PARLIAMENTARY DEBATE
Diego Garcia and British Indian Ocean Territory - 25 February 2026 (Commons/Commons Chamber)

(Urgent Question): To ask His Majesty’s Government to give us an update on the situation with regard to the Diego Garcia American military base and the British Indian Ocean Territory, especially in light of the recent comments of the American President.

His Majesty’s Government’s objective has been, and continues to be, to secure the long-term effective operation of the military base on Diego Garcia. It is a base that is critical for our national security and helping to keep the British people safe. It is a key strategic military asset for both the United Kingdom and the United States. It has enabled our shared security for nearly 60 years.

When we came into government, it was clear that our ability to maintain our interest and control in the base was under threat, so this Government had to take action to protect our military advantage and to stop our adversaries gaining a hold in such a strategically important part of the world. Refusing to act could have exposed one of our most valuable military assets to China, so, as any responsible Government would, we negotiated a deal to protect our interests.

This Government inherited a situation where the operation of the base was in immediate jeopardy, and negotiations on a transfer of sovereignty to Mauritius were well advanced by the previous Government. The deal delivers on our objective of maintaining the secure, effective operation of this vital military base. It would allow us to operate this joint UK-US base as we have always done.

This House knows that the Government worked tirelessly with the United States in developing and testing the treaty to ensure that it met our shared security needs. That is why it was supported by two Administrations and why Secretaries Rubio and Hegseth, and indeed President Trump himself, came out so strongly in favour when the treaty was signed in May last year. I can assure this House that nothing in the treaty has changed since the US Administration gave their original endorsement of the deal, and we continue to work with Mauritius and the United States.

The UK Government have great sympathy for the Chagossian community. They feel a deep emotional connection with these islands. We have been clear in our regrets for the manner in which Chagossians were forcibly removed from the islands in the ’60s and ’70s. We are working to resume a programme of heritage visits for members of the community.

We will continue to work with both Mauritius and the United States on the agreement. As the Prime Minister has said, we have very close relations with the United States. That relationship matters profoundly not just to our security, but to the prosperity and stability on which people here at home depend.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. Well, the situation in America has changed, as you know. The British Government went around America and said a whole load of things, such as that it was legally necessary to give away the Chagos Islands, which of course was not true.

“DO NOT GIVE AWAY DIEGO GARCIA!”

Capital letters from the American President—he likes capital letters in his posts. All the other arguments have been well rehearsed: the fact that it could cost us up to £50 billion; and the fact that the Chagossians were not just badly treated then, but are being badly treated now. They have resettled Île du Coin and have eviction notices from this Government.

But I can tell the House this from my trip to the Maldives at the weekend—something I had not realised, and I do not know whether the Government know it either. It is the Maldives that has the historical links with the Chagos Islands, in terms of trade and archaeology. In fact, all the French did was rename the islands from the Maldivian language. There is no basis—historically or culturally, in any way—for Mauritius to have a claim on the islands.

The Maldives is upset for two reasons. There has been great stability in the region for decades. If the treaty goes through, we will finish up with a turf war in the region between India and China. Indeed, that has already started. I wish to inform the Government that, in my opinion, we are just a few days away from the Maldives issuing a counterclaim in the International Court of Justice to say that if anybody has the right to the sovereignty of those islands, it is the Maldives and not Mauritius. I urge the Government to pause all of this.

The hon. Member suggests that we have gone around the American Government. I have set out already in my response the extensive talks that we have had on this question with both Secretaries and, indeed, the President of the United States in recent months. There is no question of us going around the US Government.

The hon. Member says, “Well, what has changed?” Clearly, the view of the US President may well have changed, but the treaty has not. We have discussed the treaty in great detail in this House. The treaty emerges from talks initiated by the previous Government and completed—[Interruption.] Mr Speaker, I might find the chuntering on the Conservative Benches more plausible had I not been a Foreign Office diplomat during the period when, for 11 rounds, they were negotiating this deal. I understand that right hon. and hon. Members on the Conservative Benches now wish to distance themselves from the 11 rounds they conducted, but let us at least—[Interruption.]

Order. One of us is sitting down, Minister, and it is not going to be me. An urgent question has been granted and other Members want to hear it. I want to hear it, I expect them to hear it, and I expect them to hear it in silence.

Returning to the substance of the hon. Member’s question, I would just like to remind him that if he turned up with a selfie stick to RAF Waddington in Lincolnshire, which is a similarly sensitive military base, he would be turned away. I do not understand his surprise, or that of those who travelled with him, that when you sought over the weekend to film a video on a sensitive military site under the control of the UK—[Interruption.] It is part of the British Indian Overseas Territory, as you know. I encourage the hon. Member, and indeed every member of the public, to check British travel advice—

Order. Minister, you keep saying “you”. I am absolutely not responsible for, or was involved in, that filming. Please, I am being drawn into something that I do not wish to be drawn into at this stage.

Mr Speaker, I can only apologise. I would not seek to draw you into such a flagrant incident of ignoring travel advice.

The treaty is as it was signed. It is going through both Houses of Parliament. We are discussing it with our American colleagues. The fact that the hon. Member sought to take a selfie video on the islands does not change any of those facts.

I call the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee.

Could the Minister please assure the House that international law will apply to Diego Garcia, by way of either the ownership or the use of Diego Garcia, either by our military or by the Americans?

I thank my right hon. Friend for the question. Of course, the UK Government abide by international law and will continue to do so.

I call the shadow Minister.

Labour’s Chagos surrender is a shameful, unnecessary and reckless deal that will leave Britain weaker, poorer and less secure. This is not a legal necessity but a political choice made by a floundering Prime Minister, and it is British taxpayers who will be left to pay the price. No other Government would pay £35 billion to hand over their own sovereign territory and make their country less secure in the process. At a time when families are being squeezed, Ministers are asking them to subsidise another country’s budget, potentially funding tax cuts in Mauritius while taxes rise here at home. That is indefensible. Can the Minister therefore confirm that no payments will be made under the treaty of the so-called strategic partnership unless and until ratification is fully complete?

This is also a national security crisis. Diego Garcia is one of the most strategically vital military bases in the world, yet Ministers are pressing ahead before resolving the binding 1966 UK-US treaty, before addressing concerns raised by President Trump, and without guaranteeing that the lease can never collapse or be legally challenged. On the United Nations convention on the law of the sea, will the Minister confirm that article 298 provides an opt-out from compulsory dispute settlement for military activities, meaning that this is a political choice, not an unavoidable legal trap?

Will the Government suspend the Bill until the legal position with the US is settled and any amendments have been scrutinised under the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act process? Will the Minister confirm whether the Pelindaba treaty would apply if Mauritius were to take sovereignty, and if so, what iron-clad safeguards protect our nuclear deterrent?

Finally, what of the British Chagossians, some of whom are now on the islands? Can the Minister guarantee that there will be no forced removal and that their rights will be protected in full? British sovereignty is not for sale, and this House should not be bounced into surrendering it.

As I have said, I would find the Conservatives’ position more plausible had they not held 11 rounds of these negotiations. The attempt by Conservative and Reform Members to act as though there was no issue to be addressed, and as though the reason they started 11 rounds of negotiations was some sort of lack of focus—[Interruption.] If there was no issue to address, I am not sure why right hon. and hon. Members in the previous Government began the negotiations. I can assure the House that the treaty will go through the full parliamentary process in the usual way, and we are discussing these questions with the Americans in the usual way.

Risking the accusation of creeping, Mr Speaker, may I say that it is a great pity that you are not in charge of these negotiations? The deal we have come to, or are coming to, is inexplicable both in principle and in relation to the costs to my constituents. I very much doubt that at the time of the next general election, most Labour candidates, or indeed our manifesto, will point to the yearly cost of £100 million and us giving up ownership of these islands.

I am sure that my hon. Friend knows it off by heart, but I will just remind him of page 120 of the Labour manifesto, which states:

“Defending our security also means protecting the British Overseas Territories and Crown Dependencies, including the Falklands and Gibraltar. Labour will always defend their sovereignty and right to self-determination.”

We have not even consulted the Chagossians. Will my hon. Friend not reconsider?

I would not like to accept the connection being made between the British Indian Ocean Territory and Gibraltar and the Falklands. We are four-square behind the sovereignty of Gibraltar and the Falklands, which have chosen repeatedly to remain British, and long may that continue. We are abiding by our manifesto commitments. The issues around the continued operation of the base have been discussed many times in this Chamber, and they are being scrutinised in both Chambers as the treaty goes through the full process that Parliament would expect, and that will continue.

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

I am acutely aware that this urgent question comes in the aftermath of the attempt by the hon. Member for Clacton to land on the Chagos archipelago last week, and although I might admire the hon. Member’s audacity, I am deeply concerned that his actions trivialise what is indeed a deeply serious situation and potentially render the genuine grievances and injustices felt by the Chagossians as a political backdrop to his social media feed.

However, I must also acknowledge that the hon. Member’s platform has been created only because of the vacuum created by this Government, because the wheels have undoubtedly fallen off their negotiations. They have failed to secure the support and consent of Chagossians, and they now seem to have lost the support of the President of the United States too. While either one of those things might be considered unfortunate, the combination of the two looks deeply careless.

What is the status of the negotiations right now? What is the latest position of the United States? Will the Government also take on our very long-standing concerns about the rights of Chagossians? There is clearly not widespread consent here. Will they take on the points that we have made in amendment after amendment and recognise that Chagossians have the right to self-determine their own future? Will he also accept our concerns about the finances to ensure that Britain is not left as a leaseholder of these islands if a deal goes ahead without a sitting tenant?

The hon. Member refers to amendments to the Bill, and I am sure that he will understand why I will leave that to the Minister responsible for conducting the Bill through the House. On his question about the status of the negotiations, as I said, this is going through Parliament in the normal way. We are pausing for discussions with the United States, and those discussions continue.

I know that the hon. Member for Clacton has a number of additional jobs in combination with his responsibilities as an MP, but I had not realised, until his recent adventure, that small boat captain was among them. Maybe, as a former Royal Marine, I could help him with his navigation. Could my hon. Friend the Minister remind the hon. Member for Clacton what the penalty is for taking a trip to the British Indian Ocean Territory without a permit?

My hon. Friend paints the hon. Member for Clacton as a captain, but I will decline the opportunity to be the sheriff on this occasion.

Stop the boats!

The hon. Gentleman says “Stop the boats”, but he did take a private jet to get there, which is not quite consistent with the small boat rhetoric we usually hear from his party.

I want to be clear that there has been an attempt to land—indeed, a successful one—on part of the British Indian Ocean Territory, and it was not an area fit for human habitation. British travel advice is very clear that one should not travel to that area. This House has discussed the sensitivity of this base and these islands on many occasions. I encourage everybody listening at home to attend to our travel advice, which is there for a reason.

I call the Father of the House.

As always, this argument depends not on gimmicks but on a detailed examination of the law. On 22 May, the Government made it clear in an answer that they were bound by the international law of the sea. However, in answer to a written question on 12 February, they said that article 298 of UNCLOS—an opt-out—still applies, so the law remains the same as in 2003 and 2020. This specific question was asked by the Opposition spokesperson, and we now want an answer. This is desperately important, because this opt-out is vital for the Falklands and for Gibraltar.

The Father of the House will appreciate that I am probably not in a position to give him the full detail that he would like on the provision of UNCLOS 298. I am sure that this issue can be dealt with in the passage of the Bill, outside of the context of an urgent question.

Can I ask the Minister to engage in a short thought experiment? If senior members of the Labour party, at the time they were in opposition, had gone to lobby a foreign Government against the best interests of the British security services, what would have been the reaction of the right-wing media and Opposition parties who have made this their pet project?

It is very good question. When I was a diplomat, we usually understood that British politicians would not seek to undermine the British Government overseas—we could argue in this place but, broadly, we would try to keep our disputes on our own islands rather than going elsewhere to prosecute them—so I am surprised to see the vigour with which those on the Opposition Benches are seeking to undermine the process we have been engaged in.

Will the Government pause any steps in this matter until the judicial review proceedings that are being brought on behalf of the Chagossian people have been resolved one way or another in the High Court?

I am endeavouring to answer the urgent elements of the question and leave the questions about the treaty and its passage through the two Houses to that process, as that is my understanding of how best to deal with urgent questions. I will leave the question about the judicial review, which I understand is not urgent but is related to the passage of the treaty through the two Houses, to the Minister responsible to respond in the usual way. [Interruption.]

Order. We need to lower the temperature—and everyone can be seated. The Minister can answer each question in full if he wishes to do so.

I have been doing the maths on the Reform leader’s weekend. He spent 23 hours in the air in his private jet—perhaps run by “Man of the People Airways”—and 12 hours on the ground. That is a day and a half or so when he could have been delivering leaflets and knocking doors for the Gorton and Denton by-election. Does the Minister share my concern that the Reform candidate is missing out on the active support of the hon. Member for Clacton and instead has to fall back on the support and endorsement of Tommy Robinson—AKA Stephen Yaxley-Lennon?

I will leave the questions about how the hon. Member for Clacton spends his time to him. It was not a serious contribution to the debate on Diego Garcia and the British Indian Ocean Territory for him to travel there at the weekend. I am sure that I and many of my colleagues will be in Gorton and Denton in the coming days.

It is slightly bizarre to hear the hon. Member for Clacton appear to make the argument that the Maldives should own Diego Garcia.

On the question from my right hon. Friend the Father of the House, putting aside the wider Bill, as the Minister does not wish to discuss it, does article 298 of UNCLOS exempt military bases—very simply, yes or no? The Minister is a diplomat, so he knows the answer.

The reason why I do not really want to talk about the Bill is that it is not my Bill, it is quite detailed and it is going through both Chambers of Parliament. I am very happy to ensure that the relevant Minister writes and provides the answer to the issue.

I agree with the hon. Member for Clacton about the need for proper scrutiny of the vast sums of taxpayers’ money that the Government propose to send to Mauritius, yet I am puzzled that he would travel all the way to the British Indian Ocean Territory without a permit, given that Diego Garcia is a military base. The former leader of Reform UK in Wales is spending time staring at a security fence after pleading guilty to eight counts of bribery; does the Minister agree that the hon. Member for Clacton must be curious to know what it is to stare at a security fence?

I suspect that is a question for the hon. Member for Clacton. The record of the former Reform leader in Wales is well known and understood but, having declined to comment on the Bill, I will have to decline to comment on the goings on of the Reform party.

Reports suggest that Foreign Office officials have been instructed to act as if the treaty is in full operation. That is important, because we may be days, or even hours, away from military action against Iran. The key question is whether the US has to inform the UK and then Mauritius about wanting to use the base as a site for military operations. If it does, have the American Government approached the UK about such use?

For a reason that is long and well established in this House, I will not be drawn on hypotheticals or ongoing military operations, but I reassure the House and the hon. Member that the treaty is in force only once it has passed Parliament in the usual way.

The surrender of British sovereign territory began under my former party and has been made only worse by this Labour Government. It is a damning indictment of the two old parties. The Minister represents the neighbouring town to mine and, when he is not jet-setting, he presumably walks the same streets and talks to the same people. How can he, hand on heart, say that his constituents should spend up to £50 billion on this policy at a time when taxes and bills are rising and everyone in this country feels hard up?

I am appalled by the right hon. Member: Newark may well be a market town but Lincoln is a city, and has been for a very long time, so I invite him to withdraw that remark. [Laughter.] I do not receive a great deal of correspondence from constituents in Lincoln on this question. Mostly, my constituents prioritise Britain’s national security. They understand, through our extensive history in Scampton, Waddington and Cranwell, the important part that Lincolnshire plays in the UK’s national security, and they would expect me and the rest of the Government’s Ministers to prioritise that at all times.

I think the vast majority of Members of this House can agree that the arguments for giving away our Chagos islands have been threadbare at best, which leads one to believe that there must be sensitive elements to the deal. It was, then, interesting to read what the former FCDO special adviser Ben Judah wrote:

“Once you’ve been briefed, even partially, on what it”—

that is, the base on Diego Garcia—

“does the information gives you vertigo. Both now, and in government, communicating the details to the public would be violating the Official Secrets Acts.”

Given that this deal is going to cost the British taxpayer billions of pounds, does the Minister not believe that it should be incumbent on the Government to declassify some of the information so that we here in Parliament and the British public know what we are paying for?

No. We will not declassify what we do at RAF Waddington, and we will not declassify what we do in defence of the realm. It is not a serious proposition. There are obviously mechanisms, through Parliament, by which secret material can be considered through the Intelligence and Security Committee, and we will continue to use those mechanisms.

I think we are getting to the crux of this issue. The Minister was in the Foreign Office when the negotiations were taking place. He should know that the Île du Coin in the Peros Banhos atoll, where Misley Mandarin, the first minister appointed by the Chagossian people, is currently situated, is nowhere near Diego Garcia. It is over 120 miles away from the military base. It poses no threat. The people on those islands pose no threat to security or to the military base at Diego Garcia. This is a sham. This Government and the last Government have been denying the truth, which is that the Chagossian people are British and should be given the same rights of self-determination that the Falkland Islanders, the Gibraltarians and all British overseas territories rightly deserve.

I am rather old-fashioned. The territory to which the hon. Gentleman refers is within the British Indian Ocean Territory. The law that applies there applies to the whole of the territory. The travel advice—I am not sure the hon. Member for Clacton acquainted himself with it before he travelled—is clear on all the islands. I understand that the hon. Gentleman was making a point about geographic distance, but the sovereignty and the law applies none the less.

On the question of Chagossian representation, the hon. Gentleman will know that there is considerable disagreement within that community, and that the prime minister to whom he refers is not internationally recognised.

I genuinely have respect for the Minister, as he knows, but I am very confused as to the Government’s position. He will know from his time in the Foreign Office that one of the principal issues to which he refers is the fact that the previous US Administration was not comfortable with the disputed status of this territory under international law, but it is now clear that the current President of the United States has no such concerns or qualms. Given those circumstances, why are we continuing to burn capital with the current Administration, rather than saying, “Let’s put this whole thing on hold and look for a solution that might work better for both the United States Government and the interests of the United Kingdom”?

To be clear about the current position, there was support from the US Administration for this treaty, which has not changed. There clearly has been a statement from the President of the United States more recently that is very significant, and, as I told the House, we are now discussing those concerns with the United States directly. We have a process going through Parliament in relation to the treaty. We will bring that back to Parliament at the appropriate time. We are pausing for discussions with our American counterparts.

The right hon. Member is a Lincolnshire colleague, so I do not like to disagree with him, including on the value of the weekend trip taken by the hon. Member for Clacton. On the question of article 298, I can hear the strength of views across the House. As I understand it, this is a particularly complex and contentious area of law. I hear the House’s desire for further clarification from the Government, and I am sure that the relevant Minister will be very happy to write—

You are the relevant Minister!

I am not the relevant Minister. I am the Minister for the Middle East, as hon. Member knows.

To continue on this theme, it was only a few months ago that this House was told that if we did not approve this treaty, there would within weeks be binding international judgments against us. What international tribunal was ever capable of ruling on a military base? What tribunal were the Government talking about? We know that the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea has no jurisdiction on military bases or sovereignty, so what on earth were the Government trying to persuade this House about?

Again, there is this desire to suggest that there was no issue, that the 11 rounds of negotiation started by the previous Government were done for no reason and that there was no substance behind our concerns. I quote from US Secretary Hegseth:

“Diego Garcia is a vital military base for the US. The UK’s very important deal with Mauritius secures the operational capabilities of the base and key US national security interests… We are confident the base is protected for many years ahead.”

We were engaged with a real problem, and we were seeking a real solution. If Members would like more on the particulars around article 298, which I have heard the concerns about and committed to write on, we are very happy to provide it, but this is not a new argument about this treaty.

How much political capital are this Government prepared to burn through with a highly transactional White House in order to secure more helpful language on the Chagos islands?

This Government will seek to pursue Britain’s national interests. As the Prime Minister has made clear, we are sometimes going to disagree with our friends and allies in public, but we will seek to resolve those issues in private. The principles driving the decisions of the Ministers of this Government will be Britain’s interests and our national security.

I thank the Minister for his response, but I would suggest that in future the appropriate Minister, who can actually respond to our questions, is sent to the House. Here is another straightforward question for him: have the Government declined to give the US permission to use Diego Garcia and other UK bases, including Fairford, to launch strikes on Iran?

If those were disparaging comments about my preparedness, I would encourage the hon. Member to listen to my previous answers, in which I said that I will not be drawn on operational questions for reasons—[Interruption.] The question was about whether a specific RAF base is being used. Would Conservative Members have been drawn on that? I think not.

We have been saying for months that to give away the Chagos islands and pay for the privilege is complete and utter madness. Having rammed this through, we are now told that the Government are taking a “pause for thought”. Can the Minister explain why the Government signed off this disastrous and disastrously expensive handover agreement without having thought about it first?

It is interesting that the hon. Member started her question by referring to months. Going back years to when she was a special adviser in the previous Government and talks were being conducted, there was clearly recognition in the Conservative Government that there was a real issue to be addressed. You pursued talks. You took them into—

Order. That was two yous in one go, Minister. Have another go.

Madam Deputy Speaker, I apologise. I am failing again. The hon. Member will appreciate the scepticism on the Government Benches given that the Conservative Government started this process, two American Administrations recognised that there was a real issue to be addressed, and this American Administration supported the steps we had taken in May.

I will push back slightly on what the Minister is saying. As we know, the discussion between the UK and the Government of Mauritius around the sovereignty of the Chagos islands started in January 2009 under the previous Labour Government. That was confirmed to me by the Minister for the Overseas Territories, so he might want to bear that in mind.

The question I want to ask is about Jonathan Powell, the National Security Adviser who, prior to being National Security Adviser was the Prime Minister’s special envoy to the British Indian Ocean Territories—and still is today. Prior to being appointed on 6 September, he conducted meetings with the FCDO. He confirmed that he had already seen the deal prior to being in post and was then given a hard copy of the deal when he reached Port Louis. When did he attend Port Louis? Was it prior to his appointment as the PM’s special envoy? What security clearance did he have when he saw the Chagos deal for the first time?

On the first question, as I understand it the talks first started under the Conservative Government, but I am very happy to check the Foreign Office records and come back on that question. Whether they were started in 2009 or in 2010, that was quite a long period afterwards during which the Conservative Government were in charge and this strength of feeling was not demonstrated. Indeed, other hon. Members did not raise these issues in their time in office—[Interruption.] The suggestion, if I may say so, from the Conservatives that they were vociferously against this decision—they just took 11 occasions to work that out—does not feel very plausible to me. The hon. Member asked specific questions about Jonathan Powell’s work—[Interruption.] I thought I answered the first set of questions.

Order. We will move on to the final question. I call Jim Shannon.

I thank the Minister for his answers. If he were a goalkeeper, he would be exhausted at this stage. Maybe he has kept the ball out of the net—we will see how that goes.

The Minister will forgive me for being a bit obtuse, but it was my understanding that the leasing of the base at massive cost to the working person in this country was to secure national interests and safety. I therefore cannot grasp why the Government are possibly working against our greatest ally in the US of A and sending an internationally resounding message that our base cannot be used if it is deemed necessary. Will the Minister please outline what discussions have been held in the past number of days to correct any belief that we do not stand fully with our American allies?

The hon. Member usually thanks me for my tone; I will reflect on that afterwards. He asked me about sensitive security discussions between the United States and the United Kingdom; I am not really in a position to be drawn. We do discuss questions of middle east security with the United States. The Foreign Secretary set out clearly at the Security Council the malign influence that Iran—I think that is what the hon. Member was referring to—has played in the region and our efforts to ensure that it does not get a nuclear weapon. A diplomatic solution is the most desirable one, and that is what we are working towards.

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. You or your advisers will be aware of a letter that I and my colleagues have sent to Mr Speaker about this issue, particularly pertaining to the apparent discrepancy between answers given in the House on 22 May and those to a written question on 12 February. The Minister said that he was not able to answer that, although in my long experience of this place Ministers have been bound by collective responsibility and therefore answer for the whole Government. The Minister said that he wants an answer to be given on that point. I give notice that I will give the Government time for consideration and then on Monday morning I will apply for an urgent question specifically on the discrepancies in the information given to the House.

The Father of the House is no doubt hugely respected across the whole House. He knows that we do not discuss urgent questions publicly—let alone on the Floor of the House—so that was a slight error on his part. He also knows that the Chair is not responsible for the content of the responses provided by Ministers—if only we were—but he has most robustly got his point on the record.

Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. There is concern, among Opposition Members at least, that we heard repeatedly from the Minister that he was not the correct Minister to respond to the questions we asked. Our understanding procedurally is that Ministers are accountable to Parliament and that in coming before Parliament they are here to be held to account.

The key question, which refers to the previous point of order, is about the fact that last May the Secretary of State for Defence said that Diego Garcia would be weeks away from a legal ruling unless the treaty was agreed to. Opposition Members are concerned that that is not correct and that he may have inadvertently misled the House, because article 298 of UNCLOS provides an opt-out for binding rulings in relation to “military activities”. Surely we should have a Minister in front of us who can answer our fundamental legal questions on the treaty.

I thank the hon. Member for giving me notice of his point of order. The Chair is not responsible for which Minister the Government put forward to respond to an urgent question. The Minister may wish to respond at this point.

Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker; I beg the forgiveness of the House. As the House knows, I am the middle east Minister. On this occasion I am the duty Minister, so I am here to answer any question that I can. Where greater precision can be provided in writing—rather than risk providing the House with anything other than the fullest possible answers—I think that is appropriate.

As it happens, the Minister responsible for the Bill is travelling back to the UK today. I am sure he would have been more than delighted to answer the urgent question but was not in a position to do so. I want to ensure that the House gets precise answers.

The hon. Member for South Suffolk (James Cartlidge) might not be satisfied with the response, but that was a response none the less. We will not continue the debate.

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. On 9 February I asked a named day question about the role of Jonathan Powell in the Chagos islands deal, which was due for answer on 12 February. As of now, 25 February, it has still not been responded to by the Government. How can I best encourage the Government to produce timely and accurate answers to named day written questions on this subject?

I am sure that those on the Treasury Bench, including Ministers, heard that. It is not good enough when Members put in for bits of information and table written questions and the responses do not come back in a timely fashion. I see those on the Treasury Bench and the Ministers nodding. One can assume that a response will be forthcoming very quickly. The hon. Member has got his point on the record. We do not want to continue the debate.