. Well. She's made the case that this is

**** Possible New Speaker ****

She's made the case that this is not just a benefit for the people of Staffordshire, but also East Staffordshire and the wider Midlands Staffordshire and the wider Midlands too, and I hope that the government will commit as part of the next road will commit as part of the next road investment strategy in March 2026, that the A 5500 will be part of that that the A 5500 will be part of that document. The Treasury has already set aside £24 billion of capital funding for that programme, and my funding for that programme, and my purpose this evening is clear to ensure that the A 5500 is placed ensure that the A 5500 is placed within that document, and that the Department for transport commits to funding the next stage of upgrades funding the next stage of upgrades through risk.

Three Midlands Connect, which has led the technical work on this route, has produced work on this route, has produced powerful evidence of what it can achieve. Its latest assessment shows achieve. Its latest assessment shows that by 2031, improvements along the A50 could create more than 2000 jobs

**** Possible New Speaker ****

across Staffordshire and generate £160 million for the local economy. With my honourable friend. I will.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I will. Thank you for giving way the points being made that constituents get stuck trying to get to high. get stuck trying to get to high. High what high quality, well-paid jobs across the A50 corridor. So I've got residents in Kidsgrove Mill Hill talk who regularly commute to the likes of JCB. So does my Honourable friend agree with me that the benefit of a better road connection will not only be felt in

**** Possible New Speaker ****

his constituency of Burton and Uttoxeter, but much further afield across neighbouring constituencies. Yes.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Well, he's absolutely right and there will be a £24 million benefit there will be a £24 million benefit to Stoke on Trent and a £30 million boost to Uttoxeter. Andy Staffordshire an £11 million benefit to Newcastle-under-Lyme, showing the importance of why we should be investing in this corridor. We also

**** Possible New Speaker ****

investing in this corridor. We also have the full. I will. Comment on the A50/A500 corridor.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Comment on the A50/A500 corridor. Not, none. Can I first of all can the honourable member for Burton and the honourable member for Burton and Uttoxeter sir, for bringing this forward? He's an assiduous member and he's doing extremely well and bringing forward his constituency bringing forward his constituency issues. But those the honourable member, agree that government must also look at the impact long term work will have on motorists who rely work will have on motorists who rely on this road and indeed emergency services in particular.

So those are my members agree that for any plans my members agree that for any plans to improve, to have them, proper consideration must be given as to how this will impact on the day to how this will impact on the day to day lives of hundreds of the honourable members constituents who rely on this rule. Getty whether it

**** Possible New Speaker ****

rely on this rule. Getty whether it be for employment, for education, or indeed in times of emergency. Thank you. Thank you. Well. I.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Wasn't sure if the people of Northern Ireland use the A50, but I'm grateful for that intervention. We can build a programme.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yes, I. Am going to come on to safety concerns, which are also a key part concerns, which are also a key part of this debate too. But we have the full backing of 50 local business leaders and the Staffordshire leaders and the Staffordshire Chamber of Commerce, who wrote with me to The Chancellor, urging the me to The Chancellor, urging the investment in this vital corridor. And that's a clear demonstration of the support that we have from the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the support that we have from the business community. I thank my right, sorry, my right

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank my right, sorry, my right good friend and neighbouring MP, the you've mentioned the point there about the Staffordshire Chamber of about the Staffordshire Chamber of Commerce are so excited to see these investments happen. Its closest point, one of these roundabouts in Uttoxeter gets so snarled up it's Uttoxeter gets so snarled up it's just four miles from my constituency. Improving these roads will not just affect constituencies will not just affect constituencies along the corridor, but those

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yeah. Well, absolutely. And if we see this investment, we can actually create even more jobs. And Midlands Connect's long term And Midlands Connect's long term vision goes further by predicting 17,000 new jobs and £12 billion of added economic output for the region over the next 60 years. It will also support the delivery of 30,000 new homes, and the corridor plays a vital strategic role in linking the East Midlands Freeport to the rest of the country. And with the expansion of junction 24 of the M1 being championed by East Midlands Mayor Clare Ward and East Midlands Labour MPs, we can turbocharge that growth.

But this is not just about economics, it's also about safety. At the McDonald's roundabout in Uttoxeter, a location that thousands of my constituents use every day, there has been a series of tragic and fatal accidents. Only recently we saw another serious collision during morning rush hour that caused chaos across the town. Each incident is a reminder that we must act with urgency. The current pedestrian crossing on Uttoxeter roundabout forces pedestrians to cross multiple lanes of busy and fast moving traffic.

It is unsafe and unsustainable. Safety improvements must sit alongside wider upgrades to the corridor, and every serious accident leads to delays for hauliers, lost hours for commuters and disruption for emergency services. Safer design will save lives and keep us moving too. So I say to the minister, there are lots of MPs lobbying the department for road upgrades after decades of underinvestment, but I doubt that few will have a stronger case than the A50 500. If you want to deliver economic growth, make commutes easier, create thousands of jobs back business to succeed, build more houses better, connect our communities, then invest in the A50 500.

These upgrades are backed cross-party cross county cross region, because we can all see the benefits that it will bring. The spending review has provided the cash, the analysis has provided the evidence and our communities have made their case. What we now need is the political will to deliver. I therefore urge the Minister tonight to confirm that the A50/A500 corridor will be considered a key priority in the preparation of risk free, and that work will now begin on that detailed business case.

The Midlands has been held back for too long. This government is already reversing that decline. But we can go further. My constituents and our businesses were first promised these upgrades in 2008 by a bloke called George Osborne, when he was shadow Chancellor. The Tories never delivered and we are still waiting.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

This Labour government can be the difference. Yeah. I call the minister. Minister
23:21
Simon Lightwood Portrait Simon Lightwood MP, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Department for Transport) (Wakefield and Rothwell, Labour )
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

Simon I. Madam Deputy Speaker, I would like to begin by congratulating my honourable friend for securing this honourable friend for securing this debate and for speaking so passionately about transport in his constituency of Burton and Uttoxeter and the implications for the wider region. I am grateful, Madam Deputy Speaker, for the opportunity to discuss transport in this region today. Let me assure the honourable member that this government understands the significance and importance of transport to the people, communities and businesses that power local economies across the country.

I have been interested to engage with the ambitious proposals for development along the A50 and A500. These roads link Stoke on Trent, Uttoxeter, Burton on Trent and Derby, all areas not only with rich histories of industry and manufacturing, but also home to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

exciting innovation. Now I just I just thought I thank

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Now I just I just thought I thank the Minister for giving way. I would just gently point out it's not just a rich history of manufacturing industry, but actually a potentially rich future as well. And we are we are still an area of the country that makes many, many things, that makes many, many things, whether it be high tech agricultural machinery, JCB or fine porcelain, ceramics in the city of Stoke on ceramics in the city of Stoke on Trent and the road and the infrastructure that comes with that could be the growth point for North Staffordshire, which would deliver Staffordshire, which would deliver on the government's economic agenda and allow the infrastructure to develop to build the homes that we

**** Possible New Speaker ****

develop to build the homes that we need. So this is win win, win. If the Minister is able to confirm tonight that we can have the upgrades we need. But it's likely.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

But it's likely. I fly my little friend for his intervention, but also home to exciting innovation, new technologies and advanced manufacturing. This government absolutely understands the importance of routes such as these importance of routes such as these to our daily lives, and they are core to key government priorities such as kickstarting the economy, such as kickstarting the economy, delivering housing growth and tackling regional inequality. In this context, Madam Deputy Speaker, this context, Madam Deputy Speaker, whilst A15 year, Uttoxeter remains the specific focus of today's debate, it would be remiss of me not debate, it would be remiss of me not to take the opportunity to highlight how the quality of journeys in transport across the county of Staffordshire have been, and are being improved.

This government is committed to restoring pride and trust in our transport system that works day in, day out for the people who rely on it. June's spending review confirmed £2.3 billion of investment in local transport through the local transport grant. Staffordshire County Council will receive a total local transport grant capital allocation of 92.98 million between 26, 27 and 2930. In addition, Staffordshire will also receive 3.39 million in Local Transport Grant resource funding. This vital funding will help build local capability and capacity to develop and update local transport plans to effectively deliver local transport infrastructure priorities, and to work with regional partners to progress regional priorities.

England's roads are a vital part of our transport system. Cars remain by far the most popular form of transport. This government is dedicated to maintaining and renewing our road network to ensure it continues to serve all road users. That's why we are committed to long term programmes of investment to improve road links throughout the region and facilitate growth and development this nation needs. That is why local areas such as Staffordshire have benefited from the 1.6 billion record investment in road maintenance funding for the 2025 2026 financial year.

This marks a £500 million increase in funding, and Staffordshire will be eligible to receive £39.4 million. Building on this, we will provide £24 billion of capital funding between 2026, 2027 and 2029 2030 to maintain and improve our motorways and local roads across the country. This funding increase will allow national highways and local authorities like Staffordshire to invest in significantly improving the long term condition of England's road network, delivering faster, safer and more reliable journeys. In relation to the specific issue of the proposal for development on the central section of the A15 unit, Exeter, I acknowledge the difficult challenges that congestion and uncertain journey times on key routes may cause to businesses and commuters, as well as the potential impact this may have on growth, investment and employment.

We recognise that the strategic road network plays a vital role in daily lives. Through our growth mission, we will rebuild Britain, delivering new homes and the critical infrastructure that underpins economic growth. In August, the Department for transport published its draft road Investment Strategy, which set out government strategic objectives and just under £25 billion of indicative funding for the operation, maintenance and renewal of our strategic road network. And for risk three period covering 2026 to 2031. As part of the Road Investment Strategy, the Department continues to consider improvements to the central section of the A50 near Uttoxeter, as well as junction 15 of the M6 as part of the pipeline of projects being developed for possible delivery in future road investment strategy.

And Honourable friends has engaged extensively with officials from my Department and National Highways on these matters for some time, passionately outlining the case for investment. National highways is committed to continuing to develop these proposals and subject to a supportive business case. They will be considered for delivery within risk for beyond 2031 or later is three. If funding becomes available.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I am very thankful to the Minister for being generous 13 years ago. Madam speaker, I joined the ago. Madam speaker, I joined the staff as you in Stoke on Trent, Liverpool when I was leader of the local authority in Newcastle. This local authority in Newcastle. This was a project that was on the books then the sclerotic nature of the last government meant that it had last government meant that it had not progressed at all. And I hate, and I hate to think what investment has been lost.

So also welcome the has been lost. So also welcome the commitment that the Minister is making to future potential will at least recognise that we could be least recognise that we could be talking about 20 years hence from when this was first raised by people that were in the House a day. You that were in the House a day. You know, actually what we need is a relatively swift conclusion of efforts so that we at least know

**** Possible New Speaker ****

what the projects are that we can greenlight around that area for the jobs, the growth and the homes that we need. Yeah. I thank my friend for his

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank my friend for his intervention. National highways will work closely with regional partners to consider the opportunities along to consider the opportunities along the corridor as part of the process. I should conclude by thanking the gentleman for securing this debate, as I know he appreciates transport plays a central role in the lives and livelihoods across the country, including in his constituency in the wider Midlands. Today, he has highlighted several important issues highlighted several important issues relating to Uttoxeter in particular.

I would like to assure the House that the government is providing record levels of investment to roads, to rail, to buses and to active travel projects across the country to connect people to jobs, education and opportunities. I would also like to reassure him that this government has heard the case clearly and will continue taking today.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is that this House did now. Adjourn, as many that and say I.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Adjourn, as many that and say I. The ayes have it. The ayes have it.
This debate has concluded
Return to start of debate - Return to top of page