Diego Garcia Military Base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill 2025-10-20

I beg to move amendment 1, page 1, line 7, leave out subsection (2) and insert—(1A) The Treaty and sections 2 to 4 of this Act do not come into force until the duties outlined in section [The additional period and right to extend: duty to publish legal advice and risk assessments] are discharged. This amendment together with NC2 would prevent the Treaty from coming into force until the Government has published any legal advice or risk assessments regarding the UK’s ability to extend its rights over Diego Garcia after the initial period specified in the Treaty.

With this it will be convenient to consider the following: Amendment 7, page 1, line 7, leave out subsection (2) and insert—(1A) The Treaty and sections 2 to 4 of this Act do not come into force until the Secretary of State lays before Parliament a memorandum on the obligations under international law which require the UK to cede sovereignty of the British Indian Ocean Territory to the Government of Mauritius. Amendment 9, page 1, line 7, leave out subsection (2) and insert—(1A) Before sections 2 to 4 of this Act come into force, the Secretary of State must seek to undertake negotiations with the Government of Mauritius on whether Mauritius will establish a right for Chagossians to return and reside in the Chagos Islands; and seek agreement to a referendum for Chagossians on self-determination within any negotiations which take place under paragraph (a); and lay before both Houses of Parliament a report on progress on establishing negotiations with the Government of Mauritius and the outcome of any that take place. Amendment 10, page 1, line 7, leave out subsection (2) and insert—(1A) The Treaty and sections 2 to 4 of this Act do not come into force until the Secretary of State establishes a public consultation of Chagossian people residing in the UK on the Treaty. Amendment 11, page 1, line 7, leave out subsection (2) and insert—(1A) The Treaty and sections 2 to 4 of this Act do not come into force until the Secretary of State makes a statement before Parliament outlining proposals for a public consultation on the Treaty. Amendment 14, page 1, line 7, leave out subsection (2) and insert—(1A) The Treaty and sections 2 to 4 of this Act do not come into force until the Secretary of State lays before Parliament an impact assessment detailing the benefits and costs to the United Kingdom, including in financial and security terms, of the Treaty. Clause stand part.

Labour's Chagos surrender Bill has been denied a vote and kept secret from the House. The amendments aim to scrutinise the Treaty, provide annual reports on its implementation, and seek public opinion on the Treaty’s impact on Chagossians residing in the UK.

Labour argues that this deal is more cost-effective and offers better protections than the previous Conservative proposal.

Challenges Wendy Morton's claim of surrender, pointing out that the British flag will still fly over the Chagos islands under the agreement.

Highlights potential security risks due to China and India's interest in surrounding islands where British military operations will continue.

Critiques the Prime Minister for misleading the public about the costs of the deal and suggests that Britain is aligning with unfriendly powers like China, Russia, and Iran.

Asked Wendy Morton about the legal basis of previous Government negotiations, questioning whether they had a valid reason for stopping negotiations.

Corrected the record regarding the continuation of negotiations by the former Government and provided evidence from official government statements.

Supported Wendy Morton's arguments, questioning the source of funds for the proposed agreement and emphasising that previous Labour Governments had also slashed development spending.

Noted that under the last Government, a trust fund set up for Chagossians was poorly managed with only £12,000 spent from an initial £40 million over four years.

Asked about the security risks if no agreement is reached and highlighted that Mauritius could impose conditions during negotiations, leaving Britain vulnerable.

Asked Wendy Morton to clarify points but did not provide a detailed position in the given transcript excerpt.

Provided context on the scale of £35 billion proposed spending, comparing it to national insurance rises which raised significantly less money for the UK economy.

Disagreed with Wendy Morton's criticisms about the Chagos marine protected area, stating that there has been no debate or dispute over it and questioned whether Mauritius would not look after the area properly.

The speaker argues for regular reporting on the ecological status of the MPA, parliamentary scrutiny over military arrangements, and protection against Russian and Chinese vessels. They also discuss the British Chagossian community's concerns regarding resettlement under Mauritian management and propose amendments to ensure better consultation with the affected communities.

Mr Bailey criticises the opposition for wrecking amendments that do not improve the Bill. He argues that undermining the treaty would harm international credibility and security interests in Diego Garcia. Mr Bailey mentions that a referendum on foreign policy is impractical given the complexities involved.

The speaker questions Mr Bailey's stance on referendums and the right to self-determination as per the UN Charter, suggesting a referendum for Chagos is necessary. He emphasises that decisions should be made considering the rights of affected communities.

The speaker supports amendments tabled to rectify historical injustices and provide adequate protection for British Chagossians. He expresses concern over the lack of legally binding rights to return or resettlement programme for the islands.

The right hon. Gentleman agrees that the treatment of Chagossian people was morally wrong, but he questions whether separating Diego Garcia from Mauritius in 1965 under decolonisation statutes was correct and should have been part of Mauritian independence.

Agrees with the hon. Friend on the importance of having a right of referendum for Chagossians, but questions how realistic it is to find people eligible to vote in a potential referendum given the time that has passed since they were moved from Diego Garcia.

Expresses concern about the £35 billion financial transaction involved, questioning the lack of outrage over paying for sovereign British territory with significant geopolitical importance. Emphasises that the base's maintenance in British hands is vital to national and global security.

Views the ceding of Diego Garcia as a monumental strategic error, arguing it will diminish the UK’s standing on the world stage given the current unpredictable global geopolitical situation. He believes maintaining British control over the base is crucial for national security.

Supports the argument about China's naval capabilities, citing that one shipyard in China has built more ships than the US in a year. Mentions the increase of Chinese submarines seen by US commanders.

Reiterates concerns about the decline of UK armed forces and inability to support allies effectively without significant restructuring or reinforcements. Argues for maintaining strategic bases as they are crucial for international security and stability.

Calls for a referendum on the Treaty signed with Mauritius regarding Diego Garcia, arguing that Chagossians should be consulted about their future. Stresses the moral duty to respect self-determination and not repeat historical injustices.

The hon. Member inquired whether the speaker disagreed with President Trump’s support for the deal, to which Farage responded affirmatively but later clarified that America is not backing this deal.

The hon. Member challenged Nigel Farage's statements on national security and questioned why the United States would back this deal if Farage’s claims were true, citing a statement from the US Secretary of War that the UK's deal with Mauritius secures the operational capabilities of the base.

The hon. Member criticised the Government for having no defence for this Bill and argued that it is a betrayal of the country’s interests, highlighting the lack of support from Labour MPs for the deal. He also raised concerns about the £35 billion cost estimate and the potential strategic partnership between Mauritius and China.

The right hon. Member questioned the accuracy of the Government's financial calculations, noting that the GDP deflator system used to calculate costs is flawed as it predicts social issues on an island unrelated to the UK after the deal is executed.

The US pays for the operations of the military base, and the value to the British taxpayer, the US taxpayer, and all allies is priceless in protecting against multiple threats. This makes sense.

If the Government wish to have a strategic economic partnership with China, closing cases involving Chinese spies makes sense, as does the willingness for China to have its largest embassy in Europe. However, it raises questions about why such decisions are being made.

The Government's decision to give away a priceless security asset and pay someone to take it does not make sense unless the National Security Adviser wants us to suck up to China. Why would a deal like this be done by the Government?

The right hon Gentleman's remarks are somewhat desperate, as they touch on environmental concerns but ignore Labour's interest in protecting the environment and climate change.

The treaty is shocking for its security implications, staggering costs, and ignoring British Chagossians. It lacks guarantees to protect marine environments and rights of British Chagossians. New clauses are vital for transparency and reporting on safeguards.

Mauritius does not have a navy, which raises serious questions about its ability to protect the marine environment around Chagos Islands. The treaty poses risks to one of the world’s largest pristine marine protected areas.

The deal compromises national security and environmental protections, handing over British territory with no guarantees for environmental safeguards or protection of marine areas. The amendments tabled by the shadow Foreign Secretary strengthen oversight of marine protected areas.

Agreed with the hon. Member's point about the marine environment, emphasising that even without a change of heart in Mauritius, there is no ability to provide necessary protections for the Chagos islands' marine ecosystem.

Supported the hon. Member's concerns about environmental protections and questioned whether the Government would commit resources to support the MPA before sovereignty was surrendered. He also highlighted that new fishing licenses could devastate the marine environment.

Suggested that there might be a secret deal involving China behind the decision to surrender Chagos islands. Emphasised the importance of parliamentary scrutiny and transparency, referring to past secret deals made by the Thatcher Government regarding Diego Garcia.

Joined in questioning the lack of transparency around the deal and cited concerns that it could impact Britain's national interests, especially given recent trade negotiations with the US. Suggested there might be a link between the deal and implications for nuclear deterrents.

Proposed amendments to address transparency issues regarding the deal's context and rationale, questioning whether China is viewed as a threat or friend by the Government. He highlighted the importance of understanding why the UK would enter such a deal without clear benefits.

Critiques the Government's stance on international law, particularly the International Court of Justice, highlighting that disputes should be resolved peacefully. Emphasises the need for amendments to ensure accountability and transparency.

Supports Dr Whitford’s arguments by referencing the example of Hong Kong, illustrating potential issues with long-term sovereignty agreements.

Corbyn argues that the Government's position on decolonization is fundamentally flawed, citing historical precedents like India’s independence where territorial integrity was secondary to self-determination. He emphasises that the Chagos Islands issue cannot be resolved without respecting the right of Chagossians to self-determination and criticises the treaty for legitimizing their forced removal.

Mayhew asserts that the public sees this Bill as a sell-out, criticising the Government's lack of backbone in defending British interests and highlighting the financial and security risks. He questions the legal rationale behind the agreement and argues that Mauritius is under China’s influence.

Stuart raises doubts about the Government's position on the ICJ and asks why they would subject themselves to it when previously they did not. He questions the consistency of the Government’s stance.

Evans interjects, asking Mayhew if he was surprised by Jonathan Powell's involvement in national security matters and his relationship with China. He questions whether Powell influenced the deal.

The Government is not being honest about the legal justifications for this deal and the financial cost associated with it. The Prime Minister initially said that this deal would cost £101 million a year for 99 years but later revised it to £3.4 billion, which through a freedom of information request was confirmed by the Government Actuary’s Department as actually costing £34.7 billion.

Founded the all-party parliamentary group on the Chagos islands to listen and take action in support of the forcibly removed Chagossian people, who have demanded their right of return for decades. The group has been fighting legal actions around the world and secured favourable decisions at various levels of justice.

The Government's surrender of sovereignty over Chagos islands is puzzling, with a clumsy rush to try to force the deal through before elections in Mauritius and US elections. The deal appears to be a sell-out, as stated by the Mauritian Prime Minister Navin Ramgoolam.

Raises concerns about human rights violations against displaced Chagossians, economic implications due to lack of transparency in financial expenditures, national security risks without proper scrutiny, environmental impact on marine environments, and general oversight of the deal. Emphasises that amendments aiming to address these issues are ignored by the Government.

Defends the Bill, citing support from the Chagos Refugees Group for the Bill's passage as a step towards justice. Acknowledges diverse views within the Chagossian community.

Supports Sammy Wilson’s point about fiscal transparency, questioning from which budget the expenditure for the deal is being drawn and highlighting the burden on taxpayers.

Expresses concern over lack of support from Government Members in the debate despite a majority, suggesting it reflects Labour's stance on national security and overseas territories. Points out that many will vote for the Bill without debating its merits.

Mr Jim Shannon argued that the treaty is unacceptable given the financial burden it imposes on UK citizens. He cited statistics showing a typical British family being £15,000 poorer and questioned why the Government entered into an agreement that could cost substantially more than predicted. He supports new clauses 1, 2, 5, 7, and 9, which would give certainty about future payments and ensure compliance with UN General Assembly resolutions on decolonisation.

Asked the Minister to give an example worldwide where NPV has been used for sovereignty purposes.

Clarified that the costs of the treaty have been set and published using a methodology backed by the Office for Budget Responsibility, the Government Actuary’s Department and others. Emphasised the crucial national security relationship with the United States.

Asked to give way but was not granted the opportunity by Stephen Doughty, who criticised Richard's leader for being absent during earlier stages of debate.

Paid tribute to Chagossians in the United Kingdom and their contributions to schools, churches, hospitals, and airports.

Argues against proposed amendments seeking to change or remove statutory powers for making an Order in Council. He states that the Government provides detailed costs, rejects new clauses as they would create risk and hinder military investment at Diego Garcia. Also addresses marine protected area issues, Chagossian rights, national security concerns, and calls for passage of the Bill.

Proposes amendments to require a memorandum on UK's sovereignty over British Indian Ocean Territory under international law. Also suggests seeking negotiations with Mauritius on Chagossian return and self-determination, laying reports before Parliament.

The Conservative member argues against the Bill, stating it is a terrible deal and weakens Britain's national security. She emphasises that the Chagossian community has been silenced throughout the process. The Government is accused of appeasing left-wing lawyers and activists rather than protecting British interests.

The Liberal Democrat member criticises the Bill for failing to uphold Chagossian rights, transparency, environmental safeguards, and accountability. He calls for parliamentary oversight, protection of marine environments, and a referendum on resettlement among other amendments.