House of Commons · Urgent Question
26 January 2026 · 18 other contributors
Opened by Priti Patel Con Witham
Summarised by AI from the official record, so it can contain mistakes.
Priti Patel raised concerns about diego garcia military base and british indian ocean territory bill 2026-01-26 in the House of Commons. A government minister responded. Other MPs also contributed.
Key points
MPs spoke in turn to share their views and ask questions. Here's what each person said.
Opened the debate
Will the Minister confirm that the Government’s plans for the Diego Garcia Military Base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill are secure despite criticisms? The urgency lies in concerns over national security, sovereignty, and potential violations of existing treaties with the US.
Question
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?
Minister reply
The UK will need to update the UK-US agreement before ratifying the treaty. Such updates are routine; we updated it in 1972, 1976, and other times since. We remain engaged daily on matters of national security with the US.
Question
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?
Minister reply
The operations of the base were under threat, and we secured better protections in this deal than previous negotiations, including a buffer zone. The priority has been securing national security.
Question
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?
Minister reply
The Government remain committed to the treaty's implementation. We will engage constructively while addressing concerns around national security.
Question
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?
Minister reply
I appreciate what the hon. Gentleman says, but I must say that I am absolutely astonished by such comments. We have made clear how this deal supports our national security interests and those of the US.
Question
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?
Minister reply
I am not going to take any lessons in national security from fake patriots over there on the Opposition Benches. We have always been clear that we would work closely with our key defence and security ally the United States.
Question
When did the Minister first learn that the US could effectively veto this agreement?
Minister reply
We have always been clear that we would work closely with the United States to put in place agreements. There is simply no gotcha moment here.
Question
Does the Minister acknowledge that international law indicates the Chagos islands should be handed over to Mauritius and guaranteeing a right of return?
Minister reply
We have been clear about that on many occasions. The treaty gives Chagossians the best chance to resettle on the outer islands, and we continue to support them.
Question
Is it not important for sovereignty of these islands to remain British?
Minister reply
We have been clear throughout that the national security of our country comes first. The previous Government recognised the threat to operations on Diego Garcia and concluded a deal.
Question
Does he not accept it is irresponsible for the Government by ignoring US concerns, Chagossian fears, and the drain on public finances?
Minister reply
Many people have raised serious comments, but I do not recognise his comments about costs. This deal compares well with other countries' payments for their bases. We will never compromise on national security.
Question
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?
Minister reply
With the greatest of respect, as the hon. Member well knows, I have regularly referred to Chagossian communities, and I have engaged with and met them on many occasions—even in opposition, before I became a Minister. I have deep respect for them, including those members of the communities who disagree with me.
Question
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?
Minister reply
Because they see this for what it is, which is simply party political game playing. Games are being played with our national security in the other place in a way that is deeply reckless and irresponsible.
Question
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?
Minister reply
As I have said many times, we continue to engage with the United States every day, as we have throughout the process, and that will continue.
Question
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?
Minister reply
Again, I am slightly baffled by the question, because I answered it right at the beginning when the shadow Foreign Secretary asked me. I will read out my answer again. I said that we had been consistently clear that before the UK can ratify the treaty, we will need to do the following: pass primary and secondary legislation; update the UK-US agreement—the exchange of notes; and put in place arrangements on the environment, maritime security and migration.
Question
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?
Minister reply
The hon. Member asks an important question. The Government were clear about the forecast costs when they signed the deal, which were that the average cost per year was £101 million and the net present value was £3.4 billion.
Question
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?
Minister reply
We have been very clear that the agreement we have struck is vital for protecting our national security and guaranteeing the long-term future of this vital base for both the United Kingdom and the United States, which had been under threat.
Question
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?
Minister reply
Of course it is extant, Mr Speaker. It is an arrangement between ourselves and the United States. It has been updated on a number of occasions, which I have listed.
Question
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?
Minister reply
As always, I have deep respect for the issues the hon. Gentleman raises in this place, particularly when it comes to individuals’ human rights and liberties. We have engaged extensively with the Chagossian communities and have heard a range of views.
Government Response
I can confirm that the treaty securing the UK-US military base on Diego Garcia was signed and laid before the House. The agreement is vital for protecting national security, ensuring the long-term future of a base essential to both nations, and has been welcomed by key international partners. However, opposition tactics have delayed its implementation through procedural motions. Despite these challenges, we remain committed to the treaty's implementation and will engage constructively with all parties while addressing concerns around national security.