← Back to House of Commons Debates
British Indian Ocean Territory: Negotiations
07 October 2024
Lead MP
David Lammy
Debate Type
Ministerial Statement
Tags
Taxation
Other Contributors: 49
At a Glance
David Lammy raised concerns about british indian ocean territory: negotiations 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:
Government Statement
With permission, I will make a statement on the conclusion of negotiations on the exercise of sovereignty over the British Indian Ocean Territory. The Labour Government concluded these negotiations after the previous Conservative government had initiated them but failed to resolve anything after eleven rounds of talks. This agreement secures the future of an important security asset in the Indian ocean by ensuring compliance with international law, protecting marine areas, providing support for the Chagossian community, and securing the continued operation of the UK's defence facility on Diego Garcia.
Andrew Mitchell
Con
Sutton Coldfield
Question
Mitchell criticises the Government for delivering what the previous one tried to do but failed. He expresses concern over the strategic importance of the territory, its impact on British defence interests in the Indo-Pacific, and questions the potential presence of Chinese military assets nearby. He also seeks assurance regarding other sovereign territories like Gibraltar and the Falkland Islands being unaffected by this deal.
Minister reply
Lammy responds that it was the previous government who initiated these negotiations but failed to resolve them. The current agreement secures the base, stops illegal migration routes, protects marine areas, provides support for Chagossians, and ensures UK compliance with international law. He emphasises that breaking international law is not an option and highlights the approval of this agreement by President Biden, Secretary Blinken, and Secretary Austin.
Emily Thornberry
Lab
Islington South and Finsbury
Question
Inquired about the protection of the British Indian Ocean Territory's marine environment once administration is handed over to Mauritius, and the involvement of Chagossians in this process.
Minister reply
Reassured that a new marine protected area will be established as part of the deal and continued work with Mauritius on environmental protection will take place.
Calum Miller
Lib Dem
Bicester and Woodstock
Question
Welcomed efforts to comply with ICJ ruling while protecting national security, expressed concerns about exclusion of Chagossians in the process, questioned language used by Opposition regarding other British overseas territories.
Minister reply
Acknowledged past wrongs towards Chagossians and stated a trust fund has been set up for their support.
Tan Dhesi
Lab
Slough
Question
Asked about mechanisms to ensure strategic defence importance of US-UK base remains after deal expiration, and central role of Chagossians in future arrangements.
Minister reply
Indicated the agreement can be extended upon lease completion and that a trust fund is set up for Chagossians' support.
Andrew Rosindell
Con
Romford
Question
Described it as 'a shameful day for British democracy', questioned whether the people of the Chagos islands have less worth compared to other British overseas territories, demanded right of self-determination.
Minister reply
Stated discussions began under previous Government and that this deal was important based on ICJ judgment.
Shaun Davies
Lab
Telford
Question
Asked Foreign Secretary to clarify that nothing in the agreement affects settled status or self-determination of citizens in Gibraltar, Falkland Islands.
Minister reply
Agreed with questioner and confirmed no change in status for these territories.
Chingford and Woodford Green
Question
Critiqued the rush to conclude deal before Mauritian election, questioned Government's support for 'disgusting' Mauritian Government.
Minister reply
Reiterated regret over actions towards Chagossians in 1960s and noted previous Government undertook negotiations.
Barry Gardiner
Lab
Brent West
Question
Asked about enforcement of marine protected area, raised concerns over insufficient penalties for illegal fishing.
Minister reply
Reassured continued discussion on surety of marine protection will take place.
Nigel Farage
Reform
Clacton
Question
Inquired about potential approval from future US Presidents, given importance of relationship with America.
Minister reply
Assured that the deal has support across the US political establishment.
Amanda Martin
Lab
Portsmouth North
Question
Can the Foreign Secretary confirm that, despite others trying to score cheap political points and recklessly scaremonger among the residents of our other overseas territories, this Government are completely committed to supporting the right of self-determination of the people of Gibraltar and of the Falklands?
Minister reply
I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who chairs the all-party group on Gibraltar. We unequivocally support the right of both Gibraltar and the Falkland Islands to self-determination. I was pleased to see the Chief Minister come out categorically and put down some of the false statements that were being made last week.
Thomas Tugendhat
Con
Tonbridge
Question
The old principle that we used to apply was the Wilson principle—the principle of self-determination—which the Foreign Secretary may remember is the defence of the Falkland Islands and the defence of Gibraltar. He has now just violated that principle by undermining the rights of the Chagossian people in favour of a claim that was abandoned in 1965—it was never really made because it was only administrative, and the islands were never properly governed from Mauritius anyway—and by being in favour of a Court judgment that was advisory, he has sold out the sovereignty of the British people. Truly, nobody apart from a boy called Jack has ever made a worse deal on the way to market, and he has come back with a handful of beans that he is trying to sell as a prize.
Minister reply
I have to say that I have always admired the right hon. Gentleman’s eloquence, but I have not always admired his principles. He was part of the last Government—
Fred Thomas
Lab
Plymouth Moor View
Question
Can I begin by congratulating Conservative Members on their sudden interest in national security? They must have forgotten all about the millions and millions of Russian roubles swilling about in the party’s bank accounts. I do have a question for the Foreign Secretary, and I want to ask a question on behalf of my constituents in Plymouth and of the constituency of the Royal Marines community in the UK. The Falklands and Gibraltar represent something really personal and special to anyone who has served in the Navy or the Royal Marines. These are places that hold a real emotional weight: not only does it say “Gibraltar” across the Royal Marines cap badge, but it is written across our hearts. Can the Foreign Secretary please assure that constituency about what this Government’s plans are for the Falklands Islands and Gibraltar?
Minister reply
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising this issue, and for his service and the seriousness with which he puts his remarks. I can give him that unequivocal assurance for the Falklands, for Gibraltar, for Cyprus and the rights that exist. The situation in the British Indian Ocean Territory is completely different and not comparable, and I regret that in a way this decision has been made against the backdrop of a Conservative leadership contest, and that colleagues who know a lot better have sought to make partisan points with something so important.
Julian Lewis
Con
New Forest East
Question
Did the Government take the trouble to consult the head of their own strategic defence review, Lord Robertson of Port Ellen, before announcing this decision? If so, what did Lord Robertson say? The SDR is supposed to report early next year. Would it not have been more sensible to see what its findings were before taking a militarily risky decision such as this?
Minister reply
This deal secures the future of the base beyond the lifetime of anyone currently in this Parliament, and it can be extended. That is why the US Secretary of Defence has welcomed it. I would have thought that a former head of NATO of course welcomes this deal, because it secures the base and our national security, and the national security of the global community.
Gregor Poynton
Lab
Livingston
Question
Will the Foreign Secretary confirm that the vital operations on the base on Diego Garcia will remain completely unaltered and without disruption thanks to this agreement?
Minister reply
I am grateful to my hon. Friend. Absolutely, yes, I can.
Al Pinkerton
Lib Dem
Surrey Heath
Question
Over the past 210 years Chagossians have been traded, deprived of their liberty and of their dignity. They have been displaced from their homeland and now, thanks to this process, they face the prospect of being dispossessed from their islands and from their future hope of self-determination. Chagossians are not children, and they do not require or ask for a trust fund. They are a proud community of many thousands of people who have been wronged time after time, and who today are looking to the Foreign Secretary, to the UK, and to Members of this House to ensure that their right to self-determination is understood and respected. Many of those Chagossians are outside right now. Can the right hon. Gentleman offer them that reassurance and think again on this negotiation?
Minister reply
The way that the Chagossians were treated was wrong, and this deal secures a right to settlement for them to the outer islands. The hon. Gentleman will know that there are a range of opinions among them, but he is absolutely right to put on record the manner in which they were treated, which I hope the whole House would accept is a matter of immense regret.
Elaine Stewart
Lab
Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock
Question
Does the Foreign Secretary agree that the threat of illegal migration on to Diego Garcia carried the threat of creating a further smuggling route into the UK, and has that threat now been shut down?
Minister reply
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising a serious issue. On the signing of that treaty that is now a matter for Mauritius, and she is right to highlight that important issue in terms of our own national security.
Edward Leigh
Con
Gainsborough
Question
I do not know how many people in the Chamber have visited these islands, but I went there with the Defence Committee 38 years ago. It was crucial in our whole effort in the cold war against the Soviet Union. We never appeased once in that cold war, and we won it. The question I want to ask—it is a serious question—is this: given that Mauritius has a close relationship with China, and given that we cannot trust a single word the Chinese say with our experience on Hong Kong, and given that they are militarising islands all over the Pacific, are we absolutely sure that sometime in the future the Chinese will not exert pressure on the Mauritian Government to have a base on these islands?
Minister reply
I have to say that such a senior Member of the House of Commons should just check his facts a little bit more closely. Mauritius is one of only two countries in Africa that has not participated in China’s belt and road. Mauritius is an ally of India, not China.
Steve Yemm
Lab
Mansfield
Question
This Government have committed to a reset of the UK’s relationship with the global south. Does the Foreign Secretary agree that putting this issue to bed will help neutralise the charge that the UK plays by double standards where international law is concerned?
Minister reply
My hon. Friend is right to raise this issue. Some would argue that the International Court of Justice advisory opinion of 2019 was only advisory and that the UN General Assembly resolution of 22 May 2019 was not binding, but he will recognise that many of our closest allies voted against us on that occasion. It is important that we are a country that upholds the rule of law. I am called to come to this Dispatch Box to make the case for standing with Ukraine and for international humanitarian law. For all those reasons, we must be a country that upholds the rules-based order.
Robert Jenrick
Reform
Newark
Question
We have just handed sovereign British territory to a small island nation that is an ally of China, and we are paying for the privilege, all so the Foreign Secretary can feel good about himself at his next north London dinner party. In whose interests does he think he serves: those of the global diplomatic elite or those of the British people and our national interest?
Minister reply
Well, I hope that question may have garnered the right hon. Gentleman a few more votes, but if that is his position, he is unlikely to lead the Conservative party to victory. This deal secures the base and it is in our national interests. That is why it is a good deal and it is why the President and the Defence Secretary of the United States applaud and welcome this deal. What do they know about global national security that he does not?
Tim Roca
Lab
Macclesfield
Question
It is fairly unseemly, seeing a leadership race being conducted in the middle of a foreign policy debate—that is what is happening—but does the Secretary of State agree that clarity over the legal status of Diego Garcia, achieved through diplomacy with a Commonwealth partner, cements our influence in the Indo-Pacific?
Minister reply
I am hugely grateful to my hon. Friend, because the Commonwealth matters to those on the Government Benches. It used to matter to those on the Opposition Benches. As we head to the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting in Samoa, it is hugely important that we are a country that plays by the rules. That is why this agreement is so important.
Brendan O'Hara
SNP
Argyll, Bute and South Lochaber
Question
I do not think it will come as a huge surprise to anyone that, unlike the outraged masses sat to my right, I have absolutely no problem with the principle of the United Kingdom divesting itself of what little remains of its colonial past. Can I ask the Minister about the involvement of the Chagossian people in this process—a people who he accepts have been treated shamefully by the United Kingdom and whose forced displacement is rightly regarded as a crime against humanity? Will he be clear about when his Government met the Chagossian people, the nature of the discussions that were had and the extent to which the opinion of the Chagossian people was represented in this deal?
Minister reply
As I have said, this deal will mean that, for the first time, Chagossians will be able to resettle on the outer islands. This was a negotiation between the United Kingdom Government and Mauritius; that was the nature of the state agreement. Of course, we sought to keep Chagossians informed, but I remind the hon. Gentleman—he knows this—that there are a range of Chagossian groups, with some in the Seychelles, some in Mauritius and some in this country.
Aylesbury
Question
When the former Foreign Secretary was leading negotiations with Mauritius, he said that our primary objective is to ensure the continued effective operation of our defence facility on Diego Garcia. The Government have now delivered this goal. Should the Conservatives not welcome this agreement?
Minister reply
My hon. Friend is completely right, but she knows that the Conservatives are in a leadership contest and acting based on political expediency rather than substance.
Mark Francois
Con
Rayleigh and Wickford
Question
Given the Foreign Secretary’s performance today, this agreement is an abject surrender of British sovereign territory for nothing. It risks a Chinese veto over our military facility on Diego Garcia. How much in rent will we now pay Mauritius to lease back what is already ours?
Minister reply
The treaty will be scrutinised by Parliament and no basing agreements discuss costs, which would damage national security.
Gordon McKee
Lab
Glasgow South
Question
Since the previous Government began these negotiations, does the Foreign Secretary agree that while Opposition Members may now be more interested in the views of Tory party members, this Government will always act in Britain’s national interests?
Minister reply
My hon. Friend is right. This agreement secures our national defence and security interests, contrary to what the Opposition claims.
Bernard Jenkin
Con
Harwich and North Essex
Question
Given a tough geopolitical environment, how does the Foreign Secretary think that China or other countries will respect this agreement after we have given up sovereignty over British territory?
Minister reply
This country supports the rules-based order and has secured longer-term security for Diego Garcia.
Kevin Bonavia
Lab
Stevenage
Question
I welcome the agreement that helps right a historic wrong and guarantees our security. Amongst Opposition Members' outrage, can you confirm that Gibraltar’s sovereignty will never be altered without Gibraltarian people's consent?
Minister reply
My hon. Friend is correct; the UK Government reaffirms double lock on Gibraltar’s sovereignty.
Karen Bradley
Con
Staffordshire Moorlands
Question
The Foreign Secretary said he established a trust fund and that Chagossians will be able to apply for British citizenship. What discussions did you have with the Chagossian people about this, and is Home Office ready to deal with applications?
Minister reply
Chagossians can already apply for UK citizenship; we are in regular dialogue with them.
Phil Brickell
Lab
Bolton West
Question
Does my right hon. Friend agree that this agreement has no bearing on the Government’s relationship with other overseas territories and that our policy towards the Falkland Islands, Gibraltar and others remains unchanged?
Minister reply
Self-determination is key, and we support it for the people of the Falkland Islands and Gibraltar.
Sammy Wilson
DUP
East Antrim
Question
Does the Foreign Secretary recognise that this agreement poses a grave security risk to the UK and undermines our position in places like the Falklands, despite US support?
Minister reply
I urge him to read remarks by Chief Minister of the Falkland Islands and consult widely with defence establishment.
Steve Race
Lab
Exeter
Question
President Biden and his team have welcomed this agreement. Does the Foreign Secretary agree that Tory critics do not know more about US national security than White House or Pentagon?
Minister reply
My hon. Friend makes an important point; US-UK cooperation on global national security is crucial.
Andrew Murrison
Con
South West Wiltshire
Question
Why does the right hon. Gentleman think that Admiral Lord West of Spithead, a former Labour security Minister, views this deal as posing a grave security risk and undermining our position in the Falklands?
Minister reply
I urge him to consult more widely with defence establishment.
Scott Arthur
Lab
Edinburgh South West
Question
Thanking Secretary of State for his statement, can he reassure us that this deal is in our strategic interest and also the interest of our partners?
Minister reply
The Defence Secretary and I have secured a deal ensuring China cannot locate on Diego Garcia or other islands.
Desmond Swayne
Con
New Forest West
Question
How does the cost of leasing compare with savings made on winter fuel allowance?
Minister reply
The right hon. Gentleman must wait for treaty and Budget to discuss costs.
Gosport
Question
How much will the UK have to pay for the privilege of ceding our sovereignty?
Minister reply
These are issues we can discuss when treaty is before House, but it is not routine to comment on basing arrangements.
Oliver Ryan
Ind
Burnley
Question
Does the Foreign Secretary agree that this Government’s commitment to our populated British overseas territories is fundamental, unshakeable and unbreakable. I am glad to hear him make his statement, and I think this is a good thing for Britain.
Minister reply
My hon. Friend is right. There is an important distinction between the Indian ocean overseas territories and Diego Garcia, and Gibraltar and the Falklands, which are populated. The self-determination of those people is essential to their future.
Jeremy Corbyn
Ind
Islington North
Question
Will the Foreign Secretary take the opportunity to recognise that what happened to the Chagossian people in the 1960s and 1970s was abominable, abusive, illegal and disgraceful? Many of them lived in poverty for many years after in the Seychelles and Mauritius. They have long demanded their right to return to Diego Garcia and to the archipelago, which has been denied until now. It is right for the Foreign Secretary to pay tribute to those Chagossians who led that campaign for the right of return and resettlement on their home islands. An apology is due to the Chagossian people for the way they were treated.
Minister reply
The right hon. Gentleman has championed the Chagossians in their plight for many years in this House. He makes his remarks with tremendous passion and strength, and he is right to do so. The way they were treated was wrong.
Calvin Bailey
Lab
Leyton and Wanstead
Question
I do not believe I ever had the pleasure of flying into our joint base on Diego Garcia, either in the US Air Force or as a pilot in our own Royal Air Force, but its strategic value in terms of the capabilities that it offers and the relationship it cements with our US partners is clear, as was its contested existence. Does my right hon. Friend agree that it was a Tory Government that started the negotiations, because they recognised the dangerous situation facing the base, and that this Labour Government have now ensured that the base is undisputed and on a secure footing?
Minister reply
I thank my hon. Friend for his service. He is absolutely right to raise the issue of the islands being contested and this agreement putting them beyond contestation. That makes us all more secure as a result, as he knows because of his service.
Paul Holmes
Con
Hamble Valley
Question
After that performance from the Foreign Secretary, I am delighted to read that there will be reshuffle at Christmas. He should revisit his statement, as he said that my noble Friend Lord Cameron carried on the negotiations—I was his Parliamentary Private Secretary when he ended the negotiations; this Foreign Secretary capitulated in three weeks. Given the sham negotiation that he has carried out, can he assure me that no military equipment will be allowed to be stationed on not only the outer islands but the inner islands under this agreement over the 99 years? Can he outline to the House—he has not managed to outline much this afternoon—what scrutiny structures and how many votes we will be allowed in this House when he lays the treaty?
Minister reply
Yes to the hon. Gentleman’s question. We will come forward with plans in due course.
Rupert Lowe
Ind
Great Yarmouth
Question
In the Foreign Secretary’s oral statement he said: ‘A binding judgment against the UK seemed inevitable’. That seems misleading verbal baby food at best. So far, there has been a non-binding advisory opinion and nothing to suggest that we will breach any form of international law. At a time of increasing global conflict, will the Foreign Secretary explain to the House why there is such urgency to do what he is proposing? It seems to be a case of acting in haste and repenting at leisure.
Minister reply
It was precisely to put the base on a secure footing, because of that global uncertainty, that this deal was the right deal.
Andrew Griffith
Con
Arundel and South Downs
Question
I must say that I am surprised by Labour’s conversion to the merits of leasehold rather than the security of freehold ownership—I did not think that was its position. In addition to being an unsinkable aircraft carrier, the British Indian Ocean Territory is host to unique space observation capabilities. It is the only remote monitoring place in the southern hemisphere that is able to see parts of the sky to which we would otherwise be blind. Space is a heavily contested military domain, so did the Foreign Secretary even know about these space monitoring capabilities? What are his plans to secure alternatives to save our freedom and security?
Minister reply
Foreign Secretaries do not comment on such capabilities, but the House will have heard the hon. Gentleman’s remarks.
North Cotswolds
Question
There is no dispute in the House that Diego Garcia is a vital strategic base in the heart of the British Indian Ocean Territory. Will the Foreign Secretary undertake, when he publishes the details of the treaty provisions, to include two things: first, the exclusion zone around Diego Garcia—how many miles—and secondly, provisions to prevent any other foreign power establishing a sovereign military base on any of the archipelagos of the British Indian Ocean Territory?
Minister reply
The hon. Gentleman is right to raise these issues. He will be able to scrutinise provisions in that regard in the coming months.
Jerome Mayhew
Con
Broadland and Fakenham
Question
The Foreign Secretary has come to this House with the smile of a favourite, having exchanged British sovereign territory for a 99-year lease from a Chinese ally, and expects to be applauded for it. He claimed in his statement that we can extend the lease, but can he inform the House whether that right is unilateral and, if so, how many years will that extension be? Why does he think that this piece of paper will prevent Chinese encroachment?
Minister reply
As I have already said, this is not a Chinese ally; it is one of two countries that have not participated in China’s belt and road in the continent of Africa, for a reason. It is an ally of India, not a Chinese ally, and it is hard to take the hon. Gentleman seriously if he cannot even get his facts right.
Stuart Anderson
Con
South Shropshire
Question
We have heard with great interest all these other countries that the Foreign Secretary is looking to please. I am interested in our country. I am interested in what goes on in this House. Will the Foreign Secretary confirm that we will have a vote, and the mechanism by which that vote will come to this House, so that we can have a say on our sovereignty and what we own?
Minister reply
The hon. Gentleman is not new to this House. We will follow the usual processes, as he would expect.
Wendy Morton
Con
Aldridge-Brownhills
Question
We saw a previous Labour Government sell off this country’s gold. We now have a Labour Government who are surrendering our sovereignty and giving away our territory. Has the Foreign Secretary had any specific discussions with the Chagossian people as part of the negotiations?
Minister reply
I will not take lectures from a party that left a £22 billion black hole and our public services in a state. The chutzpah of the Opposition is unbelievable.
Martin Vickers
Con
Brigg and Immingham
Question
Those of us who have had the privilege of visiting some of the overseas territories or meeting their representatives here in Westminster are very much aware of their strong loyalty to and admiration for the United Kingdom. Even if they have heard what the Foreign Secretary said this afternoon, perhaps they are right to have a nagging doubt that that loyalty will not be returned, are they not?
Minister reply
Let me just say to the hon. Gentleman, because there is seriousness behind his question, that all of us believe in the right to self-determination. I am unequivocally, absolutely clear that the overseas territories remain an important part of our national story and nothing we have done in this deal puts them in any jeopardy.
Jim Allister
TUV
North Antrim
Question
Given the exploitative response of Argentina in the context of the Falklands, is it not clear that those with malevolent aspirations about British territory are drawing comfort from the belief created by this deal that this Government are weak on the question of sovereignty? Does that not come off the back of the fact that Westminster, within the United Kingdom, surrendered sovereignty in over 300 areas of law in Northern Ireland to a foreign Parliament—namely, the European Parliament? If the Foreign Secretary wants to demonstrate that his assurances to Gibraltar and the Falklands are to be taken seriously, then should he not begin by reclaiming sovereignty over all of the United Kingdom and reverse the surrender of sovereignty in over 300 areas of law in Northern Ireland?
Minister reply
We will always defend the Falkland Islands. I raised that point with Argentina’s Foreign Secretary just last week in New York.
Richard Tice
Reform
Boston and Skegness
Question
In the mid-1960s, when Mauritius was granted independence, it agreed, as part of that deal, to relinquish all claims to this British sovereign territory, which we have owned since the treaty of Paris in 1814. Why does the Foreign Secretary see fit to do a deal with a nation that has reneged on a previous deal, and why are we selling a sovereign asset that we all agree is of great value for no money up front? We are paying them. It is negligent.
Minister reply
Because we have done a deal that secures the security of the global community. I cannot recall if the hon. Gentleman is legally qualified, but I have to tell him that we found ourselves with no one supporting our claim in the family of the UN and the rules-based order. For that reason, the previous Government began the negotiations and it is absolutely right that we conclude them.
Jim Shannon
DUP
Strangford
Question
The Foreign Secretary has made a very clear point. In 1982 Margaret Thatcher set the precedent that the United Kingdom would do everything necessary to defend our overseas territories. Some 42 years later, it is important that that legacy is carried on. Will the Foreign Secretary commit to ensuring that this decision has no bearing on other overseas territories, such as the Falklands or Gibraltar? I have many friends who live in the Falklands and Gibraltar. What steps will be taken to protect and preserve them?
Minister reply
Yes, I can. In that regard, I want to associate myself with the remarks of the former Prime Minister and state once again that the right to self-determination governs our relationship with the overseas territories. They remain a very important part of our national story and nothing in this deal undermines that important relationship. That is why the Governor of the Falklands and Fabian Picardo in Gibraltar have been very clear about that in the past few days.
Shadow Comment
Andrew Mitchell
Shadow Comment
At a time when global security is precarious, the Government's proposal to cede control over the British Indian Ocean Territory to Mauritius is alarming. The strategic location of this territory and its importance as Britain’s only military base in the Indo-Pacific make it an essential asset for national security. The Conservative government previously refused to enter into such a deal due to concerns about sovereignty, military presence, and potential Chinese influence. Mitchell questions whether there will be a vote on the treaty and seeks clarity on several issues including assurances regarding other British territories like Gibraltar and the Falkland Islands, the absence of any Chinese military assets, transparency in financial transactions with Mauritius, and consultations undertaken with Chagossian communities.
▸
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.