Diego Garcia and British Indian Ocean Territory

Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts

Wednesday 25th February 2026 Commons Chamber

[Mr Falconer]

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

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

[Mr Speaker]

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

[Mr Falconer]

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

[Mr Speaker]

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

[Mr Falconer]

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

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

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee.

[Emily Thornberry (Islington South and Finsbury) (Lab)]

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

[Mr Falconer]

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

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)]

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

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

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Falconer]

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

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Dr Al Pinkerton (Surrey Heath) (LD)]

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

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Falconer]

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

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

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Father of the House.

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

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