Diego Garcia Military Base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill

Debate between Stephen Doughty and Luke Evans

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

[Dr Evans]

As ever, my learned right hon. Friend has pipped me to the punch. That is exactly a good example of the kind of sites we are worried about. What has that meant? We have taken on British nationals overseas and invited them in to give them security, because they feared for political interference and, worse still, for the safety of themselves and their families.

We are not doing our duties if we are not thinking about these things, because, as we have already seen, it is hard enough to predict things in two or three years’ time, let alone 100 years. At that point, as it is written, we will get the best offer, but it will be only offered to us. We could be outstripped by China, Russia or a BRIC country in the future—we do not know; it is 100 years away—and there is no mechanism to solve that. Worse still, Mauritius could simply say, “We do not want a base here at all,” and there is nothing in this Bill that would stop that. The Government repeatedly have been asked those questions, and they cannot set that out. That is why new clause 2 asks for those impacts to be considered and looked at.

New clause 3 would move the marine protected area. I will return to a point I made earlier. The fact is that when Britain and the United Kingdom were taken under UNCLOS in 2010 by Mauritius under annex VII, we wanted to implement protections in the area. Mauritius felt that that impeded on its ability to make its own decisions, which the court found in favour of, and it also wanted to fish in the area. Hang on a second! We are putting weaknesses into this Bill when we know that Mauritius has set its intent. I hope it has moved on, as the debate on climate has, but this new clause would be a guarantee to ensure that that has been thought about.

Let me turn to new clause 5. I appreciate the Minister stepping up, because there has already been debate about the Peros Banhos islands, and he has said there are no concerns that they will be leased to China. Let us be real: this Bill has only just come out—the ink is barely dry—and we already hear stories. Many journalists have already talked about this issue. Maybe I am wrong, but that shows the examples of what could and will come without paying attention to the security and the geopolitical and strategic advantage that these islands have, which my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for South Shropshire (Stuart Anderson) talked about. All new clause 5 asks us to do is ensure that that is reported on and looked at. Again, there is a dereliction of duty by not having that reported.

I could go on, because there are many more amendments, but the salient points in this debate have been made. All the amendments tabled in the names of Conservatives— and, to be fair, in the names of Members of many other Opposition parties—ask for one simple thing: transparency and explanation. They ask for a simple way of seeing what the legal advice does and where the financial outcome comes.

[Stephen Doughty]

indicated assent.

[Dr Evans]

The Minister is nodding along, but there must be something wrong if the public and Opposition Members cannot simply understand the arguments for what is being put in place. We cannot see the wood for the trees. It is a Government’s duty to show those arguments, and I look forward to the Minister doing that in his response and putting these arguments to bed once and for all. Otherwise, the British public will not forgive him.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Doughty]

I thank all hon. and right hon. Members for their contributions. I will attempt to respond to the specifics of the amendments and new clauses in due course, but I want to come back to some of the fundamental points that have been raised during the debate first, and I also want to respond to some of the specific questions that were raised.

With the exception of some genuine questions in relation to the Chagossians, the MPA and the environmental protections, and the implementation of this treaty, it was a shame to see the rehash of the same arguments that were made on Second Reading. There were some outrageous and nonsensical arguments and claims, particularly relating to the costs and to other matters, which I will come to.

I was shocked by some of the anti-American, conspiracy-fuelled nonsense that we heard at various points during the debate. The base is critical to the United Kingdom, the United States, our allies and our national security, and the Bill and the treaty protect the functioning of that base. It does not surrender it; it secures it into the future. This is a Government who inherited a mess from the former Ministers on the Opposition Benches. We are getting stuff done. We are a patriotic Government; our first duty is to protect the national security of this country, and that is why we have got this deal done. It is why it is backed by the United States. It is why it is backed by our Five Eyes partners. It is absolutely crucial to protect the British people and our allies.

We have been very transparent about the reasons for it, and they are the exact opposite of what has been suggested. I come back, as I always have done, to the fundamental question: if there were not a problem and a risk to the operations of this crucial base, why did the previous Government start the negotiations, why did they continue them through 11 rounds of negotiations, and why did they continue them right up until the general election? Those are the facts.

[Dr Evans]

Will the Minister give way?

[Stephen Doughty]

I will happily take interventions, but first I want to respond to the points that have been made. This agreement has been backed by our key allies and international partners, including the US and our Five Eyes allies. India, Japan and South Korea have also made clear their strong support.

Many questions were asked about the robust security provisions that we have in place to protect the UK and the base for decades to come. The treaty and the Bill secure full operational control of Diego Garcia, a strict ban on foreign security forces across the archipelago and an effective veto on any activity that threatens the base on Diego Garcia. It has been welcomed by the International Agreements Committee and the International Relations and Development Committee in the other place, which said that they

“were assured that the Agreement preserves the UK’s and the US’s freedom of action.”

The legal rationale has been referred to many times, but legally binding provisional measures from the courts could have come within weeks, for example, affecting our ability to patrol the waters around Diego Garcia, and even if we did not comply, international organisations and other countries would. We have set out the legal rationale on a number of occasions. We have been very clear. We also published documents around it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Evans]

Could the Minister give any example worldwide where NPV has been used for sovereignty purposes?

[Stephen Doughty]

I have been clear throughout. We have set and published the methodology. It has been backed by the Office for Budget Responsibility, the statistics regulator and others, and I am happy to set that all out again in writing for the hon. Member if that would be helpful.

I was quite surprised to hear some of the unfortunate remarks made by some Members about the United States and its commitment to this base. The United States pays for the operating costs. We have a crucial national security relationship, which keeps us, the United States and our allies safe. This is a joint base on Diego Garcia. It is absolutely right that those arrangements are in place. As I said, the value from the capability of the base is priceless. This is absolutely the right investment to make.

I was appalled by some of the comments being made. I remind the Committee that President Trump, Secretary of War Hegseth and Secretary Rubio have publicly supported the treaty, as have Five Eyes partners and others.

Ambassador to the United States

Debate between Stephen Doughty and Luke Evans

Tuesday 16th September 2025 Commons Chamber

[The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Stephen Doughty)]

On Thursday, I came to this House to announce that the Prime Minister had asked the Foreign Secretary to withdraw Lord Mandelson as the UK’s ambassador to the United States. At the outset, may I say—there were many comments to this effect from across the House—that all of us are appalled by Epstein’s crimes, and all those who have suffered as a result need to be at the forefront of our minds today.

I also thank a number of right hon. and hon. Members for what I think were genuine suggestions about scrutiny of processes in relation to ambassadorial appointments. In particular, the Government have listened to the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee, my right hon. Friend the Member for Islington South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry), on this matter, and we will consider all options to support the Committee in its work in future.

[Dr Evans]

Will the Minister give way?

[Stephen Doughty]

I will not give way at first. I need to respond to many of the points that have been made in the debate, after which I will happily take some interventions.

The Prime Minister took this decision after new information showed that the nature and extent of Lord Mandelson’s relationship with Jeffrey Epstein was materially different from what was known at the time of his appointment. In particular, Lord Mandelson suggested that Epstein’s conviction was wrongful, encouraged him to fight for early release, and said that Epstein had been through “years of torture”. We know that the only people tortured were the women and girls whose lives were destroyed by Epstein’s heinous crimes. I associate myself with the remarks that a number of right hon. and hon. Members made on that point, both about the crimes and the victims.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Doughty]

The Prime Minister has been explicitly clear that the new information was not compatible with the duty that we owe to the victims of Jeffrey Epstein’s horrendous crimes against women and girls, and with this Government’s clear commitment to tackling that kind of violence and abuse. As such, the Prime Minister took decisive action to withdraw Lord Mandelson as ambassador. He has also been clear—he undertook a number of media interviews yesterday—that Lord Mandelson would not have been appointed if all the information we now have was available at the time. I point the House to what the Prime Minister had to say yesterday:

“Had I known then what I know now, I’d have never appointed him.”

Following Lord Mandelson’s departure and in line with standard diplomatic practice, the deputy head of mission, James Roscoe—an experienced and capable diplomat—has been put in place as the chargé d’affaires.

[Dr Evans]

The Minister is doing a fair job, but I have one simple question for him: why is he, not the Prime Minister, in the Chamber answering the House’s questions? The Minister clearly cannot answer them—no disrespect to him. The Prime Minister said that he did not know something, but now he knows something. Where is the Prime Minister, and why is he not at the Dispatch Box?

[Stephen Doughty]

I am in the Chamber responding for the Government as the Minister for North America. The hon. Gentleman will understand that there are very important matters taking place today that the Prime Minister and Foreign Secretary are involved with. We have also seen the new Hillsborough law launched today, which has been referenced during the debate.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Doughty]

Perhaps the Leader of the Opposition was not in her seat at the start of the debate, because I made very clear our position on Epstein’s victims and our horror at the revelations, and said that all our thoughts are with them. I did that in sincerity in response to the points that have been made across this House, and I say that again. However, she could not answer my question. She did not raise this issue before last Wednesday. If it was all so obvious, why did not she do that?

[Dr Luke Evans]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker.

UK Ambassador to the US: Appointment Process

Debate between Stephen Doughty and Luke Evans

Thursday 11th September 2025 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Doughty]

The hon. Member is rightly known as one of the kindest and most generous Members of this House. I thank him for his comments about my hon. Friend the Member for Washington and Gateshead South (Mrs Hodgson) and the attack that she endured this morning. I wholeheartedly agree with his comments on Charlie Kirk. He can be assured that we are already conveying our condolences to the United States. I expect to be with the United States ambassador in London later today, where I will be able to do that in person.

From a practical point of view, as the hon. Member will know, many ambassadors or high commissioner posts are vacant for a time. We have excellent teams who then do that job. Of course, when ambassadors or high commissioners are travelling, there is a team in post who are able to represent this country and ensure our that interests are pursued. That is exactly what will happen in this case.

[Dr Luke Evans (Hinckley and Bosworth) (Con)]

This is about the Prime Minister’s judgment. By Mandelson’s own admission, there is more very embarrassing information coming, so the Prime Minister could have said to the House yesterday, “I will suspend him, pending further investigation,” but he did not; he backed him. Can the Prime Minister be 100% sure that, in making any trade deals, or in any negotiations, Mr Mandelson has not been compromised by the information that has now come forward, and will he commit to investigating that?

[Stephen Doughty]

I bring the hon. Member back to the fundamental point, which is that in the light of the additional information and emails written by Lord Mandelson, the Prime Minister asked the Foreign Secretary to withdraw him as ambassador.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Stephen Doughty and Luke Evans

Tuesday 2nd September 2025 Commons Chamber

[Dr Luke Evans (Hinckley and Bosworth) (Con)]

4. What discussions he has had with his international counterparts on the Chagos Islands.

[The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Stephen Doughty)]

The Diego Garcia military base is essential to the security of the United Kingdom and our key allies, and to keeping the British people safe. The treaty was tested at the highest level of the United States’ security establishment, which supported the deal. The agreement has been backed by our key allies and international partners, including the US and all our Five Eyes partners. India, Japan and South Korea have made clear their support for the deal.

[Dr Evans]

By not even trying to go to court or argue the case, the Government have cost the taxpayer £30 billion. Does the Minister agree with the Defence Minister who said that the deal represents “good value” for UK taxpayers?

[Stephen Doughty]

As I have explained many times in the House, those figures are completely misleading. The net present value of payments under the treaty is £3.4 billion. The average cost of the deal in today’s money is £101 million per year. That is just a fraction of our Defence budget, and represents a few hours of spending on our NHS. This Government will not scrimp when it comes to the national security of the United Kingdom and our allies.

British Indian Ocean Territory: Sovereignty

Debate between Stephen Doughty and Luke Evans

Wednesday 2nd July 2025 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Doughty]

I am genuinely surprised by the comments of the right hon. Gentleman. As a former Defence Minister and someone who has served, he will know the importance of this base and the need to secure it, and he will know the risks to our operations that were inherent under the previous Government. That is why his Government started this process and why we have concluded it. It is also why our costs under the deal are broadly comparable with what France pays for its base in Djibouti, even though our base 15 times larger and has immeasurably more capability, as he well knows.

[Dr Luke Evans (Hinckley and Bosworth) (Con)]

In the Minister’s response, he quoted the answer from the Defence Secretary to my question, saying that he had no choice. But the reason for doing this deal is the worry about being taken to court—so the Government do have a choice, and that is what my constituents and Opposition Members are so upset about. The Government could have a fight in the court and appeal the decision, yet they have chosen not to, and they will not explain why.

Will the Minister set out what the need was for immediacy and why he and his Government will not go to the court for the tribunal he is so worried about to have that fight? If the case were shut down, Opposition Members would understand, and if it was found that we had a legal responsibility to pay, we would do so, but we do not, and we have not had our day in court as a country. That is the travesty of the deal.

[Stephen Doughty]

I have to correct the hon. Member as we have had days in court on this issue. That is one of the reasons—[Interruption.] There was the non-binding judgment in the International Court of Justice. He also forgets to mention the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea, the votes in the United Nations and all the other legal processes. The fact is, it is our view—indeed, it was the view of the previous Government—that a legally binding judgment would inevitably follow. Leaving such a key national security asset in that way is not responsible; no, the responsible thing to do is to secure the base with our allies, and that is exactly what we have done.