← Back to House of Commons Debates
Diego Garcia Military Base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill 2025-09-09
09 September 2025
Lead MP
Luke Pollard
Debate Type
General Debate
Tags
Defence
Other Contributors: 94
At a Glance
Luke Pollard raised concerns about diego garcia military base and british indian ocean territory bill 2025-09-09 in the House of Commons. A government minister responded. Other MPs also contributed.
How the Debate Unfolded
MPs spoke in turn to share their views and ask questions. Here's what each person said:
Lead Contributor
Opened the debate
The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence, Luke Pollard, opened the debate by moving that the Bill be read a Second time. He highlighted the landmark treaty signed on 22 May securing UK operational control over Diego Garcia for another 99 years, emphasising its importance for national security and defence cooperation with the US. He also noted the cross-party support regarding Chagossians' plight while underlining the necessity of legal protections against future rulings that could threaten the base’s operations.
Calvin Bailey
Lab
Leyton and Wanstead
Mr Calvin Bailey acknowledged the importance of maintaining UK operational control over Diego Garcia but questioned whether there had been any significant change in position from previous Conservative governments. He referenced a 2023 statement by Sir James Cleverly to highlight continuity in defence objectives.
Oliver Dowden
Con
Hertsmere
The former Deputy Prime Minister, Sir Oliver Dowden, criticised the current Labour government for what he perceived as a capitulation compared to the previous Conservative negotiating stance. He challenged the Minister to publish earlier drafts of potential treaties to show differences in approach and outcomes.
Paul Holmes
Con
Hamble Valley
Mr Paul Holmes argued that the current treaty was not significantly different from what could have been negotiated under previous Conservative leadership, suggesting that Labour's negotiation tactics were less firm or perhaps overly accommodating to Mauritius. He questioned the necessity of conceding British territory in perpetuity.
Alex Ballinger
Lab
Halesowen
Mr Alex Ballinger supported the Minister’s position, agreeing that it was imperative not to risk the capabilities and security provided by the Diego Garcia base. He emphasised the potential threats if further legal rulings were allowed to undermine the base's operational integrity.
Roger Gale
Con
Herne Bay and Sandwich
The right hon. Sir Roger Gale challenged the logic behind conceding territory in perpetuity, arguing that previous rulings by the International Court of Justice were not binding and questioning why Britain was giving away sovereignty to rent back operational control.
Simon Hoare
Con
North Dorset
Congratulates Luke Pollard but questions the treaty's impact on the UK's ability to control Diego Garcia. He expresses concern about giving away important strategic rights and losing the element of surprise.
Chingford and Woodford Green
Acknowledges Luke Pollard’s new position but argues that previous legal assessments by the UK did not foresee adverse rulings as strongly suggested. He questions the necessity of blocking future actions based on hypothetical legal threats.
Graham Stringer
Lab
Blackley and Middleton South
Congratulates Luke Pollard but criticises inconsistency in arguing against government policies without similar concerns raised during opposition periods. He suggests the Attorney General should be accountable to the House of Commons.
Asks about long-term security implications, especially regarding article 13 which suggests the UK has first refusal on the base after 99 years but highlights potential risks if future decisions are made based on affordability or geopolitical changes.
Questions historical financial transactions and whether they affect current sovereignty claims, arguing that past payments should legally preclude Mauritian claims to Diego Garcia.
Jeremy Corbyn
Ind
Islington North
Raises concerns about the human cost to Chagossians due to their forced removal in 1968 and calls for a full-hearted apology. He questions the treaty's implications on returning to live on Diego Garcia versus visiting.
Phil Brickell
Lab
Bolton West
Asked about the control of Diego Garcia military base and confirmed that contrary to claims, there is no ceding of control as per clause 3.
Graeme Downie
Lab
Dunfermline and Dollar
Inquired about who else supports or opposes the Bill besides the Conservative party and mentioned that international allies support it strongly.
Edward Leigh
Con
Gainsborough
Asked for detailed information on how much the agreement will cost over its lifetime, referring to previous estimates of £35 billion as overly inflated.
Questioned why NPV was being used to give away sovereignty, suggesting it is unprecedented and potentially dangerous.
Calvin Bailey
Lab
Leyton and Wanstead
Asked the Minister to place the £101 million cost in context and reference the value for money received from the deal.
Andrew Murrison
Con
South West Wiltshire
Critiqued the costing of the treaty, suggesting it uses dubious accounting methods and questioned the basis of the figures presented by the Government.
Asked where else the social time discounting method had been used in other parts of government to generate net present value for long-term investments.
Bernard Jenkin
Con
Harwich and North Essex
Questions the financial implications of the deal and its long-term costs. He expresses concern over the £35 billion figure mentioned by Government Actuary.
Al Pinkerton
LD
Surrey Heath
Raises concerns about the consultation process with Chagossians and questions the extent of their involvement in negotiations.
Tom Tugendhat
Con
Tonbridge
Expresses doubt regarding previous commitments made to Chagossian welfare and raises concerns about ensuring that this agreement will be honoured.
Jeremy Corbyn
Lab
Islington North
Asks if all Chagossian groups, including the Chagos Refugees Group in Mauritius, were included in meetings held by the Minister of State.
Questions the validity and application of the social time discounting method used in calculating costs. He presses for examples of its use on other projects.
Caroline Johnson
Con
Sleaford and North Hykeham
Critiques the deal, arguing it involves giving away British territory and paying rent without clear benefits for British citizens. Emphasises concerns about loss of sovereignty and costs.
Graeme Downie
SNP
Dundee East
Asked Priti Patel about publishing previous Government's negotiating position, but was cut off. Suggested Labour to apologise to Lord Cameron for misrepresenting the deal.
Sarah Bool
Con
South Northamptonshire
Highlighted concerns raised by TaxPayers' Alliance regarding miscalculated costs of the deal, suggesting actual cost could be closer to £47 billion.
Alex Ballinger
Lab
Bolton West
Questioned Patel's stance on US support for the deal and mentioned support from Five Eyes allies; Patel responded by pointing out backing from Iran, China, and Russia.
Peter Swallow
Lab
Bracknell
Asked Patel to confirm her agreement with Five Eyes allies that this is a good deal. Accused Patel of being unable to sell the surrender deal effectively to the House.
Calvin Bailey
Con
Dartford
Inquired about security concerns and US support for the deal; suggested Labour's Foreign Secretary could have scrapped the deal if reviewed properly. Requested explanation on why Patel's party started negotiations.
Lillian Jones
Lab
Kilmarnock and Loudoun
Asked Priti Patel to explain US and Five Eyes backing for the deal; received a response indicating that those countries have not publicly endorsed it.
Caroline Johnson
Con
Boston and Skegness
Inquired whether any of their allies think leasehold is better than freehold sovereignty, to which Patel agreed stating the concept of leasehold is wrong.
Cited Lord West's opinion that the deal is 'irresponsible' and will damage strategic interests; supported by Patel.
Challenges Priti Patel on revealing costs of Conservative negotiations, questions whether costs were disclosed.
Bernard Jenkin
Con
Harwich and North Essex
Considers government's priorities as myopic and focuses on spending money on health and benefits rather than sovereignty. Calls for the Chancellor to address the fiscal mess.
Questions use of NPV in international agreements, argues it is inappropriate and should not change stance on net present value for giving away sovereignty.
Joy Morrissey
Con
Beaconsfield
Rebuts Labour's position on the agreement as apologising for colonisation rather than protecting British values and sovereignty, criticises lack of transparency in negotiations.
Explains why NPV cannot be used for long-term treaty obligations due to difficulty in estimating social and economic effects outside UK control, supports use of total amount as advised by actuarial department.
Paul Holmes
Con
Concerned about transparency during negotiations, highlights lack of records from discussions between Prime Ministers of Mauritius and UK.
Challenges Priti Patel on lack of transparency regarding Government's position, argues that if no deal was possible it would have been stopped after a few rounds of negotiations.
Alex Ballinger
Con
Asks why the government is using specific methodology for this expenditure when it is not used for other spending decisions, questions future transparency from government on costs and policies.
Questions the cost of the deal to British taxpayers, highlights lack of contribution from USA, criticises government's blockage of voting process for treaty costs in Parliament.
Jim Allister
TUV
North Antrim
The treaty brings into question the UK's security capabilities due to the prohibition on stationing nuclear weapons within signatory countries of the Pelindaba treaty.
Point 4 of annex 1 of the agreement requires consultation with Mauritius before any construction or emplacement of maritime installations, and the security review conducted by Mauritius will determine if permission is granted. This process lacks transparency and dispute resolution mechanisms.
No extracted contribution text available for this contributor yet.
Slough
The Chagos islands are crucial for UK and US strategic interests, including counter-terrorism operations and the prevention of hostile state interference. While supporting the deal's defence aspects, Dhesi seeks reassurance that there will be no need to provide advance warning about military activities to Mauritius.
Calum Miller
LD
Bicester and Woodstock
Miller criticises the lack of involvement of Chagossian communities in the negotiations, highlighting their desperate plea for recognition. He emphasises that many UK-based Chagossians oppose the deal due to its implications on their rights and sovereignty.
Sarah Olney
LD
Barnet South
Supports the importance of abiding by international law but criticises the treaty for trampling on Chagossians' rights. Highlights lack of protection, resettlement programme, and oversight mechanisms.
Peter Lamb
Lab
Crawley
Voting against the deal due to concerns over overriding the Chagossian people's right to self-determination. Criticises historical displacement for national security interests and highlights ongoing challenges faced by resettled communities.
Jeremy Wright
Con
Kenilworth and Southam
The legal uncertainty surrounding the sovereignty of Diego Garcia is a significant issue for the UK's security and must be properly explained by the Government. The legal justification for handing over Diego Garcia to Mauritius needs clarity, as it currently relies on unclear legal threats that do not substantiate giving up sovereignty.
Jeremy Wright
Con
Henley
The right hon. and learned Gentleman reiterates his concern that the Government have not provided a clear explanation for their actions, despite repeated requests from Members of Parliament to clarify this issue. He emphasises that without a proper explanation, it is difficult to justify the £35 billion deal as necessary or legally binding.
Mark Francois
Con
Rayleigh and Wickford
My right hon. Friend highlights that the International Telecommunication Union has no legal authority over military spectrum assignments, undermining the Government's argument for their actions. He emphasises the need for a clear explanation from the Minister on this issue.
Maldon
My right hon. Friend provides additional information supporting Mr Francois' point, citing a written answer that affirms the ITU's lack of legal authority over spectrum assignments. He emphasises the need for clarity from the Government.
Graeme Downie
Lab
Dunfermline and Dollar
The hon. Gentleman argues that a deal was necessary to keep Britain safe, prevent international courts from making the base inoperable, and stop China from gaining influence near Diego Garcia. He criticises the Opposition for scaremongering about other British overseas territories.
Cameron Thomas
Lib Dem
Tewkesbury
The hon. Gentleman expresses bewilderment at the Conservative party's stance on this issue, given that the Bill is as much a product of their work as it is of Labour’s.
Lincoln Jopp
Lab
Wythenshawe and Sale East
The hon. Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East questioned whether constituencies would benefit from £52 million in investment within their own regions rather than giving it to a foreign government based on a spurious legal basis.
Chingford and Woodford Green
The right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green argued that the Government's legal case is flawed, emphasising exemptions within UNCLOS articles 298(1)(b) and 298(1)(c). He also criticised the cost calculation method used by the Government as inappropriate for long-term projects.
Cameron Thomas
Lab
Harrow West
The hon. Member shares concern about the 99-year lease of the islands, considering adversaries' long-term strategies.
Welsh Borders
Responds to Cameron Thomas's concerns and further elaborates on the Chinese threat and the ideological stance of some Opposition Members. Criticises the Government for briefing Labour Members against their own past actions.
Lillian Jones
Lab
Kilmarnock and Loudoun
Supports the Bill, arguing it is essential for national security, international obligations and strategic future of the UK. Emphasises the importance of Diego Garcia in joint UK-US operations against threats like Chinese expansionism.
Paul Holmes
Con
Hamble Valley
Critiques the Minister for Defence Procurement's actions as an act of self-sabotage, questioning his ability to procure defence equipment effectively. Expresses concern over national security and strategic interests being harmed.
Jacob Collier
Lab
Burton and Uttoxeter
Collier questions why the deal is supported by allies like the United States and NATO.
Downie asks Holmes to detail what the red lines were that stopped previous negotiations.
John Hayes
Con
South Holland and The Deepings
Hayes suggests more transparency could be achieved by referring the decision to the Intelligence and Security Committee for expert scrutiny.
Ballinger inquires about the costs of previous negotiations compared to the current deal, with Holmes stating that no deal was reached previously.
John Slinger
Lab
Rugby
Slinger mentions a call from Rishi Sunak to the Mauritian Prime Minister, stressing a commitment to a mutually beneficial outcome.
Tim Roca
Lab
Macclesfield
Believes the treaty meets UK's national security needs, supported by allies and experts; guarantees 99 years operational control, strengthens Indo-Pacific strategic balance against China; costs less than 0.2% of defence budget, considered reasonable.
Maldon
The Foreign Affairs Committee agrees on the importance of Diego Garcia to UK's security; considers treaty significant but questions adequacy of scrutiny mechanisms provided by Intelligence and Security Committee.
Julian Lewis
Con
New Forest East
Admiral Lord West’s opinion on the decision to hand over ownership of the Chagos archipelago, stating it as 'disgraceful' and questioning the Prime Minister's claim that the move is vital for defence and intelligence. Criticises Government Back Benchers for blindly supporting the motion without considering expert opinions.
Finchley and Golders Green
Debates the decision to surrender sovereignty over Chagos Islands, emphasising Admiral Lord West’s expertise and experience in defence intelligence. Criticises UNCLOS for its non-binding opinions and highlights that Britain is not required to follow them. Questions why a guaranteed security status should be changed without clear evidence of necessity.
Calvin Bailey
Lab
Crawley
Questions Sir John Whittingdale about the limits of UNCLOS on sovereign space around Diego Garcia, challenging the non-binding nature of its opinions and seeking clarification on the impact of sovereignty changes.
Acknowledges that previous Governments conceded to discuss sovereignty with Mauritius but argues it was concluded no beneficial agreement could be reached. Questions the strategic implications of requiring notification to Mauritius about armed attacks and highlights concerns regarding nuclear weapons on Diego Garcia.
Jeremy Corbyn
Lab
Islington North
Expresses concern about the impact of the treaty on Foreign Office budget, mentions potential cuts to British Council and World Service. Highlights environmental concerns and lack of consultation with Chagossians.
Phil Brickell
Lab
Bolton West
Supports the Bill for safeguarding national security, emphasising Diego Garcia's strategic importance in containing Chinese influence. Defends Labour’s inheritance of a legal mess and their commitment to securing the base's future.
Tom Tugendhat
Con
Tonbridge
Responds sarcastically to Labour Members' recent reshuffle, without providing detailed contribution on the treaty or its implications.
Tom Tugendhat
Con
Tonbridge and Malling
Tugendhat criticises the Government's capitulation on international law issues related to the UK overseas territory of Diego Garcia. He argues that this decision undermines Britain's strategic interests, citing historical examples where foreign powers have challenged British legal claims in conflict zones.
Alex Ballinger
Lab
Halesowen
Ballinger supports the deal as it secures a vital national interest. He uses the example of RAF Gan to argue that closing bases can lead to foreign influence, such as Soviet influence in the Maldives post-closure.
John Hayes
Con
North East Milton Keynes
Questions the rationale behind reopening negotiations after Lord Cameron closed them. Emphasises the national interest being compromised by this deal.
Asks about alternative costs if the lease was more expensive, suggesting that £35 billion would not be a good deal.
Rebecca Paul
Con
Reigate
Opposes the permanent surrender of British sovereign territory. Expresses concerns over national security and geopolitical implications. Raises issues about reliability of Mauritius as a guarantor of our interests and criticises the financial cost to UK taxpayers.
Aphra Brandreth
Con
Chester South and Eddisbury
The Bill is uniquely detrimental to national security, the British taxpayer, the Chagossian people, and the environment. It costs £35 billion over 99 years with significant strategic implications. Losing sovereignty over Diego Garcia weakens our influence in the Indo-Pacific region. The treaty requires notification of military activity to Mauritius, potentially compromising sensitive information. China's support for the deal is concerning. The Government ignored Chagossians' voices and rights, leaving them uncertain about their future. The trust fund established by the UK-Mauritius treaty lacks oversight mechanisms for British Chagossians. The waters around the Chagos islands risk being unprotected, with no assurance of enforcement.
Calvin Bailey
Lab
Leyton and Wanstead
The Bill ensures secure operation of the UK base on Diego Garcia in conjunction with allies until at least 2124, providing joint control over communications, security forces, land development, and construction. It strengthens relationships with key allies like the US and India while addressing colonial history by offering Chagos islanders a pathway to permanent citizenship.
Jeremy Corbyn
Ind
Islington North
The creation of BIOT in 1965 was disgraceful, expelling Chagos islanders for the Vietnam War. It led to brutal treatment and poverty for them. The determination of the Chagossian community brought about compensation and recognition through court cases and pressure on governments. Now, differences within the community need attention to avoid division.
Luke Evans
Con
Hinckley and Bosworth
Evans supported the principles behind marine protection but opposed the no-take element. He emphasised the need for proper inspection of Diego Garcia and its surroundings. Evans questioned the urgency and legal certainty surrounding the issue, highlighting discrepancies in court rulings and potential litigation risks.
Bradley Thomas
Con
Bromsgrove
This surrender Bill is madness. The Government have decided, against the security and financial interests of the United Kingdom, to surrender territory to which there was no claim to a country that has no historical or cultural connection to it... The staggering £35 billion cost is 10 times more than was originally claimed because of the Government’s creative accounting—even the UK Statistics Authority does not endorse the figure. It could have been spent on new hospitals, schools, infrastructure, tax cuts, etc. The Bill will leave Britain poorer, weaker and exposed.
Lewis Cocking
Con
Broxbourne
This is a surrender Bill with no benefits to my Broxbourne constituents. Ministers have shamefully attempted to hide the shocking cost of this deal from the British people... We already have British sovereign territory with a base, so I cannot understand why we have done that negotiation, and why we are hurting the British people with tax rises.
John Slinger
Lab
Rugby
Challenged Wendy Morton's claim about the 'surrender of sovereignty', pointing out that former Prime Minister Rishi Sunak and Mauritian Prime Minister had discussions on the 'exercise of sovereignty' and instructed their teams to continue working at pace.
Paul Holmes
Con
Hamble Valley
Responded to John Slinger, clarifying that the former Prime Minister stated the negotiations were not mutually beneficial for Britain, which halted further talks.
Chingford and Woodford Green
Expressed thoughtful but opposing views on the treaty's implications.
Jeremy Wright
Con
Kenilworth and Southam
Critiqued the government’s legal justification for the treaty and questioned which court could give a binding judgment against the UK. Emphasised concerns over potential risks to operations from international rulings.
Maldon
Contributed thoughtfully with concerns regarding national security and legal implications of the treaty.
Jeremy Corbyn
Lab
Islington North
Offered a critical view on the government's actions, focusing on potential risks to Diego Garcia's operations due to legal uncertainties.
Evans
Con
Hinckley and Bosworth
Made a thoughtful contribution until discussing overseas territories, where views diverged from others present.
Stephen Doughty
Lab
Blaenau Gwent
The Government deeply regret how Chagossians were removed from the islands. The Bill will ensure that Chagossians have no adverse effects on their nationality rights—no Chagossians will lose their existing rights to hold or claim British citizenship. It will be for Mauritius to set the terms of and manage any future resettlement.
Calum Miller
LD
Greenwich and Woolwich
Asked the Minister about confirming time being set aside in both Houses for a debate on the statement before ratification, highlighting the need for transparency and further discussion.
Government Response
The Minister defended the treaty as a necessity for national security, emphasising its legal protections against future rulings that could threaten UK operational control over Diego Garcia. He acknowledged cross-party support for addressing Chagossians' plight while affirming the treaty's importance in securing Britain’s strategic interests. Defended the government's position by refuting claims about costs, legal risks, and national security implications. Emphasised support from allies like the US, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, India, Japan, and South Korea for the treaty. Confirmed that before ratification, there will be a ministerial statement providing factual updates on resettlement eligibility and how the trust fund will work. Confirmed commitment to setting aside time for debate.
Shadow Response
None
Shadow Response
Defends the treaty as securing the base's operational future. Addresses concerns about sovereignty and legal risks, emphasising that previous governments initiated negotiations to ensure continued control over Diego Garcia. Moves an amendment but the text is not provided in the given transcript.
▸
Assessment & feedback
Summary accuracy
About House of Commons Debates
House of Commons debates take place in the main chamber of the House of Commons. These debates cover a wide range of topics including government policy, legislation, and current affairs. MPs from all parties can participate, question ministers, and hold the government accountable for its decisions.