PARLIAMENTARY DEBATE
Diego Garcia Military Base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill - 20 January 2026 (Commons/Commons Chamber)

Before we move to consideration of the Lords amendments, I can confirm that Lords amendments 2, 3 and 6 engage Commons financial privilege. Having given careful consideration to Lords amendments 2 and 3, Mr Speaker is satisfied that they would impose a charge on the public revenue that has not been authorised by this House. In accordance with paragraph (3) of Standing Order No. 78, the amendments will therefore be deemed to be disagreed to and are not subject to debate.

Lords amendments 2 and 3 deemed to be disagreed to (Standing Order No. 78(3)).

Clause 1

Commencement of Treaty and main provisions of this Act

With this it will be convenient to discuss:

Lords amendment 5, and Government motion to disagree.

Lords amendment 6, and Government motion to disagree.

Lords amendment 4.

Throughout the passage of this Bill, the Minister has prayed in aid the support of the United States of America and the wider Five Eyes community. This morning the President of the United States dropped what could be described as a depth charge on that and made very clear what he thinks. What are the House and the Government to read of what the Minister says was the American position on the Bill and what it appears that its commander-in-chief is saying today?

Following the excellent point made by my hon. Friend the Member for North Dorset (Simon Hoare), does the Minister realise that the President of the United States, following his perspicacious comments last night, has had a chance to examine the deal in full? Does he therefore understand why the last Conservative Government, of which I was a part—indeed, doing the job the Minister is doing now—would never ever have got this deal?

The Minister makes an important point. The key thing about the negotiations is that they were predicated on the United States’ concern about the continuing operation of the base in the context of concerns around international law. The position set out by the President of the United States last night is that he is not concerned about this—in fact, he is concerned about the deal the other way around. Moreover, I do not think that any of us would think that there is a concern around international law vis-à-vis the President of the United States. We are talking about two material changes. Surely in the face of these material changes, now is the time to pause and reconsider the implementation of the treaty. The circumstances have changed.

I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. I have heard him in this Chamber a number of times say that the United States supported this deal. The President of the United States clearly does not support it any more. I would have thought that that was the case for a pause, but I would also have thought that something else that has changed was the case for a pause: the resolution of the United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination has also asked for the Bill not to go forward. Does the Minister not think that those two things together mean that we should pause?

I thank the Minister for giving way; every time he comes to the House, he is most courteous. He mentioned the example of the former Prime Minister, but the former Prime Minister stated very clearly that the negotiations had to result in a “mutually beneficial” agreement. That did not happen, and therefore the Government ended those negotiations. Today, this Government are expecting us to vote on Third Reading for a deal that our greatest ally—an ally that the Minister has advocated for through this whole process—has turned its back on. How can he expect the House to do that when the circumstances have fundamentally changed?

On that point, the Minister will be aware that the matter was debated at length in the Lords. Indeed, one of the amendments that we are considering deals precisely with the entitlements of the Chagossians. They were not involved in the negotiations at any stage, and they have made that clear. Why on earth would the Minister reject the Lords amendment, which simply says that they should have a defining say in their own future?

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The Chair made it clear at the outset that the amendments that deal with matters of finance were inappropriate to be considered here, for obvious reasons. I understood, however, that the amendments that we were debating, including those that reference the Chagossians, do not concern finance in particular. Can you clarify the matter?

The Deputy Speaker who was in the Chair before me read out the statement, and I will do so again for clarity. Having given careful consideration to Lords amendments 2 and 3, Mr Speaker is satisfied that they would impose a charge on the public revenue that has not yet been authorised by this House. In accordance with paragraph (3) of Standing Order No. 78, the amendments will therefore be deemed to be disagreed to and are not subject to debate.

We cannot keep having the same discussion again and again. This is a very substantial debate and many people hope to speak, so let us proceed as fast as we can.

Will the Minister give way?

The Minister mentions the United States’ wishes, and he appears to be presenting the case that the United States remains in the position that it was in previously, despite what President Trump said last night. The Deputy Prime Minister said in February:

“If President Trump doesn’t like the deal, the deal will not go forward”.

Last night, President Trump said that he did not like the deal. Is it still going forward, or is the Minister suggesting that President Trump did not mean what he said last night?

The Minister seems to be putting an awful lot of faith in the good intent and reliability of the Mauritian Government. They are a close ally of China, which, he might remember, gave us cast-iron guarantees about the future of the Hongkongers once the lease on Hong Kong was given up. I gently remind him that the 2024 Labour manifesto, entitled “Change”, stated:

“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.”

Can he look the Chagossians in the Gallery in the eye and tell them that that is what the Government are now doing?

It is in your manifesto.

Will the Minister give way?

Can the Minister confirm that the deal provides certainty and full operational use of the base for 99 years?

This evening, the Minister is trying to convince us to vote for this Chagos deal. The President of the United States says that the Government are handing over the island “FOR NO REASON WHATSOEVER”, so can he give us some reasons?

I thank the Minister for giving way and for his detailed explanation of how the calculations have been made. The Government Actuary’s Department clearly stated that this deal would cost £34.7 billion. That figure was then confirmed by his colleague, the Minister for the Middle East, who said that all the figures had been ratified by the Government Actuary’s Department, but his colleague sitting next to him, the Minister for Defence Readiness and Industry, told me that that figure was inaccurate. Will the Minister therefore clarify how much this deal costs?

Before I call the shadow Foreign Secretary, for the benefit of the House, and to provide a fuller response to the point of order raised by the right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes), it is Lords amendments 2 and 3, which relate to the referendum, that will be disagreed to under Standing Order No. 78(3). The expenditure necessary for a referendum has not been authorised by this House. Lords amendments 5 and 6 are within the scope of the debate. Although amendment 6 engages the financial privilege of this House, it does not in itself involve any expenditure. I hope that helps colleagues.

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I only want to clarify that point slightly. Those amendments are mentioned on the Order Paper, but cannot be voted on because of financial privilege, yet they are on the Order Paper, so surely they can be debated and discussed, without us having a vote at the end. Otherwise, they should not have been put on the Order Paper.

The advice I am getting from the Clerk is that that is incorrect because the amendments were disagreed to in the Lords, so we must continue with the debate in hand, as on the Order Paper.

Labour’s Chagos surrender Bill is back, and this House has its last chance to act in the national interest, defend the rights of the Chagossian community and protect the money of hard-pressed British taxpayers, who are being expected to foot a colossal bill of £35 billion, which is being given to a foreign Government to—guess what?—cut their taxes, while our taxes rise.

I put on record the thanks of Conservative Members to the other place for their scrutiny, and their diligence in once again holding this Government to account. When Labour plotted to deny this House a debate and a vote on the surrender treaty during the 21-day process under the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010, it was Conservatives in the House of Lords who forced a debate and a vote. When Labour limited the time for this House to give the Bill the line-by-line scrutiny it needed, it was the House of Lords that stepped in and made time available. When this Labour Government ignored and neglected the views of the Chagossian community, it was the House of Lords and the International Relations and Defence Committee that came to the rescue and organised a survey, giving important insights into Chagossians’ concerns about the Government of Mauritius and the future of their ancestral home. When Labour refused to accept any amendments to modify and improve this £35 billion surrender Bill, it was the House of Lords that made important changes, which we are debating today.

Let me be clear: this is a Bill that the Conservatives have fought against at every single stage. We will not accept this deal to surrender British sovereignty; it is a deal that we will continue to oppose and challenge Ministers on. Every vote today is a vote to kill this Bill. We will keep on voting against this Bill and opposing it until the Government—and, one would hope, the Prime Minister—see sense, withdraw it and tear up the treaty. We are not the only ones vociferously opposing this, because we now know that the President of the United States is against it; he says that it is being done “for no reason whatsoever”, and that China and Russia will

“have noticed this act of total weakness.”

I asked the Minister what the reasons were for the Government signing away the Chagos islands. He could not give any reasons. The President of the United States says that the Government are giving the islands away “for no reason whatsoever”, so can my right hon. Friend give us any reason to sign off this deal today?

Let me remind my right hon. Friend exactly what the President of the United States said. He has said that this is being done “for no reason whatsoever”, and that

“There is no doubt that China and Russia have noticed this act of total weakness.”

The previous Foreign Secretary, now the Deputy Prime Minister, is on the record as saying:

“If President Trump doesn’t like the deal, the deal will not go forward… they’ve got to be happy with the deal or there is no deal”,

so why has Labour continued to press this Bill?

In the light of the President’s comments, can the Minister tell us what will happen to the status of the 1966 exchange of notes between the UK and the United States, which states clearly that the British Indian Ocean Territory

“shall remain under United Kingdom sovereignty”?

What is the impact on that agreement? Is it being changed?

When I and other colleagues intervened on the Minister, we seemed to get a rather la-la land answer about the Government’s response to what the President of the United States has said. In terms, the Minister said, “I’ll go and have a word with him and put him straight.” Well, good luck with that! The Government, having prayed in aid for so long the unalloyed support of the United States, have now lost it. Is my right hon. Friend as confused as I am to see that they are pretending that the incident never happened? It is like the “Bobby in the shower” moment in “Dallas”.

I thank my hon. Friend for his comments. The Opposition are completely against this deal, and the President of the United States has said that it is going ahead “for no reason whatsoever”. It seems to me that the Government are still on hold to the President of the United States.

I am too young to have seen that scene in “Dallas”, so that went slightly over my head. Does the right hon. Member agree that we cannot read too much into a social media post? After all, the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage) has said about the right hon. Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick):

“Jenrick is a fraud. I’ve always thought so”,

and

“Don’t believe a word that he says”.

Is it not true that we cannot always stick with the same mindset on social media?

Let me say, for the benefit of everyone in this House, that the United States of America is our strongest ally when it comes to the national security of our country, and rightly so. When the President of the United States raises concerns, we should listen to them, and I would like to think that this Government will act on them.

Let me turn to the details of Lords amendment 5, which would introduce new provisions on transparency about the costs that British taxpayers are being forced to pay. It is vital that this House sees the full costs, as Labour has never acknowledged or accepted the financial costs and burdens of this Bill for the taxpayer. As the House knows, the Conservative party had to force the information out of the Government through freedom of information requests. Labour Ministers have had the bare-faced cheek to come here and give us their valuation of £3.5 billion, whereas the Government Actuary’s Department tells us that it is £35 billion.

In most areas of Government spending, Labour likes to brag about how much is being spent—welfare is a familiar theme that it likes to go on about—but on this issue, it is using a valuation technique to downplay the amount. We have heard the Prime Minister claim that this is

“how the OBR counts the cost”.

However, the Office for Budget Responsibility has said:

“The OBR does not hold any information on the costs or financial impacts of the specific treaty over the future sovereignty of the Chagos Archipelago. We can confirm that we have not been contacted by HM Treasury, MoD or the Governments Actuary’s Department”,

so what is the truth? This amendment would help to bring about more openness and transparency on the costs.

I commend the shadow Minister and the Conservative party on this amendment, which is crucial. The key is whether the British Government have fully briefed the US about the risks to the Pelindaba treaty that will result from Diego Garcia becoming sovereign to Mauritius, because if they have, President Trump will be very glad to comment on that. Does she agree that the thing to do now might be to contact President Trump?

The hon. Gentleman is right that that treaty relates to nuclear weapons coming on to the base at Diego Garcia. That is why our emphasis must be on the strength of the relationship between our two countries when it comes to our national security—this House will not disagree on that—but it is deeply concerning that the President of the United States has explicitly expressed his disapproval of this entire process and this giveaway. To address the hon. Member’s point about the nuclear treaty, we should absolutely be engaging with our closest ally, the United States of America.

It is not as if the President of the United States has not expressed disapproval; he says it is an “act of great stupidity” to do this deal. Does my right hon. Friend think that it is ironic that the Secretary of State for Defence made the first statement to the House on the subject last May, but with less than 12 hours to go until what could have been the final stage of the Bill, the President has absolutely trashed the deal?

My hon. Friend is right, and what he says speaks to it being complete nonsense for the Government to have proceeded with the Bill. It is an act of gross self-harm and, to quote the President of the United Sates, an “act of great stupidity” that will have significant consequences for this Government.

Has my right hon. Friend noticed that the Minister, who is, shall we say, a flexible friend in the cause of the Government’s policies, has been relying on the fact that, in the past, other Members of Donald Trump’s Government in America have been saying supportive things about the Bill? Would she like to cast a wager with the Minister, as I would, that 24 hours after Donald Trump changed his tune, the Government will change their tune in exactly the same direction?

If the Government wish to U-turn and scrap the Bill, we would welcome that and support it; there is no question about that.

I turn to amendment 1. It is not just when it comes to money, which is addressed in amendment 5, that the Government’s claims lack any credibility; amendment 1, which deals with the surrender of British sovereignty, leaves us weaker and, as we have heard from my right hon. and hon. Friends, will compromise the long-term operations of the base.

We are required to give notice to the Government of Mauritius about a range of activities taking place on the base. As the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) pointed out, Mauritius is a signatory to the Pelindaba treaty, and if that applies to Diego Garcia, it would prohibit the stationing and storage of nuclear weapons there. This is very serious. While the Prime Minister has claimed that China, Russia and Iran oppose the surrender, we know that they back it; they publicly endorse it, and they will seek to gain from this lack of sovereignty.

These points are all relevant to amendment 1, as it requires the Government to renegotiate article 11 of the treaty, so that payments cease should the use of the base for military purposes became impossible. Obviously, we hope that that scenario does not materialise, as we believe that Diego Garcia is a vital cornerstone of our national security and defence, and should remain so. However, as the treaty stands, if we stop using the base, the UK is still bound to make pretty significant payments over the 99-year lease period; it is a huge cost. Amendment 1 is therefore a vital point of contingency.

We would like the whole agreement binned, but we believe that it is reasonable and practical for the Government to accept this change. When he sums up, will the Minister explain why he is not prepared to consider the amendment, and to renegotiate parts of the treaty?

Does my right hon. Friend, like me, feel some sympathy for the Minister? He has rested his whole case on the support of the United States of America. The Deputy Prime Minister said that the Bill would not go ahead if the American President did not support it. We all remember the great mystery about who shot J.R., but there is no mystery about who shot the Minister’s fox—it was the President of the United States last night, and the Minister’s whole case has crumbled.

My right hon. Friend is spot on. This is the critical moment when the Government should tear up the Bill and scrap this disaster. It should not proceed at all.

Has my right hon. Friend noticed, like me, that all the military veterans in the Government and on the Labour Benches—with one notable exception—seem to have abandoned their post today? I have counted about nine veterans on our Benches. If more veterans had been on the Labour Benches, perhaps they could have told the Front Benchers about the forlorn hope. The forlorn hope were the people who were sent out either to defend the indefensible or to go on suicidal attack missions. They were in search of either promotion or pardons for sins of the past. Does she agree that the Front Benchers have been sent out here to defend the indefensible?

I thank—[Interruption.] Order. I can make a decision; I do not need any help. That was not exactly a point of order, Minister. It was much more of an intervention, which may have been taken by the Member who was about to rise to her feet. However, the Minister has got his point on the record. We need to move at a pace; otherwise, we will not get speakers in.

Although Lords amendments 2 and 3 have not been selected, I will briefly comment on them for members of the Chagossian community watching this debate. Owing to the actions of the Conservatives in the House of Lords, the Government were forced to slow down the ratification process for a brief moment while a survey was undertaken in the other place by the International Relations and Defence Committee. That was very important, because something like 3,000 respondents gave a view. They gave a very clear statement as to the direction of travel on the Chagos Islands—their ancestral home—and they want them to remain British.

Will my right hon. Friend give way?

I will very briefly give way—this will be the last intervention I take.

If this is such a good deal, why does my right hon. Friend think that one of my local authorities is having to house hundreds of Chagossians who are fleeing to the UK to escape its consequences?

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I am aware that his local authority is under a range of pressures from Chagossians who are basically fleeing to the United Kingdom. They have raised many serious concerns about the Government of Mauritius and expressed a clear wish for the Chagossian community to be respected, engaged, stood up for absolutely and to have their voices listened to.

The Chagossian community has been treated appallingly. There is a sense of betrayal of the community, and that is absolutely wrong. Although we cannot vote on Lords amendments 2 and 3 today, it is still in the gift of the Government to see sense and take action to facilitate the Chagossians’ right of self-determination. That is absolutely vital.

This entire surrender Bill is wrong, which is why we on the Conservative Benches will keep on opposing it. I have said this before, and I will say it again: to all the Labour MPs who have been whipped and commanded to enter the Division Lobby to back the surrender Bill and support the Government’s plan to remove the Lords amendments, I say, “You are being used to service the interests of your Prime Minister, rather than your country and your constituents. You are being forced to vote through paying billions to a foreign Government who are allied with our enemies and growing closer to them, while your councils and schools see their budgets squeezed and cut. You are being forced to be complicit in the betrayal of the Chagossian community, but tonight you have the chance to do the right thing and join us in the Division Lobby.”

The Conservative party will continue to stand up for our national interest, British taxpayers and the Chagossian community. That is why we will keep opposing Labour’s £35 billion Chagos surrender Bill.

Order. Back-Bench Members are on a five-minute speaking limit. That will drop further as the debate continues.

In answer to the intervention by the hon. Member for Spelthorne (Lincoln Jopp), there is more than one veteran on the Labour Benches. I wonder what the veterans from the Conservative party who went through 11 rounds of negotiations under the previous Government were saying; they clearly supported this decision at that point, and there were clear reasons for doing so.

This is not an exercise in process; it is about whether this House chooses to protect on firm, enforceable terms an overseas base that is fundamental to British security and our closest alliances. Diego Garcia is a critical asset for the UK and our allies. It supports counter-terrorism, monitors hostile state activity, and enables the rapid deployment of UK and US forces across regions that matter deeply to our national interest. Those opposing the Bill need to be clear about what they are opposing. They are opposing a treaty that secures the base for 99 years with full operational freedom, one that is backed by our allies and was negotiated substantially under the previous Government.

Will the hon. Gentleman be supporting Lords amendment 1, given that he has just specified that the base needs to be used for military purposes? If that use becomes impossible, because the islands go under water, for example—which is a real risk—would he want to carry on paying for the deal?

I will not be supporting Lords amendment 1, because it would require renegotiation. We already have a joint commission to deal with issues that arise, and international treaty law would provide routes to termination if we were in that sort of situation, so the amendment is not necessary at all. I will come back to this question later in my speech.

If we refused to comply, others—international organisations and partners—would not ignore any provisional measures that were put in place, undermining the practical operation of the base. That is the same reason that negotiations were started under the last Government, and the treaty contains safeguards that are not decorative, but operationally vital. The UK will control installations and the electromagnetic spectrum; we will control a buffer zone of 24 nautical miles, within which nothing can be built without UK consent; and there will be a strict ban on any foreign military or security presence on the outer islands. Those are precisely the kinds of protections that make the base secure, usable and resilient against interference.

As we are in the Chamber today to consider the Lords amendments, I will go through each in turn. Lords amendment 1 would require renegotiation so that the UK can stop payments if it cannot use the base. On the surface, as others have mentioned, this may sound prudent, but it is a recipe for uncertainty and delay at the very moment that we need clarity. The treaty already establishes a joint commission to deal with issues as they arise, and international treaty law provides routes to termination if an indispensable object for execution permanently disappears. The amendment adds risk, not security, undermining confidence in the treaty framework that we need to keep the base operational.

Lords amendments 2 and 3 were rejected by Mr Speaker. Lords amendment 4 deals with the procedure for orders under clause 6 of the Bill. It is a Government amendment; responding to the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, it provides appropriate parliamentary procedure. It strengthens scrutiny and is a sensible refinement to how the Bill operates, and this House should support it.

Lords amendment 5, which deals with the publication of the total costs and methodology, is duplicative. The Government published full details of the financial arrangements on the day that the treaty was signed, including the relevant explanatory material. The methodology is clear: it uses the Office for Budget Responsibility’s inflation forecasts to calculate the average annual figures, and those figures have been verified by the Government Actuary’s Department. The House of Commons Library reached the same conclusion, and the Office for Statistics Regulation has welcomed this approach. The amendment is not about transparency; it is about rerunning an argument we have had time and again in this House, including through I do not know how many urgent questions.

Lords amendment 6 deals with Commons votes to cease payments if Mauritius breaches the treaty. This would require additional parliamentary steps on anticipated expenditure.

The hon. Gentleman is talking about the costs of the deal. Can he just set them out for the House? I do not think anyone has done so in today’s debate so far, and he is speaking with such expertise. It would be great to hear from him exactly what this deal is costing.

I will happily outline that to the House. The Minister has already outlined it: it is approximately 0.25% of the defence budget, which is tiny in comparison to the base in Djibouti that the French operate. If we compare it with the operation of an aircraft carrier or something of that size, it is very good value for money.

Lords amendment 6 would cut across long-standing constitutional practice on treaty payments, and would infringe Commons financial privilege and established arrangements for authorising expenditure. More importantly, it would send a damaging signal that the UK is building an exit ramp into primary legislation, weakening our hand and injecting instability into the very agreement designed to secure the base. The treaty already contains robust dispute resolution mechanisms, which is the right way to deal with such issues.

Will the hon. Gentleman allow me to intervene one more time?

Oh, stop giving him extra time! He is not going to trouble the scorer, is he?

Order. Would the hon. Gentleman like to continue?

Yes, I will continue.

The strategic logic is straightforward. Diego Garcia’s location, infrastructure and operational utility are indispensable.

On the security of the base, does my hon. Friend recall the visit to Washington DC that I think we both went on last year as members of the Foreign Affairs Committee? We spoke to many American interlocutors, including State Department officials. Over the course of an entire week in the US capital, not a single US interlocutor disagreed with or opposed the deal before us.

My hon. Friend makes a good point. This treaty has been through the interagency process in America and has support across the system. Colleagues may have mentioned the President changing his position, but the US system is much wider than that, and I do not think we should we should base our long-term strategic and security interests on Truth Social posts.

This House should reject Lords amendments 1, 5 and 6, support the Government’s sensible procedural amendment 4, and pass this Bill in a way that protects national security, rather than gambling with it.

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker—never has a point of order been greeted with such joy from the Chair—you have rightly pointed out, as has Mr Speaker, the Lords amendments that engage Commons financial privilege. We guard that privilege jealously and exercise it with caution. How is the House supposed to exercise that financial privilege in an informed way when, despite several probes to the Minister to come up with a figure for what this deal will cost the public purse, those right hon. and hon Members attending the debate this afternoon have not been given that figure? We have had a lot of theory about how a figure had been arrived at, but no figure. How do we exercise—

Order. Mr Hoare, I am worried that the longer you speak, the longer you will disappoint other colleagues who are hoping to contribute later in the debate, and I would not want to ruin your reputation on that front. This feels like a continuation of the debate. The Minister may or may not wish to respond to that point during his closing speech, but my job is to make sure that as many Members as possible who have sat through this debate get to put their voice on the record.

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

Please forgive my slightly croaky tones today, Madam Deputy Speaker.

Please keep your speech short.

I will do my best, having received that cue from you, Madam Deputy Speaker.

This Bill returns to us from the other place with amendments that raise serious questions about the governance, cost and durability of the treaty concerning the future of Diego Garcia and the wider Chagos archipelago. For decades, decisions about the Chagos islands were taken without the consent of the Chagossian people. That was the defining feature of the injustice that they have experienced. My concern, shared by many across this House and others in this place, is that unless the Government properly consider the Lords amendments, Parliament risks giving statutory effect to a framework that lacks the safeguards necessary for accountability, legitimacy and long-term sustainability. That is precisely what the Lords amendments seek to address.

In the things that they have proposed, the Government have acknowledged the historic wrongdoing to the Chagossian people. They have recognised the right of return in principle and proposed a £40 million trust fund to address the harms caused by forced displacement. The framework before us today provides limited assurance, however, that the Chagossian people will have any meaningful agency over the decisions and structures that will shape their future. That matters, because legitimacy is not derived from intergovernmental agreement alone. It rests on whether those affected can participate meaningfully in decisions taken about their homeland.

At the core of the United Nations charter lies the principle of self-determination. Article 1.2 could not be clearer. One of the purposes of the United Nations is:

“To develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and the self-determination of peoples”.

We reasonably expected to have the opportunity to vote to reaffirm our commitment to the UN charter and, crucially, our commitment to the right of Chagossians as a distinct, albeit displaced people to self-determine their future. It is therefore deeply regrettable that Members across this House have been denied that opportunity today.

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way, and I am very sorry about his throat. I suspect that he, like me, is keen for Greenlanders to have the right of self-determination. Time and again, we have sat through the speeches of Ministers who have harped on about the need to defend their right to a say in what happens to them. Will the hon. Gentleman compare and contrast that with the situation faced by the Chagossians, and explain why the Danes can put into law the right for their people to have a say in their future but we are about to rule it out for people to whom we owe a duty of care?

If the right hon. Gentleman will bear with me for two minutes, I will get to precisely that point.

It is shameful that a meaningful referendum was not the starting point of this Government’s approach, which left Opposition parties to insist on it through amendments. It is equally shameful that this principle has today been rejected on the grounds of cost. What price do the Government place on self-determination? Among Chagossians, this will be received for what it is: justice layered upon injustice.

This Government, and Governments before them, have routinely defended our overseas territories in the international arena on the basis of the self-determining rights of their citizens. Today, this Government rightly defend Greenland on that same basis, asserting the right of Greenlanders to determine their own future. It is therefore with deep regret that I speak in support of that right and of that principle as expressed through Lords amendments 2 and 3, knowing that we will have no opportunity to vote in favour of those amendments when a Division is called.

In respect of accountability and oversight, Lords amendments 5 and 6 would reinforce Parliament’s role in scrutinising the financial commitments of this agreement. They would ensure that the House is not asked to authorise long-term expenditure without clarity on its scale, duration and assumptions. The amendments would require transparency in the way in which costs are calculated, and ensure that Parliament retains control over future payments. That is not obstruction; it is a proper exercise of parliamentary responsibility, and one owed to future Administrations and to the public. The amendments would also give the Government a mechanism to terminate the deal and all future payments to Mauritius should Mauritius fail to honour its obligations.

In May, the Prime Minister said that the deal would cost up to £3.4 billion over 99 years. However, freedom of information disclosures suggest an initial estimate closer to £34.7 billion, a figure that we have already heard today. That disparity risks further undermining trust in this Government, and confidence in their wider approach to public spending. At a time when families across Britain face cost of living pressures, Parliament is entitled—indeed expected—to demand clarity before committing taxpayers to potentially vast long-term liabilities that will endure well beyond any of our lifetimes.

In respect of security and durability, Lords amendment 1 addresses the strategic importance of Diego Garcia, and would ensure that the United Kingdom is not locked into ongoing payments should the military use of the base become impossible. Given the rapidly shifting nature of the United Kingdom’s relationship with the United States, particularly under its current President, the amendment is essential to ensure that we are not bound into a long-term lease without a similarly long-term tenant. No one in this House or the other place disputes the strategic importance of Diego Garcia to our national security, and to global security more broadly. The amendment reflects that reality, and raises legitimate questions about the long-term viability of this deal.

Let me now return briefly to Lords amendments 5 and 6, which together form a coherent and, in my view, proportionate package. They would reinforce parliamentary oversight, protect the public purse, and hold the Government’s financial commitments to account. The other place has not sought to frustrate the Bill; it has asked whether Parliament is prepared to proceed without sufficient safeguards on cost, governance and legitimacy concerns.

I again place on record my disappointment that Lords amendments 2 and 3 were not selected for today’s debate. They would have provided the Chagossian people with a referendum, allowing them a direct and meaningful say over their future—something that remains conspicuously absent despite repeated assurances about consultation.

The Chagossians are not, and should not be, diplomatic collateral. They are not a note in the marginalia of an agreement between Mauritius and the United Kingdom. They are a people who have been treated badly by our country and are now deserving of agency, dignity and justice. For those reasons, the Liberal Democrats urge the Government to accept Lords amendments 1, 5 and 6. More than that, however, we urge the Government to pause, to reflect on the changing geopolitical circumstances in which we find ourselves, and to think again about whether this is the right approach for us, for the Chagossian people, and for our future security.

It has been said that some hon. and right hon. Members have come to the debate on Chagos late in the day. That is right. The right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) has been banging on about Chagos for decades, and I admire him for doing so. I first became concerned when I saw how much it would cost the United Kingdom to pay for something that we own. As a litmus test, I asked myself whether I could explain to my constituents why we are going to pay an island nation that has no direct connection with Diego Garcia.

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his kind comments. Fundamentally, I spoke about Diego Garcia and the Chagos islands for many years because of the injustice that was done and the islanders’ right of return. The whole point has been to gain the right of return, which has been won through this Bill for the outer islands and, in a limited form, for Diego Garcia itself.

That is at the heart of what has gone wrong, and the right hon. Gentleman has been talking about it for a long time. The Chagossians were treated as itinerant workers in the 1960s, so they did not get the basic rights that people got in other British protectorates. They were discriminated against, and we are discriminating against them again by giving Mauritius the power to determine what goes on. The only solution to the central issue is not a survey, which the House of Lords is doing in good faith; it is to have a referendum, which has been ruled out of order today, for good reasons in procedural terms. We should give the Chagossians a say in a referendum on whether they want to return or not. Otherwise, it is all speculation.

I do not think the Minister explained why we should not take notice of the United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination. That is fundamental, because the Committee goes back to the 1960s decision, and it sees what happened then, and what is being perpetuated now, as racial discrimination, and we and the Mauritians are perpetuating that. My hon. Friend the Minister did not really respond to that point, just as he did not really address what has changed. I have listened to many of his statements in this House, when he has said in good faith that the United States supports us. Regardless of whether it did so in the past—it probably did—it certainly does not support us now. Those are two reasons for pausing and thinking again: becoming compliant with the United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination; and talking to the United States, because it has changed its position.

The amendments before us would not affect the core of the Bill, because that was dealt with in a very short period of time on Second Reading, on Report and in Committee, but they are important in as much as they ask for information. We are going to pay for something that we did not used to have to pay for. It will have consequences for our ability to look after our defence interests in the Indian ocean, and we do not know how much it will cost. Amending the Bill to give us an exact figure for those costs is important. Lords amendment 1 is also important if for some reason Mauritius changes its view or the islands disappear under water. I do not have the opportunity this evening to vote for what I would like to vote for, but I will vote for the amendments that the Lords have put before us.

I rise because in the previous debate we had on this, a question was posed to Ministers, and it has been asked again now: what are the reasons for this Bill? First, Ministers rested on one idea, which was all about how we had somehow received a binding judgment from the International Court of Justice, and this was therefore important because we had to stand by that. I remember it became clearer and clearer during that debate, particularly for some Members, that this simply was not correct. There is no binding judgment; it is an advisory judgment, because we have an opt-out for all matters to do with Commonwealth Governments. That is very clear, and it has been said by many judges and other learned legal people.

Some of my right hon. Friends, one of whom I see on the Front Bench, have raised other reasons in these debates. Beyond the ICJ judgment, we were told there were other issues, and that somehow if we did not do this we would face challenges under the United Nations convention on the law of the sea and by the International Telecommunication Union, which stands steadily. What is most interesting about all this is that, when pressed throughout, bit by bit Ministers’ arguments fell apart. These issues are very detailed, so I will not go into them now, but they will have to be raised in much more detail later.

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

I do not think I will get any extra time, so I am not sure it is such a good idea, to be honest. [Interruption.] If the hon. Member wants to give me some extra time, I will give way.

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for giving way, because I know this subject is very important to him. He has carefully explained why he does not think the Government have to act, but he has not explained why his Government were negotiating a deal if they did not have to act, at great cost and with a great consumption of time.

It does not really matter to me who is in government because I am in opposition. I was opposed to this then, so if the hon. Member does not mind, I am not going to try to defend any of that. I can tell him that I was far more opposed to it than many of his hon. Friends on the Back Benches are now. I hope I have now expunged any dishonour on my part.

On the two critical areas—UNCLOS and the ITU—we discovered that certain articles exempted us from any legal challenge in any way, and therefore they were not binding. I say that because today is a matter of intense sadness. As the Minister knows, I am a massive admirer of him for his steadiness and determination, often on unpopular matters. However, I have to say to him on Lords amendments 2 and 3, and the Liberal Democrats say the same, that this is a matter of sophistry. If we believe in free speech and free debate, and if we believe in voting on what we believe or what we oppose, I genuinely ask why we cannot do so on Lords amendments 2 and 3.

Sitting in the Gallery are people who will be utterly depressed by the idea that this Chamber has shut itself out from debating the rights of the Chagossians and to vote on those rights today. I know it was clever to get that done, and I know the Speaker’s Office was under pressure to do that, but I simply say that this is not right. It is not right that this House cannot decide on those rights, particularly given that the UN committee mentioned by the hon. Member for Blackley and Middleton South (Graham Stringer) has made it very clear that the Government should stay this legislation, because of its fears with regard to race relations.

I simply say that this is a sad moment for this House, because this horribly flimsy piece of legislation completely casts away any rationale. Then this morning we heard from the President of the United States, who was previously prayed in aid in all this; it was said that we should somehow motor through this because he was in favour of it, and if the American Government are in favour of it, we should stand with them. A previous Foreign Secretary said that if America did not want it and did not agree with it, we would not do it, but here we are rushing through with it.

Why are we rushing? Why do we not stay this Bill, wait to hear exactly what America thinks about it and make a decision about whether we carry on? Surely, that would make more sense and be more rational. Through all of this, I just do not get what the unpalatable haste is all about—to dismiss the Chagossians, to dismiss the logic and the reasons why we have to do this, and to head towards paying billions and billions of pounds of taxpayers’ money for no reason at all. I think somebody else said that today.

Meanwhile, China is looking at this and laughing, as are Russia, Iran and all the other nasty states. Honestly, this is a bad day. This is badly done. It is a bad day for us and for the concepts of dispute, debate and liberty. We should hang our heads in shame, because the House of Lords is better at debating things than we are, and it has much better rights.

The time limit on speeches is now four minutes.

My hon. Friend the Member for Halesowen (Alex Ballinger) has said much of what I was going to say, thankfully, so I will try to be brief. The shadow Foreign Secretary, the right hon. Member for Witham (Priti Patel), made a set of arguments predicated on the case for national security. It is therefore important to take on the question of how secure we are. Look at the economic security that this Government inherited: 15 years of slow, weak growth, the lowest business investment in the G7, and wages that had grown at a consistent 2% a year flatlining. Look at the impacts of the Brexit deal negotiated by the Conservatives: in early 2025, the UK’s GDP was between 6% and 8% lower than it would have been without Brexit, and we lost between £180 billion and £240 billion of output. This is important, because it relates to the credibility of the Opposition when they make their case on the basis of national security.

Order. Mr Hayes, this debate is about the issue in hand, not the credibility of the Opposition. Let us get to the point quickly.

Moving forward three pages—those pages were a condensed history of how our country was left completely insecure by the Opposition—to look at Diego Garcia, it is a critical UK asset for national security. We all agree on that in the House. It supports counter-terrorism, monitors hostile states and enables rapid deployment of US and UK forces worldwide. That is, in large part, why the US Administration have backed what this Government have been pushing forward. Recent operations against high-value ISIS targets show its vital role in keeping global trade routes and the British people safe.

With this deal, we have full operational freedom. We have control of installations, communications, logistics and land use with strict safeguards, a UK-controlled electromagnetic spectrum, a 24 nautical mile buffer zone and a ban on foreign military presence on the outer islands. In the interests of giving a briefer speech, I am going to put down the two pages that further explain the way in which the treaty reinforces the UK’s relationship with the Chagos islands and supports our national security.

We have talked about this issue at great length. There have been many urgent questions, statements and debates in the House. The Opposition talk about the importance of national security. This country is facing some of the gravest threats to our national security. We are repelling Russian cyber-attacks and disinformation daily. Our security services are having to fight against Russian spying and sabotage of our infrastructure.

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am not sure which amendments are being addressed. There are at least five on the amendment paper to be talked about. I just wondered if Russia is relevant to any of those amendments.

Dr Luke Evans, you need to stop using points of order to continue debates. No doubt Mr Hayes is going to get right to the point and then conclude very quickly.

I always listen to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and to the hon. Member for Hinckley and Bosworth (Dr Evans). As I said at the outset, I support all of what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Halesowen, who went into great detail about the amendments. The point I am bringing us back to is that Conservative Members need to put country before petty party politics. They are acting in a childish way and they are overexcited about this debate. This treaty protects our national interest. It safeguards British interests. The Opposition have a cheek, when they were responsible for at least 85% of the negotiations that led to this debate.

I will close with this. In this House, we speak through the Chair, because doing so tempers debate. When I speak with schoolchildren about the House, they remark upon the fact that we are in an old building, and that shows our continuity over many years of history. In this place, we make decisions in a sombre, sober way. We do not make them in the same way as the President of the United States did last night, in the form of a rash tweet. Let us not take that social media post at face value. Let us do the reasonable thing and debate this matter properly.

Some “very tiny islands”. That is how this Government’s National Security Adviser described Diego Garcia and the Chagos islands. I am afraid that that contempt is consistent with how they continue to treat those people. The former Foreign Secretary never once met Chagossians. There is no evidence that the current Foreign Secretary has ever met Chagossians. I am afraid that the Minister at the Dispatch Box met Chagossians only on 30 September and 3 October, after the deal was done, and refused to discuss the deal with them—unless he is saying that those who are here today are lying. By contrast—before anyone starts to heckle—I have had many meetings with representatives of the Chagossian community and organised roundtables with them.

We urgently need Lords amendments 1, 5 and 6 on financial oversight of this £34.7 billion bill the British people are about to have to foot. The clawback option is the bare minimum the Government should accept for the eventuality that Mauritius breaks the conditions of this appalling deal, because it is quite likely that we will see mistreatment of the Chagossian people. It is also important that the clawback is there because we will need to review and understand the surge of Chagossians who came to the UK after the deal was announced. The Government tried to dismiss it, and claimed that the increase had nothing to do with the deal. That is wrong and we will continue to see that.

This is a bad deal. The agreement is legally illiterate: there was an ICJ opinion, not a ruling. It is historically illiterate, because the Chagos islands have never belonged to Mauritius. This is a bad deal, ceding territory not to those hailing from those islands, but to a country that has consistently mistreated Chagossians and legislated to criminalise their views. The Bill cements the shameful treatment of the Chagossian people into law.

Anyone who votes against the clawback tonight should be ashamed of themselves, because they should want to put in place the minimum protections for the people of the Chagos islands—those people who have come this evening to hear us debate, because their voices have not been heard in this Chamber and they have been denied by a Government who would not meet them, a Government who have no interest in supporting them, and a Government who tonight will vote against the only protections that might make sure that their voice is heard.

I align myself with the comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Halesowen (Alex Ballinger).

In South East Cornwall, we may be geographically removed from Diego Garcia, but we are closely connected to the realities of our national defence. Torpoint has the third highest number of veterans of any community, with over 14% of people having served. Residents across the area have written to me about the importance of this issue. His Majesty’s Naval Base Devonport is the largest naval base in western Europe and a key part of our national defence capability, so we are an area that understands the importance of national defence and its complexities. We know that it requires long-term thinking and joint working with multiple allies, each of whom understandably has its own national interests in mind.

Does the Minister agree that this matter is about not just international law, but securing Britain’s ability to defend itself, including control over key capabilities such as berthing submarines, electromagnetic defence and force mobility? Given that 85% of the Chagos negotiations took place under the Conservatives, does the Minister know why the Tories started negotiations when they were in government if they did not think there was a threat to the crucial base?

As well as defence, South East Cornwall has deep ties to our marine environment, with many local livelihoods dependent on the sea. Our local economy relies on a healthy and resilient marine environment, so it is important to recognise the role of that environment. The Chagos marine protected area was established in 2010. Through the Blue Belt programme, the UK has continued to play a leading role in enhancing marine protection across the overseas territories. For Members who may not be aware, this is a brilliant programme that works with local communities to understand biodiversity, manage impacts and build a deeper understanding between people and nature. The marine protected area is home to extraordinary marine life. Research has shown that it contributes to climate resilience at a global scale.

Mauritius has committed to protecting that marine environment, which I welcome. However, as an island state located miles from the base, I have concerns about the practicalities of monitoring and enforcing protections against harmful activity. What provisions in the Bill and the treaty will safeguard the existing marine protected area and ensure that effective enforcement remains in place to prevent harm to the ecosystem and the species that depend on it?

This Government’s handover of the Chagos islands is nothing short of a disgrace. British taxpayers are being asked to stump up billions of pounds to pay for the privilege of giving away something we own—a strategically vital territory—to a close ally of the Chinese Communist party. And why? All because of an entirely advisory opinion issued by politicised judges in the International Court of Justice.

People across the country are rightly asking why on earth any British Government would agree to a deal that diminishes our strategic capabilities and costs us billions in the process, particularly when the Government are already putting the squeeze on people’s finances in so many ways. The Government’s arguments for doing so were already thin, and they become even thinner when we consider the amendments before us today.

Another question that might be asked is why the Conservatives started the negotiations in the first place.

The question that we are voting on today is the deal that the Government have agreed to. It is an appalling deal, and it should be opposed.

The Government’s arguments for putting the deal forward become even thinner when we look at the amendments and how the Government have responded to them both here and in the other place. If, as the Government claim, the deal will make us safer, why not support Lords amendment 1, which would ensure that payments are made to the Mauritian Government only if our armed forces retain access to the Diego Garcia base? We have already heard that the Government will not support Lords amendments 2 and 3, but if, as the Government claim, the costs of the deal are proportionate, why not support Lords amendments 5 and 6, which would provide much-needed transparency about why taxpayers are being asked to stump up so much for the privilege of handing away territory? We hear no such support for those amendments, so the Chagos handover cannot really be about our security, the Chagossians or self-determination.

So what is it about? The truth is that this so-called deal is motivated entirely by ideology. We have heard from the Government’s Attorney General that “almost every aspect” of the British empire was “deeply racist”, echoing the language used by the Mauritians at the International Court of Justice. Of course, when Britain has done something seriously wrong, we should be honest about that, but in the case of the Chagos islands, there was no original British sin. Mauritius never had sovereignty over the Chagos islands, and practically no Mauritians have ever lived there. The islands have been under British sovereignty since 1814, before which they were occupied by the French. Before that, they were uninhabited. This is no decolonisation; it is a surrender.

Our history is complex. It contains cruelties, yes, but also enormous contributions to human health, wealth and flourishing around the world. The darkest moments in our history were hardly unique, yet many of the most virtuous moments in that history were truly exceptional. I believe that we should be proud of the contributions that our country has made to the world. However, the Government’s position on the amendments lays bare the truth: they simply do not agree. Instead, they believe that it is their responsibility to go around the world flagellating themselves and righting imagined wrongs on behalf of and at the expense of the British taxpayer. To their minds, this country is indelibly stained by the actions of those who came before us. The Chagos surrender is one such example, but it is not the only one, and I fear it will not be the last. To attempt to right the wrongs, real or imagined, of the distant past by squeezing the taxpayers of today is divisive madness.

If the Government ever want the British people to believe that they are motivated by anything other than deep shame about our history, they would do well to accept the amendments before us today or—far better—to scrap this deal entirely. The British people are owed a Government who stand up for their interests today, not punish them for the imagined sins of our ancestors.

This is a sad day for the United Kingdom. The Government have not been prepared to stand up for the interests of the United Kingdom. Indeed, they seem to be willing to surrender when any challenge is made to its interests.

Let us look at some of the arguments that the Minister has made against the amendments. First, the Minister said that nothing has changed since the Bill was originally brought to the House, but of course we have seen that the American attitude has changed. The United Nations says that we are not giving the protections to the people we should be giving them to—in fact, we are more interested in the rights of the Danes who live in Greenland than the Chagossian population. The UN has actually said that we should stay this. So there have been changes, and the changes have been substantial.

The second argument we heard is that the base was under threat and we therefore had to make changes. I noticed what the hon. Member for South East Cornwall (Anna Gelderd) said about the marine protected area and the environmental requirements on the Mauritian Government, but there is no legal requirement in this treaty for the Mauritian Government to protect the marine protected area. Indeed, they have made it quite clear that fishing will be allowed in the marine protected area. What is the danger there? It is of course that Chinese ships can come into the area, and we know that in the South China sea, the Chinese have used commercial ships as their eyes and ears, so the base is under threat as a result of this change.

Does the right hon. Gentleman recognise the 24-nautical mile exclusion zone that the Government negotiated in the treaty? It will prevent many of the things that he referred to.

It is not just a question of ensuring that the 24-nautical-mile exclusion zone prevents spying and everything else; the area would still be left environmentally damaged, and there would still be a threat to the military base.

Thirdly, the Government have refused even to consider the Lords amendment about cost. At a time when we are looking for every penny, so that we can supply the citizens of this country with the services that they require, the Government are turning their nose up at an amendment that would ensure that if the base cannot be used, we will no longer pay for it. The Minister has talked about the cost. He has told us all the mechanisms by which the cost has been calculated, but he has not actually told us what the cost is. Is it £3 billion? Is it £10 billion? Is it £37 billion? The difference between those figures is significant to our constituents.

The £35 billion figure has been cited the most today. This is taxpayers’ money that should be funding schools, hospitals and other much-needed infrastructure. The deal is not only a shameful surrender of national sovereignty but a waste of taxpayers’ money.

Most people listening to this debate, even if they do not know a great deal about the Chagos islands and the base, will understand that we have handed over the islands when there was no necessity to do so, only to use taxpayers’ money to lease them back. That is one of the scandals of the treaty.

The Minister talked about building a relationship of trust with the Chagos islanders. What way is this to build trust? The Government have refused to give them a say on whether this treaty reflects their interests and deals with their concerns and the despicable way in which they have been treated in the past. The cost is wrong. The way in which we are treating the people who are affected by the treaty is wrong. The Government’s position on the long-term security of the base is wrong. This is a bad deal for the United Kingdom, and we should be ashamed that the Government’s majority is being used to push the deal through when it is so clear that it is full of flaws and problems for our future.

The Bill goes to the very heart of our national security, the safety of the British people, our global reach and our operational effectiveness in two of the most volatile and unpredictable regions of the world: the Indo-Pacific and the middle east. It also raises serious questions about the cost of this deal to the British taxpayer, which amounts to £34.7 billion.

Even in the short time since the Bill was first brought to the House, the world has become even more unstable, yet the Government remain content to press ahead with the Bill. I struggle to see how it makes us safer, considering the requirement “to expeditiously inform” Mauritius of operational activity, and considering that Mauritius is a signatory to the Pelindaba treaty. The implications of the Bill for the basing of nuclear weapons, which are vital to our security and to our deterrence, and which have been deployed to Diego Garcia in the past, should concern every Member of the House. We need further clarity and assurance from the Government on that point.

That brings me to the £28 billion shortfall in the defence budget that the Chief of the Defence Staff recently presented to the Prime Minister. It does not take a mathematician to see the point that I am making; indeed, the maths is so basic that I suggest that even the Chancellor could work it out.

I will make progress, because we are nearly out of time. Instead of pursuing the Bill, the Government could withdraw it, and redirect the vast sums involved towards addressing that shortfall and genuinely strengthening our national security.

We are short of time. Ultimately, the Lords amendment is about accountability to Parliament and to the electorate. There is no mandate for the Bill. If the Government choose to force it through using their majority, they must, at the very least, be accountable for the cost.

British Chagossians are the forgotten people of this Bill. They may have been forgotten by the Government, but they have not been forgotten by Conservative Members. We continue to oppose the Bill with them firmly in our minds. The Prime Minister has rightly stated that Greenland’s sovereignty and right to self-determination rest with the people of Greenland and the Kingdom of Denmark. The question is simple: why is that same right not afforded to the British Chagossians?

The Bill has profound implications for our national security and public expenditure. The amendments tabled by Opposition peers are there for a reason: not for political gain, but to make a bad Bill slightly less damaging, to introduce safeguards, to offer some reassurance to the British taxpayer, and to ensure that the voices of the British Chagossian people are finally heard.

Time is tight, and interventions should be taken with caution. I call Sir John Hayes.

I am immensely grateful, Madam Deputy Speaker. The best laws begin as Bills that metamorphosise during their passage and are improved through scrutiny. However, that depends on Ministers listening and learning. The amendments before us from the House of Lords are measured and reasonable. They are not wrecking amendments, but attempts to save the Government from their worst instincts. They provide greater scrutiny, greater parliamentary oversight and more checks and balances, yet they are rejected by the Government.

I will not speak, in the brief time available, about the cost of the deal, although it is wholly unpalatable that we should give away a treasured possession and then rent it back from a foreign place. I will not speak about the strategic cost of doing just that, although I will draw on Lord West’s remarks. That former Labour security Minister, who sits on the Intelligence and Security Committee with me, said:

“surrendering sovereignty over the Chagos Islands would be an irresponsible act, which would put our strategic interests—and the interests of our closest allies—in danger.”

That is wholly unwise.

I will speak, however, about the interests of the Chagossians, who have been ignored throughout this process, who were uninvolved in the negotiations from the outset, whose voice has not been heard, and whose future has been disregarded. That seems to me to be wholly unethical.

This is unwise, unpalatable, unwelcome, unethical, and fundamentally wrong. The Lords amendments would make some improvement to something that is woeful. I implore the Government to accept the amendments. More than that, I implore them to abandon this sorry mission, which is not in the national interest, and certainly not in the interests of the Chagos islanders.

If it were possible, one could almost feel sorry for the Minister. This is the Minister who, during previous stages of the Bill, batted away every criticism by telling us, “Oh, but the Americans support this deal.” He gleefully told us that they were our strongest and most important ally, and if they were enthusiastic and supportive of the Bill, what was the problem? Today, the emperor has no clothes.

The President of the United States has talked about the great stupidity of this deal. He describes a country giving away its own sovereignty as

“an act of GREAT STUPIDITY”.

Today the Minister has been forced into some indelicate gymnastics, as he tries to deal with the fact that the peg on which he hung all his defences has snapped out of place.

The Minister’s gymnastics have been equally on display when it comes to dealing with his party’s manifesto. Contrary to what he says, it is very clear that when the manifesto declares that Labour will always

“defend… sovereignty and right to self-determination”,

it is referring not only to Gibraltar and the Falklands, but to all British overseas territories and Crown dependencies. It says

“including the Falklands and Gibraltar”,

but not “exclusively the Falklands and Gibraltar”.

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

I do not think that there is time for the hon. Member to remedy his speech at this stage.

The Minister is hoisted on the petard of his own manifesto, of which he is in blatant breach. He can hardly look the people of the Chagos islands in the eye, as he denies them what his manifesto promised them. They are the people who are hurting here. They are at the heart of this. They have not been treated well over decades by this nation, and now we are betraying them by denying them the right to any determination of their future. That is shameful. It is something that this House should be running away from, rather than embracing. I say to the Government: it is not too late to do the right thing. It is time they did, and I trust that they will.

For the final Back-Bench contribution, I call Andrew Rosindell.

This has been fundamental to everything I have ever stood for in this House as a Member of Parliament. This Bill did not have its origins in this Government; these were originally the proposals of the previous Conservative Government. No Government have ever given the right of self-determination to the Chagossian people. Shamefully, we have treated them differently from all the other overseas territories. We sent a taskforce to rescue the Falkland Islands. Margaret Thatcher would never have given one inch of British territory away to a foreign country, let alone have paid billions of pounds to do so. This is a shameful day for our country. We are giving away the King’s islands. Rescuing the Falkland Islands was the right thing to do; betraying the Chagossian people is absolutely the wrong thing to do.

My former party went along with this for years, ignoring everything I ever said to every Foreign Minister and every Foreign Secretary. Over and over again, I raised this issue, and warned that it would lead to this catastrophe. I was ignored, and now we see the betrayal of the Chagossian people, our national security is being threatened, and we are paying billions for it. I say to all colleagues on both sides of this House—including those in my new party, but particularly those in my old party —that this is a humiliation for this country, and a betrayal of the loyal British people sitting in the Gallery today who should have the right of self-determination. I am ashamed of what this Parliament is voting on today. I will speak up for the rights, democracy and self-determination of all the British people in all the overseas territories.

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Order. Mr Francois, the speech has finished. We now come to the Minister for the wind-up.

Order. There appear to be many side conversations taking place. If Members wish to leave the Chamber, they can do so. Otherwise, we should focus on what the Minister is saying.

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker.

I hope this is an actual point of order.

I fear the Minister may have inadvertently misled the House. The only public statement by the Chinese Government on this subject was on 29 May last year when they welcomed the Chagos deal.

That is not a point of order. Can we prevent the debate from continuing in points of order? If colleagues wish to intervene, they can try to do so, and it is up to the Minister whether he wishes to respond to those interventions. We can keep going until 7.18 pm when the time will cut off.

I am not going to pursue the Minister down that line—I did that last time—but I do want to ask a simple question. This morning, we had a very clear statement from the President of the United States. The Deputy Prime Minister was also clear previously when he said that if America says no, then this does not go ahead. Are his counsels in any way discussing or thinking about waiting to find out whether that view from the President today is clear and for good? In other words, will they then stop this Bill?

I refer the Minister to article 298 of the UNCLOS treaty, which means we have a complete opt-out on military bases, but may I take him back to costs? The Government Actuary’s Department, whose whole raison d’être is to calculate long-term spending commitments, stood up the £35 billion figure—in fact, it said it might be more. Who should the House believe—people whose whole life’s work is to calculate long-term costs, or this Minister?

As the House was informed earlier, Mr Speaker is satisfied that Lords amendments 2 and 3 would impose a charge on public revenue that has not been authorised by a money resolution in this House. In accordance with paragraph (3) of Standing Order No. 78, Lords amendments 2 and 3 are therefore deemed to be disagreed to.

After Clause 5

Cost of the Treaty

Motion made, and Question put, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 5.—(Stephen Doughty.)