British Indian Ocean Territory 2026-01-28

Conservative MP Sir Alec Shelbrooke supports Patel's position, criticising Labour MPs for not attending the debate. He highlights that if the Prime Minister and his Attorney General had their way, the Mauritian flag would already be flying over Chagos archipelago.

Conservative MP Sir John Hayes raises concerns about breaching the Pelindaba treaty by surrendering sovereignty to Mauritius, which could allow hostile powers like China to site nuclear weapons in Africa.

Democratic Unionist Party MP Jim Shannon commends Patel's stance and expresses concerns about the long-term guarantee for the UK military lease on Diego Garcia under any treaty with Mauritius.

Conservative MP Sir Iain Duncan Smith questions links between the Prime Minister and his colleagues regarding support for Mauritian sovereignty claims, suggesting it is traitorous to ignore UK's national interests.

Conservative MP Dr Luke Evans asks if the UK can make a unilateral decision to give away sovereignty without US blessing, pressing for direct answers on negotiations status and timeline.

The treaty would hand Diego Garcia over to a country more than 1,000 miles away with no navy, creating an obvious geopolitical vacuum. The US should be wary of this change.

Conservative peers have played a key role in opposing the treaty. Labour MPs are not present to defend their party's position, showing their lack of commitment to the issue.

Asked the Minister how the Government can reassure the USA about the placement of nuclear weapons on the islands, given Mauritius's Prime Minister’s statement that he would not allow or agree to such a move.

The ICJ concluded in its advisory opinion that the UK is under an obligation to bring to an end its administration of the Chagos Archipelago as rapidly as possible. The Mauritian sovereignty was inferred from the ICJ’s determination, which makes the legal position concerning Diego Garcia precarious.

The 2021 judgment did not have any British representation and rested on the UN’s non-binding judgment. It is unclear how the Minister's position stands up to scrutiny given these circumstances.

Asked whether nuclear weapons could be stored on Diego Garcia if sovereignty is restored to Mauritius, as declared by the Deputy Prime Minister of Mauritius. The Government's long-standing policy does not comment on operational matters or locations of nuclear weapons.

Asked if the Minister would give way to address whether nuclear weapons could go to Diego Garcia, which was a matter that has been discussed previously.

Sought clarification on American agreement as one of the criteria for ratification before the UK can proceed with the treaty.

Asked if American agreement was an essential criterion for ratification of the treaty, highlighting the need for clarity on this issue.

The process for negotiating this treaty with the Government of Mauritius has been utterly shambolic since it began under the last Government. The Labour Government have also tied themselves in knots, first by failing to finalise negotiations with the United States linked to Diego Garcia, which has created new and fundamental problems with the Bill. There are serious questions about whether the treaty would undermine UK’s other international obligations. He calls for a firm assessment of the position of the US in relation to the Diego Garcia military base before progressing further.

Discusses Donald Trump's remarks about NATO troops and service personnel, calling for an apology from the US President. Emphasises the need to take into account recent comments made by the US President regarding Diego Garcia.

Intervenes to draw a parallel between President Trump's remarks about NATO troops and issues related to Diego Garcia, suggesting that the US may not fully understand the implications of giving up sovereignty over the base. He questions whether Mauritius could stop any nuclear weapons ever in future being on Diego Garcia.

Questions Calum Miller about his speech and the Conservative stance regarding the Bill.

Raises concerns about the financial implications of the treaty, questioning the Government's approach to calculating the costs over 99 years. He suggests that this is a low position for the Government to take.

Argues that the deal must be judged on whether it secures the UK’s security interests in an interconnected world. Uncertainty invites challenge, and removing ambiguity over Diego Garcia could prevent China from taking advantage of such grey zones.

Expresses concerns about legal ambiguity regarding nuclear weapons on Diego Garcia if sovereignty is transferred to a country part of a nuclear-free zone. Questions the Government's ability to clarify this issue.

Asks for clarification on the cost allocation from the Ministry of Defence budget for the Chagos islands deal, expressing interest in understanding the financial aspects more clearly.

Critiques the Government's defence of the Chagos Islands deal, citing recent changes from US leadership and legal implications under treaties like Pelindaba. Advocates for pausing the agreement to reassess due to new information and international pressure.

Supports the viewpoint that the deal should be paused, questioning its necessity amid changing circumstances and concerns over national security. Mentions the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination's call for a pause to ensure Chagossians' voices are heard.

Denies that Labour's position is driven by post-colonial guilt, highlighting the continuity and consistency in negotiations initiated under previous Conservative leadership. Questions the credibility of judicial bodies involved in international decisions regarding Chagos Islands.

Critiques Conservatives for playing politics with national security issues, pointing out inconsistencies in their stance and questioning motives behind initiating negotiations if there were no sovereignty concerns. Accuses the shadow Foreign Secretary of hypocrisy regarding climbing political ranks.

Dr Mullan expressed strong opposition to giving away strategically important sovereign British territory, emphasising that it undermines national security. He discussed the increasing threat from China's military expansion and highlighted the importance of maintaining sovereignty over territories like Diego Garcia.

He argues that the ruling by Xue Hanqin, a former Chinese Communist party official, does not make sense as a neutral arbiter and suggests that adhering to such rulings would undermine Britain's national interest. He criticises the decision to surrender the Chagos islands, stating it will strengthen autocratic states and weaken the rules-based order. Redwood emphasises the importance of defending British sovereign territory.

Shelbrooke reflects on the geopolitical situation, emphasising that treaties may not hold if they suit adversaries to ignore them. He argues against relying solely on paper agreements and highlights the importance of military readiness. Shelbrooke criticises the government for kowtowing to Beijing and questions their strategic decision-making.

Lewis supports Shelbrooke's stance, emphasising that the world is changing and China poses security risks. He suggests that changes in government positions should be welcomed when they act in the national interest.

Hayes agrees with Shelbrooke on the need for a strategic relationship with China but questions the financial constraints of the UK compared to countries like Germany. He asks about the Conservative party's stance on China and the implications of economic decoupling.

Mullan agrees that Labour encouraged excessive spending from 2010 onwards, which has contributed to current financial challenges.

The US position is critical; the Administration has stated that the Chagos deal proposed by HM Government would be an act of great stupidity. The lack of American agreement poses a significant challenge to the ratification process.

The US's agreement is essential for treaty ratification; without it, the deal falls apart. The Government avoids acknowledging this publicly due to potential political ramifications.

Transferring sovereignty over Diego Garcia to Mauritius makes UK vulnerable in perpetuity, as future agreements could be disregarded or not implemented by Mauritius.

Questions whether the deal will necessitate an increase in naval expenditure, adding to existing defence budget constraints.

Raises concerns about the lack of say for Chagossians regarding a trust fund's use.

Questions the strategic gamble in leaving the islands' future in the hands of fate over the next 50 years.

The right hon. Member argues that the treaty is legally binding under international law, requiring full agreement from the USA to modify territorial rights. He criticises the UK Government for not addressing the legal implications of their actions in a transparent manner and claims the cost estimation methods used by the Government are flawed, suggesting a real cost much higher than £3.4 billion. The right hon. Member also emphasises the moral obligation towards Chagossians displaced from their homeland and proposes an alternative deal where Chagossians are given full rights to return and negotiate terms.

The hon. Member supports his right hon. Friend's speech, highlighting that the Government have not answered any questions or made a coherent argument in defence of their position. He praises his right hon. Friend for delivering an excellent speech.

The hon. Member echoes the concerns raised by his former colleagues, expressing disappointment that all Governments failed to address this issue properly over many decades. He argues that if Chagossians had been given a say in their fate, decolonisation would have taken place differently and they could have voted to stay British, as other territories have done.

The Government's Bill on Chagos islands is a surrender of British sovereignty, a betrayal of the Chagossian people, and a morally reprehensible act. The current approach to international law is a guise for political convenience, ignoring treaties that affirm UK sovereignty.

The pattern of government actions reflects a betrayal similar to the Northern Ireland veterans issue, where legal considerations are used as a shield for politically motivated decisions against the wishes of British people and allies.

Comparing the Chagos Islands situation to the Falkland Islands, suggesting that surrendering sovereignty is analogous to paying Argentina billions to rent back those islands, which would be a strategic mistake.

The speaker criticises the deal, highlighting its financial and strategic implications, including the £34.7 billion cost and potential damage to national security. He uses an analogy of a man giving away his house rent-free to highlight how absurd the current proposal is.

The speaker discusses the geopolitical implications of the deal, arguing that it sends a negative message to allies and adversaries alike. She mentions President Trump's comments about the deal being an 'act of great stupidity' and highlights concerns over national security and the environmental impact on one of the world’s most pristine marine environments.

The speaker reiterates criticisms regarding the deal's strategic implications, particularly focusing on the restrictions imposed by the Pelindaba treaty and potential impacts on nuclear capabilities at Diego Garcia. He also emphasises the importance of maintaining sovereignty over the Chagos Islands.

Conservative MP James Cartlidge closed the debate, highlighting the opposition to Labour's proposed Chagos islands treaty. He argued that the deal involves handing over £35 billion to lease back land we already own freehold, weakening military options and failing to protect national interests. He emphasised the government’s lack of justification for this agreement, citing concerns about legal actions under UNCLOS and the ITU's inability to challenge use of electromagnetic spectrum.

Asked how much the Conservative Government would offer for such a deal compared to Labour's £35 billion. James Cartlidge responded that they would not sign a deal under any circumstances due to its unacceptable terms, and the cost is an absolute disgrace.

Asked if it was now Conservative party policy to give self-determination and the right of resettlement to Chagossian people. James Cartlidge responded by questioning Rosindell's stance on Ukraine, highlighting inconsistencies in his party’s policies.

Despite opposing the start of negotiations when he was in government, Sir Iain Duncan Smith now urges the current government to stop them, citing evidence and a need for action.

Asked why previous Labour governments entered into negotiations with Mauritius regarding BIOT, highlighting the criticism of unilateral decisions related to marine protected areas.

Questioned the Minister about storage capabilities on Diego Garcia and the inclusion of nuclear weapons.

The Minister stated that the Chagossians have greater involvement through a trust fund set up by the UK. Mauritius has confirmed legislation for the trust fund, which will be run by Chagossians and include UK-based members of the community.

Called a point of order to express embarrassment that a Foreign Office Minister could not vote during the debate on Chagos islands. Suggested extending time limits to allow more MPs to participate in voting.

Called a point of order regarding President Trump's announcement about an armada positioned for an attack on Iran, seeking clarification from the Government on the use of UK assets and personnel. Noted that the House had been debating the Diego Garcia base for three and a half hours.