Diego Garcia Military Base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill

Calum Miller Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 9th September 2025 Commons Chamber

[Calum Miller (Bicester and Woodstock) (LD)]

I thank the Minister for his statement and congratulate him on his new appointment. On 3 November 2022, the right hon. Member for Braintree (Sir James Cleverly), as Conservative Foreign Secretary, stated that

“the UK and Mauritius have decided to begin negotiations on the exercise of sovereignty over the British Indian Ocean Territory (BIOT)/Chagos archipelago.”—[Official Report, 3 November 2022; Vol. 721, c. 27WS.]

On 7 November 2024, the right hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy), as Labour Foreign Secretary, made a statement to confirm that the UK and Mauritius had concluded those negotiations. On that same day, I met the group of UK-based Chagossians who came to Parliament to protest against the deal, which had been reached without their involvement. Maxwell Evenor said to me in desperation that his people had no state and no power. He said:

“All we have is our voice but that has been silenced for so long.”

The views of the many Chagossians living here in the UK have not changed since.

The right hon. Member for Witham (Priti Patel) peppered her speech with breathless hyperbole, but let me speak plainly. There has been consistency between the approaches of the last Government and this Government—[Interruption.] Conservative Members do not want to accept that fact, but it is true. Both Governments accepted that legal challenges, not only in the International Court of Justice, were a threat to the UK’s vital security interests. Both Governments pursued negotiations over the sovereignty of the Chagos archipelago, with the goal of securing legally our use of Diego Garcia, and both Governments failed to protect the interests of Chagossians in their negotiations with Mauritius. The reasoned amendment tabled in my name and those of Liberal Democrat Members today seeks to address those facts. From the very start, the process of securing the treaty to be given effect by this Bill has been characterised by this glaring omission.

There has been an abject failure by successive Governments properly to consult the Chagossian people or to ensure that their rights were protected in the final settlement. We recognise and support the importance of abiding by international law and believe that it is in the UK’s interest to negotiate with Mauritius, given the risk—which the Conservatives and Reform now appear recklessly to be ignoring—that a judgment against the UK in any court would present a threat to our security interests in Diego Garcia, but the treaty that has been agreed tramples over the Chagossians. Not only does it fail to provide adequate protection of their rights; it also fails entirely to establish a right to return or a programme of resettlement of the islands for the Chagossians. For much of their history, the Chagossians have been denied consultation on who governs them and their right to self-determination. We now fear that this treaty, if enacted, will only reinforce that historical legacy. Mauritius—which, let us remember, lies over 1,300 miles from the archipelago—will become the new colonial master of the islanders.

I also have grave concerns about the degree to which this deal will genuinely support the UK’s security over the long term. There is a concerning lack of detail regarding the extension of the Diego Garcia military base lease beyond its initial 99-year term. Nor does the treaty appear to reckon seriously with generating guarantees or protections against encroachment by revisionist powers such as China, which could threaten and undermine UK interests in the region.

The unique maritime environment around the Chagos archipelago is one of the most ecologically valuable regions on earth. It is home to an extraordinary range of wildlife and acts as a sanctuary for many threatened species. I fear that the treaty does not afford adequate protection to this precious environment. Protecting and restoring it is not only vital for global marine conservation; it also offers unique opportunities to deepen our understanding of natural ecosystems. Resettlement of the Chagossians could have provided a model for community-led conservation on the islands. Instead, short-sighted opposition to Chagossian proposals and the controversial marine protected area designation squandered that opportunity.

Finally, there is the cost of this deal. The Government shrouded this in secrecy when they first announced it, and then appeared to reopen it to appease the new Mauritian Prime Minister. UK taxpayers are right to ask how Ministers justify the sums involved at a time when public finances are so stretched in the UK.

The treaty in this Bill fails to put in place the necessary oversight and accountability mechanisms over the very large sums involved and the annual payments to Mauritius and the Chagossian trust fund. The Government elected not to provide time for a debate and vote in this Chamber on the treaty, and I regret that Members were not given that opportunity. We are also awaiting the statement on the rights of Chagossians, which the noble Lord Collins promised would be discussed in both Houses before ratification. I hope the Minister will clarify when this will be scheduled. In the meantime, for all the reasons that I have set out and are set out in the reasoned amendment in my name and in the names of the Liberal Democrat colleagues who have signed it, I believe that this Bill to give effect to the treaty should not receive Second Reading.

--- Later in debate ---

[Wendy Morton]

My hon. Friend makes a very valid point. If Labour Members had spent a little more time actually listening to some of the contributions from Conservative Members, they would perhaps understand things a little more. I will come back to that point shortly.

Before I turn to the substance, I wish to pay tribute to colleagues on the Conservative Benches who have spoken powerfully about the sheer folly of this deal. They have rightly highlighted its staggering costs, the accounting methods used, the reckless security implications, the lack of transparency and the way in which it sadly sidelines the Chagossian community.

There have been a number of contributions, but I very briefly pay tribute to my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kenilworth and Southam (Sir Jeremy Wright), the former Attorney General. He has not just demonstrated his extensive legal knowledge and expertise in this area, but questioned the legal uncertainty that Ministers are relying on. He has taken the time to explain and to remind this place of the issues relating to article 298 of UNCLOS, which is very relevant to today’s debate. He highlighted some key unanswered questions. Quite frankly, I urge every Member of this House to have a read of Hansard before they go into the voting Lobby this evening.

Similarly, my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) highlighted and reinforced the important point about article 298 of UNCLOS. My hon. Friend the Member for Hamble Valley (Paul Holmes) reminded Labour Members of the red lines put in place by Lord Cameron, who stopped negotiations—it quite clearly seems that they needed to be reminded that talking and signing are two very different things. My right hon. Friends the Members for Maldon (Sir John Whittingdale) and for Tonbridge (Tom Tugendhat) talked about strategic issues and the costs of the deal. There were valuable contributions from my hon. Friends the Members for Reigate (Rebecca Paul), for Chester South and Eddisbury (Aphra Brandreth), for Bromsgrove (Bradley Thomas), for Broxbourne (Lewis Cocking) and for Hinckley and Bosworth (Dr Evans).

One thing that is very obvious is that we need clarity. To give just one example, the Government claim that we may have problems with spectrum if we do not agree a deal, but other parts of the Government have indicated that the International Telecommunication Union has no power to veto the use of military spectrum. [Interruption.] Government Members do not want to intervene now. These are not passing political points; they are hard truths about the dangers that this deal poses to Britain’s security and standing. Before I move on, though, I wish to pay tribute to the hon. Member for Crawley (Peter Lamb) for his wise and brave words today, and for standing firm as a constituency MP and standing up for members of his community.

Turning to the Liberal Democrats, I have to say that I struggle a little to understand their position. They say that they oppose the Bill, but they did not vote against the treaty in the House of Lords—in fact, they chose to prop up Labour, rather than defend Britain and the rights of the British Chagossians.

[Calum Miller]

Will the right hon. Lady take an intervention?

[Wendy Morton]

Of course I will.

[Calum Miller]

I am grateful to the right hon. Lady for allowing me to clarify. As she well knows, their lordships in the House of Lords invited the Government to provide a statement on the rights of the Chagossians, and the Government agreed that they would not ratify the treaty until such a statement had been laid before both Houses, allowing for a debate in both. As I made clear in my speech, I look forward to that opportunity, and I very much hope that the Minister will confirm when that statement will be laid before this House.

[Wendy Morton]

I am grateful for that intervention—let us wait and see whether the Minister does confirm that date. However, the fact of the matter remains that the Liberal Democrats did not vote against the treaty.

Turning to costs and taxpayers, the financial costs of the deal alone should be a cause of shame for this Government. Thanks to Conservative FOI requests, we now know that the true bill for this surrender is not £3.4 billion, as Ministers have claimed, but closer to £35 billion—a sum that is 10 times higher than originally admitted, and one that will fall squarely on the shoulders of British taxpayers. Let us be clear what those billions will fund. They will not fund better schools or hospitals here at home, or defence capabilities to protect our citizens; they will fund tax cuts in Mauritius. At the very moment when this Labour Government are hiking taxes on family farms, education and businesses, they are content to bankroll over 4% of another nation’s budget. To Conservative Members, that is indefensible.

However, the risks to Britain’s security are even greater. Diego Garcia is our most strategic and important base in the Indian ocean, critical to our partnership with the United States and vital to our ability to project influence in the Indo-Pacific, yet this Bill leaves huge questions unanswered. What guarantees are there that the UK can extend the lease over Diego Garcia unilaterally when the Mauritian Prime Minister has said otherwise? What safeguards will prevent hostile powers such as China, Russia or Iran from seeking a foothold in the archipelago once Britain steps back? We know that Beijing already describes Mauritius as a partner with “strategic advantages”, while Port Louis boasts of advancing co-operation with Moscow. Does the Minister really believe that this makes Britain more secure?

We also cannot ignore the issue of nuclear deterrence. Mauritius is a signatory to the Pelindaba treaty, which prohibits the stationing and storage of nuclear weapons, yet Ministers have failed to explain what that will mean in practice once sovereignty is transferred. Will it constrain our closest ally, the United States? Will it put limits on what we can do on Diego Garcia in future? These are not trivial questions, because they go to the heart of our security posture in the Indo-Pacific, yet we still have no clear answers. Even Lord West, a former Labour Security Minister, has warned that ceding the Chagos islands is “irresponsible” and dangerous, yet this Government press on regardless, blind to the risks and deaf to the warnings.

Let us not forget the Chagossians themselves. For years, Labour politicians claimed a fundamental moral responsibility towards this community, but in government they have abandoned them, offering only token consultation and denying them a real say in decisions that affect their homeland. Once again they are being sidelined. This is about the Chagossians and their future, and that of future generations.

We are told that millions will be channelled into a so-called trust for the Chagossian people, but under this deal Britain will have no meaningful role in determining how those funds are used. Decisions will sit entirely with Mauritius, with no mechanism for proper oversight by Parliament and no guarantee that the Chagossians themselves will see the benefit. There is no accountability to them, no accountability to us, and no accountability for how British money is spent. There are many questions about the fund, not least what guarantees and safeguards exist to ensure that it reaches all the Chagossians, given that so many of their communities are spread around the world.

Time and again, Ministers have refused to come clean with Parliament about the terms of this deal. We have had contradictory accounts from the Mauritians and from Whitehall, confusion about the sums involved and secrecy so deep that even officials were asked to leave the room during negotiations. If Ministers cannot be open with Parliament, they have no business asking Parliament to support this Bill.

Before I conclude, I will touch briefly on the other overseas territories. Let me be clear: we are debating and discussing the Chagos islands, and at no stage have those on this Front Bench ever conflated surrendering the sovereignty of the Chagos islands with that of the other overseas territories. It is clear that when Labour negotiates, Britain loses. That is the story of this deal. This is not a settlement forced on us by law. The Government have chosen to hide behind advisory opinions, rather than to stand firm, defend our sovereignty and protect our national interests. It is simply the behaviour of this unpatriotic Labour Government. We on the Opposition Benches could not be clearer: Britain should not surrender the Chagos islands and we will fight this Bill every step of the way.

I will conclude, but I had hoped that the new Foreign Secretary would be here today. Where is she? She has chosen to be elsewhere, rather than answer to the Chagossian people. I will end with a plea to the Minister, for whom I have the highest personal respect. We have often been in opposite positions across the Dispatch Box, but I ask him please to step back, pause and reflect. Britain does not need to surrender the Chagos islands. Do the right thing by our country, by our taxpayers and by the Chagossian people. Stand firm and keep the Chagos islands British.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Doughty]

First, the right hon. and learned Gentleman knows that I am not going to disclose the full privileged legal advice to the Government, which the previous Government received, for very good reasons. We have set out very clearly that provisional measures could be brought forward that would immediately affect operations—within six to eight weeks—and the conditions in chapter 7 of ITLOS. In a number of areas, there were very significant risks. I will not, and he understands why I will not, go into the details of that, but it is simply not a risk that this Government are willing to take or, as he knows, that the previous Government were willing to take, which is ultimately why they started the negotiations.

I am conscious of the time, and I have explained the extension, but I want to talk a little about our allies and opponents. The shadow Foreign Secretary said that people have not said publicly what they feel about the deal, but that is not the case. We have heard from President Trump and US Defence Secretary Hegseth. US Secretary of State Rubio said:

“The U.S. welcomes the historic agreement between the UK and Mauritius on the future of the Chagos Archipelago. This agreement secures the long-term, stable, and effective operation of the joint U.S.-UK military facility at Diego Garcia, which is critical to regional and global security.”

Our Five Eyes allies support it, with Canada’s Foreign Ministry saying that it welcomes the signing, and Australian Foreign Minister Penny Wong saying that Australia welcomes the signing, while Australia’s ambassador to the US said that it was great to see a resolution to this important issue. New Zealand’s Foreign Minister and India’s Ministry of External Affairs have said the same. Japan has commended the efforts of the Governments to reach agreement, and the Republic of Korea similarly welcomed its signing. In addition, the Chief Minister of Gibraltar and others have welcomed the deal.

It is, therefore, clear that the Government are on the side of the United States, our Five Eyes partners and other allies around the world, and we are protecting our operations and national security. Given the US bipartisan support, what is not good enough for the Opposition? Our key security partners back the deal, and that is why they have agreed to it.

Quite frankly, we have heard some outrageous claims about the costs. We have been very clear about them, and the £34 billion figure is absurdly misleading and inaccurate. It ignores inflation and the changing value of money over 99 years—£1 today will not be worth the same in 99 years’ time—and the £101 million annual average cost compares favourably with other countries’ bases. Our accurate figures reflect how the Government account for long-term project spend. Funnily enough, when we add a sum each year, which is entirely reasonable, over a 99-year period, it adds up to a larger sum. This is equivalent to the spending on the NHS for a few hours, and a tiny proportion of our defence budget. It compares very favourably with what France has paid for its base in Djibouti. This base is 15 times larger, while France’s base is next to a Chinese facility, and ours has unique security provisions in place.

Quite frankly, it shows some brass neck for the Opposition to be making claims about defence and security when they presided over the hollowing out of our armed forces, appalling accommodation and decline. That is changing under this Government. We are spending on our national defence, our NATO commitments and our security relationships with the United States, and we will absolutely not apologise for that or scrimp on our national security. One final point is that a financial element was always key to the deal, as the Conservatives conceded in their engagements under multiple Prime Ministers.

Important points were made about the environment and the marine protected area. Fundamentally, Mauritius will determine the area’s future, but Prime Minister Ramgoolam recently reaffirmed to the former Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, my right hon. Friend the Member for Streatham and Croydon North (Steve Reed), his country’s commitment to protecting that unique ecosystem. We are engaged in active discussions with the Mauritians about that, and I will keep right hon. and hon. Members updated.

I conclude as the Minister of State, Ministry of Defence, my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth Sutton and Devonport (Luke Pollard) started, by paying tribute to the Chagossians who have joined us here today. Both in opposition and in government, I have repeatedly met a range of Chagossian communities with a range of views, and I have a deep respect for their dignity and their different views. There will be people who fundamentally disagree with this treaty, but there are many who fundamentally agree with it, as we have heard in this debate.

The Government deeply regret how Chagossians were removed from the islands. We have heard concerns about the impact on them and their ability to access British nationality. The Bill will ensure that Chagossians have no adverse effects on their nationality rights—no Chagossians will lose their existing rights to hold or claim British citizenship. It will be for Mauritius to set the terms of and manage any future resettlement. Reasonable questions have been asked about why people cannot resettle on Diego Garcia, but it is an active military base with security restrictions so that is not realistic, but we will restart the heritage visits.

[Calum Miller]

rose—

[Stephen Doughty]

To anticipate what the Liberal Democrat spokesperson might be about to ask me, I confirm to him that before ratification, there will be a ministerial statement. I will not give him the exact date, because I do not set the dates of business, but it will provide a factual update on resettlement eligibility and how the trust fund will work. I am engaged actively in those discussions, and that will enable further discussion in a proper manner.

[Calum Miller]

Will the Minister please confirm, as Lord Collins did in the other place, that time will be set aside in both Houses for a debate on the statement?

[Stephen Doughty]

Absolutely. I confirm that we are happy to discuss that further. Such decisions are not for me, but for the usual channels and the leaders in both Houses. However, I want to confirm the commitment that was made previously.

This comes down to one fundamental question: why did the Opposition start the negotiations if there was not a problem? Why did they continue the negotiations until just weeks before the general election? It was because fundamental national security interests and the protection of the British people were at risk. This Government recognise that, our allies recognise that and we have acted to secure a deal to protect Diego Garcia and its operations well into the next century. While Reform and the Conservatives speak of national security but fail to do anything to secure it, this Labour Government negotiate and deliver. We deliver deals—with the United States, with India, with the European Union and on new frigates—and, fundamentally, we deliver national security by securing this base on Diego Garcia. I commend the Bill to the House.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

Afghanistan

Calum Miller Excerpts

Tuesday 15th July 2025 Commons Chamber

[John Healey]

I will indeed reaffirm our continuing commitment to honouring the obligations and duty that we owe to those who served or worked alongside our forces. Through the ARAP scheme, we will complete the processing of any outstanding applications, and any who prove eligible will get full relocation and resettlement support. I am glad to be able to restore a degree of that parliamentary scrutiny and transparency that our system in Britain depends on.

[Calum Miller (Bicester and Woodstock) (LD)]

I thank the Secretary of State for his statement. He said: “When this nation makes a promise, we should keep it.” I agree. In the chaos of withdrawal, my constituent who left under ARAP was made a promise by British officials that his pregnant wife could follow him. Two years later, we have still not kept that promise. My constituent’s wife and child continue to move around in Afghanistan to evade the Taliban, and my constituent is so desperate that he is talking about returning to Afghanistan—despite the risk to him—to be reunited with them. The Minister for the Armed Forces, who knows the case, has told me that the Ministry of Defence will not consider it, and that this is now a matter for the Home Office. In the light of that, will the Secretary of State repeat his commitment that our nation should keep its promise to my constituent? Will he undertake to discuss with the Home Secretary how her Department will ensure that such cases are afforded proper treatment in the light of our commitment to the Afghan people?

[John Healey]

I will take a look at the case and, if required, I will speak to my right hon. Friend and colleague, the Home Secretary.

UK-France Nuclear Partnership

Calum Miller Excerpts

Thursday 10th July 2025 Commons Chamber

[Calum Miller (Bicester and Woodstock) (LD)]

The Liberal Democrats have consistently said that the UK’s security depends on deeper defence co-operation with our European allies, so we welcome progress but urge the Government to go further. Nuclear co-ordination between the UK and France can help to deter Putin and support Europe’s collective security. That is particularly critical as Donald Trump has shown that our security is no longer his concern. France cherishes the independence of its nuclear system, as the Minister confirmed, so will she provide further details on exactly how the new system of co-ordinating nuclear deterrence will work? The Government must now go further, so will the Minister update the House on whether the Government have secured full access for UK defence firms to the EU Security Action for Europe fund? As Putin escalates his attacks against civilian targets in Kyiv and other cities, we must work with our allies to support Ukraine. Will the Government use today’s coalition of the willing talks to agree on how the UK and France can seize Russia’s frozen assets that are held in our two countries?

[Maria Eagle]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his support for deeper defence co-operation. On the co-ordination of our nuclear deterrence—there is no extreme threat to Europe that would not prompt a response by our two nations, but France and the UK remain two sovereign nuclear weapon states, and their respective nuclear forces and decision-making processes are independent. There will be increased co-ordination of research and development, and of the co-operation that we have been engaging in since the Chequers announcement of 1995. That will be deepened, and a co-ordinating committee between the Élysée and the Cabinet Office will be the joint arrangement for deciding precisely how and what extra research or training we might do. There will be increasing co-ordination of that effort, but I stress that our decision-making arrangements remain completely independent. Both nations recognise that there is no extreme threat to Europe that would not prompt a response by our two nations—our vital interests are the same in that respect.

On Security Action for Europe and access to EU funds, negotiations are ongoing but not complete. One would hope that progress can be made. I cannot recall the hon. Gentleman’s third point—

[Calum Miller]

The coalition of the willing.

[Maria Eagle]

I have nothing further to say on that today, as the hon. Gentleman would probably expect in a response to an urgent question on nuclear co-ordination.

UK Military Base Protection

Calum Miller Excerpts

Monday 23rd June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Calum Miller (Bicester and Woodstock) (LD)]

I thank the Minister for advance sight of his statement, and, of course, understand the update that we have just received on developments in Qatar. In this Armed Forces Week, I want to begin by expressing my thanks to all those brave and committed personnel who serve in the defence of our nation. They deserve not only our thanks and praise, but the knowledge that just as they keep us safe, the Government have invested to keep them safe through adequate force protection.

I wish to address briefly the statement on those developments in Qatar, and the breaking news that Bahrain has also sounded alerts pending a potential attack there. Of course I welcome the commitment to the protection of our forces and assets, which is the first duty of Government. However, this development reflects our fears, following the US action on Saturday, that this may be turning into a protracted, full-scale conflict. What is the Minister’s current assessment of the risk to US allies in the region? Will he confirm that UK jets will be used only to protect UK assets and personnel? Can he tell the House what steps are being taken to signal to Iran that the UK’s operations are limited to this protective operation, so that it is clear that we are not being drawn into the offensive operations launched by Israel and the US?

The Minister also said in his update that Akrotiri had not been breached, but can he confirm that none of the other bases in Cyprus were breached in incidents over the weekend?

The authors of last month’s strategic defence review explicitly highlighted the need to bolster the security of our air force, yet, not even 20 days later, we have already witnessed an egregious breach of security at Brize Norton and the damage of RAF planes. This was a brazen and illegal act of vandalism, which raises alarming questions about the level of security at armed forces bases across the country. The Minister referred to the Home Secretary’s decision today to proscribe Palestine Action. Can he give the House a clear understanding of the evidence used to judge that it has crossed the threshold set out in the Terrorism Act 2000?

Returning to the subject of force protection, I would welcome the Minister’s response to the following questions. What initial assessment can the Government provide of how it was possible for the breach at Brize Norton to occur? When do the Government believe the damaged planes will be able to return to service? And is the Minister satisfied that he can sustain the immediate improvements that he described in order to insure the physical integrity of military bases across the rest of the country, including at Army and naval bases, against the full spectrum of threats?

[Luke Pollard]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his support, and for his words in support of our personnel. Armed Forces Week gives us an opportunity to thank all the men and women who serve in our armed forces, to celebrate their service and to make the case that a strong armed forces is good not only for ensuring our security, but as an engine for growth and something in which we can all take pride. I look forward to attending the Armed Forces Day events in Plymouth, and I am sure that Members on both sides of the House will be doing the same in their constituencies.

Let me now respond to the hon. Gentleman’s questions. In his seven hours of negotiations in Geneva this weekend, the Foreign Secretary was very clear with the Iranian Foreign Minister about the purpose of UK military assets in the region, and also about the importance of de-escalation and of Iran’s returning to the negotiating table to getting serious, negotiating in good faith and reaching a diplomatic conclusion to this crisis. There is not a military retaliation option that delivers a solution to the crisis; we have made that very clear to Iran, as have our European E3 allies and our Gulf partners, and we will continue to do so.

The hon. Gentleman asked about proscription. May I direct him to the written ministerial statement made by the Home Secretary today, which will deal with a number of his concerns? In the Home Secretary’s view, a threshold at which action would become necessary has now been passed, which is why she intends to take the decision to proscribe Palestine Action, as she has announced today.

In relation to the breach at Brize Norton, the hon. Gentleman asked about the strategic defence review. On page 115, the authors note:

“RAF Brize Norton should be a high priority for investment and improvement”—

a statement that we adopted in full when we adopted the strategic defence review and its recommendations. When the investigation has been fully concluded, we will be able to give the House further details of improvements that we wish to make, not just at Brize Norton but elsewhere on the defence estate.

Strategic Defence Review

Calum Miller Excerpts

Monday 2nd June 2025 Commons Chamber

[John Healey]

We are totally committed to shipbuilding in Scotland. I pay tribute to the workers in his constituency in Rosyth for their pride, professionalism and sense of purpose, and the contribution that they make to our national security.

[Calum Miller (Bicester and Woodstock) (LD)]

The service personnel and their families at Bicester garrison, in my constituency, are victims of the scandal of military family housing to which the Secretary of State referred. The investments highlighted today are therefore welcome, but to reassure my constituents, will the Secretary of State commit that military housing will reach the decent homes standard? Will he give the date by which the defence housing strategy will be published? And will he confirm that he has accepted the recommendation in the SDR that all proceeds from housing developments on Ministry of Defence land will be reinvested in military housing?

[John Healey]

The hon. Gentleman is right to raise this long-run scandal. I am sure he will recognise that we cannot turn this round overnight. I hope he will also recognise the steps that we have already taken this year—the 36,000 military homes brought back into public control and the plans we are putting in place for the future. That allows us in this Parliament finally to put an end to the scandal that we have seen of military families being forced to live in such substandard accommodation.

Oral Answers to Questions

Calum Miller Excerpts

Monday 24th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[John Healey]

I just ask the hon. Gentleman to drop that Brexit rhetoric. We are leading efforts with the French Government and the French military to meet the challenge of the US and the requirements of Ukraine to have a coalition of countries willing to stand with Ukraine in the context of a negotiated peace, to help them secure enduring stability and deterrence, to prevent Russia re-invading that sovereign country.

[Calum Miller (Bicester and Woodstock) (LD)]

3. What steps he is taking to ensure that veterans receive adequate support after leaving the armed forces.

[Tom Gordon (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (LD)]

19. What steps he is taking to ensure that veterans receive adequate support after leaving the armed forces.

[The Minister for Veterans and People (Al Carns)]

I have always said that we train people to join the military and to be in the military, but we do not necessarily train them to be a civilian after they leave. That is why this Government have taken swift action to support veterans upon leaving. Last month I launched Operation Ascend, which will help veterans thrive into post-service careers. Our hugely successful career transition partnership has now seen 88% of all veterans leaving straight into employment since October. We have extended national insurance contributions relief from April 2026 for employers who recruit veterans. On top of that, this Government have awarded £3.7 million in veterans housing grants. I am a firm believer that over the past 14 years we did not take enough responsibility for supporting our veterans, and plans that we will unveil in the future will take a step in the right direction to improving that.

[Calum Miller (Bicester and Woodstock) (LD)]

I recently visited the Heyford and Bicester veterans group in my constituency, which was set up by Ian Ridley to support fellow veterans throughout the region. This fantastic initiative brings together a range of services from charities, the NHS and local authorities to support veterans. However, when speaking to Ian, I was amazed to discover that the group receives no funding from the MOD, and that veterans in our region are not signposted to its services when they leave the armed forces. I therefore invite the Minister to visit the group with me and see the work that it does, so that we can discuss how to make it more routine for services such as those that it offers to be made available to our fantastic veterans.

Chagos Islands: UK-US Defence Relationship

Calum Miller Excerpts

Monday 2nd December 2024 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Calum Miller (Bicester and Woodstock) (LD)]

We, and all those who care about the resolution of this issue, are deeply disappointed about the way we have been led to this point, with 11 rounds of negotiations under the Conservatives, and more under the new Government. Just four weeks ago, the Foreign Secretary presented his deal to the House. Now the new President-elect and the new Prime Minister of Mauritius are expressing doubts. Is it not striking and shocking that it has unravelled so quickly? Does the Minister agree that whatever happens next, it is vital that the voices of the Chagossians are finally injected into the process, and that they are able to fulfil their rights of self-determination?

Whatever lies ahead in these talks, the Liberal Democrats have strongly argued that all treaties should come before the House before signing, and I believe that members of the Government, including two who are on the Front Bench today, supported that in the past. Will the Minister commit to allowing meaningful opportunities for parliamentarians to examine the detailed proposals, including the necessary assurances on elements of the deal relating to our national security, before anything is signed?

[Luke Pollard]

We will follow the normal process for treaty ratification, which is that after signature, the treaty will come before this House, with details given to colleagues and with the ability for full parliamentary scrutiny, as would be expected as part of the normal process. The hon. Gentleman is right to raise the Chagossians. My ministerial colleague, my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty), who is sat next to me, has been meeting Chagossian communities in the UK. He will continue to meet those communities. This Government deeply regret how they were treated and removed from the islands originally. It is one reason why we have made the relationship with the Chagossians such an important part of the future of the islands, as the Foreign Secretary has previously outlined to the House.