British Indian Ocean Territory

Julian Lewis Excerpts

Wednesday 28th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Seema Malhotra)]

It is a pleasure to respond to this debate.

Let me start by saying that the Government oppose the motion. The treaty guarantees full UK operational control of Diego Garcia for generations to come.

[Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)]

On that point—

[Seema Malhotra]

Let me make a few remarks before I give way.

The motion proposes a wildly exaggerated cost, in contrast to the actual costings published by this Government at the time of the treaty’s introduction, which has been verified by the independent Government Actuary’s Department. The motion invokes an exchange of notes, which the Government have publicly confirmed is being updated with our US partners. It also attempts to bind parliamentary procedure on that exchange despite that exchange not having been finalised. That is not patriotic. That is political point scoring at the expense of our national security. It is a sad indictment of what the Official Opposition have become.

--- Later in debate ---

[Seema Malhotra]

Let me make a little progress before giving way to the right hon. Gentleman.

In November 2022, the former Foreign Secretary said that

“taking into account relevant legal proceedings, it is our intention to secure an agreement on the basis of international law to resolve all outstanding issues”.—[Official Report, 3 November 2022; Vol. 721, c. 27WS.]

In February last year, a spokesperson for the Leader of the Opposition insisted that negotiations over the islands were needed due to the international legal position. [Interruption.] I am referring to the current Leader of the Opposition—some might not remember who she is, but she is still in post, I believe. She may have defected to Reform.

What I will say—this is a serious point—is that there has been ample time for debate on this topic. Indeed, the Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty), debated it for more than two hours last week and for 45 minutes on Monday in an urgent question. Baroness Chapman of Darlington has spent hours debating the topic in the other place, including during an urgent question on Monday. We have committed to this deal and to these hours of debate because it is important that we do so. Courts had already begun to make decisions that undermined our position in relation to the security of the base.

[Sir Julian Lewis]

I am a little worried that the Minister is confusing Ministers coming to the Dispatch Box and not answering questions with proper scrutiny of what is going on, so here is a very specific question for her. She has heard previously about the Pelindaba treaty. Mauritius is a signatory, and all signatories have to declare their territories to be nuclear-free zones, effectively. If in the future the Americans, with our agreement and approval, wish to have some nuclear weapons permanently or temporarily on the base at Diego Garcia, will they be able to do so if Mauritius has sovereignty over the islands?

[Seema Malhotra]

I thank the right hon. Member for his comments. The answer to that question has been set out by Lord Coaker, and I will be laying it out—[Interruption.] The answer is yes, and it has been set out by Lord Coaker in the other place. I will come on to that in my remarks.

There have been questions from the Opposition today about the legal matters behind this treaty. It is important to say that Mauritius’s legal claim of sovereignty over the island of Diego Garcia is supported by a number of international institutions, including the UN General Assembly. The International Court of Justice considered this issue in the advisory opinion delivered in February.

--- Later in debate ---

[Calum Miller]

Donald Trump’s remarks about NATO troops were untrue and deeply offensive, and I welcome the robust response from parties across this House. Yet there was no apology from the US President, which we deserve. Liberal Democrats have called on the Prime Minister to summon the US ambassador to offer an explanation for the remarks and an apology to the veterans affected and to the families of the 457 brave personnel who paid the ultimate sacrifice in fighting alongside US forces in Afghanistan.

[Sir Julian Lewis]

The hon. Gentleman is making a number of serious points. Does he see, as I do, a sort of parallel between President Trump’s egregious suggestion that NATO troops were, allegedly, not on the frontline and this issue of Diego Garcia? The fact is that President Trump makes certain comments and then, when confronted with the truth, has to try to elaborate on them, even if he will not go so far as to say the dreaded words “I’m sorry.” Is that not what is happening here? The Americans did not realise the extent to which giving up sovereignty over the base would compromise their military situation, and we have not heard anything to say that Mauritius could not stop any nuclear weapons ever in future being on Diego Garcia.

[Calum Miller]

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his intervention, but I was in the Chamber on Monday when he remarked that it was a fine aspect of joint working between Reform and the Conservatives to bring in that view from Donald Trump. I do not think it is appropriate for the leader of Reform to be whispering in the ear of the US President to upset negotiations. The right hon. Member makes a brave point when he appears to suggest that the fact that the US President has moved in one direction recently means that it will be sustained in the future. That notwithstanding, it is the case that the US President has recently made those remarks about the Chagos islands, and we will have to take those into consideration during the progress of the Bill.

We need to reflect on the other outstanding problems with the Government’s proposed legislation. Since the start of debates over the treaty, Liberal Democrats have been the only party consistently championing the rights of Chagossians. That stands in contrast with the Government’s lack of substantive engagement with the Chagossian community. Chagossians have been denied a meaningful say in their future and the provisions of the treaty shamefully fail to affirm their rights. But that is not only a failing of the Government; indeed, despite the remarks of the shadow Foreign Secretary, the motion we are debating today in her name includes not a single reference to the Chagossian community. That is addressed in the amendment in my name on behalf of my party.

--- Later in debate ---

[Tim Roca]

I disagree with the hon. Member, because the two situations do have parallels. In the South China sea, people are challenging Chinese sovereignty, and it has been proved not to have standing in international courts. At the moment, ambiguity is starting to arrive in our position over the Chagos islands. This treaty would remove it and remove cause for the Chinese navy to take advantage.

Against this backdrop, I want to restate the tests that I set out in an earlier debate on this deal. Does the agreement protect our national security? Does it command the support of our allies and professional security community? Are the costs proportionate to the benefits? On each of these tests, the answer remains yes. Diego Garcia is a keystone of our joint security architecture in the Indo-Pacific. It is where UK and US forces operate together against terrorist threats. It is a logistics, communications and intelligence hub, and it is central to safeguarding the global trade routes on which our economy depends. Without a secure base, all of that is placed at risk.

Our Five Eyes allies in Canada, Australia and New Zealand support this deal, and our strategic partner India supports this deal. I want to address briefly the noise around President Trump’s social media posts, which the Minister dealt with very well earlier. Social media is not statecraft. What matters is the settled position of the United States, its military leadership and its security agencies. On that, there has been clarity for some time. The Pentagon, the State Department and successive US Defence Secretaries—Republican and Democrat—have supported this agreement.

As I said at the beginning, interconnectedness is incredibly important and we cannot ignore the fact that international opinion matters. Yes, the world has changed. Power today is exercised through force—hard power has become incredibly important—but it is also still exercised through legitimacy, alliances and rules. If we expect others to respect international rules where it suits us, whether in Ukraine or the South China sea, we cannot be seen to apply them selectively elsewhere, except in the supreme national interest.

[Sir Julian Lewis]

I am a great admirer of the hon. Gentleman; he is courteous and thoughtful, and I always listen to what he says with great focus and attention. He is criticising the dangers of ambiguity, and I agree with that point. Does he accept, however, that we have not cleared up the ambiguity about whether nuclear weapons could ever be on Diego Garcia if the Americans and the British wanted them to be? It is no good saying, as the Minister did, “We never talk about deployments of nuclear weapons.” We are not asking about deployments of nuclear weapons. We are asking about the legal position if the case was that the Americans or the British wanted to have nuclear weapons, temporarily or permanently, on Diego Garcia. If we transfer sovereignty to a country that is signed up to be part of a nuclear-free zone, that is bound to call into doubt the ability to have nuclear weapons there in the future. Can he clear up that point?

[Tim Roca]

I cannot clear up that point for the right hon. Member, but I have great confidence that ministerial colleagues would be able to. We have been told at all points that this treaty would ensure the continued effectiveness of the base in the way that it is run now. There was an Ohio class submarine there in 2022, and I hope those arrangements continue under this treaty. From what I have heard from Ministers, there is no reason that they would not.

Let us turn to the costs of the deal. It will cost a fraction of the defence budget for an irreplaceable asset—

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Kieran Mullan (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)]

I welcome the opportunity to make clear my opposition to any proposal to give away this strategically important sovereign British territory. This is not merely a territorial concession; it is an act of strategic self-sabotage, a dereliction of duty and an unforgivable betrayal of our national security. At a time of growing global instability, when our adversaries are watching for any sign of weakness, Labour has chosen to send precisely the wrong signal: that Britain can be pressured into abandoning its own territory.

This decision is indefensible on every level. The Chagos islands, and specifically Diego Garcia, have been a vital strategic asset for the UK and our allies for decades. The military base on Diego Garcia has played a crucial role in global security operations, supporting counter-terrorism efforts, maritime security and regional stability. It has been instrumental in projecting western power in the Indo-Pacific, a region increasingly shaped by geopolitical competition, particularly with China. By ceding sovereignty over these islands, Labour has put at risk Britain’s strategic interests and undermined our ability to operate in the region. What makes this decision even more staggering is that we are not just surrendering our sovereignty: we are paying Mauritius billions of pounds for the privilege.

My central concern is the serious strategic challenge we face in respect of China. China has a population of 1.4 billion people and by 2030 its GDP is projected to be $26 trillion, second only to the US, and there are projections that it will potentially outstrip the US by 2050. China’s increase in military spending this year alone is expected to be 7.2%, which is the third consecutive year in which its increase in military spending has been over 7%. China has become the world’s largest shipbuilding nation, and its navy is expected to comprise 430 military grade ships by 2030, compared with the US navy’s estimated decline to 294 ships. China is a growing military power and there are no indications that it is anywhere near a supposed peak.

Domestically and internationally, China conducts itself as an autocratic state. It has the most sophisticated domestic surveillance system in the world, Skynet, which as of 2023 has 700 million cameras—that is one lens for every two Chinese citizens. We must not be so naive as to assume that if we end up in even greater strategic competition with China it will care at all about what agreement we have reached with Mauritius. We saw with Hong Kong how easily agreements made with third countries can be ignored, as China did there.

If Mauritius seeks to align itself strategically with China, do we think China will hesitate and ask it not to break the treaty because of international law? China will not respect any Bill or pay any attention to diplomatic consequences for Mauritius if it thinks it is in its interest to get Mauritius to break that agreement. That is the difference between any form of agreement and sovereignty, because once sovereignty has been given away, it can never be bought back.

[Sir Julian Lewis]

This is why some people are concerned that if Mauritius allowed the Americans to have nuclear weapons on the base, although I do not think it would allow that, that would give China an excuse to break the same treaty to which Mauritius is already committed about a non-nuclear Africa, and China would not even get the odium that it otherwise would receive if it started deploying nuclear weapons all over the African continent.

[Dr Mullan]

My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. It is extraordinary that Labour Members are prepared to defend the deal, while admitting that they do not even know if our accusations are correct. They could say that they do not agree with what we are proposing, but to admit that they do not know whether nuclear weapons will be allowed on the island and that they are happy to support the deal anyway is disgraceful.

We must address the wider consequences of this decision. If Labour is willing to abandon the Chagos islands so easily, what message does that send to our other overseas territories? The International Court of Justice may have issued an advisory opinion in 2019—[Interruption.] What I say is true; the world is watching. We have had pressure put on us in relation to a sovereign territory and we have collapsed, but Labour Members want us to think that the rest of the world will not interpret our standing from that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Julian Lewis]

Ministers keep saying “How dare you compare this with the Falkland Islands?”, but Labour’s manifesto at the last election gave a commitment to defend the sovereignty of the British overseas territories—not some of them, all of them. If they cannot be trusted on this one, they cannot be trusted on any of them.

[Dr Mullan]

My right hon. Friend highlights the lessons that the rest of the world will be drawing from this decision.

A submissive approach to third party calls on these issues displays an incredible naiveté about the world we live in and the direction we are travelling. Our previous positive disposition towards the role that these institutions could play was in a different era, when we expected a converging uniformity of basic values and democracy. That convergence is not happening; instead, our enemies are using our desire to stick to it as a weakness to exploit. They do not even recognise basic legal norms and institutions in their own countries; their own citizens do not benefit from legal protections and rights, and they do not believe in the rule of law full stop.

Do the Government really think that our enemies will put international legal obligations ahead of pursuing their own strategic interests? Of course not, yet we are expected to undertake a strategic surrender in the name of the rule of law in a way that advantages them, and on what basis—that they might look at what we have done and change their ways in the future, as they failed to do in Hong Kong? That is incredible naiveté.

--- Later in debate ---

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

It is worth reflecting on the entire geopolitical situation that the world faces. Many treaties simply are not worth the paper that they are written on; if it suits our adversaries to ignore them, they will. Is not the old maxim, “To stop a war, be ready to fight a war”, more true today than it has ever been? If we decide that we are going to rely on pieces of paper, rather than the ability to say, “We will defend, at war if need be”, we weaken our position.

Let us consider the whole Indo-Pacific region. The NATO Parliamentary Assembly made a visit to Pacific command back in August. The admiral of the base made it crystal clear that in a very short space of time, the Americans would be outnumbered in the Pacific arena. Limiting what weapons can be used, when those weapons currently can be used, simply will not work. There has not been a satisfactory answer on whether nuclear weapons can be stored on Diego Garcia when it is under the authority of the Mauritians.

Despite the conversations about what Pete Hegseth said and what other treaties may have been negotiated along the way, we have the commander in chief, who outranks the US Secretary of State for Defence, saying, “I do not want to do this deal.” We have the deputy Prime Minister of Mauritius saying, “You will not be able to hold nuclear weapons there.” What makes Ministers so convinced that those leaders are wrong, and that they are right? That is the greatest and deepest concern.

We live in a world that is rapidly changing, not just in its disregard for the rules-based order, but in its energy demands. Those energy demands are shifting the geopolitical situation. Given where a lot of the materials that we need for renewables are, the focus is shifting more towards that hemisphere and away from the Gulf. The geopolitical positioning of the Chagos islands is therefore becoming more and more important.

It is absolutely right to say that our Government started negotiations, which went on and on, but that does not mean that there is a victory in ending them overnight by just giving way on the red lines that we would not cross. That is a very important point, because we should recognise the situation that we face, rather than crowing about some diplomatic “victory”.

Time and again, we see the Government kowtowing to Beijing, rather than standing up to it. We see that today. Where is the strategic plan? My right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis) was exceptionally critical of the golden era of relations with China under David Cameron. The criticisms coming forward are not new; my right hon. Friend warned at the time of the security risks that China posed. The Prime Minister has signed off on the super-embassy, despite all the things we know about, and the things that we have seen in its blueprints, and for what reason? This seems to be almost—

[Sir Julian Lewis]

Pathological.

[Sir Alec Shelbrooke]

Yes, pathological. There is this belief that the Chinese will always act in good faith, that we can trust them, and that they would not dare invade, because we signed a piece of paper. The world is changing, and there is no shame in pausing negotiations when changes come to light. The Minister should reflect on what is said today about how the situation has changed since his Government came to power, getting on for two years ago. The situation has changed incredibly.

[Tom Hayes]

rose—

[Sir Julian Lewis]

rose—

[Sir Alec Shelbrooke]

I give way to my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East.

[Sir Julian Lewis]

I have a helpful suggestion. I know that I cannot commit my party as a whole, but let me speak personally. If the Government change their position, I—and, I am sure, my right hon. Friend—will give a personal pledge never to accuse them of having done a U-turn on this matter. We will praise them to the skies, and we will not seek to take party political advantage of their belated acceptance of reality.

[Sir Alec Shelbrooke]

That is a really important point. When the Government act in the national interest, changes in position should be welcomed.

We do not have the defence capability that we need, and it is worrying in the extreme to hear that the money for the Diego Garcia deal will come out of the defence budget. We hear people saying, “The defence budget went down under you; it was hollowed out,” and so on. It did go down, but the bit that is often missed is that that started during the cold war, and it continued through 13 years of Labour Government and across Europe. The Americans halved their defence budget over that time. However, the world is a different place now; Ukraine was invaded, and at that point, the world changed direction.

Let us consider for a moment two countries that have made incredibly significant U-turns, if you will: Germany, which has a new defence posture and will spend hundreds of billions on defence, and Japan. Both countries have very much drawn a line under the events of the second world war, and have recognised that the world has changed into a much more dangerous place and needs a much bigger posture.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Evans]

Fundamentally, the US should express its concerns publicly, and it has now done so. We have asked Ministers, both in this debate and on Monday, whether the UK Government can make a unilateral decision without amending the notes. The Government have said that they have to amend the notes, but they have not set out what happens if the US does not agree. That is the key part of this, but the Government keep reading out the same answer that I got on Monday when I asked that question, the same answer that I got when I intervened on the Minister, and the same answer that my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne (Lincoln Jopp) got. They say that they have set out the process, which is primary legislation, secondary legislation, and then amendments to the notes. The question is: what happens if the Americans do not agree to that amendment of the 1966 notes? I will take an intervention if the Minister can tell us, because the fundamental point about US involvement is this: if they say no, but we say yes, where do the islands go? What happens to the agreement? What happens if they say yes and we say no? Those fundamental questions are why we keep coming back to this issue. If there was clarity and simple answers to simple questions, the Opposition would understand that and be able to make a balanced judgement. Instead, we have gaps in our understanding from the Government.

[Sir Julian Lewis]

My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech, but I think he knows the answers to those simple questions. The answer to the question whether Mauritius could stop us having nuclear weapons stored on Diego Garcia is clearly that it would be able to do so. It is clear that the answer to what happens if the Americans say no to changing the 1966 agreement is that this deal to get rid of our sovereignty over the Chagos islands would be dead in the water. The reason that Ministers will not say those things, even though they know them to be true, is that they are afraid of a headline saying, “Minister admits that Chagos surrender can’t go ahead without American agreement”.

[Dr Evans]

My right hon. Friend is entirely right in pinpointing some of the issues, and I will reverse my speech and deal with some of those first. On the 1996 Pelindaba treaty, formally ratified in 2009, although the whole treaty is about where countries can research and what they can do with nuclear weapons, the key part, article 4, is about the prevention of parking of nuclear explosives. Paragraph 1 states:

“Each Party undertakes to prohibit…the stationing of any nuclear explosive device”

on its territory. By definition, if the base goes across to Mauritius, it will be under the treaty, because Mauritius is a signatory. There is a slight misconstruing, because there is a specific carve-out. Paragraph 2 states:

“Without prejudice to the purposes and objectives of the treaty, each party in the exercise of its sovereign rights remains free to decide for itself whether to allow visits by foreign ships and aircraft to its ports and airfields”,

and it goes on.

What the treaty implies, and what it states specifically, is that Mauritius would have to be consulted and provide explicit permission for nuclear craft, whether submarine, boat or aircraft, to be there. Only yesterday we heard that that permission would not be granted. This question on the security of the nuclear aspect is unanswered, and I look forward to the Government trying to rectify that position, because they have not explained the interaction with the treaty. This is not operational; it is purely about legal text.

[Dr Evans]

Absolutely. On a technicality, the Minister is right to say that the treaty in front of us has no problems, but at the end of the day it is about the interaction with other treaties once we have signed it and sovereignty has been given away. My hon. Friend is right that things would not be covered once Diego Garcia no longer belonged to us, and the Government are struggling to explain that difficulty.

[Sir Julian Lewis]

I must tweak what my hon. Friend just said. Although there is discretion for the Mauritian Government to give permission for a nuclear-armed vessel to visit temporarily, for example, there is no discretion for nuclear weapons to be stored permanently on Diego Garcia.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and I fundamentally agree with him. In a way, I am sorry that the hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty) is not here—that is not to say that I have a detrimental view of the Minister now on the Front Bench, the hon. Member for Plymouth Sutton and Devonport (Luke Pollard)—and I worry about why he is not here. I hope he is not suffering from “long Chagos.” Maybe we should send him a “get well” card very soon. We miss him, because we are definitely seeing studied ambivalence at the Dispatch Box as a master strategic plan.

I will repeat what has been said by a number of colleagues: we know from yesterday, if we needed to know it at all, that the Deputy Prime Minister of Mauritius has made it categorically clear that there will be no allowance for nuclear weapons, either parked or landed, on the Chagos islands while the treaty exists. The hon. Member for Macclesfield rightly spoke about studied ambivalence, but there was no ambivalence in the statement from the Deputy Prime Minister of Mauritius. He is completely clear, yet we are ambivalent. For us, ambivalence is a mistake, because it allows the statements of fact to be presented by those who will take control of Chagos. That is not just a mistake, but a disastrous mistake.

[Sir Julian Lewis]

I think there is a further twist, because the Pelindaba treaty not only prohibits the storing of nuclear weapons on the territory of Mauritius, which the Chagos islands would become, but requires an inspection regime. I understand that the country that would carry out the inspection is South Africa, which is somewhat closer to China and Russia—particularly where naval co-operation is concerned—than it is to America or the United Kingdom.

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith]

My right hon. Friend is absolutely right, as he normally is. The reality is that the treaty to which he refers is very clear that its signatories cannot modify it; they must categorically agree not to have nuclear weapons on their territory. We are in the business of giving that territorial right to Mauritius, so there is no question but that the treaty will apply to Chagos.

That brings me to the other thing that the Government simply do not want to face up to: the 1966 treaty between the USA and the UK is absolutely clear. The Government obfuscate by calling it an “exchange of letters”, but it is actually a treaty. When we talk about an exchange of letters, it sounds like a “get well” card or something that one puts in the post. The Government say that this is not a big problem and that we can just exchange a few letters to each other:

“How are you getting on?”

“Fine. What about you?”

“We’re just going to give the islands away. Are you okay with that?”

“We’re okay with that—no problems. Can you give us a bit more detail?”

“We will when it is all passed. Don’t worry about it. We’ll be with you on this.”

No, it is a treaty. It has the substance of being a treaty, and that substance states categorically:

“The Territory shall remain under United Kingdom sovereignty.”

We cannot arbitrarily change that; we have to have full agreement from the USA. I do not believe that the United States really understood that it would not have sovereign rights over the base. I do not think the Government ever bothered to explain that, because I seem to recall that when this whole debate began, it was never mentioned. The Government did not come forward and say, “Yes, we’re going to get this Bill through. It’s not in the Bill, but we’ll exchange letters with you afterwards, because although it’s relevant and it’s completely sovereign, we don’t want to talk about it.”

The Government have to explain why they have never made any significant mention of that at all, because it now has a massive bearing on what happens to this really poor treaty, which is badly drafted, hurriedly written and only a few pages long. I sat through the debates on the Maastricht treaty—rebelling, of course—and the reality was that it was huge. Every aspect of our arrangements was in there and was debatable and amendable. It has been horrific to see how quickly the Government want to get the Bill through. I honestly think that it is madness.

I come to the cost. The other bit that is completely wrong is the Government’s desire to show how little they have had to pay under the treaty to get what they consider to be a reasonable lease. Is it not ironic that the Government are now moving against leaseholders here in the UK? They do not like leases. Apparently, people do have enough power over their leases. I simply say that the Government should learn from their own views about what is happening domestically. The lease is a terrible thing at times, because it gives people so little control. This is going to be a lease.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew Rosindell]

I will not give way at this stage.

As I think all Members on both sides of the House will know, few issues have consumed so much of the 25 years of my parliamentary life as the British Indian Ocean Territory, the Chagos islands and, more importantly, the Chagossian people. For more than two decades, I have fought for the Chagossian right of self-determination, as with all overseas territories and former colonies. I chaired the Chagos Islands (British Indian Ocean Territory) all-party parliamentary group. In fact, I was previously the deputy chairman to the right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn), so trying to get cross-party consensus on where we were heading was a bit of a juggling act.

The one thing that united that all-party group was the belief that the Chagossians should have the right of resettlement. I argued strongly for self-determination and that ultimately, whatever the options are and whatever happens, the Chagossians should have the final say. The right hon. Member had a different view, but members of that group—representing seven political parties—came to the view that the first thing needed was resettlement. However, the Conservative Government, over 14 years, absolutely refused even to consider any option for the resettlement of those islands.

I also dealt with this issue as a member of the Foreign Affairs Committee over 15 years. Unlike the many who now speak with great certainty but remained silent during that period, I did not remain silent. I have also been to the British Indian Ocean Territory. I have walked around those islands, and seen the abandoned churches and schools. I have walked around the ancestral graves of the Chagossian people and the derelict homes. I have seen the visible traces of a community expelled from its homeland and denied the right to return. I have raised this with every Foreign Office Minister in every Government over and over again, and I have been ignored. A small number of us were ignored; I pay tribute to Daniel Kawczynski, the former Member for Shrewsbury, and Henry Smith, the former Member for Crawley, for raising this matter. We all raised it, but, sadly, over 14 years the last Government just dismissed it and refused even to consider it.

I went to Peros Banhos, the outer islands, which are 160 miles away from Diego Garcia. There is no security threat there. It took me four different boats to get to the outer islands. People could live there with no issues whatsoever, because they would be a long way from Diego Garcia. Despite the line from the Foreign Office, when I went to the State Department and raised this matter directly with the Americans, they said, “We have no objections to the Chagossians living in the outer islands.” Our Foreign Office has been puppeteering this policy for years, and our Ministers just went along with it. They did nothing and they ignored the facts.

I went to Mauritius in 2002, accompanied by the then leader of the Conservative party, my right hon. Friend Michael Howard—Lord Howard of Lympne. It was not part of the official programme, but I asked, “Please can we go and visit the Chagossians in Port Louis?” After a bit of a flurry from officials, in the end we insisted, and we went to meet the leaders of the Chagossian community. That was in 2002, which was pretty much my first year as a Member of Parliament.

So when I speak about the Chagos islands, I do so from long experience, having visited Diego Garcia and the outer islands, and I conclude that the current position represents—sadly, by all parties—a shameful betrayal of the loyal British Chagossian people. The Government’s Bill is nothing short of a surrender. It hands away British sovereignty over a territory that we have administered for more than two centuries. It binds generations of British taxpayers to a grotesque financial settlement, with tens of billions of pounds paid to a foreign Government simply so we may lease back the military base that we already own. It is vital to our security and that of one of our closest allies, yet we are prepared to risk that vital military and security base for the next century because of this shabby deal.

Ministers justify this capitulation by sheltering behind so-called international law. They insist that a non-binding advisory opinion of a Court, whose jurisdiction is explicitly excluded from intra-Commonwealth disputes, is somehow beyond negotiation, yet at the same time they are content to ignore the 1966 agreement between the United States and the United Kingdom—an actual binding international treaty—which states plainly in its very first clause:

“The Territory shall remain under United Kingdom sovereignty.”

That consideration tells us everything we need to know: this was never really about international law. An act of “total weakness” is how this has been described by the President of the United States of America, and does that not just say everything about this Government’s approach? All this is being done without the consent of or a genuine consultation with—and even without the courtesy, which every other territory has been afforded, of a democratic vote for—the Chagossian people themselves.

As disgraceful as the Bill is, it did not emerge from a vacuum. For over two decades and, as I have mentioned, for 14 years from the Government Back Benches, I urged Foreign Secretary after Foreign Secretary and Minister after Minister—speaking to them in the Lobbies, going to the Foreign Office and talking to officials; and discussing it over and over again by calling them into all-party group meetings and raising it at the Foreign Affairs Committee—to consider the Chagossians’ right of resettlement and self-determination, but I was ignored all the way through.

[Sir Julian Lewis]

I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend—as I will always regard him, having known him for the past 40 years and knowing that his patriotism is beyond question—for giving way. Does he agree with me that there is a bit of a pattern here? The Government clearly want to do this surrender deal or giveaway, yet try to shelter behind inconclusive legalistic analysis. Is that not exactly the same as the betrayal of our Northern Ireland veterans, as the Government, when pressed, admit that they wanted to remove the immunity for our veterans anyway, but still seek to shelter behind questionable legal considerations that have not been fully tested? Why, when the Government want to do these terrible things, will they not at least have the guts to stand up and admit that that is what they want to do, and that they are not being forced to do it by lawyers whose credentials and jurisdiction are in question, to put it at its mildest?

[Andrew Rosindell]

I agree with every word my very dear and long-standing friend has said. I sit on a different Bench now, but as I look around the Chamber, I see colleagues on the Conservative Benches who I still agree with on most things, but I see some people on the Labour Benches—and certainly some of those in the Government—who seem to hate everything about this country and want to undermine this country, including when it comes to Northern Ireland veterans, and this particular issue, of the surrender of one of His Majesty’s territories against the wishes of the people, is exactly what I am talking about.

--- Later in debate ---

[Luke Pollard]

I am very pro-Lukes generally speaking, but the hon. Member had 20 minutes in which to speak, and a few more interventions will not correct the quality of his speech.

[Sir Julian Lewis]

Very specifically, the Minister has read out something about what can be stored on the island. Can that include, and does it include, nuclear weapons? And on the earlier point about a deal, may I remind him of a saying from an earlier context—a different context—which is that no deal is better than a bad deal?

[Luke Pollard]

To help the Front-Bench team get to their shadow Cabinet meeting, I will not read out the same points again. [Interruption.] The shadow Minister invites me to do that, so I will. We are talking about the unrestricted ability to

“control the storage of all goods, including but not limited to fuels, weapons and other hazardous materials”;

I am very clear on this, but there are a few other questions that I want to get to.

The hon. Member for Spelthorne (Lincoln Jopp) spoke about value in his good, characteristic style. I liked his approach. When he spoke about comparison of value, it is worth noting that securing the continued operation of the base is roughly about £100 million a year. That compares favourably with the base that the French rent in Djibouti, which is next to a Chinese naval base. Our base secures a 24-hour nautical exclusion zone around it. Full control of the electromagnetic spectrum is something the shadow Defence Secretary does not seem to understand, but it is actually quite important.