Diego Garcia Military Base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill

Phil Brickell Excerpts

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

[Wendy Morton]

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Madam Chairman, and to speak to the amendments that stand in my name and in the names of other right hon. and hon. Members, as we open this Committee of the whole House to debate Labour’s Chagos surrender Bill.

It has been more than a year since the surrender of the Chagos islands was announced, with the Prime Minister, the then Foreign Secretary—now the Deputy Prime Minister—and the Attorney General waving the white flag of surrender and putting the demands of their left-wing lawyer friends above the British national interest. Since then, Labour has denied this House a vote on the whole treaty under the 21-day process in the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010, and has kept details secret from us.

Over in Mauritius, the Prime Minister of that country has been bragging about how he squeezed concession after concession after concession out of Labour. It is shameful that we have found out more about the treaty from debates in the Mauritius Parliament and statements by its politicians than from Ministers accountable to this House. It has been five months since the Prime Minister of this country signed away £35 billion of British taxpayers’ money, stumbling through a press conference rather than coming to this House to face scrutiny and challenge.

At a time of serious fiscal challenge for the public finances, Labour has imposed a £35 billion surrender tax on our country—money that could fund public services here in Britain or support an easing of the tax burden. Instead, it will be handed over to a foreign Government who are using this resource to cut taxes for their citizens. Not only is it shameful, but Ministers have tried to pull the wool over the eyes of the British people by using accountancy methodologies and valuations to try to show a far lower cost. Even then, it is an extraordinary figure of £3.4 billion. The Chancellor may struggle with numbers, but the British people do not. They can add up, and they see what the real cost of this is. On top of that, Ministers still cannot tell us from which budgets in the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office and the Ministry of Defence the money will come.

[Phil Brickell (Bolton West) (Lab)]

Is the simple truth not that this deal is cheaper than what was proposed by the Conservative party in government, and actually has more protections baked into it?

[Wendy Morton]

I think the hon. Gentleman needs a little memory check, because we did not propose a deal.

The British Chagossians, some of whom are watching from the Gallery—I pay tribute to them for their dignified and strong campaigning over many, many years—have been betrayed by Labour. Their rights have been ignored, as have their fears, leading to hundreds fleeing Mauritius and coming here. Labour’s surrender Bill, as presented, does nothing for them. It does nothing for the marine protected area—one of the most important and largest marine environments in the world—which has been protected while under British sovereignty and has become a centre for scientific research and development. That is at risk, and promises and aspirations announced by Ministers to ensure that it continues are not reflected in the Bill.

Shockingly, Labour’s surrender Bill as drafted does nothing to safeguard, defend and protect our national security. Labour is surrendering British sovereignty and territory to a country that is increasingly aligned with China.

--- Later in debate ---

[Wendy Morton]

My hon. Friend is 100% right. This goes to the heart of the Bill. There are so many unanswered questions, which Conservative Members have been raising time and again. For example, how likely are we to be able to extend the base? What will the structure of the negotiations be? What conditions could Mauritius impose, given that it will have our negotiators over a proverbial barrel? How watertight is the first right of refusal?

[Phil Brickell]

Will the right hon. Lady give way?

[Wendy Morton]

I will make a little more progress.

What happens if the base is not secured? Will it need to be decommissioned? How could we prevent an adversary inheriting our fixed assets? What is the role of the United States in all this? These are serious matters, and the House needs serious answers. The purpose of the amendment is to secure those answers.

--- Later in debate ---

[Graham Stuart]

My right hon. Friend makes a powerful point. That is at the heart of it. There are so many questions but one question is: why? Why would a deal like this be done by the Government? He puts forward a credible case as to why it might be.

[Phil Brickell]

Will the right hon. Member give way?

[Graham Stuart]

Perhaps the hon. Gentleman, who is not brave enough to speak fully but is prepared to intervene, can tell us why he would like to vote, if only he was given the chance, to give £35 billion to Mauritius and hand over a sovereign British base to someone in strategic partnership with China.

--- Later in debate ---

[Phil Brickell]

Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman can enlighten me on which of the amendments he is speaking to. New clause 4, which his party tabled, mentions coral, fish stocks, molluscs and ocean acidification in the marine protected area. Even the cynic in me is somewhat flabbergasted by the official Opposition’s apparent interest in environmental and climate change all of a sudden, given their desire to ride roughshod over the Climate Change Act and frack our countryside.

--- Later in debate ---

On the Environmental Audit Committee, we recently called for an end to bottom trawling because of the damage it does to the marine environment.

[Phil Brickell]

Will the right hon. Member give way?

[Sammy Wilson]

I will in a minute, but let me finish this point. Yet here we have a Bill that does not give any long-term security to one of the pristine marine environments. Indeed, we are handing over responsibility for it to a Government who could not even get a boat to put a flag up, yet we are supposed to believe that they will be able to protect the marine environment if foreign countries attempt to destroy it by doing deep-sea trawling, bottom trawling and so on. I would have thought that the environmentalists on the Government Benches might at least have asked some questions about the treaty, or would have supported some of the amendments that seek to do that, yet we find that is not the case.

This is a bad Bill. It will have long-term implications for our country financially and it will have long-term implications for those people who felt that perhaps there was an opportunity for their rights to self-determination to be granted. They have not been. Of course, there are also dangers to our long-term security.

I will finish with this point. I have no doubt that the Minister will repeat the point he made. Sure, the Americans support it—as if the Americans always make good strategic decisions. They do not. Given the time tonight, I know that you would stop me, Madam Chairman, if I started going through some of the bad strategic decisions the Americans have made that we and the world have lived with and their consequences. Just because the Americans—for short-term gain or short-term interest—have supported the deal, let us not say it is okay. It is a bad deal. Amendments were made to try to improve the Bill. The shame is that those amendments were not debated. The Bill goes contrary to the beliefs of many Members on the Government Benches. Unfortunately, I suspect the Bill will go through with a huge majority.

International Day of Democracy

Phil Brickell Excerpts

Tuesday 16th September 2025 Westminster Hall

[Rachel Blake (Cities of London and Westminster) (Lab/Co-op)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the International Day of Democracy.

It is an honour to serve under your chairship, Sir John. It is an honour to speak on this topic, not only as an MP deeply invested in the state of our democracy, but as the representative of the Cities of London and Westminster, where we are today. I was stunned to learn that this House has not marked International Day of Democracy since 2017—and how much has changed since then. At home, we have seen Parliament unlawfully prorogued to push through a Government’s partisan agenda, restrictions introduced on voting and freedom of protest, and a Prime Minister who broke the stringent lockdown rules he set for a nation of millions.

[Phil Brickell (Bolton West) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend mentioned the unlawful constitutional vandalism wrought by former Prime Minister Boris Johnson. Having read recent reporting by The Guardian on his many commercial activities since leaving this place, does my hon. Friend agree that far stricter enforcement is required on the revolving door between Governments and the private sector? The current lobbying regulations surrounding that risk are clearly unfit for purpose.

[Rachel Blake]

I thank my hon. Friend for making those points. I agree that that is an area for considerably more thought.

Abroad, we have seen democracy in decline for a sixth consecutive year. According to analysis from Freedom House, in 2024, 60 countries experienced a deterioration in their political rights and liberties and only 34 secured improvements. Anti-democratic coups in central and west Africa, and the sustained illegal invasion of Ukraine by an increasingly authoritarian Russia, serve as reminders to us all that democracy is not just in decline, but being actively assaulted. At home and around the world, we are facing increasing radicalisation to the far left and far right, as the politics of meeting generational challenges, such as international conflicts, rewiring our global economy and countering climate change, are confronted by polarisation through disinformation and social media.

Last weekend, over 100,000 people marched through my constituency. Many expressed a long-standing freedom of speech without concern for harm or disorder, but some acted in ways that we need to condemn: assaults on members of law enforcement; speeches propagating racist conspiracy theories; foreign tech billionaires demanding “revolutionary” Government change to a democratically elected Administration; and calls to shoot the Prime Minister. That does not reflect who we are and what our democracy can achieve.

Many of those who marched on Saturday did so under the Union flag, which has so many times united us as a country; it united us at the millennium celebrations, the Olympics, and even every Thursday during lockdown as we clapped for our key workers. We cannot let this flag and our national pride be corrupted by the elements within this movement that espouse anti-British values.

Sudan

Phil Brickell Excerpts

Wednesday 16th July 2025 Commons Chamber

[Catherine West]

The hon. Lady quite rightly pushes us to say more in this House. There have been lots of questions from Members when the Foreign Secretary has been answering broader questions, such as on G7 or NATO meetings, so Members across the House have asked questions under the umbrella of international affairs and the Foreign Secretary has replied to them, but we can always do more.

As the hon. Lady is aware, we need to keep up the momentum from the London Sudan conference. She asks who we are working with. We are of course working with the African Union. This is, first and foremost, a question of promoting leadership of African countries to deal with issues in Africa. The Foreign Secretary has redoubled his efforts as a well-respected Foreign Secretary within the African Union dialogues, and recently joined the EU-convened consultative group on Sudan in June, which I know the hon. Lady will appreciate and think is a worthwhile forum for us to be in. As mentioned, the friends of Sudan group in Geneva will also advance the work to protect civilians.

The hon. Lady mentions the UAE. Our message to any partners who may have an element of involvement in the conflict is clear: we need to press for a peaceful solution. All those supporting behind the scenes need to come together in the spirit of the London Sudan conference and talk about a peaceful solution for all.

On the hon. Lady’s last question, which was about gold in Sudan, I shall have to write to her.

[Phil Brickell (Bolton West) (Lab)]

In response to an urgent question in April, the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Lincoln (Mr Falconer) confirmed that the London Sudan conference included a commitment from the UK Government to provide a further £120 million of aid for 2025-26 to support 650,000 people, which the Minister referenced earlier. With that in mind, can the Minister today confirm to the House what progress has been made in the intervening few months to ensure that the additional aid reaches the most vulnerable people in Sudan fleeing conflict, sexual violence and famine?

[Catherine West]

My hon. Friend raises the most important point. It is not just about money; it is about access, our diplomatic heft and knocking heads together so we can get that aid through to the people most in need. He mentions the £120 million for this financial year. A portion of that uplift provides support to local responders, both through the Sudan Humanitarian Fund, which supports the emergency response rooms, and the Mercy Corps-led Cash Consortium of Sudan, which provides direct cash assistance to mutual aid groups on the ground. The reason for that is that there is often a de-banking situation in conflict zones—formal banking collapses. That is why it is so important that the UK is able to assist the smaller groups on the ground to get that vital aid in.

British Indian Ocean Territory: Sovereignty

Phil Brickell Excerpts

Wednesday 2nd July 2025 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Doughty]

I genuinely have to say, as somebody who has respect for and likes the right hon. Lady, that I am disappointed by the tone of those remarks. I do not know who writes this stuff; I do not know whether it is just performative politics, or rhetoric—I don’t know what.

I should point out that I have received and answered over 100 written parliamentary questions from the right hon. Lady. I have answered over 250 questions in total on the deal and the process. We have had no fewer than six urgent questions in this House. We have had two statements from the Government, from the Foreign Secretary and the Defence Secretary. I personally briefed the right hon. Lady and answered many of her questions in my office just a couple of weeks ago, in good faith and in detail. I have been subjected, quite rightly, to robust scrutiny on these issues not only by the Foreign Affairs Committee, but by the International Relations and Defence Committee and the International Agreements Committee in the other House, in great detail.

I do not know whether the right hon. Lady and her team are simply not reading the transcripts or the answers to the questions, but I have repeatedly answered them. She might not like the answers, Mr Speaker, but I have answered these questions. I have set out the position on costs. I have set out the position on the security arrangements. I have set out the position on the vetoes that we have. The fact is that this deal secures this base, and it secures our national security and that of our allies. It is absolutely right that it has had proper scrutiny, and there will be a vote, because there will be a vote on the legislation that we will put before the House in due course.

[Phil Brickell (Bolton West) (Lab)]

On a recent visit to Washington with the Foreign Affairs Committee, I was struck by the support expressed by the US Government for the deal to secure the long-term future of the military base on Diego Garcia. Alongside the US, our Five Eyes allies support the deal, NATO supports the deal, and India supports the deal. Does the Minister agree that the Opposition would do well to listen to our closest neighbours and allies instead of trying to play party politics with our national security?

[Stephen Doughty]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. National security is the top priority of this Government, and working with our crucial allies, including the United States, is key to that. He is absolutely right to point out the support that was gained for this deal through a full and detailed inter-agency process in the United States, at the highest levels of the Administration, as well as the support from our Five Eyes partners and from India. The fact is that this deal secures the base and secures our capabilities, and it would not have been signed off if it did not do that.

Gibraltar

Phil Brickell Excerpts

Thursday 12th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lammy]

The hon. Lady is right that the people of Gibraltar have been in limbo since the Brexit decision, which is why it was important that, in coming into office and inheriting this from the last Government, we put every effort into it. Let me again pay tribute to the Minister for Europe who rolled up his sleeves and was a sherpa at a lot of those meetings, particularly over the last year.

The hon. Lady asked about business. I assure her that I was with representatives from the business sector in Gibraltar yesterday morning discussing what a deal would mean for them if it were reached later in the afternoon. There was one word that they kept coming back to: certainty. They wanted certainty, and they wanted the opportunity of a more frictionless border arrangement with Spain and the opportunity to sell into the Spanish market unhindered. That is what they said and that is what we particularly took on board.

The hon. Lady rightly asked about any ability to thwart the deal that might exist in parts of the Spanish parliamentary system. May I remind her that the deal, appropriately, is between the United Kingdom and the European Union, that we have always been a country that meets our treaty obligations seriously and that whatever one’s views about the European Union, it is also an organisation that meets its obligations seriously? When we sign up to a treaty, that is what we are doing. As with the trade and co-operation agreement, there is a review mechanism that would allow the appropriate review; indeed, the UK-EU summit that we had a few weeks ago was an appropriate review. However, we met our obligations under the TCA in opposition, standing up for the agreement that had been struck by the last Government, and we would expect the same in this instance.

[Phil Brickell (Bolton West) (Lab)]

May I congratulate the Foreign Secretary and Chief Minister Fabian Picardo on getting this landmark agreement over the line? The agreement further cements Gibraltar’s place as an integral part of the British family. Will the Foreign Secretary confirm to the House what further measures he is taking to strengthen relationships with the overseas territories?

[Mr Lammy]

I am glad that my hon. Friend mentioned the overseas territories more generally. We had a good meeting of the heads of the overseas territories at the end of last year, at which I and the Prime Minister were in attendance. We have undertaken to conduct a review of our relationships to strengthen those further, and the Minister for Europe, North America and Overseas Territories is taking that forward as we speak.

Palestinian Authority Prime Minister Visit

Phil Brickell Excerpts

Tuesday 29th April 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Falconer]

A central element of our discussions with the Palestinian Prime Minister is that reform agenda. The Palestinian Prime Minister is relatively new in his position and, as I said to the right hon. Member for Witham (Priti Patel), he has made some important commitments and important practical changes, and we must support the Palestinian Authority to reform in order to best serve the Palestinian people.

[Phil Brickell (Bolton West) (Lab)]

May I put on record my thanks to the Minister for his statement today and commend him and the Foreign Secretary for securing this landmark memorandum of understanding with the Palestinian Government? Following my meeting yesterday with Prime Minister Mustafa, can the Minister tell this House how the MOU and the £101 million for the Occupied Palestinian Territories will allow the Palestinian Authority to reform and provide crucial public services to the Palestinian people?

[Mr Falconer]

It was a sign of the Palestinian Authority’s commitment to some of these practical questions of service delivery that their Health Minister travelled with the Prime Minister for discussions. The MOU provides a framework through which we can have that reform discussion, including strategic dialogues on a whole range of questions such as the important education questions that the right hon. Member for Witham (Priti Patel) raised earlier.

Kashmir: Increasing Tension

Phil Brickell Excerpts

Tuesday 29th April 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Falconer]

I think I have set out our views on the importance of stability in the region already this afternoon. I agree with the hon. Member that it is critical for all actors and international partners to ensure the long-term sustainability of the Indus river system.

[Phil Brickell (Bolton West) (Lab)]

I welcome the statement from the Minister today. In light of the awful terror attack in Indian-administered Kashmir, what work are the Government undertaking to consult the Kashmiri diaspora here in the UK and identify their concerns?

[Mr Falconer]

Both the Foreign Office and other UK Government Departments engage regularly with the British Kashmiri community—who are an important part of so many communities across the United Kingdom—and will continue to do so.

Ukraine War: London Talks

Phil Brickell Excerpts

Thursday 24th April 2025 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Doughty]

I thank the right hon. Lady for her questions and for her continued support and unity on these issues. It is crucial that we send a signal not only to our friends in Ukraine but to Putin—that this House will not be divided on these issues. We are united in our support for Ukraine, and I can reassure her of our absolute commitment to Ukraine. Indeed, there has been extensive ministerial contact over recent weeks. I met Minister Sybiha in Turkey a week or so ago, and the Foreign Secretary was with him yesterday. Contact remains at every level.

The right hon. Lady asked a number of specific questions. I am afraid that I cannot go into the detail of yesterday’s discussions, for reasons that she will understand. I know she has a job to do in holding us to account on that, but it is really important that we allow those technical talks to go on at that level between the principals, and she will understand why that is necessary.

I agree completely with the right hon. Lady’s point about the sanctions against Members of this House, which I utterly condemn. This is par for the course when it comes to Putin and his regime. She asked what we are doing on sanctions. Our commitment to sanctions remains undiminished. We will maintain the pressure at every level. In fact, we are ramping up the pressure, and today we have announced new sanctions, including on the shocking repurposing of games console controllers to kill Ukrainians by Russia. We are taking robust action at every step we can, not only directly, to choke off the Russian war machine, but in relation to second and third-country circumvention of those sanctions. She can be assured that I have spent a lot of time on this issue in recent weeks.

The right hon. Lady asks about the situation with Chelsea FC, and I refer her to my previous comments on that. We are working at pace to meet the agreements that were made on that. She points out the importance of the extraordinary revenue accelerator loan. The first tranche of that has been disbursed. In fact, I discussed this with the deputy Finance Minister of Ukraine just a few weeks ago, to ensure that they had access to those resources. They do have access, and I am happy to write to her separately about the details of the further tranches that will be paid.

There is absolutely no softening of our commitment to the coalition of the willing. Indeed, the Foreign Secretary met French, US, German and Ukrainian counterparts last week, underlining our shared commitments, and we are leading a coalition of willing nations to defend Ukraine’s security. We will not get into the operational details, for obvious reasons, as the Defence Secretary made clear earlier this week.

The right hon. Lady asks about Crimea. The UK’s position regarding Ukrainian sovereignty is well known and has not changed: we do not recognise Russian sovereignty over any territory illegally seized from Ukraine, including Crimea. When, how and on what terms this war comes to an end can be decided only by negotiations with Ukraine at the heart of them.

[Phil Brickell (Bolton West) (Lab)]

As one of the individuals who was sanctioned yesterday by the Kremlin, I ask the Minister whether he agrees that if Putin is serious about securing any sort of lasting peace in Ukraine, he should stop the performative sanctioning of democratically elected Members of this House and focus on stopping the murderous, barbaric killing of civilians in Ukraine and the invasion of that nation, which we stand with in full support.

[Stephen Doughty]

Again, I utterly condemn the sanctioning of Members of this House, including my hon. Friend. I am on that list too, as are many other Members, and it is completely unacceptable; we are clear on that. My hon. Friend rightly points out examples of Russia’s actions in recent days—the horrific attacks, the deaths, the killing, the continued aggression—and of course Russia is the aggressor in this conflict.

British Indian Ocean Territory

Phil Brickell Excerpts

Wednesday 2nd April 2025 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Doughty]

As I said yesterday, a financial element over 99 years was crucial to protect the operation of such a vital base—we will not scrimp on our security. Once the treaty is signed, it will be put before the House for scrutiny before ratification in the usual way, and that will include the costs. The right hon. Gentleman asks where the budgets are coming from. The terms of the treaty and the associated funding arrangements are still being finalised. Financial obligations, including departmental budgetary responsibilities, will, of course, be managed responsibly within the Government’s fiscal framework.

[Phil Brickell (Bolton West) (Lab)]

Does the Minister agree that it is vital the UK Government fulfil their obligations under international law? Does he recognise that the January 2021 binding judgment of the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea—[Interruption]—which was handed down under the Conservative Government, found that the UK’s current administration of the archipelago

“constitutes a wrongful act…and…must be brought to an end as rapidly as possible”?

[Stephen Doughty]

There does appear to be some confusion about the different legal judgments among the Opposition, as I can hear from the chuntering. There are a number of ways in which the operation of the base was not sustainable. We are very clear that without a deal—as the previous Government recognised—we would face serious, real-world operational impacts on the base that would erode our ability to operate key frequencies vital for our own communications and to counter hostile states, affecting everything from overflight clearances to securing contractors, with consequential rocketing costs, declining investment and a degraded facility. We were not willing to take that risk, and have therefore secured this base for our security and that of our allies.

G7

Phil Brickell Excerpts

Monday 17th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Phil Brickell (Bolton West) (Lab)]

I draw the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I welcome the Foreign Secretary’s statement and thank him for the leadership that he has shown over the past few weeks, in particular on Ukraine. He mentioned his discussions with his Canadian counterpart; following the G7 meeting that he attended, can he share what further progress he has made in building the much needed coalition of the willing in order to guarantee Ukraine’s security?

[Mr Lammy]

A number of nations are stepping up and coming forward alongside the United Kingdom and France, and Canada is one of them. I do not want to give a running commentary because there are further meetings this week. My hon. Friend will understand that, when talking about committing troops, different countries have different requirements for going to their own Parliaments and speaking to their own nations about these matters. It is right that I leave them to do that and do not make announcements from the Dispatch Box.