Diego Garcia Military Base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill

Debate between Priti Patel and Bernard Jenkin

2nd reading
Tuesday 9th September 2025 Commons Chamber

[Priti Patel]

I will be absolutely crystal clear for the benefit of this House and for Hansard, too: there was no deal whatsoever. The Government can put out as much fake news as they wish and carry on pretending and crowing that there was a deal, but there was no deal. It was the last Conservative Foreign Secretary who stopped any negotiations and discussions, and they were stopped—Lord Cameron himself has said that. On that basis alone, I think Labour Members should all apologise to Lord Cameron, and perhaps even correct the record.

[Sir Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)]

I am most grateful to my right hon. Friend for giving way. Does it not speak volumes about the real nature of this Government that despite facing a fiscal crisis and potentially a crisis in their finances—they want more money spent on health and benefits, because that is what they do—their priority is listening to leftie lawyers pontificating about decolonisation and committing billions of pounds of long-term liabilities to give away and lease back something that we already own? Does that not say something about the extraordinarily myopic preoccupations of this Government? Of course, we told the Foreign Office to get lost.

[Priti Patel]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. It speaks volumes about the priorities that this Labour Government—socialist to the core in how they like to spend public money—are focused on. Come November, when the Chancellor has her Budget, there will be no point crowing about the past and blaming other people, other countries and international forces and factors. This is a fiscal mess made by this Labour Government with this utterly scandalous, appalling and reckless financial giveaway.

--- Later in debate ---

[Priti Patel]

No, I have given way to the hon. Gentleman many times.

[Sir Bernard Jenkin]

rose—

[Priti Patel]

I will give way one more time to my hon. Friend.

[Sir Bernard Jenkin]

On the previous question of how much operational independence we will really have, can my right hon. Friend comment on point 4 of annex 1 of the agreement, entitled “Mauritian Security Review”, which requires us to consult Mauritius before any

“construction or emplacement of any maritime installation”

or

“any proposal for development in the land territory of the Chagos archipelago”?

It also states that Mauritius shall conduct a security review, and that our permission to carry out works is dependent on the outcome of the Mauritius security review. We do not have operational independence under this treaty. It then goes through the dispute process, and there is no decisive way of deciding anything unless there is agreement between the two Prime Ministers. It is a completely inadequate agreement.

[Priti Patel]

My hon. Friend has summed it up: the whole process is completely inadequate, with no transparency and no dispute resolution mechanisms. This is just too messy, given that we are talking about the defence and security of the country. Again, this is exactly why we should have been able to debate the treaty on the Floor of the House and give it the scrutiny that is required. Let us hope that the Prime Minister and his lefty lawyers are not involved in the dispute resolution mechanisms, because Britain will come out worst. As we know, when Labour negotiates, Britain loses.

At the press conference announcing the signing of the treaty, it was interesting to hear the Prime Minister almost gaslighting critics of the treaty by comparing them—that is, us—to China, Russia and Iran as he arrogantly declared his views and position. On 4 and 11 June in the House, he said that the treaty “has been opposed by our adversaries, Russia, China and Iran”. We know that 6,000 miles away, at the celebration party press conference in Mauritius, China was singled out by the Mauritian Government for praise. According to the press release, Deputy Prime Minister Paul Bérenger noted that China’s

“unwavering support played a critical role in the international recognition of Mauritian sovereignty.”

A few days later, the Chinese ambassador issued Mauritius with “massive congratulations” on securing the surrender of the Chagos islands. This summer, the Mauritian Government published a press release saying that the President expressed “gratitude” for China’s “unwavering support” for Mauritius’s sovereignty claim over the Chagos archipelago.

Iran has also been supportive of the Mauritian claim for the Chagos islands, with its ambassador saying earlier this year:

“The Islamic Republic of Iran has always supported Mauritius’s position regarding the Chagos issue. So, Chagos belongs to the Mauritian people. We support its return and have made many efforts in the past toward that goal.”

As for Russia, when meeting Putin, the former Mauritian President Vyapoory stated:

“We appreciate the support of Russia in our claim for our sovereignty on Chagos.”

Ministers have been asked in parliamentary questions for the evidential basis of the Prime Minister’s claims about the apparent opposition of those three countries who threaten our interests, but they have not come forward with it. When the Minister responds, will he finally explain the grounds behind the Prime Minister’s malicious, almost spurious, remarks, or apologise for those claims? All the evidence shows that, far from opposing the surrender treaty, our enemies actually back it, which means that Britain is weaker.

British Indian Ocean Territory

Debate between Priti Patel and Bernard Jenkin

Wednesday 26th February 2025 Commons Chamber

[Priti Patel]

My right hon. Friend is absolutely right, and the Government seem to have a complete disregard for this. He is absolutely right that Mauritius never had sovereignty in the first instance, and now look at this terrible mess. This is a complete surrender and an epic failure of diplomacy.

[Sir Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)]

Will my right hon. Friend give way?

[Priti Patel]

I will give way shortly.

We also know from the Mauritius Prime Minister that the lease extension provisions have—guess what—been changed and diluted. He told his National Assembly, talking to their Leader of the Opposition, that

“the agreement was for an agreement of 99 years, and then, unilaterally, the British would decide on an extension of that agreement for 40 years. We had no say in it. We disagreed completely! It cannot be that an agreement is signed for 99 years, and then the British on their own would decide that they will renew the agreement and we have no say in it.”

He went on to say that he has got this changed:

“The extension has to be agreed with both parties. It cannot be unilateral from the British. And I am glad to inform the Leader of the Opposition that the British have agreed to that also.”

The Foreign Secretary, in his letter to me, remarked that the 99-year lease

“can be extended if both sides agree. We will have the right of first refusal, meaning it can’t be given to any other country at the end of the treaty without us first agreeing.”

That is, frankly, an astonishing response to receive, and an astonishing concession for the Labour Government to make. This deal was bad enough at the outset, but now we know that, despite the Minister’s claim that the

“fundamentals of the deal remain the same”,—[Official Report, 25 February 2025; Vol. 762, c. 618.]

we have gone from the UK being able unilaterally to extend the lease by 40 years to now being able to extend it only with the agreement of Mauritius, and there is a “right of first refusal” caveat in that lease too.

The House should be shocked by this, and we need answers. I urge the Minister to answer these questions when she responds. What happens at the end of the 99-year period if both parties cannot agree? What happens if we want to extend and Mauritius does not? What will happen to the base and the equipment under those circumstances? What if, at the end of 99 years, the price that Mauritius asks for is too high? If we cannot unilaterally extend the lease, then—guess what—we have lost control. The Labour Government may not realise this, but Mauritius knows it very well. The British taxpayer knows this extremely well, and of course our enemies know it—they are sitting back and watching, rubbing their hands with glee, because on all the key negotiation points, Labour has backed down and Britain is losing control.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Bernard Jenkin]

Will my right hon. Friend give way?

[Priti Patel]

I am sorry, Madam Deputy Speaker, but I did say that I would give way to my hon. Friend.

[Sir Bernard Jenkin]

I hope my right hon. Friend will forgive me if she was coming to this point in her final words, but is it not extraordinary that we should be doing something that so many people in Washington profoundly object to, when the Prime Minister is about to have an extremely delicate discussion with the President of the United States about whether he will reaffirm his guarantees for the security and peace of our whole continent, and indeed of our country? Is this not a kind gift that the Government should take to Washington and say, “We will drop this if you have the slightest objection”?

[Priti Patel]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. This is a critical time for our two countries when it comes to both our place and our standing in the world. All we have seen from this Government is an epic failure in diplomacy, and concession after concession. The Labour Government have shown themselves to be weak. Not only have they undermined our strategic defence interests and our very close relationship with our dear ally, but they are putting our territories at risk and wasting taxpayers’ money. We need a Government who stand tall in the world and who fly the Union flag with pride rather than the white flag of surrender.

The deal is an epic failure in diplomacy and it is causing our standing in the world to fall. The House must vote for our motion to defend our national interests and Britain’s standing in the world.

Major Incident in Essex

Debate between Priti Patel and Bernard Jenkin

Monday 28th October 2019 Commons Chamber

[Priti Patel]

The hon. Lady is absolutely right. She will know, with the port in her own constituency, that various challenges have now been highlighted. It is important to acknowledge that those who are trafficking people are trying to exploit any vulnerabilities in any aspects of port security, such as, as we have seen, with the refrigerated lorries. Given the work taking place specifically with Border Force right now, I would like to drop the hon. Lady a line and at least keep her updated on the changes that will be forthcoming with regard to the port in Hull.

[Sir Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)]

I thank my right hon. Friend for coming to the House to make this statement, because it demonstrates how seriously the Government take this matter. Will she spare a thought for the Border Force officers in Harwich, which I represent, who will be haunted by the possibility of a similar tragedy passing through their care? I am confident that they have sufficient capability, on an intelligence-led basis, to make checks, but they cannot check every single container. Will she also bear in mind the fact that when I have alerted the Essex police and the Essex Border Force to activity on the Essex coast reported by constituents they have always been very swift to respond, and indeed have closed down one operation very effectively already?

[Priti Patel]

I thank my hon. Friend for his comments and, being a neighbouring Member of Parliament, I do know Harwich. He is right to point out that all port operators and border staff around the country will be looking at what has happened over the last week with shared horror. They will be taking the right action in their own day-to-day work on risk-based checks, but at this stage I want to give the House the assurance that we are giving Border Force all the support it needs and we are working collaboratively with port operators. I also thank my hon. Friend for his work with Essex police when he has raised concerns in respect of the port of Harwich and on how to deal with those issues.

A120 (Colchester)

Debate between Priti Patel and Bernard Jenkin

Tuesday 4th June 2013 Westminster Hall

[Priti Patel (Witham) (Con)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this important debate. Does he agree that, central to his premise regarding the required safety improvements to the east of the A120, is the need for much more strategic and long-term thinking, and to explore making that part of the A120 an economic corridor that will bring substantial benefits to all, including many of the rural villages along that stretch of the road?

[Mr Jenkin]

I am most grateful to my hon. Friend for her intervention because she reinforces my earlier point about the huge economic importance of this route and emphasises its potential. However, the burden of my point today is what needs to be done now. The issue cannot wait for the long term and a strategic decision to be worked out and implemented: it must be addressed now, particularly given that it has been brought to a head by the threat of closing the junctions.

Steve Wilcox of Little Bromley parish council agrees that in this case:

“The correct, immediate, action is to impose a 40mph speed limit, enforced by speed cameras, and to rectify the dangerously misleading road markings which fail to indicate the correct priorities and the poorly marked traffic islands. The junctions should be then dealt with by providing a suitable designed traffic roundabout as a matter of utmost priority.”

I have argued that, instead of closing the gaps, there should be a reduced speed limit, coupled with enforcement using average-speed cameras. Speed is part of the safety problem. A seven-day speed audit in 2011 showed that between the Park road and Bentley road junctions more than 40% of vehicles were exceeding the speed limit, and that did not include heavy vehicles, which are subject to a lower speed limit and may well have been exceeding their own speed limit, but not 70 mph. Needless to say, that makes the junctions more dangerous and accidents far more serious. In four of the six accidents at the Harwich road junction since the works on the junction,

“failure to judge the other person’s path or speed”

was cited as a likely contributory factor. Correcting excessive speed would make it easier for drivers to make those judgments. The Highways Agency safety audit report recognised that a reduction in the severity of collisions

“could be achieved through reducing the speeds on the A120 by implementing a reduced speed limit and enforcing with speed cameras to ensure compliance.”

Reducing traffic speed would reduce the severity of accidents. Fortunately, the decision to close the gaps has been put off for a month or so, so that alternatives can be considered following public opposition to the proposal. I am grateful for that. We cannot have further delay while we wait for yet another safety audit to determine which is the best way to resolve this ongoing problem. Funding must be found for a roundabout at Pellens Corner, and in the meantime more immediate short-term measures must be taken, preferably an enforced speed limit reduction.

The only argument against average speed cameras appears to be the cost, but I am afraid that that is not good enough. A 40 mph speed limit would undoubtedly save lives and money. The same cannot be said for the proposed gap closures. Some lanes around the A120 are hardly wide enough for a school bus, and there are blind corners, blind driveways, no footpaths and there is no speed limit enforcement. That is not a practical or safe solution, which closing the gaps would require us to adopt.

We need a roundabout as soon as possible. In the interim, the only practical solution is average-speed cameras. In a letter to me today, the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon (Stephen Hammond), who has responsibility for roads, makes no reference to a lower speed limit and enforcement measures. I am disappointed by that. Please will the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, my hon. Friend the Member for Lewes, who is at least the Minister for traffic management, take that very clear message back to his colleague in the Department.