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
Telegraph
10 minutes ago
- Telegraph
We could not betray Afghan allies who fought alongside us
The first I knew that something was going drastically wrong with Afghanistan was in the Press room at the Pentagon, standing alongside the then US defence secretary. A journalist asked my counterpart about the 'secret annex' to the Trump peace deal. What secret annex I thought? Our closest ally hadn't shared it with us. When we finally saw the annex I was horrified that it could not have been written more in the Taliban's favour if it tried. The annex forced the existing Afghan government to release more than 4,000 of the worst Taliban prisoners while at the same time committing US air power and special forces to staying grounded or in barracks. I said it at the time – it was a rotten deal that allowed the Taliban to storm Kabul without any compromise. Donald Trump now tries to blame Joe Biden but it was his conditions that allowed such a victory for the group that had killed so many allies and local opposition. Priti Patel, the home secretary, and I had agreed to accelerate relocation to UK. The Prime Minister and National Security Council endorsed our efforts. I despatched General Gwyn Jenkins for two weeks to spend time in the country with the Afghan ministries and president. Jenkins was an Afghan veteran and knew many in the military leadership. What he reported back was not good reading and went against the Foreign Office and other advice I was getting in the Department. This thing was heading for a collapse. What those who criticise our actions forget is that this was an evacuation of forces and allies who had been based in Afghanistan for 20 years. We needed to act rapidly. Our own veterans felt a bond of honour to those who had helped them and many Afghans were afraid. They say that to lead is to choose. As a government, we had to make a choice about who was entitled to come. We did not want members of the Afghan army to just cut and run. The allies had invested billions in training them. Being in the Afghan army would not on its own offer you a route out to a new life. Only forces who had directly worked with us and within recent years would be eligible for resettlement. Many in the country were scared; overwhelming number of Afghans applied through every route they could to get out. This completely blocked the system as duplicate applications built up. The weight of applications threatened to thwart the legitimate claimants. Many were not eligible in any way at all. So all of us tried every way we could to clear the lists of applicants. I personally signed off hundreds. UK personnel had to work from sketchy and historical records on former comrades. We found applications from known Islamic State and al Qaeda sympathisers and from people who had been dismissed for collaboration with the Taliban. The successful applicants had to be processed and flown out, some even smuggled out. My officials and military personnel could not rely on old records so had to keep up a constant dialogue with those in the country. One such member, amongst all the chaos and in trying to do the right thing, accidentally sent more data than they should to some in Afghanistan. It was a mistake. It wasn't a conspiracy and it wasn't a reckless betrayal. No one knew of this error until a year later when a disgruntled Afghan tried to blackmail us. On being informed, I was determined that the first priority was to protect all those that might be at risk. My primary concern was their welfare. My priority was not the UK government, nor politics, it was the veterans and those who we needed to get out. We did all we could to continue to evacuate even more people who were now at risk and do so through even more routes – air or land. After much work by our own people there was, and still to this day is, no evidence that any of the data found its way to the Taliban. I make no apology for applying to the court for an injunction at the time. It was not, as some are childishly trying to claim, a cover up. I took the view that if this leak was reported at the time, the existence of the list would put in peril those we needed to help out. Some may disagree but imagine if the Taliban had been alerted to the existence of this list. I would dread to think what would have happened. I shall leave it to you to decide what you would have done. But in the end we got more than 18,000 people out. We did this with the help of brave souls and allies. We took more than most. At the time we informed the Opposition, now the Government, and the Speaker of the House. We always knew there would be a time for this to become public. Three years since the leak it has now become so. The judge has done the right thing throughout. But let's not forget the environment at the time.
Daily Record
11 minutes ago
- Daily Record
Housebuilders' £100m pay-off branded 'dodgy' in Parliament
The firms have said the offer of voluntary commitments does not mean they admit any wrongdoing. An agreement by seven of the UK's biggest housebuilders to pay a record £100 million to help fund affordable new homes after an investigation into concerns they shared commercially sensitive information "definitely looks dodgy", Parliament has been told. Critics at Westminster suggested the developers made the offer to stop the investigation by the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) 'into potentially illegal collusion … that could have inflated house prices'. They argued the Government should insist on the watchdog completing its probe. Assurances were also sought that the housebuilders at the centre of the inquiry would not be involved in building the affordable homes funded by the payout, which would see the firms 'simply get their money back'. The CMA announced last week that Barratt Redrow, Bellway, Berkeley Group, Bloor Homes, Persimmon, Taylor Wimpey and Vistry had offered the payment as part of a package of commitments to address concerns following the investigation, which was launched last year. The settlement, which is set to go into affordable housing programmes across the UK, would be the largest ever secured by the CMA through commitments from firms under investigation. The CMA will now consult on the commitments until July 24 and, if accepted, it will mean the regulator does not need to rule on whether the companies broke competition law. As well as the payment, the housebuilders have agreed legally binding commitments not to share commercially sensitive information with rivals, such as the prices that houses were sold for, except in 'limited circumstances', the CMA said. They also agreed to work with the Home Builders Federation and Homes for Scotland to develop industry-wide guidance on information sharing. The firms have said the offer of voluntary commitments does not mean they admit any wrongdoing. Speaking in the House of Lords, housing minister Baroness Taylor of Stevenage said: 'The £100 million additional funding proposed for affordable housing will mean more families can benefit from a safe and secure home.' But Liberal Democrat Baroness Thornhill, a vice president of the Local Government Association, said: 'There could be an alternative version to this – major housebuilders pay £100 million to halt the CMA's investigation into potential illegal collusion through the sharing of competitively sensitive information that could have inflated house prices. 'While this settlement might appear a pragmatic, cost-effective solution, would it not be more useful to have some evidence-led answers about whether the business models of the major developers are a significant factor in the slow delivery of housing? 'Therefore, should not the Government insist that the CMA actually completes its investigation, rather than allowing a financial settlement that obscures the fact and definitely looks dodgy?' Responding, Lady Taylor said: 'The CMA is continuing its work on this, and on July 9 it announced that it is consulting on its intention to accept commitments offered by the housebuilders in relation to the investigation. Join the Daily Record WhatsApp community! Get the latest news sent straight to your messages by joining our WhatsApp community today. You'll receive daily updates on breaking news as well as the top headlines across Scotland. No one will be able to see who is signed up and no one can send messages except the Daily Record team. All you have to do is click here if you're on mobile, select 'Join Community' and you're in! If you're on a desktop, simply scan the QR code above with your phone and click 'Join Community'. We also treat our community members to special offers, promotions, and adverts from us and our partners. If you don't like our community, you can check out any time you like. To leave our community click on the name at the top of your screen and choose 'exit group'. If you're curious, you can read our Privacy Notice. 'That consultation closes on July 25, and I have already set out some of the commitments that the seven companies have made. 'The £100 million payment, the largest secured through commitments from companies under investigation, will be split between affordable housing programmes across all our four nations. 'I hope that will make a significant contribution to delivering the affordable housing we all want to see.' Tory former housing minister Lord Young of Cookham said: 'If the Competition and Markets Authority confirms this £100 million payment for anti-competitive activity, can the minister give an assurance that none of the affordable homes to be built with that money will be built by the volume housebuilders responsible for this activity? Otherwise, they'll simply get their money back.' Lady Taylor said: 'I am sure that the Competition and Markets Authority, as part of its consultation, will be looking at the best way of distributing that money, so it is not just recycled to the people who caused the problem in the first place.' Liberal Democrat Lord Rennard said: 'The one-off payment of £100 million towards affordable housing is only about 3% of the operating profit of the five biggest housebuilders this year. Is this a relatively small penalty for them to pay for anti-competitive practices over many years?' Lady Taylor said: 'This is the biggest settlement ever achieved by the CMA.' She added: 'We have to consider what is appropriate in these circumstances. I am sure the CMA has done that.' A CMA spokesperson said: 'Our year-long study of the housing market found that the complex and unpredictable planning system, together with the limitations of speculative private development, was responsible for the persistent under-delivery of new homes in the UK. 'It was also clear that concerns about sharing of confidential information, while important, were not the main driver of the undersupply of housing. 'The £100 million payment we have secured for affordable housing would provide immediate benefits across the UK, without a lengthy further investigation. 'It is in line with fines levied in similar cases that have taken many years to conclude and comes alongside a set of commitments which fully addresses our competition concerns.' Bellway, which has agreed to pay £13.5 million, said: 'Bellway's offer of commitments does not constitute an admission of any wrongdoing, and the CMA has made no determination as to the existence of any infringement of competition law. 'Bellway welcomes the CMA's consultation on the voluntary commitments and will continue to work constructively with the CMA throughout the process.'
Leader Live
13 minutes ago
- Leader Live
Offshore wind farms to be allowed to apply for contracts before planning consent
The plans are part of a raft of reforms launched by the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero (Desnz) to help the Government reach its ambitious 2030 clean power targets. Energy secretary Ed Miliband said changes to Contracts for Difference (CfD) rules will give developers 'the certainty they need to build in Britain' and invest in more clean energy projects. Auctions for the CfD scheme see developers bid to secure a fixed price contract for what they can charge for the renewable power they generate. This system helps to protect them from market volatility, incentivising investment in new wind and solar farms. Earlier this year, the Government launched a consultation on the flagship CfD scheme, including proposals to remove planning barriers. It has now given the green light to changes to the scheme ahead of the next planned auction process, Allocation Round 7 (AR7), which is due to open in August. Officials have said this will include increasing the length of contracts from 15 years to 20 years for offshore wind, onshore wind and solar projects. It said this is intended to spread out the costs of energy projects over a longer period and potentially reduce costs for consumers, while also improving investors confidence. Changes will also include allowing offshore wind projects to apply for a contract while awaiting full planning consent, in a bid to reduce completion times. The department will also change how budgets are set and published to allow the energy secretary to view developer bids before setting his final budget. Mr Miliband said: 'We need to go further and faster to make Britain a clean energy superpower, end our reliance on volatile global gas prices and make working people better off with homegrown power we control. 'These reforms will give developers the certainty they need to build in Britain, helping deliver more clean power projects and supporting thousands of jobs – all part of the mission to bring bills down for good through our plan for change.'
