PARLIAMENTARY DEBATE
Diego Garcia Military Base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill - 13 April 2026 (Commons/Commons Chamber)

There has been much speculation in recent weeks about the state of the Diego Garcia treaty and the associated Bill, and—with your permission, Madam Deputy Speaker—I will take this opportunity to update the House.

We have debated at length the critical importance of the military base on Diego Garcia to the national security of the United Kingdom and that of our allies. The base allows us to project the full array of military capabilities in one of the most important regions for international stability and global trade. It is vital to the countering of terrorism and threats from state adversaries, and protects Britons at home and overseas.

As the House knows, the operation of the base has been under threat for decades. The Government inherited a situation in which there was no legal certainty for future operations, and the threat of the UK losing our ability to operate effectively for us and our allies was and remains real, as those on the Opposition Benches know full well. The status quo is untenable, and ignoring the situation would have been reckless and irresponsible. The previous Government knew that, which is why they opened negotiations with Mauritius, why they put sovereignty on the table, and why they had 11 rounds of talks and agreed the vast majority of the treaty. [Interruption.] I know the Conservatives do not want to hear this, but it would be better if we had some quiet and I could make the statement.

I am proud that this Government completed the process in May last year. The Diego Garcia treaty puts the base on a secure legal footing for the first time in decades. It gives us complete operational freedom, and puts in place important safeguards to protect the base from outside threats. In short, the treaty ensures the continued contribution of the base to UK national security, and to the security of our allies, for generations.

The Diego Garcia military base was founded as a jointly operated base by the UK and the United States. It is one of the foundation stones on which our close defence and security partnership was built. Of course, the previous Government knew that, which is why they took action to start the negotiations when they did. For that reason, the treaty to protect the base was negotiated in close co-ordination with the United States, under both this and the previous US Administration. The treaty was tested thoroughly at all levels of the United States system under two Administrations, and found to be robust.

Throughout this process, we have always been clear that we could not let the treaty enter into force without US support. We had that support when the treaty was signed, and we have had it consistently since. President Trump called it “very strong” and “powerful”. Secretary Rubio welcomed it as a “historic agreement” that

“secures the long-term, stable, and effective operation of the joint US-UK military facility at Diego Garcia”.

Nothing in the treaty has changed since then, and the United States’ support has been consistent in viewing the agreement as the best means of protecting operations on this vital military asset.

However, the position of the US President appears to have changed in recent weeks. This means that, in practical terms, it has become impossible to agree at political level an update to the 1966 UK-US agreement concerning the availability of defence purposes of the British Indian Ocean Territory, known as the exchange of notes, which is necessary to ratify the treaty. Right hon. and hon. Members will know that updates to the exchange of notes are nothing unusual; in fact, they have been updated periodically to ensure that the governance arrangements for the base remain fit for purpose in a changing world. They were updated in 1972, 1976, 1987 and 1999, and were rolled over in 2016. They now need a further update in the light of the Diego Garcia treaty. We have previously debated this issue in this House, and I know that my counterpart, Baroness Chapman, has similarly discussed it in the other place.

Officials from the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office and from the Ministry of Defence, have been working with United States counterparts over many months and have made excellent progress in updating the agreement. I can confirm that a finalised text was agreed at official level and is ready for political clearance and signature, but due to the new comments to which I referred, this process will obviously not proceed on the previously agreed timeframe. Because of the delays in agreeing the exchange of notes, the Diego Garcia Bill cannot complete its passage in this parliamentary Session, and it cannot be carried over due to its advanced progression through Parliament. The Government nevertheless remain confident that the Diego Garcia treaty is the best means of protecting the full operation of the military base for us and our allies for future generations. We will continue to work with the United States on the agreement and the way forward, and we will continue to engage closely with Mauritius.

In parallel with the geostrategic developments, there is the human story. I refer to the Chagossians, who have rightly been raised by many right hon. and hon. Members, and who were removed from the archipelago in the 1960s and ’70s. As I have said on many occasions, the Government deeply regret the manner of their removal, and we remain committed to building a relationship with Chagossian communities that is built on respect and an acknowledgment of the wrongs of the past. The delay to the treaty will be sad news to many Chagossians—although I accept not all—who rightly see it as the only viable means of a sustainable programme of resettlement, which Mauritius would be able to implement under its terms. As I have said on many occasions, we also want to see the recommencement of the programme of heritage visits, which we understand are so important to Chagossians, particularly to the older generations.

These are times of great uncertainty and acute risk to British interests. Our security and prosperity are under threat at home and overseas, and this is a moment for calm and considered reflection, not cheap political point scoring by Opposition parties—[Interruption.] They are absolutely proving this very point. They would put our security at risk and play reckless games.

The threats facing the future operation of the Diego Garcia base are real, as the Opposition well know, and the Diego Garcia treaty remains the best means of securing the vital military base on the island. We will continue to work with partners, including the United States and Mauritius, to protect our national security and that of our allies. I commend this statement to the House.

I call the shadow Foreign Secretary.

Let me start my remarks by saying that the Minister has done the right thing by coming to the House to give this statement, rather than being dragged here through an urgent question, and by stating the factual and accurate position that the treaty will not go forward. However, once again he has been left carrying the can for the Prime Minister’s epic failure of statecraft. Labour’s Chagos surrender has been wrong from the start, and instead of making excuses, the right thing to do would have been to tear up this dreadful treaty and commit to keeping Chagos British. The news that the ratification of the treaty is now done and dusted is a humiliation for the Prime Minister and this Government.

Let us be clear: the surrender treaty is Labour’s mess. As the House knows, within days of coming to office, the Prime Minister’s top foreign policy priority was to exceed the wishes of his left-wing lawyer friends and surrender the Chagos islands, at an enormous cost to British taxpayers. He met the Mauritian Prime Minister, appointed Jonathan Powell to conclude the negotiations, and rushed and blundered into the treaty. The Government inexplicably announced it to the world just before Mauritius went into an election. When the Mauritian Government with whom they agreed the deal got kicked out, the new Mauritian Government—guess what?—demanded more concessions from Britain, and Labour rolled over and got eaten for breakfast. The Government put one of our most important defence and security assets at risk. They compromised the special relationship with the United States, they ignored and betrayed the wishes of the Chagossian community, and they were prepared to hand over £35 billion of taxpayers’ money to lease back a land that we own. Then they went ahead with the deal before receiving the critical exchange of notes from the United States.

Having been to the United States recently, I am not in the least surprised that the Administration have sought to stop the deal, because they can see what we have been saying for a long time. It is the Conservatives who have opposed this Labour deal at every turn. While Labour has spectacularly failed to defend British sovereignty and Reform has gone from suggesting that we sell the Chagos islands to the US to suggesting that we give them to the Maldives, the Conservative party has been effectively scrutinising and opposing this surrender at every step of the way, to make sure that we keep Chagos British and that we protect our sovereignty and our taxpayers.

It is the Conservatives who have exposed the full £35 billion cost of the deal. It is the Conservatives who have dismantled Labour’s outrageous and offensive narrative that those who oppose the Chagos surrender are siding with Britain’s adversaries. It is the Conservatives who have brought to the fore the major security concerns about this deal and exposed the fact that Mauritius is deepening its partnerships with Russia, China and Iran. It is the Conservatives who have been pressing the Government for months on their totally inadequate answers about why the anti-nuclear Pelindaba treaty would apply to Diego Garcia. And it is the Conservatives who have supported the Chagossians at every step of the way, given them a voice and spoken up for them.

Our questions and debates in this House and the other place have held Labour to account and forced the Government into the position set out today. Although the surrender and the whole process have now been ripped up, I want to ask the Minister some fundamental questions. The Mauritian Government have announced that a UK delegation is going to Mauritius later this month. Will the Minister tell us who is going, and what is the purpose? What will they be negotiating? Is there a new timetable? What is actually going to happen?

We also know that Mauritius has budgeted to receive the surrender payments from the British Government, so can the Minister confirm that no payments will be made to Mauritius as a result of what he has announced today? Will the Labour Government commit to spending the money that they were planning to ship to Mauritius on boosting defence spending at this critical time, which is exactly what the British taxpayer wants? It should now be clearly allocated for the purpose of this fundamental resource.

Can the Minister confirm in no uncertain terms that as long as the US opposes this deal, Labour will not seek in any way to reinstate it? On the Chagossians, if the islands stay British, is it the Government’s intention to look at resettlement options? Will the Minister rule out any new legislation in the next Session, even if it is not in the King’s Speech, so that the surrender treaty cannot become operable? The only Bill that the Government should take forward in the next Session is my original Bill to make sure that Chagos remains British.

I will start by thanking the right hon. Lady, who has rightly scrutinised many different aspects of this matter over many months. I have come dutifully to answer many questions, I have met with her privately, and the subject has been scrutinised by many Committees. It was right to update the House today on these developments, and I am glad that she acknowledges that point.

Of course, it is not for the Government simply to choose easy paths. It is for the Government to choose the right path: the path that is in the interests of Britain and our national security, and that of our allies. At the heart of this is a fundamental question. The Opposition know that there is a huge challenge. They knew that there was a problem, which is why they started the process. Throughout all the exchanges we have had, they have never been able to answer that simple question.

I cannot recall a time when we have seen so much misinformation and, quite frankly, negligent disregard for the national interests and security of the British people. It is regrettable that the official Opposition and indeed the Reform party—I see that only one of its Members has turned up today—have been at the heart of this. Of course, they will say that this is just politics and that the Government should be thick-skinned, but quite frankly the British public deserve better.

The national interest is what drives this Government and our national security, as the Conservatives well knew, which is why they started the process. We have seen frankly ludicrous disinformation about the operations of the base, about the genuine threats that it faced, and about the security provisions in the treaty, which of course we strengthened. We also seen it about the costs: no matter how often they give false figures, that does not make them any more accurate. We have also seen it about the views of Chagossians—I accept that they are wide and varied but, conveniently, the Opposition always ignore the views of the significant numbers of Chagossian communities and groups who feel very differently about the treaty and have supported it since the start. Indeed, we have seen it about the protection of the environment.

The Opposition operate in a state of convenient amnesia, but they know the reality, they knew the jeopardy facing the base and they know that they presided over 11 rounds of negotiations. They published it in ministerial statements and in records of meetings with the Mauritian Prime Minister. They know, too, that the treaty signed by this Government was born of their policy choices and their negotiation mandates. As ever, the Opposition cannot run away fast enough from their record in government when it suits their tiresome politicking. The British people are not fooled. They can see the hypocrisy, and they deserve better.

I thank the Minister for working over many months with our allies on this issue to reach agreement in our national interest and theirs. He has remained consistent on this issue and has given many updates on it. I wish I could say the same about the Opposition. Their short memory, their flip-flopping and their complete disregard for national security are very similar to the position they have got themselves in with Iran—very, very similar. They are laughing in the face of real threats to our national security.

I am actually quite concerned, because it seems to me that the status quo is not in our national interest. What does being without a treaty mean for the long-term access to the base, for us and for our allies?

My hon. Friend sets out the fundamental issue: the risks to the operation of the base, which the Opposition knew all along. That is why they started the process, to which we have responded with this treaty, which protects our security and that of our allies. I will not speculate about the coming of those risks, but we know that we need to put things on a secure footing. We know that the treaty was the best way to do that. We know that this was agreed under two Administrations across the United States in an inter-agency process. We continue to believe that it is the right way forward, and we will announce our business in the usual way.

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

I genuinely thank the Minister for his statement, for advance sight of it, and for his long engagement with me on these issues.

The process for negotiating this treaty has been, I am sorry to say, utterly shambolic, from its beginning under the previous Government to its demise under this one. [Interruption.] From a sedentary position, an hon. and gallant Gentleman says, “Why did we finish it?” I am sorry to tell him that they did not. There is no evidence at all that this statement was finished by the previous Government.

As this Government shelve the legislation, they must now reckon with the litany of failures that have plagued the process, specifically their inability to secure fundamental legal guarantees from the US through the necessary exchange of letters; their reluctance to adopt measures that would enable genuine parliamentary scrutiny over the planned vast sums of money that would be sent to the Government of Mauritius; and their wilful reluctance to work with or to secure the rights of Chagossians, including but not limited to the right of return to the Chagos islands.

Aside from the Government’s apparent ignorance of the legal prerequisites for the passage of the treaty, the most objectionable aspect of the process has been the woeful engagement with the Chagossian community. The British state has long denied Chagossians a meaningful say in their own future. The provisions of this treaty, shamefully, failed again to affirm those rights, so if the treaty ever does return to this House, the Government would do well to observe and understand the amendments tabled by the Liberal Democrats in the other place to secure genuine rights for Chagossians and help to buck the historical trend of that community being left out of decisions about its own future.

I have one very simple question for the Minister. Given that the Government have now abandoned their proposed deal with Mauritius over the Chagos islands, can the Foreign Secretary set out what this means in practice for the long-promised right of return for Chagossians? Will the Government now commit to supporting resettlement under continued UK sovereignty? If so, how does the Minister assess the implications of that return for the evidential and legal basis underpinning the 2019 International Court of Justice advisory opinion?

In conclusion, British citizens physically located on the islands would constitute a resident population who would be—

Order. I call the Minister.

I thank the hon. Member for his comments and for his continued engagement in good faith throughout the process. I can absolutely assure him that in due course we will return to the issues that he and his colleagues discussed with us and the concerns that they expressed in amendments in this place and the other House, but I have to reject his assumption that the process has somehow met its demise. It has not been abandoned. We have always been clear about the need for agreement on the US-UK exchange of notes. I refer the hon. Gentleman to the comments of my noble Friend Baroness Chapman in the other place on 18 November:

“Before the UK can ratify the treaty, we will need to do the following: pass both primary and secondary legislation, update the UK-US exchange of notes, and put in place agreements on the environment, maritime security and migration.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 18 November 2025; Vol. 850, c. 713.]

We have always been clear about the processes that need to be followed in parallel. It is regrettable that there has been a delay and that we have run out of time in this parliamentary Session, but the facts have not changed as to the need for the treaty or the need for the processes and legal provisions to be put in place.

The hon. Gentleman rightly raises concerns about the Chagossians. He and I have discussed those concerns on a number of occasions. We have engaged extensively with the Chagossian communities. There are a range of views in the community; there will be many Chagossians who will be deeply disappointed by the delay with the treaty, not least for the very reason to which he refers, which is that we believe that this is the best route, under Mauritius’s guidance, leading to resettlement. I re-emphasise our commitment to restarting, at an appropriate time, the heritage visits, which are so important. The hon. Gentleman will understand why the current situation does not allow that, but we will seek to do so at the earliest opportunity. We know how important it is, particularly for heritage reasons.

The test of bad legislation is always whether it contains carte blanche Henry VIII powers—in this case in a thin and flimsy Bill—that grant the Government the right to do anything they like with the legislation, even after it has passed. That made it a dog of a Bill, but now the Government have paused it—or returned it, or U-turned, or whatever they are calling it. The Chagossians’ rights lie at the heart of this matter, so can I take the Minister back to the statement he made about the Chagossians? He talked about them wanting to come to some conclusion about their ability to return to the islands. The BIOT Supreme Court ruled that section 9 of the British Indian Ocean Territory (Constitution) Order 2004, which barred the right of abode to Chagossians, was illegal, so why have the Government mounted an appeal against that, to ensure that it is illegal for them to go to their islands? Does he think the Chagossians have no right to go to the islands, or that they do have a right? Which is it?

The right hon. Gentleman is clearly familiar with the history, so he will know the judgments in the courts of England and Wales on the matter of the right of abode. I am not going to comment on ongoing legal proceedings, save to say that we were disappointed by the position that was taken. Our understanding is that the BIOT is appealing that judgment and we have taken an interest in that matter.

The Minister talks about convenient amnesia, but he did not go back to discuss what the previous Labour Government did. All the way back in 2008, Gordon Brown met Navinchandra Ramgoolam, when he was the Prime Minister of Mauritius for the first time, and agreed to establish a dialogue on the British Indian Ocean Territory. The first official meetings took place in January 2009—Wednesday the 14th, to be precise—and the topic of sovereignty was discussed. I appreciate that the Minister might not have the details to hand, so he is welcome to write to me, but will he outline exactly what discussions took place with the previous Government, up to the end of their time in 2010, that set the conditions for the subsequent ICJ appeal that Mauritius put in following that discussion?

I will happily write to the hon. Gentleman on that matter, but what I am absolutely clear about is that it was his Government who started the process of negotiations, under the former Foreign Secretary, the right hon. Member for Braintree (Sir James Cleverly), who conceded the principle of sovereignty and conceded a financial element, and did not put in place some of the key security provisions that we were able to secure in the negotiations. I will happily write to the hon. Gentleman.

The US navy began a blockade of Iran at 2 pm this afternoon. Has the US been granted permission by the British Government for the use of the deepwater port at Diego Garcia as a staging post for the imposition of that blockade?

The hon. Gentleman will understand that I am not going to comment on operational details from the Dispatch Box, but the Prime Minister has been absolutely clear about which requests from the United States have been acceded to and which ones have not. He answered an extensive statement on that this afternoon, and I hope that that suffices.

I thank the Minister for confirming that this Parliament has not ratified the treaty. As Parliament and the British public heard more about the deal, one of the things they found most inexplicable was that it involved us paying a substantial amount of money—how much has not yet been confirmed to Parliament—to the Mauritian Government. Will the Minister confirm from the Dispatch Box today that, because Parliament has not ratified the deal, he will not be paying any money to the Mauritian Government?

The hon. Lady asks an important question and, to be fair, the shadow Foreign Secretary asked it too. I can absolutely confirm that the costs associated with the treaty cannot be paid without the relevant legislation being passed, so she is absolutely right on that point. What I will say is that there has been wilful misinformation from a number of quarters on the costs associated with the deal. We published the forecast costs and the methodology used when we presented the treaty. We have answered questions on that many, many times, and the fact is that the costs associated with it are simply not what is being presented by the Opposition Front Bench—or indeed other parties in this place—particularly compared with, for example, what France pays for its base in Djibouti. This is 15 times larger, with immeasurably more capability, and we are not going to scrimp when it comes to the national security of this country.

Another day in this Parliament, another chaotic U-turn. I thank the Minister for being the latest to make the long walk from No. 10 to over here to announce said U-turn, and thank the one, solitary Labour MP who could be encouraged to stand up for the Government. I accept that the Tories made a mess of this, but I have to say that the excuse given by the Minister—that Donald Trump’s unpredictability was something that could not be foreseen—is something people will find very difficult to believe. On that lack of foresight, this is a serious issue and I know that the Minister treats it seriously, so will he tell us how much money has been wasted on this so far, what the implications are for national security, and what the implications are for the international rules-based system and the rights of the Chagossians who have been caught in the middle of this sad, sorry mess?

The hon. Gentleman raises many, many issues. The situation is clear for all to see. I have set out why the legislation is not able to make the progress we had hoped it would make in this parliamentary Session, but the merits of the deal and the need to secure the base for us and our allies stay unchanged. As I said, we are not going to scrimp on national security. When it comes to these capabilities, we will do what is right and in the interests of the British people.

I congratulate the Minister on so valiantly trying to explain the inexplicable and reconcile the irreconcilable. I do not want to detain the House by quoting the whole Monty Python dead parrot sketch, but this is now an ex-treaty; it is no more; it has shuffled off its mortal coil.

Coming back to the Chagossians, why can the Government not just honour what the Court has decided about the right of return? Why are they now trying to frustrate the survival and safety of the Chagossians who have returned, taken there by my good friend and former Conservative MP Adam Holloway, who has organised the expedition despite the Government? Why are the Government now mounting operations and sending police officers and customs operators to frustrate the process of safety equipment going to the expedition to support the Chagossians? Why have they blocked a water purifier and even medical supplies? They have blocked a fast boat that would provide emergency evacuation, so these people are more at risk as a result of the Government. Is that the Government’s policy, after all the wrongs that have been done to the Chagossians?

I have a lot of respect for the hon. Gentleman, but he is simply wrong on this point about the Chagossians. The reality is that there is a range of views within the Chagossian communities. I have taken them incredibly seriously, including those who do not agree with the treaty. There are many who do agree with it. I am afraid that the incident he refers to, in terms of the illegal arrivals on Peros Banhos—

They are not illegal.

They are illegal and they are not appropriate; it is a dangerous environment and it is not appropriate for them to be on there. We are disappointed by the judgment that was made. The BIOT is appealing that judgment. If the hon. Gentleman wants me to provide him with a list of items that were sought to be provided on that island, I think he would be quite shocked. I am sure he would agree with me that it is not appropriate to have a drone flying on those islands, or other items that are not necessary. This is a dangerous and unsafe environment. Quite frankly, I am astounded that the Opposition, and the other party with one representative in the Chamber, are attempting to support people arriving illegally by boats on an island that is not safe for them. That is, quite frankly, extraordinary.

I very much welcome the statement and commend the Minister for the way that he has framed it. He has been absolutely spectacular, if I may say so, over the months in trying to defend the indefensible, as indeed he has been today with this U-turn on steroids. May I press him on the matter of money? He has been Delphic in his response to two of my hon. Friends on the demands that Mauritius, perfectly reasonably, will be making of this Government, given this utter mess and the fact that spending plans were already being made on the back of the largesse that the Minister had been talking about. Will he confirm that not a penny piece will be passed to Mauritius in either payments or in compensation, now that the treaty has gone the way of the apocryphal Norwegian Blue, and tell us what legal notes have been passed between the two Governments, given that plainly this thing is now not going to be happening, in relation to moneys in compensation that Mauritius, perfectly reasonably, will now be demanding of the UK?

I answered that question very clearly a moment ago in response to the hon. Member for West Worcestershire (Dame Harriett Baldwin).

Will the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office be consulted, and will the British Chagossians be brought into the discussion prior to the mission on 22 April? Will a British Chagossian be accepted on to the actual delegation, so that they will be represented? Will the Government be speaking to the Chagossians who have just come on the boat? Its seems to be the only small boat the Government are interested in stopping. Will they actually be helping, rather than hindering?

On the hon. Lady’s last point, I am sure she can see the absurdity of what she and others appear to be supporting. This is a dangerous political stunt that is putting lives at risk. It is not safe or proper to be on those islands. We are very clear about that; we have communicated that very clearly. Obviously, the BIOT Administration will take whatever steps they deem necessary under their laws and administration to ensure adherence to their laws and the safety and security of individuals. I am genuinely astounded that people would support this action, which is putting lives at risk and is deeply irresponsible.

On the wider questions about the Chagossians, I have been clear throughout that there are a range of views within the communities, including the British Chagossian communities. I have met them and heard those views, including difficult views from people who do not agree with us on this issue; I am not afraid to do that, and neither are the Government. It would not be practical to take just one person as representing a whole community. We have sought to ensure that the voices of Chagossians are heard throughout this process, such as in the proposed trust fund, by securing places on the board. As I have set out on a number of occasions, we will continue to engage with all Chagossian communities.

Order. I remind Members that if they were not present at the beginning of the statement, they will not be called.

This process is, among other things, about protecting British access to the communications spectrum. That is why the previous Government started it, and why the current Government are carrying it on. If we are not able to pass the treaty and ensure that access, what is plan B?

I have set out on a number of occasions very clearly the risks to the operation of the base; they were well understood by the Opposition, in particular by those who served as Ministers in the previous Government. It has consistently staggered me that the Opposition attempt to gloss over all of that, as well as the risks posed to our operations and the capabilities that keep us and our allies safe. I think they will look on the political point scoring they have been doing with regret in future years.

I doubt whether many people across the nation are watching the Parliament channel at the moment to see this statement. The Minister started off saying that this space is critical to our national security, allows us to project the full array of military capabilities in one of the most important regions for international stability in global trade, is vital for countering terrorism and threats from state adversaries, and protects Britons at home and abroad. Anyone watching this debate might then ask why the devil, if we owned it, we were giving it back to the Mauritian Government to then lease it for £35 billion from a Government who are more interested in some of the states that are hostile to our interests in the area. Does the Minister not agree that if the nation is listening to this debate, it will be totally confused, or else think that this must be one of the most incompetent Governments ever?

I simply must thoroughly disagree with the right hon. Gentleman. Our national security and that of our allies has been paramount in putting forward this treaty and this deal to secure the Diego Garcia base not only for us, but for our allies and our Five Eyes partners. That is why they all welcomed it. It is why the treaty has gone through extensive processes in this country, in the United States and with other partners. I will not apologise for that. The duty of this Government is to protect the people of this country, our partners and our allies. That is exactly why we have proceeded on this basis and why this treaty is needed.

I have two questions to the Minister, if I may. I welcome the retreat from this Bill and this deal, which ill served the taxpayer and our national interest. First, are the Government now officially withdrawing the Bill, rather than merely pausing its passage through Parliament? Secondly, the Minister was very clear earlier that no payment would be made under the treaty to Mauritius. Can he confirm that no goodwill payment, ex gratia payment or any other payment will be made to Mauritius outside of the treaty as a way of saying sorry? Frankly, we have nothing to say sorry for.

The hon. Gentleman, for whom I have affection, understands the procedures of this place. He understands that the Bill is going to time out because of the upcoming Prorogation and that it cannot be carried over because of the progress that it has made during this Session; he will understand the procedures around that. It is disappointing that we saw so much game-playing around the Bill, particularly from the other place. That is the position. I have also set out the position on the costs.

I very much welcome the Government’s withdrawal of the Bill. I have two questions about the future commitment of this country to the Chagossian people and the Chagos islands. First, will the Government commit that if there is to be any future constitutional change to the status of the islands, the Chagossian community here in the UK will be given the chance to express its view through a referendum of that community? My second question relates to the heroic landing by my friend and new fellow Reform member, Adam Holloway, who made the brave journey to Reform, as well as journeying to the Chagos islands with a group of islanders. I remind the Minister that those people were forcibly removed from their homes by a Labour Government in the 1970s. The infrastructure that they left behind is now descending into jungle. Why will the Government not recognise that they have a right of abode there, and why are the Government frustrating the very legitimate efforts of philanthropists to support them to re-establish their community?

Again, I am genuinely shocked that the hon. Gentleman, and indeed his party as a whole, would support a reckless political stunt of this nature and promote arrival on an island that is not suitable for human habitation, with lives being put at risk. That he and his party would support and encourage people to be put in that position is, quite frankly, shameful and absurd, given their commentary on other issues in relation to irregular migration. I find it absolutely astounding. I am not going to take any lessons from the hon. Gentleman here.

I thank the Minister for his statement. There have been many discussions over the amount of money that was going to be paid, and the methodology and how it was reached. I am prepared to park those discussions on the basis that provision has indeed been made in the Government’s budget lines to pay for this treaty, which is now in abeyance. For the time that it is in abeyance, can the Minister tell us that 100% of the amount that would have been paid to Mauritius will now go into the defence budget and pay for hard power?

The hon. Gentleman well knows that I am not part of the Treasury team, and it is not for me to respond to those points. In the interim, we remain responsible for the BIOT Administration, as well as the long-standing arrangements between us and the United States regarding the crucial operations on the base. The hon. Gentleman is aware, as I have set out on many occasions, of the priceless value of the capabilities there. That is why we set out this treaty and this deal as the best way to secure those capabilities.

The Minister was asked a very precise question by the hon. Member for North Dorset (Simon Hoare). That question was this: outside of any monetary obligations under the treaty, will a single penny be paid to Mauritius going forward? It is a very simple question. It is nothing to do with the treaty; the treaty is gone in that sense. Outside of any obligations under the treaty, will there be a single penny paid to Mauritius? Surely the Minister can answer that question, rather than continuing to dodge it.

We have relationships with many different countries around the world, including through our ODA programmes, through different multilateral programmes, and through our investments and all sorts of things that are in the British national interest. I can assure the hon. and learned Gentleman that the costs associated with this treaty cannot be paid without the treaty. I have been clear about that from the beginning. He can impugn it all he likes, but those are the facts.

I thank the Minister for his statement and for outlining the reality of where we are today. I think it is important that we understand what this means. The Minister has also made clear the failings. There were Chagossians who asked us to retain control of the islands due to human rights considerations and other issues. While the future of the treaty is uncertain, what will the Government and the Minister do to engage with those who are disenfranchised and uncertain due to the treaty failure?

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question. We will of course continue to engage with the Chagossian communities, including with those who disagree; I am absolutely committed to that, as I have been throughout. As I have said, there will be many Chagossians who will be deeply disappointed by this delay. I think it is important that their views are understood and respected, as well as the views of those who oppose this treaty.