Labour urged to ‘have courage' to trigger vote on Chagos deal
But the Conservative Party's shadow foreign secretary Dame Priti has called for a similar vote in the Commons.
'With the 21-day Crag (Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010) process about to conclude, it is a disgrace that Labour have breached the parliamentary conventions and denied this House a meaningful debate and vote on ratification,' she told MPs.
To accompany the treaty, MPs will need to sign off on a Bill to wind up the current governance of the British Indian Ocean Territory (BIOT).
The treaty will only come into force once the legislation is 'in place', according to the Government.
Yesterday dozens of Chagossians came to Parliament to tell us how they feel let down, neglected and betrayed by Labour's £30bn Chagos Surrender Treaty. Labour are denying them their rights and blocking the House of Commons from a meaningful debate and vote! @CllrABClarkson pic.twitter.com/482WEUkPPl
— Priti Patel MP (@pritipatel) July 1, 2025
Dame Priti added: 'Having a vote on the Bill is not the same as voting on the treaty under Crag. Earlier this week, the House of Lords – the other place – had a debate and vote where the Lib Dems sided with Labour in backing this £30 billion surrender treaty, which is subsidising tax cuts in Mauritius.
'So, why can't we have a debate and vote in this House? What are ministers afraid of?
'Are they afraid that their backbenchers, now worried about benefit cuts and the impact of unpopular tax rises, will question why so much money is being handed over for a territory that we own and force them into another embarrassing U-turn?'
Dame Priti urged ministers to 'scrap this treaty or at least have the courage to bring it here for a proper debate, full scrutiny, and finally, a vote in this House'.
Treaties are laid before Parliament before they are ratified, but there is no requirement for a debate or vote.
Peers in their vote, which Conservative shadow Foreign Office minister Lord Callanan triggered, agreed not to reject the treaty by 205 votes to 185, majority 20.
Responding, Stephen Doughty told the Commons he was 'disappointed by the tone' of Dame Priti's comments.
'I don't know who writes this stuff,' the Foreign Office minister said.
'I don't know whether it's just performative politics or rhetoric, I don't know what.
'But I should point out that I have received and answered over 100 written parliamentary questions from (Dame Priti), I've answered over 250 questions on this deal and the process in total.
'We've had no less than six urgent questions in this House. We have had two statements from this Government by the Foreign Secretary (David Lammy) and the Defence Secretary (John Healey).
'I personally briefed (Dame Priti) and answered many of her questions in my office just a couple of weeks ago in good faith and in detail, and indeed, I was subjected – quite rightly – to robust scrutiny not only from the Foreign Affairs Committee of this House, but also from the International Relations and Defence Committee in the other House, and indeed the International Arrangements Committee in great detail on these issues.'
Mr Doughty said a Bill would follow 'in due course' but added the deal with Mauritius, presented to Parliament in May, 'secures' the UK-US military base on Diego Garcia, 'secures our national security and that of our allies'.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Western Telegraph
19 minutes ago
- Western Telegraph
Veterans protest against possible repeal of Legacy Act
MPs including Sir Iain Duncan Smith, Mark Francois and Stuart Anderson joined former soldiers as the Act was debated inside the House of Commons on Monday. They marched to Parliament Square in Westminster, brandishing regiment flags and Union flags, and were flanked by a motorbike procession. The debate comes after more than 165,000 people signed a petition calling for the Government to keep the Legacy Act, which was put in place in 2023 by the former Conservative government to halt all but the most serious allegations involving Troubles-related cases from being investigated any further. The Labour Government announced it would repeal and replace the Northern Ireland (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023 following criticism over immunity for soldiers by human rights groups. Veterans and MPs alike said they feared this would open up soldiers to being prosecuted for acts and create a 'two-tier' justice system, in which IRA soldiers are given immunity but British troops are open to prosecution. James Cartlidge, the shadow defence secretary, said he feared it would dissuade people from joining the Armed Forces because they could be 'persecuted' further down the line. He said: 'We all know we need more people in our Army, our Navy, our Air Force. 'Fundamentally, this is about us as a country, recognising that we live in a time of heightened threat…When that is happening, we will be strengthening our Armed Forces. The last thing we want to do is be going after them again for what they did decades ago. What message is that going to send to all the young people whom we want to join the Army in future?' Detail from the 2nd Battalion, Parachute Regiment cap badge (Niall Carson/PA) Sir Iain, the former leader of the Conservative Party who served in Northern Ireland, told the PA news agency that veterans were angry about the potential changes to the legislation. He said: 'They feel they served their country. They did what they could do. They did their best. It was difficult, I can promise you now, I patrolled the streets. 'We see the pursuit of Northern Ireland veterans whose cases were heard previously and settled. 'They are the ones being pursued yet again in the courts under the arrangements and this is wrong. 'You don't see any of the IRA being pursued. 'Right now this is a very one-sided arrangement with the British soldiers who didn't ask to go there.' Mr Francois, a shadow junior defence minister who backed the petition, added: 'What the Government is doing is wrong. 'They're not treating veterans who were there to uphold the law in Northern Ireland the same as they are treating alleged terrorists. 'There should be no moral equivalence between the veterans and the terrorists.' Aldwin Wight, 72, a former special forces commanding officer who lives in Cornwall, said: 'These are people we've served with. 'They're very close to us, and seeing them caught up in this sort of endless doom loop of legislation is not good. 'We're in a fairly dark situation at the moment in security terms and therefore there are going to be incidents and you've got to have people who are willing to step forward and take on the hard tasks. 'And you don't want to do that as it were, with your solicitor in your pocket. 'You want to do it with a clear operational view of what you're doing.' Denise Walker, 58, a veteran in the catering corps, came down from Glasgow to protest. She said: 'This has led to our servicemen fearing that we're going to be up for prosecution again. 'At the end of the day, this Government sent us over there to do a job on their behalf. 'We followed their orders to the letter.' David Holmes, a 64-year old veteran who runs the Rolling Thunder veteran motorbike group which protested, said: 'I spent years campaigning with this. 'We worked with the previous government. We found a good solution. 'People want closure, but actually to put 70 and 80-year-old soldiers in the dock for doing their job they were asked to do by the government on what is basically trumped up charges (is wrong). 'The only evidence is they were there at the time.' Northern Ireland Secretary, Hilary Benn, said: 'The Legacy Act has been rejected in Northern Ireland and found by our domestic courts to be unlawful, not least because it would have offered immunity to terrorists. Any incoming government would have had to repeal unlawful legislation and it is simply wrong for anyone to suggest otherwise. 'This Government's commitment to our Operation Banner veterans is unshakeable. Their professionalism and sacrifice saved countless lives in Northern Ireland and across the United Kingdom, and ultimately helped bring about peace. The Legacy Act did nothing to help our veterans – it offered only false and undeliverable promises. 'I and the Defence Secretary are engaging with our veterans community and with all interested parties over future legislation, and we will ensure that there are far better protections in place.'
The Independent
33 minutes ago
- The Independent
GB Energy could fund solar panels on religious buildings, Miliband suggests
A scheme which will see solar panels placed on the roofs of hundreds of schools and hospitals could be expanded to include religious buildings, Ed Miliband has suggested. The Energy Secretary told the Commons he is 'enthusiastic' about widening the scope of Great British Energy's first major project, following an influx of requests to do so. A £200 million investment to put rooftop solar on schools and NHS sites was announced by the Government earlier this year, with the aim of saving hundreds of millions of pounds on energy bills and to free up cash to reinvest in frontline services. Councils and community groups will also receive funding to build local clean power projects, such as community-owned onshore wind, rooftop solar and hydropower in rivers, as part of the scheme. Speaking during a statement on climate and nature, Labour MP Sarah Owen (Luton North) said 'there is a huge part of our communities, the faith communities' who want to 'tackle' the climate and nature crisis. She added: 'So while we welcome Great British Energy's roll out of solar panels on hospitals and on schools, could he outline any support for religious buildings that also want to do the same?' Mr Miliband replied: 'Following the successful roll out to schools and hospitals, we've now got a lot of requests to expand this scheme, and I'm very enthusiastic about doing so, and it's something we're looking at.' Under the scheme, around £80 million will support 200 schools and £100 million will go to 200 NHS sites in England. Scotland will get £4.85 million, Wales £2.88 million and Northern Ireland £1.62 million for power projects including community energy and rooftop solar for public buildings. During the statement on Monday, Mr Miliband also pledged to deal with the 'grid zombies'. This came in response to Labour MP Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth), who asked: 'What steps is the Energy Secretary making to prioritise grid connections, and will he commit to reforming the grid queuing system so that projects essential to decarbonise our transport sector are brought forward more quickly?' He replied: 'We are dealing with the zombies, the grid zombies, the zombie queue, and that reordering of the queue is precisely designed to open up the queue to projects like the ones she talked about. 'And my honourable friend, the energy minister, is having a series of round tables with DfT (Department for Transport) on precisely this subject.'
Telegraph
35 minutes ago
- Telegraph
University staff face punishment if they breach Labour's Islamophobia definition
University staff and students will face disciplinary action if they breach Labour's new definition of Islamophobia, a cross-party group of peers has warned. More than 30 peers have written to the working group responsible for the new definition to warn that the proposals risk having a 'chilling effect' on free speech. The working group is understood to be proposing a 'non-statutory' definition that it hopes could become a template for the workplace policies of universities, governmental and other public sector bodies. It is designed to counter a surge in anti-Muslim abuse but has raised fears that it could stifle legitimate criticism of Islam as a religion and act as a de facto blasphemy law. Dominic Grieve, the former attorney general who is chairman of the group, told the peers that he hoped the new non-statutory definition of Islamophobia would be 'embedded in university speech codes and curb 'micro-aggressions''. However, in a letter to Mr Grieve, seen by The Telegraph, the peers warn: 'This presumably would mean any member of a university that says or does something that falls foul of the definition would face potential penalties.' They said it was also likely to cover staff at other organisations who would face similar sanctions if it was embedded in their workplace policies, including government departments, councils, courts, NHS trusts, museums, galleries, schools and regulators. The peers cited the case of Sir Trevor Phillips, who was suspended by Labour for Islamophobia in 2020 after the party adopted a non-statutory definition drawn up by an all party parliamentary group jointly headed by Wes Streeting. They said: 'The fact that your definition will be 'non-statutory' does not mean it will not have a chilling effect on free speech, particularly if it enjoys the stamp of government approval and various organisations feel obliged to embed it in their equity, diversity and inclusion policies, as well as workplace training course. 'Our principal concern is that if your Working Group comes up with a definition and it is taken up by the Government it will have a chilling effect on free speech and exacerbate community tensions. 'We respectfully urge you to advise the Government that it would be unwise for the state to adopt an official definition of 'Islamophobia/Anti-Muslim Hatred', an option you said your group was considering.' Among the signatories of the letter are Lord Young, the director of the Free Speech Union; Lord Frost, the former cabinet minister; Baroness Hoey, the former Labour MP; and Baroness Deech, the chair of the Lords Appointments Commission. The peers claimed that there was no evidence that creating a definition would reduce incidents of Islamophobia. They added that it could let the Government off taking more concrete action. 'Wholly inadequate' They said: 'The lesson from the rise in anti-Semitism over the last 20 months is that embedding an official, government-approved definition of a particular form of racial or religious hatred in civic speech codes – and threatening people with penalties if they breach those codes – is a wholly inadequate way of tackling hatred and discrimination. 'Indeed, there is a risk that if the Government takes up your group's definition it will feel it has done something to address the problem when in fact it has not, and neglect other, more effective ways of tackling it.' The peers also demanded that the working group should make its recommendations to ministers public. They added: 'The definition, if it is taken up, will have wide-ranging implications for what people in public life, and those who work for public bodies, or attend schools or universities, are able to say about Muslims and the religion of Islam, with – inevitably – serious repercussions for those who fall foul of the definition, even if those repercussions fall short of criminal prosecution. 'Indeed, the Home Secretary has said she would like to see more 'Non-Crime Hate Incidents' (NCHIs) recorded against people guilty of 'Islamophobia' and, presumably, she will urge the police to operationalise your definition, once it's been taken up by the Government, as part of the NCHI regime.'
