British Indian Ocean Territory

Aphra Brandreth Excerpts

Wednesday 28th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Dr Evans]

Quite possibly. We already know that the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office has its blue planet programme to help to protect environmental areas that were, or are, under British control. Does this come under the FCDO budget as well? We still do not know the answers to these questions—very simple questions, which we have been asking for the past year.

On the matter of the Chagossians, my right hon. Friend the Member for South West Wiltshire (Dr Murrison) raised a very simple principle. Again, I am confused by what the Government are saying. The Prime Minister himself has said that Greenlanders will decide for Greenland, yet Chagossians cannot decide for Chagos. I understand that there could be an argument one way or the other, but the Government apparently will not make it. They do not seem to see the illogical nature of what they are putting forward when they make a statement referring to sovereignty in one area, but make no statement that would apply to the case that we are discussing today.

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

Does my hon. Friend agree that British Chagossians will be given no say in how a trust fund is to be spent, and that it is simply wrong that they are being given no opportunity to have any personal say in the matters that will affect them and their futures?

[Dr Evans]

Absolutely. That is another perfectly sensible question to pose to the Government, and for them to answer and to set out the reasons and the rationale.

I am still concerned, when we are dealing with the detail, about the long-term nature of the deal and whether it is bomb-proof. When we come to the end of 99 years, what will happen? The only protection we have is that we have first say on taking it on. We have already heard, from Members on both sides of the House, how much China’s economy will grow. Will we even have the finances to buy that deal? Will we be outbid by the United States, by China, or by some other BRIC power? We are held over a barrel by the Mauritians, or, worse still, the Mauritians can simply say, “We don’t want it any more”, and the base is gone and we can do nothing about it.

Why does all this matter? Those are all technical questions that I want the Government to answer, but overall we must see the wider context, which has been explained here numerous times before. The United States is changing its foreign policy, China is changing its foreign policy, yet the UK does not appear to have an approach in either direction. It appears that we are looking towards a sphere of influence, with America having one side and China and Russia having another. So the question for the House is, “Why rush this through?” Why not think about it? Why not answer these simple questions, to get this side of the House on board, so that we could then say, “We think this is the right thing for the country?

The saddest aspect of this whole debate is the way in which the Government have turned it into a scapegoating of the Opposition as if we were playing political games, rather than seeing that the simple technical questions that need to be answered are the key to unlocking our understanding. If we as parliamentarians cannot get answers to these questions and do not understand the rationale, how can we explain it to our constituents, how can we explain it to the nation, and how can we explain it to the world? If the Government want us to stop—supposedly—playing politics, I ask them to give simple answers to simple questions, back them up and give evidence for them. Otherwise, we are left fighting the Black Knight, who is brave, who is forthright, who is keen to stand in the way of any progress, but who simply will not answer a question and is cut down, limb by limb, in a pool of blood.

--- Later in debate ---

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

On every level, this is a bad deal. From the absurdity of paying £34.7 billion for the privilege of ceding our own territory to the implications for defence, from putting at risk one of the most pristine marine environments in the world to the complete disregard shown to the British Chagossians themselves, there is so much I could focus my remarks on today, but I want to highlight two issues in particular: perception and national security.

Perception matters in geopolitics. The messages we send, intentionally or otherwise, are read closely by our allies and by our adversaries. They carry very real consequences. I need not remind the Minister of the comments made by the President of the United States just last week. Those remarks materially change the context in which this House is considering the deal.

The 1966 treaty between the UK and the US agreed to retain sovereignty over the British Indian Ocean Territory. It is clear that any attempt to surrender sovereignty violates international law and I commend my Conservative colleagues in both Houses for delaying the Bill’s passage. But delay is not enough. The surrender Bill should be pulled in its entirety. The UK-US relationship is built on trust, particularly in defence and security. When the President states publicly that a deal will damage that relationship and should not proceed, that this deal is an “act of great stupidity”, the Government should listen and act. I am not suggesting that the United States sees the UK as an unreliable partner—we have stood shoulder to shoulder for decades—but this deal is different. If it proceeds, it will reduce the operability of UK and US forces in the region, diminish our strategic reach, and weaken our influence. Responsibility for that lies squarely with this Government.

The Prime Minister is in China today. Beijing will also be watching closely. China will welcome any increase in autonomy in the region and, with it, the opportunity to decimate the marine protected areas surrounding the Chagos islands with its fishing fleet. We know that those vessels will not simply be there to fish. They will be there to gather intelligence, probe our defences and gain strategic advantage near Diego Garcia. The message this deal sends to our adversaries is clear: the UK is retreating, diminishing and weakening. That is not the message we should be sending in an increasingly hostile and unpredictable world.

I want to make one brief point on national security, which I have raised in previous debates and on which we have heard from many Members today. Under the Pelindaba treaty, neither the UK nor the US will be able to store nuclear weapons on Diego Garcia. We now have confirmation of that from the Deputy Prime Minister of Mauritius. That restriction significantly reduces our capability in a critical region, and weakens the security of both ourselves and our allies.

Ultimately, the deal is not in the interests of the United Kingdom. It is not in the interests of protecting one of the most important marine environments on the planet, it is not in the interests of the British Chagossians, who have been ignored throughout this process, and it is certainly not in the interests of the British taxpayer. Those on the Labour Benches know that another U-turn is looming. The deal is indefensible. Today, Members have an opportunity to do the right thing, support this motion and bring this surrender deal to an end.

Diego Garcia Military Base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill

Aphra Brandreth Excerpts

Consideration of Lords amendments
Tuesday 20th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Sammy Wilson]

Most people listening to this debate, even if they do not know a great deal about the Chagos islands and the base, will understand that we have handed over the islands when there was no necessity to do so, only to use taxpayers’ money to lease them back. That is one of the scandals of the treaty.

The Minister talked about building a relationship of trust with the Chagos islanders. What way is this to build trust? The Government have refused to give them a say on whether this treaty reflects their interests and deals with their concerns and the despicable way in which they have been treated in the past. The cost is wrong. The way in which we are treating the people who are affected by the treaty is wrong. The Government’s position on the long-term security of the base is wrong. This is a bad deal for the United Kingdom, and we should be ashamed that the Government’s majority is being used to push the deal through when it is so clear that it is full of flaws and problems for our future.

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

The Bill goes to the very heart of our national security, the safety of the British people, our global reach and our operational effectiveness in two of the most volatile and unpredictable regions of the world: the Indo-Pacific and the middle east. It also raises serious questions about the cost of this deal to the British taxpayer, which amounts to £34.7 billion.

Even in the short time since the Bill was first brought to the House, the world has become even more unstable, yet the Government remain content to press ahead with the Bill. I struggle to see how it makes us safer, considering the requirement “to expeditiously inform” Mauritius of operational activity, and considering that Mauritius is a signatory to the Pelindaba treaty. The implications of the Bill for the basing of nuclear weapons, which are vital to our security and to our deterrence, and which have been deployed to Diego Garcia in the past, should concern every Member of the House. We need further clarity and assurance from the Government on that point.

That brings me to the £28 billion shortfall in the defence budget that the Chief of the Defence Staff recently presented to the Prime Minister. It does not take a mathematician to see the point that I am making; indeed, the maths is so basic that I suggest that even the Chancellor could work it out.

[Alex Ballinger]

rose—

[Tom Hayes]

rose—

[Aphra Brandreth]

I will make progress, because we are nearly out of time. Instead of pursuing the Bill, the Government could withdraw it, and redirect the vast sums involved towards addressing that shortfall and genuinely strengthening our national security.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Aphra Brandreth]

We are short of time. Ultimately, the Lords amendment is about accountability to Parliament and to the electorate. There is no mandate for the Bill. If the Government choose to force it through using their majority, they must, at the very least, be accountable for the cost.

British Chagossians are the forgotten people of this Bill. They may have been forgotten by the Government, but they have not been forgotten by Conservative Members. We continue to oppose the Bill with them firmly in our minds. The Prime Minister has rightly stated that Greenland’s sovereignty and right to self-determination rest with the people of Greenland and the Kingdom of Denmark. The question is simple: why is that same right not afforded to the British Chagossians?

The Bill has profound implications for our national security and public expenditure. The amendments tabled by Opposition peers are there for a reason: not for political gain, but to make a bad Bill slightly less damaging, to introduce safeguards, to offer some reassurance to the British taxpayer, and to ensure that the voices of the British Chagossian people are finally heard.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

Venezuela

Aphra Brandreth Excerpts

Monday 5th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Yvette Cooper]

The US has set out its national security strategy and we have separately set out ours, and they are clearly different. I have raised with the US some particular issues around the US national security strategy. It is obviously for the US to set out its priorities as a democratically elected Government. This comes back to the fact that we believe in the importance not just of hemispheres of interest but of the transatlantic alliance. That has been a cornerstone of UK security. We have a unique security partnership with the US, and that remains important alongside the international rule of law.

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

I welcome the removal of Nicolás Maduro, who for too long oppressed the people of Venezuela, but history shows that the aftermath of intervention can be as consequential as the intervention itself. What specific steps is the Foreign Secretary taking to ensure that there is no vacuum for instability or hostile actors to exploit both within Venezuela and across the wider region, particularly hostile state actors such as Russia, China and Iran?

[Yvette Cooper]

That is an extremely important issue, and I discussed exactly that with US Secretary of State Rubio yesterday in respect of how we ensure that there is stability in Venezuela and that stability is part of a pathway to democracy. I do not believe stability will be maintained if there is not that route to democracy—there must be a plan and a transition to democracy—but equally, it is hugely important to ensure that we do not have greater destabilisation by countries like Russia and Iran, but also by the criminal gangs that have been so deeply destructive and were allowed to become so powerful under the Maduro regime.

Parkinson’s Disease

Aphra Brandreth Excerpts

Monday 17th November 2025 Westminster Hall

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Lewell. As we have heard today, Parkinson’s is a life-changing, degenerative and deeply debilitating condition. I am grateful that we are taking the time to debate the issue and give voice to people living with Parkinson’s—people such as Matt Eagles, who lives in my constituency. Unlike many Parkinson’s sufferers, Matt has lived with the condition for more than 50 years. He was diagnosed at just seven years old. Parkinson’s, however, is not the defining thing about Matt; what truly stands out is his positivity. He speaks openly about the vulnerability and heartache, along with the courage, resilience and optimism that has helped him to navigate life with Parkinson’s. Matt has done a brilliant job of promoting the petition today, and is a passionate advocate for improving Parkinson’s care. Today’s debate is not only about recognising and championing people like Matt, who face the adversity of Parkinson’s with such optimism; it is a call to action for us as parliamentarians to engage seriously with how we can improve access to care and work towards a cure.

The Parky charter highlights some important changes to consider. Ensuring that everyone suspected of having Parkinson’s can see a specialist promptly and then have regular follow-ups is vital for timely and effective care. We need to provide people with immediate access to clear, relevant information when they are diagnosed, while the ongoing quest for a cure offers hope for a future where Parkinson’s no longer imposes such a heavy burden on those affected. Hope, support and dignity are what people with Parkinson’s deserve. I am deeply grateful to the 313 constituents in Chester South and Eddisbury who signed the petition, and to all those working towards a better future for those with Parkinson’s.

Diego Garcia Military Base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill

Aphra Brandreth Excerpts

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

[Graham Stuart]

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

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

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

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

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

The treaty says that the UK and Mauritius want to

“recognise the wrongs of the past”,

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

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

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

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

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

[Aphra Brandreth]

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

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

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

Middle East

Aphra Brandreth Excerpts

Monday 23rd June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lammy]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her question. The loss of life over the past few days—hundreds of people who lost their lives queuing for food—is appalling and should offend us all. Of course, when I spoke to Israel’s Foreign Minister yesterday, I reminded him once again of my deep concerns over the new system that Israel has put in place to deliver aid and of our belief that that system cannot and will not work, and that we need to return to a much better provision.

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

The Foreign Secretary has said that Iran must not be allowed to have a nuclear weapon. Does he therefore support the recent targeted strikes by the United States and Israel on Iranian nuclear facilities: yes or no? If not, can he explain how exactly that inaction would have curtailed Iran’s nuclear ambitions?

[Mr Lammy]

I am afraid I am not able to give an assessment of the effectiveness of that action at this stage, and neither is the United States. The hon. Lady may think that that is a binary question, but I do not believe it is. What the UK is engaged in is diplomacy, and we are working, of course, with our closest ally, the United States.

Ukraine: Forcibly Deported Children

Aphra Brandreth Excerpts

Wednesday 21st May 2025 Westminster Hall

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stuart. I thank and congratulate the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South (Johanna Baxter) for securing this debate on such an important topic, and for speaking so powerfully.

Last month, I visited Ukraine alongside colleagues on the Foreign Affairs Committee. I pay tribute to the officials from our Government and the Ukrainian parliamentarians and officials we met on the ground who are working tirelessly on this issue. We met representatives of Save Ukraine, an organisation committed to helping rescue and return children. At the time of our visit, it had successfully returned more than 612 children—a heroic effort—yet, as we have heard today, an unacceptably high number remain missing. At least 19,000 have been identified, and there are almost certainly many, many thousands more.

I want to share one account that I heard in Ukraine. Just outside Kyiv I visited a children’s centre, where I spoke to two young people who had been taken by Russia. Although both had thankfully been safely returned home to Ukraine, I cannot overstate how clearly traumatising the experience had been for them, and the impact of hearing their stories. The young man was separated from his mother and five siblings and taken to Russia to be re-educated. In reality, he was sent to a military camp where Ukrainian children are taught to forget their culture and home. Through indoctrination, they are trained to forget all they once knew of a peaceful life in Ukraine and are taught to be fighters, potentially one day against their own families. That is a truly horrific and often unreported consequence of Putin’s barbaric invasion of Ukraine.

Yesterday, those of us on the Foreign Affairs Committee met our counterparts from the Rada’s Committee on Foreign Policy and Inter-Parliamentary Co-operation. We heard how Russia is targeting orphanages to take children. Those vulnerable children have suffered a great deal of trauma already, and are now being subjected to even more. We also heard of the difficulty of getting those children back. Their locations are often unknown to Ukrainian authorities, and their surnames are changed. It is clear that we must do more to support Ukraine in its efforts to identify, find and return those young people.

Both the previous Government and the current one have stood by Ukraine with regard to military support, and I know our Ukrainian friends are incredibly grateful for our unity. I urge the Minister to continue to provide humanitarian assistance through official development assistance. Earlier this year, I agreed with the Prime Minister’s decision to reallocate a portion of the ODA budget to bolster the defence budget, given the challenges and security problems that we currently face. When the Minister has discussions with officials and his colleagues at the Treasury ahead of publication of the out-turn data and future planned allocations annual report and accounts, will he reiterate the need of the Ukrainian people, and particularly those kidnapped children and their families? Will he support efforts, organisations and schemes that seek to see them returned? We need the ODA budget to be spent on vital causes, not vanity projects, and I am sure all here agree that this issue is of the utmost importance.

Since the start of the war, more than 600 children have been killed, 1,900 have been injured and at least 19 have been sexually abused. In this conflict, sexual violence is being used systematically as a grotesque weapon of war. Russia’s actions violate the Geneva conventions, international humanitarian law and United Nations Security Council resolution 1261. We must not stand by. Russia is waging war not just on Ukraine’s borders but on its future. It is trying to erase an entire generation. It is not just abducting children but trying to annihilate a national identity. I have heard two stories at first hand, but there are thousands more. We must see Ukraine’s stolen children returned.

Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office

Aphra Brandreth Excerpts

Wednesday 5th March 2025 Commons Chamber

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

Let me begin by saying that the decision by the Government to increase defence spending, funded in the short term by a cut in the ODA budget, is the right one given the current global context. It is an immediate solution that was necessary to bolster our defence budget to send a clear message to our allies and our adversaries alike.

Russia’s illegal invasion of Ukraine has brought a state of war back to Europe, but the security challenges we face as a country do not stop with Russia. Iran continues to be a destabilising influence in the middle east and globally. Meanwhile, China’s growing influence demands our attention. The rules-based international order, which the UK proudly defends, is under threat from many sides.

A strong foreign policy starts with hard power. That is why I support the Prime Minister’s decision to reallocate ODA to the defence budget, and I agreed with my hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition when she called for that in advance of the announcement. It is important that we respond to the challenges of the day with a well-equipped, well trained and well supported armed forces. Our adversaries need to know that we have a credible deterrent, and our allies need to be able to look to us as a leader in Europe on defence.

It is clear that we are living in a time of mounting geopolitical tension and without a credible foreign policy strategy, those driving global instability will continue to gain ground. A successful long-term foreign policy strategy must recognise that hard and soft power are inseparable. As was referred to earlier, it was the retired US general and former Defence Secretary James Mattis, who said,

“if you don’t fund the State Department fully, then I need to buy more ammunition ultimately.”

These are exceptional times, but as stability returns to Europe, I urge the FCDO to prioritise restoring a strong ODA budget. It is critical that if the ODA budget is to be spent on defence in the immediate term, that money is spent directly on enhancing our national security and strengthening our armed forces, and not on the Government’s foolhardy decision to cede British sovereignty over the Chagos islands to Mauritius, in a deal that is likely to cost the British taxpayer billions of pounds, all at the expense of our security and strategic interests. With a substantially reduced ODA budget, it is critical that it is spent effectively. It cannot be right that a third of the overseas development assistance budget is spent here in the UK on supporting refugees and asylum seekers. It is clear that we need to rethink where our priorities for the remaining ODA lie.

One important area of ODA funding, which the Foreign Affairs Committee has been investigating as part of our inquiry into soft power, is the BBC World Service. With unreliable sources seeking to undermine our values, the World Service is on the frontline, so I encourage the FCDO to continue supporting it, especially as new challenges in information dissemination arise. The consequences of disinformation gaining traction are severe and we must safeguard that key asset in our soft power arsenal.

The lines between hard and soft power are increasingly blurred, yet they must complement each other to be effective. It was necessary to divert funding to meet security challenges. Now the FCDO must rethink how to preserve our soft power, tackle urgent issues such as disinformation and ensure British taxpayers’ money spent overseas serves our national interests. Above all, we must use those resources to expand our global influence and enhance our security in the face of evolving challenges.

Oral Answers to Questions

Aphra Brandreth Excerpts

Tuesday 26th November 2024 Commons Chamber

[Hamish Falconer]

I can assure my hon. Friend that His Majesty’s ambassador to Iran will continue to raise this appalling issue directly with Iranian officials in Tehran. Furthermore, the UK was instrumental in the adoption of the Iran human rights resolution at the UN Third Committee last week. The resolution calls on Iran to establish a moratorium on executions and to end reprisals against women human rights defenders.

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

The Government have indicated that they would arrest the democratically elected Prime Minister of Israel. Doing so would contradict an Act of Parliament and breach state and diplomatic immunity. Will the Foreign Secretary tell the House whether he believes compliance with the ICC’s decision sets a precedent for future decisions of a similar nature? Is he not concerned that he is contradicting international norms?

[Hamish Falconer]

We considered this question at exhaustive length yesterday. I repeat that the shadow Attorney General has written on the question of which elements of international law are most properly followed in this case, and the Attorney General is set to respond, although we suspect that this case would go to the courts in the usual way.