British Indian Ocean Territory

Debate between John Hayes and Priti Patel

Wednesday 26th February 2025 Commons Chamber

[Priti Patel]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I am afraid that the Government need to reflect on their own conduct. The British public are about to have to fork out huge amounts of money for a deal that has had no scrutiny or public airing whatsoever. The lack of transparency is one thing, but when we see this being repeated across every Government Department and even in a Prime Minister’s statement, it is simply unacceptable. There is something deeply shameful about the conduct and the lack of transparency of this Government.

Secondly, on the negotiations, the Mauritius Prime Minister has publicly given a chronology of the counterproposals his Government have put forward to change the agreement reached and announced by his predecessor and the UK Prime Minister. He has stated to his National Assembly that, upon taking office in November, he had—guess what?—reviewed the deal. This is exactly the same deal that the Foreign Secretary has described as “a very good deal”, and one he was “confident” that the Mauritians were still really sure about, yet the Mauritian Prime Minister concluded that the deal

“was so bad that we said, no way!”

There is video footage of that as well. It is available online for everyone to see. He claimed that he subsequently submitted a counterproposal to the UK and that the UK Government responded on 16 December.

Then, on 31 December, Mauritius submitted its response and requested a meeting in January, which was quickly arranged and held. That meeting took place. The Mauritius Cabinet then met on 15 January and, soon after, its delegation, led by its Attorney General, Gavin Glover, came to London to meet the Minister and the Attorney General, Lord Hermer. So, according to the Mauritians, a series of counterproposals and responses were exchanged, but when we have asked the Government about whether counterproposals were received and what they were, including at questions yesterday, Ministers have continually refused to say.

I find it astonishing that this House has had to rely on Hansard from the Mauritius National Assembly. It is very good; I recommend that colleagues read it. We have had to rely on that Hansard to find out what UK Government Ministers are up to. That is why our motion demands the publication of a chronology so that we can know what has happened. When we hear from the Minister, perhaps she can confirm whether this account from the Prime Minister of Mauritius is correct.

The Minister should also explain to the House the role that the Attorney General has been playing in these negotiations, because written answers have stated that his meeting with the Mauritius delegation last month was a “courtesy meeting”. But the Prime Minister of Mauritius has stated that when his Attorney General met his British counterpart, Lord Hermer, and the Under-Secretary of State in the Foreign Office, they both assured him of the commitment of the UK Government to signing the agreement between Mauritius and the United Kingdom. Giving that assurance seems to demonstrate that the Attorney General was actively playing a part in the negotiations, rather than attending a “courtesy meeting”, and in view of that previous interest in the British Indian Ocean Territory, questions will rightly be raised about his involvement. So can the Minister confirm whether the Attorney General has recused himself from these matters?

Thirdly, we know from the account given by the Prime Minister of Mauritius that concessions have been made over sovereignty, even though Ministers here have refused to confirm or admit it. The joint statement of 3 October said:

“For an initial period of 99 years, the United Kingdom will be authorised to exercise with respect to Diego Garcia the sovereign rights and authorities of Mauritius required to ensure the continued operation of the base well into the next century.”

When we asked yesterday whether a change had been made, the Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, the hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty) said:

“The fundamentals of the deal remain the same”.—[Official Report, 25 February 2025; Vol. 762, c. 618.]

But if the fundamentals of the deal remain the same, why has the Mauritius Prime Minister said that

“there have been changes. The British agreed. We insisted that the sovereignty issue is the crucial and the most important issue…We insisted that it be clear that we have complete sovereignty on the Chagos, including Diego Garcia. The British agreed to that and this has been changed.”

And why is it that, in a letter sent to me this week by the Foreign Secretary, he does not use the word “sovereignty” in relation to the lease, only stating:

“The UK would retain all the rights and authorities we need to ensure the long-term, secure and effective operation of the base.”

The difference in the language between the joint statement from October and this letter to me matters. The Minister, the Foreign Secretary and the Prime Minister might not realise it, but removing sovereignty is a fundamental change, and it matters for the defence and security of our country.

[Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)]

My right hon. Friend’s point is not merely semantic, because in international law—which I know holds great sway on the Labour Benches—those who interpret our entitlements will look closely at whether we have sovereign power or only power by means of an agreement that can be torn up by Mauritius.

Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Bill

Debate between John Hayes and Priti Patel

2nd reading
Monday 14th October 2024 Commons Chamber

[Priti Patel]

I thank the Home Secretary for her comments. Debates such as this concentrate all our minds and thoughts on how we must work together. It is so sad, but many of the Members here have spoken about Sir David and Jo, and in fact great security measures have then been enacted. Indeed, I pay tribute to Mr Speaker, staff members and everyone who has stepped up to do so. However, there is a threat here, which is the suffering, the loss and the pain, and as has been said in the debates thus far, the Manchester Arena tragedy will live with so many of us for so long.

I set up the inquiry when I was Home Secretary, and many of the findings of the important work of Sir John Saunders were absolutely shocking. The families had to sit through and participate in the inquiry, and they were retraumatised to a certain extent while giving evidence and listening to some of the failings, which was deeply painful. This is very much about the lessons we can learn collectively, and not just across Government but as a society. This Bill will always be in memory of Martyn, of course, but it is also in memory of the many others affected.

[Sir John Hayes]

I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend for setting up the inquiry, but those recommendations did not stop with this legislation. While it is important that we welcome this in the spirit that has imbued the debate so far, the recommendations on co-ordination and some of the failures in communication between different agencies—those recommendations were mentioned by the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale West (Mr Rand)—do need to be acted on. Notwithstanding the spirit that I have described, it is important that that scrutiny continues and that we learn the lessons to which she has alluded.

[Priti Patel]

I thank my right hon. Friend for his comments. He will know very well from his own time in government, given the roles in which he served, that we have been privy to the details of some awful plans, plots and issues that could have inflicted a lot of problems on our country. We must always have these policies under review.

I want to pay tribute to the work of our security and intelligence services. Their work behind the scenes is just outstanding, and we are blessed in so many ways with the level of scrutiny, the work they do and the resources that come from Government. I want to pay tribute to the team that set up the counter-terrorism operations centre—a new organisation established by the previous Government during the last Parliament—which focuses on the integrated approach of our security services for a lot of the operational work that takes place. We should not just pay tribute to it, but recognise that this work always has to be kept under review, because the threats change. The nature of the threats evolves and changes constantly and, as we know, terrorism is not just domestic but takes place outside this country.

The Bill has had extensive consideration and consultation. It has taken into account the recommendations and details contained in reports and inquests from the Manchester Arena attack, and from the attacks at London bridge and here in Westminster, and other incidents, as is absolutely right. During my time at the Home Office, we gave a commitment to introduce a protect duty, which was welcomed across the House and by campaigners and many businesses, and that consultation was undertaken in 2021. We had to consult and consider carefully how best to implement that and improve public safety protections while being mindful of the many impacts on businesses to which the House has alluded—the need for those impacts to be proportionate and for burdens to be minimised—particularly on smaller businesses and venues, and contemplating the role and responsibilities of the regulator. The Home Secretary touched on some of those points.

Since then, the draft Bill was published last year and was considered by the Home Affairs Committee, and this year the standard tier consultation took place. The results were published last month with the Bill and, importantly, the provisions have been built on and some changes made. It is right that the details have been scrutinised. It is important that we recognise the patience of the campaigners who wanted the Bill to come forward much earlier, but we needed to get the technicalities and the details right. There is no point in bringing forward legislation if we cannot operationalise it.

The Home Secretary has spoken about the role of the SIA. We need to consider how the SIA will be equipped adequately. It was resourced heavily during the covid pandemic, with new duties and responsibilities, but again it is the practicalities that are important, because the Bill brings an estimated 179,000 premises under the scope of the requirements of Martyn’s law, with a distinction in place—some have a standard duty, as we have heard from the Secretary of State. It is right that the provisions are proportionate to the scale and size of premises and businesses, and that there is a link to the risk, but we do not want to see issues with the enforceability of the provisions, so I want to ask the Home Secretary and her team some questions in that regard.

The Home Secretary touched on the whole issue around the SIA, the regulator and the potential to enforce civil penalties, but we need to understand the practicalities, because she also highlighted that we do not want to put additional burdens on businesses through the work that has taken place already. If businesses are not stepping up—not learning from past mistakes and the recommendations of other inquiries—how will that be picked up? Penalties are one thing, but they should be the last resort; we need these institutions and organisations to put public safety and the practicalities first.

I hope that the Minister responding to the debate will talk about the impact on local authorities, including local councils and town parishes. What assurances can be given about the work under way with colleagues in the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government to support local authorities to meet these obligations, including through training, and considering the implications, practicalities and scope? Will there be financial support for them? What support will be given to schools and educational institutions on their standard duty?

Given the existing measures that some premises have in place to ensure compliance with fire safety, health and safety, and crime prevention requirements, will the Minister look carefully at the interplay between those responsibilities so that the guidance is not complicated but consistent and comprehensive, and that we assist premises in minimising cost burdens while allowing them to work in an integrated way? One big lesson from Manchester, and Sir John’s inquiry and the reporting— we know this, as it was in the public domain—was that there was a lack of integration between the various services working together. That absolutely has to be recognised. We must ensure there is a golden thread running through all the services locally, so they know how to integrate and work together. The impact assessment gives an estimate of the overall cost of the standard duty and the enhanced duty over a significant period, but there is again the question of the practicalities: what does this really mean for the many organisations and institutions that will be involved?

I seek clarity from the Minister about the role of planning policy in delivering Martyn’s law. This is important; with changes in planning policy, we might be able to make changes to the way in which buildings are shaped and designed, and to what local authorities take on board. We might be able to ensure that the relevant authorities receive advice and guidance from the police on how to design out some of these issues and put in safety measures, and bring in developers to introduce good designs and new concepts, future-proofing many institutions, buildings and developments.

I will touch on the nature of terror incidents and the premises that need to be considered, because we need procedures to examine how best to prevent incidents from taking place and places from becoming targets. Monitoring and surveillance is second nature to our institutions, but there is also the question of how premises hosting events should respond to a particular threat or even anticipate an incident—what kinds of processes and procedures will such premises be undertaking? Perhaps the Home Secretary or the Minister could talk a bit about some of the discussions they have had with key sectors. Live venues and events were discussed earlier, but have they been consulted not just on how they will design these incidents out but on the practical measures—the kind of work that will be undertaken or the drills that will be put in place?

There are a lot of lessons to learn just from recent incidents. We saw what happened at London bridge in 2017, which differed from the Finsbury Park attack, the Manchester Arena attack and the Reading Forbury Gardens attack as well. It is important that the SIA, the regulator and the Government work to ensure that those responsible for premises and events have the full duty, and can go into their own planning and preparations in the right way.

I will mention one particular inquiry that is taking place, as it is in the news today: the inquiry into the 2018 Novichok poisoning in Salisbury of Dawn Sturgess, chaired by Lord Hughes of Ombersley. The Government will naturally be considering the harm and damage that that caused, because the actions of a hostile state led to the most atrocious and appalling deaths of innocent people in our country. It reminds us all that incidents come in all shapes and guises, and that we need to find better ways to protect the public and put public safety first.

I conclude by asking the Minister about support for victims of terrorism. The Home Office has been conducting an internal review into the support package available to victims of terrorism, and considering the introduction of a national day of service and tribute to victims of terrorism. Travis Frain, whom the ministerial team will be familiar with and know of, has been a long-standing and deeply passionate campaigner for that. Ministers prior to the election were looking at this matter as well, so we would welcome even a small update on the Government’s thinking regarding support for victims of terrorism and on some of the work that Travis was leading.

I note from the programme motion that the Government are keen for the Bill to complete its Committee stage by mid-November. To ensure it progresses quickly, I hope that Members across both Houses will ask the right questions and work in a practical way with the industry—we have not even touched on the insurance industry but I am sure that will all be covered in Committee—and look at how we can start providing public protection and safety sooner rather than later. I say this in my concluding remarks, particularly recognising that Figen Murray and others are here today watching the debate, because we owe it to them, to their families and to so many who have suffered and who have been waiting in anticipation for this legislation. We owe it to them to enact these measures in a practical way: to give them and the public confidence, as they look to us all to drive this legislation forward with positive outcomes, sooner rather than later.