Does the Minister accept that the Bill and the treaty violate the 1966 treaty with the US, and what discussions have taken place with the US Administration regarding potential changes to this agreement?

Why can the Prime Minister not step forward to assert sovereignty over these islands and make it clear that we have the military defence to defend them?

Will the Minister reconsider their refusal to give Chagossians a voice over their homeland and support Liberal Democrat amendments seeking binding guarantees from Mauritius? Will he also support annual scrutiny of payments made to Mauritius?

Does the Minister accept that the reason this Bill may not go through is due to the Conservative Opposition in both Houses of Parliament and the words of the leader of the Reform party?

What is deeply irresponsible, and that is to give away our national sovereignty and damage our national security interests. Will the Minister confirm if the Americans will not sign the update to this agreement, it is dead and buried?

When did the Minister first learn that the US could effectively veto this agreement?

Does the Minister acknowledge that international law indicates the Chagos islands should be handed over to Mauritius and guaranteeing a right of return?

Is it not important for sovereignty of these islands to remain British?

Does he not accept it is irresponsible for the Government by ignoring US concerns, Chagossian fears, and the drain on public finances?

When the historians write about this period of British history, those who have engineered this betrayal of British sovereignty over the King’s islands, along with the complete betrayal of the loyal British-Chagossian people, will not come out of it too well. I ask the Minister, even at this late stage, to review this shameful policy and give the Chagossian people—the same right of self-determination that we afford to all other British overseas territories. Why are the Chagossians treated differently to everybody else?

Last time I checked, there were 404 Labour MPs. Why does the Minister think that his Whips could not come up with a single Back Bencher to come to the Chamber and support his position today?

The Minister did not answer the question that the shadow Foreign Secretary asked, but it is inconceivable that Foreign Office Ministers will not have had discussions with their American counterparts about this issue over the last week. Can the Minister tell us whether it is still the Government’s position that US opposition to the treaty is purely about Greenland?

It is a surprise to see the Minister so ratty and full of bluster, so I am going to ask him a technical question. We have talked about the 1966 UK-US exchange of notes; the question is whether the Government can go ahead with the Chagos deal without the US. Where do the Government stand? Does the deal have to have the US’s blessing, or can the Government do it without that blessing, and with no change or negotiation of the 1966 contract?

Last week we had a discussion about the cost of this deal, and I asked the Minister whether he would confirm the figure of £34.7 billion from the Government Actuary’s Department. He did not give me a direct answer, but later in the debate he confirmed that it was a nominal amount, not adjusted for inflation or the social time preference rate. With that in mind, will the Minister give the House the most accurate assessment he can of the true figure for the total cost of the deal, adjusted for inflation and the social time preference rate?

The former Foreign Secretary said very explicitly last year that if the United States does not like this deal, it will not go ahead. The US does not like this deal; it has been very explicit on that. Can the Minister tell us whether the now Deputy Prime Minister was telling the truth when he made those comments?

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

I thank the Minister for his answers. He and I share concerns on the issue on human rights, and I want to ask a question about that. As the chairperson of the all-party parliamentary group for international freedom of religion or belief, I am very aware of the human rights concerns that exist, including on the repression of personal expression, and reports of concerns for the rights of children and minorities. This leads me to again ask the Government to reconsider their strategy, not simply because our national security is at risk, the partnership with our closest allies is being strained and Chagossian citizens are expressing their opposition, but owing to the fact that we are handing over these people to be ruled under a cloud. Will the Minister confirm that the Government have fully considered the human rights concerns involving the Mauritian Government and are content to continue despite those worrying reports?