Diego Garcia Military Base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill

Ben Obese-Jecty Excerpts

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

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

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

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

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

“meekly to a Mauritian shakedown”,

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

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

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

and said that

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“did not have competence on territorial disputes”,

going on to say:

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

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

As recently as August, the Mauritian Government referred to

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

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

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

[Sammy Wilson]

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

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

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

Ambassador to the United States

Ben Obese-Jecty Excerpts

Tuesday 16th September 2025 Commons Chamber

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

The now former ambassador to the United States has been sacked due to the nature of his relationship with a convicted paedophile—a relationship that has come as no surprise to anybody except the Prime Minister, it would appear. The Prime Minister and the former Foreign Secretary, the right hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy), knew of Lord Mandelson’s relationship with Epstein, yet his appointment was felt to be worth the risk. That is despite warnings from President Trump’s co-campaign manager Chris LaCivita, who criticised the replacement of the former ambassador, Dame Karen Pierce, as replacing a

“professional universally respected ambo with an absolute moron”.

Even the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee, the right hon. Member for Islington South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry), who was effusive in her praise for Lord Mandelson, asked for him to come before her Committee to

“allow my colleagues to hear directly why the Prime Minister has appointed him”.—[Official Report, 14 January 2025; Vol. 760, c. 143.]

With her face pressed up against the Cabinet Room window like Tiny Tim out in the cold, I am surprised that she could be heard, but the Minister for the Overseas Territories, who is looking sheepish in his place on the Front Bench, was emphatic. He stated:

“We are absolutely convinced that Lord Mandelson will do an excellent job as our representative in Washington”.—[Official Report, 14 January 2025; Vol. 760, c. 143.]

Yet that whole time, the Government were aware of the security warnings that Lord Mandelson’s relationship with Jeffrey Epstein crossed the line of what is acceptable and failed to meet the standard expected of what is arguably our most critical ambassadorial appointment.

The President of the United States arrives for his second state visit tomorrow, yet we now suffer the embarrassment and indignity of having had to sack our ambassador for his proximity to a man found guilty of soliciting prostitution from a child—a man whose girlfriend was convicted in 2021 of sex trafficking, conspiracy and transportation of a minor for illegal sexual activity. Indeed, an aspect of this matter that remains unclear is the nature of Lord Mandelson’s relationship with Ghislaine Maxwell. The New York Times has described this issue as “a stinging embarrassment” that

“casts a shadow over the planned state visit”.

How has the Prime Minister allowed this to happen, ignoring the advice from his security assessment to appoint him anyway, embracing the risk then having it blow up in his face?

Prior to entering Parliament, I worked for Barclays bank. In 2021, the bank’s CEO Jes Staley resigned amid a regulatory probe into whether he mischaracterised his relationship with Jeffrey Epstein. I actually raised a complaint with my managers, which was roundly ignored and never advanced beyond managing director level, such was the squeamishness that surrounded the story. I was furious that Barclays still paid Staley his £2.4 million salary and £120,000 pension contribution while being defenestrated for his relationship with Epstein. That is not privileged information—it was widely reported—yet while the financial world saw fit to wash its hands of Staley, this Labour Government welcomed Lord Mandelson with open arms.

Those linked to Jeffrey Epstein who maintained a relationship with him after his conviction and who many times visited his island, where the crimes took place, have long since been deplatformed and deemed too toxic to hold positions of power, yet the hubris of the Prime Minister saw him ride roughshod over such glaringly obvious concerns. Being the Prime Minister is to take the mantle of the UK’s decision-maker-in-chief; it is to own the responsibility of making not just difficult decisions, but the most difficult decisions. Appointing an ambassador to the United States is not the political banana skin that should bring down the Government, yet here we are. The Government are teetering on the brink.

Yesterday the Prime Minister gingerly began climbing down over his handling of the Mandelson sacking. When he came to the Chamber last Wednesday, he robustly defended Lord Mandelson and played to the baying crowd. He even had the chutzpah to claim that the Conservative party has a leadership contest going on—was it not interesting to see him in the Smoking Room last night between votes? [Laughter.] Last Wednesday, the Prime Minister stated that

“full due process was followed during this appointment”.—[Official Report, 10 September 2025; Vol. 772, c. 859.]

He said that twice. If that is true, the Prime Minister knew the full scope of Mandelson’s relationship with Jeffrey Epstein. If he did not know and new information subsequently came to light, either the vetting standards of the Government are incompetent or the claim of “full due process” is inaccurate. The Prime Minister also said that

“I have confidence in the ambassador”.—[Official Report, 10 September 2025; Vol. 772, c. 860.]

He said that twice, too.

The Prime Minister’s explanation yesterday stated that there were three reasons for his tergiversation:

“The nature and extent of the relationship being far different to what I’d understood to be the position at the point of appointment, the questioning and challenging of the conviction, which…goes to the heart and cuts across what this government is doing on violence against women and girls and the unsatisfactory nature of responses from Peter Mandelson last week to the inquiries made of him by government officials – I took the decision to remove him.”

Can the Government lay out precisely what was the full due process that was followed? The Prime Minister claims that he did not learn the content of the Bloomberg emails until after his robust defence at PMQs, so did Lord Mandelson fail to disclose that information during his vetting interview? Was there even a vetting interview, or did Lord Mandelson disclose everything and the Prime Minister is displaying wilful ignorance?

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

The hon. Member’s speech reminds me of an earlier episode in UK-US relations, when Donald Rumsfeld referred to known knowns, unknown unknowns and known unknowns. While the Government might be forgiven for not holding Peter Mandelson to account for unknown unknowns, does he agree that it is unforgivable that they have staked Britain’s diplomatic relationship with the US on known unknowns?

[Ben Obese-Jecty]

I wholeheartedly agree with the hon. Member. It is incredible that the Government have engaged in such lax vetting regarding such an obvious conflict of interest.

On the nature and extent of the relationship, we knew about Mandelson’s closeness to Jeffrey Epstein when the notorious birthday book was published, in which Lord Mandelson described the convicted paedophile as his “best pal” and signed off his many pages of unctuous praise with the line “yum yum”. What else did the Prime Minister learn beyond that? He claims that he knew only of Mandelson’s “association” with Jeffrey Epstein—that would appear to be questionable.

Turning to Lord Mandelson’s questioning and challenging of the conviction, was he asked his opinion of the conviction of his “best pal” during his vetting interview? Did Lord Mandelson disclose that he felt, or had ever felt, that the conviction was unjustified? Either he was not asked, in which case the vetting was incompetent; he did not disclose it, in which case he was not a suitable appointment; or he did disclose it, and it was ignored by the Prime Minister. Which is it?

The unsatisfactory nature of the responses is the only aspect of the investigation we are yet to learn about. The Prime Minister must publish the new information, so that this House can fully understand. If Lord Mandelson’s answers are unsatisfying now, but were not before, that suggests that full due process was not followed, in contradiction to what the Prime Minister claimed last week.

This whole sorry episode looks set to derail the visit of the President of the United States tomorrow. We are a long way from the chummy bonhomie of the Prime Minister feeling that he had stuck the landing with his perfectly stage-managed hand delivery of an invitation letter to President Trump. I wonder how he is going to explain all this to the President tomorrow. The Prime Minister knows that his days are numbered; those in his new Cabinet know his days are numbered; his Back Benchers know his days are numbered—perhaps he should try talking to them on a regular basis, not just greasing up to them in the Smoking Room when he needs their support. If the Prime Minister cannot exercise the judgment required of his office, he must resign.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

British Indian Ocean Territory: Sovereignty

Ben Obese-Jecty Excerpts

Wednesday 2nd July 2025 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Doughty]

I will not take any lessons from a party that fawns over Vladimir Putin.

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

In the Defence Secretary’s statement on 22 May, he stated with regard to potential legal rulings against us that

“The most proximate, and the most potentially serious, is the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea.”—[Official Report, 22 May 2025; Vol. 767, c. 1291.]

The US, which operates the base, is not even a signatory to UNCLOS. How would ITLOS have ruled a binding legal judgment that we would have recognised? It is notable that ITLOS has not been mentioned since that statement?

[Stephen Doughty]

I am confused—I have mentioned ITLOS on a number of occasions, including just a moment ago. The long-standing view of the United Kingdom is that the UK would not have a realistic prospect of successfully defending its legal position on sovereignty in such litigation. Even if we chose to ignore binding judgments made against us—we would not do so—their legal effect on third countries and international organisations would give rise to real impacts to the operation of the base and the delivery of its national security functions.

International organisations have already adopted decisions based on Mauritian sovereignty, and others would follow suit following such litigation. That could affect the electromagnetic spectrum, access to the base by air and by sea, and the ability to patrol the maritime area around the base and to support the base’s critical national security functions. Further, the UK would likely face a provisional measures order in a matter of weeks. The position is clear, and we have explained it. The hon. Member’s previous Government knew exactly the same. [Interruption.] However much he shouts and however much he does not like the arguments, they are the facts.

Middle East

Ben Obese-Jecty Excerpts

Monday 23rd June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lammy]

We were not involved. Over the weekend, I spoke to my Cypriot and Lebanese counterparts, and in the days before that, I spoke to all counterparts in the Gulf. Of course we are working to de-escalate at this time.

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

In the event that Iran does launch a retaliatory military strike against the US, what do the Government believe our article 5 obligations would be with regards to military support for the US, and how would that change if the location of the attack were in the region?

[Mr Lammy]

I refer the hon. Gentleman to paragraph 2.13 of the ministerial code.

Ukraine War: London Talks

Ben Obese-Jecty Excerpts

Thursday 24th April 2025 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Doughty]

I have been clear that we are working closely with President Trump and the United States, our European partners and others. I refer the hon. Member to the comments I made just a short while ago in response to the shadow Foreign Secretary. We are clear that Ukraine must be at the heart of these negotiations. That is why we are working closely with the United States, with our European partners and, crucially, with Ukraine. That was exactly what was happening in the technical talks yesterday here in London.

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

On Tuesday, I asked the Defence Secretary what our red lines would be at yesterday’s peace talks regarding any peace proposal from the US that required Ukraine to cede any of its sovereign territory to Russia. I did not receive an answer. Yesterday, US Vice-President J.D. Vance told reporters:

“Now, of course, that means the Ukrainians and the Russians are both going to have to give up some of the territory they currently own.”

Can the Minister now state that the Government will not support any US proposal that sees Russia make territorial gains at the expense of Ukraine upon any permanent cessation of hostilities?

[Stephen Doughty]

The hon. Member will understand that, like the Defence Secretary, I will not be drawn on the detail of the discussions yesterday. The only person that that would benefit is Vladimir Putin. We have been clear that we share the United States’ desire to bring this barbaric war to an end. Ultimately, though, it is for Ukraine to decide its future. Our position on that has not changed, and that is why we are working closely with Ukraine, our international partners and others to end the bloodshed and suffering caused by Russia. We are clear on who the aggressor is in this situation. We will continue to stand iron-clad with Ukraine.

British Indian Ocean Territory

Ben Obese-Jecty Excerpts

Wednesday 2nd April 2025 Commons Chamber

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

The Minister made reference to the UK having full control over Diego Garcia, but earlier this month I received this response from him:

“The right to operate and maintain the naval support facility Diego Garcia is held by the Government of the United States. This includes functions as are necessary for the development, use, maintenance, operation and security of the facility.”

Will he explain what control we would have over Naval Support Facility Diego Garcia in the event that US and UK defence priorities do not align, and at what level the control over the base lies?

[Stephen Doughty]

The hon. Member asks an important question. The US operates its naval support facility, and although I will not get into the operational details of that for obvious reasons, the full details will be provided. I can absolutely assure him that we will have control over Diego Garcia and will be working closely with the United States over it.

Oral Answers to Questions

Ben Obese-Jecty Excerpts

Tuesday 25th February 2025 Commons Chamber

[Anneliese Dodds]

We recognise that this is an issue of enduring concern to many. We listen to views from our Caribbean partners on the full range of bilateral issues, but our policy on reparations is clear: we do not pay them. We are determined to work together for the future.

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

A quick question: to what extent do the Government support CARICOM’s 10-point plan for reparatory justice?

[Anneliese Dodds]

As I just stated, our policy on reparations is clear: we do not pay them.

Chagos Islands

Ben Obese-Jecty Excerpts

Wednesday 5th February 2025 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Doughty]

There are so many different bits of the hon. Gentleman’s question that I do not recognise. For a start, I was not on the “Today” programme this morning, so I do not know who he is referring to. I certainly do not recognise the figure of £18 billion, so I do not understand at all what he is getting at.

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

The Minister confirmed to me in a written answer last week that we will not have a unilateral ability to extend the agreement. In December, the Minister for the Armed Forces, the hon. Member for Plymouth Sutton and Devonport (Luke Pollard), said that he was confident that Members would back it when we saw the detail. This is seemingly a renegotiated deal, and we have not seen the detail of the original deal or this deal. What are the differences between the previous deal and the renegotiated deal, and when will the details be presented to Members of this House?

[Stephen Doughty]

There has been no change to the substance of the deal, nor to the overall quantum agreed. We will present it in due course so that it goes through the normal process of scrutiny in this House.

UK-Ukraine 100-year Partnership

Ben Obese-Jecty Excerpts

Monday 20th January 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lammy]

The Ukrainians recognise our huge strengths in higher education and, as result, innovation, which my hon. Friend will that referenced in the eventual treaty. Prior to the war, there was immense expertise in tech and IT in Ukraine. The innovations in drone technology are extraordinary and, frankly, are changing the nature of warfare, from which we should benefit. For all those reasons, that is an important pillar, from which we will gain as much as Ukraine will over the coming years.

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

Pillar 2.3 states:

“Throughout the duration of the Declaration, neither Participant will be left alone in the face of an attack or aggression.”

To what extent does that act as a NATO article 5 commitment in lieu of Ukraine joining NATO? Does it, like article 5, facilitate direct UK military action in support of Ukraine should it be attacked again in the future in violation of the UN charter? Are other NATO allies also negotiating similar pacts, and to what extent do they complement this one?

[Mr Lammy]

Unusually, the hon. Gentleman is jumping ahead of himself somewhat. We continue to support Ukraine with every military effort. That is going on now, and in a sense that is the reference he is making. I have indicated an irreversible pathway to NATO, as we agreed back in September. This is not article 5.