Diego Garcia Military Base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill 2026-01-20

Asks the Minister to clarify the support from the United States given recent statements made by President Trump. Expresses concern about the potential contradictions between earlier endorsements and current positions.

Questions the timing of the deal, suggesting previous Conservative Governments would have reconsidered the agreement given recent developments and changes in stance by the President of the United States.

Calls for a pause on implementing the treaty due to material changes, emphasising concerns about international law and security operations. Suggests that without such measures, costs could rise and future investment may be deterred.

Suggests pausing the Bill in light of recent opposition from the US President and a resolution by the UN Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination. Argues that these factors indicate a need to reconsider.

Questions the Minister's expectation for support in light of recent US opposition and suggests previous negotiations failed to secure mutual benefits, raising concerns about implementing the deal under changed circumstances.

The Minister should not reject Lords amendment, which simply says that the Chagossians should have a defining say in their own future.

Asked whether the deal will still go forward despite President Trump's opposition. Emphasised that the UK-US relationship on security matters remains strong.

Did not contribute extensively but his presence indicates support for Chagossian rights and scrutiny of the Government’s actions.

Defends the Chagos Islands treaty, emphasising the accuracy of financial figures provided in real terms. He states that the costs have been published since the moment of signature, including on pages 9 and 10 of the explanatory memorandum laid before Parliament.

Asked if the deal provides certainty for full operational use of the base for 99 years. He received confirmation from the Minister that the deal secures the base and its capabilities for both the UK and US allies.

Asked the Minister to provide reasons for signing away the Chagos islands, pointing out President Trump’s statement that it is being done 'for no reason whatsoever'.

Inquired about the cost of the deal and whether the Government Actuary's Department confirmed the £34.7 billion figure.

Opposed the Chagos Islands treaty, describing it as a 'Bill that Conservatives have fought against at every single stage'. She highlighted President Trump's criticism of the deal and questioned its impact on previous agreements with the US.

Hayes questioned whether social media posts should be taken too seriously, citing an example from Nigel Farage about Robert Jenrick. He suggested that the Government should consider alternative mindsets regarding social media.

Shannon commended the amendment for its transparency and urged contact with President Trump to address concerns related to nuclear weapons treaties, highlighting the importance of briefing the US on risks associated with Diego Garcia becoming sovereign.

Anderson highlighted that it was ironic the Secretary of State for Defence made a statement last May but the President's disapproval could force a U-turn. He emphasised the need to scrap the Bill due to its consequences.

Lewis suggested that given the change in tone from Trump, the Government should reconsider their position and possibly U-turn. He noted the Minister's reliance on past statements from US officials.

Stuart expressed sympathy for the Minister due to losing support of the US President, stating that his case has crumbled. He urged the Government to scrap the Bill.

Jopp criticised Labour Members and suggested they lacked military veterans' support on national security matters, calling it a 'forlorn hope'.

Doughty corrected Jopp's statement that there are no veterans in the Labour Party, highlighting his own service as an Army reservist and mentioning other veteran Labour Members.

This is not an exercise in process; it is about whether this House chooses to protect on firm, enforceable terms an overseas base that is fundamental to British security and our closest alliances. Diego Garcia is a critical asset for the UK and our allies. It supports counter-terrorism, monitors hostile state activity, and enables the rapid deployment of UK and US forces across regions that matter deeply to our national interest. Those opposing the Bill need to be clear about what they are opposing. They are opposing a treaty that secures the base for 99 years with full operational freedom, one that is backed by our allies and was negotiated substantially under the previous Government.

Will the hon. Gentleman be supporting Lords amendment 1, given that he has just specified that the base needs to be used for military purposes? If that use becomes impossible, because the islands go under water, for example—which is a real risk—would he want to carry on paying for the deal?

The hon. Gentleman is talking about the costs of the deal. Can he just set them out for the House? I do not think anyone has done so in today’s debate so far, and he is speaking with such expertise. It would be great to hear from him exactly what this deal is costing.

On the security of the base, does my hon. Friend recall the visit to Washington DC that I think we both went on last year as members of the Foreign Affairs Committee? We spoke to many American interlocutors, including State Department officials. Over the course of an entire week in the US capital, not a single US interlocutor disagreed with or opposed the deal before us.

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker—never has a point of order been greeted with such joy from the Chair—you have rightly pointed out, as has Mr Speaker, the Lords amendments that engage Commons financial privilege. We guard that privilege jealously and exercise it with caution. How is the House supposed to exercise that financial privilege in an informed way when, despite several probes to the Minister to come up with a figure for what this deal will cost the public purse, those right hon. and hon Members attending the debate this afternoon have not been given that figure? We have had a lot of theory about how a figure had been arrived at, but no figure.

This Bill returns to us from the other place with amendments that raise serious questions about the governance, cost and durability of the treaty concerning the future of Diego Garcia and the wider Chagos archipelago. For decades, decisions about the Chagos islands were taken without the consent of the Chagossian people. That was the defining feature of the injustice that they have experienced.

The Chagossians were treated as itinerant workers in the 1960s, so they did not get the basic rights that people got in other British protectorates. They were discriminated against, and we are discriminating against them again by giving Mauritius the power to determine what goes on... The amendments before us would not affect the core of the Bill, but they are important in as much as they ask for information.

Fundamentally, I spoke about Diego Garcia and the Chagos islands for many years because of the injustice that was done and the islanders’ right of return. The whole point has been to gain the right of return, which has been won through this Bill for the outer islands.

First, Ministers rested on one idea, which was all about how we had somehow received a binding judgment from the International Court of Justice, and this was therefore important because we had to stand by that... These issues are very detailed, so I will not go into them now, but they will have to be raised in much more detail later.

He has carefully explained why he does not think the Government have to act, but he has not explained why his Government were negotiating a deal if they did not have to act, at great cost and with a great consumption of time.

They expressed disappointment over the lack of debate on Chagossians' rights, criticising the haste with which the legislation is being passed. They cited concerns about national security, race relations, and economic impacts.

Argued that the treaty supports UK’s national security by protecting counter-terrorism efforts and enabling rapid deployment of forces. He emphasised the importance of economic security and criticised the opposition's credibility, supporting the bill for its protection of British interests.

Asked if Russia was relevant to the amendments being discussed, suggesting a need for focus on the specific issues at hand rather than broader geopolitical concerns.

Critiqued the Government's handling of Chagossians' rights and proposed amendments for financial oversight, citing legal and historical concerns. Emphasised the importance of minimum protections for Chagosian people.

Supported the defence-related aspects of the bill, questioning why negotiations began under Conservative government if not to address a threat. Highlighted concerns about marine protection and enforcement in Mauritius.

Criticised the handover of Chagos islands as a disgrace, citing potential threats from China and questioning the advisory opinion by International Court of Justice as justification for the legislation.

Questioned the rationale behind the Government's decision to start negotiations for the Chagos Islands deal.

Opposed the Government’s deal, arguing it is an appalling deal that diminishes strategic capabilities and costs billions. She questioned why the Government would not support Lords amendments 1, 2, 3, 5, and 6 which aim to enhance transparency.

Described it as a sad day for the United Kingdom. Criticised the Government's position on amendments, questioning their argument that nothing has changed since the Bill was brought to the House and arguing against the cost of the treaty.

Emphasised the wastage of taxpayers' money with a figure cited as £35 billion, which should be funding schools, hospitals, and infrastructure instead. Criticised handing over islands without necessity.

Stressed the implications of the Bill for national security and cost to taxpayers (£34.7 billion). Raised concerns about nuclear weapons basing in Diego Garcia, questioned the £28 billion defence budget shortfall, and proposed redirecting funds towards addressing this issue.

Acknowledged that amendments from the House of Lords are reasonable attempts to improve scrutiny and parliamentary oversight but criticised the Government for rejecting them.

The Minister's previous arguments relying on American support are now undermined by the President’s criticism, and his party’s manifesto pledges to defend sovereignty which includes overseas territories like Chagos. The Government is breaching its own manifesto promise and betraying the Chagossian people.

This Bill originates from a previous Conservative Government proposal; the Chagossians have never been given the right of self-determination. This is a betrayal, and a humiliation for the country which ignores the rights of loyal British people in overseas territories.

Asked to give way but not addressed due to time constraints.

Defended the Government's transparency regarding costs and legal obligations of the treaty. Emphasised ongoing discussions with the US on matters related to national security.

Asked if the Government was considering delaying or stopping the Bill based on recent statements from the President of the United States regarding its approval.

Complained about the costs associated with the treaty but not extensively detailed in his contribution.

Asked questions related to international obligations, specifically regarding the Pelindaba Treaty and concerns raised by the United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination.