Diego Garcia and British Indian Ocean Territory

Jim Allister Excerpts

Wednesday 25th February 2026 Commons Chamber

[Mr Falconer]

I am not the relevant Minister. I am the Minister for the Middle East, as hon. Member knows.

[Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)]

To continue on this theme, it was only a few months ago that this House was told that if we did not approve this treaty, there would within weeks be binding international judgments against us. What international tribunal was ever capable of ruling on a military base? What tribunal were the Government talking about? We know that the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea has no jurisdiction on military bases or sovereignty, so what on earth were the Government trying to persuade this House about?

[Mr Falconer]

Again, there is this desire to suggest that there was no issue, that the 11 rounds of negotiation started by the previous Government were done for no reason and that there was no substance behind our concerns. I quote from US Secretary Hegseth:

“Diego Garcia is a vital military base for the US. The UK’s very important deal with Mauritius secures the operational capabilities of the base and key US national security interests… We are confident the base is protected for many years ahead.”

We were engaged with a real problem, and we were seeking a real solution. If Members would like more on the particulars around article 298, which I have heard the concerns about and committed to write on, we are very happy to provide it, but this is not a new argument about this treaty.

Jimmy Lai: Prison Sentence

Jim Allister Excerpts

Monday 9th February 2026 Commons Chamber

[Seema Malhotra]

What I will say, in relation to what we expect to see in Hong Kong, is that it is unacceptable that we have not seen the upholding of the historic commitments made at the time of the Sino-British joint declaration. It remains a matter of concern that the national security law was brought in at all, and it remains a matter of concern that people are being prosecuted under it. We seek an end to the national security law, and we seek the immediate release of Jimmy Lai.

[Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)]

Strong words of condemnation are appropriate and necessary, but when will the Government’s actions match those words of condemnation?

[Seema Malhotra]

The hon. and learned Member will know that this case is a priority for the Government and is raised at every opportunity and at every level of government, and that we continue to work on it publicly and privately. I know that it is a matter of great concern to the House and to the country. People want to see all of us working as much as we can and wherever we can to bring about the release of Jimmy Lai, and that is our priority.

Biodiversity Beyond National Jurisdiction Bill

Jim Allister Excerpts

Consideration of Lords amendments
Monday 2nd February 2026 Commons Chamber

[Seema Malhotra]

It is indeed important that all our devolved Administrations, as well as the UK Government, abide by the agreement. I thank the hon. Member for his interest and his engagement in this important Bill.

I am grateful to all those we have been engaging with throughout the passage of this Bill. Working closely with Ministers and officials in the devolved Governments, we agreed at the Bill’s introduction that the legislative consent motion process is engaged for Scotland and Northern Ireland to varying extents by parts 2, 3 and 4. The Government have been in sustained discussions with both those devolved Governments to seek consent for the Bill, and I can confirm to the House that motions on consent have been passed by the Scottish Parliament and the Northern Ireland Assembly.

Lords amendments 1 and 4 provide Scottish Ministers and the Northern Ireland Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs with concurrent powers to make regulations within devolved competence corresponding to the powers to make provision granted to the Secretary of State under clauses 9 and 11 of the Bill. Lords amendments 2 and 5 provide the procedure for those powers.

[Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)]

As I understand it, the BBNJ deals primarily with matters in international waters, and of course the devolved institutions have no say in those matters. So as to broaden our understanding of the Bill, will the Minister tell me what type of regulations she anticipates the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs—the local Stormont Department—will be making in consequence of the Bill?

British Indian Ocean Territory

Jim Allister Excerpts

Wednesday 28th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)]

Will the right hon. Lady agree that we stand at a critical point for not just this nation but the United States of America, and that it too should have regard to the fact that up to this point, the islands have been under the control of a nuclear power with a navy, and that this treaty would hand them over to a country more than 1,000 miles away with no navy. Does that not create an obvious geopolitical vacuum to which we are all vulnerable? Should the Americans in particular not be very wary of that?

[Priti Patel]

As is often the case, the hon. and learned Gentleman is spot on. That is exactly why the Minister has this marvellous opportunity today to explain this to the House and the British public.

Let us not forget that President Trump, the commander-in-chief, said that the UK is giving away extremely important land in an “act of great stupidity”—I think the House would agree with that comment—and that:

“There is no doubt that China and Russia have noticed this act of total weakness.”

Has there been any Minister-to-Minister engagement with the US Administration on this? Had the Prime Minister spoken directly to the President on this matter before kowtowing to China? I asked this very question here on Monday, but the Minister for the Overseas Territories, who is not present, could not answer. There is a new opportunity today for the Minister for the Indo-Pacific, the hon. Member for Feltham and Heston (Seema Malhotra), to tell us: yes or no?

On that point, it is also worth asking whether, should there be a change in the proposed US-UK treaty, it will come to Parliament through the 21-day Constitutional Reform and Governance Act process? Again, we asked this question on Monday, and the Minister refused to answer. What are the Government trying to hide? As Labour failed to provide the House with scrutiny under the previous CRaG process, it is clearly happy to give away this sovereign territory and billions in taxpayers’ money without being held to account.

Given the Labour Government’s abject failure to clarify these points, it took Conservatives in the other place to take action, leading to this pause of the treaty. Instead of showing some humility and transparency and commitment to engage in proper scrutiny, however, Labour has sought to gaslight its critics—and, by the way, the British public—with a Government spokesperson telling the media:

“This is irresponsible and reckless behaviour by peers”.

Blaming peers—Conservatives, Cross Benchers and others—for doing their job diligently is another new low from a Labour Government seeking to undermine accountability, democracy, scrutiny and accountability. When the junior Minister for the Indo-Pacific responds, I hope she will speak on behalf of this feeble Labour Government and apologise to the British people for their appalling and discredited conduct.

Diego Garcia Military Base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill

Jim Allister Excerpts

Monday 26th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Doughty]

We have been very clear that the agreement we have struck is vital for protecting our national security and guaranteeing the long-term future of this vital base for both the United Kingdom and the United States, which had been under threat. I have referenced the many comments from across the United States Administration. We continue to engage with the United States every day, making clear the very important parts of the deal that protect its security and ours, and we will continue to have such conversations.

[Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)]

I hold in my hand the explanatory notes that accompany the Bill. There are extensive sections on historical background and legal background. Nowhere within those sections is there any reference to the 1966 treaty. Why is that? I have two specific questions for the Minister. First, does he accept that the 1966 treaty—or notes, as he calls it—is extant? Secondly, is it capable of being altered unilaterally?

[Stephen Doughty]

Of course it is extant, Mr Speaker. It is an arrangement between ourselves and the United States. It has been updated on a number of occasions, which I have listed. As I have said, we have been clear that before the UK can ratify the treaty, we will need to do the following: pass primary and secondary legislation, update the UK-US agreement, and put in place arrangements on the environment, maritime security and migration. I am staggered that some on the Opposition Benches have only just clocked this; we have been aware of it and we engage with the United States every single day. That was made clear even before Christmas to the noble Lord Callanan in response to the question he asked my noble Friend Baroness Chapman. Again, this deal secures the base for the operations of ourselves and the United States, and we will continue to engage with the United States on a daily basis on it.

Diego Garcia Military Base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill

Jim Allister Excerpts

Consideration of Lords amendments
Tuesday 20th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Sir John Hayes]

I am immensely grateful, Madam Deputy Speaker. The best laws begin as Bills that metamorphosise during their passage and are improved through scrutiny. However, that depends on Ministers listening and learning. The amendments before us from the House of Lords are measured and reasonable. They are not wrecking amendments, but attempts to save the Government from their worst instincts. They provide greater scrutiny, greater parliamentary oversight and more checks and balances, yet they are rejected by the Government.

I will not speak, in the brief time available, about the cost of the deal, although it is wholly unpalatable that we should give away a treasured possession and then rent it back from a foreign place. I will not speak about the strategic cost of doing just that, although I will draw on Lord West’s remarks. That former Labour security Minister, who sits on the Intelligence and Security Committee with me, said:

“surrendering sovereignty over the Chagos Islands would be an irresponsible act, which would put our strategic interests—and the interests of our closest allies—in danger.”

That is wholly unwise.

I will speak, however, about the interests of the Chagossians, who have been ignored throughout this process, who were uninvolved in the negotiations from the outset, whose voice has not been heard, and whose future has been disregarded. That seems to me to be wholly unethical.

This is unwise, unpalatable, unwelcome, unethical, and fundamentally wrong. The Lords amendments would make some improvement to something that is woeful. I implore the Government to accept the amendments. More than that, I implore them to abandon this sorry mission, which is not in the national interest, and certainly not in the interests of the Chagos islanders.

[Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)]

If it were possible, one could almost feel sorry for the Minister. This is the Minister who, during previous stages of the Bill, batted away every criticism by telling us, “Oh, but the Americans support this deal.” He gleefully told us that they were our strongest and most important ally, and if they were enthusiastic and supportive of the Bill, what was the problem? Today, the emperor has no clothes.

The President of the United States has talked about the great stupidity of this deal. He describes a country giving away its own sovereignty as

“an act of GREAT STUPIDITY”.

Today the Minister has been forced into some indelicate gymnastics, as he tries to deal with the fact that the peg on which he hung all his defences has snapped out of place.

The Minister’s gymnastics have been equally on display when it comes to dealing with his party’s manifesto. Contrary to what he says, it is very clear that when the manifesto declares that Labour will always

“defend… sovereignty and right to self-determination”,

it is referring not only to Gibraltar and the Falklands, but to all British overseas territories and Crown dependencies. It says

“including the Falklands and Gibraltar”,

but not “exclusively the Falklands and Gibraltar”.

[Alex Ballinger]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Jim Allister]

I do not think that there is time for the hon. Member to remedy his speech at this stage.

The Minister is hoisted on the petard of his own manifesto, of which he is in blatant breach. He can hardly look the people of the Chagos islands in the eye, as he denies them what his manifesto promised them. They are the people who are hurting here. They are at the heart of this. They have not been treated well over decades by this nation, and now we are betraying them by denying them the right to any determination of their future. That is shameful. It is something that this House should be running away from, rather than embracing. I say to the Government: it is not too late to do the right thing. It is time they did, and I trust that they will.

Arctic Security

Jim Allister Excerpts

Monday 19th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Yvette Cooper]

I do agree with my hon. Friend. We need to be purposeful in our response. It is for all of us to recognise that the greatest threat to UK security, as well as to European security and North American security, does come from Russia. We have shared alliances, and the US is a close partner in strengthening our security against Russia.

[Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)]

I absolutely agree with the sanctity of territorial integrity and how fundamental it is to sovereignty. Indeed, those principles provide a powerful basis to challenge the US’s posturing. I do not at all dissent from the Foreign Secretary’s statement. However, I am intrigued as to how this Government are properly so exercised about America’s disrespect for the territorial integrity of Greenland, but so disinterested about the disrespect of the territorial integrity of our own country, whereby the European Union imposes its laws, as on a colony, in 300 areas of law on a part of the United Kingdom and insists on an international customs border to partition this United Kingdom. Now that the Government have got hold of the importance of territorial integrity, can we look forward to their reasserting it in respect of our own country?

[Yvette Cooper]

I know the hon. and learned Gentleman’s views, but the Windsor framework was about sustaining the Good Friday agreement, which was a shared agreement underpinned by principles and peace.

Venezuela

Jim Allister Excerpts

Monday 5th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Yvette Cooper]

One reason I spoke to US Secretary of State Rubio yesterday was to engage on what the plans now should be going forward. Given the level of criminal gang operations in Venezuela and the different factions that there have been in the country, preventing greater instability now and ensuring that we can get that stable basis and a plan for democracy is immensely important. There is a very strong civil society, with opposition groups and so on, but they need to be enabled and supported to ensure that we can get that peaceful, democratic transition. It will be crucially important.

[Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)]

Most Members of this House will agree with the Government that there are no tears to be shed over the removal of the brutal regime in Venezuela, but my question for the Foreign Secretary is this: how does such a desirable outcome impact on the Government’s view of what is permissible within international law?

[Yvette Cooper]

There is always a debate to be had about how to respond to different kinds of hybrid threat and complex threat in different countries, and different interpretations can be made. That is also why we have said that it is for the US to set out its interpretation and its legal basis for any action that it takes, but we continue to promote the importance of international law as it is set out and the UN charter. The hon. and learned Gentleman will know that we have argued for, for example, reforms to the interpretation of the European convention on human rights and for other areas of international law, for other reasons, to modernise, but we continue to stand up for the principles of the UN charter.

Chagossians: Trust Fund and Resettlement

Jim Allister Excerpts

Tuesday 16th December 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Falconer]

I will have to consult the Ministry of Defence to be sure where the error is. My understanding is that all costs have been verified by the Government Actuary’s Department, and I cannot provide any further clarification.

[Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)]

In getting to this point, the Government have made much of their adherence to international standards and bodies, yet in the last 15 minutes the Minister has been asked three times to respond to the United Nations’ findings, which call for a suspension of the treaty, and criticise the denial of the right to self-determination and the right to return. Why is the Minister now so timid when it comes to dealing with those international findings?

[Mr Falconer]

I wonder if the hon. and learned Gentleman accepts all the UN findings—for example in relation to Gaza or UNRWA. There is a wide range of different UN bodies with different responsibilities. The UN Secretary-General himself welcomed the agreement between the UK and Mauritius. This further report by a UN body will no doubt be studied carefully by the relevant Minister, but I do not have a fuller response today.

Gaza and Hamas

Jim Allister Excerpts

Wednesday 29th October 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Falconer]

International justice and accountability are of vital importance. That is why this Government removed the block on the International Criminal Court and continued to support that very important body, and that is why we continue to support the International Court of Justice. They are the competent courts and the process by which justice will be secured, and we continue to support them in those endeavours.

[Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)]

Are we expected to believe that in the months and years ahead, the Government will stand by their promise that Hamas must be fully disarmed and play no part in the Government in Palestine? I ask because a previous Labour Government, under Tony Blair, with the present National Security Adviser by his side, promised the people of Northern Ireland that the IRA and other terrorists would be totally disarmed through decommissioning. That did not happen: supposedly decommissioned weapons continued to be able to be used to kill, and we ended up with the surrogates of the IRA in government. Will it be any different in Gaza?

[Mr Falconer]

One thing I have learned so far as a politician is not to make comparisons between the middle east and practically anywhere else, and certainly not with Northern Ireland. I will allow the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland to answer the hon. and learned Gentleman’s particular questions about the current arrangements. Clearly, peace is possible—we have demonstrated it here and in many other places. That has to the be the work of the Government, and that is what we are focused on.