Showing every spoken contribution, including 5,750 under 12 words. Hide short remarks

1. 20 Oct 2025·Parliament·Dr Kieran Mullan

   Draft Compensation for Miscarriages of Justice (Alteration of Overall Compensation Limits) Order 2025

   It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Vickers. The draft order will increase the limits on the overall compensation that may be paid to individuals who have suffered a miscarriage of justice and are eligible for compensation under the Criminal Justice Act 1988 or the Armed Forces Act 2006. As the Minister said, in simple terms, the measure will raise the maximum amount that can be awarded to someone whose conviction has been quashed after serving time in custody. The existing caps, which have been in place since 2008, are £1 million for those who have spent 10 years or more in qualifying detention, and £500,000 in other cases. The draft order increases those limits by 30% to £1.3 million and £650,000, respectively. It also makes corresponding changes to ensure that the civilian and armed forces compensation schemes remain aligned. When the state deprives someone of their liberty and it later transpires that they were innocent, the damage done to their life is profound. No amount of money can make up for the lost years and lost relationships, but the law rightly recognises that society owes something to such individuals. Those who have suffered a miscarriage of justice deserve to be treated with dignity and fairness, which includes ensuring that compensation is not eroded by inflation or the passage of time. It has been 17 years since the caps were first introduced, and their real value has inevitably diminished. The draft order is the Government’s approach to addressing that, and the Opposition have nothing further to add to what the Minister said in that regard.

   Hansard source
2. 20 Oct 2025·Parliament·Dr Caroline Johnson

   Diego Garcia Military Base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill

   In this House, there is often talk about millions of pounds for this and billions of pounds for that. It is difficult sometimes to get in one’s mind the scale of the money. Last year, the Chancellor said that she was going to raise national insurance and lower the threshold. We know how much damage that has done to the country, yet it was said at the time that it would raise £25.7 billion. That would not even pay for this deal. That is the amount of money they are going to give away today.

   Hansard source
3. 20 Oct 2025·Parliament·Dr Ben Spencer

   Alleged Spying Case: Home Office Involvement

   I think most people would consider things that are threatening indeed to be threats, so we can only assume that the Minister has been instructed that he cannot make such a statement from the Dispatch Box. Will he help us to understand better the Government’s position on their relationship with China. Is China an ally? Is it a friend? Will he explain that?

   Hansard source
4. 20 Oct 2025·Parliament·Dr Andrew Murrison

   Asylum Seekers: Support and Accommodation

   I remind Members that they should bob if they want to be called in the debate—I see that most colleagues are doing so.

   Hansard source
5. 20 Oct 2025·Parliament·Dr Andrew Murrison

   Asylum Seekers: Support and Accommodation

   Order. I have not imposed a time limit, but the hon. Gentleman has been going on considerably longer than other colleagues. He may wish to reflect on that.

   Hansard source
6. 20 Oct 2025·Parliament·Damian Hinds

   Higher-level Learning Target

   After the creative reimagining of the Government’s target for hiring more teachers, it would be helpful to have some precision on the record for the target of two thirds of young people in higher learning. We know that higher learning means level 4 or above, but what exactly is a gold-standard apprenticeship? Does it mean one in growth sectors with very high levels of completion?

   Hansard source
7. 20 Oct 2025·Parliament·Dame Caroline Dinenage

   Children with SEND: Mainstream Schools

   The number of EHCPs being maintained by Hampshire county council is rising exponentially, but the funding is simply not keeping pace with the demand and the cost. Surprisingly, the proportion of pupils receiving SEND support in mainstream schools is going down, which demonstrates to me that teachers simply do not feel sufficiently supported to support those children. The last Government introduced the Oliver McGowan mandatory training in neurodivergence for all health and care professionals. I met the Minister’s predecessor to discuss introducing a similar programme for education professionals. Would the Minister look again at how that programme could support teachers who are struggling in some of the most difficult educational circumstances?

   Hansard source
8. 20 Oct 2025·Parliament·Dame Caroline Dinenage

   Maccabi Tel Aviv FC: Away Fans Ban

   On Friday, the club’s chief executive raised concerns about what the ban on fans actually signals. The Secretary of State will be aware that this is not the first time we have heard about Jewish people not feeling safe at either cultural or sporting events, whether that was the scenes at Glastonbury this year or the boycotts, protests and cancellations of Jewish performers at venues around the country. I am really grateful for the Secretary of State’s commitment today, but can she set out a bit more on what specifically she is doing to ensure that Jewish people feel safe and welcome to participate in cultural life in the UK?

   Hansard source
9. 20 Oct 2025·Parliament·Chris Philp

   Alleged Spying Case: Home Office Involvement

   (Urgent Question): To ask the Home Secretary to make a statement about Home Office involvement in the alleged China spying case.

   Hansard source
10. 20 Oct 2025·Parliament·Chris Philp

    Alleged Spying Case: Home Office Involvement

    Last Wednesday, the Prime Minister told this House that no Minister or special adviser was involved in the handling of the China spy case, yet The Sunday Times has since reported that the Home Secretary had “heard that the case might collapse and had made representations to ensure the evidence put forward was as ‘strong as possible’.” So I ask the Minister: when did the Home Secretary become aware that the case might collapse, and what representations did she or her proxies make about the evidence and to whom? Why has the House been told—including just now—that Ministers and advisers were not involved in any way when The Sunday Times reports that they were? The Sunday Times also reported on a key meeting that took place on 1 September—a meeting that the Government originally denied took place. Is it true that Jonathan Powell chaired that meeting? Did that meeting discuss the CPS view that the evidence provided to that point was inadequate, and the possibility of providing further evidence in the case? Will the Minister agree to publish the minutes of all meetings in which this case was discussed and the correspondence relating to it? The Sunday Times reported that following the meeting, the Attorney General’s Office was asked to speak to the CPS. Did anyone from the AGO speak directly or indirectly to the CPS after that meeting? Can the Minister confirm that Dan Chugg from the Foreign Office was at the 1 September meeting, and that it was the same Dan Chugg who approached the Lord Speaker with a proposed deal in which the Chinese ambassador would be allowed back into Parliament? The Sunday Times also reported that the DNSA is understood to have acknowledged privately that the decision not to say that China is an ongoing threat was political in nature. Is that true? Finally, the current Government’s position has been that all the evidence provided related to the previous Government’s policy, but we now know that that is categorically not true. In paragraph 8 of Matt Collins’s third statement, from August this year, which he copied and pasted from the Labour manifesto, he stressed the importance the current Government attach to a “positive relationship” with China, weakening the evidence compared with 2023 and bringing in current Government policy, contrary to what we have been told in recent weeks. Why have the Government been providing this House with inaccurate information, and why did Ministers know what the CPS wanted but refuse to give it to the CPS?

    Hansard source
11. 20 Oct 2025·Parliament·Chris Philp

    Alleged Spying Case: Home Office Involvement

    Don’t just read that out. Answer the question.

    Hansard source
12. 20 Oct 2025·Parliament·Caroline Nokes

    Alleged Spying Case: Home Office Involvement

    I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

    Hansard source
13. 20 Oct 2025·Parliament·Caroline Nokes

    Diego Garcia Military Base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill

    Order. The right hon. Member may like to rethink his words about the Prime Minister.

    Hansard source
14. 20 Oct 2025·Parliament·Caroline Nokes

    Diego Garcia Military Base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill

    No.

    Hansard source
15. 20 Oct 2025·Parliament·Caroline Nokes

    Diego Garcia Military Base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill

    Order. That is a very long intervention. Perhaps the shadow Minister should take over.

    Hansard source
16. 20 Oct 2025·Parliament·Caroline Nokes

    Diego Garcia Military Base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill

    Order. There is far too much noise and many private conversations, which make it very difficult to hear the hon. Gentleman.

    Hansard source
17. 20 Oct 2025·Parliament·Caroline Nokes

    Diego Garcia Military Base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill

    Order. I will give the hon. Gentleman the same warning that I gave the right hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness (Graham Stuart). He needs to be very careful with his language.

    Hansard source
18. 20 Oct 2025·Parliament·Caroline Nokes

    Diego Garcia Military Base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill

    I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

    Hansard source
19. 20 Oct 2025·Parliament·Caroline Nokes

    Diego Garcia Military Base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill

    I call the Father of the House.

    Hansard source
20. 20 Oct 2025·Parliament·Caroline Nokes

    Diego Garcia Military Base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill

    Order. When the hon. Gentleman says “you”, he is referring to me. Perhaps he would refer to the Minister as “the Minister”.

    Hansard source
21. 20 Oct 2025·Parliament·Caroline Nokes

    Diego Garcia Military Base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill

    Order. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman might stay within the scope of the Bill.

    Hansard source
22. 20 Oct 2025·Parliament·Caroline Nokes

    Diego Garcia Military Base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill

    Order. The hon. Gentleman will keep within the scope of this Bill, and not seek to rehash urgent questions held earlier.

    Hansard source
23. 20 Oct 2025·Parliament·Caroline Nokes

    Diego Garcia Military Base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill

    Order. I will hear the Minister.

    Hansard source
24. 20 Oct 2025·Parliament·Bob Blackman

    Maccabi Tel Aviv FC: Away Fans Ban

    I am sure that the Secretary of State will find the irony in the fact that last weekend—as I am sure they will next weekend—premier league footballers took the knee to demonstrate the need to drive out racism from football. What has happened here is antisemitism at its heart. If the issue is the safety of the fans outside the ground, it is the case in many away matches that away supporters are escorted by the police on coaches to the entrance and then collected from the exit to go back to the airport. There is no reason why that cannot be done now. Will the Secretary of State go back to the police and say, “Let’s make people safe”? I support Tottenham Hotspur, and we have a massive Jewish population among our fans. If this means that we are not safe to go to Aston Villa because of attitudes outside the ground, that is a demonstration that in the UK Jewish people are not safe on our streets.

    Hansard source
25. 20 Oct 2025·Parliament·Blake Stephenson

    Alleged Spying Case: Home Office Involvement

    The Minister has been asked why further steps were not taken to provide the evidence requested in this case, knowing that the case was on the verge of collapse. He may feel that he has provided clarity, but I am afraid that he absolutely has not. Will he ask the Attorney General to come to this House and make a statement about what the CPS wanted and why that was not provided by the Government?

    Hansard source
26. 20 Oct 2025·Parliament·Blake Stephenson

    Post-16 Education and Skills Strategy

    The Secretary of State says that she wants to see empowered NHS staff with the right skills to deliver a transformed service, with which I absolutely agree. Level 7 apprenticeships, such as those provided by Cranfield University in Mid Bedfordshire, are so important to delivering that, but the Department for Education has cut funding to level 7 apprenticeships, meaning that the Department of Health and Social Care will be funding ongoing provision. Does the Secretary of State think it is responsible for her to balance the books of her Department on the back of the NHS?

    Hansard source
27. 20 Oct 2025·Parliament·Blake Stephenson

    Diego Garcia Military Base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill

    Since this House first learned of the disastrous terms of the Chagos surrender deal, there has been significant focus on the spiralling cost and on the defence and security implications—we have heard many such arguments today. The Government’s weakness has compromised our national security. They are surrendering British territory to an ally of China and paying £35 billion—or perhaps as much as £50 billion—for the privilege. Their failure to defend the British national interest is shameful. Equally shameful is the Government’s failure to consider the impact that the deal will have on environmental protections for marine areas. Members from across the House have reflected on that today, but it is a shame that so few Labour Members came to stand up for our environmental protections in the Indian Ocean Territories. I will address the importance of new clauses 3 and 4, two sensible amendments tabled by the shadow Foreign Secretary to strengthen oversight of the marine protected area. The region of the Indian ocean that hosts the unique and remarkable Chagos Islands is of critical importance to wildlife. The archipelago is a biodiversity hotspot. The 640,000 sq km marine protected area, which has been monitored by the UK for the past 15 years, has kept the surrounding waters in near-pristine condition. The coral reefs in the untouched marine protected area are some of the healthiest in the world. They are a sanctuary for marine life, including endangered species such as hawksbill turtles, green turtles and reef sharks, and they are located along hugely significant migratory routes for species of tuna, whales and seabirds. The remarkable resilience of the reefs to coral bleaching events also makes them highly significant for scientific research to better understand resilience to changing climates.

    Hansard source
28. 20 Oct 2025·Parliament·Blake Stephenson

    Diego Garcia Military Base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill

    There is a difference between talking with other countries and doing a deal. I know that those on the Opposition Front Bench who formed part of the previous Government were not going to do this deal. They may have been talking, but as we have heard, there was going to be no agreement. I thank the hon. Member for his intervention and reflecting that I was not part of the previous Government, but he knows full well that this agreement would not have been made under these terms if the Conservatives were in government now. The marine protected area is one of the largest untouched marine ecosystems, and it is globally significant. As such, instead of heedlessly driving this hopeless surrender deal through Parliament, the Government should have been ensuring that protections for wildlife and the marine environment were watertight. When answering questions before the Foreign Affairs Committee in June, the Minister would not give any clear assurances or guarantees on the future of the marine protected area. Within his obfuscation about separate agreements with Mauritius, which hope we can “share objectives and values”, he admitted that we can only “take it on trust that there will be a Marine Protected Area” after sovereignty has been surrendered. We absolutely do not need to take that on trust. The Government have failed to secure any meaningful safeguards or guarantees, and are instead hoping—merely hoping—that a memorandum of understanding will somehow protect that pristine ecosystem. How on earth can we have any confidence in that at all? A simple change of Government in Mauritius, or even just a change of heart, would render the UK powerless to stop Chinese trawlers turning up and devastating the marine environment. Given the evidence of China plundering the high seas, for example in the south Atlantic, just outside the Falkland Islands zone of economic interest, it absolutely will do the same in that territory.

    Hansard source
29. 20 Oct 2025·Parliament·Blake Stephenson

    Diego Garcia Military Base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill

    I absolutely agree, and I note that the right hon. Gentleman and I are the only Members in the Chamber from the Environmental Audit Committee, which I think is a damning indictment on those Members in this House who are here to protect our environment and hold the Government to account on environmental protections. Will the Minister now explain what will happen to the MPA in future, and say whether the Government will commit resources to support the protection of the MPA? If so, where will those resources come from? With the fisheries Minister of Mauritius talking of issuing fishing and trawler licences, it is more important than ever that we have lasting confidence in marine protections before British territory is surrendered to Mauritius. When the Minister sums up the debate, will he say whether he shares my concerns over new fishing and trawler licences? New clause 3 would require that any written instrument on the establishment and management of the marine protected area be subject to the approval of this House to ensure that it is fit for purpose. Will the Minister say what progress has been made with developing the “separate…instrument”, referenced in article 5.2 of the treaty? Will it be in place before Mauritius assumes sovereignty? Any agreement on the Chagos MPA must be scrutinised like a treaty and presented to Parliament. New clause 4 would require the Secretary of State regularly to report on the status of the marine protected area. Reports from Committees in the Lords have raised concerns about Mauritius’s track record on environmental protections. Does the Minister agree with those concerns, and therefore agree that the ecological status of this extraordinary environment must remain on the British Government’s agenda, and will he reflect on that in his summing up of the debate? Will he now accept that, as well as costing British taxpayers £35 billion, betraying British Chagossians and undermining our security, without better protections secured in the treaty, the Government’s Chagos surrender deal will harm the marine environment? All of this at a time when the Government argued that the state of public finances required tough choices—choices that punished pensioners, family farmers, and taxed education for the very first time. The annual cost of the surrender of the Chagos islands could pay for 3,068 new teachers, 3,253 new nurses or 1,975 police officers. In the first year, the money paid to Mauritius could deliver a new GP surgery in 30 communities —communities such as Wixams and Wootton in my constituency of Mid Bedfordshire, which are still waiting for improved access to local healthcare. This was all a choice—a choice to prioritise ideological surrender over our communities, over our security, and over marine protections. It is shameful, and I encourage hon. Members across the House to support new clauses 3 and 4.

    Hansard source
30. 20 Oct 2025·Parliament·Blake Stephenson

    Diego Garcia Military Base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill

    Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government are treating China like it is our friend, rather than the threat that it is?

    Hansard source
31. 20 Oct 2025·Parliament·Ben Obese-Jecty

    Alleged Spying Case: Home Office Involvement

    I have now asked the Government why China is not included in the enhanced tier of the foreign influence registration scheme three times. On 9 June, I was told “that particular report is coming forward in due course.”—[Official Report, 9 June 2025; Vol. 768, c. 613.] On 15 September, I was told “no doubt we will have more to say about it in due course.”—[Official Report, 15 September 2025; Vol. 772, c. 1194.] And on 13 October, I was told “any decisions about the enhanced tier will be brought forward in the normal way.”—[Official Report, 13 October 2025; Vol. 773, c. 85.] The Government are now panicked about the Chinese embassy decision, they are desperately trying to deflect from attention on the Chagos deal that the National Security Adviser negotiated on, and they appear to be decriminalising spying for China. What is the Government’s rationale for not including China within the enhanced tier? Given the threat, when will it be added?

    Hansard source
32. 20 Oct 2025·Parliament·Ben Obese-Jecty

    Maccabi Tel Aviv FC: Away Fans Ban

    The message that this decision sends is that the police will bow to religious pressure, and it legitimises antisemitism. The Secretary of State made reference to the game between Ajax and Maccabi Tel Aviv. The vast majority of fans arrested that evening were Ajax fans. Ajax are playing Chelsea at Stamford Bridge on Wednesday evening, but no one has talked about banning its fans from attending that game. Article 27.04 of the Europa league regulations states that “to ensure that a rescheduled match can be completed, if necessary without spectators, the home club must have access to a back-up stadium”. Given that it is now likely that this fixture will attract bad faith actors to Birmingham who are not fans of either team and who are looking to cause trouble, what assessment has the Secretary of State made of playing the match behind closed doors at a neutral venue, or a venue where the police are prepared to provide security?

    Hansard source
33. 20 Oct 2025·Parliament·Ben Obese-Jecty

    Diego Garcia Military Base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill

    For no apparent reason, and in a crowded field, the Government have chosen the Chagos islands as one of the many hills they wish to die on. The surrender of the sovereignty of the Chagos islands has been a puzzling mis-step for months, with today’s votes the culmination of it. There was a clumsy rush to try to force the deal through, first before the elections in Mauritius and then before the US elections, and there now appears to be an attempt to salvage some dignity, having seemingly surrendered “meekly to a Mauritian shakedown”, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge (Tom Tugendhat) has put it, while trying to upsell the deal to a US Government that publicly backs it, given that it will not cost them a penny, but privately must have concerns over the impact of allowing Chinese encroachment in the region. With recent developments shifting the focus of US foreign policy to the Indo-Pacific, the Chagos islands deal surely takes on greater significance. The base is now more important to US policy, not less. Last December, the previous Armed Forces Minister, the hon. Member for Plymouth Sutton and Devonport (Luke Pollard), who is in his place, announced that the deal “secures the future of the UK-US base on Diego Garcia”, and said that “when everyone looks at the detail of the deal, they will back it”.—[Official Report, 2 December 2024; Vol. 758, c. 28.] Indeed, the Minister for the Overseas Territories, the hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty) confirmed to me that “There has been no change to the substance of the deal”.—[Official Report, 5 February 2025; Vol. 761, c. 764.] That is strange, because the new Prime Minister of Mauritius, Navin Ramgoolam, described the deal struck with the previous Mauritian Government as a “sell-out”, stating that the deal should be indexed to inflation, take exchange rates into account and fully recognise Mauritius’s ownership of the islands, which could affect the UK’s unilateral right to renew the lease. That was in mid-January. Less than a fortnight later, the Minister confirmed to me in a written answer that the UK would not have the unilateral ability to extend the agreement at the end of the lease. What changes were made to the original deal during discussions with the Government of Mauritius, and why have the Government gone on record as saying that the deal has not changed, in direct contradiction with the statements of the Prime Minister of Mauritius? Surely the Minister for the Overseas Territories is not suggesting that Prime Minister Ramgoolam is mistaken. In January, when I asked the Prime Minister whether he had ever discussed the Chagos islands with Philippe Sands KC, his answer was a brusque, “No.” Brevity is key when trying not to give too much away. Philippe Sands has represented Mauritius at the International Court of Justice in multiple disputes over the Chagos islands. In 2022, Mr Sands published “The Last Colony: A Tale of Exile, Justice and Britain’s Colonial Legacy” about Chagos. It is worth highlighting that Philippe Sands and the Prime Minister have apparently been very good friends for several years; they even interviewed one another at the Hay festival. Earlier this year, The Telegraph reported that the national security justification for surrendering the Chagos islands used by the Prime Minister came from Philippe Sands, who wrote about it in the 2023 book, “The International Legal Order in the 21st Century”. With Mr Sands apparently no longer representing Mauritius following the change in regime, it does make one wonder if that was the reason why there was such a rush to conclude the deal before the election, after which Mr Sands’ services were no longer required—did the Government lose their in? I would be interested to know how the Government think the International Telecommunication Union would block our use of the electromagnetic spectrum. How would it block communications equipment on Diego Garcia without encroaching on our territory? What active blocking of electromagnetic frequencies is a UN agency capable of doing anyway? What steps would the ITU have taken to block the US military’s use of the electromagnetic spectrum had we not progressed this deal? The national security argument simply does not stack up. New clause 6 would require the Secretary of State to report annually to Parliament on the impact of UNCLOS on the operation of the treaty. The Government have previously stated that it is ITLOS that would pose the greatest threat to the operation of Diego Garcia. It was cited specifically by the Defence Secretary for the first—and only—time on 22 May, when he said: “There are a range of international legal challenges and rulings against us. The most proximate, and the most potentially serious, is the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea.”—[Official Report, 22 May 2025; Vol. 767, c. 1291.] In July, the Minister for the Overseas Territories referred to ITLOS for the first time since he was a shadow Minister for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs, when, in December 2022, he had stated that the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea “did not have competence on territorial disputes”, going on to say: “It is a fact that China has made increasing encroachments into the territorial waters of its neighbours and vast claims in the South China sea while ignoring judgments against itself. That has been matched by a growing assertiveness, and even belligerence, towards some of our allies and partners in the region”.—[Official Report, 7 December 2022; Vol. 724, c. 162WH.] He asked for assurances then. Now, nearly three years later, with a belligerent China flexing its naval muscle in the region and adopting a robust posture towards us over the delay to the decision on its London embassy and the obvious ongoing spy debacle, what assurances can the Government give the Committee that this opportunity will not be exploited by the Chinese Communist party? As recently as August, the Mauritian Government referred to “The strategic role of Mauritius as an investment gateway to Africa and a trusted partner for Chinese enterprises seeking to expand their footprint therein”. Mauritius is committed to working closely with China—far closer, it would appear, than it is to working with us. Why are the Government prepared to embolden Chinese ambition in the Pacific? Why are they prepared to embolden Chinese spying in Parliament? Why are they prepared to allow the Chinese to build an embassy in London without absolute clarity on its structural plans? With all that in mind, why will the Government not include China in the enhanced tier of the foreign influence registration scheme? The shadow of Jonathan Powell looms large over this deal, as it has over every aspect of the Government’s dealings with the Chinese Communist party. Across the globe, we are seeing changes in the rules-based order. We must navigate this better. My fear, which is shared by all on the Conservative Benches, is that this capitulation shows no understanding of the changes we are facing. We need to ensure that this great nation stands up for safety, freedom and security across an increasingly dangerous world, and this opaque and furtive deal puts that at unacceptable risk.

    Hansard source
34. 20 Oct 2025·Parliament·Aphra Brandreth

    Topical Questions

    Following the tragic murder of her daughter Brianna, Esther Ghey has dedicated herself to making our schools safer. I have just come from an event that she is hosting in Parliament, at which she is calling for a statutory ban on smartphones in classrooms. Will the Minister for Children and Families, the hon. Member for Whitehaven and Workington (Josh MacAlister), make time to attend today’s event and make it clear whether he supports a statutory phone-free education for all children?

    Hansard source
35. 20 Oct 2025·Parliament·Aphra Brandreth

    Diego Garcia Military Base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill

    The treaty that the Bill will implement is shocking for so many reasons: the security implications, the staggering costs, and the voices that it has ignored—the voices of British Chagossians. Their views and concerns are many and varied. I had the privilege of meeting members of the community when they came to Parliament, while the former Foreign Secretary, the right hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy), met British Chagossians only once, and that was on the very day that the treaty was signed—far too late for their voices to have any influence. They are rightly frustrated that they have been excluded from negotiations and denied meaningful engagement. It is painfully clear that their voices were not considered; if they had been, the treaty might have placed their rights at its very centre. Instead, article 6 gives Mauritius the freedom to resettle Chagossians, but not the duty to do so. After half a century of waiting for it, their right of return is left entirely at the discretion of a foreign Government. Under article 11, despite the billions of pounds that the Bill will transfer to Mauritius, only a fraction—in the form of a trust fund—is intended for Chagossians. Even then, it will be administered solely by Mauritius, with no guarantee that British Chagossians will have any say in how it is spent. The treaty says that the UK and Mauritius want to “recognise the wrongs of the past”, but how can we recognise a wrong if we refuse to listen to those who suffered it? New clause 7, tabled by the shadow Foreign Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Witham (Priti Patel), is vital because it would require the Government to listen to and consult the Chagossian community here in the UK, and to report back on how their rights are being upheld. That would give British Chagossians the voice that they have been denied again and again. Another vital issue is the risk that the Bill poses to one of the most precious marine environments on earth. The waters around the Chagos Islands form one of the world’s largest and most pristine marine protected areas. As we have heard, it is a haven of biodiversity, untouched by industrial fishing since 2010. Yet the treaty places that fragile ecosystem in jeopardy. Mauritius has promised to establish a new marine protected area, but it lacks the capacity to enforce it. It has no navy, and its coastguard of nine vessels is already stretched by patrolling waters thousands of miles away. By contrast, the UK has spent over £1.2 million since 2022 on monitoring and protecting those seas, developing world-leading expertise in remote enforcement through ships, sensors and satellite imagery. Illegal fishing is already rife across the Indian ocean. China’s distant-water fleet is the largest in the world and the worst global offender for illegal fishing, according to the illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing index. What confidence can we have that Mauritius—a close ally of China—will be able or willing to resist such pressure and protect these fragile waters?

    Hansard source
36. 20 Oct 2025·Parliament·Aphra Brandreth

    Diego Garcia Military Base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill

    My hon. Friend makes an important point. It has no navy and only nine coastguard vessels; it is not able to protect those waters. Even if illegal fishing were controlled, the Mauritian Fisheries Minister has already spoken of wanting to issue fishing licences around the Chagos Islands. The agreement provides no guarantees; the extent of future protections will be decided only after the Bill has passed. New clauses 3 and 4 are essential to ensure parliamentary oversight of any future agreement and regular reporting on coral health, fish stocks and biodiversity. As it stands, the Bill would hand billions of pounds of UK taxpayers’ money to Mauritius, with no guarantees of protection of the marine environment, no provisions to safeguard the rights of British Chagossians, and no mechanism for Britain to monitor whether the safeguards around the strategic military base on Diego Garcia are effective. The Conservative amendments offer a chance for the Government to be transparent, publish the legal advice on which they surrendered the Chagos Islands, and give the House a vote on the payment of £35 billion to Mauritius. The treaty is damaging in so many ways, but let us not make the damage worse by waving it through unchecked.

    Hansard source
37. 16 Oct 2025·Parliament·Wendy Morton

    Ada Lovelace Day

    The Ada Lovelace event held earlier this week in Parliament was an excellent way of highlighting for many of us the importance of women in manufacturing and STEM, but Ada Lovelace was clearly a visionary. Does the hon. Lady agree that we need to keep that visionary sense at the heart of all we do when encouraging the next generation of women into STEM? That means encouraging the further education sector to work with businesses and apprenticeship providers, such as In-Comm from Aldridge, whose representatives were at the event.

    Hansard source
38. 16 Oct 2025·Parliament·Wendy Morton

    Business of the House

    Nineteen thousand: that is the number of homes that this Labour Government want to impose on the Walsall borough. In Aldridge-Brownhills, not only are we fighting to protect our precious green spaces and our green belt, but we now find ourselves threatened by this term, and new regulation, “grey belt”. May we have a debate in Government time on the urgent need to protect our precious green spaces, our communities, our countryside and our food security?

    Hansard source
39. 16 Oct 2025·Parliament·Tom Tugendhat

    Official Secrets Act Case: Witness Statements

    Stop playing politics! This is about national security, you petty little man!

    Hansard source
40. 16 Oct 2025·Parliament·Tom Tugendhat

    Official Secrets Act Case: Witness Statements

    May I apologise for earlier outbursts, Mr Speaker? [Interruption.]

    Hansard source