James Cartlidge MP: speeches

Speeches

• 16 Mar 2026 · Defence Investment Plan · Hansard source

  More

  I am not sure that the Secretary of State heard the question from my hon. Friend the Member for Solihull West and Shirley (Dr Shastri-Hurst), which was incredibly simple: will the defence investment plan be published before the House rises on 26 March?

• 16 Mar 2026 · Defence Investment Plan · Hansard source

  More

  There is a reason why that date matters: it is the date when purdah commences before the Scottish elections. Then we will have the Welsh and local elections. It is our understanding—and the Secretary of State is welcome to correct this—that the defence investment plan cannot be published during purdah. If that is the case, and if it is not published before the rise of the House on 26 March, we will not see it until well into May. That is why this question is so important. I ask the Secretary of State the question again, because he has failed to answer it so far. It is a very simple, straight question, and it needs a straight answer. Will the defence investment plan be published before the House rises for the recess—yes or no?

• 9 Mar 2026 · Middle East: Defence · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of his statement, and for the briefing that I received from his officials this morning. May I begin by offering condolences, on behalf of the Opposition, to the families of the seven US soldiers killed in the ongoing action against Iran? I join the Secretary of State in utterly condemning Iran’s indiscriminate attacks across the region, and I express my gratitude and that of the Opposition to all our brilliant, brave service personnel and their families who are stationed out there. Of course, the Secretary of State and I agree that the No. 1 responsibility of any Government is to defend their people and that everything possible must be done to secure our sovereign bases, particularly RAF Akrotiri on Cyprus, which was attacked by drones a week ago. That is an incredibly serious development. We support the Government in taking steps to use the RAF and other assets to protect the airspace and defend against drone and missile threats to Akrotiri, but also in deploying our air force to defend allies in the region as an act of collective self-defence. The problem is that any serious integrated missile defence plan for the sovereign base areas on Cyprus would by necessity include the presence of one of our highly capable Type 45 air defence destroyers, yet despite the Secretary of State saying that “since January” we have moved significant military assets into the region, there is not a single Royal Navy warship present and our Type 45, HMS Dragon, has not even set sail. Will he confirm that the Government decided only last Tuesday to send a Type 45 to the eastern Med, after the US action had already commenced and two days after RAF Akrotiri was attacked by kamikaze drones? Of particular importance is that it has been widely reported that the Royal Navy recommended to Ministers weeks ago to deploy a Type 45 destroyer to the region. Is that true, and if so, when did the Navy make the recommendation to send a Type 45 and which Minister took the decision to decline that advice from the Royal Navy and instead choose not to send a destroyer? Most importantly, why was the decision taken not to send a Type 45 until there had already been attacks on our base on Cyprus? Can the Secretary of State tell us on what date he expects HMS Dragon to be in position to provide air defence in the region? Furthermore, given the Chancellor’s promise in her statement earlier to reopen the strait of Hormuz and France’s pledge to provide escort ships, what other Royal Navy assets will we be sending to assist? On 19 February, the BBC reported that the United Kingdom would not allow the United States to use its bases to launch an attack on Iran. We know that three US Arleigh Burke destroyers—its equivalent of the Type 45—have for days been based in the Mediterranean, providing Cyprus with defence against ballistic missiles. Does that not mean that, until the Prime Minister’s U-turn a week ago, this Labour Government were displaying the most extraordinary double standards to our closest military ally by on the one hand denying the US the use of our bases, while on the other relying on it to protect ours? One of the bases in question is Diego Garcia, which is absolutely critical for launching US heavy bombers. It is bad enough for the Prime Minister to be U-turning over permission to use Diego Garcia while it is still our sovereign territory, but how much worse will the situation be once we have started paying billions for the pleasure of Mauritius, a close ally of China, having a say on whether such action complies with international law? When it comes to the Prime Minister’s next and 17th U-turn, would not the best thing he could do be to scrap his crazy Chagos deal and spend every penny on the British armed forces? However, this is not just about the future of Diego Garcia. Last week, the Cypriot Foreign Minister said that there are “questions” about the future of the UK’s military bases on the island. Is not the reality that Greece, France and Spain are all sending ships, and that Labour’s failure to deploy the Royal Navy to the eastern Mediterranean has completely undermined our international standing in the eyes not just of our many allies in the middle east, but of those who can now exploit such weakness? Will the Secretary of State therefore give a cast-iron guarantee that UK sovereignty of our bases on Cyprus is not up for negotiation? It is not of course just HMS Dragon that everyone is waiting for. At a time of war on multiple fronts, we have been waiting months and months for the Government to publish their long overdue defence investment plan. I cannot emphasise how serious this is: Britain urgently needs to rearm. It was right that we gave a huge amount of munitions to support Ukraine, but that has made our need to rearm even more pressing. When exactly are the Government going to publish the defence investment plan? Can the Secretary of State at least say if it will be published before local election purdah commences? That is a key question. Finally, is there not a simple reason why there is no defence investment plan, and is it not the same reason why, for the first time in almost half a century, there are no Royal Navy warships in the middle east? It is because when it comes to defence spending, this Government have prioritised welfare over rearmament. They have chosen to spend billions more on benefits rather than strengthening our defence in a dangerous world. After all the Prime Minister’s dither and delay, U-turns and weakness, will the Secretary of State finally demand from his Chancellor what we all know our armed forces need, which is a properly funded plan to get to 3% on defence in this Parliament?

• 4 Mar 2026 · Ministry of Defence · Hansard source

  More

  Shocking!

• 4 Mar 2026 · Ministry of Defence · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Gentleman is always generous in giving way on this point. I hope he has done his homework because I pointed out the last time I asked him that he would have to repay those bonds to the bondholders two years later. Where would that £20 billion come from?

• 4 Mar 2026 · Ministry of Defence · Hansard source

  More

  It is an absolute pleasure to respond to the debate. I would have loved to go through all the speeches, but given a shorter time limit than I had expected and the consequent cuts in my speech—let alone the defence budget!—I cannot do that. What I will say, genuinely, is that it is always inspiring to hear constituency Members, such as the hon. Member for Rossendale and Darwen (Andy MacNae), talk about the defence industry and defence assets in their constituencies.

• 4 Mar 2026 · Ministry of Defence · Hansard source

  More

  I am very grateful to the Minister for giving way, given the time pressures. Given that the Prime Minister did not even attempt to answer the very explicit question of when the DIP will be published, will he tell us: when will the DIP be published?

• 4 Mar 2026 · Ministry of Defence · Hansard source

  More

  When I was a Minister, I was privileged to meet General Campo, then the officer commanding two bases, and to go around them with him. I would just say gently to the hon. Gentleman that, in my view, we should have provided the use of American bases as part of the mission to attack Iran from the outset, not least because the nuclear programme in Iran is a threat to us. That is still the most important point in the debate about the current action. Many Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for North Cotswolds (Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown)—the Chair of the Public Accounts Committee—mentioned the need to learn lessons from Ukraine. I want to make one very important point about Ukraine. If we had not stepped up in providing weapons even before Russia’s invasion when we were in government, it is conceivable that Putin’s tanks could have reached Kyiv and Ukraine could have fallen. We were able to provide anti-tank weapons to prevent that column from reaching Kyiv because weeks before the invasion, Boris Johnson and Ben Wallace had the courage to ignore the advice of the Foreign Office and instead be bold to defend freedom. To put it another way, we did not wait for Putin to invade Ukraine before assisting so that we had a perfect case in international law. Thank God we acted pre-emptively. There is a lesson here. The Chair of the Defence Committee, the hon. Member for Slough (Mr Dhesi), made an excellent and eloquent speech, giving all the reasons why we need to increase defence spending. To be fair, I think we all know what they are, so I will not go through the details of the threat, but I have to say that it was shocking, with war raging on multiple fronts, that the Chancellor did not provide a single extra penny for defence in her spring statement yesterday. There are five huge consequences of not setting a path to 3% and instead adopting Labour’s decision to prioritise welfare over the defence budget. The first consequence is that the priorities of the Department are now wrong. The MOD has no choice, with its current financial settlement, but to prioritise penny-pinching and in-year savings over rearmament. The fact is that instead of increasing the budget for rearmament, it is initiating £2.6 billion of in-year savings this year, which leads us to the second consequence: the operational impact. We all know that, shamefully, not a single Royal Navy ship was in the middle east when war broke out. That is because the Department has had to prioritise in-year savings and retrench its activity. Last December, the Minister for the Armed Forces, the hon. Member for Birmingham Selly Oak (Al Carns), confirmed to me in a written answer that “over the next four years, the Royal Navy will scale back its participation in overseas training outside the Europe, Atlantic, and Arctic theatres.” That was a premeditated decision to pull our activity out of the middle east, and what have we seen this week? Drone attacks on the RAF Akrotiri base in Cyprus. As a direct consequence of the in-year savings, the Government are having to scramble to deploy HMS Dragon to Cyprus, when it should have been there weeks ago. As a Type 45 air defence destroyer, HMS Dragon will provide invaluable air cover around Cyprus against incoming missiles, but we know from BBC Verify that US Arleigh Burke air defence destroyers in the vicinity are providing cover for the time being. The shocking implication of this is that, until the Prime Minister’s U-turn on Sunday, he was preventing the US from using our bases while relying on it to defend them. It is an incredible situation. The third consequence of Labour’s lack of defence spending relates to procurement, which has effectively been on hold since the general election as a result of the Government’s clampdown on in-year spending at the MOD. At the election, we had a fully funded plan to provide £10 billion extra for munitions. [ Interruption. ] Labour Members always chunter about that. The plan was to be fully funded by cutting the size of the civil service, and they do not like doing that. They did not like the way that it was funded, but that funding would have delivered the munitions strategy, which I was working on as the Minister for Defence Procurement. I want to be clear: it was a comprehensive plan to replenish our arsenal and, in particular, would have seen additional significant investment in air defence missiles, including for ground-based air defence and maritime defence, which are so critical for our country right now. The problem is that the incoming Government had a better idea: cancel the munitions strategy and put any orders on hold while conducting a strategic defence review that would give all the answers but which, as I warned, would in the meantime put procurement on hold. Having told us that the SDR would have all the answers, the Government did not make any specific capability choices, which were punted into the defence investment plan. As my hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Ben Obese-Jecty) and many others have said, the strategic defence review was months late and the defence investment plan, promised for autumn 2025, is still nowhere to be seen. When the Prime Minister was asked at Prime Minister’s questions when it will be published, he did not even attempt to answer the question. To paraphrase the Leader of the Opposition, there is no money for defence because the Government have spent it on welfare. Because there is no money, there is no DIP. And because there is no DIP, there is no procurement. The fourth consequence of Labour’s penny-pinching approach relates to the lethality of our armed forces. The Defence Secretary and his Ministers like to mock the defence drone strategy that I produced in government in February 2024—the first ever from a major military player, as far as I am aware—but I gently remind them that, they confirmed in a written answer last April that it is Government policy to implement the defence drone strategy. The aim of the strategy is to procure drones “at scale for both the Ukrainian and UK armed forces”. The problem is that, since the election, the Labour Government have rightly continued providing drones for Ukraine, which we support, but they have not implemented the other side of the bargain: building a comprehensive UK military drone industrial base and procuring at scale for our military. Because the Treasury has agreed funding for Ukraine but not for our armed forces, the MOD has been buying brilliant drone and counter-drone technology made by British SMEs and sending it to Ukraine, while buying almost none of it in parallel for our own troops. That is why last December we announced the Conservative policy of a sovereign defence fund, which would deliver drones at scale for the armed forces and, crucially, take stakes in British SMEs to establish a strong UK defence industrial base, instead of losing the intellectual property abroad. The hon. Member for Lewes (James MacCleary) asked where we would find the money, and I will tell the House one way that we would find it. Some £17 billion of public money would be transferred to defence, including £6 billion for drones from other research and development, and £11 billion from the National Wealth Fund to create a new national defence and resilience bank—a UK bank that would support the supply chain. We would also lever in public finance, as the hon. Members for Widnes and Halewood (Derek Twigg) and for Aldershot (Alex Baker) argued for. I agree with them that we need to increase traditional defence spending, but we massively need to lever in private money and fire up the private sector for defence. Most importantly, our policy would put the world-leading technology that we have given to Ukraine into the hands of our armed forces, immediately boosting their lethality. The fifth big consequence of Labour’s prioritisation of penny-pinching is on the defence industry, risking jobs in every constituency. In January, it was reported that there is the worst sentiment among UK defence SMEs for 20 years. For an industry already hit by a £600 million increase in employer national insurance, this is not good enough. Of course, our constituents do not just want more money spent on defence; they want it spent well. That is why, in February 2024, I introduced the integrated procurement model in Parliament. Its main focus was to learn the lessons of our extraordinary effort to deliver capability to Ukraine at pace. In particular, a key element was the use of minimum deployable capability. That went live in April 2024, so it is fair to say we did not get a huge amount of time to put it into practice, but we did in one important case study. A number of commentators have made the important point that, in the latest exchanges in Iran, our RAF is having to use expensive missiles to take down cheap drones, and I think that observation was made by the hon. Member for Plymouth Moor View (Fred Thomas). In April 2024, another of our Type 45 destroyers, HMS Diamond, was deployed in the Red sea when the Houthis, like Hezbollah, were receiving ballistic missiles from Iran. These were also used against HMS Diamond, and while her brave and brilliant crew defeated the threat at the time, I decided that we had to have a way of defeating those drones. I therefore not only procured the DragonFire anti-drone laser, but used the new procurement system to ensure it could be in service in 2027 rather than 2032, which means it will be with our ships from next year. Given that you are making those usual familiar signals, Madam Deputy Speaker, I will just say finally that when I visited Leonardo—the factory in Edinburgh that makes DragonFire—I was very chuffed to be told that the minimum deployable capability approach had removed hurdles and red tape, so this cutting-edge capability is going to be in service much faster and is genuinely making a difference. To conclude, all of this points to the crucial need for the Government to follow the lead of our party, and accelerate their plans by going to 3% in this Parliament, not in the next.

• 4 Mar 2026 · Ministry of Defence · Hansard source

  More

  As the hon. Gentleman is my constituency neighbour, I will.

• 25 Feb 2026 · Diego Garcia and British Indian Ocean Territory · Hansard source

  More

  Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. There is concern, among Opposition Members at least, that we heard repeatedly from the Minister that he was not the correct Minister to respond to the questions we asked. Our understanding procedurally is that Ministers are accountable to Parliament and that in coming before Parliament they are here to be held to account. The key question, which refers to the previous point of order, is about the fact that last May the Secretary of State for Defence said that Diego Garcia would be weeks away from a legal ruling unless the treaty was agreed to. Opposition Members are concerned that that is not correct and that he may have inadvertently misled the House, because article 298 of UNCLOS provides an opt-out for binding rulings in relation to “military activities”. Surely we should have a Minister in front of us who can answer our fundamental legal questions on the treaty.

• 25 Feb 2026 · Diego Garcia and British Indian Ocean Territory · Hansard source

  More

  You are the relevant Minister!

• 10 Feb 2026 · Ministry of Defence: Palantir Contracts · Hansard source

  More

  Thank you for granting this urgent question, Mr Speaker. Before I turn to the detail, let me say that the Mandelson scandal is truly shocking. When debating these matters, it is incumbent on all of us to remember the victims of Epstein’s crimes. Following Peter Mandelson’s sacking as US ambassador, serious questions surrounding his influence on MOD contracts have emerged, to which we have had no meaningful answers. Specifically, the MOD signed a contract with the US firm Palantir in December 2025 worth £240 million. Critically, at a time when UK defence companies are struggling for orders from their own Government, this contract did not involve a competition with British firms, and was granted to a US company by direct award. Why was that? For the record, this is not about Palantir or any other US company. From my time as the Defence Procurement Minister, I recognise the huge mutual gain to us and to our closest ally that results from our strong defence relationship. It is true that many contracts in the MOD are rightly let on a single-source basis, but this is about transparency. Above all, the question is: to what extent did Peter Mandelson and his firm Global Counsel, in which he was a controlling shareholder at the time, benefit from privileged access not available to potential UK competitors—access that was used to deliver a defence contract of some £250 million to a client of Global Counsel without competition? Regarding the meeting between the Prime Minister, Peter Mandelson and Palantir in February 2025 in Washington DC, is it true that no minutes were taken? If they were not taken, why not? Crucially, at the time of the meeting, was the Prime Minister aware that Palantir was a client of Mandelson’s firm? The Minister must answer that. In the build-up to the US state visit, we understand that Peter Mandelson lobbied the UK Government for deliverables. Will the Minister commit to publishing what those deliverables were? Did they involve any clients of Global Counsel? Finally, let me mention the actions to take. Given the public interest in this matter, will Defence Ministers follow the lead of the Health Secretary and publish all their correspondence with Peter Mandelson? In addition, in the spirit of the Humble Address, will the Government publish, as part of the Mandelson files, all relevant material relating to this contract award?

• 10 Feb 2026 · Ministry of Defence: Palantir Contracts · Hansard source

  More

  (Urgent question): To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on his Department’s contracts with Palantir.

• 2 Feb 2026 · Support for Defence SMEs · Hansard source

  More

  I associate the Opposition with the condolences expressed to the families of Lord Wallace, Lord Flight and, of course, Captain Philip Muldowney. Last June, from the Dispatch Box, the Secretary of State promised to deliver the defence investment plan by the autumn. He failed to do so. At our previous oral questions in December, he promised to work “flat out” to deliver the DIP by the end of the year. He failed to do so. With continual dither and delay, it is no surprise that reports last month indicated the worst sentiment among UK defence SMEs for 20 years. The DIP is well overdue, so can the Secretary of State confirm that it will finally be published this month?

• 2 Feb 2026 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  Last August, the Deputy Prime Minister of Mauritius said that when his Government take sovereignty over the Chagos islands, nuclear weapons could no longer be stored there. In last week’s Chagos debate, in answer to our repeated questioning as to whether that was true, the Minister for Defence Readiness and Industry replied three times by reading annexe 1 of the treaty, whereby it grants “unrestricted ability to…control the storage of all goods, including but not limited to fuels, weapons and other hazardous materials”. Does the use of the word “weapons” in that sentence of the treaty definitely include nuclear weapons?

• 2 Feb 2026 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  It is interesting that the Secretary of State passed responsibility for answering the question to the DRI Minister next to him, but the Minister did not answer the question. This is of profound national importance because, for us and the United States, these are our most important and sensitive capabilities. When the Minister answered three times last week, he read that sentence about controlling “the storage of all goods, including but not limited to fuels, weapons and other hazardous materials”. The word “nuclear” is not there. Does that sentence cover nuclear weapons—yes or no?

• 28 Jan 2026 · British Indian Ocean Territory · Hansard source

  More

  May I begin by offering the Opposition’s condolences to the family of Captain Philip Muldowney of the Royal Artillery, who tragically lost his life training with the British Army this week? It is a pleasure to close today’s debate on the Chagos islands, and to hold the Government to account for the total meltdown of their attempt to surrender sovereignty of the British Indian Ocean Territory without opposition. Well, today they are getting that opposition, and they are getting it from the Conservatives, because it is we who have exposed the total fallacy of the legal argument used to justify this crazy deal. And let us be clear: it is a truly crazy deal—one of the worst ever proposed to this Parliament. As every single one of my colleagues said in their excellent speeches, this deal involves our hard-pressed taxpayers, struggling as they are with an ever-growing tax burden since Labour came to power, handing over another £35 billion to lease back land that we already own freehold. It is our land, over which we have sovereignty, the ultimate guarantor of legal security in a dangerous world. Given that we need that money for our own armed forces; that billions of pounds is to be given to Mauritius, and will be used to cut taxes for its people; that Labour knows that the threats that we face are growing, and that we need Diego Garcia more than ever; and that the policy treats the Chagossian people with contempt, the public will be scratching their heads, and will ask a simple question: why are the Government doing this? To be fair to the Minister for Defence Readiness and Industry, last September, he tried to spell out the reasons, and I will quote exactly what he said to justify this crazy deal: “Had we not signed the treaty, we could have faced further legal rulings against us within weeks...Further legal rulings might have included arbitrary proceedings against the UK under annex 7 of the UN convention on the law of the sea, known as UNCLOS.” He went on to say that such a judgment would ultimately threaten operations on the base, because it would “impact on our ability to protect the electromagnetic spectrum from interference” —[ Official Report , 9 September 2025; Vol. 772, c. 741.] It is bad enough that the Government’s case rests entirely on rulings that “could” and “might” be made; worse still, the Government are failing to take into account our clearcut ability to reject any such hypothetical ruling. We understand that the Government are afraid of legal action relating to the United Nations convention on the law of the sea, but article 298 of UNCLOS states very clearly: “When signing, ratifying or acceding to this Convention or at any time thereafter, a State may, without prejudice to the obligations arising under section 1, declare in writing that it does not accept any one or more of the procedures provided for in section 2 with respect to one or more of the following categories of disputes”, including, under (b), “disputes concerning military activities”. On operational threats to the base, the Government’s argument is that hypothetical action by UNCLOS might lead to further hypothetical action by the International Telecommunications Union, leading, hypothetically, to a threat to the electromagnetic spectrum on the base at Diego Garcia. Well, article 48 of the “Constitution of the International Telecommunications Union”, which is entitled “Installations for National Defence Services”, states, under section 1: “Member States retain their entire freedom with regard to military radio installations.” To clarify further, the telecoms Minister, the hon. Member for Rhondda and Ogmore (Chris Bryant), who is always a helpful soul, confirmed, in a written answer from last February to my right hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois), that “Individual countries have the sovereign right to manage and use the radio spectrum, within their borders, the way they wish, subject to not causing interference with other countries…The ITU cannot challenge the UK’s use of civilian or military spectrum.” A slam dunk! Now we have it: we can challenge UNCLOS, where military bases are concerned, and the ITU cannot challenge our use of electromagnetic spectrum. Is it not therefore the truth that there is no threat to this country if we maintain our sovereignty over Diego Garcia, but there is a massive threat if we surrender it? There are, for ourselves and the United States, clear and unambiguous threats to the most sensitive and critical things relating to our military operations—those that relate to our ability to use nuclear weapons and deter the most serious threats to our nation. Yesterday, it was confirmed that the Deputy Prime Minister of Mauritius, Paul Bérenger, has stated that nuclear weapons could not be stored on Diego Garcia if Labour’s deal went through. That is crystal clear. That is because Mauritius is a signatory to the Pelindaba treaty, prohibiting the stationing of nuclear weapons across Africa, including all the territory of Mauritius. We repeatedly warned Ministers of the threat arising from the Pelindaba treaty, but they dismissed our concerns, and today they could not answer the questions at all. Can the Minister tell us if anyone in Government has discussed the storage of nuclear weapons on Diego Garcia with the US Administration? In particular, has the Prime Minister at any point discussed this matter with President Trump? Is it not another example of the total madness of Labour’s crazy Chagos deal that we, who rely on a naval nuclear deterrent to keep us safe in a dangerous world, are surrendering sovereignty of one of the most vital naval bases in the world to a nation that has signed up to a treaty outlawing the stationing of nuclear weapons on that territory? We have had some absolutely fantastic speeches today. I have to pay tribute to the hon. Members for Macclesfield (Tim Roca), and for Rugby (John Slinger), for answering the distress flare from their Whips Office. Labour had two more contributions today than it did in the urgent question the other day, when not a single Labour MP stood up in support of the Government. We Conservative Members, however, showed real passion, because none of us supports this deal; we have consistently opposed it. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle (Dr Mullan) said, what does it say about our strategic priorities? As my right hon. Friend the Member for Wetherby and Easingwold (Sir Alec Shelbrooke) said, this is a Government without a strategic policy on China, so what message does the deal send, especially when we have agreed the Chinese super-embassy? I have to give special mention to my hon. Friend the Member for Hinckley and Bosworth (Dr Evans), who gave an absolutely brilliant speech that totally demolished the Government’s case around the financial position—not a flesh wound in sight after that. He referred to the sketch with the Black Knight, but increasingly we think of another Monty Python sketch. The Government think that this treaty has been paused—that it is merely resting—but we increasingly suspect that this treaty is pushing up the daisies, and I can assure you, Madam Deputy Speaker, that we will campaign with every bit of fight we have to ensure that it is an ex-treaty.

• 28 Jan 2026 · British Indian Ocean Territory · Hansard source

  More

  I do not think the hon. Gentleman quite understands. We did not sign a deal; we would not sign a deal, because the terms were totally unacceptable, and they have got an awful lot worse since then—35 billion times worse. The cost is £35 billion—that comes from a freedom of information release from the Government themselves. That is an absolute disgrace, and it is why we will vote against the deal.

• 28 Jan 2026 · British Indian Ocean Territory · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Member knows that we have opposed this deal, but on self-determination, I would like him to ask his party leader, the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage), if he believes in the self-determination of the people of Ukraine, who have been invaded and brutally bombed by Russia. His leader still says that that was provoked by NATO. The hon. Member should be ashamed of that, if he believes in self-determination. To conclude, I asked why the Government were surrendering land that we own freehold, only to lease it back for £35 billion. Is it not the same reason why they are surrendering our brave veterans to a new era of lawfare? Is it not the same reason why Labour gave up our fishing grounds, the most critical possession of an island nation, to access an EU defence fund from which it has not had a penny? We have a weak Prime Minister who always fails to put Britain’s national interests first. If Labour was strong enough to put our national interests first, surely it would stand up to Mauritius and reject this deal. After all, if the Government did that, they could spend the money that they saved on our armed forces, at a time when rearmament at home is on hold, precisely because Labour has failed to fund defence properly. If there is one silver lining to having such a weak Prime Minister, it is his habit of constant U-turns. We have had 13 U-turns to date from this Government. Would the best thing for our national security not be for Labour to recognise that the game is up, to turn the pause on the Chagos Bill into a permanent full stop, and to scrap this terrible deal?

• 28 Jan 2026 · British Indian Ocean Territory · Hansard source

  More

  Will the Minister give way?

• 28 Jan 2026 · British Indian Ocean Territory · Hansard source

  More

  The Minister is very kind. I have a very specific question. That annex does not mention nuclear weapons. We have asked about this repeatedly throughout the debate today. It is a matter of critical national security. The Deputy Prime Minister of Mauritius has clearly stated that nuclear weapons cannot be stored on the base. Is that correct—yes or no?

• 28 Jan 2026 · British Indian Ocean Territory · Hansard source

  More

  On that point—

• 28 Jan 2026 · British Indian Ocean Territory · Hansard source

  More

  Did you hear her speech?

• 28 Jan 2026 · British Indian Ocean Territory · Hansard source

  More

  rose—

• 28 Jan 2026 · British Indian Ocean Territory · Hansard source

  More

  This is a fundamental point. The most sensitive part of our military is the nuclear deterrent; it is critical to the defence of ourselves and our allies. The United States is also nuclear armed. We are a naval nuclear nation, and the base at Diego Garcia is a critical naval base in strategic terms. Yesterday, it was reported that the Deputy Prime Minister of Mauritius, Mr Bérenger, had declared that nuclear weapons could not be stored on Mauritius if sovereignty is restored to Mauritius. Does the Minister understand that to be the case?