Diego Garcia Military Base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill

Graham Stringer Excerpts

Consideration of Lords amendments
Tuesday 20th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Doughty]

I have taken a number of interventions, so I would like to make some progress. I will happily take further interventions later.

[Graham Stringer (Blackley and Middleton South) (Lab)]

rose—

[Stephen Doughty]

I will give way to my hon. Friend.

[Graham Stringer]

I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. I have heard him in this Chamber a number of times say that the United States supported this deal. The President of the United States clearly does not support it any more. I would have thought that that was the case for a pause, but I would also have thought that something else that has changed was the case for a pause: the resolution of the United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination has also asked for the Bill not to go forward. Does the Minister not think that those two things together mean that we should pause?

[Stephen Doughty]

We will not pause in defending our national security interests and those of our allies. We will do the right things to keep our national security and the operations of the base working as they have done for many decades. Despite the claims from the Opposition Benches, I reiterate that it is a matter of public record that, on February 2024, the former Prime Minister spoke with his Mauritian counterpart to confirm his commitment to negotiations, which continued until the general election. It was simply not credible to try to hang on, hope for the best and endanger an asset that is vital to our national security. The reality is that the previous Government failed to secure a deal. They failed to secure protections for the outer islands, for example. When it came to a matter of critical security, they did not deliver, so I am proud that we have secured a deal that is able to do those very things.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Pinkerton]

If the right hon. Gentleman will bear with me for two minutes, I will get to precisely that point.

It is shameful that a meaningful referendum was not the starting point of this Government’s approach, which left Opposition parties to insist on it through amendments. It is equally shameful that this principle has today been rejected on the grounds of cost. What price do the Government place on self-determination? Among Chagossians, this will be received for what it is: justice layered upon injustice.

This Government, and Governments before them, have routinely defended our overseas territories in the international arena on the basis of the self-determining rights of their citizens. Today, this Government rightly defend Greenland on that same basis, asserting the right of Greenlanders to determine their own future. It is therefore with deep regret that I speak in support of that right and of that principle as expressed through Lords amendments 2 and 3, knowing that we will have no opportunity to vote in favour of those amendments when a Division is called.

In respect of accountability and oversight, Lords amendments 5 and 6 would reinforce Parliament’s role in scrutinising the financial commitments of this agreement. They would ensure that the House is not asked to authorise long-term expenditure without clarity on its scale, duration and assumptions. The amendments would require transparency in the way in which costs are calculated, and ensure that Parliament retains control over future payments. That is not obstruction; it is a proper exercise of parliamentary responsibility, and one owed to future Administrations and to the public. The amendments would also give the Government a mechanism to terminate the deal and all future payments to Mauritius should Mauritius fail to honour its obligations.

In May, the Prime Minister said that the deal would cost up to £3.4 billion over 99 years. However, freedom of information disclosures suggest an initial estimate closer to £34.7 billion, a figure that we have already heard today. That disparity risks further undermining trust in this Government, and confidence in their wider approach to public spending. At a time when families across Britain face cost of living pressures, Parliament is entitled—indeed expected—to demand clarity before committing taxpayers to potentially vast long-term liabilities that will endure well beyond any of our lifetimes.

In respect of security and durability, Lords amendment 1 addresses the strategic importance of Diego Garcia, and would ensure that the United Kingdom is not locked into ongoing payments should the military use of the base become impossible. Given the rapidly shifting nature of the United Kingdom’s relationship with the United States, particularly under its current President, the amendment is essential to ensure that we are not bound into a long-term lease without a similarly long-term tenant. No one in this House or the other place disputes the strategic importance of Diego Garcia to our national security, and to global security more broadly. The amendment reflects that reality, and raises legitimate questions about the long-term viability of this deal.

Let me now return briefly to Lords amendments 5 and 6, which together form a coherent and, in my view, proportionate package. They would reinforce parliamentary oversight, protect the public purse, and hold the Government’s financial commitments to account. The other place has not sought to frustrate the Bill; it has asked whether Parliament is prepared to proceed without sufficient safeguards on cost, governance and legitimacy concerns.

I again place on record my disappointment that Lords amendments 2 and 3 were not selected for today’s debate. They would have provided the Chagossian people with a referendum, allowing them a direct and meaningful say over their future—something that remains conspicuously absent despite repeated assurances about consultation.

The Chagossians are not, and should not be, diplomatic collateral. They are not a note in the marginalia of an agreement between Mauritius and the United Kingdom. They are a people who have been treated badly by our country and are now deserving of agency, dignity and justice. For those reasons, the Liberal Democrats urge the Government to accept Lords amendments 1, 5 and 6. More than that, however, we urge the Government to pause, to reflect on the changing geopolitical circumstances in which we find ourselves, and to think again about whether this is the right approach for us, for the Chagossian people, and for our future security.

[Graham Stringer (Blackley and Middleton South) (Lab)]

It has been said that some hon. and right hon. Members have come to the debate on Chagos late in the day. That is right. The right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) has been banging on about Chagos for decades, and I admire him for doing so. I first became concerned when I saw how much it would cost the United Kingdom to pay for something that we own. As a litmus test, I asked myself whether I could explain to my constituents why we are going to pay an island nation that has no direct connection with Diego Garcia.

[Jeremy Corbyn]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his kind comments. Fundamentally, I spoke about Diego Garcia and the Chagos islands for many years because of the injustice that was done and the islanders’ right of return. The whole point has been to gain the right of return, which has been won through this Bill for the outer islands and, in a limited form, for Diego Garcia itself.

[Graham Stringer]

That is at the heart of what has gone wrong, and the right hon. Gentleman has been talking about it for a long time. The Chagossians were treated as itinerant workers in the 1960s, so they did not get the basic rights that people got in other British protectorates. They were discriminated against, and we are discriminating against them again by giving Mauritius the power to determine what goes on. The only solution to the central issue is not a survey, which the House of Lords is doing in good faith; it is to have a referendum, which has been ruled out of order today, for good reasons in procedural terms. We should give the Chagossians a say in a referendum on whether they want to return or not. Otherwise, it is all speculation.

I do not think the Minister explained why we should not take notice of the United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination. That is fundamental, because the Committee goes back to the 1960s decision, and it sees what happened then, and what is being perpetuated now, as racial discrimination, and we and the Mauritians are perpetuating that. My hon. Friend the Minister did not really respond to that point, just as he did not really address what has changed. I have listened to many of his statements in this House, when he has said in good faith that the United States supports us. Regardless of whether it did so in the past—it probably did—it certainly does not support us now. Those are two reasons for pausing and thinking again: becoming compliant with the United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination; and talking to the United States, because it has changed its position.

The amendments before us would not affect the core of the Bill, because that was dealt with in a very short period of time on Second Reading, on Report and in Committee, but they are important in as much as they ask for information. We are going to pay for something that we did not used to have to pay for. It will have consequences for our ability to look after our defence interests in the Indian ocean, and we do not know how much it will cost. Amending the Bill to give us an exact figure for those costs is important. Lords amendment 1 is also important if for some reason Mauritius changes its view or the islands disappear under water. I do not have the opportunity this evening to vote for what I would like to vote for, but I will vote for the amendments that the Lords have put before us.

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith]

I rise because in the previous debate we had on this, a question was posed to Ministers, and it has been asked again now: what are the reasons for this Bill? First, Ministers rested on one idea, which was all about how we had somehow received a binding judgment from the International Court of Justice, and this was therefore important because we had to stand by that. I remember it became clearer and clearer during that debate, particularly for some Members, that this simply was not correct. There is no binding judgment; it is an advisory judgment, because we have an opt-out for all matters to do with Commonwealth Governments. That is very clear, and it has been said by many judges and other learned legal people.

Some of my right hon. Friends, one of whom I see on the Front Bench, have raised other reasons in these debates. Beyond the ICJ judgment, we were told there were other issues, and that somehow if we did not do this we would face challenges under the United Nations convention on the law of the sea and by the International Telecommunication Union, which stands steadily. What is most interesting about all this is that, when pressed throughout, bit by bit Ministers’ arguments fell apart. These issues are very detailed, so I will not go into them now, but they will have to be raised in much more detail later.

Proposed Chinese Embassy

Graham Stringer Excerpts

Monday 19th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Seema Malhotra]

It is important to agree that the decision to provide China with consent to use the Royal Mint as diplomatic premises was made in 2018 by the previous Government under the former Foreign Secretary, Boris Johnson, and was subject to planning permission. China purchased the site on that basis. That is what my colleague Baroness Chapman has also shared. It is important to recognise that the decision will be an independent one made by MHCLG through a quasi-judicial process.

[Graham Stringer (Blackley and Middleton South) (Lab)]

I think I heard my hon. Friend say clearly that the Government would not stand for coercion by the Chinese diplomatic service. Has the Foreign Office not been looking at what has been going on over the last 10 years? At the consulate in Manchester, people who were demonstrating against the Chinese Government were dragged into the grounds and beaten up, and the diplomatic staff were left alone, with nothing happening to them. There are pop-up police stations all over the country that intimidate members of the Chinese community, whether they are British citizens or from Hong Kong or other parts of China. There should be a simple answer to this application. There is no need for an embassy of this size for the Chinese diplomatic community in this country. It is there to intimidate Chinese people and undermine the elected representatives in this Chamber.

[Seema Malhotra]

My hon. Friend is right that we must not tolerate any attempts by foreign Governments to coerce, intimidate or harass. He has highlighted some examples that have caused great concern and that we take extremely seriously. We continue to assess potential threats in the United Kingdom, and the protection of individual rights and freedoms is a matter of great concern for the Government. Indeed, freedom of speech and other fundamental rights of all people in the UK are protected under domestic law. The police and security services monitor these issues closely.

The UK has a broad suite of powers available to counter foreign interference, including acts that amount to transnational repression. We continue to implement measures in the National Security Act 2023, which strengthens our legal powers and makes the UK a harder target for states that seek to conduct hostile acts. The Security Minister announced last year that counter-terrorism policing is offering training and guidance on state-threats activity to all 45 territorial police forces across the UK. This will enhance the ability of frontline police officers and staff in the identification of state-directed crimes and the actions that can, and must, be taken to escalate matters and mitigate such activity.

Occupied Palestinian Territories: Humanitarian Access

Graham Stringer Excerpts

Wednesday 10th September 2025 Westminster Hall

[Graham Stringer (in the Chair)]

Before I call Melanie Ward to move the motion, it is self-evident that this debate is well subscribed. At the moment, just based on the numbers who have put in to speak—there are some hon. Members who have turned up who have not put in to speak, which does not mean they cannot be called—it looks as though the speech limit will be around one minute 30 seconds. If there are more interventions, that may have to be reduced.

[Melanie Ward (Cowdenbeath and Kirkcaldy) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered humanitarian access to the Occupied Palestinian Territories.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Stringer. We meet today almost two years in to the devastating war on Gaza. Over 63,000 Palestinians have been directly killed—44% of them women and children.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Graham Stringer (in the Chair)]

Order. Will Members remain bobbed for a second so that we can calculate the time for speeches? I remind Members to bob after every speech. The speech time will be one minute and 30 seconds.

[Shockat Adam (Leicester South) (Ind)]

It is a real honour to serve under your chairship, Mr Stringer.

Nine children lie in bloodstained, torn clothes. They were not fighters, militants, extremists or terrorists; they were simply queuing for water in what Israel itself has declared a safe zone, and yet the so-called most moral army in the world unleashed death upon them. Their small bodies now bear witness to a horror that no child should ever know. That is not an isolated strategy, as the hon. Member for Cowdenbeath and Kirkcaldy (Melanie Ward) so powerfully said. We have seen the death of innocent people in churches, mosques, hospitals and schools—every sector of Palestinian society has been destroyed.

For those who survive the bombs, starvation is tightening its grip. Families are already watching loved ones waste away: 361 people have already died of hunger, including 83 since famine was officially declared. The world’s leading genocide scholars, Israeli human rights organisations and international experts are clear: what is happening in Gaza meets the legal definition of genocide. Yet here in Britain, the right hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy), in his final flurry as Foreign Secretary, wrote that the Government have not determined that Israel acts with intent, and therefore there is not a genocide. How can anybody look away relentlessly when all this tragedy is happening?

I have very little time, so I ask the Minister: will he call on diplomatic—

[Graham Stringer (in the Chair)]

Order.

[Jayne Kirkham (Truro and Falmouth) (Lab/Co-op)]

The IPC has declared only four famines since it was established in 2004. In August, it declared one in Gaza City. It said:

“this Famine is entirely man-made, it can be halted and reversed”.

The non-governmental organisations I have spoken to have been unable to get any aid into Gaza since March. Save the Children has 45 trucks of aid, including medicine, shelter items and hygiene kits, waiting in warehouses, and Oxfam has been unable to bring in any menstrual supplies.

Humanitarian access also means ensuring the safety of humanitarian workers. The year 2024 was the deadliest on record to be an aid worker, and Gaza is the deadliest place on Earth to be an aid worker. On 1 April 2024, one of my constituents, James Henderson, was killed alongside other aid workers from World Central Kitchen while taking humanitarian aid into Gaza. It was not an isolated incident. Between 7 October 2023 and August 2025, 508 humanitarian personnel have been killed.

I welcome the statement by the previous Foreign Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy), on the IPC ruling made on 22 August. I also welcome the diplomatic and economic measures that the Government have already taken with allies. However, the situation is becoming ever more desperate. Many constituents constantly ask me what more we can do and what more action we can take. Some, such as Kerenza, who I saw yesterday, are taking time off work to support the flotilla, and some are protesting.

With the other three Labour MPs for Cornwall, I have asked for clear diplomatic and economic action with our allies, such as extending further sanctions—

[Graham Stringer (in the Chair)]

Order.

--- Later in debate ---

[Graham Stringer (in the Chair)]

Order.

--- Later in debate ---

[Tahir Ali (Birmingham Hall Green and Moseley) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer.

In the words of the President of the European Commission:

“What is happening in Gaza has shaken the conscience of the world.”

In this House, in debate after debate, we come and talk about the horrific scenes in Gaza, yet there is very little action. My constituents are telling me that the Government can and should do more, and I agree.

The starting point should be the recognition of Palestine. By recognising the state of Palestine, we can deliver much-needed aid to the Palestinians, but we can do that only if we recognise Palestine. If Israel then tries to obstruct that, we must deal with it, with the force that needs to be applied to Netanyahu, because he has gone berserk. He is going round like a mad dog—a mad dog that has attacked every sovereign country in and around the region, that has no regard for international law, and that disregards everything to do with humanitarian law and humanity. We cannot sit back—

[Graham Stringer (in the Chair)]

Order. I call Warinder Juss.

--- Later in debate ---

[Fleur Anderson]

On a point of order, Mr Stringer, I omitted earlier to draw attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I have been on two trips to Palestine: one with Medical Aid for Palestinians and one with Yachad. I wanted to make that clear and set the record straight.

[Graham Stringer (in the Chair)]

Thank you. I call Brian Mathew.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Alec Shelbrooke (Wetherby and Easingwold) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer. I start by congratulating the hon. Member for Cowdenbeath and Kirkcaldy (Melanie Ward), not least because of the unique experiences she brings to this debate and the important way she has put it together. I will try to keep my comments as brief as possible, because I think that some 20 Government Members spoke in the debate and the Minister will have a lot to answer and get through.

Obviously, a lot of the speeches have been about humanitarian access, as that is what the debate is about. Many stories have been brought forward about reports from the ground, and it is indeed undoubtable that a famine is taking place. The first thing I would like to probe the Minister on is whether he has had any reports on where all the violence is coming from at the humanitarian aid points. Is it purely from one side, or the other? Has he had any reports on what the security situation is and how that could be improved? I ask because we obviously want to see aid getting in in any way we can. In that sense, you—

[Graham Stringer (in the Chair)]

Order. Sir Alec, you are an experienced Member. Can we move to ordinary parliamentary debate? I have not had any reports.

[Sir Alec Shelbrooke]

I apologise sincerely, Mr Stringer. Has the Minister got the plans for what will be said to the President of the United States to cover these very important aspects? Why is there such violence around the aid points, and what influence can be brought to bear to get more aid in? Some Members have suggested using assets such as the Royal Navy. Indeed, the last Conservative Government were involved in trying to put harbours in and get aid in place. These are all important aspects, because the first point that we come to today is the value of human life and doing everything that can be done to stop what is a man-made famine, wherever the original or ongoing responsibilities for that may lie.

The events going on in the middle east shock us all; indeed, the events of last night shocked us all. That includes the President of the United States making statements that perhaps surprised us all and showed that it may be time for the Israeli Government to rethink whether they can act with impunity, because it appears the Americans were not aware of what was happening and are absolutely furious at what appears to be an attempt to scupper any peace deal. That shows the importance of the Israeli President coming to see the Prime Minister today. It is important to keep those engagements alive, and to be able to look people in the eye and be honest with them. Often, friends can give people the most honest opinion, and it is important to keep those relationships in place.

The hon. Member for Cowdenbeath and Kirkcaldy said that it is not Hamas that pays the price for the lack of humanitarian aid, but the starving children. What assessment has been made of where aid is going when it is received on the ground, and what can be done to secure that aid for the populations that need it?

We are in a position to leverage influence on the Israeli Government, but I am concerned that declaring recognition of a Palestinian state without calling for the release of hostages may damage the ability of the Israelis to listen to what is said. The significant shifts in foreign policy at this time must be balanced with trying to get a tangible outcome to this event. Everybody wants to see this conflict come to an end. Everybody wants to ensure that the events of 7 October cannot happen again. We must be able to be in the room and to work with the Israelis and the Americans, who have such influence in this area, to ensure that we can reach that position as quickly as possible.

I think the Minister will have plenty of time to answer all the questions that have been raised about humanitarian aid, but I want to draw on the comments made by the hon. Members for York Central (Rachael Maskell) and for Middlesbrough and Thornaby East (Andy McDonald) about getting to the ceasefire and what takes place afterwards. I urge the Minister, if he can, to outline any plans the Prime Minister may have, in meeting the President of the United States, to clarify where American thinking about the day after the war is. We have heard many conflicting reports of the things that may go on, some of which may well be genocidal acts. On that note, is it still the position of the Foreign Office and the Foreign Secretary to support last week’s letter from the right hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy), which said that the Government did not recognise a genocide? Can the Minister outline the thinking behind that? There is plenty of international law that makes the situation opaque, so perhaps he can outline exactly where that thinking came from.

With that, I will sit down, because the Minister has a huge amount to get through. A lot of valuable comments have been made today, and I thank all Members for outlining their points in very precise terms.

[Graham Stringer (in the Chair)]

We have caught up on time, so the Minister has a decent amount of time to speak. I ask him, if possible, to find a couple of minutes at the end for the proposer to wind up.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andy McDonald]

I am very grateful to the Minister for giving way. He is a good man who pays an awful lot of attention to these issues. He is telling us about the difficulties regarding aid and he is applying his mind to them. However, as we speak, we have President Herzog in the country.

So I ask the Minister: is that opportunity being used to discuss the root cause of this situation? The failure to transmit humanitarian aid is because of the genocide and war crimes being committed by Israel. Is President Herzog being challenged on his open statements about collective responsibility and saying that there is no such thing as an innocent Gazan? And will he be upbraided for blithely signing his name on bombs that come raining down on Palestinian children? If so, will the Minister make those comments known to the public? We must know how this President is being received.

[Graham Stringer (in the Chair)]

Just before I call the Minister to respond, we have done really well on the timings so far. However, if hon. Members are going to make interventions, can they be short and to the point, please?

[Mr Falconer]

Thank you, Mr Stringer; I will try to speed up as well. I will come to the important points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough and Thornaby East (Andy McDonald) shortly, but first, I will just segue from the overall humanitarian challenges to discuss some of the specific areas of work on which I and the rest of the Government have been heavily engaged over the recess period.

My hon. Friend the Member for Cowdenbeath and Kirkcaldy asked vital questions about the evacuation of vulnerable people. Over the recess, we repeated our commitments to assist both medically vulnerable children and a number of scholars, and there are a number of other people, too, whom I and the Foreign Office are trying to get out of Gaza. However, the operation to get anybody out of Gaza is enormously complex and involves a range of operational partners, and the brute truth is that it also involves the Israeli Government. Nobody can leave Gaza without the support of the Israeli Government.

I am pleased to report to the House that we are making progress on some of those cases, but not all of them. It is an overwhelming focus for me—the operational challenge implicit in getting even handfuls of people out of Gaza. This contribution is, of course, a tiny one, given the scale of need outlined in the IPC report and everywhere else. However, despite the small number of people involved, the operational challenge remains great.

I hope to be able to update the House on the specifics shortly. I know that many right hon. and hon. Members have constituents who are personally affected. As soon as I am in a position to give confirmation on specific cases, I will do so. I know that there are so many right hon. and hon. Members who are deeply concerned about this situation. I can give the House the commitment that at the moment there is nothing else on which I am spending more time, and I will continue to do so until as many people as we can possibly rescue are rescued.

My hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough and Thornaby East asked an important question, which was also asked by other Members. Just to clarify, President Herzog’s visit is a private visit. He has come not at the invitation of the British Government. Nevertheless, given his presence in the UK, we are taking the opportunity to raise a number of very important issues with him.

The Foreign Secretary met the President this morning, and the Prime Minister will meet him this evening. I am sure that they will provide a full account of the points that they have raised. From speaking briefly to the Foreign Secretary, I know that she raised a range of important points, including the importance of Israeli support for our evacuations, over the course of her discussion this morning.

I want to leave my hon. Friend the Member for Cowdenbeath and Kirkcaldy some time to respond, but I would like to say that, understandably, Members raised the question of determinations, and I want to make as clear as I can how the British Government approach genocide determinations. They are, obviously, a question for a competent court. No competent court has made a determination, but courts have made provisional findings, which we would clearly abide by. The previous Foreign Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy), set out in his letter that, of course, as I have told the House on a number of occasions, we conduct assessments of likely breaches across the whole range of our international legal commitments, including in relation to genocide.

As hon. and right hon. Members will know, there are different tests for different elements of international law. As I have always told the House, we take our commitments under all elements of international law, including the genocide convention, extremely seriously. We keep all those assessments under regular review. The spirit of the previous Foreign Secretary’s letter was not to break with what hon. Members have heard me say many times—that it is for a competent court to make determinations—but to seek to give further aeration to the IDC about what our internal assessment looks like on that particular element.