5,750 spoken contributions under 12 words (interjections such as “Will the hon. Member give way?”) are hidden. Show them

1. 20 Oct 2025·Parliament·Sir Iain Duncan Smith

   Diego Garcia Military Base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill

   As I was in government at the time, I can answer the hon. Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East (Mike Kane): the golden decade proposed by the then Chancellor, with whom I did not get on very well, was a disaster. If anything should have been learned by that, his Government should have learned that when you sup with the Chinese, you better have a very long spoon, because they suck you in. We got nothing out of those 10 years, and now look at us.

   Hansard source
2. 20 Oct 2025·Parliament·Sir Edward Leigh

   Alleged Spying Case: Home Office Involvement

   I rather thought that, in a civilised country, whether or not someone was prosecuted depended on the evidence. Was it therefore wise for the witness statement to replicate—word for word—the words of the Labour party manifesto, and has it ever happened before?

   Hansard source
3. 20 Oct 2025·Parliament·Sir Edward Leigh

   Diego Garcia Military Base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill

   I commend my hon. Friend the Member for South Shropshire (Stuart Anderson), who has spoken with great authority about the military threat. I also commend the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Dr Pinkerton). I agree with everything he said; he spoke with great good sense and moderation. I wish to speak to my new clause 14—I am grateful to my friends who have signed it—which states: “(1) The Secretary of State must, within six months of this Act receiving Royal Assent, lay before both Houses of Parliament proposals for an advisory referendum of Chagossians residing in the UK, seeking their opinions on the Treaty signed with the Government of Mauritius and the provisions of this Act. (2) Within a month of publishing the proposals specified in subsection (1), the Secretary of State must make time available in both Houses of Parliament for a debate on a substantive motion relating to the proposals.” An advisory referendum would be a moderate and sensible proposal, and I am not sure why anybody would disagree with it. Surely we in this House have a moral duty to the Chagossian people, not to bureaucratic convenience or diplomatic horse trading. My new clause simply calls for the Chagossians to be consulted on their own future. That is not unreasonable. It is a modest and entirely proper request. After decades of exile and neglect, it is indefensible to negotiate their homeland’s fate without even asking them. Have we ever handed over a people to a foreign power without even consulting them? Proponents of paying Mauritius to take the island cite international law, but the entire point of decolonisation was to assert the self-determination of peoples. The United Nations was founded upon the principle that nations and peoples should be free to determine their own destiny in a peaceful way. Chagossians, as we now all agree, were wronged by both the British and the Mauritian authorities. By the way, I am probably the only person sitting in this Chamber who has actually been to the islands—[Interruption.] I am sorry; I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Romford (Andrew Rosindell). I went there with the Defence Committee 40 years ago. We kicked those people out of their homes, albeit for perfectly the legitimate reason of promoting the stability and security of the free world, and Mauritius accepted money to help look after displaced Chagossians. No one can dispute the fact that Chagossians are treated as having second-class status in Mauritius. Chagossians who have been living there are fleeing in increasing numbers to the United Kingdom. Many of them happily assert that they want the sovereignty of the United Kingdom to continue over the British Indian Ocean Territory, but they also want a right to return. Righting the wrongs we have committed means listening to the Chagossians directly, and that is all I am asking for. The amendment would give Parliament the chance to ensure that justice is finally done for those who suffered most. Britain should not repeat the sin of dispossession under the guise of decolonisation. I repeat, Britain should not repeat the sin of dispossession under the guise of decolonisation. To hand the territory to Mauritius would not “end empire”, but merely pass the islands from one remote capital to another; from one imperial power to another. The United Kingdom must not compound historic injustice by ignoring the only people with a legitimate moral claim to these islands. The Chagos islands are of course a linchpin of regional security for Britain, the United States and our allies in an increasingly contested Indo-Pacific. Undermining that strategic position would embolden hostile powers and weaken our ability to uphold freedom of navigation. Those who call this a colonial relic misunderstand it. It is a forward defence post, not a backward-looking possession. As has been said time and again, the International Court of Justice’s advisory opinion carries no legal binding force and should not dictate British policy. Allowing unelected judges in The Hague to override Parliament’s responsibilities is an abdication of national sovereignty. The Government should resist any creeping judicial globalism that seeks to erode British self-government under the cloak of “international law.” I will end on this point, and I believe it is a very powerful point: consultation with the Chagossians through a UK referendum is an act of basic democratic respect, not a legal technicality. My new clause would strengthen rather than weaken Britain’s moral standing by showing that we act with fairness and consent. We should not wash our hands of responsibility for British subjects in favour of imagined diplomatic convenience. The right course is to combine justice for the Chagossians with the preservation of Britain’s strategic obligations, not to sacrifice one for the other. Parliament should back these new clauses and amendments as an affirmation that Britain remains a nation that keeps faith with its peoples and its allies alike.

   Hansard source
4. 20 Oct 2025·Parliament·Sir Edward Leigh

   Diego Garcia Military Base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill

   Will the Minister reply to the point made by the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Dr Pinkerton), myself and others that not in the last 100 years since the exchange of colonies after the first world war has a people been transferred from the sovereignty of one empire to another without being properly consulted?

   Hansard source
5. 20 Oct 2025·Parliament·Sir Bernard Jenkin

   Alleged Spying Case: Home Office Involvement

   May I first invite the Minister to clarify what he said in response to my question last week? I pointed out that, in his letter to the Select Committee Chairs, the Director of Public Prosecutions was clear that he had asked for a statement that China was a national security threat, and it was not forthcoming. The Minister shook his head and appeared to dispute that. Will he now acknowledge that that statement was not forthcoming? Furthermore, when the DPP informally approached the Government after the third statement of evidence had been supplied to him to complain that the words “national security threat” were still not contained in that document, the Government consciously chose not to give any further response. Is that correct? Why, at that point, given all the things that the DNSA had already said, did nobody in the Government think that they could use the three words “national security threat”?

   Hansard source
6. 20 Oct 2025·Parliament·Sir Ashley Fox

   Asylum Seekers: Support and Accommodation

   Does the hon. and learned Member accept that under the Dublin regulation the United Kingdom was a net recipient of refugees?

   Hansard source
7. 20 Oct 2025·Parliament·Sir Ashley Fox

   Asylum Seekers: Support and Accommodation

   Is the hon. Gentleman saying that it is Liberal Democrat policy that asylum costs should not come out of the foreign aid budget?

   Hansard source
8. 20 Oct 2025·Parliament·Sir Ashley Fox

   Asylum Seekers: Support and Accommodation

   It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Murrison. I welcome this debate. My constituents are angry about the increasing number of people crossing the channel in small boats, being rescued by the Royal Navy and brought to Britain, and then being housed in hotels at taxpayers’ expense. Before the election, Labour Members repeated the mantra that they would “smash the gangs” to solve the problem. They presented it as though there was some mysterious solution to cracking down on people smugglers that simply was not being pursued by the previous Government. But in the year since their election, the problem has been getting worse, not better. The number of people crossing the channel is up by 50% on last year. The failure to control our borders makes our country look impotent.

   Hansard source
9. 20 Oct 2025·Parliament·Sir Ashley Fox

   Asylum Seekers: Support and Accommodation

   I hope the Government’s policy is successful. It is just that in the 12 months since they took office, the problem has got worse by 50%. I will explain why. The large numbers of young men we see crossing the channel in small boats are not refugees; they are economic migrants. They have travelled through several safe countries before reaching Calais. The reason that people are prepared to pay to cross the channel in a small boat is that they know that having reached Britain, there is virtually no prospect of their ever being deported. This Government are guilty of self-harm in closing the Rwanda scheme before it started. Had the scheme been allowed to operate and large numbers of those crossing the channel been deported to Rwanda, the economic model of the people smugglers would have been broken. Instead, Labour lets them stay indefinitely. Labour is increasing the use of hotels in town centres. In June 2024, 29,585 people were in hotels; now, the figure is 32,059. The numbers are going in the wrong direction and we cannot allow that to continue. We should close the asylum hotels and deport illegal migrants.

   Hansard source
10. 20 Oct 2025·Parliament·Sir Ashley Fox

    Asylum Seekers: Support and Accommodation

    Of course; that is part of creating a deterrent in which we say to those crossing the channel, “If you enter the country illegally, you will not be entitled to claim asylum and you will be transferred to a third country.” Interestingly, the European Union is now exploring that, and the facilities in Rwanda are currently being used by the United States, so other countries understand the need for a deterrent. If we want to reduce the number of refugees in hotels and temporary accommodation, we need to change the way we deal with refugees. In my view, Parliament should decide how many refugees Britain accepts each year, exactly as we did with the Syria scheme. We should then provide a safe and legal route for those refugees, who should be taken exclusively from UN refugee camps. At present, we have the morally repugnant situation that millions of people are sitting in refugee camps around the world with no prospect of being rehomed, while those who jump the queue and pay money to get into a small boat are given licence to live in Britain forever. Does the Minister think that is moral? That creates a perverse incentive, which puts lives at risk, funds organised crime and stops us controlling who we let into our country. The Government must reintroduce the deterrent of deporting illegal migrants if they are ever to solve the small boats problem.

    Hansard source
11. 20 Oct 2025·Parliament·Sir Ashley Fox

    Asylum Seekers: Support and Accommodation

    If the hon. Gentleman has been so successful, why is the number of boat crossings up 50% on this time last year? And why are there 3,000 more people in asylum hotels than before he came to office?

    Hansard source
12. 20 Oct 2025·Parliament·Sir Ashley Fox

    Asylum Seekers: Support and Accommodation

    Yes, the number was 56,000 in 2023, but the previous Government brought it down to 29,500 in June 2024. The reduction that the hon. Gentleman mentions was all under the previous Conservative Government. The number has gone up by 3,000 since he took office.

    Hansard source
13. 20 Oct 2025·Parliament·Sir Andrew Mitchell

    Maccabi Tel Aviv FC: Away Fans Ban

    I commend the Secretary of State for the tone and the clarity of her response to the urgent question. I echo what she said about the police making the decision in good faith, but it is, as she has said, the wrong decision. Can I also echo what she has said about this not being the sort of country to make such a decision? It is not the sort of city Birmingham is either. There are outstandingly good community relations there, largely because of the excellent work done by the faith communities across the city.

    Hansard source
14. 20 Oct 2025·Parliament·Sir Andrew Mitchell

    Diego Garcia Military Base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill

    My right hon. Friend is doing a very good job of forensically demolishing the Government’s case, such as it is. May I just correct what the Minister has said from the Dispatch Box? There is a very great difference between carrying on and discussing negotiations, and doing a deal. As I was the Deputy Foreign Secretary under both my right hon. Friend the Member for Braintree (Sir James Cleverly) and my noble Friend Lord Cameron, I can tell the House that the then Government would never, ever have done this deal. Secondly, I do hope my right hon. Friend will probe the Minister further on where this extraordinary amount of money is coming from. Is it the defence budget or is it the development budget? Since the Labour party—a Labour Government—has slashed development spending from—

    Hansard source
15. 20 Oct 2025·Parliament·Sir Alec Shelbrooke

    Maccabi Tel Aviv FC: Away Fans Ban

    My Jewish community have been coming to me for years to say how unsafe they feel and that antisemitism has reared its head in this country for many years. The Secretary of State’s tone is welcome, and she is absolutely right, but let me put it bluntly: Jewish hatred in this country has grown and grown. May I ask the Secretary of State to pull every lever she can to ensure that the idea of Jewish hatred is not borne out by people saying, “Because you are Jewish or because you are Israeli, we hold you all responsible for the actions of a Government”? The reality is that that is xenophobia, racism and antisemitism, and it needs to be called out.

    Hansard source
16. 20 Oct 2025·Parliament·Saqib Bhatti

    International Baccalaureate

    I welcome the Minister to his new role. I have been listening to him closely, but I have to say that the rhetoric does not match the actions. In fact, the headteacher of Ashcroft academy wrote to the Secretary of State saying exactly that the IB cannot be delivered because the additional funding has been cut. The international baccalaureate is recognised globally and allows British students to compete internationally. Cutting funding will mean that those who can afford it will have access to it, but those who cannot—namely in our state sector—will not. Why is the Minister scrapping funding for the IB and undermining standards in our state schools?

    Hansard source
17. 20 Oct 2025·Parliament·Saqib Bhatti

    Children with SEND: Mainstream Schools

    I welcome the Minister once again to her place. SEND is a huge issue for every parliamentarian in this House, but for months parents and children across the country have been left in the dark with no clarity as to how the Government will support children with special educational needs. There has been much speculation that EHCPs might be scrapped—speculation caused by the Labour Government—and the Minister gave no answers in the packed Westminster Hall debate before the recess. I wrote to her after that debate. That was over a month ago, and I have yet to receive a letter providing any clarity. Will she give clarity to the parents she speaks about, confirm when the White Paper might be published and tell us whether the Government will be amending the 2014 legislation and scrapping EHCPs?

    Hansard source
18. 20 Oct 2025·Parliament·Saqib Bhatti

    Maccabi Tel Aviv FC: Away Fans Ban

    As a British Muslim who grew up in Birmingham and the west midlands and did business there, I was deeply saddened by this decision—I was saddened for the British Jewish community. We are a tolerant, diverse nation, and a tolerant, diverse region. This decision was bad for two reasons. First, it was bad for Birmingham and the west midlands, and bad for the British Muslim community. Many have reached out, saying that they did not want to be dragged into this and that they feel similar amounts of anger. Secondly, my worry now is that a flashpoint has been created. There will now be those who will want to take advantage of the fact that it is in the headlines. There will be those who will want to come and cause trouble, and drag Birmingham’s name, and that of the west midlands, through the mud.

    Hansard source
19. 20 Oct 2025·Parliament·Priti Patel

    Diego Garcia Military Base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill

    I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. Amendment proposed: 7, in clause 1, page 1, line 7, leave out subsection (2) and insert— “(1A) The Treaty and sections 2 to 4 of this Act do not come into force until the Secretary of State lays before Parliament a memorandum on the obligations under international law which require the UK to cede sovereignty of the British Indian Ocean Territory to the Government of Mauritius. (1B) The memorandum specified in subsection (1) must include— (a) a summary of the legal advice received by the UK Government on this issue; (b) an analysis of the status of UK's sovereignty over the British Indian Ocean Territory under international law; (c) the legal argument for the cessation of British sovereignty over the British Indian Ocean Territory; and (d) the risks which the UK Government may have faced had it not reached an agreement with the Government of Mauritius. (1C) The report specified in subsections (1A) and (1B) must be laid before Parliament no later than two months after this Act receives Royal Assent.”—(Priti Patel.) Question put, That the amendment be made.

    Hansard source
20. 20 Oct 2025·Parliament·Priti Patel

    Diego Garcia Military Base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill

    Let me begin my remarks by once again paying tribute to the heroic Chagossian community who have joined us once again for this debate and have been here for a good four hours. In response to the Minister’s last point—he may have heard us say this previously on Second Reading and during Opposition day debates—no deal is better than a terrible deal, and the Conservative party would never have put this deal forward. Throughout the process, the Government—[Interruption.] They can all make as much noise as they want on the Government benches. None of them were here—[Interruption.] They can point their fingers as much as they want; none of them were sitting here earlier to defend their Government on this terrible deal. Let me come back to the Chagossian community, because throughout this process, they have been silenced and ignored by this Government, and they have faced decades of pain and hurt. [Laughter.] This is not a laughing matter at all. Hon. Members may want to sneer about this, but they should pay some respect to the Chagossian people, because we praise them and are grateful to them for their dignified campaign. There are some Members in this House, even on the Government Benches, who have Chagossians as their own constituents, who they have made representations on behalf of as well. I think we should thank them for the work that they have done. I also want to thank hon. Members from across the House for their interest in this Bill and their diligent scrutiny. I say that because the Labour Government have sought to keep debates on their surrender treaty as short and restricted as possible, and we have seen that again. [Interruption.] They have not been here to contribute to those debates—what would they know? I am particularly grateful for the efforts of hon. Members who have challenged and debated the Bill, including the interest in the Foreign Affairs Committee evidence session. Opposition Members on the Environmental Audit Committee and the Science and Technology Committee spent valuable time in Select Committees—let me emphasise that: in Select Committees—scrutinising this treaty. Opposition Members have been relentless and I thank them for their forensic questioning and for exposing the scandalous way in which this Government have acted. These debates have benefited from the legal expertise and knowledge of former Ministers and Law Officers, and I am thankful to them for their contribution and support. I also want to pay tribute to the Minister for the Overseas Territories, the hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty). He has been diligent in responding to questioning, and he has probably spent more time in the House debating this issue, as well as responding to written communications, than he originally expected. He has become the Minister for defending the indefensible. Although we do disagree robustly on this treaty, we thank him and respect him for his contributions. Let us be clear: this is a bad Bill for Britain; the Opposition will continue to oppose it, and our colleagues in the other place will give it further scrutiny. It leaves Britain weaker and poorer, it gives succour to our enemies, and it has shown the world that, under Labour, Britain is being governed by weak Ministers who appease the whims of left-wing lawyers and activists, rather than standing up for our national interest. Friend and foe alike will now see Britain as a soft touch that can be bullied by lawfare into waving the white flag of surrender, rather than proudly flying the Union flag. For Britain’s standing in the world, for our defence and national security, and for our suffering British taxpayers, I bitterly regret the passage of this Bill. For months we have been calling on Labour to step back from the brink and ditch this mind-boggling surrender deal, but this Government have arrogantly blundered on. Britain comprehensively lost in these negotiations, the treaty and the Bill that we have considered today as a result. Ministers have squirmed and rolled over at every turn and have been eaten for breakfast by the Mauritian Government. Let me be clear: we will oppose this Bill every step of the way in this House and in the other place. It is worth noting that within weeks of coming to power, this soft-touch Government decided that they would end more than 200 years of British sovereignty over this vital territory for our country’s security and national interest, and for no justifiable reason. We are not just giving up the islands of the archipelago; more than that, the national interest is being squandered, and so is peace and stability in that area. The Government are asking British taxpayers, whom they have already thrashed with vindictive taxes, now to shoulder the burden of this scandalous deal, and it is simply not on. Labour Governments often bang on about the redistribution of wealth, but today they take it to a new level with the redistribution of wealth from Britain to Mauritius. How much of the money will be plundered from the Defence budget, hindering our armed forces’ ability to procure new capabilities at the worst possible time? It comes as the Minister for Defence Procurement has overseen a freeze on procurement as the world gets more dangerous, and we do know that the world is getting more dangerous. The much-vaunted strategic defence review, which Labour pledged would see off all the major threats, was overdue and underfunded—but guess what? Labour has no plan to pay for it now. Here we are now: the Government have found it within themselves to spend £35 billion on this deal. This is not just money from down the line in the future; it is hundreds of millions of pounds each year within this Parliament. Today the Government have sunk to a new low: Labour MPs have voted against giving Parliament, this House, a say over sending £35 billion of our constituents’ money to Mauritius with no strings attached. Mauritius will now use our money to reduce its debt and cut taxes because of this Government. Labour MPs have voted to block the publication of a summary of legal advice on which the Government relied to make this dodgy deal. We might have thought that they had learnt from the current China debacle that this is not the right way, but no, they still cannot offer a sound legal explanation for why they have rushed through this deal. The Government have refused to adopt our amendments to ensure the monitoring of how the rights of Chagossians will be safeguarded. The Chagossians, to whom we have a special responsibility, have been neglected and ignored by Labour since the election, so it comes as no surprise—and it is now a bitter blow for them—that there is no cost implication or, indeed, any good reason as to why we are going down this route. The Government have also declined to adopt our amendment to keep the Intelligence and Security Committee apprised of the security protections in this treaty, again denying hon. Members the scrutiny to which we are entitled. It is astonishing, in the light of the national security concerns that this terrible deal now brings, and it leaves our country weaker and poorer. This is a deal that this Government and our country will come to regret.

    Hansard source
21. 20 Oct 2025·Parliament·Paul Holmes

    Diego Garcia Military Base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill

    Reports today suggest that China and India are entering into negotiations to sign leases to islands surrounding those on which British military operations will continue under the proposed lease agreement. Does she think that connection to China would be a risk and pose a threat to national security?

    Hansard source
22. 20 Oct 2025·Parliament·Paul Holmes

    Diego Garcia Military Base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill

    Does the right hon. Member share my dismay that, despite a Government majority of over 170 and the fact that there are over 400 Government MPs, on an issue of national security only one Government Back Bencher spoke in this debate? Does he think that is an indication of how the Labour party views national security and an overseas territory being given away for nothing?

    Hansard source
23. 20 Oct 2025·Parliament·Nigel Huddleston

    Maccabi Tel Aviv FC: Away Fans Ban

    (Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will make a statement on the decision to ban Maccabi Tel Aviv FC fans from attending their fixture against Aston Villa.

    Hansard source
24. 20 Oct 2025·Parliament·Nigel Huddleston

    Maccabi Tel Aviv FC: Away Fans Ban

    I thank the right hon. Lady for those comments, because I am sure most of us in this House believe that the decision to ban Maccabi Tel Aviv fans from the upcoming Europa league game against Villa was the wrong one. It is also embarrassing and a disgrace. Have we really reached the point where we cannot welcome visitors from overseas to our second city, because we cannot guarantee their safety on British streets and in British football grounds? This is not how modern Britain should present itself to the world. Some, astoundingly including some in this House, have claimed that the ban on Israeli fans is for their own safety. That safety has been put at risk precisely because of the anger and hatred being whipped up by some of those very same people demanding a ban, such as by equating football fans with terrorists. We cannot give in to that kind of rhetoric, and I hope the Minister will join me in condemning it. Football and all sport has incredible potential to bring people together. It should not be used as a deliberate tool to divide. The UK has a great and hard-won reputation for hosting major international sporting events, and banning an entire fanbase sends the wrong signal and may jeopardise our ability to host such events in the future. How disappointing this decision must be to the residents of Birmingham, who only three years ago welcomed people from around the world to the Commonwealth games, which showcased Birmingham and the west midlands at their diverse, vibrant and hospitable best. We therefore call on the Government to intervene and get this ban reversed. Aston Villa and the safety advisory group may only be able to reverse the ban with guarantees of additional support from the Government. Can the Minister therefore confirm what additional resources may be provided and who will pay for them? Can she confirm when the Home Office and the Department for Culture, Media and Sport were first made aware of the intent of the safety advisory group to make this obviously controversial decision? Is she confident that they talked to all the right people before making the decision? If the decision is reversed, what practical steps will be taken to ensure the safety of all fans and residents? While many football teams have some undesirable supporters intent on causing trouble, let us recognise that the vast majority of fans want nothing more than to enjoy a good game of football. Does the Minister agree that, if we are truly to wrap our arms around the Jewish community, as the Prime Minister promised following the attack on the synagogue in Manchester, we need to take action and not just spout warm words? Finally, is she confident that this incident will not jeopardise our ability to host major international sporting events in the future?

    Hansard source
25. 20 Oct 2025·Parliament·Nick Timothy

    Higher-level Learning Target

    On higher-level learning, universities have spent at least £2.5 million since the attacks of 7 October on additional security for anti-Israel protests and the clean-up operations that follow, yet many of the disciplinary cases against those disrupting study have been dropped. Will the Secretary of State confirm how many students have been expelled or disciplined for causing criminal damage, inciting violence and chanting antisemitic abuse?

    Hansard source
26. 20 Oct 2025·Parliament·Nick Timothy

    Free Schools: Application Decisions

    One year ago, the Education Secretary paused plans to open 44 approved free schools. In January, she said that she was “working rapidly” to make a decision. That was nine months ago—enough time to make a baby, but not enough time for her to make up her mind. When will our Ministers tell those free school founders—among whom are some of the best education leaders in the country—if they can open great new schools?

    Hansard source
27. 20 Oct 2025·Parliament·Ms Nusrat Ghani

    Alleged Spying Case: Home Office Involvement

    The points of order will come after the urgent questions and the statement. Can it wait?

    Hansard source
28. 20 Oct 2025·Parliament·Ms Nusrat Ghani

    Maccabi Tel Aviv FC: Away Fans Ban

    Order. I ask Members to temper their language and not accuse each other of being disingenuous.

    Hansard source
29. 20 Oct 2025·Parliament·Ms Nusrat Ghani

    Maccabi Tel Aviv FC: Away Fans Ban

    Order. I know that this topic is very important, but I need questions to be short and answers to be just as precise.

    Hansard source
30. 20 Oct 2025·Parliament·Ms Nusrat Ghani

    Maccabi Tel Aviv FC: Away Fans Ban

    Order. If Mr Kruger and Ms Zarah Sultana want to continue their own personal debate, they need to take it out of the Chamber.

    Hansard source
31. 20 Oct 2025·Parliament·Ms Nusrat Ghani

    Maccabi Tel Aviv FC: Away Fans Ban

    I do not want to continue the debate. Are the points of order absolutely necessary right now and relevant?

    Hansard source
32. 20 Oct 2025·Parliament·Ms Nusrat Ghani

    Maccabi Tel Aviv FC: Away Fans Ban

    I am not sure that was actually a point of order, and I do not want to continue the debate, but the hon. Member has indeed put his point on the record.

    Hansard source
33. 20 Oct 2025·Parliament·Ms Nusrat Ghani

    Maccabi Tel Aviv FC: Away Fans Ban

    Order. Ms Sultana, I should not have to repeat myself: that is a continuation of the debate, and the urgent question has concluded.

    Hansard source
34. 20 Oct 2025·Parliament·Ms Nusrat Ghani

    Post-16 Education and Skills Strategy

    Order. We will have just another 30 minutes or so of questions, because we have a big debate later, so colleagues must keep their questions short.

    Hansard source
35. 20 Oct 2025·Parliament·Ms Nusrat Ghani

    Point of Order

    I thank the hon. Member for giving notice of his point of order. While Mr Speaker is not responsible for what individual Members say, he is nevertheless clear about the importance of the safety and security of Members and their families. I would always encourage Members to speak about one another with courtesy and respect, and to be mindful of the content that they put on social media and of its impact on balanced public discourse.

    Hansard source
36. 20 Oct 2025·Parliament·Ms Nusrat Ghani

    Diego Garcia Military Base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill

    I remind Members that in Committee, they should not address the Chair as “Deputy Speaker”; please use our names when addressing the Chair. “Madam Chair” or “Madam Chairman” are acceptable. Before we begin proceedings on the Bill, I can inform the House that I, as Chairman of Ways and Means, am minded to select amendment 7 and new clause 1, in the name of the right hon. Member for Witham (Priti Patel), and amendment 9, in the name of the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Dr Pinkerton), for separate decision at the end of the debate.

    Hansard source
37. 20 Oct 2025·Parliament·Ms Nusrat Ghani

    Diego Garcia Military Base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill

    With this it will be convenient to consider the following: Amendment 7, page 1, line 7, leave out subsection (2) and insert— “(1A) The Treaty and sections 2 to 4 of this Act do not come into force until the Secretary of State lays before Parliament a memorandum on the obligations under international law which require the UK to cede sovereignty of the British Indian Ocean Territory to the Government of Mauritius. (1B) The memorandum specified in subsection (1) must include— (a) a summary of the legal advice received by the UK Government on this issue; (b) an analysis of the status of UK's sovereignty over the British Indian Ocean Territory under international law; (c) the legal argument for the cessation of British sovereignty over the British Indian Ocean Territory; and (d) the risks which the UK Government may have faced had it not reached an agreement with the Government of Mauritius. (1C) The report specified in subsections (1A) and (1B) must be laid before Parliament no later than two months after this Act receives Royal Assent.” Amendment 9, page 1, line 7, leave out subsection (2) and insert— “(1A) Before sections 2 to 4 of this Act come into force, the Secretary of State must— (a) seek to undertake negotiations with the Government of Mauritius on whether Mauritius will establish a right for Chagossians to return and reside in the Chagos Islands; and (b) seek agreement to a referendum for Chagossians on self-determination within any negotiations which take place under paragraph (a); and (c) lay before both Houses of Parliament a report on progress on establishing negotiations with the Government of Mauritius and the outcome of any that take place. (1B) Within two months of the report being laid before the House of Commons under paragraph (1a), the Secretary of State must table a substantive motion in the House of Commons on the contents of the report.” This amendment requires that the Government must undertake negotiations with Mauritius on a Chagossian right of return and on a referendum, with a report laid before Parliament on the outcome of the negotiations. The Government must subsequently table a substantive motion in the House of Commons on the content of that report. Amendment 10, page 1, line 7, leave out subsection (2) and insert— “(1A) The Treaty and sections 2 to 4 of this Act do not come into force until the Secretary of State establishes a public consultation of Chagossian people residing in the UK on the Treaty. (1B) The public consultation under section (1A) must be established within two months of this Act receiving Royal Assent.” This amendment requires the Government to establish a public consultation with the Chagossian people residing in the UK, before the Treaty and sections 2 to 4 of this Act can come into force. Amendment 11, page 1, line 7, leave out subsection (2) and insert— “(1A) The Treaty and sections 2 to 4 of this Act do not come into force until the Secretary of State makes a statement before Parliament outlining proposals for a public consultation on the Treaty. (1B) A statement made under subsection (1A) must be made within two months of this Act receiving Royal Assent.” This amendment requires the Government to make a statement before Parliament outlining proposals for a public consultation on the Treaty within two months of this Act receiving Royal Assent, before the Treaty and sections 2 to 4 of this Act can come into force. Amendment 14, page 1, line 7, leave out subsection (2) and insert— “(1A) The Treaty and sections 2 to 4 of this Act do not come into force until the Secretary of State lays before Parliament an impact assessment detailing the benefits and costs to the United Kingdom, including in financial and security terms, of the Treaty. (1B) The Secretary of State must lay the impact assessment under section (1A) within 2 months of the passing of this Act.” This amendment requires the Government to publish an impact assessment detailing the benefits and costs to the United Kingdom, including in financial and security terms, of the Treaty within two months of this Act receiving Royal Assent, before the Treaty and sections 2 to 4 of this Act can come into force. Clause stand part. Amendment 13, in clause 2, page 1, line 17, leave out subsection (b). This amendment removes section 2 (b) of the Bill which aims to remove citizens of the British Indian Ocean Territory from the list of British Overseas Territories recognised under the British Nationality Act 1981, thus preserving British Chagossian’s nationality and associated rights. Clauses 2 to 4 stand part. Amendment 3, in clause 5, page 3, line 29, leave out subsections (1) to (4). Amendment 4, page 3, line 36, at beginning insert— “With the exception of the subject matters listed in subsection (3A),”. Amendment 8, page 3, line 40, leave out subsection (3) and insert— “(2A) An Order under this Act may not be made unless a draft of the order has been laid before Parliament and approved by a resolution of each House.” This amendment provides that any order made under the Act would need to have the approval of each House of Parliament. Amendment 6, page 3, line 40, leave out “is subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament” and insert “may not be made unless a draft of the order has been laid before Parliament and approved by a resolution of each House”. Amendment 5, page 4, line 3, at end insert— “(3A) An order under this section relating to Diego Garcia, or the rights of Chagossians residing in the United Kingdom, may not be made unless a draft of the order has been laid before Parliament and approved by a resolution of each House.” Clause 5 stand part. Amendment 2, in clause 6, page 4, line 17, leave out “see section 1(2)” and insert “see section 1(1A)”. This amendment is consequential on NC2. Clause 6 stand part. New clause 1—Approval of payments to Mauritius by the House of Commons— “(1) No payment may be made by the Government of the United Kingdom to the Government of Mauritius under Article 11 (1)(a) of the Treaty without the approval of the House of Commons. (2) No development framework under Article 11 (1)(c) may be agreed by the Government of the United Kingdom with the Government of Mauritius without the approval of the House of Commons. (3) No payment may be made under any development framework agreed between the Government of the United Kingdom and the Government of Mauritius without the approval of the House of Commons. (4) The approval required by subsections (1), (2) and (3) must be in the form of a resolution of the House of Commons.” This new clause requires parliamentary approval for any payment by the UK Government to the Government of Mauritius under the Treaty. New clause 2—The additional period and right to extend: duty to publish legal advice and risk assessments— “(1) Within six months of this Act receiving Royal Assent, the Secretary of State must lay before both Houses of Parliament any legal advice and any risk assessments given to the Government relating to— (a) the ability of the United Kingdom to extend the duration of the Treaty’s provisions for the additional period of 40 years (“the additional period”) specified in Article 13(2) of the Treaty, including— (i) any advice pertaining to the automaticity, or otherwise, of the UK securing the additional period; (ii) any obligations placed on both parties to negotiate the additional period; (iii) any risk assessment of the impact on the United Kingdom’s strategic interests of not securing the additional period; and (b) the ‘right of first refusal’ offered to the United Kingdom should the additional period not be negotiated at the end of the Treaty’s initial duration under Article 13(5) of the Treaty, including whether such a right exists if the additional period expires without a further extension being agreed.” New clause 3—Written instrument on the Marine Protected Area: approval by the House of Commons— “(1) No written instrument on the establishment and management of its Marine Protected Area in the Chagos Archipelago provided for by Article 5 of the Treaty, including any changes to current restrictions on fishing, commercial and extractive activities, may be agreed to by the Government of the United Kingdom unless— (a) a Minister of the Crown has laid before Parliament a copy of the written instrument, (b) the written instrument and an explanatory memorandum has been published, and (c) period A has expired without the House of Commons having resolved, within period A, that the written instrument should not be agreed. (2) Period A is the period of 21 sitting days beginning with the first sitting day after the date on which the requirement in subsection (1)(a) is met. (3) ‘An explanatory memorandum’ has the meaning given in section 24 of the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010.” This new clause provides that any written instrument on the Marine Protected Area will be subject to the approval of the House of Commons in a process equivalent to that required for treaties under section 20 of the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010. New clause 4—Ecological status of the Marine Protected Area— “(1) The Secretary of State must, within two years of the passing of this Act and within every subsequent two years, lay before both Houses of Parliament and publish a report on the status of the Marine Protected Area (the ‘MPA’). (2) Any report made under subsection (1) must include, but not be limited to— (a) numbers of different species of coral, fish and molluscs in the Marine Protected Area; (b) coral reef resilience; (c) fish stocks; (d) ocean acidification; (e) any degradation of the marine or terrestrial environments; and (f) a complete record of the vessels (nature and flag) that enter the MPA.” This new clause requires the Secretary of State to report regularly on the status of the Marine Protected Area. New clause 5—Reports to the Intelligence and Security Committee— “(1) The Secretary of State must, within twelve months of this Act receiving Royal Assent, and every year subsequently, report to the Intelligence and Security Committee of Parliament, established under section 1 of the Justice and Security Act 2013, on the security of the military base on Diego Garcia and the buffer zone. (2) The report in subsection (1) must include, but shall not be limited to— (a) the security of the buffer zone; (b) the management and use of the electromagnetic spectrum; (c) the presence of any foreign security forces on the islands, whether civilian or military; (d) a complete record of the vessels, including their nature and flag, that enter the Marine Protected Area; (e) a complete record of the notifications the United Kingdom has given the Government of Mauritius about activity on Diego Garcia; (f) a complete record of any information passed from the United Kingdom to the Government of Mauritius, including any military operations, personnel movements, infrastructure development, communications, and logistical support. (3) For the purposes of this section, ‘buffer zone’ has the meaning of the 24 nautical miles surrounding the island of Diego Garcia.” This new clause requires the Secretary of State to report annually to the Intelligence and Security Committee about the security of the military base on Diego Garcia and the security of the buffer zone. New clause 6—Report on the impact of UNCLOS on the operation of the Treaty— “(1) The Secretary of State must report to Parliament within one year of the passing of this Act, and each subsequent year, on the impact that the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (‘UNCLOS’) has had on the operation of the Treaty.” This new clause requires the Secretary of State to report to Parliament annually about the impact that the United Nations Conventions on the Law of the Sea has on the operation of the Treaty. New clause 7—Rights of Chagossians— “(1) The Secretary of State must consult the Chagossian community based in the United Kingdom on the implementation of the Treaty. (2) The matters the Secretary of State must consult on shall include, but not be limited to— (a) the Government of the United Kingdom’s response to any consultation by the Government of Mauritius on the regulations to establish a Trust Fund under Article (11)(b) of the Treaty; and (b) any areas of dispute concerning the rights of the Chagossian people that arise between the Governments of the United Kingdom and Mauritius, before such disputes are formally discussed in the Joint Committee under the dispute settlement process established in Article 14 of the Treaty. (3) Within six months of the passing of this Act, and at least once every subsequent year, the Secretary of State must lay before Parliament a report containing an assessment of the efforts of the UK Government to uphold the rights of Chagossians under the terms of the Treaty.” This new clause requires the Secretary of State to consult the Chagossian community in the UK on the discharge of the UK Government’s obligations under the Treaty, and to report annually on how the UK Government has upheld the rights of Chagossians. New clause 8—Report on compliance of the Treaty and the Act with UN General Assembly Resolutions on Decolonisation— “(1) Within six months of this Act receiving Royal Assent, the Secretary of State must produce a report on the compliance of the Treaty agreed with the Government of Mauritius, and the provisions of section (2) of this Act, with the following Resolutions of the United Nations General Assembly— (a) Resolution 567 (VI), (b) Resolution 648 (VII), (c) Resolution 742 (VIII), (d) Resolution 1514 (XV). (2) The report specified in subsection (1) must be laid before both Houses of Parliament and, within two months of its publication, the Secretary of State must ensure that a substantive motion relating to the report is tabled, and moved, in both the House of Commons and House of Lords.” New clause 9—Marine Protected Area: Progress Reports— “(1) Within twelve months of this Act receiving Royal Assent, and every twelve months thereafter, the Secretary of State must lay before Parliament a report on— (a) the progress made in establishing; and (b) managing a Marine Protected Area in the Chagos Archipelago. (2) The reports required under subsection (1) must include— (a) a list of any meetings held during the twelve-month period between the Governments of the United Kingdom and Mauritius in which the Marine Protected Area was discussed; (b) a summary of the non-financial support and assistance provided by the Government of the United Kingdom in the establishment, and management, of a Marine Protected Area; and (c) the costs incurred by the United Kingdom, including any money paid by the Government of the United Kingdom to the Government of Mauritius, in connection with the establishment, and management, of a Marine Protected Area. (3) Within two months of a report being laid before the House of Commons under subsection (1), the Secretary of State must table a substantive motion in the House of Commons on the contents of the report. (4) Within twelve months of this Act receiving Royal Assent, the Secretary of State must seek to undertake negotiations with the Government of Mauritius to secure additional guarantees of its commitment to the development and preservation of a Marine Protected Area.” This new clause requires the Government to produce an annual report on progress in establishing and managing, and to seek negotiations on securing further guarantees of Mauritius’s commitment to, a Marine Protected Area in the Chagos Archipelago. New clause 10—Annual report: Treaty implementation— “(1) The Secretary of State must, within twelve months of commencement and every twelve months thereafter, publish and lay before both Houses of Parliament a report on— (a) the expenditure of public funds made under the Treaty during the most recent financial year; and (b) progress on the UK’s implementation of the Treaty.” This new clause requires the Government to publish an annual report on the expenditure of public funds made under the Treaty and on the progress of the UK’s implementation of the Treaty. New clause 11—Annual Parliamentary Oversight and Approval of Expenditure— “(1) The Secretary of State must, once every financial year, lay before the House of Commons, for its approval, an estimate of the expenditure that is anticipated to be incurred by the Government of the United Kingdom in connection with the commitments made under the terms of the Treaty, including, but not limited to— (a) any payments made or to be made, or financial commitments entered into, with the Government of the Republic of Mauritius in accordance with the Treaty; and (b) the costs associated with the continued administration, maintenance, and operation of Diego Garcia. (2) If the payments incurred by the Government of the United Kingdom are greater than those anticipated in the estimate specified in subsection (1), the Secretary of State must lay before the House of Commons, for its approval, a supplementary estimate.” This new clause provides for an estimates and supply scrutiny process for expenditure to be incurred by the UK Government as a result of the Treaty and the UK’s continued involvement in Diego Garcia. New clause 12—Review of the welfare and needs of Chagossians residing in the UK— “(1) Within a year of this Act receiving Royal Assent, the Secretary of State must undertake, and publish the findings of, a review of the welfare, integration, and general needs of Chagossians residing in the United Kingdom. (2) In undertaking the review specified in subsection (1), the Secretary of State must consult representatives of Chagossians residing in the UK, including community organisations. (3) Within a month of publishing the report specified in subsection (1), the Government must make time available for a debate in both the House of Commons and the House of Lords on a substantive motion relating to the report.” This new clause requires the government to undertake a review of welfare and integration of Chagossians in the UK within a year Act receiving Royal Assent with a substantive motion relating to the report of the review tabled in both Houses of Parliament. New clause 13—Impact of this Act and the Treaty on Chagossians residing in the United Kingdom— “(1) The Secretary of State must, within six months of the day on which this Act is passed, consult with— (a) Chagossian persons residing in the United Kingdom; and (b) bodies representing, or working with, the Chagossian community residing in the United Kingdom regarding the impact of this Act and the Treaty on the Chagossian community residing in the United Kingdom. (2) The terms of reference for the consultation specified in subsection (1) must include, but not be limited to the impact of this Act and the Treaty on— (a) the socio-economic status of Chagossians residing in the United Kingdom; (b) the family life of the UK based Chagossian community; and (c) any implications for the Chagossian community residing in the United Kingdom, of changes to British nationality law. (3) Within twelve months of the passing of this Act, the Secretary of State must lay a report before Parliament summarising— (a) any findings from the consultation; and (b) any steps the Government intends to take as a result of those findings.” This new clause requires the Government to consult the UK based Chagossian community on the impact of the Act and the Treaty, and to publish the findings of the consultation. New clause 14—Duty to produce proposals for a referendum of Chagossians residing in the UK— “(1) The Secretary of State must, within six months of this Act receiving Royal Assent, lay before both Houses of Parliament proposals for an advisory referendum of Chagossians residing in the UK, seeking their opinions on the Treaty signed with the Government of Mauritius and the provisions of this Act. (2) Within a month of publishing the proposals specified in subsection (1), the Secretary of State must make time available in both Houses of Parliament for a debate on a substantive motion relating to the proposals.” New clause 15—Review of the operation of the Treaty— “(1) Within five years of this Act receiving Royal Assent, the Secretary of State must commence a review of the operation of the Treaty. (2) The review must include, but need not be limited to, an examination of whether it is in the UK’s national security interests to continue being a signatory to, or to seek the termination of, the Treaty. (3) A report summarising the findings of the review must be published and laid before both Houses of Parliament.” This amendment would require the Government to undertake, within five years of the Act receiving Royal Assent, a review of the operation of the Treaty and publish its findings, including whether it is in the UK’s national security interests to continue to be a signatory to the treaty. New clause 17—Access to the archipelago under the Treaty— “In any discussions with the Government of Mauritius relating to the provisions of Annex 1(3)(d) of the Treaty, the Secretary of State shall not give consent to the presence of any Indian or Chinese security forces, either civilian or military in nature, in the Chagos Archipelago.” This amendment would require the Government to withhold consent, in any discussions with Government of Mauritius held under the provisions of Annex 1 (3) (d) of the Treaty, to the presence of any Indian or Chinese civilian or military security forces in the Chagos Archipelago.

    Hansard source
38. 20 Oct 2025·Parliament·Ms Nusrat Ghani

    Diego Garcia Military Base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill

    Order. I do not think we need this chuntering from the Front Bench. Can we ensure that the speech remains within the legislation that we are debating and voting on tonight?

    Hansard source
39. 20 Oct 2025·Parliament·Ms Nusrat Ghani

    Diego Garcia Military Base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill

    Order. Mr Kane, do not use the word “you”, because that refers to me.

    Hansard source
40. 20 Oct 2025·Parliament·Ms Nusrat Ghani

    Diego Garcia Military Base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill

    Order. Mr Mayhew and colleagues who hope to intervene, let us remember the scope of the debate in front of us.

    Hansard source