Diego Garcia Military Base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill

Calvin Bailey Excerpts

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

[Wendy Morton]

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

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

rose—

[Wendy Morton]

I am going to make some more progress.

--- Later in debate ---

[Wendy Morton]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Mr Calvin Bailey]

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

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

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

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

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mr Bailey]

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

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

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

[Mr Bailey]

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

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Bailey]

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

[The Second Deputy Chairman]

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

[Mr Bailey]

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

Middle East

Calvin Bailey Excerpts

Monday 21st July 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lammy]

Yes, absolutely. I am grateful for all the work that my hon. Friend has done, and his background in medicine helps to bring these issues to public attention.

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

According to the UN, nearly 800 Palestinians have been killed near the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation aid points. The UK sending £129 million in aid is nearly pointless given the denial of the UN’s aid system, and Israel’s cruel blockade is choking off supplies to the people who need it and looks very much like starvation as a weapon of war. The RAF broke a previous blockade with airdrops months ago, and although we welcome the additional £40 million of medical aid that has been promised today, and today’s international statement, Israel has rejected such appeals. So I ask again, please, what are the additional steps that the Foreign Secretary told the Foreign Affairs Committee we would take to break this cruel blockade and get aid to those desperately in need?

[Mr Lammy]

My hon. Friend will have heard the statement that I made today on the extra steps that we are taking in terms of humanitarian aid. He will have seen the statement, made by 31 international partners, on the fact that this war must come to an end and that aid must get in. He is right to condemn the aid system. We warned Israel about reducing the aid points to four, and now we are seeing the horrors in front of our eyes. I remind Israel again about its obligations to international humanitarian law and my worry that they are being breached.

BBC World Service Funding

Calvin Bailey Excerpts

Thursday 26th June 2025 Westminster Hall

[Peter Prinsley]

I thank the right hon. Member—my recent squash partner—for his intervention, I agree that we must be sure that whatever the BBC says is true; that must be the case. The BBC Arabic service—the language service—disappeared some time ago, and that is to be regretted.

In Pakistan, a video falsely claimed to show the aftermath of an Indian airstrike on Pakistani air bases. That went viral—it was viewed over 400,000 times—stoking widespread fear and heightening tensions with India over Kashmir, but actually it was mislabelled footage of the 2020 Beirut port explosion. BBC Verify debunked the claim and calmed the situation.

In 2023, a false story spread across the internet that alleged that the newly elected President of Nigeria had forged his university degree. There was anger and unrest until a report by the BBC global disinformation team revealed it to be false, which defused the situation.

Those are not isolated stories; they are part of a growing global pattern. The fight is particularly crucial in an era when young people increasingly consume news online. A few weeks ago, I visited a school in my constituency at Bury St Edmunds and asked the children how they got their news. I said, “Do you get your news online?”, and almost every hand went up. Among 12 to 15-year-olds in the UK, only the BBC can compete effectively with the online tech giants. To continue to compete effectively and divert attention from untrustworthy sources, the BBC needs the resources to excel in what a young person recently told me is called the “attention economy”. With appropriate funding for new digital content, the BBC can significantly expand its impact.

In recent weeks, our attention has undoubtedly been drawn to the middle east, particularly to Iran, and the power of the BBC’s digital reach is no clearer than through the work of BBC Persian. It recently reached over 32 million users on Instagram in just five days, despite the platform’s having been blocked by the Iranians. People were so desperate to view trusted BBC news that they risked their safety by using virtual private networks, or VPNs, to bypass Iran’s strict internet censors. Some posts achieved more than 12 million views.

When Iran restricted internet access, BBC Persian increased broadcasts from eight hours to nearly 24 hours a day and launched an emergency radio service. Despite the fact that there were no reporters on the ground, the team diligently verified information amid severe misinformation campaigns. With adequate funding, the BBC World Service always steps up during global crises, delivering a public good for the benefit of a whole country.

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

What has been happening at BBC Persian over the past few weeks is a case in point, as my hon. Friend said. It has been narrating events in an accessible way and providing insights that are free from the talking points of the propaganda regime into how people in Iran really feel, and how they are experiencing the conflict. It is a public good for the world. It tackles misinformation and develops our soft power, but it also provides important human empathy in the fog of war. We must bear in mind that BBC Persian journalists and their families are being harassed and threatened here in London. Does my hon. Friend agree that we should celebrate their courageous work and back them with the resources that they need to continue?

[Peter Prinsley]

I absolutely agree. I first got into this subject when I met World Service refugee correspondents from BBC Persian and BBC News Russian at the Labour party conference. I so admired what they were doing, and it was a real inspiration for me.

The Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office contributes £104 million a year to the World Service budget of £366 million. The BBC does an awful lot with its licence fee. I was told this week that, for the cost of a cup of coffee a week, it delivers drama, comedy and news across TV and radio, as well as one of the world’s most visited websites. However, money is tight and there are serious fears that its essential work will be chipped away.

Like many, I would describe the BBC World Service as a tool of British soft power. Remarkably, the entire Foreign Office contribution to the BBC World Service is roughly equivalent to the cost of a single F-35 jet. We lately agreed to purchase a whole lot more of those, and that was the right move because we need to boost defence in a dangerous world, but it would be a critical mistake to invest heavily in just one aspect of our security while neglecting another equally essential aspect.

Global inflation and rising costs are putting the World Service in increasing funding difficulties, and without more support there is a risk that it will lose critical technological capabilities, especially among younger audiences. Although broadcast services currently account for two thirds of the World Service’s reach and they remain crucial, the future is digital, and on digital platforms the BBC is not just competing with Russia and China but is up against Facebook, TikTok, Google and the others, so we need sustained investment. Despite all the funding challenges, BBC World Service journalists continue to bravely provide quality journalism in the most challenging circumstances, often at great personal risk. When it comes to Iran we rely heavily on the work of BBC Persian’s brave journalists who face, as my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton and Wanstead (Mr Bailey) said, threats, asset seizures and passport confiscations just for doing their jobs.

Middle East

Calvin Bailey Excerpts

Monday 23rd June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lammy]

The hon. Gentleman may just have got a soundbite, but I am afraid that I am not going to take any lectures from him on the nuclear question. He has a very sorry record on that serious matter. We have been very clear that diplomacy is the way and that de-escalation is our position. That is what a Government pursue if they are serious about foreign policy, and I would recommend our approach to him.

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

I join the Foreign Secretary in thanking our brave service personnel from RAF Brize Norton for repatriating British citizens from Tel Aviv. In this Armed Forces Week, we are all grateful for their courage and sacrifice.

On Iran, let us be clear about the regime: it has killed thousands upon thousands; upheld the brutal suppression of democracy, as well as the rights of women and of LGBT+ people; and demonstrated a consistent intent to sponsor terrorism and act through proxies with violence to destabilise the region. But all military action must go through the process of international law, and its execution must be based on a plan and intent to return to democracy. Does my right hon. Friend agree that we must do what we can to support de-escalation as soon as possible?

[Mr Lammy]

I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for his service in the RAF, and I am sure that he is thinking about his former colleagues at RAF Akrotiri and across our two sovereign bases in the area, and in particular about our bilateral defence partnerships with so many countries in the region. I am pleased to make it crystal clear that the path through this is a diplomatic one: it is for Iran to return to negotiation and to recognise the power of the global community being absolutely clear that it cannot have a nuclear weapon.

Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories

Calvin Bailey Excerpts

Wednesday 4th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Falconer]

I would like to address the point about F-35s not being used in Ukraine. The importance of the F-35 programme to Ukraine is that the deployment of F-35s allows a redeployment of F-15s, which are used in the defence of Ukraine. Convenient though it would be to the House, it is not possible to divide up defence and national security in that way. I am confident in what I say from the Dispatch Box: the F-35 programme helps to protect Ukraine.

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

I welcome the Minister’s statement and his efforts, but he must sense our frustration at the inability to arrest the situation we are seeing in Gaza and the occupied territories. In the past few days, we have seen 58 people killed and many more injured in and around the GHF aid distribution sites. Those of us who have participated in UN operations in the past know that this should have been foreseen—it confirms all our fears about what happens when humanitarian principles are disregarded. Let us be clear: Israel is continually and deliberately undermining the institutions of international law, and we need to respond more strongly. Israel is not listening. When will the Government announce sanctions on Israel’s extremist Government?

[Mr Falconer]

I thank my hon. and gallant Friend, who served for a long time in the RAF, as well as in the United Nations. These issues are desperate. As he knows, we have taken actions against Israeli settlers and extremists, and we have been clear that if the Israeli Government do not change course, there will be further measures, including targeted sanctions.

British Indian Ocean Territory

Calvin Bailey Excerpts

Wednesday 2nd April 2025 Commons Chamber

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

Yet again, the Opposition are attempting to sow division between the UK and its allies, and indeed to share our allies’ sensitive operational information. If they succeed, it will have impacts on our strategically vital relationships with the US and India. Does my hon. Friend agree that the Opposition should consider waiting until the treaty is ready for scrutiny, rather than damaging our vital national interests in this way?

[Stephen Doughty]

I completely agree—I think some of the speculation has been hugely unhelpful. We have been hugely grateful for the close co-operation between the United Kingdom and the United States throughout the negotiations, and to the Administration for their extensive and detailed engagement, which has helped us to make progress on this deal. As my hon. Friend rightly points out, this agreement has been welcomed by other important partners, including India. China has not welcomed it, of course, because it knows that the agreement will strengthen the presence of the United Kingdom and the United States in the region.

Ukraine

Calvin Bailey Excerpts

Monday 24th February 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lammy]

Ten years ago, there were just four countries meeting the 2% commitment. Today, that has risen to 23. Right across the alliance, countries are understanding that they have to do more. We will set out how we will do more very, very shortly. As the matter today is Ukraine, the right hon. Gentleman will forgive me but I will not discuss issues to do with the British Indian Ocean Territory. I am sure he will have an occasion to do so at oral questions tomorrow.

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

Just over three years ago, I flew the penultimate UK mission into Kyiv to deliver materiel essential to the defence of Ukraine ahead of the illegal full-scale Russian invasion. Since then, Ukraine has been defending European security, the UN charter and liberal democracy against Putin’s assault on those shared interests, and, in the words of the declaration of independence, the “unalienable rights” of

“life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.”

Does the Foreign Secretary agree that to free Ukraine from Putin’s tyranny and imperialist ambition, and to ensure the words of the declaration of independence are realised for all, UK leadership in the co-ordination of European and transatlantic allies is essential?

[Mr Lammy]

Yes, yes, yes, I say to my hon. Friend. I think all of us pay tribute to our armed forces and to his work in our armed forces. It is because of that work over so many years—that sacrifice—that I think the spirit of this country guides us to stand solidly with Ukraine on a cross-party basis. He is right to pray in aid those words that underpin our values, and indeed global values as underpinned in the UN charter. That is what we are fighting for and we will not give up.

Chagos Islands

Calvin Bailey Excerpts

Wednesday 5th February 2025 Commons Chamber

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

The hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage) says he wants to help UK relations with the US, but he has a very funny way of going about it. Opposition Members state over and over again that they understand the desires and the psyche of the US military and its people, yet they ignore the fact that, the ICJ rulings aside, the previous and present US Administrations understand the language of business and agreements, and not the gentlemen’s agreements that have in the past marred discussions and negotiations about the stability and persistent military presence on the islands. It is for that reason that I ask the Minister if he agrees that the confirmation of the legal status of the base will cement our role in the Indo-Pacific and put us in a strong position to counter Chinese influence in the region.

[Stephen Doughty]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right about protecting against malign interests. That is exactly at the heart of the deal. He is also exactly right about the history of why the deal was needed. That was, of course, recognised by the previous Government, which was why they started the negotiations. We wanted to put the base on a secure footing well into the next century, which is what I assume they were trying to do previously and spent 11 rounds negotiating. We have come to a deal that is in our national interest. Most crucially, it is our national security and that of our allies that is at the heart of it. There are multiple safeguards in place in the treaty. They will protect our national security and that of our allies.

British Indian Ocean Territory: Sovereignty

Calvin Bailey Excerpts

Wednesday 18th December 2024 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Doughty]

I do not have details of all the Prime Minister’s meetings. I am sure the right hon. Gentleman can ask the Prime Minister that question himself.

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

For those of us who have served for the US military, who retain genuine and close links with the US military, and who know that this issue does not bring about the concern that others are trying to conflate with it, will the Minister say what his view is on how it is seen by our US military friends?

[Stephen Doughty]

I praise my hon. Friend for his service and work. I am very clear: our allies in the United States and, indeed, our other allies who rely on the important guarantees that the base provides are supportive of the deal. It has been supported across the security apparatus at every level and that is absolutely crucial. We would not have signed up to a deal if it did not protect our interests and those of our closest ally.

Syria

Calvin Bailey Excerpts

Monday 9th December 2024 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lammy]

In so many ways, this horrid story, or at least the global attention on this horrid story, began with the use of chemical weapons. It would be fitting to see them taken away and absolutely destroyed so that they can never be used again. It has been important to seek the clarification that those who have led this rebellion are working with the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons and have set themselves against any use of chemical weapons and the preservation of those stockpiles.

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

I thank the Secretary of State for his statement and for the diligent and hard work of his Ministers, in particular the Minister for the middle east, my hon. Friend the Member for Lincoln (Mr Falconer), in keeping the House apprised of the ongoing issues, as he did last week and in the background over prior weeks.

Last week, I urged greater awareness of how the developments in Syria are interconnected, particularly with regard to Russia’s distraction and weakness. We all welcome the Foreign Secretary’s remarks on the escalation of the matter to a Cobra secretariat and the broad coalition we see on the Front Bench, in particular noting the security implications, the Home Office on migration flows, and his Department and the Ministry of Defence’s role in any stabilisation work. Will the Secretary of State provide his view on his Department’s ability to support such a significant piece of stabilisation activity alongside other work, following the disbandment of a Department for which that was the sole role?

As we know, the Russians have used their presence in Syria to expand their brutal security presence in other parts of the world, in particular Africa. What steps are we taking to assess how the developments will impact African states that have learned to rely on Russia for their security? Have we extended our hand of friendship to those states so they have the opportunity to avoid the manifestation of such situations? Finally—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

Order. Members have to keep their questions short.