British Indian Ocean Territory

Andrew Murrison Excerpts

Wednesday 28th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Seema Malhotra]

Thank you, Mr Speaker.

Given the security risk, this Government, like the Government before us, made the decision to negotiate with Mauritius to secure a deal to protect the base and the UK. Our agreement ensures full operational control of Diego Garcia; a 24 nautical mile buffer zone where nothing can be built or placed without UK consent; a rigorous process including joint decision making to prevent any activities on the wider islands—some over 100 nautical miles away—from disrupting base operations; full UK control over the presence of foreign security forces on the outer islands, whether civilian or military; and a binding obligation to ensure that the operation of the base is never undermined.

[Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)]

Will the Minister give way?

[Seema Malhotra]

I will continue with my remarks for the moment. As I have said, we are confident that nothing in this treaty conflicts with our ability to uphold international law and continue to operate the base as we do today.

Moving on to the UK-US relationship, we have been clear that before the UK can ratify the treaty, we will need to do the following: pass primary and secondary legislation; update the UK-US exchange of notes; and put in place arrangements on the environment, maritime security and migration. This Government consider it our duty to protect the public. Therefore, it is our duty to pursue this agreement with clarity and resolve, and we will not put party politics ahead of national security, as we see the Opposition doing today.

We have made strong progress towards finalising an updated UK-US agreement and will reach an agreement on it before the agreement between the United Kingdom and Mauritius concerning the Chagos archipelago, including Diego Garcia, is ratified. These matters are still under negotiation, so it remains to be determined whether any updated agreement will be subject to ratification. We will keep Parliament informed about that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)]

What a pleasure it is to be called so soon, Madam Deputy Speaker; I am very grateful.

My goodness me! I do feel sorry for the Minister, being wheeled out to defend the indefensible. I have to say, the Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, the hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty), has done a Trojan piece of work on behalf of the Government, and it is only fair that he should be given the day off.

Every day is a school day when it comes to Chagos, is it not? We learn something new every day of the week, it seems. Perhaps the Government might like to reflect on whether, in that wonderful Keynesian way, when the facts change, we change our mind—apparently not. The facts have changed. The ground truth has certainly changed, not least the attitude of the United States; that is clear beyond peradventure. In February last year, the then Foreign Secretary said that without US agreement, the deal would be dead. But in recent days, the US commander-in-chief, no less, has said that the deal is “stupid” and “weak”. There cannot be any ambiguity in that. That is the contemporaneous view of our greatest partner and friend. Surely to goodness, that is justification for pausing the deal.

We have learned about the Pelindaba treaty. I have to say that I was not aware of it until very recently, but it is a showstopper. Paul Bérenger, the Deputy Prime Minister of Mauritius, recently said that there will be no nuclear weapons on Diego Garcia. He has been very helpful to the Government by laying out exactly what things will look like when Mauritius takes control of Diego Garcia. The Minister says, “Well, we cannot comment on that because it is operational,” but that is precisely what it is not. We are not talking about precise B-52s or Ohio class submarines going into Diego Garcia—I do not want to know about that. What I want to know about is the legal structure within which it is possible for these things to be in Diego Garcia and Chagos in general.

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith]

I made this point to the Minister earlier, but perhaps my right hon. Friend might also explain it. The Deputy Prime Minister of Mauritius made it clear as recently as yesterday that—as the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Tim Roca) said—there is no ambiguity at all: no nuclear weapons on Chagos for any Government.

[Dr Murrison]

That is precisely the case; it is as plain as a pikestaff, yet the Government persist with the policy.

It is perfectly reasonable and respectable for the Government to say, “The facts have clearly changed, and all these things have come to light, so we will pause this. There is no hurry in this matter, nor any dishonour in saying that we need to consult on it more widely—potentially indefinitely. Nevertheless, we will continue the process and keep it open.” I appreciate that, to save the Government’s blushes, we cannot simply can it, but we can pause it.

If the Minister wants more evidence that the Chagossians have been trampled all over during this process, she need only refer to the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, which said in December 2025 that we should pause the deal in order to ensure that the Chagossians’ voices are properly heard. She is being attacked from all quarters, and the unifying message from all those quarters is, “For goodness sake, let’s pause this—just think again.”

[Lincoln Jopp]

Does my right hon. and gallant Friend agree that this could well be a case of, “If you can keep your head when all about you are losing theirs, it is possible that you have failed to appreciate the gravity of the situation”?

[Dr Murrison]

My hon. Friend, who is experienced in these matters, makes an extremely good point. We need to keep our heads in all this. The Conservative party has been consistent in its opposition to this terrible, terrible surrender deal. The people out there honestly cannot understand why the Government persist with it. It is plainly not a matter of national security. I fear that all this is underpinned by the Government’s insistence on satisfying their post-colonial guilt. The Government need to get over that and understand that national security has primacy in this matter.

[Tom Hayes (Bournemouth East) (Lab)]

I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that, as a Labour Member, I have had zero conversations with other Labour Members about this deal being motivated by some kind of post-colonial guilt—that is absolutely not a motivation, and I want to dispel that impression once and for all. He talks about consistency. Why was it that the Conservatives started the negotiations? Why was it that 85% of the negotiations were concluded by them? Does he not agree that, now that they are out of office, the Conservatives have suddenly discovered that they do not need to be consistent?

[Dr Murrison]

I do not have any insight into the hon. Gentleman’s conversations with Labour Members. As a former Foreign Office Minister, I would say that there are negotiations and then there are negotiations, and sometimes we can use negotiations as a tool to keep certain parties happy, while having no intention of agreeing to what they are demanding of us.

Furthermore, a lot of the pressure for all this comes from the advisory note by the ICJ. In this country, we think of judges as upstanding and impartial maintainers of our legal system and the rule of law. That is not necessarily the case when it comes to supranational judicial bodies. We know, for example, that Patrick Robinson—one of the judges involved with the 2019 ICJ decision—has been demanding that the UK pony up £19 trillion in slavery reparations. Those are not apolitical, independent judicial figures. Many of them have an agenda, and it is one that is hostile to this country—as hostile, I would say, as some of the parties, like Russia and China, that we are currently trying to prevent from getting a hold on those islands.

It is perfectly reasonable for the President of the United States, who I have to confess is not my cup of tea, to decide—belatedly, but nevertheless—that this is a disastrous measure and that he wants nothing to do with it. He has signalled that in his own inimitable fashion, and the Government should take note, pause the surrender treaty and come back with something better, if at all. This deal, surely, is as dead as the dodo.

--- Later in debate ---

[John Slinger]

I thank the even more loyal hon. and gallant Member for his history lesson, but it does not change the fundamentals: 85% of the negotiations took place under the Conservatives.

In November 2022, the right hon. Member for Braintree (Sir James Cleverly), who was then Foreign Secretary, said:

“Through negotiations, taking into account relevant legal proceedings, it is our intention to secure an agreement on the basis of international law to resolve all outstanding issues”. —[Official Report, 3 November 2022; Vol. 721, c. 354WS.]

In February 2025, a spokesperson for the Leader of the Opposition insisted that she understood that negotiations over the islands were needed due to the international legal position. This motion is obvious political opportunism. These are hon. and right hon. Members of this House of Commons who raised no objections in Parliament, filed no critical questions and voiced no concerns on social media. Only after leaving government did they do so, but with no plan of their own.

On the matter of the sovereignty of the Chagossians, the Conservatives’ view is logically inconsistent. They want the UK to retain sovereignty, but they attack the Government for not giving the Chagossians the right to self-determination. They ruled out resettlement. Some Chagossians want to return to Diego Garcia, so are Conservative Members calling for them to be returned to that island, with the inevitable issues that that would cause for the operation of the vital base? Opposition Members have gone rather silent on that point.

[Dr Murrison]

Does the hon. Gentleman see any parallel between the plight of Chagossians and the plight of Greenlanders? The Prime Minister has gone out of his way, correctly, to defend the rights of Greenlanders, but he is doing the complete reverse for Chagossians.

[John Slinger]

The sovereignty of the Chagossians is a sensitive and delicate issue which we are attempting to deal with, as my hon. Friend the Minister set out. We have established a contact group. Many meetings have taken place, and I strongly endorse those steps to give respect to the Chagossian people for what has happened to them. The Conservatives used only £1.6 million of the £40 million support fund for the Chagossian people, which hardly indicates that when they were in office the interests of the Chagossian people were their No. 1 priority.

In conclusion, this motion is political opportunism of the worst kind, because it concerns national security and the British national interest, and the Conservatives really should not be playing party political games with that. Nor should they be using words like “surrender” with such abandon, as the shadow Foreign Secretary does, because that implies things that are simply not true and it is whipping up public concern, which is totally unnecessary, particularly regarding British national interest. That is why I am very glad to oppose this opportunistic motion before the House. I commend the Minister on her speech.

Diego Garcia Military Base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill

Andrew Murrison Excerpts

Monday 26th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Doughty]

I should clarify that I was referring not to the right hon. Gentleman, but to the irresponsible procedural game playing by Opposition peers in the other place. Many people, including those who oppose the Bill, have raised serious, considered comments on and criticisms of the Bill which we have tried to engage with in good faith. I do not recognise his comments about the cost. This is a priceless national security asset, and the deal compares well with what other countries pay for their bases, such as France’s base in Djibouti. This is a crucial deal for the United Kingdom, the United States and our allies. We will never compromise on national security and on protecting this country from terrorism and hostile states. That is absolutely crucial. That is why we are doing this deal.

[Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)]

May I first express my respect for the Minister’s ability to consistently defend the indefensible? An absolute masterclass! Is it not the case that the President of the United States now has our Prime Minister completely over a barrel after his incautious and unhelpful remarks over Greenland? Would it not have been better, along the lines of “The Art of the Deal”, to have dealt with this before the Government signed the surrender treaty, and not after?

[Stephen Doughty]

The right hon. Gentleman makes a link with the discussions on Greenland in recent weeks. We have been absolutely clear that we will always work with the United States on the treaty: we will always allay any concerns they have, and we have engaged with them every single day throughout the process. The deal was welcomed by Secretary Rubio, the US Administration, Secretary Hegseth and across the United States system, and very much so because—I will make this point, Mr Speaker—we secured a deal that, crucially, secures the operations that we and the United States conduct at the base, and that has additional protections that the previous Government did not get into place.

Diego Garcia Military Base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill

Andrew Murrison Excerpts

Consideration of Lords amendments
Tuesday 20th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Dr Pinkerton]

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.

[Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)]

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?

Oral Answers to Questions

Andrew Murrison Excerpts

Tuesday 20th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Yvette Cooper]

We had issues last month with Israeli authorities entering UNRWA’s compound in East Jerusalem without prior authorisation. UN premises are inviolable under international law, so we have already raised this and condemned it. It is immensely important that everyone recognises the important role that UNRWA plays, and this year the UK has committed £27 million to help it scale up lifesaving aid, including food, water, shelter and medical care.

[Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)]

Pressure on the UK to join the expensive and dodgy-looking Gaza board of peace has been ramped up by President Trump’s messaging overnight. Will the Government politely decline to join the Gaza board of peace while reviewing their position on Chagos, given the US intervention overnight?

[Yvette Cooper]

That was a slightly contorted question, but the right hon. Member will know that the board of peace proposal was originally in the 20-point Gaza plan. The proposals that have now been put forward are very different from what was previously expected for Gaza, so it is right that further international discussions are under way. All those details are being discussed, and we will see where that ends up. However, I think the critical issue is support for the Palestinian committee, because Gaza should be run by the people of Gaza—by Palestinians—free from Hamas. The crucial thing now is that we need to support it and ensure that Palestinians have not just humanitarian support, but the decommissioning of weapons and support for their long-term future.

Arctic Security

Andrew Murrison Excerpts

Monday 19th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Yvette Cooper]

I caution my hon. Friend against somehow suggesting equivalence in a whole series of different areas. I am disappointed that he has not, as part of his question, recognised the scale of the threat from Russia, which is the most serious threat the UK faces.

[Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)]

We have to ride the Trump tiger as best we can until November 2028, but the future of Greenland is for Greenlanders. However, when the Foreign Secretary talks to her Danish interlocutors, can she ever so gently point out that small countries such as Denmark have historically spent little on their defence and on collective defence? Will she also, perhaps equally as gently, admonish Denmark? Along with most member states of the European Union, it has administered something of a punishment beating to this country since 2016.

[Yvette Cooper]

I was delighted to see the Danish Foreign Minister in London today. He is a friend, and Denmark is a close friend of the UK. Denmark has stood firm alongside the UK and the US, including by putting its armed forces’ lives at risk in Afghanistan and in other conflicts to support close allies. The Danes have shown immense dedication to the principles of collective security, they continue to show substantial support for Ukraine against Russia, and I want to strongly show Denmark the UK’s support.

Proposed Chinese Embassy

Andrew Murrison Excerpts

Monday 19th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Seema Malhotra]

My hon. Friend will know from his own discussions that we continue to routinely engage with and discuss a wide range of national security issues with the US. Indeed, the US has also had its own relatively recent experience of China building a new embassy in its capital. I recognise the importance of ensuring that views across the House are heard, and we have had a number of debates on this issue, but it is also important to recognise that we have made it clear throughout the process that this is a planning decision that is for MHCLG Ministers to make in an independent, quasi-judicial capacity.

[Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)]

Circumstances have changed dramatically since 2018, and the Minister cannot simply dismiss this as a planning application, just like it were a conservatory—it is a matter of national security. Will the Government at least concede that if the building goes ahead all the cabling along Mansell Street at the Wapping exchange should, as a condition of any planning permission, be relocated at the applicant’s expense?

Iran: Protests

Andrew Murrison Excerpts

Monday 19th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Mr Falconer]

If my hon. Friend writes to me, I am happy to provide a more detailed answer in writing. Clearly, our sanctions regime is wide-ranging, and any British companies need to give very careful attention to it. On the face of it, it sounds like what my hon. Friend has outlined would not be consistent with our arrangements, but if he writes to me, I will respond.

[Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)]

The Minister and I share the dubious distinction of having summoned Iranian ambassadors. Does he agree that whether it is Ambassador Mousavi, Baeidinejad or Abbas Araghchi, it does not really matter, because they are not the problem? The problem is the IRGC and its constituent parts. Does the Minister accept that Jonathan Hall KC’s review is not particularly controversial? He has made recommendations that would effectively get around the Minister’s problem with the proscription of state actors. There is cross-party agreement right across the House that would get such a measure through in a day. It is not as if we do not have enough time, as today’s cancellation of business has shown.

[Mr Falconer]

I am wounded that the comparison is a dubious one. On the question of time, I gently say to my predecessor—and I am glad to see the former Foreign Secretary, the right hon. Member for Braintree (Sir James Cleverly), in his place—that there was rather a lot of time over the past 14 years to pass these things. We have done the Hall review and we are committed to implementing it.

Iran

Andrew Murrison Excerpts

Tuesday 13th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Yvette Cooper]

We have been having many discussions with our partners. On Friday, the Prime Minister put out a statement in conjunction with France and Germany, as part of the E3, because it was as part of the E3 that we took the action in the autumn on the snapback and on the introduction of new sanctions on Iran. In the autumn, we also pursued action through the UN and resolutions around human rights, particularly condemning the repression of women and journalists. We will continue to do that; this is the top issue that we are discussing with our international partners at the moment.

[Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)]

The technical issues around proscription are well understood, as they were understood by the last Government. But eight months ago, Jonathan Hall KC offered a remedy to get around them: his statutory alert and liability threat notice vehicle. When will the Government bring that forward because it is now urgent? Does the Foreign Secretary envisage it being used for the IRGC overall or simply its constituent entities that are particularly problematic, such as the Basij militia and the Quds Force?

[Yvette Cooper]

The right hon. Member will understand that I cannot pre-empt the proper proscription processes that take place, or the use of future legislation in decisions that need to be taken by the Home Office and the Home Secretary, but I hope that I have conveyed to him that this is something I feel very strongly about. We need this legislation in place because of the nature of the complex and hybrid threats we face.

Middle East and North Africa

Andrew Murrison Excerpts

Monday 5th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Mr Falconer]

I know that my hon. Friend has written to the Foreign Secretary and I on those questions, and I will respond fully to that letter. She knows that the Government are deeply concerned by the expansion in settlements and the violence associated with it. That is why we joined our E4 colleagues—France, Germany and Italy—in a statement. It is why we condemned the most recent announcements from the Israeli Government about settlements, and it is why we have continued to press them not just on the approval of settlements but on correspondent banking, which is an issue of vital importance to the Palestinian economy. It was good that there was a temporary extension of correspondent banking arrangements for the west bank, but that must be extended further.

[Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)]

I thank the Minister for a comprehensive regional update. It looks like we may be seeing the beginning of the end of a wicked regime that has ruled Iran since 1979. However, despite the best intentions of Israel and the US last year, a large part of Iran’s nuclear inventory remains intact and potentially poses a threat if the regime crumbles. What measures can reasonably be taken to ensure that that inventory is secured and put beyond use by any malign state or non-state actors?

[Mr Falconer]

My predecessor is knowledgeable on these questions and invites me to comment on a speculative proposal about what would happen should the Iranian Government fall in response to the protests. I have learned in this job not to make predictions or speculate in that way. All I will say is that the status of Iran’s nuclear programme remains of the utmost interest and priority to the British Government. It is why we reimposed the snapback sanctions late last year. We will continue to monitor these developments very closely. Nuclear proliferation is among the gravest threats to not only regional but global security, and we will continue to give it the focus that it deserves.

Venezuela

Andrew Murrison Excerpts

Monday 5th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Yvette Cooper]

A peaceful transition is essential, and it has to be a transition to democracy that reflects the will of the Venezuelan people. That is why I have spoken today to María Corina Machado, and that is what we and our embassy in Caracas will continue to press for.

[Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)]

Will the Government use any influence that their silence on Venezuela is buying to impress on President Trump that, while it may be expedient for the UK to acquiesce in the removal of a hideous old tyrant, Nicolás Maduro, hemispheric proto-colonialism that threatens UK interests or the integrity of any Commonwealth country or European neighbour would destroy the special relationship that has existed between our countries since the second world war?

[Yvette Cooper]

I think the right hon. Member is referring to Greenland and Denmark. Let me be really clear: Greenland is part of the Kingdom of Denmark. We have said so extremely strongly and we will continue to do so. The Prime Minister has said so today, and I have been in touch with the Danish Foreign Minister today. The right hon. Member will have seen the strong statements not just from the Danish Prime Minister but from other leaders, particularly across the Nordic states. This is immensely important to us. We are all NATO allies and we all need to work together. That is part of how we strengthen our security.