Mauritius has no legal or historical claim to sovereignty over a group of islands that are 1,300 miles away from it, and the opinion of the International Court of Justice was purely advisory. There is no legal reason why we have to do any of this.

Does the Minister agree that it is important to uphold international law obligations and recognise the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea's 2021 confirmation of Mauritian sovereignty over Chagos islands?

Asked about the security guarantees for nearby islands, the impact on strategic defence review, potential funding costs from British taxpayers, and mechanisms for extending the military base agreement beyond 99 years. Also inquired about engagement with Chagossian community.

Welcomed Jonathan Powell's appointment as National Security Adviser and highlighted his expertise in negotiating complex agreements.

Asked about the timescales for Parliamentary oversight of the treaty and inclusion of Chagossian voices. Also raised concerns regarding the Tamil migrants on Diego Garcia.

Asked about potential housing support for a constituent who wishes to reunite with UK citizen family.

Asked if Keir Starmer had unminuted conversations with Philippe Sands on the Mauritian claim over Chagos islands.

I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will agree with me that, as we discuss the very important issues raised by the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage), we must acknowledge that all right hon. and hon. Members are doing what is in the best interests of our country; that right hon. and hon. Members on the Opposition Benches do not have a monopoly on national security and defence; and, indeed, that it is this Government who are reforming and improving our international reputation around the world—our decision on the Chagos islands, which will protect the base and deal with the other issues my hon. Friend has mentioned, is an important part of that.

Given that the Mauritian Government, with whom the Minister was dealing, have failed and are no longer in power, is this not a case of a deal with the wrong people at the wrong time for the wrong reasons, which has abandoned the Chagossians? The Chagossians made it very clear throughout—the fact cannot be misrepresented—that the vast majority wanted to go back, but they also wanted to remain British citizens. Now that we have an incoming Government in America and a new Government in Mauritius, what is the point of continuing with this agreement? We should start again, and recognise that the Chagossians do not want to be Mauritian. They want us to give them their property back, so why do we not just do that, and simplify the whole thing?

In the spirit of cross-party working, would the Minister like to take this opportunity to thank the previous Conservative Government for starting negotiations on this important matter? They realised then, even if they do not realise it now, its importance to our country’s national security.

Does the Minister agree that the principal way to defend national security is to stand fast behind the international rules-based system, and that the principal way to do that is to adhere to the rulings of institutions such as the International Court of Justice? A great deal of concern has been expressed during these exchanges about the sovereign democratic will of the Chagossians. What mechanism will the UK Government put in place to ensure that the House can be confident that the sovereign ambitions of the Chagossians as a people will be respected in this treaty, and not simply sacrificed for convenience?

I know that the Minister is a strong ally and supporter of all our overseas territories, as are this Government. Will he take this opportunity to restate the Government’s unconditional commitment to the right of the people of the Falkland Islands and the peoples of Gibraltar to self-determine, and will he also confirm that we will continue to work closely with all our overseas territories?

Once again the Minister has come to the Chamber and said that the last Government started these negotiations. May I remind him that it was the last Government who ended the negotiations, because the Foreign Secretary did not agree with the advisory legal opinion that was given? This Foreign Secretary capitulated in two days. The Minister has also said that he will not reveal the cost of the deal because the Government do not release information about costs related to overseas bases, but when, on 14 October, my hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Ben Obese-Jecty) asked the Minister for the Armed Forces a question about the total cost related to an overseas base in Kenya, the answer revealed the cost of what the Government were giving to that base. What is so different in this case?

I know that the Minister is a strong friend of our overseas territories. Could he explain the importance of putting the US base on a legal footing, and give us a bit more detail about how that will enable us to work with our allies in countering any potential Chinese threat in the region?

Quite simply, do we have the unilateral right to extend—yes or no?

It is difficult to fathom concerns raised by the Opposition about the consequences of governmental transition, as it was the former Conservative Foreign Secretary, the right hon. Member for Braintree (Mr Cleverly), who said, when leading negotiations with Mauritius: “Our primary objective is to ensure the continued effective operation of our defence facility on Diego Garcia.”—[Official Report, 13 June 2023; Vol. 734, c. 151.] Does my hon. Friend agree that this Government have now delivered that, and should the Conservatives not be welcoming the agreement?

Alexander Downer, a former Australian Foreign Minister, a former high commissioner to this country, a former United Nations special adviser on Cyprus and a good friend of this country, says that the surrender of the Chagos Islands is “symptomatic of a country that no longer has geopolitical perspective.” What is the Minister’s response to Mr Downer’s remarks, and does he agree with his comment that the last Labour Government were prepared to capitulate on the two Cypriot sovereign base areas, Dhekelia and Akrotiri? Who would have thought it? Is not the Chagos surrender just same old Labour—strong on post-colonial guilt and weak on safety, security and stability?

The expulsion of the Chagossian people from both Diego Garcia and the archipelago was an act of wanton brutality by British forces. The right to return must be recognised, and international judicial systems have shown that the Chagos Islands should clearly be part of Mauritius. Can the Minister assure me that the Chagossians’ right to return to the archipelago will be accompanied by the right to visit Diego Garcia?

Will the Minister set out when the treaty is expected to be signed and whether this House will get a say over it before it becomes law?

If the incoming President Trump Administration confirm they are against this deal, will the Government stop negotiations or try to force it upon our most important international strategic partner?

Can the Minister explain why the Government rushed into this deal before the Mauritian election? Is it proper for the British Government to give diplomatic kudos to a party in a foreign election?

Does the Minister acknowledge the feelings of Chagossians who have protested about having their sovereignty stripped from them? Does he recognise that the deal struck with China over Hong Kong has not been respected, and will he rethink his decision to respect the wishes of the Chagossians?