Diego Garcia Military Base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill
(1 day, 12 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
18:42 - The House divided: - Ayes: 116 / Noes: 333 - Question accordingly negatived.
18:56 - The House divided: - Ayes: 330 / Noes: 179 - Question accordingly agreed to.
Mr Speaker
The reasoned amendment in the name of Kemi Badenoch has been selected. I congratulate the Minister on his new position.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Luke Pollard)
I beg to move, That the Bill be read a Second time.
On 22 May, the Prime Minister signed a landmark treaty with the Republic of Mauritius that guarantees the continued UK operational control of Diego Garcia for the next 99 years and beyond.
Mr Calvin Bailey (Leyton and Wanstead) (Lab)
Will my hon. Friend give way on that point?
Mr Bailey
I congratulate my hon. Friend on his recent appointment. It is important, right at the outset, that we understand that there has been almost no change in position. I refer him to the comments of the right hon. Member for Braintree (Sir James Cleverly) in 2023, when he stated that his
“primary objective is to ensure the continued effective operation of our defence facility on Diego Garcia.”—[Official Report, 13 June 2023; Vol. 734, c. 151.]
Can my hon. Friend confirm that that has not changed?
Mr Speaker
Order. I know that the hon. Member also wants to make a speech. I would not like him to use up his whole speech in an intervention in the first 10 seconds of the debate.
Luke Pollard
It was a timely intervention. I am happy to confirm that this precise deal delivers on the objective as originally set out when the Conservatives were in government. It secures the continued operation of the UK-US military base.
Several hon. Members rose—
Luke Pollard
To be fair, I will give way to one Opposition Member, and then I will make some progress. I give way to the former Deputy Prime Minister.
Sir Oliver Dowden (Hertsmere) (Con)
I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his appointment. I had not intended to intervene so early, but I will, given that the record of the previous Government has come up. Can he confirm whether it is the case, as was the position under the previous Government, that we will retain sovereignty after 99 years on a rolling basis? Can he confirm the basis on which he is compensating the Mauritians, because it certainly was not the case that the last Government would have agreed to a remotely similar sum being paid? On this, as on so many other measures, there is an enormous gap between the negotiating position set out under the last Government and the total capitulation by Labour when they came into office.
Luke Pollard
To borrow a phrase, if the right hon. Member shows me his, I will show him mine. The whole point is that our deal is published. If he would like to go into the files and dig out his deal and publish it, we would be able to see where this deal has enhanced those protections, secured the operation of the base and got a better deal for the British people. I would be very happy if he would like to go into his files and publish the deal.
Several hon. Members rose—
Luke Pollard
I will come back to the former Deputy Prime Minister and then I will make some progress.
Sir Oliver Dowden
The Minister invites me to respond to him. He needs to appreciate that there is an enormous difference between a tough negotiating position in the British national interest and the capitulation of the Government’s deal.
Luke Pollard
I do not think the right hon. Gentleman wants to show me his draft deal, and there is a very good reason for that: this deal, this treaty and this Bill improve on that deal.
Luke Pollard
I said I would take one intervention from each side of the House. I have done that, so I will make some progress, but I am certain that Members will get another chance in a moment.
This treaty is indispensable to keeping Britain secure at home and strong abroad. It is an expression of our unbreakable defence and intelligence bonds with the United States. It strengthens and extends our power to respond to terrorists and hostile states, wherever they may be. It protects some of the world’s busiest trade routes, on which British businesses and consumers rely. It is a long-term investment in our core national interests, and it will benefit British people for generations to come.
Luke Pollard
I am going to make some progress, but I will be happy to give way in a moment.
Before I start getting into the detail, I want to recognise up front the Chagossians affected by decisions taken by Britain many years ago. We recognise in the preamble to the universal deep regret over what happened. It is acknowledged on the face of the treaty, and I know there is cross-party support for the Chagossians, although there is a range of views on the deal within the Chagossian community. I want to place that on the record right at the start of the debate—[Interruption.] I will return to the Chagossians in a moment.
Both Houses have now had the opportunity to scrutinise the treaty under the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010. The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty), who is sitting next to me, gave evidence to three parliamentary Committees during the scrutiny period, allowing Members of this House and the other place to fully interrogate the details of the treaty. The International Agreements Committee concluded that if the treaty were not ratified, the future of the base on Diego Garcia would be at greater risk. The purpose of this Bill is to make the necessary changes to domestic law to implement the treaty, so that it can be ratified and brought into force.
Let me remind the House why we needed to secure this treaty. The Diego Garcia base is central to our national security—I know that all Members of this House will recognise that very simple fact.
Luke Pollard
I am going to make a wee bit more progress, but I always like giving way to a Luke, and I will do so in a bit—do not worry—but not quite yet.
I pay tribute to all Members of the House who have taken the time to scrutinise the treaty in detail.
Allow me to set out why it is so vital. The importance of the base cannot be overstated. The joint UK-US base on Diego Garcia has played a vital role in defending the UK and its allies for over 50 years. The base plays a key role in operations that support UK forces and our allies across the middle east, east Africa and south Asia. Its deepwater port, airfield, and advanced communications and surveillance capabilities, give the UK and our allies crucial strategic capabilities, which have played a key role in missions to disrupt high-value terrorists, including Islamic State threats to the United Kingdom.
But the base on Diego Garcia was under threat. Had we not signed the treaty, we could have faced further legal rulings against us within weeks, because the negotiations begun by the Conservatives had been stayed. 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.
Luke Pollard
In a moment. I will come to the hon. Gentleman—he should not worry.
A judgment from such a tribunal would be legally binding on the UK. It would impact on our ability to protect the electromagnetic spectrum from interference, and impair our ability to ensure access to the base by air and sea, to patrol the maritime area around the base and to support the base’s critical national security functions.
Alex Ballinger (Halesowen) (Lab)
My hon. Friend has spoken about the important capabilities of this vital US-UK base. Does he agree that it would be dangerous and counterproductive to put those capabilities at any risk—certainly if that could have happened in a matter of weeks or months?
Luke Pollard
I agree, and it is precisely the reason why the Conservative Government started the negotiations in the first place. You do not accidentally rock up one day to the Foreign Office and decide to start international negotiations; you do so because there is a clear risk to the future of the military base. That is why the Conservatives started the negotiations, why they had 11 rounds of negotiations, and why we had to conclude the deal.
Luke Pollard
As I have taken one intervention from this side of the House, I am happy to take another from the Opposition Benches.
Sir Roger Gale
The International Court of Justice ruling is not binding. It is not in law. We did not have to abide by it. Why are we giving away British territory to Mauritius and then renting it back? There was no need for us to do so. Why are we doing it?
Luke Pollard
I have a lot of time for the right hon. Gentleman. The provisions of those judgments affect the operations of the base—that is what is important here. It is also about the extension of the judgments, because other powers could be used on the basis of those judgments. That is the reason that the Conservatives started the negotiations. [Interruption.] If they would like to explain that there was a better reason that they started the negotiations—if it was not to ensure the security of this vital base—they are welcome to do so.
Luke Pollard
If the hon. Gentleman would like to explain why the Conservatives started the negotiations, I am happy to give way.
Paul Holmes
I thank the Minister for giving way, and I welcome him to his new position. He keeps saying “could”, “if” and that things “might” have happened. Will he accept that the legal judgments that have been cast down, which he is using as evidence, are not binding? Does he accept that when he talks about our deal—in other words, the last Government’s deal—he is actually being a bit duplicitous? There was no deal, because we ended the negotiations.
Luke Pollard
I think the Opposition have got their attack line sorted, but not the reasons why they started the negotiations.
Mr Speaker
Order. I did not like the word “duplicitous”, and I definitely did not like the carrying on afterwards. I am sure that “duplicitous” will not be said again today.
Luke Pollard
Thank you, Mr Speaker. I will make some progress, but I will take Members’ interventions in just a wee moment. [Interruption.] The shadow Foreign Secretary will get a go in a moment, but if she wants to continue shouting at me, she is more than welcome to do so; I will make some progress in the meantime. I hope she understands that this debate is best approached in a good-natured way, and I am certain that she will be doing so, with less shouting.
Luke Pollard
As I just mentioned—the hon. Gentleman might have missed it—I will give way in a moment, but I will now make some progress.
Courts and international bodies were already making decisions that undermined our position. Others would have followed suit, taking us down a path towards making the base inoperable. This Government will not allow that to happen. There has been a wealth of misinformation on these legal points, and those who have suggested that the UK should simply ignore international law fail to recognise the true impacts of these cascading adverse rulings, which would have not only impeded our ability to control and operate the base, but would have swiftly undermined our ability to control the waters, the air and the electromagnetic spectrum on which the base relies. Such rulings would have fundamentally undermined the very capabilities that make the base so uniquely valuable to the UK and the US, our allies.
This treaty eliminates that legal threat. Under the treaty, the UK will retain all the rights and authorities necessary for full operational control of Diego Garcia. It provides for unrestricted use of the base.
Luke Pollard
In just one moment.
The treaty provides for control over the movement of all persons and goods on the base, and for control over the electromagnetic spectrum used for communications. It ensures that nothing can be built within a buffer zone of 24 nautical miles without our say so, and it delivers an effective veto on any development in the Chagos archipelago that threatens the base—something that the previous Government failed to secure in their negotiations. It prohibits foreign security forces from establishing a presence on the outer islands.
Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)
I congratulate the Minister on his new position
May I get one little moment of agreement here? The Government say they abide by the law. Given the opt-out that we had, the original judgment was specifically not found in law, because we did not allow the ICJ to rule on Commonwealth issues. The question is a matter of law, so if the Minister is suggesting to the House that other actions would have taken place, they would have been unlawful. In what world was it necessary to block off those by assuming that this was law? It was not lawful.
Luke Pollard
The Foreign Office and the Government published the Government’s legal position when the treaty was laid. That assessment says:
“The longstanding legal view of the United Kingdom is that the UK would not have a realistic prospect of successfully defending its legal position on sovereignty”
in any future sovereignty litigation. That important and long-standing view predates this Government. Again, it was one of the reasons why the Conservative Government began the negotiations and held 11 rounds.
Alex Ballinger
Does the Minister not think it is the height of hypocrisy for those in the last Government, who negotiated 85% of this treaty over 11 rounds, to wait until they were in opposition to make these claims, none of which they made during their negotiations?
Luke Pollard
I thank my hon. Friend for that. It must be quite a freeing experience, because we now know that nearly every single legacy Tory MP during the last Government—whose Ministers started the negotiations, negotiated a deal, and made statements and answered questions in this House—were not actually supporting their Front Benchers, which is what we saw, but were deeply upset with the Conservative Government. If that is their genuine position, not just their political position now, they should have raised those concerns with the Foreign Secretary at the time. They should have been clear about it, but I believe that not many of them did so, and that tells a story.
Simon Hoare
I welcome the hon. Gentleman to his promoted position. If he is asking the House to thank him for negotiating what we already have, I think our thanks will be a long time in coming, because the outcome of the negotiations is pretty poor as far as this country is concerned. Surely we have given away what is of most strategic importance in this space as we now have to notify the Mauritian Government any time we want to do anything there. We do not currently have to do that, and therefore the element of surprise has been lost.
Luke Pollard
I have a lot of time for the hon. Gentleman, but I am afraid he is incorrect about the notification criteria. There is a lot of fake news out there—which I and the Minister beside me, my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff South and Penarth, have corrected in this House before—about the suggestion that pre-notification of action is required; it is not. As is explicitly set out in the documents, we do not need to undertake pre-notification. It is established under the criteria that post-action notification for overseas bases is normal, and that would be normal for the UK and our overseas allies that have overseas bases. It is not unusual, and he will be familiar with the fact that there is further international reporting of any military action. It is important that we go on the facts. Some people are worried about the situation that the hon. Gentleman outlined, but I can reassure him that they do not need to worry about it, because what he said is not accurate.
Graham Stringer (Blackley and Middleton South) (Lab)
I sincerely congratulate my hon. Friend on his new position. I have to say to him that I have never found it a satisfactory basis for arguments or positions in this Chamber to say that those on the other side are doing it. However, I do think it is important that we are consistent. When we were in opposition and the Conservatives were in government, they made the Foreign Secretary a Member of the House of Lords, and we created about it. We shouted about how someone in a senior Cabinet position should be directly accountable to this House. We now have a super-active Attorney General making many controversial decisions. Does my hon. Friend agree with me that we should be making the case that the Attorney General should be in this House, not the other place?
Luke Pollard
That is not a matter for me in relation to this Bill, but my hon. Friend has put his views on the record, and I am certain that others on the Front Bench will have heard what he has said.
Several hon. Members rose—
Dr Luke Evans
The Minister has made it absolutely apparent that this is about the long-term security of the base, so could he explain why, under article 13, if after 99 years the Mauritians decide not to negotiate, the base will just stop. We will get first refusal, but we can easily see that the Chinese would outbid us because we in this country decide that that is not affordable. We are a hostage to fortune, and that base will crumble. He has not secured the base, he has just deferred the issue by four generations, and this House will then have to decide what to do.
Luke Pollard
It is good that the hon. Member has read the detail of the treaty. As he will know that, at the end of the initial 99-year lease, a first refusal will be offered to the United Kingdom. That is the right place to be, and that offer will mean—as he describes it, in four generations’ time—there is a decision for this House to take about what it wants to do based on the circumstances at the time. This gives us first refusal, so we can conceivably see that full control of the UK-US base on Diego Garcia could extend well beyond the 99 years I have mentioned.
Richard Tice
Does the Minister accept that we owned the freehold of the Chagos islands, and does he agree with me that in the mid-1960s we paid Mauritius £3 million in old money—some 80 million quid in today’s money—to cede all future claims over sovereignty?
Luke Pollard
The legal analysis that this Government have received, and indeed that the last Government received, showed that the position of UK sovereignty over the Diego Garcia military base was putting the base’s operation at risk. The reason why the last Government began the negotiations was to secure the continuing operation of the base, and it is the reason why we are doing so. Securing the future operation of that base is the primary concern of this Government. Indeed, as we heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton and Wanstead (Mr Bailey), it was the primary concern of the last Government as well. That is what this deal secures, and it is really important that that is understood clearly: the base is what matters in relation to its continuing operation, and that is what this deal secures.
Luke Pollard
I will give way to the right hon. Gentleman first and then come to the hon. Gentleman.
Jeremy Corbyn
Could I ask the Minister to return to the human cost and the human story? In 1968, the Chagossians first began to be removed from Diego Garcia and the archipelago. Their treatment was abominable and disgusting by any stretch of the imagination. It needs a bit more than a statement of regret; it needs a full-hearted apology to all the Chagossian people for the way they were treated.
Since there is a legal judgment that the Chagos islands in their entirety, including the archipelago and Diego Garcia, should return to Mauritius, is this treaty not just completing work that was not properly done in the 1960s? Would the Minister confirm that the question of returning to live on the outer islands is agreed, but be clearer about the Chagos islanders who want to return to Diego Garcia, either to visit or to reside, in the future? History has treated them badly, and that needs to put it right.
Mr Speaker
Order. I always respect the right hon. Gentleman, and I could put him down to speak because of his knowledge—if he wants me to, I can certainly add him to the list—but it would be better if we had shorter interventions.
Luke Pollard
I agree with the right hon. Gentleman about the way the Chagossians were treated. For those who have a copy of the treaty to hand, part of the preamble says that the parties are
“Conscious that past treatment of Chagossians has left a deeply regrettable legacy, and committed to supporting the welfare of all Chagossians”.
That is in the treaty because their treatment was unacceptable, as he has explained, and it has caused a legacy of pain and suffering for that community. It is the reason why the Foreign Office Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff South and Penarth, has engaged so much with the different views of a range of Chagossian voices in this debate.
I will come on to answer the right hon. Gentleman’s question when the interventions slow down a wee bit but, to get ahead of that, people will be able to visit Diego Garcia. Chagossians will be able to visit Diego Garcia as part of this treaty, which they are not currently able to do, but they will not be able to reside on Diego Garcia. They will be able to do so on some of the outer islands, for which the provisions will be different, but the military base is a military base for a reason, and although people will be able to visit, they will not be able to reside there. I will come back to that in due course.
Luke Pollard
If the hon. Member does not mind, I will come back to him when I deal with the Chagossians later, but in the meantime I am happy to take the other intervention.
Lincoln Jopp
I am grateful to the Minister for giving way on the negotiations. He is making great play of the fact that the previous Government started the negotiations and that there were 11 rounds of them. Is he not aware that, in 1965, the United Nations passed a resolution saying that we should enter into conversations with Argentina over the Falkland Islands. Those negotiations went on for 17 years and ended in 1981. In 1982, we all know what happened. So it is not where we start; it is where we finish.
Luke Pollard
I say politely to the hon. Gentleman—for whom I have a lot of time, and I respect his military service—that that comparison we have seen of the British Indian Ocean Territory with the Falkland Islands is shameful. I have seen the tweets from the Conservative party asking, with a map of the Falkland Islands, “Are they next?”—a shameful comparison, which stokes the flames of division and threatens the sovereignty of such overseas territories. Let me be clear, as my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff South and Penarth from the Foreign Office has been clear at the Dispatch Box: there are no changes or implications for any other British overseas territories. Indeed, the British overseas territories support the deal. I hope that we will not need to revisit this again, but any implication that seeks to apply the experience of BIOT to other overseas territories is unhelpful to them. I am certain that the hon. Gentleman wishes to create no question marks over those overseas territories.
Phil Brickell (Bolton West) (Lab)
To go back to the point that the Minister was making earlier about control, can he confirm to the House that, contrary to the reasoned amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage), we are not ceding control of the Diego Garcia military base, consistent with clause 3?
Luke Pollard
My hon. Friend is exactly right. On the reasoned amendments, my colleague who is to conclude the debate, the Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff South and Penarth, will respond to some of the details of the reasoned amendment selected by Mr Speaker. However, there is a lot of misinformation about this treaty, and I believe that in some cases it is deliberate misinformation to confuse the picture. Clearly, securing the operation of the base is the priority of this Government and of this treaty. Indeed, I believe in good faith that it was the priority of the previous Government as well, which is why they started the negotiations and held them for 11 rounds, and why we concluded them, because we agreed with the previous Government that securing the future operation of the base was the priority. That is why they started them; that is why we completed them.
Graeme Downie (Dunfermline and Dollar) (Lab)
The Minister has already outlined the support of the British overseas territories. Will he please remind us of who else supports the Bill? Who supports it and who else opposes it, in addition to the Conservative party?
Luke Pollard
I will come to the level of international support in a moment, but our allies back this Bill and support it strongly. When we look at which column people choose to be in—the column of those in support of the Bill, with our allies, with India, the United States and others, or the column of countries and people who oppose it—I know which side I am on. I am on the side of our allies. It is up to each of the opposition parties to choose whether they oppose the Bill and to decide which column they are in. That is a choice not for me, but for them. Only one column has our allies in, including our principal security partner, the United States. It is on the side of the treaty.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
I have long been interested in Diego Garcia, not least because I am one of the few Members of Parliament who has visited it, 40 years ago with the Defence Committee. May we get some certainty? Every time we mention the £35 billion estimate of the Government Actuary’s Department, the Minister’s colleague, the Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, the hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty), brushes it aside and says that he does not recognise the number. Given that we are spending a lot of taxpayers’ money on this—something we already owned—will he tell the House in detail how much the agreement will cost us over its lifetime?
Luke Pollard
I am grateful to the Father of the House for helping me to get back on track with my speech, because that is the topic of my next section. I will answer the right hon. Gentleman’s question in my remarks, but if a bit is missing, he may ask to intervene on me again.
We have heard some outrageous claims artificially boosting the costs of this deal. It will cost an average of £101 million per year in today’s money. That is an investment in today’s money of £3.4 billion over 99 years. That has been rigorously calculated, based on net present value, the methodology endorsed by the Government Actuary’s Department and the Office for Budget Responsibility. All the associated costings have been laid previously before the House and were explained in full at the time of signature.
Crucially, the exaggerated numbers that have been cited ignore inflation, the OBR deflation mechanisms and the Green Book. The Government have secured a strong deal. I remind those who criticise it that the previous Government knew full well that the status quo was dangerous and unsustainable—that is why they entered into negotiations in the first place, why they held 11 rounds of negotiations under successive Prime Ministers, Foreign Secretaries and Attorneys General, and why the Conservatives have never been able to provide serious alternatives to this deal.
Luke Pollard
I am happy to give way to the hon. Gentleman and then to my hon. Friend.
Dr Luke Evans
Can the Minister point to any other country in the world that has used NPV to give away sovereignty? As far as I am aware, there is none, so why are we pioneering that way forward?
Luke Pollard
This deal secures the base. The calculated value of the deal uses the Green Book. Other countries look at overseas bases that they rent and make the calculation based on their national accounting standards. We base it on the Green Book. Indeed, the Green Book was updated by the previous Government and has been used for such decisions for the past 20 years.
Several hon. Members rose—
Luke Pollard
I will return to the Green Book in a moment, but will give way first to my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton and Wanstead (Mr Bailey). I am trying to be fair to everyone.
Mr Calvin Bailey
Will the Minister place that £101 million in context? Perhaps the US or other nations have entered into such agreements. Will he make reference to the value for money that we received for the deal?
Luke Pollard
The deal represents broadly 0.2% of the defence budget. The total deal represents less than the cost of the unusable personal protective equipment acquired by the previous Government and burnt during the first year of the pandemic. A helpful comparator useful for the House to know about is the French base in Djibouti. Recently, France agreed a deal with Djibouti worth €85 million per year to rent a base. Diego Garcia is a larger—15 times larger—more capable and more strategically located military asset and, importantly, it is not next to the Chinese naval base that sits next to the French one in Djibouti. As a comparison, that is useful for people to understand in terms of present value.
Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)
Will the Minister give way?
Dr Murrison
I congratulate the Minister on his promotion, but must say how sorry I am that his first outing has been to defend this load of nonsense. What does he say to the UK Statistics Authority and to the Government Actuary’s Department, which appear to have a very different view of the costing of this to the one that he has just outlined? Is it not the case that what he has said represents a load of accounting double-speak and is dubious, to put it politely and in parliamentary terms?
Luke Pollard
That is not quite correct. Indeed, unfortunately, this is not my first outing. My first outing was at Defence questions yesterday, supporting British jobs in the defence sector and celebrating the £10 billion frigate deal that this Government achieved. My second outing was yesterday afternoon with the statement on the defence industrial strategy, making the case for more investment in British businesses. My third outing, though, is here today, securing the most vital military base that the UK and the US operate together. It is absolutely right that, as part of it, we present the costings to Parliament. It is also precisely right that those are reviewed properly by the Government Actuary’s Department and the Office for Budget Responsibility. That has happened, and that is why we have been able to use the figures with certainty. The costings are also entirely consistent with the Green Book.
The Green Book point is a useful one to dwell on for one moment, because if the policy of the Conservative party is not to use Green Book calculations for long-term investments—the same Green Book used for costings of our nuclear deterrent or pensions—I want to understand how much spending the Opposition are now committing to. In how many other examples would the Green Book no longer apply? What are their new accounting principles and what would be the increased cost to the public purse? How many more people will pay increased taxes, because of their disapplication of the Green Book principles? Those are entirely fair questions. The shadow Chancellor, the right hon. Member for Central Devon (Sir Mel Stride), signed the reasoned amendment, so surely he would be able to say how many other areas the Green Book no longer applies to. Perhaps the Opposition Front Benchers will be able to specify any other areas that they no longer believe that the Green Book applies to. We calculated our figures based on the Green Book, and that is why we are confident in them.
Several hon. Members rose—
Luke Pollard
I will take two more interventions, and then I will make some progress. I am aware that the debate is one that people want to speak in.
Lincoln Jopp
If the Minister is such a big fan of the social time discounting method that has been applied, will he tell the House where the social time discounting method has been used in other parts of Government to generate net present value?
Luke Pollard
The hon. Gentleman will know that we have published the full methodology, and that the social time preference rate is only one part of the calculation that we have used; we have also used the OBR’s inflation deflator mechanisms as well. He will also know that we published the full costings at the point of the treaty being applied.
Several hon. Members rose—
Luke Pollard
I will make a little bit more progress and then I will come back to the hon. Gentleman. [Interruption.] I can hear the shadow Foreign Secretary has gone back to her shouting again, but it is still not the politest way of running the debate. Let me keep going.
It was left to this Government to finish what our predecessors were unable to deliver. In doing so, we have secured a much stronger deal that will protect our interests well into the next century. Let me remind the House of the international context. The ruling of the International Court of Justice against the UK was a low moment for our country globally. It left our allies fearful that we might lose control of the base, it left our adversaries with opportunities to exploit, and it tarnished our reputation in the global south. In contrast, as we have heard on countless occasions from a range of colleagues, this deal has been welcomed wholeheartedly by our allies and the wider international community.
Alex Ballinger
Does the Minister agree that it is completely wrong for the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage) and Reform UK to claim that President Trump did not support this deal, when he said it was a “very strong” deal that was secured for a “very long” time?
Luke Pollard
In support of the deal, the US Defence Secretary, Pete Hegseth, put it well when he said:
“Diego Garcia is a vital military base for the US. The UK’s (very important) deal with Mauritius secures the operational capabilities of the base and key US national security interests in the region. We are confident the base is protected for many years ahead.”
President Trump has described the deal as “very long term” and “very strong”.
That follows a rigorous US inter-agency process, involving the whole of the US security apparatus, both under the previous Biden Administration and the current Trump Administration. This involved the Department of Defence, the National Security Council and the intelligence agencies, including the CIA. Do Conservative Members say that they do not trust the assessment of the CIA, the US and all the security apparatus? The deal secures the use of the base—they are happy with it and we are happy with it. Our Five Eyes partners recognise the benefits of the treaty for our collective security. The deal is supported by Japan, South Korea and India. It is also a deal publicly welcomed by the African Union, the UN Secretary General and the Commonwealth.
I turn now to the issue of Chagossians, which needs to be raised as well. While the negotiations were necessarily conducted on a state-to-state basis, we are alive to the diverse views of Chagossians about their future, and we have the utmost respect for their past suffering.
Luke Pollard
I will come back to the hon. Gentleman in a moment.
Although the Chagossians could not be part of the negotiations as they were conducted on a state-to-state basis, both the Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty), and Foreign and Commonwealth Development officials have met and had regular meetings over the past year, and stayed engaged with their diverse views. There are diverse views within the Chagossian community that are strongly held, and we have listened and respected those.
Dr Al Pinkerton (Surrey Heath) (LD)
As some Members laugh about the nature of the 99 years and other Members talk about the sums of money involved, I ask all of us to look at the Public Gallery to remind ourselves that there are Chagossians here today who feel deeply aggrieved by the deal. They feel that the Foreign Office and this Government have not gone above and beyond to consult all the groups involved. The Minister said that this deal does not refer to other overseas territories, but the principle of self-determination of our overseas territories’ citizens—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
Order. Interventions need to be brief.
Luke Pollard
I understand the hon. Gentleman’s argument. It is the reason why, right up front, before I went into the military utility of the base at Diego Garcia, I wanted to speak about the Chagossians. It is important. I will come on to the engagement that the Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff South and Penarth, has had in this respect, but I understand the strength of feeling that the hon. Gentleman describes. I will come to the hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex (Sir Bernard Jenkin), and then I will make progress.
Sir Bernard Jenkin
I am most grateful to the Minister for giving way. I am afraid my question goes back to the cost of the deal, which will hang around the Government’s neck like an albatross for the rest of their time in office. We know that the Government Actuary says the gross cost is £35 billion. Please can the Minister enlighten the House and help hon. Members to understand his own calculations? What is the meaning of “social time discounting”?
Luke Pollard
The hon. Gentleman’s intervention is not about Chagossians, but I realise I could not take his intervention earlier. He asks about the meaning of the social time preference rate in relation to the deal. Discounting in appraisal of social value is based on the concept of time preference, and that the value of goods or services today is greater than in the future. This is the discount rate that has been used in the Green Book since 2003, including in every year that his party was in Government. It was the basis on which this was there.
Several hon. Members rose—
Luke Pollard
To return to the issue of Chagossians, on which I am trying to make progress, my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff South and Penarth and FCDO officials have met with the Chagossian communities. Under the treaty, Mauritius will now be free to carry out a programme of resettlement of the outer islands, and we have agreed a new trust fund for Mauritius to use in support of Chagossians and the resumption of visits to the Chagos archipelago. Over the coming months and years, we will increase the UK Government’s support to and engagement with UK Chagossians, including through UK-funded projects designed through a new contact group, informed by the Chagossians’ own wishes, which met for the very first time last week and was attended by my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff South and Penarth.
Tom Tugendhat (Tonbridge) (Con)
The Minister will be aware that the payment from the 1960s, referred to by the hon. Member for Boston and Skegness (Richard Tice), was also supposed to be spent on Chagossian welfare, but many Chagossian groups have raised the fact that that money did not go on Chagossian welfare. It went on many other things for the Mauritian Government, but not on Chagossians. What confidence does he have that this agreement is any more valid than the last one?
Luke Pollard
That is precisely why my FCDO colleagues are working very closely with Mauritius to ensure that the money that is included in the treaty, and the obligations that both the UK and Mauritius sign up to in the treaty, are fully delivered so that the Chagossians receive what this treaty says they should receive. That is a really important part of the treaty.
Jeremy Corbyn
Have the meetings undertaken by the Minister of State, the hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty), included all the Chagossian groups, including the Chagos Refugees Group, based in Mauritius?
Luke Pollard
The Minister of State has met a full range of groups, including the group mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman.
Dr Murrison
The Minister is being extremely generous with his time. He was pressed earlier, but I would like to press him again on the social time discounting method. He should be able to give examples of big projects to which his Government have applied this method. Could he now do that and say why, for example, the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Angela Rayner) did not use that method when she was calculating the cost of the 10-year affordable housing programme?
Luke Pollard
I understand the argument that the right hon. Gentleman is trying to make, but I hope that he appreciates my argument that the calculation is based on the OBR’s inflation and deflation figures and on the social time preference rate. It is a figure that has been calculated and supported by the OBR, and it stands up to scrutiny. If Conservative Members are saying that they no longer wish to use the Green Book for calculating long-term investments like this, which is their inferred argument, then it is worth looking at what they are suggesting that we no longer use the Green Book to calculate—they are making an awfully large spending commitment when they suggest that.
Several hon. Members rose—
Luke Pollard
I am going to finish my remarks on Chagossians, if I may.
I hope that all Members of the House will recognise that the treaty is not just about the importance of the military base on Diego Garcia. Diego Garcia and the wider Chagos archipelago have a unique environment. I hope that protecting the world’s oceans is a point of cross-party unity in this debate, advanced across our overseas territories by the blue belt programme. The UK supports Mauritius’s ambitions to establish a marine protected area to safeguard the globally significant ecosystems in the Chagos archipelago, and the UK will provide technical support and assistance to enable that to happen. The UK and Mauritius will work with international conservation organisations to ensure implementation of science-backed strategies for conservation.
I want to conclude, but I realise that I have not been able to allow all the hon. Members to intervene who wanted to do so, so I give way to the hon. Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Dr Johnson).
Dr Caroline Johnson (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)
The Minister seems to be arguing about exactly how much it will cost. My constituents just see that he is giving away British territory and paying rent for it, which is completely unacceptable to them. He talks about how it is good for the global south, because they agree with it; good for other countries, because they agree with it; and good for Mauritius, because it is getting extra money. What about the British people that he, as a British Minister, is here to represent? What are they getting for this deal? They are losing territory and it is costing them money.
Luke Pollard
We are securing one of the most valuable military bases on the planet. We are securing our close intelligence relationship with the United States. We are securing a vital base for operations in the region. We are securing a vital base for allies. That is the key British objective. It was the objective stated by the previous Government, which I believe the hon. Lady was serving in at the time, when they started negotiations. If she would like to say that she vividly opposes it and wants to publish the letters she was writing to the then Government for starting negotiations, she is welcome to do so, but I do not believe that any Conservative Members really did that.
Let me say one final thing on cost. The average payment cost is 20% less than the cost of the festival of Brexit under the previous Government. We can cite statistics, but the key thing the previous Government said that their deal would secure was the future operation of the base. This deal secures the future operation of the base. It is a surprise that Conservative Members are not going to accept it.
I will now conclude, because I want everyone to have a chance to speak in this debate. Let me do so by explaining what the Bill will do in practice. The Bill, along with the secondary legislation that will follow, will allow the treaty to be ratified and to enter into force. The Bill preserves the current laws of the British Indian Ocean Territory, which will ensure the base’s continued effective operation without any disruption during the transition. The Bill also ensures that there are no changes to the rights of Chagossians to acquire British citizenship, and no changes to the status of Chagossians who currently hold British citizenship or British overseas territory citizenship. Protecting national security is one of the utmost priorities of this Government, and we are delivering on that with this deal and the Bill. The Bill is crucial to securing the critically important military base on Diego Garcia for the next century and beyond, and that is why I commend it to the House.
Priti Patel (Witham) (Con)
I beg to move an amendment, to leave out from “That” to the end of the question and add:
“this House declines to give a Second Reading to the Diego Garcia Military Base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill because it implacably opposes the United Kingdom ceding sovereignty over the British Indian Ocean Territory to Mauritius, and is therefore opposed to the terms of the Treaty to which the Bill gives effect, in particular Article 11 of the Treaty which will mean the United Kingdom paying £34.7 billion to Mauritius, leading to tax rises in the United Kingdom to provide tax cuts in Mauritius; because the Treaty does not secure the base on Diego Garcia, in particular because it does not embody the “right to extend” the 99-year lease to which the then Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs referred in this House on 7 October 2024; because the measures in the Treaty leave the base vulnerable, and therefore represent a threat to the strategic interests of the United Kingdom; and because the Treaty does not properly protect the rights of the Chagossian people, or the future of the Marine Protected Area.”
We on the Opposition side of the House stand against Labour’s £35 billion Chagos surrender deal. Everything about this surrender deal is wrong, from the way it was negotiated behind closed doors within weeks of Labour coming to power, to the betrayal—[Interruption.] I will happily give way.
Graeme Downie
The right hon. Lady says “behind closed doors”. Will she please publish the previous Government’s negotiating position, including the cost of the deal they were looking to do?
Priti Patel
Let me be clear: I was not a member of the previous Government, but the hon. Member knows perfectly well that no one on the Conservative Benches has any authority to publish classified papers from previous Governments. [Interruption.] He might laugh about that, but those on the Labour Benches might want to apologise to Lord Cameron of Chipping Norton, who actually stopped the deal. He has been grossly misrepresented this afternoon in this debate.
Priti Patel
I will return to that point in a minute.
On top of what else is wrong with this surrender deal, it is a fundamental betrayal of the British Chagossian community, whose rights have been ignored and neglected. I pay tribute to them. They have joined us today in the Gallery. If I remember rightly, this is the fifth or sixth time they have joined us to show how strongly they feel about the deal.
The deal undermines the defence and security interests of this country, and it brings a risk of the destruction of the unique marine environment and a failure to protect the future of the marine protected area. From refusing to grant this House a meaningful debate and vote on the treaty when it came, to the scenes in the Mauritius National Assembly—I hope Labour MPs watched the debates in the Assembly, where the Prime Minister was gloating about how easy it was to secure concession after concession from the Labour Government—and the deceit, misinformation and gaslighting of the British people through to the £35 billion cost to hard-working British taxpayers, which will be used to fund tax cuts in Mauritius.
Richard Tice
I am most grateful to the shadow Foreign Secretary for giving way. The Minister described the deal as an investment. Does the right hon. Lady agree that it would be helpful to educate him that a freehold is an investment and a lease is a liability?
Priti Patel
Exactly right. On top of that, there is the whole issue of the liabilities, costs and everything else that goes with it. The hon. Gentleman makes a fundamental, important point.
Sarah Bool (South Northamptonshire) (Con)
We talk about the cost. The TaxPayers’ Alliance has concerns about the amounts we are calculating, because they will be dependent on inflation. The calculations do not take into account market values, so the £35 billion stated by the Government Actuary’s Department will actually be more like £47 billion.
Priti Patel
Absolutely right. Of course, this Government do not like speaking about inflation for all the macro-economic reasons we know about. Inflation under this Government continues to rise, which speaks volumes about their handling of the economy.
This deal is so bad for Britain, it has left our country humiliated and weaker on the world stage. Our friends and enemies alike are laughing at the UK and Labour’s epic diplomatic failure to stand up for our national interests.
Alex Ballinger
The right hon. Lady says that this is an international problem for the UK, but does she not agree that the Americans, the Canadians, the New Zealanders, the Australians, the Indians and even the Pope support the deal? It is really important that our Five Eyes security partners are behind us.
Priti Patel
Having led Five Eyes for our country—I am very proud to have done so—it is a matter of great concern that the deal has been backed by Iran, China and Russia. I say to the hon. Gentleman that that is exactly why this is a bad deal for our country. [Interruption.] It is correct, actually, and I can point him to the references where those countries have spoken in favour of the deal.
Peter Swallow (Bracknell) (Lab)
I thank the right hon. Lady for giving way. I am going to give her another opportunity to confirm that she agrees with our Five Eyes allies that this is a good deal. Those are the people who back this deal.
Priti Patel
I met our Five Eyes partners at the weekend and I can tell the hon. Gentleman that they are not paying for this deal and they are not gloating about it. They see it very much as a failure of this Government. He can go and justify that to his constituents.
I congratulate the Minister on his new post and his promotion, and I welcome him to this wider discussion. He has tried his best to sell the surrender deal to the House, but the choices made by his Prime Minister, the former Foreign Secretary who is no longer in post, the Attorney General and Labour Ministers will leave Britain weaker and poorer, humiliated into giving away the sovereignty of our British territory and paying a fortune, £35 billion, to lease back a base—the point has been made a number of times—that we already own. While Labour has spent months trying to hide the details of its Chagos surrender deal and the scale of the financial cover up, it has been the Conservatives holding Labour to account constantly, exposing its shameful decision.
Mr Calvin Bailey
I come back to the right hon. Lady’s point about security. I must have misread our colleagues in the US Department of Defence when they told Defence Committee members, some of whom are sat behind her and heard the same words, that they did not understand her consternation about the deal—but let us assume that she has not put that in an incorrect way. If there was not a problem, will she please explain why her party started the negotiations?
Priti Patel
For the benefit of the House and everyone, to provide absolute clarity again, it was the Conservative Foreign Secretary who ended all discussions on this matter. I say it again: in all respect to Lord Cameron—[Interruption.]
Several hon. Members rose—
Priti Patel
No, sit down. In all respect to Lord Cameron, I think the Labour party should apologise for the gross misrepresentation that has taken place. Speaking of Foreign Secretaries, it is a real shame that the new Foreign Secretary is not here today to speak on the Bill. She could have come in, reviewed the details and got out the slide rule, which would be quite a good tool in this case. [Interruption.] I have just heard that the treaty has been signed, without it even coming to this House for debate and a vote. The Foreign Secretary could have come to the House to review the deal—she could even have scrapped it and saved the British taxpayer billions of pounds. However, like her predecessor, she has left it to junior Ministers to defend the deal.
Several hon. Members rose—
Priti Patel
I will give way once again to the hon. Member for Halesowen (Alex Ballinger).
Alex Ballinger
Could the right hon. Lady outline what was in the deal that the last Conservative Foreign Secretary was negotiating? The points of sovereignty and everything else were conceded by her party.
Priti Patel
I will now give way to the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Lillian Jones).
Lillian Jones (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (Lab)
Could the right hon. Lady tell me why the US and the Five Eyes have backed this deal?
Priti Patel
They have not gone on the record to say that they have. I have already made it quite clear why it is not in our interest.
It tells us something about Labour’s priorities that within days of coming into office, the Prime Minister met the then Prime Minister of Mauritius to commit to the surrender deal. Encouraged by the Prime Minister’s obsession with left-wing activism and distorted views of international law, and advised by one of the Prime Minister’s best friends and supporters—one could even say his cheerleader—Mauritius knew it was on to a winner negotiating with this naive, foolish and Britain-hating Labour Government. True to form, instead of standing up for Britain’s interests, Labour rushed to accept the advisory opinion of a foreign court that few had heard of, and swiftly agreed to Britain’s surrender of sovereignty.
Dr Caroline Johnson
Is my right hon. Friend aware of any of our allies who think that the insecure and expensive leasehold deal that we have now is better than the freehold sovereignty and security that we had before?
Priti Patel
My hon. Friend makes a good point. I have not heard our Five Eyes allies speak about it being a good way of effectively securing any national interest whatsoever—the concept of leasehold is completely wrong.
Dr Murrison
The Government are clearly not going to take any lessons from us, but I wonder whether they would listen to one of their own. Lord West of Spithead was a Security Minister under the previous Labour Administration and then First Sea Lord and Chief of the Naval Staff, so he knows a thing or two. He has said very clearly that in his expert opinion, this deal is “irresponsible” and that it will damage our strategic interests. Who are we to believe: the Labour party or my old boss, Lord West?
Priti Patel
My right hon. Friend is absolutely right.
There is something fundamental here about the negotiations—I think the Minister alluded to this earlier on. The Government were effectively just listening to leftie lawyers and advisory judgments and acting because they were frightened that their left-wing lawyer friends would pursue even more lawfare against us. The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, the hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty) told the Foreign Affairs Committee:
“Our view is that, without this deal, it was inevitable that Mauritius would pursue and secure a legally binding judgment against the UK. Indeed, legally binding provisional measures could also have been secured within weeks”.
The Government have never—not once—detailed what the legal threat is beyond hiding behind spurious aspects of international law.
I have to say that it is a defeatist attitude that Labour has taken. Britain is Europe’s leading defence power, a pillar of NATO in Europe and a P5 member of the UN Security Council with a right of veto. We are not bound by advisory judgments pursued by Mauritius at the ICJ—which, by the way, included a judge who is a member of the Chinese Communist party. By being vocal in conceding defeat and unwilling to defend Britain from a barrage of lawfare, Labour has let Britain’s standing on the world stage plummet, and its decisions will have serious consequences for us.
Let us talk about the money. We all know that this Labour Government are big spenders when it comes to splashing about taxpayers’ money, and the costs of Labour’s surrender treaty are astronomical at £34.7 billion—a figure which, by the way, we had to drag out of the Government Actuary’s Department because Labour Ministers repeatedly refused to disclose the cash payments when asked. In fact, because the payments are linked to inflation, as my hon. Friend the Member for South Northamptonshire (Sarah Bool) has pointed out, guess what? The cash cost could be even higher. That means higher taxes for our constituents, which is nothing for those on the Labour Benches to crow about.
Peter Swallow
The right hon. Lady comes to this Chamber claiming that this deal has astronomical costs and all that, but what she will not put on the record is the cost of the deal that the Conservatives were negotiating. She can say all she wants about that being a matter for the public record, but she needs to be clear with the British public.
Priti Patel
I will be absolutely crystal clear for the benefit of this House and for Hansard, too: there was no deal whatsoever. The Government can put out as much fake news as they wish and carry on pretending and crowing that there was a deal, but there was no deal. It was the last Conservative Foreign Secretary who stopped any negotiations and discussions, and they were stopped—Lord Cameron himself has said that. On that basis alone, I think Labour Members should all apologise to Lord Cameron, and perhaps even correct the record.
Sir Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)
I am most grateful to my right hon. Friend for giving way. Does it not speak volumes about the real nature of this Government that despite facing a fiscal crisis and potentially a crisis in their finances—they want more money spent on health and benefits, because that is what they do—their priority is listening to leftie lawyers pontificating about decolonisation and committing billions of pounds of long-term liabilities to give away and lease back something that we already own? Does that not say something about the extraordinarily myopic preoccupations of this Government? Of course, we told the Foreign Office to get lost.
Priti Patel
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. It speaks volumes about the priorities that this Labour Government—socialist to the core in how they like to spend public money—are focused on. Come November, when the Chancellor has her Budget, there will be no point crowing about the past and blaming other people, other countries and international forces and factors. This is a fiscal mess made by this Labour Government with this utterly scandalous, appalling and reckless financial giveaway.
Dr Luke Evans
The Minister challenged the Opposition and the shadow Chancellor about our position on net present value, but the reason is that the use of NPV is unprecedented. It is used for commercial deals that the Government make and is standardised for that alone, not for international agreements on sovereignty. Does my right hon. Friend agree that we will not change on net present value, which has its place in commercial deals but not in giving away sovereignty?
Priti Patel
My hon. Friend is absolutely right; it is absolutely shameful. I come back to the fundamental principle that this House will have to consider: at a time when hard-pressed British taxpayers are struggling, with significant tax rises and the share of the tax burden on the public going up, the Government will have to have a good, hard look at themselves and justify this appalling cost to their own constituents.
Joy Morrissey (Beaconsfield) (Con)
My right hon. Friend made an excellent point earlier about the underlying socialism in this agreement. The initial agreement—[Laughter.] No, let me just clarify: the initial agreement from May very clearly says it is about apologising for the colonisation of Mauritius and that it is about the regrettable legacy. Everything is laid out: it is about apologising for our British history and heritage. It is not about being proud of protecting our sovereignty, protecting the realm and protecting our security. We should not be saying that we will apologise and pay out because we feel bad about everything that we have done. That is the difference between the Conservatives and the Labour party, and that is why we are taking such objection to this Bill.
Priti Patel
I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. I say gently to some Labour Members, who are laughing and sneering at a fellow Member of this House when she is making a very valid point, that they are simply being disrespectful. It says a great deal. The hon. Member for Dunfermline and Dollar (Graeme Downie) can laugh as much as he wants. The British public see Labour as a party that does not stand up for Britain and British values, and that is not something to be laughed or sneered at.
Sir Iain Duncan Smith
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. Just to settle this whole argument about net present value, the reason it simply cannot be used for a long-term treaty obligation is that it is necessary to make a really heavy estimation of what will happen socially and economically in that area. It is just about possible to use some of that in the UK, where the Government control certain aspects, which they will not control after this treaty is signed. That is why it has been recommended that it not be used for long-term effects when not within the UK. That is why the actuarial department advised going for the total amount, not this net present value.
Paul Holmes
My right hon. Friend is concerned about the cost of the deal, but does she also share my concern about the way in which the deal was negotiated? The Prime Minister of Mauritius has said that only the Prime Ministers of our respective countries were in the room; officials were asked to leave the room, so there are no records of what was discussed. Is that how a responsible, democratic Government should show transparency when negotiating on the international stage?
Priti Patel
My hon. Friend is absolutely right; at the heart of this is transparency about negotiations, including fiscal negotiations.
Graeme Downie
The right hon. Lady talks about transparency, but once again we have not heard a word from her about what her Government’s position would have been, so there has been no transparency at all. They went through 11 rounds of negotiations. If she did not believe a deal was possible, surely she would have stopped after two or three. She knew that a deal was vital to UK security interests, but her Government could not conclude it.
Priti Patel
The hon. Member, who was laughing and sneering at fellow colleagues earlier—that is simply not acceptable—should have listened to what I said. I will restate it for the House: there was no deal done whatsoever.
Priti Patel
I will not. As we have already heard from Conservative Members, we have rarely seen the methodology that the Government are now hiding behind used for any spending announcements. When the Minister winds up, I wonder if he will commit to presenting all future spending decisions using this methodology—or perhaps he could explain why the Government have singled out this large and embarrassing expenditure to be formulated in this way. That is down to the fact that they are covering up a colossal cost.
Sir Roger Gale
The point has been made over and over in this discussion that we are giving away something that we did not have to give away, and are renting it back—and the British taxpayer is paying for it. Last week, I asked the Leader of the House how much this was going to cost. She said,
“alongside legislation we publish all the necessary documents, including the costings, which we have been transparent about.”—[Official Report, 4 September 2025; Vol. 772, c. 453.]
I regard the Minister as a friend, but to say the least, his figures have been opaque. Let me ask one simple question that my right hon. Friend might know the answer to: how much is the United States contributing to this deal?
Priti Patel
I thank my right hon. Friend for his contribution, and for pursuing this line of question in the Chamber with other Ministers. He is absolutely correct. We know that the United States of America is not contributing to the cost of the deal. The cost is solely on the British taxpayer. [Interruption.] Operational costs of the base are different; that is not in this treaty or this Bill.
The Bill represents a series of measures, not the treaty in its entirety. The Government blocked this House from voting on the treaty during the 21-day process provided for in the Constitutional Reform and Government Act 2010. Last week, when asked at oral questions why we were not getting a vote on the costs, the then Foreign Secretary—now Deputy Prime Minister—proclaimed that there would be a vote, but the Government have not seen fit to put forward a motion. As the explanatory notes to the Bill confirm, the Bill will not authorise expenditure. That is not acceptable. We will table amendments to the Bill to hold the Deputy Prime Minister to his word and ensure that this House has a rightful say over the payments to Mauritius.
Let us be clear: unless there is a direct vote on the costs, Labour will have cheated Parliament and Britain out of having a say on the financial implications of the £35 billion that British taxpayers are being forced to pay a foreign Government. That expenditure means higher taxes for British taxpayers and less spending for British people across all constituencies around the country. Shamefully, this is all to fund tax cuts, debt reduction and new investment in not our country, but Mauritius. I will gladly give way to any Minister or Government Back Bencher who wants to explain why it is acceptable to deny Parliament a vote on this £35 billion of expenditure, and why the money should be given to a foreign Government, not invested in this country. If they need to check that with Rachel from accounts or Lord Hermer, I am sure they can do so before the end of the debate. Labour giving away British taxpayers’ money to a foreign Government to rent land that we already own is reckless and irresponsible.
Dr Caroline Johnson
My right hon. Friend is making a great speech. She says that this is a reckless giving away of British money. Unlike many of the other things we have had to watch Labour do, such as take the winter fuel allowance away from old people and heavily tax charities, hospices and others, this cannot be undone. Once the money is given away to a foreign country, there is nothing that any future Government can do to claim it back easily.
Priti Patel
My hon. Friend is right. At the end of the day, the real judge of this will be the British people.
Priti Patel
No, I am answering my hon. Friend. The real judge will be the British people. How will they view a Labour Government giving away £35 billion to a foreign Government? That money could be spent in this country. It is simply not acceptable at all.
Priti Patel
I am going to make progress, and I have taken plenty of interventions.
The Minister touched on the base at Diego Garcia, which is one of the most important military assets in the world. It gives us and our US allies significant global reach, but the treaty undermines that position, and the Bill contains no measures to mitigate its effects.
Priti Patel
I will not; I have given way plenty of times to the hon. Gentleman.
The surrender of sovereignty means that Britian will be a rule taker, taking the laws, rules and commands of Mauritius, and that restricts and impedes base operations. For example, Mauritius has signed up to the Pelindaba treaty, banning the stationing and storage of nuclear weapons; no Minister has been able to provide a definitive answer when questioned about how that may impact our security and defence, once the UK is no longer sovereign in, or able to exercise sovereign rights over, the Chagos islands and Diego Garcia.
Under the terms of the treaty, we are bound to notify Mauritius of various activities relating to our use of the base, including operations from the base against that country, and movements of our allies’ vessels. Despite heavy questioning, at no point have Ministers explained in detail how the notifications will work, and who will have access to the information.
Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)
The shadow Foreign Secretary is coming to the nub of the matter. This is about the future security of the world, including the United Kingdom. We are arriving at a situation where the sovereign power is a signatory to an empty nuclear treaty that prohibits the stationing of nuclear weapons anywhere within the ambit of the countries that are signatory to that treaty. How could we even use this base for our nuclear submarines?
Priti Patel
The hon. and learned Member is absolutely right. That is why it was important to have a debate on the Floor of the House when the treaty came together, but we did not have one. The treaty brings into question everything about security, including our ability to be as strong and secure as we need to be.
It will come as no surprise to Members to hear that now that our sovereignty over the base is being surrendered, our enemies are queuing up to—guess what?—make friends with Mauritius. Just days before the surrender treaty was signed, Russia agreed a new partnership agreement with Mauritius that includes marine research. That so-called “marine research” conducted by Russia could take place just a handful of miles away from our base. Mauritius has also been courted extensively by Iran and China for further partnerships in a range of other areas. Despite the warnings, this inept Labour Government have failed to act to safeguard our interests.
Sir Bernard Jenkin
On the previous question of how much operational independence we will really have, can my right hon. Friend comment on point 4 of annex 1 of the agreement, entitled “Mauritian Security Review”, which requires us to consult Mauritius before any
“construction or emplacement of any maritime installation”
or
“any proposal for development in the land territory of the Chagos archipelago”?
It also states that Mauritius shall conduct a security review, and that our permission to carry out works is dependent on the outcome of the Mauritius security review. We do not have operational independence under this treaty. It then goes through the dispute process, and there is no decisive way of deciding anything unless there is agreement between the two Prime Ministers. It is a completely inadequate agreement.
Priti Patel
My hon. Friend has summed it up: the whole process is completely inadequate, with no transparency and no dispute resolution mechanisms. This is just too messy, given that we are talking about the defence and security of the country. Again, this is exactly why we should have been able to debate the treaty on the Floor of the House and give it the scrutiny that is required. Let us hope that the Prime Minister and his lefty lawyers are not involved in the dispute resolution mechanisms, because Britain will come out worst. As we know, when Labour negotiates, Britain loses.
At the press conference announcing the signing of the treaty, it was interesting to hear the Prime Minister almost gaslighting critics of the treaty by comparing them—that is, us—to China, Russia and Iran as he arrogantly declared his views and position. On 4 and 11 June in the House, he said that the treaty “has been opposed by our adversaries, Russia, China and Iran”. We know that 6,000 miles away, at the celebration party press conference in Mauritius, China was singled out by the Mauritian Government for praise. According to the press release, Deputy Prime Minister Paul Bérenger noted that China’s
“unwavering support played a critical role in the international recognition of Mauritian sovereignty.”
A few days later, the Chinese ambassador issued Mauritius with “massive congratulations” on securing the surrender of the Chagos islands. This summer, the Mauritian Government published a press release saying that the President expressed “gratitude” for China’s “unwavering support” for Mauritius’s sovereignty claim over the Chagos archipelago.
Iran has also been supportive of the Mauritian claim for the Chagos islands, with its ambassador saying earlier this year:
“The Islamic Republic of Iran has always supported Mauritius’s position regarding the Chagos issue. So, Chagos belongs to the Mauritian people. We support its return and have made many efforts in the past toward that goal.”
As for Russia, when meeting Putin, the former Mauritian President Vyapoory stated:
“We appreciate the support of Russia in our claim for our sovereignty on Chagos.”
Ministers have been asked in parliamentary questions for the evidential basis of the Prime Minister’s claims about the apparent opposition of those three countries who threaten our interests, but they have not come forward with it. When the Minister responds, will he finally explain the grounds behind the Prime Minister’s malicious, almost spurious, remarks, or apologise for those claims? All the evidence shows that, far from opposing the surrender treaty, our enemies actually back it, which means that Britain is weaker.
Priti Patel
I will not. I know that the hon. Gentleman will speak later.
I turn to the British Chagossians. As well as undermining our security and defence interests and ripping off British taxpayers, Labour has betrayed the British Chagossians. Members on both sides of the House have recognised and acknowledged that the Chagossian community has faced injustice and hardship. Their removal from the Chagos islands is a source of great and profound regret. I pay tribute to the Chagossian community in Britain for their campaigning, and to Henry Smith, our former colleague as Member of Parliament for Crawley, who kept pursuing and raising the issue, and who fought in the House for their rights. As a result, we gave the community new rights in the Nationality and Borders Act 2022, which Labour voted against. I hope that the Minister can give assurances that those rights will not be undermined by the citizenship measures in clause 4 of the Bill. Because of that past, it is so important that any decisions made about the future of the Chagos islands are made with the community in mind, and that their needs are fully respected.
Ten years ago, when the Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, the hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty), was the Opposition’s spokesman, he said:
“The people of Chagos must be at the heart of decisions about their future…the UK Government have a fundamental moral responsibility towards the islanders that will not go away.”—[Official Report, 28 October 2015; Vol. 601, c. 192WH.]
But this treaty fails them. I have met the community many times and heard their concerns and frustrations; I think everyone in the House will acknowledge their frustrations. They feel that they have been ignored throughout the process, and that the treaty has no guarantees for them. There is a £40 million Chagossian trust fund that UK taxpayers will capitalise, but the UK and the British Chagossians will have no control or say over how it will be used or controlled by the Government of Mauritius. I highlight that point because the Chagossians feel strongly—they fundamentally know—that they cannot trust the Government of Mauritius. The Bill and the treaty make no provision for the British Chagossians to benefit from the trust fund, or be involved in its governance; nor are they guaranteed any right to visit the Chagos islands. Those decisions will be controlled by Mauritius once sovereignty is surrendered.
Hon. Members across the House who have spoken up for British Chagossians know of their fears. It is right that I amplify those fears, or at least raise them in the House, because their voices have not been heard. Now is the time for them to be counted, for their voices to be heard, and, importantly, for their rights to be defended.
Another damning indictment of the Bill and the treaty is the way in which they fail to safeguard the 640,000 sq km marine protected area. Its unique biodiversity enables important marine research to be conducted. In just the last few weeks, a study that included researchers from Exeter and Heriot-Watt universities and the Zoological Society of London was published. It noted:
“Our results provide clear evidence for the value of the Chagos Archipelago VLMPA for protecting a diverse range of large and mobile marine species.”
Yet all we have heard thus far from the Government is warm words about intentions to continue with an MPA. No details have been published.
Dr Luke Evans
On the conservation point, is it not that the case has already been tested in UNCLOS between 2010 and 2015, when it was said that we could not go ahead with a marine protection area for this British territory because we had not consulted properly with Mauritius? At that point, it was also determined that UNCLOS could not rule on sovereignty as that was not its basis. So we found out not only about the sovereignty side, but that we cannot protect the islands on the environmental part. What guarantees does my right hon. Friend see in the treaty that we will have ecological protections in the area, given those findings?
Priti Patel
My hon. Friend is absolutely correct about UNCLOS and in highlighting the insecurities and serious challenges. It may be forthcoming, but at this stage we do not know what levels of protection will be provided or will continue. We do not know what level of resource Mauritius will put into the MPA or what the UK will contribute.
Dr Murrison
My right hon. Friend is making a powerful case. The answer is none, because Mauritius has no navy and practically no coastguard. With which means will Mauritius defend a territory that is hundreds of kilometres away? It cannot possibly do so.
Priti Patel
My right hon. Friend has summed it up, and it is not just that Mauritius is unable to do so; it clearly will not be interested in this whole area.
It is important for the House to reflect on that point. After decades of investment in and support for the MPA, there is now a major issue of jeopardy. We do not know at this stage what the governance arrangements will be. In fact, in response to questions about that from my hon. Friend the Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Alison Griffiths) at the Environmental Audit Committee in April, the Minister, Baroness Chapman, said:
“It will belong to the Government of Mauritius, and they will make decisions about how they protect the seas around the Chagos archipelago… You want more detail than we have… We and the Government of Mauritius want to see the marine protected area continue, but I do not know what the precise nature of it will be.”
What we do know is that the Fisheries Minister of Mauritius, Dr Boolell, is eyeing up the marine protected area to exploit it. He boasted to his National Assembly on 7 February that he wants to issue fishing and trawler licences. He declared that
“what stops me tomorrow to say that I am going to give fishing licence for any fishing trawler company or any fishing vessel to go to any part of Chagos”.
This issue has been raised extensively in the Foreign Affairs Committee, with no Minister being able to give any assurances. If the Bill passes and the treaty is implemented, the unique marine environment will be put at risk.
I will briefly touch on two areas. Another part of the Chagos surrender Bill that should concern the House is its Henry VIII clause. Clause 5 grants the Government a free hand, with little or no parliamentary scrutiny, decisions or authority, to
“make any provision that appears to his Majesty to be appropriate as a result of the Treaty”.
That could mean the Government making further concessions to the Government of Mauritius. With the treaty making provision for a joint commission with the UK and Mauritius, that could take place without anyone in this House having any sight or knowledge of it. We need a clear commitment from the Minister in his winding-up speech what those measures will be or will he rule out on the Floor of the House that any further concessions will be made to the Government of Mauritius?
In conclusion, this Bill, its six shameful clauses and the treaty it partly implements are a damning indictment of the failures of this Labour Government. It surrenders sovereignty of a land we own to a foreign Government, increasingly allied and growing closer to countries that are not our allies and which pose the biggest threats to our national security and defence. It binds the hands of British taxpayers into paying £35 billion—a surrender tax. It puts the interests and demands of a foreign country and left-wing lawyers above our national interests. It leaves our country poorer, weaker and less able to defend our interests from foreign threats and it undermines our standing in the world.
Labour’s Chagos surrender deal is an epic failure of diplomacy and an expensive humiliation for Britain. When Labour negotiates, Britain loses. His Majesty’s loyal Opposition will continue to stand up for Britain’s national interests and our defence and security. We will fight for our sovereignty, we will defend British taxpayers by opposing Labour’s surrender tax and, we will make the case for the British Chagossians to have their rights safeguarded and the marine protected area preserved. We will oppose this Bill and fight this treaty every step of the way.
Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)
I rise to speak on the Bill and proposed agreement, with particular focus on its defence implications. Given substantial other ongoing work and the fact that other Committees have looked into it, this is not an issue that our Defence Committee has investigated thus far. Let us not be under any illusion, however: this is a matter of strategic importance, financial prudence and moral responsibility.
The British Indian Ocean Territory and in particular the Diego Garcia military base have long served as a cornerstone of our defence and security capabilities, not just for the UK but for our allies in the US and across the Five Eyes community. That is why having their stated support for this deal, in addition to that of India and others, is so vital. The base’s role in disrupting threats to the UK, supporting counter-terror operations against ISIS and protecting us against hostile states must continue. Including the management of the electromagnetic spectrum satellite used for communications and the prevention of other powers operating on the outer islands without permission is vital for countering hostile interference. It is not just a diplomatic formality; it is a strategic firewall against encroachment by hostile states.
Maintaining US and UK autonomy on the base cannot be overstated. I note the Government position is that Mauritius will be expeditiously informed of activities. However, I look for reassurance that we do not need to provide Mauritius with advance warning about our operations. I would therefore welcome clarification on that point from the Minister to guarantee that all current and future operations can continue unimpeded.
Dr Evans
Given the importance of the Chagos islands to our defence, has the hon. Gentleman’s Committee thought about even doing a review into the Chagos islands and what this would look like? That way, such questions could be addressed directly in a decent period of time—we only have four or five hours tonight—and he could spend several weeks looking into the matter. Is that something he and his Committee would consider?
Mr Dhesi
As I mentioned in my introductory remarks, given that various other Committees have been looking into this and that it has been extensively debated on the Floor of the House, and considering the other work that the Committee is undertaking, including an inquiry launched this week into the Afghan data breach, that is why we have not looked into this matter. However, I will give way to the Minister, who I hope will give me some sort of reassurance.
Luke Pollard
To reassure my hon. Friend, as I did the hon. Member for North Dorset (Simon Hoare) earlier, we are not required to give pre-notification of any military activities to Mauritius. That is important, because some people are erroneously suggesting that we are. That is not correct; we do not have to give pre-notification.
Richard Tice
We have heard today that this deal—this supposed investment that is actually a liability—is essential to the defence of our realm. Yet the Defence Committee has not studied that investment or liability. I think the British people have a right to know why not.
Mr Dhesi
I have already stated, on two occasions, the various reasons why our Committee has not looked into this particular aspect. The matter has been given extensive airing in various other contexts, and we have been given assurances that there will be no fettering of our ability to operate from the base in the defence and security of the UK and its allies. I also point out to the hon. Member that during the Defence Committee’s recent visit to our most trusted and closest ally, the US, during various discussions and on numerous occasions when we raised the matter with very senior individuals in the US, whether on Capitol hill, in the State Department or at the Pentagon, they were supportive of the deal. I am sure that other Committee Members, when they discuss this, can attest to that.
Sir Roger Gale
We have been given an assurance from the Front Bench that no advance notice will need to be given about operational arrangements from the base. However, my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex (Sir Bernard Jenkin) earlier indicated that there had to be Mauritian Government approval for the construction of facilities. How can we have the operational facilities without the construction of the facilities that back them up?
Mr Dhesi
The right hon. Member makes a strong point. Indeed, I hope that in the Minister’s winding-up speech, just as we have had clarification that we do not need to give advance warning about the operations of the US and our forces, he can give clarification about construction as well.
On the matter of cost, which is a concern rightly raised by hon. Members across the House, it is important to be transparent and precise. From my previous briefings with Ministers—I am grateful to both the Defence Minister and the Foreign Office Minister on the Front Bench for their time—I understand that that will be an average of £101 million annually over 99 years, with the United States covering all defence operations.
Sir Bernard Jenkin
I should clarify that what I quoted from article 4 of the treaty does not apply directly to Diego Garcia; it only applies to an area beyond Diego Garcia and for the development of land territory that is on the archipelago but beyond Diego Garcia. I should have made that clear. I inadvertently misled the House, and I apologise for doing so.
Mr Dhesi
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that clarification and for setting the record straight. I did not want to say anything on the Floor of the House that could inadvertently have misled the House, but my understanding was that all our operations regarding the Diego Garcia military base would be unfettered, so I am glad that he has given that clarification. No doubt I would have had to do more bedtime reading to catch up on exactly what was in the treaty.
While this arrangement will ensure that our strategic interests are protected, we must ensure that the cost does not spiral and that proper oversight is given to all the financial implications. Security and cost are not the only factors that we must weigh in evaluating this deal, however. We must also address the rights of the Chagossian people, including those who are in the Gallery today. I have raised these issues on the Floor of the House with the then Foreign Secretary, and I again urge the Government to ensure that all parts of this deal are carried out in line with international law and with full respect for the dignity and rights of the Chagossian community. I would welcome any comments from the Minister on ensuring that Chagossian voices will be heard.
One of the issues raised by the Chagossians, which the shadow Foreign Secretary also mentioned, is the protection of the Chagos archipelago, which is home to one of the most ecologically rich marine environments on the planet. I welcome the creation of a protection zone. This represents a significant step forward in our shared commitment to environmental conservation and biodiversity protection. It also provides a framework for scientific co-operation, marine research and community engagement, particularly with the Chagossian diaspora, whose cultural and historical ties to the islands must be respected.
I welcome the guarantees and stability that this agreement brings, but it is imperative that long-term stability is achieved and secured into the future. In an increasingly complex global landscape, we must act as a responsible global leader, ensuring that our national security and strategic interests are never compromised.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Calum Miller (Bicester and Woodstock) (LD)
I thank the Minister for his statement and congratulate him on his new appointment. On 3 November 2022, the right hon. Member for Braintree (Sir James Cleverly), as Conservative Foreign Secretary, stated that
“the UK and Mauritius have decided to begin negotiations on the exercise of sovereignty over the British Indian Ocean Territory (BIOT)/Chagos archipelago.”—[Official Report, 3 November 2022; Vol. 721, c. 27WS.]
On 7 November 2024, the right hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy), as Labour Foreign Secretary, made a statement to confirm that the UK and Mauritius had concluded those negotiations. On that same day, I met the group of UK-based Chagossians who came to Parliament to protest against the deal, which had been reached without their involvement. Maxwell Evenor said to me in desperation that his people had no state and no power. He said:
“All we have is our voice but that has been silenced for so long.”
The views of the many Chagossians living here in the UK have not changed since.
The right hon. Member for Witham (Priti Patel) peppered her speech with breathless hyperbole, but let me speak plainly. There has been consistency between the approaches of the last Government and this Government—[Interruption.] Conservative Members do not want to accept that fact, but it is true. Both Governments accepted that legal challenges, not only in the International Court of Justice, were a threat to the UK’s vital security interests. Both Governments pursued negotiations over the sovereignty of the Chagos archipelago, with the goal of securing legally our use of Diego Garcia, and both Governments failed to protect the interests of Chagossians in their negotiations with Mauritius. The reasoned amendment tabled in my name and those of Liberal Democrat Members today seeks to address those facts. From the very start, the process of securing the treaty to be given effect by this Bill has been characterised by this glaring omission.
There has been an abject failure by successive Governments properly to consult the Chagossian people or to ensure that their rights were protected in the final settlement. We recognise and support the importance of abiding by international law and believe that it is in the UK’s interest to negotiate with Mauritius, given the risk—which the Conservatives and Reform now appear recklessly to be ignoring—that a judgment against the UK in any court would present a threat to our security interests in Diego Garcia, but the treaty that has been agreed tramples over the Chagossians. Not only does it fail to provide adequate protection of their rights; it also fails entirely to establish a right to return or a programme of resettlement of the islands for the Chagossians. For much of their history, the Chagossians have been denied consultation on who governs them and their right to self-determination. We now fear that this treaty, if enacted, will only reinforce that historical legacy. Mauritius—which, let us remember, lies over 1,300 miles from the archipelago—will become the new colonial master of the islanders.
I also have grave concerns about the degree to which this deal will genuinely support the UK’s security over the long term. There is a concerning lack of detail regarding the extension of the Diego Garcia military base lease beyond its initial 99-year term. Nor does the treaty appear to reckon seriously with generating guarantees or protections against encroachment by revisionist powers such as China, which could threaten and undermine UK interests in the region.
The unique maritime environment around the Chagos archipelago is one of the most ecologically valuable regions on earth. It is home to an extraordinary range of wildlife and acts as a sanctuary for many threatened species. I fear that the treaty does not afford adequate protection to this precious environment. Protecting and restoring it is not only vital for global marine conservation; it also offers unique opportunities to deepen our understanding of natural ecosystems. Resettlement of the Chagossians could have provided a model for community-led conservation on the islands. Instead, short-sighted opposition to Chagossian proposals and the controversial marine protected area designation squandered that opportunity.
Finally, there is the cost of this deal. The Government shrouded this in secrecy when they first announced it, and then appeared to reopen it to appease the new Mauritian Prime Minister. UK taxpayers are right to ask how Ministers justify the sums involved at a time when public finances are so stretched in the UK.
The treaty in this Bill fails to put in place the necessary oversight and accountability mechanisms over the very large sums involved and the annual payments to Mauritius and the Chagossian trust fund. The Government elected not to provide time for a debate and vote in this Chamber on the treaty, and I regret that Members were not given that opportunity. We are also awaiting the statement on the rights of Chagossians, which the noble Lord Collins promised would be discussed in both Houses before ratification. I hope the Minister will clarify when this will be scheduled. In the meantime, for all the reasons that I have set out and are set out in the reasoned amendment in my name and in the names of the Liberal Democrat colleagues who have signed it, I believe that this Bill to give effect to the treaty should not receive Second Reading.
Peter Lamb (Crawley) (Lab)
I congratulate the Minister on his appointment, and thank Ministers for the time they have given me to raise with them matters in relation to this Bill and for the responses they have provided to my questions.
I can see no logical reason why the Government would go through the painful process of bringing this Bill to the Floor of the House today if they were not 100% convinced that it was in the UK’s national security interests. However, I am afraid that I must vote against the Government today because I do not believe that their concerns, no matter how important they might be, give us the right to override the Chagossian people’s right to self-determination. We cannot vote to give away these islands, because they are not our islands to give away in the first place.
I know that many Members have taken an interest in the plight of the Chagossian people over the years, and that in the last year, hopefully, many more have learned more about their history and their circumstances, so I will recount the key points briefly. The first recorded contact with the islands was from those in the Maldives, but its modern history begins with France, which bound the islands together in a colonial administration with Mauritius. This is the only basis on which the modern state of Mauritius makes any claim on the islands.
In the late 18th century, the UK claimed the colonies from the French and planted coconut plantations on the islands. We used slave labour to do that, and it was among those slaves that the unique island culture began to develop. In 1965, the UK divided that colonial entity, granting the modern state of Mauritius independence and at the same time, in return for financial compensation, agreeing to give up any future claim on the islands. However, we had already come to the determination at that point that this would be a convenient location for a military base, jointly run with the United States. I believe that in that initial deal we got a discount on Polaris for providing the site.
In order to facilitate the base, the decision was taken to forcibly remove the islanders from the archipelago—something that began under a Labour Government but concluded under a Conservative Government. Official documentation from the time stated that the base was too important to the UK for “Tarzans” and “Man Fridays” to get in the way, and made it clear that the islanders must be referred to only as Mauritians or Seychellois, recognising the opposition that they would face—even in the 1960s—if it was known that the displacement of an entire people was taking place in the interests of national security.
The islanders were deposited on Mauritius and the Seychelles—islands of a different culture—without a penny to their name, and for decades were abandoned by the British Government, left in poverty and facing discrimination on the basis of their ethnicity. For years, they have fought for their rights, and they have won some concessions in that time, including the right to UK citizenship, with most British Chagossians choosing to set up their home in Crawley. That move came with enormous challenges—a point to which I will circle back in due course.
I have known and worked alongside members of the British Chagossian community for almost two decades. As council leader, I promised them that as a part of Crawley’s community, it was my job to be their voice to Government, not the other way around. It is that promise that leads me to vote against this deal today.
It is true to say that there are Chagossians who enthusiastically support the deal, just as there are those who desperately oppose it—that is the same with any community on absolutely any issue—but what is not disputed is that the islands belong to the Chagossians, and that it is for that people and that people alone to decide the future of their homeland. We have not given them that chance to decide their future. Until every Chagossian has had the chance to have their say, I cannot support this deal.
Dr Evans
The hon. Member is making a powerful point. We heard an impassioned defence not to bring the Falkland Islands or other British overseas territories into this, but Gibraltar and the Falkland Islands have self-determination, voted for by their people. Is it his thesis that that will apply for the Chagossians, and therefore they would make the determination whether to be British or, indeed, go to the Mauritians on that basis?
Peter Lamb
It is incredibly unfortunate that the Chagossians have not been given that opportunity—that is my view. Had we given them that opportunity, whatever the outcome, I would have had no problem honouring that because we are talking about their land; it is not our land.
Jeremy Corbyn
The hon. Member is speaking very well on behalf of his constituents. He will acknowledge that the argument for Chagossians having a right of nationality and abode in Britain was hard fought by many of the Chagossians, and some of us who were here at the time were pleased to support them in that. Yes, there are differences of opinion among Chagossians, including the Chagos refugee association, which, broadly speaking, supports this treaty, but does he not think that it is time to bring all the communities together and recognise that they have achieved an enormous amount in gaining the right of return and the right of residence, at least on the archipelago?
Peter Lamb
There is an enormous challenge, as I am sure the right hon. Member is aware of from his many years working with the group, in the number of disparate voices. Crawley borough council had taken it on itself to work with the different community groups, helping them to come together and form a coherent voice, out of the belief that they will only ever secure what they are all seeking by having one coherent, democratic voice for the community. Unfortunately, the deal emerged during the course of that process so there has not been that opportunity, and its timing has, to an extent, driven a rift through that community.
I am not naive; I am certain that the Bill will proceed today, so let me turn to the question, “What next?” Although mention of the Chagossians is made in the wording of the deal, I remain concerned, as other Members have alluded to, that there are gaps that leave the Chagossian people at risk. While there is the option for Chagossians to be allowed by the Mauritian Government to return to the islands, there is no requirement in the deal that that happens. There is no guarantee that any Chagossian who does return to the archipelago will not face restrictions that prevent permanent habitation, even at a subsistence level of economic activity. There is no guarantee at this time that the trust fund that is being created will be in the control of the Chagossians and used exclusively to address the consequences of their forcible removal from the islands. There is no guarantee that returning Chagossians will not face a 10-year prison sentence for questioning Mauritian territorial integrity through taking on British citizenship.
I know that many remain upset that Diego Garcia remains off limits for permanent habitation, with a view that some creativity could be used to enable rehabilitation without affecting security, particularly given the prolonged period in which asylum seekers have been present on that island. I say all this because I want to urge Ministers to continue to engage on these matters with the Mauritian Government to give the Chagossians certainty over their place in this deal.
Closer to home, there are many challenges facing Chagossians who choose to exercise their right to UK citizenship. Chief among those problems, as with so many other issues, is housing. As part of our national housing strategy, we need to ensure that every UK citizen has access to good-quality housing, and that includes British Chagossians, who, by the legal complication of their citizenship, despite having lost their homes in Chagos, receive none of the support offered by relocation schemes to other groups. That creates enormous pressures on local authorities near airports and leaves many Chagossians living in dilapidated housing conditions, if they can find accommodation at all. With the second worst housing crisis in the country, the reality is that Crawley borough council cannot on its own owe the entire country’s housing duty to the Chagossian people; a national strategy is needed.
There are challenges around access to language training and support services, which often lead Chagossians to be highly reliant on other members of the community. I regret to say that for the enormous amounts of goodwill and charity on the part of that community towards other members of it, we have had instances of that trust being abused in the form of fraud. We need a mechanism for qualifications issued in Mauritius to be recognised in the UK, and for children and young people to transition into UK educational systems—something that is complicated by the differences in term times.
Lastly, there is a desperate need for facilities for the Chagossians to preserve their unique, intangible cultural heritage, which sits at the heart of an individual’s identity and which forced deportations have to a large extent erased. With so few first-generation Chagossians left, if we do not act now, this is likely to be the last generation that sees its culture on the earth. I know that Foreign Office Ministers are meeting with Chagossian groups and have been working to get funding moving again. I am hopeful that these meetings will continue and that progress can be made on these and other challenges.
I say to all Members in the House today that this House has done enormous harm to the Chagossian people, all the way from their enslavement to the present day. I believe that handing these islands to Mauritius without their consent risks making some of that harm permanent. Nevertheless, it is within the Government’s power to address many of the consequences of forcible deportation so long ago. Regardless of the outcome of today’s vote, I beg Ministers to let this be the start and not the end of the process of making things right.
Sir Jeremy Wright (Kenilworth and Southam) (Con)
It is a privilege to follow the hon. Member for Crawley (Peter Lamb). I admire his principles and his persistence in his advocacy for his Chagossian constituents, and I know that he would recognise that his predecessor did the same.
There is no dispute that Diego Garcia is crucial to the UK’s security and that of its allies; that is not something we are arguing about. I do not think—although I will be corrected if I am wrong—that it is the Government’s position that, in terms of the day-to-day practicalities of operating the Diego Garcia base, this new arrangement whereby we no longer have sovereignty over Diego Garcia but will continue to administer it, at least for 99 years, is better than what we have now. Rather, it is a more secure arrangement because of what has been described as the legal uncertainty surrounding our sovereignty over it. I see the Minister nodding, and I am grateful for that.
Dr Evans
I am grateful to my right hon. and learned Friend for giving way and using his legal background. It is more secure legally for those 99 years but, more definitively, at that 99-year point, if the Mauritians decide not to have a base there, categorically that is their decision. Therefore, by proxy, it is actually more unsafe, just in 100 years’ time.
Sir Jeremy Wright
I understand the point that my hon. Friend makes, and it is reinforced by the point made by our hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex (Sir Bernard Jenkin) in reading from the agreement as to how any disputes are resolved. But I want to focus on the position now and the legal justification that the Government have already deployed for the arrangement that they seek to make. My hon. Friend is right that there will be further problems down the road, but there are problems already.
It seems to me that if the position the Government take is as I have set it out and as the Minister accepts that it is, that must be right because it would surely be difficult to argue that, were it not for that legal uncertainty, renting Diego Garcia back from someone else would be better than owning it from a security point of view. So for the Government to persuade us in this House, and indeed the country as a whole, that this is a good deal for Britain, everything turns on the question of legal uncertainty, which Ministers have often referred to as the reason why the treaty, and therefore the Bill, are necessary.
Having spent four years as Attorney General, I am quite familiar with legal uncertainty—there is a lot of it about in Government. It is, I am afraid, invariably the case that whenever a decision is made in Government, someone disagrees with it, and some of those who disagree will be prepared to go to a court and challenge the validity of that decision. Until the court—sometimes until the Supreme Court—has resolved the matter, there can fairly be said to be legal uncertainty about it. Legal uncertainty hangs around Government like the clouds, and it cannot be allowed to paralyse a Government. Nor should that sort of atmospheric legal uncertainty be the only cause of a decision as significant as that which this Government are now making to give up sovereignty over a vital military facility.
There must be something more substantive—more tangible—to the legal uncertainty to which Ministers have referred. Many of us have tried to find out what exactly that is, but with very limited success. Given that, as far as I can tell, the legal uncertainty that is being talked about constitutes the entirety of the burning platform on which the Government rely to justify the Bill and the treaty, surely this House, before we approve either, must be given a proper and clear explanation of precisely what legal jeopardy the Government are acting in response to. In pursuit of that, it is worth having a look at the explanations that Ministers have given so far.
Let us start with the former Foreign Secretary, the right hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy), who of course is now the Deputy Prime Minister. He made a statement on the British Indian Ocean Territory negotiations on 7 October last year. He told the House that the issue of contested sovereignty over Diego Garcia was becoming more acute, and that
“A binding judgment against the UK seemed inevitable”.—[Official Report, 7 October 2024; Vol. 754, c. 45.]
Many of us have been asking where that binding judgment might come from. The only court that had by then been mentioned was the International Court of Justice, which had issued an advisory opinion on sovereignty over the Chagos Islands and Diego Garcia. Indeed, on this subject it could only have been an advisory decision, because the UK accepted the compulsory jurisdiction of the ICJ by declarations dated 22 February 2017—I was Attorney General at the time. Those declarations made it clear that the UK did not, however, accept that compulsory jurisdiction in relation to
“any dispute with a Government of any other country which is or has been a Member of the Commonwealth”.
That involves and includes Mauritius, so any dispute with Mauritius before the ICJ could not result in a binding judgment against the United Kingdom. That point has been put to Ministers and, as far as I know, they have not dissented from that analysis.
If the ICJ could not make the binding judgment that the former Foreign Secretary told us was inevitable, which other court might? On that, again, I am afraid that we have not had clarity. On 13 November last year, the Minister of State at the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, the hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty)—who I see has the misfortune of having to defend this position once again today—answered an urgent question on the Chagos Islands. He said:
“International courts were reaching judgments on the basis that Mauritius had sovereignty over the Chagos archipelago.”—[Official Report, 13 November 2024; Vol. 756, c. 793.]
The Minister did not at that point say which courts, but I have done some digging, and I think I am supported in my assumption by what the Minister of State, the hon. Member for Plymouth Sutton and Devonport (Luke Pollard), said in opening this debate. I think that he may have been referring to a determination made in January 2021 by the special chamber of the International Tribunal of the Law of the Sea when considering a dispute between Mauritius and the Maldives. Tragically, I do not have time to go into the fascinating detail of that case, but in essence it was a dispute about the delimitation of maritime territory between those two states. The Maldives argued that the special chamber could not determine the case in question because there was an ongoing dispute about the sovereignty of the Chagos Islands between Mauritius and the UK. The special chamber decided, however, that it could treat Mauritius as the coastal state in the dispute before it, because of the ICJ’s advisory opinion on the matter, which it said had legal effect.
If that ITLOS case is what the Government are relying on, I think there are a few problems: first, the UK was not a party to that case; and secondly, the ITLOS chamber was seemingly basing its decision on that of the ICJ, which, as I have already indicated, could not make a binding ruling on the matter. I am not expecting the House, much less the Government, to accept my opinion on this, but it seems to me that, at the very least, the UK would have the basis of a decent legal argument here. It does not seem to be that this ITLOS decision demonstrates that there was no further hope for UK claims of sovereignty over Diego Garcia.
After a bit more prodding, the Government’s argument moves on and introduces the issue of access to the electromagnetic spectrum. On 5 February this year, the Minister of State at the Foreign Office answered yet another urgent question on the subject.
Sir Iain Duncan Smith
Before my right hon. and learned Friend moves on to the spectrum, may I bring him back to UNCLOS? As I understand it, article 298(1)(a) and (b) give us specific exemptions from UNCLOS judgments across all those areas. That is relevant to the UK in
“disputes concerning military activities…by government vessels and aircraft…in non-commercial service, and disputes concerning law enforcement activities”
in those areas. On that, the Government’s argument on UNCLOS falls, surely.
Sir Jeremy Wright
I will give my right hon. Friend a lawyer’s favourite answer to any question: “It’s complicated.” But here is the point: the only legal analysis being offered here—the only explanation—comes from the Opposition Benches. The Government are not giving us anything. If he is wrong in what he says, we need to hear why from the Minister, but we are not and that is what troubles me.
Mr Calvin Bailey
If the right hon. and learned Gentleman is willing to give explanations, will he please explain why his party chose to start the engagement but has at no point explained the rationale for doing so?
Sir Jeremy Wright
If the hon. Gentleman is patient, I promise that I will come to that, but I wish to deal in a logical order with what Ministers have themselves said to justify their actions.
On 5 February, the Minister of State at the Foreign Office answered another urgent question. In answer to my plea to give us more clarity on exactly what legal basis the Government were acting on, he said:
“We currently have unrestricted and sole access to the electromagnetic spectrum, which is used to communicate with satellites and which is guaranteed and governed by the International Telecommunication Union, a United Nations body based in Geneva. If we lose it we can still communicate, but so can others.”—[Official Report, 5 February 2025; Vol. 761, c. 760.]
I understand the point that he was making, but he did not explain how that issue might lead to a binding court ruling against the UK, and he did not even take a second opportunity to do so when asked about it again by my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne (Lincoln Jopp)—those interested can find that answer in column 762.
Luckily, however, my right hon. Friend the shadow Foreign Secretary called a debate on this subject in Opposition time on 26 February, which was answered by the then Minister of State, the right hon. Member for Oxford East (Anneliese Dodds).
She repeated:
“Without a negotiated solution with Mauritius, it would pursue its legal campaign…That would lead to an inevitable, legally binding judgment,”.
She was then interrupted, but went on to say that
“in that kind of situation”—
presumably that is the delivery of a binding judgment against the UK—
“we would unfortunately see international organisations following that determination, such as the International Telecommunication Union.” —[Official Report, 26 February 2025; Vol. 762, c. 874.]
If we put all those ministerial utterances together, we are going round in circles.
The Government say that they have to act because of the inevitability of a binding court judgment against the UK. They mention the ICJ, but the ICJ cannot make a binding judgment against the UK on this. They hint at ITLOS cases, but those refer to ICJ decisions. The Government then say that they are worried about the actions of the International Telecommunication Union, but when pressed that seems to mean actions that would follow a binding court judgment. We are back to square one.
Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)
Is it the case—my right hon. and learned Friend is a former Attorney General—that the ITU treaty to which we and others are a party states specifically that the ITU has no authority over the allocation of military spectrum, or military communications? It is clear that the ITU has no leverage legally at all over Diego Garcia.
Sir Jeremy Wright
My right hon. Friend makes an important point, which I know he has made before. I repeat the point I made earlier: we are simply not getting from the Government an adequate rebuttal of these points, and we need to have that. If the Government have a good answer to what he and my hon. Friend the Member for Hinckley and Bosworth (Dr Evans) have said, Second Reading of the Bill is the moment for the Government to deliver that explanation. We are all still waiting.
Sir John Whittingdale (Maldon) (Con)
My right hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois) is right, but the existing position goes even further. Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware of the written answer from the Government on 7 February this year:
“Individual countries, not the ITU, make their own sovereign spectrum assignments in accordance with the Radio Regulations. The ITU has no legal authority over these assignments regardless of the country’s civilian or military classification of spectrum.”?
Sir Jeremy Wright
I am extremely grateful to my right hon. Friend, and perhaps I should refine my argument. It is not just that the Government are not answering the questions; it is that when they do answer the questions, they undermine their own argument. It is worse than we thought. We are not getting clarity from the Government about what would be the legal judgment that they themselves have relied on as almost the entire basis for their actions, and this really matters. The Government owe us a proper explanation.
I am prepared to concede—I hope the Minister will accept that I am a fair-minded person—that there may be a persuasive argument that the Government could make about which court and which circumstances would deliver the kind of judgment that makes this action inevitable and necessary, but I have waited a long time to hear it, and I am still waiting. I hope that when the Minister stands to sum up the debate he will give us that answer, because the House of Commons deserves to hear it.
Mr Francois
This is fundamental to the whole argument. We have pressed the Government for months to tell us what the legal threat to the islands was. In his opening speech the Minister said that it was UNCLOS. That was the justification they have given us. Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that we have a general opt-out and two specific opt-outs under article 298(1)(b) of the United Nations convention on the law of the sea, which includes “disputes concerning military activities”? We have an opt-out from UNCLOS. The Government’s whole case is spurious—£35 billion worth of spurious.
Sir Jeremy Wright
It is certainly very expensive. I know lawyers who charge big fees, but none of them would come close to that.
My right hon. Friend makes his point, and again, the Minister will have another opportunity when he speaks. It is not good enough, I am afraid, for hints and oblique references to be made. We are owed a clear explanation. This is a fundamental decision on defence and security, and in financial terms as my right hon. Friend has just said, and we deserve to know. If the Minister tells the House that describing all that in detail is the sort of confidential and sensitive information that the whole House cannot hear, I have good news for him: that is what the Intelligence and Security Committee of Parliament is for. I have the honour to be a member of that Committee, and it is perhaps regrettable that the Government did not choose to explain themselves and make their case to us before they brought the Bill to the House, but they did not.
Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)
Will my right hon. and learned Friend give way?
Sir John Hayes
I am extremely grateful to the former Attorney General for giving way. He is right to say that the matter could have been—and still could be, as I think he will also want to confirm—brought to our Committee. If, even at this late juncture, an overture were made to our Committee—clearly, it would have to be discussed at Committee—it would be perfectly possible for the Government to set out in those terms the advice they received that legitimises the position that they have taken.
Sir Jeremy Wright
My right hon. Friend makes a good point. Although all our hearings are held within closed doors, he is right that until that happens, our door is open. There is an opportunity for the Minister, if he wishes to take it, to make that proposal.
Let me come back to the point that the hon. Member for Leyton and Wanstead (Mr Bailey) made. His rejoinder and the rejoinders of his colleagues and Ministers have always been the same throughout this debate. They say, “The last Government began negotiations on this, so clearly the last Government accept the same logic that we accept.” That simply will not do. As Ministers and the Back Benchers behind them have been very keen to point out, the last Government had 11 rounds of negotiation on this question. If they had chosen to do the deal that this Government have done, they had ample opportunity to do it, but they did not. That can only be because they did not believe it was the right deal to do.
This Government are undoubtedly enthusiastic about getting swift resolution of disputes—it seems that they apply the same principles to labour disputes—but settling a negotiation fast is really very easy if we give the person with whom we are negotiating everything they want. What Mauritius wanted out of this negotiation was sovereignty over the entire Chagos archipelago, and that is what this Government have given them. I am afraid that we really cannot award any points for the fact that this Government have managed to resolve this issue more swiftly. The fact that the Government of which some of us Conservative Members were part did not resolve it that quickly is perhaps because they were not prepared to give ground on that particular issue.
We need an explanation of why the Government feel it is necessary to do this deal. We need an explanation on what precisely the legal jeopardy they face is and what its origin is, and we need to know what the binding legal judgment they fear is. Frankly, without those explanations, this House should not be asked to agree to this Bill or this treaty.
Graeme Downie (Dunfermline and Dollar) (Lab)
We have heard from Members on the Opposition Benches a slew of political opportunism, scaremongering, some cliché bingo and some derogatory terms—something that belongs more in a tabloid than in this House—about the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
Back when these negotiations started, the Conservative party knew that a deal was needed—it may have been somewhere on its list of priorities when it still had some lingering credibility about the good of the nation. The Conservative party knew that a deal was in the best interests of the United Kingdom and our allies. It knew that without a deal, Mauritius could very well have pursued a sovereignty claim and allowed Russia and China into the waters around Diego Garcia. People do not sit through 11 rounds of negotiations if they do not think something is important; they walk away. To give the previous Government credit, they did not do that. They understood the importance of a deal.
Graeme Downie
That point was covered before. We have already seen scaremongering from the Opposition about the other British overseas territories, including the Falkland Islands and Gibraltar. I hope that the Conservative party will reflect on and apologise for that.
None the less, the previous Government knew that a deal would keep Britain safe. They knew that without a deal, international courts could effectively make the base inoperable, and they knew that that could plant China right on our doorstep. Now, they cannot even say why it was important. They cannot say why they even started the negotiations; several Government Members have raised that point, and not once have the Conservatives been able to say why, other than hiding behind the fact that they are being entirely politically opportunist. They knew all that, and they now pretend that none of it matters. They are playing politics with Britain’s safety.
Cameron Thomas (Tewkesbury) (LD)
It is rare that I find myself aligned with the Conservative party, but I share its concerns for the structure and veracity of this deal. That being said, does the hon. Member share my bewilderment that the Conservative party has chosen this particular hill to die on, given that the Bill is as much a product of its work as it is of Labour’s?
Graeme Downie
I thank the hon. Member for his intervention. At the beginning of the intervention, I was going to point out that there were five years during which the Liberal Democrats were very close to the Conservative party, but I will remove that thought from my head and agree with him. This does seem a very strange hill for the Conservative party to die on, but I am not surprised by the level of hypocrisy we have seen from some Conservative Members.
That is the real hypocrisy. The Conservatives have attacked the cost of this deal, but they will not reveal what their own deal would have cost. Government convention means that their numbers are locked away—secret, hidden, unable to be scrutinised and compared. They will hide and hide. Would Conservative Front Benchers like to give any figure, in any currency of their choosing? What was their number? How much was it going to cost? What was the number on the bottom of the piece of paper after 11 rounds of negotiations? The truth is that this Government secured the deal that the Conservative party knew was critical for our national security, but could not deliver.
While we are talking about costs, let us put this into perspective. As the Minister said in his opening speech, France pays €85 million a year for a base in Djibouti, one that shares a fence with a Chinese naval facility and enjoys none of the security that comes with this Government’s deal on Diego Garcia. Diego Garcia is 15 times bigger, more secure, and delivers unmatched operational freedom for the United Kingdom and our allies. Let us be clear about what this treaty delivers. It secures Diego Garcia; it locks in control of the land, the sea and the electromagnetic spectrum; and it shuts out foreign militaries from the outer islands. That is a serious deal—a deal that represents value, one that the Tories could never close, but now choose to attack from behind a shield of secrecy.
Lincoln Jopp
I do not know whether the hon. Member listened to the outstanding, forensic dismantling of the Government’s case by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kenilworth and Southam (Sir Jeremy Wright), but on the basis that every constituency in this country will kiss away the opportunity to have £52 million as a result of this deal—that is what it is going to cost in total—would he like to tell the people of Dunfermline and Dollar why he would rather give away that amount of money to a foreign Government on a spurious legal basis than invest it in his own constituency?
Graeme Downie
I thank the hon. Member for his intervention—he is someone for whom I have a lot of respect. I would tell my constituents that this country is now safer and more secure because of the deal that this Government have done.
Let us see who is on the Government’s side. The United States backs the deal, with President Trump having called it
“a very long-term, powerful lease”.
Australia, Canada, New Zealand, India, NATO and the overseas territories all back the deal, because they understand that Diego Garcia is vital to our security and theirs. Who lines up against it? Who is the proud company that the Conservatives keep? Nigel Farage and Reform.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
Order. We do not refer to Members by name, but by constituency.
Graeme Downie
I apologise for that, Madam Deputy Speaker.
We have seen Reform UK peddling fantasies about America that were flatly wrong. Beyond these shores, what do we see? Vladimir Putin and Xi Jinping in Beijing both know that they could have access to the waters around Diego Garcia were it not for the deal that this Government have secured. That is the roll-call—that is who Conservative Members stand with, and that is who they will be voting alongside if they block the Bill. We saw Reform swaggering around, claiming that it would get President Trump to block this deal, but the truth has been the exact opposite. The United States has clearly welcomed this treaty, as we have heard so often this afternoon. Reform did not just misread the room; it misread and misrepresented one of our closest allies, talking Britain down and peddling fantasy while a serious Government deliver and secure our safety. This Bill is about strength and weakness. This is strength and that is weakness—order from the Government versus chaos from the Opposition, Britain standing with our allies versus Britain opening the door to our adversaries.
Just a couple of years ago, the Conservatives knew that this deal was vital. They wanted it in office—like the hon. Member for Tewkesbury (Cameron Thomas), it pains me to sometimes agree with the Conservatives, but for once, they were correct. They were right to want this deal, but only when they lost power did they suddenly discover their doubts. That is not principle; it is opportunism.
Sir Jeremy Wright
I understand the argument that the hon. Gentleman is making, but why does he think that the last Government did not make the deal?
Graeme Downie
I thank the right hon. and learned Gentleman for his intervention. I listened very carefully to his speech—it was very interesting indeed, and I respect his viewpoint. My short answer is that the last Government just could not seal a deal, like they could not seal a deal with the EU and could not seal a trade deal with India. They abandoned the people of this country.
I will close by saying that I will proudly vote for this Bill tonight. It puts the UK on the side of our allies and on the side of security, and ensures that we will be protected for generations to come.
Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)
Just to make a small comment on the previous speech, I have been here a little while, and I have never once stopped regretting taking a Government handout to speak in support of the Government, because more often than not, it rebounded on me. As my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kenilworth and Southam (Sir Jeremy Wright) and many others have made clear, there are two elements to this issue.
Before I start on that, I want to say something about the Chagossians. They are the last people to have been seriously consulted about any of this. The way that we behaved to them back in the 1960s was appalling. It should never have happened, and there was no need for it to have happened. They should have been able to stay on the archipelago, and we should have supported them in that. They must be a part of this. I know that they are very fearful of this deal as it stands.
My other point is that this arrangement is vague about what happens after 99 years. We are supposed to guess, or believe that we can trust Governments to make the right decisions. The statement on the rights of the Chagossians is completely missing a sense of where they will be, what they want and how we will bring that about. I pay tribute to the Member who made a good intervention on that point.
Let me quickly deal with the legal case, and then I will discuss the cost, and China and Russia. The Government have been peppered with requests non-stop since this process began to explain the legal threat that meant that we would be in real trouble if we did not seal a deal—any deal. Right the way along, they would not exactly explain. There were little suggestions here and there that a judgment would lead to certain things. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kenilworth and Southam has been absolutely right on that.
Today, I thought that the door slightly opened. I have known the Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, the hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty), for a long time, and his name is a good description of his solidity and purposefulness. The Minister who opened the debate, the hon. Member for Plymouth Sutton and Devonport (Luke Pollard), made the point that the legal threat was to do with UNCLOS. I was intrigued by that, because, as I just said to my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kenilworth and Southam, within UNCLOS, clear for all to see, is a complete let-out for the UK Government when it comes to the case that they suggest would be brought against them under UNCLOS. The threat simply does not exist. I repeat that there are two exemptions, under article 298(1)(b) and 298(1)(c). The first has the UK opted out of
“disputes concerning military activities…by government vessels and aircraft engaged in non-commercial service, and disputes concerning law enforcement activities”.
The same applies under 298(1)(c) in relation to matters taken up by the UN Security Council.
The important point is that the threat does not need to be recognised, because ultimately this comes back to the original International Court of Justice ruling. That was an advisory judgment, because the Court cannot make an absolute judgment on anything to do with our relationships with the Commonwealth, either existing or previous; that is an important point. We keep coming back to this check on what would happen. The idea that everybody will dispute with us on that is simply nonsense. From a legal perspective, I think the Government have come unstuck in this debate. I have sat through many debates in this House, and it is rare that a Government completely come unstuck on a case of legalities.
The second bit that the Government have come unstuck on is the money. On the legal side, they will not tell us exactly what the situation is. There have been hints, proposals and suggestions that somehow we were in a desperate situation. On the money, I have never seen a Government as unable or unwilling to tell us exactly how much things cost or are worth. They are normally quick to do so, and to blame the other side, or whatever—it does not really matter. Everybody has been chasing the Government for that information, and now we discover that they have gerrymandered the figures for the overall statement. The total cost is nearly £35 billion, and we need to deal with total cost.
Let me remind the Government of the problem with what they call the GDP deflator and the so-called social time discounting method. The Government Actuary’s Department has dismissed that as a real way of calculating cost for this kind of issue, and it has re-emphasised the fact that understanding the total cost is the only way to look at a long-term treaty. The Government is relying on the cost-benefit analysis used for social projects. There is particular concern about long-term projects, and a real dispute about whether such a method can predict precisely, or even reasonably well, the overall cost in the long term. There is a lot of concern about whether that is the right way to go. Add to that the fact that the Government are trying to predict what will happen in Mauritius, under the Mauritian Government, over the next many years. This is a 99-year deal, and there is no way on earth that we have any control.
Tom Tugendhat
I wonder whether my right hon. Friend can help me in giving a prediction. Two families have swapped leadership of Mauritius over the last 60 years. Does he see any reason to doubt that the same two families will swap leadership over the next 60?
Sir Iain Duncan Smith
That is exactly the point. There are serious concerns about the uncertainties surrounding future growth and societal wellbeing. If there are such concerns when it comes to UK predictions about the UK, imagine how difficult it is to predict what will happen in Mauritius, so this should be dismissed.
It is interesting that after not answering the question for so long, suddenly the Government have popped up with a new device. They say that if we do not accept the figures, we are completely dismissing the Green Book, but the overall cost is not a Green Book issue, because this is about paying somebody money outside the UK, not about controlling cost. That is why the Green Book has never been used for this purpose before, and never will. I simply say to the Government that the money side of this has fallen apart again.
I come to the third element. As I said earlier, we have had no real vote or debate on the treaty, as opposed to the Bill. The old CRaG system has been rushed through, without a vote. I have to tell the Minister, for whom I have a huge amount of respect, that that is simply appalling, given that we are dealing with something as strategically important as this treaty.
Clause 5 of the Bill, which is a very flimsy document, is entitled “Further provision: Orders in Council”. Anybody who reads that will have a sudden intake of breath. The whole point of this Bill is negated by clause 5. What is the point of debating the rest of the Bill, given that clause 5 says that at any stage, and under any circumstances, the Government can change it all by Orders in Council? Absolutely everything can be changed by Orders in Council, with no vote and no dispute. If the Government decide to go in a different direction, they do not have to consult Parliament any more.
The sweeping powers in the Bill are ridiculous. When the Minister was in opposition, he used to spend his whole time moaning—quite rightly—about Governments who give themselves such powers. Even by the standards of previous Governments, this Bill is pretty astonishing. It is a massive sweep. This is not really democracy any more; it is monocracy. In other words, we have given up debate and dispute, and we have handed things over to one person—the Prime Minister. I say to the Government that the Bill is appalling, and they really need to rethink it. We simply cannot go through with something as appalling as this. I can remember the Maastricht debates, and various others in which we spent a long time debating clauses on the Floor of the House. That was the right thing to do, because such issues are important. International treaties are vital to our wellbeing, and the Bill simply does not work.
The last thing I want to say is on China. I would say this, because I am sanctioned by China, as are some of my hon. Friends. I suspect that others will be sanctioned as well in due course. If they carry on working with me in the Inter-Parliamentary Alliance on China, they are bound to be sanctioned, and I look forward to their joining us at that table. There is no way on earth that China does not benefit from this Bill. China has its eyes on the very important flow of commercial traffic that runs just below the Chagos islands, which it has always wanted to be able to block, control or interfere with.
The Chinese already have a naval base in Sri Lanka, which they got by default on the back of the belt and road initiative, due to non-payment. For a long time, they have been looking at how, under their arrangements with Mauritius, they will eventually be able to intervene. They are two or three steps further forward as a result of this Bill. It does not secure us against that absolutely, because we gave up absolute security and control when we decided to hand over sovereignty to Mauritius.
Cameron Thomas
I am not yet on the Chinese Communist party’s sanctions list, but perhaps I will be shortly. Does the right hon. Member share my concern about the 99-year lease of the islands, given that some of our adversaries across the world plan and strategise over the very long term, and 99 years is actually a short period of time?
Sir Iain Duncan Smith
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that the Chinese Government have a long-term plan. In fact, they are very clear about what they wish to do. If anybody does not think that China poses a threat on all these issues, what were they doing last week when, on our television screens, we saw President Xi, with the North Korean dictator on one side and the Russian dictator on the other, talking about a new world order? That continues to be the Chinese Government’s purpose. They should have been taken into the upper tier of the foreign influence registration scheme. Why are they not there? My suspicion is that this was not done because it might well have ended the whole negotiation on the Chagos islands, as there would have been huge interventions, and we could not possibly have done aught else but stop the negotiation.
In conclusion, I honestly think that the Government need to pause this, go back to the drawing board, and say, “We got it wrong”, but I say this in answer to the endless briefing they have given Labour Members on what the Conservative party did about the Chagos islands in government. I have reached the conclusion that no matter who is in power, I am in opposition, so I can categorically tell the House that, whatever else happened, this was quite rightly ended by Lord Cameron when he became Foreign Secretary. Some of us made it very clear that this should not have gone ahead for many of the reasons that I have laid out. I end by saying to the Minister that it is no good coming back later and saying, “I wish we hadn’t done this.” Now is the time to stand up and say, as the hon. Member for Crawley (Peter Lamb) did, that this does not work, it must stop, and the Government must think again.
Lillian Jones (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (Lab)
I rise in support of the Diego Garcia Military Base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill. This Bill is not only timely, but essential for our national security, our international obligations and the strategic future of the United Kingdom.
To be clear, Diego Garcia is not just an isolated atoll in the Indian ocean, but one of the most geopolitically significant military outposts of the 21st century. It serves as a critical base for joint UK-US operations in a region fraught with instability from piracy off the horn of Africa, and given the growing threat of Chinese expansionism in the Indo-Pacific. This Bill secures long-term operational certainty for our armed forces. It ensures our ability to meet NATO commitments, protect trade routes vital to the global economy and respond quickly to humanitarian crises across Asia and Africa. In a time of escalating global tensions everywhere from the South China sea to the Red sea, we cannot afford ambiguity when it comes to our defence infrastructure.
I have listened with concern to the arguments made by Opposition Members, some of whom appear more preoccupied with ideological purity than practical governance. Is it not strange that 85% of the negotiating rounds on the Diego Garcia deal took place under the Conservatives? They had access to the same legal advice, the same security briefings and the same threat assessments as we do. Only after leaving government and with no deal of their own did they begin playing politics with national security. Their sudden opposition is not principled; it is opportunistic and irresponsible. Opposition Members talk about international law and cite advisory opinions from the International Court of Justice as if they were binding judgments. Let us not forget, however, that sovereignty is not a matter of hashtags or press releases; it is a matter of law, treaties and responsibility.
The United Kingdom has administered the British Indian Ocean Territory for more than half a century, and we have done so in close co-ordination with our allies, especially the United States. Simply to walk away, as some have suggested, would be an act of geopolitical negligence. To those who argue that the base should be dismantled or handed over to another power under the banner of anti-colonialism, I say that they should be very careful for what they wish. If Britain and the United States vacate Diego Garcia, we would leave behind not a vacuum, but a prize, a strategic jewel, which would be swiftly eyed by authoritarian regimes that have little regard for human rights, international law or democratic principles.
Our responsibility is not to rewrite history by dismantling today’s defences, but to shape the future by ensuring that they remain strong, legitimate and effective. The Bill provides legal clarity and the operational authority for the continued use of Diego Garcia. It will strengthen the framework for oversight, introduce renewed commitments to environmental stewardship and, importantly, establish a pathway for dialogue with Chagossian representatives about resettlement and heritage—it is important that their voices are head and listened to. This is not a Bill that closes doors, but one that opens them, without compromising national and global security. Opposition for the sake of opposition is not leadership. Would the Opposition have us abandon a key, NATO-aligned military base to prove a point? Would they rather hand strategic influence in the Indian Ocean to those who undermine the international rules-based order?
Let me remind the House of the real threats in our world: cyber-attacks, terrorist attacks and networks, illegal arms trafficking and hostile naval activity. Diego Garcia is not some relic of the cold war; it is a strategic capability that we rely on today.
Several hon. Members rose—
Lillian Jones
I will not give way. The Bill is pragmatic, proportionate, grounded in the national interest and fully compatible with our democratic values. It does not ignore the past; it confronts it, and seeks to chart a responsible path forward. I urge my colleagues across the House, especially those wavering on the fence, to vote not out of ideological purity, but out of practical necessity. The world is watching. Our allies are watching. History, too, will judge what we choose today. Let us choose strength, responsibility, regional and global security, and to back the UK’s national security.
Paul Holmes (Hamble Valley) (Con)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Madam Deputy Speaker. During an intervention on the Minister for Defence Procurement, I said that he was acting in a “duplicitous” way. I have already been rebuked by Mr Speaker, so you do not have to step in, Madam Deputy Speaker, but I would like to say that I misspoke when I said that the Minister was not being genuine. I apologise to him—I never play the man; I always play the ball. It is a shame that he is not present to hear that apology.
However, I welcome the Minister for Defence Procurement—he is a good friend of mine, and I look forward to him serving in that position—but I will say that that career has not started well. The first moment that he appears before the House in charge of defence procurement in this country, he single-handedly starts by advocating disposing of a vital piece of defence infrastructure, which is not only relevant but essential to the national security of the country. He stood here to try to defend the indefensible. I suggest to the Whips Office that they might want to look at some of his decisions in future, if he is in charge of procuring defence equipment on behalf of this country, because so far he has only been successful at getting rid of vital infrastructure. I hope that he does better.
The first job and the first duty of any Government that serve the great people of this great country is to keep their people and themselves safe. I never thought that I would come to this House on a day like today to see a Government, this Government, creating the biggest act of self-sabotage that I think we have seen in generations of elected Houses in the history of our nation. The Government are harming not only our security, but the strategic interests of our people and the security of this country.
Jacob Collier (Burton and Uttoxeter) (Lab)
If the deal is harming our strategic interests, why is it backed by our allies, the United States and NATO?
Paul Holmes
If the hon. Gentleman had bothered to show up for the entire debate—I think that he has only just arrived in the Chamber—then he would have heard the answer to those questions in excellent speeches given by hon. Members from across the House. In response to his question, why is the deal also backed by so many counties that have malign influences towards the interests of the United Kingdom, such as Russia, China and Iran? If he stays for the rest of the debate, he might hear some answers to those questions too. It is easy for Labour Members to stand in the Chamber and read a Labour party briefing, thinking that if they say things time and again, they must be true, and that people outside the Chamber will expect what they say will be true.
I was the Parliamentary Private Secretary to Lord Cameron of Chipping Norton when he was Foreign Secretary. He said to Foreign Office officials at that time that the negotiations that had started and were being explored went past his red line. My right hon. Friend the Member for Braintree (Sir James Cleverly), who was Foreign Secretary when some of the negotiations happened, said to his Foreign Office officials, “As the democratically elected Foreign Secretary, these recommendations go beyond my red lines.” Those negotiations were then stopped by Lord Cameron—I remember him instructing Foreign Office officials to stop those negotiations—so I say to hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Dunfermline and Dollar (Graeme Downie), that just because negotiations and conversations have started, we do not have to accept a conclusion that we do not want.
Graeme Downie
As we have heard already in the debate, apparently we cannot hear a negotiating position, so will the hon. Gentleman describe in detail exactly what those red lines were?
Paul Holmes
I will tell the hon. Gentleman what one of those red lines was: not paying £35 billion to another country. In case he wants to read his Labour party briefing again, I remind the hon. Gentleman that another red line for the last Foreign Secretary was that he clearly did not accept unilaterally that the sovereignty of the Chagos islands fell with Mauritius. That is a key difference between the last Government and this Government.
This is a bad deal for Britain: it will cost £35 billion, while the Government tax and spend and make people in this country poorer, and in an ever-changing international security situation, this country is unilaterally giving up a strategically important defence base, in an area of the world where we are seeing more geopolitical uncertainty. I cannot put into words how bad this Bill is, except to say that it is an act of self-sabotage that we have not seen in this House by a democratically elected Government for generations.
To reiterate, not only is this a bad deal, but it is backed by every nation that is malign to our national interest, including China, Russia and Iran. Last week, at an international summit, those countries were actively advocating some of the malign influences about which this Government and the last Government spoke about, and they are actively backing this deal. I challenge Labour Members to look Opposition Members or any of their constituents in the eye and say that a deal that is successful for this country should be backed by Iran, China and Russia.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I am trying to work within the confines of parliamentary etiquette, but I have to say that there is something deeply concerning about the way that this Government have chosen to negotiate the terms of the agreement. We have to look at the close links between the key people who negotiated this deal with the Mauritian Government and the links—private links—to the Prime Minister and Ministers in this Government. The Prime Minister of Mauritius has said in the Mauritian Parliament that officials were asked to leave the room while private negotiations were going ahead. I have never known a responsible Government who are trying to hand over sovereignty of a British overseas territory to ask officials, who are there to protect the integrity and the transparency of the of decisions that Ministers take, to leave the room so that a negotiation can go on. Why have the Government hidden the cost of the deal? Why have they refused to give this House a solid and sustainable way to scrutinise the decisions of the Government? They have avoided scrutiny at every turn.
Sir John Hayes
Perhaps I can invite my hon. Friend to be helpful to the Minister. He clearly holds him in some regard, and he is right that he has got himself into something of a mess. By far the best way for the Government to proceed from hereon would be to make much more available either to this House or, as the former Attorney General, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kenilworth and Southam (Sir Jeremy Wright) suggested, to the Intelligence and Security Committee. That would clarify the terms of this trade—why it happened and the assessments that were made that led up to it—in a way that the House would be able to either legitimise what the Minister claims or refute it. A lack of transparency is half the Minister’s problem.
Paul Holmes
I agree with my right hon. Friend. I found it quite concerning earlier that the Chairman of the Defence Committee, the hon. Member for Slough (Mr Dhesi), relied on the fact that American counterparts in an Administration that he does not scrutinise backed the deal, so there was no need for the Defence Committee to interrogate Ministers of the Government it is supposed to scrutinise. There have been two offers this afternoon, one by my right hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes), and the other by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kenilworth and Southam, in his expert speech. There is a scrutiny structure in this House called the Intelligence and Security Committee to which the Minister could refer this decision, and he can rest assured in the knowledge that there are expert Members across the whole House who could offer their expert opinion on the deal. The Government have chosen not to do that. That is an indictment of the transparency and the drive the Government have shown in getting the deal very quickly.
Alex Ballinger
The hon. Gentleman will know that the Foreign Affairs Committee had the Minister in front of us to discuss the deal, so there has been parliamentary scrutiny on this, including by other Committees, just not by the Defence Committee. On the costs, as the PPS to Lord Cameron, maybe he can say a little bit about what the cost was of the deal they negotiated at the end of those 11 rounds—whether it was higher or lower than the deal we have reached now.
Paul Holmes
I can tell the hon. Gentleman. Let me say it very clearly and very slowly, because I know that hon. Members have written their speeches before the debate started: zero. Zero is less than the deal the Minister is choosing. Let me repeat it very slowly for the hon. Gentleman and for Members across the House: the deal was ended. There was no deal. The negotiations stopped. There were no negotiations.
Paul Holmes
I will in a second. I just want to emphasise the point so we do not hear it again. There were no negotiations. There was no deal. [Interruption.] The negotiations were stopped. There was no deal on offer, and no money was being offered. I hope that Members will scratch that bit out of their speeches as they go forward.
John Slinger
I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way. The former Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Richmond and Northallerton (Rishi Sunak), called the Mauritian Prime Minister on 22 February 2024 and reassured him that
“the UK remains committed to a mutually beneficial outcome…and their teams look forward to continuing to work on this.”
Will he comment on that?
Paul Holmes
Yes, I absolutely can. I am not a lawyer, but I would say it is crystal clear in the sentence the hon. Gentleman has just read: “mutually beneficial”. What the democratically elected Government of the day decided, through Lord Cameron of Chipping Norton, who I said—if the hon. Gentleman was in the debate earlier, he would have heard it—[Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman says he has other things to do, Madam Deputy Speaker. I suggest that if he thinks this is very important, he should have been here for the whole debate and not just intervene on a debate that I think is about national security. I repeat the point to him: the Foreign Secretary at the time ended the negotiations because, as the then Prime Minister said, “mutually beneficial” was deemed not to have been the case.
I want to touch briefly on the arguments put forward by the Government about hiding behind international law. I cannot do it justice like my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kenilworth and Southam, but it is clear that the Government keep hiding behind judgments that they have to follow. I remind the Minister again that it is not a binding judgment. If the Government had chosen to challenge that non-binding judgment, he would have had the support of those of us on the Opposition Benches. The Government decided not to do that and have accepted a non-binding judgment and fast-tracked the capitulation and surrender of a British overseas territory for the first time in a long time. The Minister could have challenged that decision, because it was non-binding. I shall let the record stand with the speech by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kenilworth and Southam, who went through the numerous international structures that this Government have signed up to and set out how we did not have to follow that.
Lastly, clause 2 is absolutely disastrous. The hon. Member for Crawley (Peter Lamb) spoke of the historical context here. I congratulate and commend the hon. Gentleman for his speech; he is an incredibly brave and principled man who stands up for his constituents. Under clause 2, this Government have decided unilaterally to recognise that Mauritius has sovereignty over the Chagos islands. I remind the House and the Government that Mauritius has never in the historical context of the Chagos islands had sovereignty, and that this Government have chosen to give sovereignty over the islands to a country that has never had it.
Paul Holmes
I will in a second.
Some, including the right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn), have said that we want to “return” the islands. I say that is impossible, because it is not possible to return sovereignty to a country that never had sovereignty in the first place. This is a decision and a negotiation undertaken by this Government, and they should hang their heads in shame over the way they have done it.
Jeremy Corbyn
The agreement that was reached between the British and Mauritian Governments in 1965 was to separate the Chagos islands from Mauritius. Decolonisation processes of the UN and all others have confirmed that it should never have happened, and that they should never have been separated. If they had never been separated, we would not even be having this debate today.
Paul Holmes
I disagree with the right hon. Gentleman, because it was clear in the negotiations that took place in the ’60s, when the United Kingdom paid Mauritius, that Mauritius actively accepted that it had no sovereignty claim over the islands, and that stands in international agreements from times gone by.
This Bill is a bad deal. It is a bad deal for the United Kingdom and for our constituents; and it is a bad deal because of the money that this Government have decided to spend, and because of their decision to tax people while spending £35 billion overseas. The Government have abandoned the usual norms of the traditional Governments of this country of standing up in a transparent way for the way we act internationally; they have decided to abdicate their responsibility in doing that.
This is a bad deal for this country. It has been welcomed by malign international partners, it has undermined our defence, and it will cost us billions. Above all, with this Bill, the Government have abandoned and avoided every scrutiny mechanism within the House of Commons that would enable hon. Members to challenge them and get the answers that this House quite rightly deserves—[Interruption.] Government Members say that we have the chance today, but I remind them that many, many Members have asked questions of Ministers about the legal position on refusing this, and Ministers have been unable and unwilling to provide answers in the context of the international law that we have spoken about to do that.
This is the day that the Labour Government showed the British people out there, as well as the Chagossians in the Public Gallery today, that they do not stand up for the people of this country. They did not stand up when we saw that international law might go against us. They chose to abandon their responsibilities to protect the people of this country and the military assets that this country has in the overseas territories.
I predict that, in the four years ahead, this £35 billion surrender treaty will come to haunt this Labour Government. I remind Government Members that after they have gone through the Lobby and voted for the Bill tonight—after they have read out their Labour party briefing saying that it is the right thing to do—they will have to knock on doors and explain how they gave £35 billion of taxpayers’ hard-earned money to a country that never had sovereignty over this British overseas territory. They should hang their heads in shame, and I think they will do so.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
Order. Before we move on to the next speaker, I remind right hon. and hon. Members that it is not in order to impute false or unavowed motives to any other individual hon. Members in this place.
Tim Roca (Macclesfield) (Lab)
It has been a long afternoon, but I should say from the start that I genuinely believe that the motivation of all of us is the national interest of the United Kingdom. Whatever differences of opinion there might be, I think it is important that we try to avoid hyperbole in this matter and think coolly and calmly about what is in the UK national interest.
There are tests we need to apply to what we are discussing: first, does it protect UK national security; secondly, do our allies and the professional military and security establishment support it; and thirdly, are the costs and obligations reasonable and proportionate? We also need to have a weather eye to our responsibility to the Chagossians, and I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Crawley (Peter Lamb) for speaking passionately on behalf of his constituents. I believe the answer to those three tests is yes, and I will address them in turn.
Diego Garcia is not just another overseas facility; it is fundamental to our security. It is where our forces and US forces have launched operations against high-value terrorist groups. It is a communications and logistics hub, and it is where we monitor hostile states and safeguard global trade routes that underpin our economy. Without this treaty, all that is at risk.
Ministers have outlined that international rulings could make the base inoperable. I spoke earlier to Dr Marco Longobardo, a specialist in international law, and it is clear that even the non-binding ICJ judgment is nevertheless a matter of international law and potentially gives hostile countries the opening that they need to contemplate interference in the islands—in the same way that Chinese claims in the South China sea are not recognised by many countries. That is all at risk. Our ability to berth submarines, patrol waters or launch operations would be compromised, and a vacuum would be created.
Tim Roca
I believe that the hon. Member has had quite a lot of turns today, and I have been waiting a long time without intervening, so I will proceed. If we allowed a vacuum to be created, it would be filled by China or others in a region that is vital to our security. I will come back to China in a moment, because what China thinks about this treaty is important as well.
Turning to the first test, the treaty secures 99 years of guaranteed access, with the option to extend it by a further 40 years; 99 years was good enough for Lord Salisbury, so it is good enough for me. It gives us full operational control over installations, logistics, communications and the electromagnetic spectrum. It establishes a 24-nautical-mile buffer zone and bans any foreign military presence on the outer islands. We have talked about how it protects a unique maritime environment and provides tangible support through the trust fund for Chagossian communities. On the first test I am satisfied.
On the second test—whether the agreement commands the backing of allies and experts—other colleagues have spoken powerfully about this, but Lord Goldsmith, a former Attorney General, said it was
“consistent with our national security interests and with our respect for international law”.
The international support is equally strong. Australia’s Kevin Rudd called it a
“good outcome for Mauritius, for Australia, for the UK and for our collective security interests”.
Canada’s foreign ministry said that it ensures
“the long-term, secure and effective operation”
of the joint base, strengthening a free and open Indo-Pacific.
In the United States, where there is not much that gets bipartisan support, it is a bipartisan matter. Antony Blinken said that America “strongly supported” the negotiations. Secretary of State Marco Rubio commended the “leadership and vision” shown. The Democratic former Defence Secretary Lloyd Austin said that the agreement will
“safeguard strategic security interests into the next century.”
I believe an hon. Member has already quoted President Trump, who described it as an amazing deal, a beautiful deal or whatever kind of deal—but a good deal, that is the main point.
The international consensus is clear. Our allies, partners and experts back the deal. I was very taken by the comments of Professor Benjamin Sacks of the RAND school of public policy in the United States. He said:
“I contend that Beijing privately views the agreement, even if modified to ameliorate some Chagossians’ outstanding demands, somewhat as a setback. In practical terms, it gains little if any advantage from it.”
He added:
“The Chagos issue constituted a perennial problem for British foreign policy; one that China could simultaneously exploit to demonstrate its supposed adherence to existing RBOs”—
rule-based orders—
“and undermine the UK’s traditionally important role in maintaining it.”
He also said that the deal deters Port Louis—Mauritius—from becoming an effective client state of Beijing. On the point of whether our allies support it, I believe that the treaty meets the test.
Tim Roca
I will not. I experienced the right hon. Gentleman defending the hereditary principle last week, and I do not think I have the strength in me this week to listen to another argument.
The final test was on costs and obligations. Again, Ministers have talked powerfully about the deal being less than 0.2% of the defence budget. Comparisons have been made with what the French are paying in Djibouti, and I am glad that we are getting a better deal than the French. Of course, Diego Garcia is 15 times larger than those bases and in a more strategic location. The treaty gives us immense operational freedom. It therefore seems to me that this is a modest investment for an irreplaceable asset. The risks from delay or abandonment—in this argument, we have to balance the treaty with the risks of what could happen—are vastly greater.
Dr Pinkerton
The hon. Gentleman describes Diego Garcia as an irreplaceable asset, but the Chagossians sitting in the Gallery do not see it as an asset; they see it as their home. Even though they have been displaced from their home for the best part of 50 years, they tell me that they see the actions in the Chamber as a new round of the same colonial humiliation they experienced in the 1960s and 1970s. What does the hon. Gentleman say to those Chagossians here today?
Tim Roca
I thank the hon. Member for raising that important aspect. We should all be honest that, as was put powerfully by my hon. Friend the Member for Crawley (Peter Lamb), our country’s history with the Chagossians has been very poor—if we look at some of the diplomatic cables from the 1960s, we see that disgraceful language was used—but I was reassured by what Ministers said about the preamble of the treaty and some of the provisions put in place.
It is a matter of fact that the previous Government were in negotiations with Mauritius over this issue. That was the case, and there will have been motivations for their doing that. I am worried about how our other overseas territories are being dragged into this. A couple of months ago, I was in Gibraltar with colleagues who privately told me they were horrified that party politics were being played with their communities. I am glad to see that Gibraltar’s Chief Minister was clear on the record that there was “no possible read across” to Gibraltar, and the Governor of the Falklands said that the
“historical contexts…are very different.”
I am confident that we meet the three tests.
Tim Roca
No, I am afraid that I will not.
In closing, I believe that the three tests have been met: the treaty meets our national security requirements, it has the backing of our allies, and it comes at a reasonable cost. It would be very dangerous for us to dither or delay any longer in view of the potential threat to that base.
Sir John Whittingdale (Maldon) (Con)
It is a pleasure to take part in the debate. The Foreign Affairs Committee, on which I sit—I welcome two of my Labour colleagues from the Committee and my hon. Friend the Member for Chester South and Eddisbury (Aphra Brandreth) to the debate—has had the opportunity to question the Minister, the hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty), although I was not entirely persuaded by some of his answers. That is not to say that the Intelligence and Security Committee, which has other powers, is not an appropriate body for looking at some aspects—indeed, the Defence Committee should also do so.
The one thing that I think everybody agrees on is the importance of Diego Garcia and the Chagos islands to the United Kingdom. My right hon. Friend the Member for South West Wiltshire (Dr Murrison) quoted Admiral Lord West, his former boss—he was, of course, a Minister in the last Labour Government and the security adviser to the Prime Minister—who said:
“It is no exaggeration to say that Diego Garcia—the largest of the Chagos Islands—hosts the most strategically important US air and logistics base in the Indian Ocean and is vital to the defence of the UK and our allies.”
I have no doubt that Labour Members share that sentiment, but perhaps not his later comment, which was:
“An agreement with Mauritius to surrender sovereignty over the Chagos Islands threatens to undermine core British security interests, and those of key allies, most notably the United States.”
We do need to listen to the warning he gave.
Sir Julian Lewis
Admiral Lord West has been referred to twice so far in the debate. My right hon. Friend may be unaware that Admiral Lord West had a letter published in the national press on 28 May in which he talked about the
“disgraceful decision to hand over ownership of the Chagos archipelago”.
He added:
“I do not accept that the move is ‘absolutely vital for our defence and intelligence’, as the Prime Minister claims.”
I wonder what Government Back Benchers who have been slavishly reading their scripts make of that from someone of that calibre—a former director of Defence Intelligence.
Sir John Whittingdale
If I might just answer my hon. Friend before doing so. Admiral Lord West has immense experience and knowledge. If the Defence Committee should decide to look at this, it might well ask him to give evidence on the basis of his considerable experience in the area.
Sir John Whittingdale
I will come on to UNCLOS. As the hon. Member knows, it is an organisation that has expressed a view, but not one that is binding on the United Kingdom. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kenilworth and Southam (Sir Jeremy Wright), the former Attorney General, set out very clearly the various international opinions that have been expressed but which are not binding or mandatory for the United Kingdom to follow. That is critical to this debate.
Sir John Whittingdale
I cannot answer the hon. Gentleman specifically on that issue, but I can tell him that it has been absolutely clear that whatever the UNCLOS opinion is, it is not binding on this country. We will read with interest its view, but it is not one that we are necessarily required to follow.
The existing position has safeguarded the interests of this country for a very long period, so the first question one is required to ask is: why are we changing a guaranteed security status for this country by handing over the sovereignty of Diego Garcia? As my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kenilworth and Southam has said, it is based on opinions that have been expressed but not ones that we are required to follow.
As the hon. Member for Crawley (Peter Lamb) said, I understand that the original linkage of the Chagos islands to Mauritius that took place was regarded as a matter of administrative convenience. However, they are actually 1,250 miles apart. On that basis, when the United Kingdom agreed to the independence of Mauritius, it was separated from the Chagos islands. There was no suggestion at that time that the two should be linked and that the islands be given over to Mauritius, which, despite the linkage, had no claim and no involvement in their running.
Alex Ballinger
Does the right hon. Gentleman, who is my colleague on the Foreign Affairs Committee, acknowledge that by opening negotiations with Mauritius, the last Government conceded that there was a point around sovereignty to be discussed and that, certainly from then onwards, it was difficult for this Government to roll back that point?
Sir John Whittingdale
It had already been rolled back. The hon. Gentleman is right that the last Government began discussions because Mauritius expressed a view. However, that was on the basis that a mutually beneficial arrangement could be reached. It was concluded that such an agreement could not be reached, and on that basis the last Government ceased the negotiations. It is not a question of their being rolled back; it was this Government who chose to reopen negotiations that had been closed down by the previous Government.
I come back to the international judgments. The other one cited by Ministers on the Government Front Bench early on in the discussion, when this issue was first raised, was the risk to access to electromagnetic spectrum as a result of the ITU potentially reaching a judgment that might be based on the non-binding judgment expressed by the ICJ. There is no actual evidence that it was going to do that, but it was possible that it might, and for that reason the Government expressed the view that this was important.
I would point out that the ITU has no ability to determine the use of spectrum. The Minister, in answering a written parliamentary question in February this year, made it clear that the allocation of spectrum was a matter for sovereign states. The ITU is a sort of gentleman’s club where everyone gets together to discuss these matters, but it is not able to hand over the right to the use of spectrum from one country to another. It is also worth noting that the ITU has, over the years, been subject to considerable pressure from China, which had a secretary general of the ITU. I recall from my time dealing with issues around the ITU the real concern about how the Chinese were seeking to use the ITU, so in my view it is a good thing that the ITU does not have the power to allocate spectrum.
There are also serious strategic concerns that the Government have not yet properly addressed. As has already been mentioned, an element of the agreement involves a requirement for us to “expeditiously inform” Mauritius of any armed attack on a third state directly emanating from the base. When the Minister gave evidence to the Committee, I pressed him on whether that would require advance notification—
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Stephen Doughty)
indicated assent.
Sir John Whittingdale
He is nodding. He gave me a very firm assurance that that was not the case. That is of some reassurance, but it does not go far enough. The fact that we are no longer able to carry out actions from our own base without then having to notify Mauritius, and presumably take note of any objection it has, represents a limitation that could well affect decisions as to where to deploy assets.
Sir John Whittingdale
I shall give way to my right hon. Friend, who is an expert on these matters.
Sir Julian Lewis
If this means that we do not have to inform Mauritius in advance of a direct armed attack from the base, presumably it means that we have to inform it as soon as possible after such an attack. If such an attack were an overt attack, Mauritius would presumably know about it already because everyone would have seen it, so this rather suggests that we might have to inform it if there had been some sort of covert attack that other people had not seen and that it would otherwise not know about. Is that a satisfactory situation?
Sir John Whittingdale
My right hon. Friend makes a fair point. A requirement for us to tell the Mauritians what has been happening from the base is exactly what might influence decisions as to its use for operations of the kind he describes. The Minister gave evidence to the Committee on this point just a few days, I think, after the Americans had launched their attack on Iran, which did not involve Diego Garcia. That was something I raised with the Minister.
Stephen Doughty
I know how seriously the right hon. Gentleman takes these issues, and it is important for the House to understand this. I can confirm what I said to him previously, but also I draw his attention to article 3(2)(b) in the treaty and to annex 1. Article 3(2)(b) sets out clearly that
“the Parties shall not undermine, prejudice or otherwise interfere with the long-term, secure and effective operation of the Base, and shall cooperate to that end; and…the United Kingdom shall have full responsibility for the defence and security of Diego Garcia.”
It sets out clearly our unrestricted ability to conduct the operations, including with the United States. That is very clear; it is in the treaty, and it is important that the House understands that.
Sir John Whittingdale
I understand that that is part of the treaty, but I hope that when the Minister winds up, he will address the point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis) that the requirement to “expeditiously inform” Mauritius, even after an operation, presumably means that we must do so as soon as possible, and that that will presumably apply to whatever kind of operation has taken place using the base. Perhaps he could tell us whether that might compromise decisions about the use of the base.
The other aspect I raised with the Minister when he was in front of the Committee was Mauritius being a signatory of the Pelindaba treaty. The Pelindaba treaty states that signatories will not have nuclear weapons on their soil. Britain, the UK, is not a signatory of it, but, as I say, Mauritius is. Again, the Minister told the Committee that there was no way in which anything in the agreement would affect the operational use of the base, but he would not go further and comment specifically on the aspects of potentially nuclear weapons on the Diego Garcia base. That is something of real concern, and I hope the Minister might say a little more about that conflict between his assurance and Mauritius’s membership of the Pelindaba treaty, which specifically says that there should not be nuclear weapons held on the sovereign territory of signatories.
I turn to the cost of the treaty to the UK. We are told that there is some disagreement about the precise figure. I have to say that even £3.5 billion seems pretty large to me, let alone £35 billion, which is universally believed on the Opposition side to be a more accurate figure. It has been suggested, nevertheless, that this is a relatively small amount of money and it is a good deal. I recall that when this was first suggested, a different Mauritian Government were in power. The Prime Minister of Mauritius at that time had signed a deal, which the current Prime Minister of Mauritius described as a terrible deal and that as soon as he was elected, he would reopen the whole discussion. It certainly appears that he was successful in doing so: the sum that has now been agreed is, the Mauritian Prime Minister has told us, considerably bigger than his predecessor had originally agreed, and this was a great success of the new Prime Minister of Mauritius that he managed to squeeze even more money out of the British Government. That does beg the question: at what point does it stop being a good deal? The impression given is that the British Government were so keen to sign up to this deal, they basically have signed away to almost any sum advanced by Mauritius. As one or two of my hon. Friends have made clear, that will be a difficult message to sell on the doorstep at a time when the Government are having to make significant savings and to raise taxes.
In particular, I am concerned—the Minister will understand why—about the impact on the Foreign Office budget, because the Foreign Office suffered the biggest cuts of any Whitehall Department in the last spending round. It is already unclear about how those savings will be met, and there is speculation that the budgets of the British Council or the World Service, or our representation in embassies around the world, will be reduced. Despite those pressures and potentially very damaging cuts to Foreign Office expenditure, the Foreign Office appears to be expected to meet part of this bill. The Minister was unable to tell the Committee how the bill would be divided up between the Foreign Office budget and the Ministry of Defence budget. Perhaps that is something else that he might say a little more about when he winds up.
I will also touch on the other aspect of the consequences of this deal: the impact on the environment, which has been referred to by one or two Members. I pay tribute to the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee, the right hon. Member for Islington South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry), who is, I think it fair to say, engaged in other projects at the moment. She was assiduous in raising with the Minister her concern about the treaty’s impact on an incredibly important marine environment—that is recognised around the world. She wrote to the Minister, as he will be aware, and said:
“My principal concern is that there is now no funding mechanism in place to ensure Mauritius will properly resource marine protection in the Chagos Archipelago… Without any dedicated funding mechanism…there is nothing to ensure that this protection will continue other than the on-going willingness of the Mauritian Government to allocate resource”.
As has been observed, the archipelago is 1,250 miles away from Mauritius, and we are not entirely convinced that that willingness in Mauritius, on which the Government appear to be pinning their hopes, exists.
Finally, I wish to acknowledge the presence of the Chagossians in the Public Gallery. They have been very badly treated over years, and it is of concern to me that they appear to have had virtually no input in this agreement, and that there has been no consultation with them. I know that a contact group is being established in the Foreign Office, but there is some scepticism about whether it has ever met, and about how many staff will be allocated to it. Perhaps the Minister might give details in his reply. [Interruption.] I am pleased to hear him say that it met last week.
I am grateful to the Government for answering questions so far, but an awful lot remain, and the answers that I have heard have failed to convince me that this treaty is in the economic, strategic and environmental interests of this country or the Chagos islands.
Phil Brickell (Bolton West) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to speak in support of the Bill, which safeguards our national security and protects our constituents.
Diego Garcia is one of the most important military bases in the world. From that facility, Britain and the United States project stability across the Indian ocean, the Gulf and the wider Indo-Pacific. The base has been vital in the fight against terrorism and piracy for many years. Today, it is indispensable in containing the growing reach of the Chinese Communist party, as others have said. Beijing is building ports, airports and naval outposts right across the region; its so-called “string of pearls” is designed to encircle and dominate. If we are serious about standing up for the values that we hold dear—human rights, democracy and, at its heart, freedom—Diego Garcia must remain secure and undisputed, which can be achieved only through the treaty that the Government have concluded.
Conservative colleagues may huff and puff, as they have been doing ad nauseam over the past few hours, but let us not rewrite history. As has been pointed out, it was not Labour that opened negotiations with Mauritius.
Phil Brickell
I will make some progress, if I may. I wanted to intervene on Opposition Members earlier, but was not allowed to.
It was the Conservatives who rightly described the situation in 2022 as unsustainable, and it was they who held 11 rounds of talks on sovereignty. In 2023, when he was Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Richmond and Northallerton (Rishi Sunak) said that he wanted to conclude a deal soon. At the time, when they were in government, Conservative Members recognised that the base’s legal status was under serious threat, and that an interminable sovereignty dispute risked paralysing operations.
Let me make a quick point about international law. In reflecting on the ICJ advisory opinion, the right hon. Member for Witham (Priti Patel) said that it is an international court that few have heard of. Those kinds of reckless throwaway remarks undermine the United Nations’ highest judicial organ. She mentioned that we are a permanent member of the UN Security Council. There are judges sitting in the ICJ who are elected by members of the General Assembly, and through the Security Council. Although we have had judges sitting in that international court since its inception, we have not since 2018, which is a source of much shame for the country at large. I hope that she will take back those remarks denigrating the international system of law that underpins our international work. Let us not forget, after all, that in the 1940s, the United Kingdom was the first country to submit a case for arbitration by the ICJ. [Interruption.] I ask those Opposition Members who are chuntering: where were you when those 11 rounds of negotiations took place? I know that two years is a long time in politics, but have you already forgotten—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
Order. I wasn’t anywhere, and I have forgotten nothing. Will Members please be careful about the language they use in the Chamber?
Phil Brickell
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.
Labour has finished what the previous Government started—what was left to us after former Prime Minister Liz Truss let the genie out of the bottle in starting negotiations with Mauritius in 2022. That was reported, and much maligned, by Matthew Parris in The Spectator at the time—let us not forget that. This Government have sought to strike a deal in Britain’s best interests, given the legal mess that they inherited. Let us be clear: this agreement secures the future of the Diego Garcia base. Britain retains control of the base, as the Minister confirmed in response to my intervention near the start of the debate. There is a protective buffer zone, and no foreign security forces will be on the outer islands. There will be a robust mechanism to prevent interference, and for the first time, Mauritius has agreed back the base’s operations. That is a huge strategic win.
What about cost? Let us get this clear, because some of the disinformation coming from the Conservative party is concerning; it is unnecessarily setting hares running about the future of other British overseas territories, including the Falkland Islands and Gibraltar. The overall cost has not changed from that negotiated with the former Mauritian Prime Minister, and suggestions to the contrary are simply false. When set against the cost of inaction, the financial component is modest. It is far cheaper than the spiralling costs of legal uncertainty, and far cheaper than the price we would pay if Chinese expansionism went unchecked in the Indian ocean. For a fraction of our defence budget, we will secure a cornerstone of global stability. Let us not forget that the agreement will have an average annual cost that represents 0.008% of total Government spend, according to the Government Actuary’s Department.
Dr Pinkerton
Earlier in his very carefully crafted speech, the hon. Gentleman said that this deal protects freedom. One of the freedoms that citizens of the British overseas territories to which he referred most appreciate is the freedom to determine their own future. Why does he think that Chagossians should be made an exception and denied the right to determine their own future?
Phil Brickell
I am sure that the Minister will come to that in his closing remarks. I have to concur with other Members that the way the Chagossians were treated in the ’60s and ’70s was utterly shameful. I am proud that there will be rights of return, and the ability to visit.
Conservative Members claim to be the champions of defence, but that is not borne out by the facts, which include an 18% cut in defence spending in their first five years in government, and their shrinking the Army to its smallest size since the Napoleonic era. In how many years out of 14 was the target of 2.5% of GDP spent on defence hit? Zero. They should not lecture Labour Members on national security. The Government’s plan is straightforward, transparent and serious. We have the largest increase in the defence budget since the cold war; we are rebuilding alliances that previous Governments wantonly vandalised; we are acting where there was dither; we are governing in the national interest; and, importantly, we are securing the long-term future of the Diego Garcia base.
It is clear that a binding adverse judgment against the UK was inevitable. Since 2015, 28 international judges have expressed views on Chagos sovereignty. That was under the previous Government, and not one of those 28 judges backed Britain’s claim. Without an agreement, our ability to operate the base would have been compromised. Overflight clearances would have been at risk, contractor access would have been uncertain, communications would have degraded, costs would have soared, and investment would have fallen. Who would that benefit? I put that to Conservative Members, but I will give them a clue: it is not Britain, and not Britain’s allies. This deal secures Diego Garcia, cements our role in the Indo-Pacific, strengthens our ability to push back against Chinese influence, and shows that Britain is a dependable ally that takes national security seriously.
I wish to make a closing remark on the reasoned amendment by the Reform party, in the names of the hon. Members for Clacton (Nigel Farage), for Boston and Skegness (Richard Tice), for Runcorn and Helsby (Sarah Pochin) and for Ashfield (Lee Anderson), who seem not to be present. I will read out a part of it that I am gobsmacked nobody has picked up on in this debate:
“because the reason for the UK-Mauritius Treaty and for bringing forward this Bill follows a judgment from the International Criminal Court, from which the UK does not recognise judgments as binding, only advisory”,
they will oppose this Bill. I want Reform to answer: which case before the International Criminal Court is it referring to? Is Reform suggesting that, were it to come to power, it would not recognise the binding judgments of the International Criminal Court? Will it take us out of the ICC? Unfortunately, Reform Members are not here to respond.
The Conservatives opened the door to this treaty. Labour inherited a legal mess, but it has delivered a deal in the long-term national interest. For a small cost, we have achieved a huge strategic win. That is why I am proud to support this Bill, and I will vote with the Government tonight.
Tom Tugendhat (Tonbridge) (Con)
So many Labour Members seem to have forgotten that the reshuffle was a couple of days ago. They will have to wait another few months, possibly years, for their obsequiousness to be rewarded.
May I suggest that we are in a somewhat through-the-looking-glass world? Over the last few hours, we have heard very clear questions from my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kenilworth and Southam (Sir Jeremy Wright), who is no longer in his place. He explained that we are hearing a circular argument about legal intervention to which there is absolutely no response. All we hear from Government Members is ChatGPT-generated press releases—“I rise to speak”, “I rise to speak”, “I rise to speak”. ChatGPT knows you are there. That is an Americanism that we do not use. Still, they should keep using it, because it makes it clear that this place has become absurd.
This building and this Chamber are a complete waste of time when our electors and fellow citizens hear that we have listened to the arguments of Mauritius, China, India and the United States, but are not willing to listen to the arguments of Britain. We are not willing to stand up for the interests of the British people, or to look at the strategic interests of UK defence. Instead, all we hear consistently is that the Americans are for the deal. Of course they are for it; this is a territorial deal, and they have no interest in the territory. All they are interested in is the lease of the base. They are leasing the base off us at the moment, and they will be leasing the base off Mauritius via us into the future, so there is no change for them.
Of course, India is in favour of the deal. By the way, I respect the position of the Indian Government greatly, but do you know what? I am not an Indian MP. I have a different perspective, because my job—and, I thought, the job of Labour Members, but clearly I was wrong—is to stand up for the British people. Instead, all I hear is that Labour Members are standing up for the interests of different foreign powers. That is absolutely fine. They worship international treaties and stand up for so-called international law, but they conveniently forget—[Interruption.] Members should hear the end of the sentence. They forget that international law is conflictual, challenged and regularly, if not almost always, in direct confrontation with itself, because it highlights different interests. At different points, Governments champion different aspects of international law in order to seek different outcomes. That is how it has grown up. It is the job of sovereign Governments to stand up for our interests. I thought that was the job of our Government, but it clearly is not the job of this Government. Instead, this Government do something quite different; the moment that they are challenged, they run away. Brave Sir Keir bravely turned his tail and fled.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
Order. This debate has to be fair on both sides. I will not have Members referring to the Prime Minister by name.
Tom Tugendhat
It could have been any Sir Keir —there are so many of them. I apologise, Madam Deputy Speaker.
This Government have decided that instead of fighting for Britain’s interests, all they will do is turn around and capitulate.
Tom Tugendhat
I will not. The problem is that this case is not just about these islands, or the issues we are debating today; it is about the way in which Governments approach these debates.
Just in case we are in any doubt about the changed nature of the use of law against us, it is worth looking at the timeline of these events—which is completely coincidental. We know, because colleagues have mentioned it, that in the 1960s a deal was done, a payment was made, Mauritius accepted it and we moved on. Just after the Falklands war, a legal action was begun, using Mauritius and extending a claim. Just after the Falklands war, the KGB started to fund the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament. By the way, it is not me saying this—it is in the Mitrokhin archive; it is all public. Just after the Falklands war, when the Soviets realised that they did not have the military power to defeat NATO, they started experimenting with lawfare, and we have seen them do it again and again. If Members would like to read reports on this issue, Policy Exchange very kindly published a report by me in 2013, and another one in 2015—“Fog of Law” and “Clearing the Fog of Law”, for those who have trouble sleeping.
Since then, we have seen lawfare grow. We have seen states using the power of lawyers against the interests of the British people time and again, and the trouble with the capitulation we are seeing today is that it is not just about Diego Garcia, these islands or this interest; it is about the question of whether or not this Government will stand up for the British people, and for our security and our interests. Let me sketch out a hypothetical situation for you, Madam Deputy Speaker. It is possible, although I hope it is not necessary, that British troops will be asked to do some peacekeeping in somewhere like Ukraine. It is possible that they will have to leave at a moment’s notice with the equipment they have, without the ability to re-equip—simply to go with the best that they have. It is possible that countries like Russia will object.
We know, because we have seen it happen in the late 1990s and all the way through the 2010s and 2020s, that the Russian Government and others have encouraged legal action against our armed forces. To be honest, Governments have been poor on this issue since 1999—Labour Governments initially, and then Conservative Governments—so it was very welcome that Lord Cameron stopped this, recognising that a different position could be taken. Sadly, this Bill reverses that position. It reverses the presumption that our Government, the British Government, will represent the legal interests of the British people and fight these cases. Instead, they will capitulate. The problem is that capitulation is what got us into this problem in the first place. We can look at the Bici case in Kosovo in the late 1990s, where we settled rather than fought, or at cases in Iraq and Afghanistan, where we settled rather than debated—rather than going to court and seeking a judgment. Those cases created precedents, and I am afraid that this Government are creating another precedent.
I know that the Minister will say that the Governments of the Falkland Islands, Gibraltar, and many other places have correctly said that this case has no connection to them. I am delighted that they have said so, and they are right, but they are sadly mistaken in thinking that that means nobody will test that point.
Tom Tugendhat
Had the hon. Gentleman been in the Chamber at the beginning of the debate, he would have been welcome to contribute, but given that he has such a passing interest, I am sure he will not mind if I carry on.
The reality is that it is not up to the person who is pursued by law as to whether they will be challenged; it is up to the aggressor, and we know who the aggressor is. We know who has been using lawfare against us. We have seen it time and again, and I am afraid that the effect of this Bill is to concede that point. I am fascinated that so many Government Members feel that they had no choice but to conclude the negotiation. Admittedly it was begun mistakenly by a Conservative Administration and, yes, I did write to the then Prime Ministers—both of them—complaining about it and pointing out the error of their ways. I was a Minister, and I wrote about it and complained about it, as did Lord Murray of Blidworth—I think that is right. I am going to get his name wrong, forgive me—that is one for Hansard. We both wrote, because we both thought it was wrong at the time.
What can I say? We left office. The civil servants re-presented the same offer and sadly, here we go again. The British people feel so disenchanted at the moment because we see changes of Government and no changes of policy. We simply see a continuation and the Whips’ briefings coming out again. We simply see the pointlessness of democracy in this place, because we might as well not bother being here. The Foreign Office stitched this one up. The Minister cannot even change the judgment, and he has sacrificed everything on the whims of an international process with no regard to the interests of the British people.
Alex Ballinger (Halesowen) (Lab)
I thank the Minister for his speech earlier, although he is no longer in this place. We have heard clearly from those on the Opposition Benches that they are opposed to this deal, so it is first worth outlining what sort of deal they are opposed to. They are opposed to a deal that secures our vital national interest on probably the most important base in the country’s history in the Indian ocean. They are opposed to a deal that is supported by every one of our Five Eyes closest security partners. As we have heard from many of them, they are opposed to a deal that they spent 11 rounds negotiating over two years, and we have not quite heard from them why they started negotiating that deal in the first place. They spent 11 rounds negotiating it, but they have not yet told us—the shadow Minister or otherwise—why they felt it was necessary and why they think this Government might have come to the same conclusion as they did at that time. I believe, as many of us do on the Government Benches, that that dangerous rhetoric puts the security of our base in Diego Garcia at risk. It is playing politics with our national security.
I want to take us back in history for one moment to look at a similar situation. During the second world war, the UK established another airfield in the Indian ocean known as RAF Gan. RAF Gan was the southernmost island in the Maldives, and it was secured in 1942 by the Royal Navy, and then taken over by the Air Force, to secure our operations all across the Indian ocean into the far east, combating the Japanese threat we were facing there. It was such a successful base that the Japanese did not even discover its existence until close to the end of the war, once their expansion plans had ended. Later, in the cold war, it became a vital staging post for the UK and our allies to get our forces across to Singapore and other bases in the far east. In fact, my father served there in 1974, and it was a great shame that two years later we closed that base and handed it over to the Maldivian Government at the same time that we secured our base in Diego Garcia.
I mention that case in particular because it was a vital strategic secure base of ours in a similar situation to Diego Garcia. As soon as the Maldivian Government took possession of that base, the Russians began to exert influence to try to take it over. They were attempting to take over the base that we occupied—that we spent decades developing—and turn it into a secure base for the Soviet Union. They are doing exactly the same thing again on Diego Garcia. They are trying to influence the Mauritian Government to claim the base for their own use.
Dr Evans
Is this not the point that we have heard time and again from Government Members? This deal runs out in 99 years, and at that point Mauritius can simply close the base or hand it on to the biggest offer. We get first rights on it, but if the Chinese decide to invest hundreds of billions, we may not be able to match that. We are over a barrel. In 100 years’ time, people will be in this place having this exact debate saying, “How do we solve this problem?” Is the hon. Member as concerned about that as I am?
Alex Ballinger
I go back to the example of RAF Gan. The Maldivians refused the Soviet Union back in 1976, because the UK had a good reputation with them. We honoured our agreements and respected international law, and they felt that it was inappropriate for them to be seen to be supporting a country that had not done the same.
In the case of Diego Garcia, this is a situation that has been negotiated for many years. The Conservatives recognised that there was a threat to our sovereignty, because they started the negotiations. As we have heard from my hon. Friends, if we are unable to conclude a deal soon, there is a serious risk that our operations at the base would be thwarted. It would not be in 99 or 140 years after the deal; it would be in weeks or months.
Alex Ballinger
I will carry on for a moment, and then I will give way.
Despite the risks, the Conservatives have come out in opposition to this deal. The right hon. Member for Braintree (Sir James Cleverly)—the former Foreign Secretary, who is not in his place—has described the deal as “weak, weak, weak”, but it was he who started the negotiations back in 2023. He pledged that he would complete the deal in the same year, but he was unable to do so. Maybe it was his negotiating tactics that were “weak, weak, weak”, rather than anything else. For all the Conservatives’ complaining about this agreement, they have failed again to offer any insight into why they started the negotiations in the first place.
Sir John Hayes
The hon. Gentleman is right. Questions about why the negotiations started have been raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge (Tom Tugendhat), given that the national interest is the primary concern of all responsible Governments and could easily be compromised by this deal, but will the hon. Gentleman deal with this point? It has been made absolutely crystal clear in this debate that Lord Cameron, when he became Foreign Secretary, ended those negotiations. Lord Cameron is a man of immense experience, who has probably negotiated at a level beyond anyone present in this Chamber. He would have certainly taken legal advice within the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office before he closed those negotiations. Why does the hon. Gentleman think that Lord Cameron closed them down, and why does he think that this Government reopened them?
Alex Ballinger
We do not know why Lord Cameron closed them down, because the Conservatives have not released any details of the deal that they negotiated up to that point. Maybe the costs were too high because they had not negotiated a better deal, or maybe things like the 24-mile security zone were not included in the deal, but this Government have secured a better deal. It is important for us to secure our national security.
It is also worth pointing out that Conservative Governments have not looked after our national security over the last 14 years. I have served, and I have seen the damage that was caused by 14 years of under-investment and neglect of our armed forces. Our Army has been reduced to a size that has not been seen since the time of Napoleon. Service accommodation standards are scandalous, which our people do not deserve in the slightest, and the Conservatives cut the defence budget so deep that Russia felt that we were too weak to stop an invasion in Europe. I am pleased to see that this Labour Government are investing again in our armed forces and starting to fix the damage of those 14 years.
Since we are talking about investment, let me touch on the investment value of this deal. Diego Garcia’s location—far from major population centres—makes it the ultimate secure base. It is a deepwater port in a key staging area in the Indian ocean, and is vital for our submarine operations. It contains the longest runway in the entire Indian ocean, putting our aircraft in reach of Africa, the middle east and east Asia. In order to continue the operation of such a base for 99 years, we are looking at an average cost of £101 million a year. That is around 0.2% of our defence budget—less than the cost of a single aircraft carrier. As we heard from my hon. Friends, it is a better deal than the French have achieved in Djibouti for a base that is right next to the Chinese operations, and has a total cost that is less than the amount of money that the last Government wasted on faulty PPE during the pandemic.
Diego Garcia is vital for our national security—I think everybody in this place agrees with that. Two years ago, the Conservatives also agreed on the need for a deal.
Lincoln Jopp
I am grateful to the hon. and gallant Member for giving way. On the pricing, he said that Government Front Benchers are putting it out that this is a good deal. Would it still be a good deal if it was £35 billion or something like that?
Alex Ballinger
As the hon. Member will know, the official Government statistics say the cost is £3.5 billion, which is about 0.2% of our defence budget. I wonder what other assets in the entire world that may be worth 0.2% of our defence budget are quite as effective and important as Diego Garcia.
I will come to my conclusion. The last Government wanted a deal. They started negotiating a deal and conducted 11 rounds of negotiations on a deal. Now, however, because they think that they can score some political points, they are choosing to side with our adversaries. I humbly suggest that if they really had the UK’s national security in mind, they would agree with what the US State Department told the Foreign Affairs Committee on our recent visit to Washington, and some of the Conservative Committee members were in that meeting. The US State Department told us, “Thank you for securing this deal, which we think is vital for both our nations’ security.”
Rebecca Paul (Reigate) (Con)
It is a privilege to speak in this debate, particularly following some of the incredibly insightful speeches, certainly on the Opposition side of the House.
Today is a hugely consequential day. The House is not being asked to debate in abstract, and neither are we considering ordinary legislation that can be repealed should its effect turn out to be unfavourable. We are being asked to endorse the permanent and irrevocable surrender of British sovereign territory. There is no way back from this, and I cannot support such action. My opposition is shared by Members on this side of the House and, I suspect, by more Labour Members than may be prepared to say so publicly.
We have heard the point before, but it bears repeating: the British Indian Ocean Territory is of immense military, security and geopolitical importance, and this Bill will give it away forever. It does so at a time of heightened instability and threat around the world. It does not take an expert on defence or foreign affairs to know that this is a terrible decision. It is one that puts virtue signalling before the national interest, plays into the hands of our enemies and ultimately puts this country and our citizens at risk, which is unforgiveable of any Government.
If what we are presented with today is indeed to be the final settlement of the issue, it is a settlement that satisfies neither the strategic nor the political doubts that have been raised. My first concern is the implications of this handover for our defence and security. For decades, Diego Garcia has played a critical role in the collective security of the United Kingdom, the United States and our broader network of allies in the region. The base serves as a launchpad to defeat our enemies, to prevent threats to our nation and to protect our economic security. It directly contributes to Britain’s strength at home and abroad.
In practice, the facility, known as Naval Support Facility Diego Garcia, fulfils multiple essential military roles. It supports approximately 15 key military tasks, including logistics, communications and intelligence gathering. The base acts as a prepositioning hub, hosting vessels carrying armoured vehicles, munitions, fuel and even mobile field hospitals for rapid deployment to wherever they are needed. It is equipped with a deep-water port capable of docking nuclear submarines and naval vessels, as well as runways accommodating strategic bombers, aerial refuelling operations and pre-launch operations across the Indian ocean.
Diego Garcia remains indispensable, but we are now being asked to jeopardise it. In truth, Parliament has been shown nothing of real substance that addresses the concerns that have been raised by Conservative Members. This House is being asked to vote blindfolded on the future of one of our most strategically important overseas territories.
This matters because, despite what Ministers seem to have convinced themselves to be true, the Republic of Mauritius is far from being a passive actor in the geopolitics of the region. Mauritius has repeatedly aligned itself with states hostile to our own strategic interests. It voted against the UK in the UN General Assembly and the International Court of Justice over the future of the Chagos islands in the first place. It maintains close diplomatic and economic ties with China, and China’s use of slave labour and expansionist agenda against Taiwan are well documented. More to the point, Mauritius has signed up to the global security initiative proposed by Beijing, which has been described by many regional experts as China’s attempt to displace US-led security partnerships. These concerns have repeatedly been brushed aside by Ministers keen to remind us that Mauritius is in fact an ally of New Delhi, not Beijing.
Sir John Hayes
The critical point here is that national security and the national interest are inseparable. Both depend on the sovereignty of this nation and the primacy of this Parliament, so although international treaties and agreements matter, of course, they can never matter more than that primacy. We cannot subcontract the national interest to an overseas place that in years to come might want to defend that interest, or might not, in exactly the way that my hon. Friend is describing.
Rebecca Paul
As always, my right hon. Friend makes his point well, and I completely agree.
The reality is that Mauritius is not a reliable or neutral guarantor of our security interests, and it is staggeringly naive for Ministers to suggest otherwise. To put it plainly, if the transfer proceeds, there can be no guarantee that our interests will be protected. As has already been raised multiple times, what will happen in 99 years is of significant concern.
On top of all that, we are not just giving away one of the centrepieces of our global security posture, but paying extortionately for the privilege. Hard-working taxpayers—my constituents—will be left footing the bill for the next 99 years, paying £35 billion or perhaps £47 billion for the lease that the Government have agreed. In Britian, we have faced cruel cuts, harmful tax rises and economic gloom under this Government. By contrast, the Mauritian Government have now begun celebrating their shrinking national debt and announcing a series of planned tax cuts, all as a result of the billions that we will send them.
Countries have lost wars and gone on to be offered treaties with more generous terms than this one, yet those on the Government Front Bench come to this House and call the deal a triumph. The UK will be weaker and poorer as a result, and it is shameful that the Government have brought such a damaging, insulting and senseless document to this House. By moving forward with this, the Government are failing in their first duty to ensure the safety and security of our citizens and nation. This day will go down in the history books as the day that the United Kingdom was diminished by dangerous fools.
Sarah Smith (Hyndburn) (Lab)
Diego Garcia is not just another military facility; it is the cornerstone of Britain’s national security and our most important contribution to the UK-US security relationship. From tracking terrorist networks to ensuring freedom of navigation and global trade, the base has saved lives and safeguarded our people. Let us be clear, however, that the reason we are here today is the failures of the Conservative Government on defence and foreign policy. For years, they dithered, delayed and mismanaged. They gambled with a capability that no other site on earth can replicate and with our security. Some 85% of the negotiations that delivered the treaty took place under the Conservatives.
The right hon. Member for Braintree (Sir James Cleverly), then Foreign Secretary, launched the process and the right hon. Member for North West Essex (Mrs Badenoch), now the Leader of the Opposition, sat at the Cabinet table, received the same security briefings and never raised objections—not in Parliament, in written questions or on social media. They knew then, as we know now, that without a treaty Diego Garcia was at risk of being made inoperable. They knew the dangers of hostile powers exploiting the vacuum and of our ability to berth submarines and patrol the region being fatally compromised.
Today, however, the Opposition have been unable to answer the basic question of why they started the negotiations. They tried to present the argument that they stopped the negotiations, yet in April 2024 Lord Cameron wrote to the hon. Member for Rutland and Stamford (Alicia Kearns) to say that
“the future administration of the islands”
was
“subject to ongoing bilateral negotiations”.
Shortly following that, there was a general election. In opposition, those same people posture against a deal that they once championed. They offer no alternative—no plan, no strategy; just opportunism. They play politics with the safety of the British people. That is not leadership; it is pure hypocrisy.
By contrast, the Labour Government have delivered a treaty that secures 99 years of guaranteed access, with the option of extending it for another 40 years. We have secured rock-solid safeguards: full UK control over the base, command of the electromagnetic spectrum, a 24-nautical-mile buffer zone to protect operations and a ban on any foreign military presence in the wider archipelago.
Crucially, the treaty is backed by our allies. The United States welcomes it, with President Trump calling it a
“very long term, powerful lease”.
Our Five Eyes partners, as well as India, all back it, because they recognise what the Conservatives once admitted but now deny: it is irreplaceable.
We must also address the position taken by Reform UK, whose Members have all vacated the Chamber for the debate that they proclaim to be so important. The hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage) and his colleagues loudly claimed that the United States would reject the agreement, and they told the British people that President Trump would oppose it outright, but they were embarrassingly wrong. The United States has welcomed the deal and President Trump has said that it is “very strong” and “very long term”. Once again, Reform UK misread our closest ally and talked Britain down. Parading as patriots, their instincts are to undermine alliances and weaken the very partnerships that keep this country safe.
Let us be clear that, when put in context, the costs are modest and represent less than 0.2% of the annual defence budget. To put them into greater context, the cost of the whole deal is less than the cost of the unused PPE in the first year of covid under the Tory Government. The Conservative party had 14 years in Government to get this right, but it instead wasted billions of pounds on defence mismanagement while leaving the future of our most critical base to hang by a thread. This Labour Government have secured it for a century, protected our people, supported the Chagossian community and strengthened Britain’s alliances.
To oppose the Bill is to abandon the base, and to abandon the base is to abandon Britain’s security. I will not do that. I urge all Members to support the Bill and to put the safety of the British people above the short-term games of a divided Opposition and the reckless posturing of Reform UK.
Aphra Brandreth (Chester South and Eddisbury) (Con)
At the start of this Parliament, I could not have imagined that we would be asked to consider a Bill that is so uniquely detrimental to our national security, the British taxpayer, the British Chagossian people and the environment. Not only are we ceding sovereignty of a critical overseas territory, but we are paying a huge financial cost for the privilege of doing so. We have heard much today about the cost of this deal—a cost that the Government claim is £3.4 billion over 99 years, but in reality it is many times greater.
This deal is unique: it will leave the UK strategically weaker in one of the most contested regions of the world, which is likely to shape the future direction of geopolitics, at a time when the world is more volatile than ever, with 2024 seeing the greatest number of conflicts around the globe since the second world war.
Allow me to start with the finances of the deal. It took a freedom of information request for this Government to level with the British people that this deal would in fact cost £35 billion, with some analysis even suggesting it could be as much as £47 billion. It would have been far better for the Government to have come clean over the true cost of the Chagos deal, rather than trying accountancy tricks to pull the wool over our eyes.
I would like to put into context the sheer scale of £35 billion of taxpayers’ money: it could be used to pay for 10 Queen Elizabeth-class aircraft carriers; it is over half the annual schools budget; it is the estimated cost of the entire Hinckley Point C nuclear reactor project; it would pay for 70 hospitals, or a 5% cut on income tax—the list could go on and on. We knew this anyway, but it is worth reiterating that when the Prime Minister negotiates, Britain loses.
The hard-working people of Chester South and Eddisbury deserve a better return for the tax they pay, and they ought not to have to watch as this Government sign away British sovereign territory. Adding to that, the omission from the Bill of a money authorisation clause, removing Parliament’s ability to vote on sending billions of pounds to Mauritius, is completely wrong.
That leads me to the strategic implications of the Bill. The Diego Garcia base is one of seven permanent points of presence within the Indo-Pacific region. Owing to its position in the middle of the Indian ocean and proximity to shipping lanes, it is vital for our national security and regional influence. It is a key base from which our armed forces can protect us from hostile states and non-state actors and activity. From a security standpoint, it is deeply concerning that we are losing sovereignty over this base and the influence that we could exert from it.
According to the treaty, the UK is compelled to notify the Mauritian Government on certain aspects of military activity in and around the base. This does not make us safer. Think back to earlier this year when our American allies conducted strikes against Iran. What if the UK were to support our allies in such action? This deal would require, as we have heard, for us to expeditiously inform the Mauritian Government of our actions. I appreciate that the Minister has clarified that no advanced notification is required, although one might ask why we should have to inform Mauritius at all, expeditiously or not. Perhaps the Minister can clarify whether the provisions under annex 1, paragraph 2 also extend to special forces operations, and, if so, what guarantee there would be that highly sensitive security information would not end up in the hands of our adversaries.
China, Iran and Russia have all welcomed the deal. As the shadow Minister highlighted, the Chinese ambassador to Mauritius congratulated the Government of Mauritius and the Deputy Prime Minister in a press conference following the deal’s announcement, thanking China for its support throughout the process. China does not do geopolitical favours, so its support should cause the Government to pause and reflect. Iran has also welcomed the deal and we know that it is forging closer ties with Russia, so perhaps in his closing remarks the Minister can share with the House how Ministers have somehow come to a different conclusion and deduced instead that all three of those geopolitical threats are opposed to the deal.
But it is not just the huge financial cost or the significant security implications of the deal that are deeply concerning, but that it has ignored the voices of British Chagossians. In June this year, I met people from the Chagossian community who came to Parliament to speak with MPs. Their message was very clear: they feel let down by a lack of transparency and consultation, and are deeply uncertain about their future. It is not surprising that they feel ignored and betrayed, given that the former Foreign Secretary met them only once—once—on a deal that is so significant for them.
The Government must put that right and take the opportunity to implement a recommendation put forward by the House of Lords International Relations and Defence Committee and International Agreements Committee, outlined in the report that looked at the treaty. They urged the Government to
“Enhance Chagossian engagement by establishing a formal consultation mechanism with the Chagossian community to monitor the Agreement’s implementation and ensure their meaningful inclusion in decision-making.”
Will the Minister confirm whether that recommendation has been implemented?
The deal provides British Chagossians with no guaranteed rights of return to their homeland. I therefore ask the Minister to state clearly whether the Government have negotiated an agreement in which British Chagossians’ rights to visit the Chagos islands are left entirely in the hands of Mauritius, and whether it is feasible that they may be refused the right to return or even visit. That would be wholly unacceptable.
Further, the Chagos trust fund, established as part of the UK-Mauritius treaty and financed by the UK, is to be distributed solely under the control of Mauritius, yet the Bill contains no provisions to monitor whether the rights of British Chagossians are upheld or to create any statutory oversight of the trust fund. Have Ministers secured from the Government of Mauritius any firm commitment that British Chagossians will have a formal role in the oversight and decision making regarding the fund? Indeed, why was a model of joint governance not agreed, ensuring that British Chagossians themselves have a voice in how the fund is governed and can benefit directly from it?
Added to all this, the deal currently risks leaving a pristine marine environment unprotected. The waters around the Chagos islands are home to 220 species of coral, 855 species of fish and 355 species of molluscs. These waters have been fully protected since 2010 by the UK Government. Although it is welcome that there is a commitment to continue with a marine protected area, we do not know what levels of support Mauritius will put into the MPA. Indeed, there are real concerns that the Mauritian Government do not have the capabilities to monitor, enforce and protect these waters, with no assurance that there will be no fishing and trawling in them.
From the eye-watering costs to the grave security risks, the betrayal of British Chagossians and the environmental damage this treaty risks unleashing, this is a uniquely bad deal. It asks us to pay more, risk more and gain nothing in return. For the sake of our national interest and our duty to the Chagossian people, I cannot support this Bill.
Mr Calvin Bailey (Leyton and Wanstead) (Lab)
I rise today not to upset a Speaker or Deputy Speaker—let us see how this goes, Madam Deputy Speaker.
Mr Bailey
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.
I am proud to speak in favour of the Bill. I do so as a proud former member of our armed forces, having devoted 24 years of my life in uniform to the safety and security of this nation, particularly in intelligence gathering, where UNCLOS is a tool of the trade. That experience shapes my view of the Bill. I find it rich to hear lectures on national security or faux patriotism from the right hon. Member for Witham (Priti Patel), whose party spent 14 years hollowing out our armed forces.
The Bill exemplifies the forward-looking, effective and patriotic approach that this Government have taken to our security and our place in the world. It is a major achievement to be implementing an agreement that will ensure that our base on Diego Garcia can operate securely in conjunction with our allies—notably the US—until at least 2124.
Mr Calvin Bailey
Not yet.
Allied naval, aviation and communications assets will be able to protect UK interests across a vast area of the western Indian ocean and beyond throughout the next century, no matter the change, turmoil or insecurity that the coming decades may bring.
The agreement provides the UK and our allies with the freedom of action necessary to guarantee the security of the base. This is detailed in a great many ways by the treaty, but I will highlight just three. First, we will have joint control over the electromagnetic spectrum communications and electronic systems. Secondly, we will have joint control over whether any security forces—military or civilian—will be permitted, except for our own and those of the United States and Mauritius. Finally, we will have joint control over any land development and any construction of sensors, structures or installations at sea. These are very broad and flexible rights; they apply not just to Diego Garcia, the 12-mile boundary within which territorial sovereignty extends or the 24-mile boundary surrounding it, but to the entire Chagos archipelago of 247,000 square miles.
What the Opposition have missed is that it is not what UNCLOS precludes but what it allows that is the threat. When it comes to the activities of third parties, control will be joint between the UK and Mauritius. This joint control will give us the ability to veto decisions if, after engaging fully with our Mauritian partners through the joint commission, we are ultimately unsatisfied about the security risks in a way that we cannot now. Within 12 miles of Diego Garcia, our control will be unrestricted, not joint; the same will apply to our rights, and those of US forces, to access Diego Garcia by air and sea. This will deliver the control that our armed forces need to keep the base secure over the decades to come.
In achieving the agreement, we have bolstered our relationships with key allies and partners, including India, as I will come to later, but first and foremost with the United States. It is a shame that the right hon. Member for Tonbridge (Tom Tugendhat) has left the Chamber, because I have some questions for him.
We need to be clear about the games that Opposition parties have been playing over this issue. Reform and the Conservatives have attempted to undermine this agreement at every stage, damaging UK interests and trying to drive a wedge between the UK and our allies. We saw the same approach from the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage) in his anti-UK PR campaign on Capitol Hill last week, and I note that I can see none of the Reform party present.
As I have told this House from personal and professional experience, the United States military and its allies value written agreements and long-term guarantees. Our allies rely on the same kind of lease agreements to underwrite their own bases, so they see that this model can stand the test of time despite huge geopolitical shifts, and all of us can see that too.
The right hon. Member for Tonbridge said that we should save the base for our unilateral action, but he did not once explain how we would pay for operating and maintaining a base unilaterally. Instead of recognising the benefit of these negotiations, as a way to bolster our cross-Atlantic alliances and increase the value of our contribution to Indo-Pacific security, the Conservatives have repeatedly tried to undermine the process that they themselves started. Thankfully, they have failed. Our international partners have welcomed this agreement, and it now falls to us to ensure that the necessary changes are made in law so that the treaty can come into force and we do not let down our allies.
By far the strongest international advocate for this treaty is India. India is, as we know, an utterly indispensable partner in ensuring that the region remains free and open for navigation and UK trade. India is already a geopolitical force to be reckoned with, and her power and importance as a balancer preventing Chinese domination will only grow over the decades to come. The continuation of the UK and US forces on Diego Garcia, while resolving the question of sovereignty, aligns our strategic interest more strongly with India’s and helps to counter anti-UK rhetoric from the likes of Russia, which can still have influence by playing on the legacy of the anti-colonial struggle. The Conservatives conceded that by starting negotiations about sovereignty. I have asked them all repeatedly about that, and not one of you—
Madam Deputy Speaker
Order. You were so close to succeeding. Let us try to get the language right.
Mr Bailey
I did not receive a single response from any of them, Madam Deputy Speaker.
I have mentioned colonial history, which is going to get some Conservative Members very excited and make them want to use patriotic-sounding rhetoric about the concept of sovereignty, which, as I have just explained, they do not themselves understand. I will take the issue head on. The simple fact is that despite its name, the British Indian Ocean Territory has never been British in the way that Gibraltar and the Falkland Islands are. It has never had a resident population who were British and said with one voice that they wanted to remain so. Perhaps the Chagos islanders could have had such a population if history had gone differently, but they were robbed of that opportunity when the territory was created.
I welcome the apology from the Minister earlier, and I was grateful to hear my hon. Friend the Member for Crawley (Peter Lamb) speak so powerfully about this matter. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response shortly. Sadly, we cannot turn back the clock. What we can do is what we are doing: giving the Chagos islanders a pathway to permanent citizenship and integration here if they choose it, while supporting resettlement options within the agreement reached with Mauritius.
The absurdity of making a big song and dance about sovereignty is reflected in one simple fact. As the explanatory notes to the Bill point out, the UK has always committed to returning the islands to Mauritian sovereignty when they were
“no longer needed for defence purposes.”
That was part and parcel of the decisions made when the British Indian Ocean Territory was created. All that is happening through the treaty and the Bill is the creation of a more secure and durable solution that safeguards those defence purposes; and we are making good on our promise that the UK’s sovereignty would be continued only temporarily, not forever.
When the flag of the British Indian Ocean Territory—the flag of a tarnished endeavour—is lowered on Diego Garcia, the Union flag will be raised in its place: the flag of a modern, forward-looking nation of which Government Members are proud. By passing the Bill, we will not only address the growing vulnerability of a vital military asset, but entrench our alliances and our position in the Indo-Pacific, furthering Britain’s interests across the world.
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Ind)
I am pleased to be able to say something in the debate. The points made about the history of this really need to be amplified a bit more. It was a disgraceful deal, done in 1965 by the then Labour Government, that created BIOT and led us on the pathway to expelling the Chagos islanders from both Diego Garcia and the wider archipelago. That was done when Mauritius was still a British colony, and the US was putting on a lot of pressure to get a base to fuel the Vietnam war. That was the context in which the deal was done.
The treatment of the Chagos islanders, which has been written about extensively by some brilliant writers, was unbelievably brutal. They were dragged out of their homes, put on boats, and sent to either Seychelles or Mauritius with no rights, no acknowledgment and no real support whatsoever. They lived for a long time in poverty in both those places. Former Members of the House who have sadly passed on did quite a lot to try to support them. The late Tam Dalyell, former MP for Linlithgow, went to Mauritius to meet Len Williams, the new governor-general at the time, and asked why people were sleeping on the streets of Port Louis. He was told, and from that point, he took up the cause of the Chagos islanders, because he thought they had been disgracefully treated. The late Robin Cook also took the matter up, both at the time and much later, when he became Foreign Secretary. We should pay tribute to them for what they tried to do.
The reality is that it was the Chagos islanders themselves who managed to get some decency and recognition. Olivier Bancoult, who has become a great friend of mine, first wrote to me in, I think, 1988. It was a beautiful handwritten letter, saying, “Dear Mr Corbyn, could you do anything to help the Chagos islanders?” We kept in touch. Indeed, I have met him many times since, including recently at the launch of his book.
The Chagos Refugees Group was founded, and it operated from Olivier Bancoult’s house. It made demands on the Mauritian Government, demands on the British Government and enormous demands on somebody who later became the British high commissioner to Mauritius, namely David Snoxell. He and Olivier Bancoult did not always get along. The latter’s pressure on David Snoxell was enormous; he once went to the extent of locking him in his office until they had a proper meeting. Olivier Bancoult is a feisty guy, and the group are feisty people. We should recognise that the group’s determination brought about compensation and a litany of court cases all over the country and the world. I have been to many of the hearings; I have heard arguments made in the decolonisation committee and at the UN Human Rights Council, and at a whole series of court processes in Britain to try to get compensation and recognition of the rights of the Chagos islanders.
Today, we are dealing with the consequences of the unbelievable heroism of the Chagossian people, who have been seeking recognition and justice. I regret that there are now differences within the Chagossian community. Tam Dalyell and I strongly supported the move to get a right to British nationality for Chagos islanders, and to amend the relevant nationality Act. That was eventually achieved, and that is how, I am pleased to say, they now have unfettered access to this country. I am also pleased that the treaty continues to include that unfettered access. I hope that the Minister, when he comes to reply, can explain what discussions he has had with all the elements of the Chagossian community. The last thing we want to see is division in a community that has suffered so much, and deserves so much decency and recognition.
If the Chagos islands in their entirety are not passed over to Mauritius and Mauritian sovereignty, there are two consequences. First, there will be even greater dishonesty than we thought there was in 1975, and secondly, Britain will be in breach of an ICJ judgment. If that is what people want—if that is what Conservative and Reform Members want—so be it, but they would be acting illegally by hanging on to the islands. BIOT will go, and there will be Mauritian sovereignty over the whole area.
I supported the principles behind the marine protection zone, although I did not support the no-take element that was included at the beginning. I wanted Chagos islanders to be able to return to the archipelago, and to undertake sustainable fishing and so on. I am assured that the Mauritian Government support and recognise the need to preserve the pristine beauty of the ocean around there. I am less convinced that the military and the United States forces are equally committed to the preservation of the natural world and the environment. The record is not good—not perfect. I hope that the Minister, when he comes to reply, can assure us that there will be proper inspection, not just of the outer islands, but of the seas and the land of Diego Garcia.
It is wrong that the islanders were removed. It is right that they have an opportunity to return, which is what they have always campaigned for. I find it unfortunate beyond belief that they will only be allowed to visit Diego Garcia. Imagine if we could only visit the home where our parents lived, or the graves where many of our relatives had been buried. There is an emotional relationship there that will be broken by the refusal of the right of abode in future. I understood from previous discussions with the Minister and others that there could be a possibility of the return of a right of abode. I am not sure; maybe he can reply to that.
Am I happy about there being a huge military base on Diego Garcia? No. Am I happy about the rhetoric that has been used in this debate, which seems to be cranking up the idea of yet another cold war, when we should be looking for a world of peace, rather than one of war? I find that depressing, and not really fit for this debate.
There is a right of people who live under colonisation to achieve their independence. That was achieved by Mauritius, but it was thwarted in 1965. By agreeing now to return all the islands and the archipelago to Mauritius, we are completing a process that should have taken place in 1965, prior to Mauritius’s independence in 1968. Had that happened, and had there been no separation and creation of BIOT in 1965, we would not be having this debate today, because the issue would simply not have arisen.
Dr Luke Evans (Hinckley and Bosworth) (Con)
May I say how much of an honour it is to follow the right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn)? Although we do not necessarily agree on a lot of policy, I am always struck by the fact that he puts people at the heart of his speeches. That has never been the case more than during his long campaign on this issue, on which he spoke eloquently. He is putting Chagossians right at the heart of any decision making. He deserves a lot of acclaim for that. He is right to call out some of the rhetoric in this debate, because, at the end of the day, those people really matter. I thank him for putting his points on the record.
There are three broad areas that I would like to cover: sovereignty, costs and some of the scariest parts of the Bill. I listened to my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kenilworth and Southam (Sir Jeremy Wright), and I must admit that I am not nearly as learned or experienced as him; I bow to his legal analysis. I am a mere doctor, so I look for an evidence base when trying to understand the process. To that end, I thought it would be useful to write to the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, which I duly did. I received a letter on 28 July 2025 from the Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, the hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty), who I see will kindly respond, and is sat in his place. Much to my surprise and pleasure, a lot of what is in the letter was in the Minister’s speech. This debate allows me to walk through some of the letter and pose the questions that hit me as I looked into this case.
I must admit that when I stepped into this House in 2019, this was not a topic that I knew a huge deal about—I think many Members on both sides would say the same—but it very quickly became a topic that I realised we should look into understanding, especially as it deals with security.
The letter states:
“We had to act now because the base was under threat.”
That implies urgency, but the letter is loose on who was under threat, where and how. There is legal uncertainty but, as we have heard, we do not know which court is involved or why. It goes on to say:
“The courts have already made decisions which undermine our position.”
Courts, plural. We know that the ICJ is involved, but as has been stated, its opinion was non-binding, and there is a carve-out relating to the Commonwealth.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence, the hon. Member for Plymouth Sutton and Devonport (Luke Pollard), said, after being pushed to speak on the matter multiple times, that the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea was the area of concern, but he will know that back in 2015, under annex VII, the tribunal agreed with the UK that sovereignty could not be determined by UNCLOS. This was a marine protection issue. Britons were trying to protect the area, and Mauritius wanted to open it up to farm it, and we were found against, under that treaty, in that court. This raises an important side issue: what protections are there in the Bill for the environment? They seem scant, or just not there.
The letter goes further, stating that
“in 2021…a Special Chamber of the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea…ruled that Mauritius’ sovereignty was inferred from ICJ”.
So the Government themselves point that out. The letter goes on to say:
“The UK was not party to this case”.
Well, obviously, it would not be, but that means that we have not had our day in court to explain why we do not think that the judgment should apply. Mauritius’ sovereignty was inferred from that non-binding, political judgment.
The letter goes on:
“If Mauritius were to take us to court again, the UK’s longstanding legal view is that we would not have a realistic prospect of successfully defending its legal position on sovereignty in such litigation.”
Well, which court? If this advice is so long-standing, why do we not know about it? How have we got this far, going for year upon year with no agreement, without any urgency? It seems sensible and appropriate to release the advice on this. At the start of that quote, the letter said “If Mauritius”. It states later that it is
“highly likely that further wide-ranging litigation would be brought quickly by Mauritius against the UK.”
What evidence do the Government have to back that up? What is it that they say Mauritius will act so quickly on? We certainly have not seen it, if it was from 2021. The dates 2023 and 2024 have been mentioned, and we are now in 2025. I would be interested to see the Government release the evidence base for their claim about how quickly litigation would come forward, because as they rightly point out, there have been 11 rounds of negotiations, so there has clearly been time to sort things out.
Before someone jumps in and says, “Well, you opened the negotiations”, I would point out that we did that for the Falkland Islands as well. I find it amazing that we have trade unionists who built their whole careers on negotiating suddenly chastising the Conservatives for listening to the other side of a disagreement. That seems bizarre to me, because we want to respect each other and exchange ideas, but not have an agreement. It is rightly pointed out by Conservative Members that the agreement was not there; we did not take it. On the cost of the deal, there is no cost, because we did not have a deal to sign off.
The very next sentence in the letter says:
“This might, for example, include further arbitral proceedings against the UK under Annex VII of the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea. A judgment from such a tribunal would be legally binding on the UK.”
Dr Evans
It is. It is true about the legally binding aspect within the area that the tribunal covers, but that does not cover sovereignty, as we learned in 2015 when the tribunal sided with the British Government. Here we have the farcical situation of a House of policy and law shining light on one side and another, but never on the truth. This is where my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kenilworth and Southam is exactly right. If the Government were to come forward and say exactly which court, where and why, they might get more sympathy from Opposition, but we have been through an entire five-hour debate and we still do not have answers to those questions.
Another court that is often cited is the International Telecommunication Union covering spectre, radio and radar. Article 48.1 states
“Member States retain their entire freedom with regard to military radio installations,”
and the Government know that. Even the written answer from the Minister—it has been hinted at before—states:
“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. This right is recognised in the Radio Regulations. The Radio Regulations are the international framework for the use of spectrum by radiocommunication services, defined and managed by the International Telecommunications Union (ITU). Individual countries, not the ITU, make their own sovereign spectrum assignments in accordance with the Radio Regulations. The ITU has no legal authority over these assignments regardless of the country’s civilian or military classification of spectrum. The ITU cannot challenge the UK’s use of civilian or military spectrum.”
It is clear here—the Government know it in their own answers—that the ITU has no role in sovereignty. It all boils down to where one believes British overseas territories stand.
Now we must talk about the cost, which has been much debated. There have been three figures in the debate: £3.4 billion, £10 billion and £34 billion. The £3.4 billion is the net present value using social time preference rate. The £10 billion is inflation adjusted, and the £34 billion is the nominal value by the Government Actuary’s Department. The question is, why use net present value? I put it earlier in the debate that there is no other precedent in the world for NPV being used in sovereignty matters. The Minister at the time asked whether the Conservatives want to do away with using NPV—of course not.
Dr Evans
Absolutely, the Minister says it is within the Green Book. Absolutely not, because it has a perfect place in domestic use for commercial practicalities, not for international sovereignty issues. No other country has looked, or would look, at this because it does not make sense.
The House of Commons Library said when asked that
“this methodology is regularly used in government accounting, but its main use is for cost-benefit analyses. It is unusual to see it used in this situation like this, where only the cost is being assessed and it is not being compared to any benefit”.
On that basis, and listening to the House of Commons Library, what cost-benefit analysis has actually been done in this case, and would it be put in front of the House so we might be able to see it?
At the end of the day, NPV is highly political because it assumes a discount rate, and what is the discount rate that one should choose? In the details, it talks about 3.5%, but the US will use 3.5% or 7%, which would vastly differentiate the figures. It goes on further, for the social time preference rate is 3.5%, but for 30 years. This deal is for 99 years, so how can the Government respond in a written parliamentary question that this
“represents good value for UK taxpayers”?
On what basis are they comparing that if there is no international comparison? We are talking only about domestic uses and for an accounting point.
As I come to my conclusions, possibly the scariest thing to me—I have tried to highlight it throughout the debate—which does seem to be falling on deaf ears, is article 13. I believe this treaty is legally bomb-proof. It looks sensible, and I am no legal expert as I have attested to, but it seems to stand the test of time. That means when article 13 says explicitly that in 99 years Mauritius can say no and just take control, that is a big worry. We have heard from many Government MPs how it secures the long-term aspirations of this country for a period of 99 years. When I mentioned that, several Government MPs scoffed. But is it not the duty of this House to provide not only for the next generation, but the rest of time for our country, in the best interests of our country? After listening to all the arguments that have been made about how essential the base is, the very fact that Mauritius could pull the base is a very scary prospect. There is, of course, a caveat: the right of first refusal. But if China decides to do a deal with Mauritius at exorbitant cost, we are over a barrel and the British taxpayer must fork out yet again to guarantee our security. Mauritius has been given a golden ticket, and it knows it.
Beyond the sovereignty and cost, my biggest concern is that we are outsourcing decision -making for our children and our children’s children. That is the modus operandi of this Government—we need only look at the borrowing in the Budget to see how they borrow on the backs of future children. Pushing this decision out for 99 years is not security for now; it will help, but it creates a far bigger problem in 100 years’ time. If the Government want to give away our islands, they should be open and transparent about how and why.
The biggest thing is that we have not even had our day in court. That is what most troubles the British public. I think that the British public would be reasonable if a court found against us—they would happily say, “We follow the rule of law”—but the Government will not even try that. They say that there is a risk. As has been said, this has been going on for years, and still we are looking at a treaty to sign it off.
That inevitably poses final questions about what happens with Gibraltar, the Falklands and Cyprus. The Minister is correct to point out that there are differences, but the biggest fundamental problem that the Government have in arguing to the British people and the people of the Falklands is about understanding. If this House cannot understand the legal concepts of the places where we are likely to fight these causes, how can we expect the public to do so? When it comes to delivering comms to the UK public, that is what they need to understand.
Bradley Thomas (Bromsgrove) (Con)
There have been some fantastic speeches from Opposition Members standing up for British interests, so I will not go on at length, but I wish to make a few points.
This surrender Bill is madness. The Government have decided, against the security and financial interests of the United Kingdom, to surrender territory to which there was no claim to a country that has no historical or cultural connection to it. They are doing so because, in the words of the Prime Minister,
“If Mauritius takes us to court again, the UK’s long-standing legal view is that we would not have a realistic prospect of success.”
Let us be clear: there is no legal or moral obligation to surrender the Chagos islands to Mauritius.
Labour is the worst negotiator, spending tens of billions of pounds of taxpayers’ money to surrender the Chagos islands, bunging billions to its unionised paymasters on day one of forming a Government, and showing a lack of will on tackling welfare dependency. Whatever Labour touches, the costs to the taxpayer go up and the benefits diminish. This spectacularly bad deal will leave Britain less secure while British taxpayers stump up tens of billions of pounds for tax cuts in a foreign country—equivalent to 4% of the Mauritian budget and to £50 million for every constituency represented in this House.
The staggering £35 billion cost is 10 times more than was originally claimed because of the Government’s creative accounting—even the UK Statistics Authority does not endorse the figure. It was arrived at by applying an assumed annual inflation rate of 2.3% over the 99-year lease period, despite inflation running at almost 4%. The total was then lowered again by between 2.5% and 3.5% per year through a Treasury practice called the social time preference rate, which reflects the fact that people value benefits received immediately more highly. It converts future costs and benefits into their present-day value rather than allowing for a more accurate valuation of future costs. The Government are happy to apply that rate in the case of their surrender deal, but will not use the same methodology to cost their affordable homes programme.
What is worse is that the Government have refused to allow Parliament a separate vote on the financial obligations under this terrible deal—they could have done, but chose not to. That £35 billion could have been spent on new hospitals or schools or, in the case of my constituency, on infrastructure to support the thousands of new houses that the Government want to build. It could have been spent on tax cuts to stimulate the economy or even to plug Labour’s own financial black hole. Labour is cutting tax for Mauritians off the back of hard-pressed UK taxpayers.
Then we get to the national security risks. Diego Garcia, located on the Chagos islands, is the UK’s most important military base in the Indian ocean. The geopolitical significance of the base cannot be overstated in a world in which China seeks to undermine us. We know that China thinks in a multigenerational capacity. It is a dictatorship that does not share our values, and this is the blink of an eye in terms of how it plans its future. China has made no secret of its intent to deepen its relationship with Mauritius. It is an increasingly hostile state towards the UK, and it knows too well that Mauritius is key to supporting its long-term strategic goals. Furthermore, Mauritius has signalled that it is working more closely with Russia on research and development, and with Iran on developing closer relations. Mauritius has gone on public record stating that it is grateful to the Chinese for playing a critical role in its pursuit of international recognition of Mauritian sovereignty over these islands.
Bradley Thomas
I will not. While the Government and the Prime Minister are trying to paint this as a good deal, they know that Beijing, Moscow and Tehran have watched closely and have all taken note.
Finally, it is not just this country’s taxpayers who recognise that this is a bad deal. Lord West of Spithead, former First Sea Lord, Chief of the Naval Staff, and Labour Security Minister, said that ceding the Chagos islands to Mauritius would be “irresponsible”, risk our strategic interests, and undermine the fundamental principles of international law. Why do the Government prioritise any interests other than Britain’s, and foreign sovereignty over that of the UK? The Bill will leave Britain poorer, weaker and exposed. It is a betrayal not just of UK interests but also of British Chagossians, and it does not deserve a Second Reading.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. I now call Lewis Cocking for the final Back-Bench contribution. Colleagues who have contributed to the debate should be making their way back to the Chamber.
Lewis Cocking (Broxbourne) (Con)
There are no two ways about it: this is a surrender Bill with no benefits to my Broxbourne constituents. Ministers have shamefully attempted to hide the shocking cost of this deal from the British people and the public at large. When the new Labour Government took office, they kept telling us in this Chamber about the pretend £22 billion black hole in the public finances. If the black hole of £22 billion that we are continually told about by the Government did exist, I could solve it overnight—don’t do this deal. This deal is £35 billion to the Mauritian Government. The Labour Government go after British family farms with the family farm tax. They go after our pensioners and take their winter fuel allowance away, and they increase national insurance contributions for businesses, to make it more expensive for them to employ people, but they could just not do this deal. They talk in fiction, and this is an absolute disgrace.
How will Mauritius spend this money? By cutting taxes for its own citizens and paying their debts. Is the Minister proud that the only income tax cuts that this Labour Government will deliver are 6,000 miles away at the expense of the British taxpayer? The last time I checked, this was the British Parliament and we are supposed to stand up for British interests, not the interests of foreign countries or foreign citizens. We should be cutting taxes here and turbocharging the economy, not giving stuff away that we already own. We already have a base, and now we are going to lease it back, as we have heard from a number of colleagues.
Lewis Cocking
No, I will not give way. There have been lots of interventions, and I am fed up with the same interventions coming from the same Labour Members. Quite frankly it does not help the debate—just because they say something several times does not make it true.
The Bill is costing us financially, but it also has security risks. China supports the deal and is welcoming Mauritius into its sphere of influence with open arms. Mauritius is strengthening relations with Iran and Russia. As a Policy Exchange report notes, it is impossible to assert with certainty how much influence China will have over Mauritius in the next five or 10 years, let alone for the 99-year duration of this lease.
We already have British sovereign territory with a base, so I cannot understand why we have done that negotiation, and why we are hurting the British people with tax rises. As I said, we are being cruel to older people by taking away their winter fuel allowance, going after farmers with the family farm tax, and going after British businesses with the increase to national insurance contributions, yet we can find money out of nowhere—£35 billion—to give to Mauritius.
In summary, I gently say to the Government that people out there know that. When we knock on doors, as I am sure we all do across our constituencies, people will say to us, “Hang on a minute. How come we are being punished? How come we have to pay more taxes, but you soon find money when it suits you?” That is why the British public have fallen out of love with this Government already. Hopefully the Government will wake up and start representing the people who they were elected to represent in this Chamber: the British public, not foreign Governments such as that of Mauritius.
Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)
Today’s Second Reading is not only important, but historically significant—sadly, for all the wrong reasons. We are debating a Bill that will leave Britain less secure, undermine our strategic interests and leave British taxpayers out of pocket. The decision by this Labour Government to surrender sovereignty over the Chagos islands to Mauritius and to pay billions of pounds for the privilege, with no checks or balances, is nothing short of a national humiliation. It is a deal that weakens Britain at home and abroad, and one that the official Opposition will oppose every step of the way.
John Slinger
On the point that the right hon. Lady makes about the alleged surrender of sovereignty, which has been made consistently by Conservative Members, does she accept that on 29 April 2024, just weeks before the election, the former Prime Minister—the right hon. Member for Richmond and Northallerton (Rishi Sunak), under whom they all stood for election only a year or so ago—and the Mauritian Prime Minister discussed negotiations on the “exercise of sovereignty” and instructed their teams, no less, to “continue to work at pace”?
Wendy Morton
I remind the hon. Member of two things. First, talking and signing are two very different things. Secondly, some of us on the Conservative Benches remember that no deal is better than a bad deal.
Paul Holmes
The hon. Member for Rugby (John Slinger) has omitted some of the quote, because he was proven wrong before. He has failed to say that the former Prime Minister said “mutually beneficial”. Some of the gain that came out of that discussion was the fact that it was not mutually beneficial for this country, and we stopped the negotiations.
Wendy Morton
My hon. Friend makes a very valid point. If Labour Members had spent a little more time actually listening to some of the contributions from Conservative Members, they would perhaps understand things a little more. I will come back to that point shortly.
Before I turn to the substance, I wish to pay tribute to colleagues on the Conservative Benches who have spoken powerfully about the sheer folly of this deal. They have rightly highlighted its staggering costs, the accounting methods used, the reckless security implications, the lack of transparency and the way in which it sadly sidelines the Chagossian community.
There have been a number of contributions, but I very briefly pay tribute to my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kenilworth and Southam (Sir Jeremy Wright), the former Attorney General. He has not just demonstrated his extensive legal knowledge and expertise in this area, but questioned the legal uncertainty that Ministers are relying on. He has taken the time to explain and to remind this place of the issues relating to article 298 of UNCLOS, which is very relevant to today’s debate. He highlighted some key unanswered questions. Quite frankly, I urge every Member of this House to have a read of Hansard before they go into the voting Lobby this evening.
Similarly, my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) highlighted and reinforced the important point about article 298 of UNCLOS. My hon. Friend the Member for Hamble Valley (Paul Holmes) reminded Labour Members of the red lines put in place by Lord Cameron, who stopped negotiations—it quite clearly seems that they needed to be reminded that talking and signing are two very different things. My right hon. Friends the Members for Maldon (Sir John Whittingdale) and for Tonbridge (Tom Tugendhat) talked about strategic issues and the costs of the deal. There were valuable contributions from my hon. Friends the Members for Reigate (Rebecca Paul), for Chester South and Eddisbury (Aphra Brandreth), for Bromsgrove (Bradley Thomas), for Broxbourne (Lewis Cocking) and for Hinckley and Bosworth (Dr Evans).
One thing that is very obvious is that we need clarity. To give just one example, the Government claim that we may have problems with spectrum if we do not agree a deal, but other parts of the Government have indicated that the International Telecommunication Union has no power to veto the use of military spectrum. [Interruption.] Government Members do not want to intervene now. These are not passing political points; they are hard truths about the dangers that this deal poses to Britain’s security and standing. Before I move on, though, I wish to pay tribute to the hon. Member for Crawley (Peter Lamb) for his wise and brave words today, and for standing firm as a constituency MP and standing up for members of his community.
Turning to the Liberal Democrats, I have to say that I struggle a little to understand their position. They say that they oppose the Bill, but they did not vote against the treaty in the House of Lords—in fact, they chose to prop up Labour, rather than defend Britain and the rights of the British Chagossians.
Calum Miller
I am grateful to the right hon. Lady for allowing me to clarify. As she well knows, their lordships in the House of Lords invited the Government to provide a statement on the rights of the Chagossians, and the Government agreed that they would not ratify the treaty until such a statement had been laid before both Houses, allowing for a debate in both. As I made clear in my speech, I look forward to that opportunity, and I very much hope that the Minister will confirm when that statement will be laid before this House.
Wendy Morton
I am grateful for that intervention—let us wait and see whether the Minister does confirm that date. However, the fact of the matter remains that the Liberal Democrats did not vote against the treaty.
Turning to costs and taxpayers, the financial costs of the deal alone should be a cause of shame for this Government. Thanks to Conservative FOI requests, we now know that the true bill for this surrender is not £3.4 billion, as Ministers have claimed, but closer to £35 billion—a sum that is 10 times higher than originally admitted, and one that will fall squarely on the shoulders of British taxpayers. Let us be clear what those billions will fund. They will not fund better schools or hospitals here at home, or defence capabilities to protect our citizens; they will fund tax cuts in Mauritius. At the very moment when this Labour Government are hiking taxes on family farms, education and businesses, they are content to bankroll over 4% of another nation’s budget. To Conservative Members, that is indefensible.
However, the risks to Britain’s security are even greater. Diego Garcia is our most strategic and important base in the Indian ocean, critical to our partnership with the United States and vital to our ability to project influence in the Indo-Pacific, yet this Bill leaves huge questions unanswered. What guarantees are there that the UK can extend the lease over Diego Garcia unilaterally when the Mauritian Prime Minister has said otherwise? What safeguards will prevent hostile powers such as China, Russia or Iran from seeking a foothold in the archipelago once Britain steps back? We know that Beijing already describes Mauritius as a partner with “strategic advantages”, while Port Louis boasts of advancing co-operation with Moscow. Does the Minister really believe that this makes Britain more secure?
We also cannot ignore the issue of nuclear deterrence. Mauritius is a signatory to the Pelindaba treaty, which prohibits the stationing and storage of nuclear weapons, yet Ministers have failed to explain what that will mean in practice once sovereignty is transferred. Will it constrain our closest ally, the United States? Will it put limits on what we can do on Diego Garcia in future? These are not trivial questions, because they go to the heart of our security posture in the Indo-Pacific, yet we still have no clear answers. Even Lord West, a former Labour Security Minister, has warned that ceding the Chagos islands is “irresponsible” and dangerous, yet this Government press on regardless, blind to the risks and deaf to the warnings.
Let us not forget the Chagossians themselves. For years, Labour politicians claimed a fundamental moral responsibility towards this community, but in government they have abandoned them, offering only token consultation and denying them a real say in decisions that affect their homeland. Once again they are being sidelined. This is about the Chagossians and their future, and that of future generations.
We are told that millions will be channelled into a so-called trust for the Chagossian people, but under this deal Britain will have no meaningful role in determining how those funds are used. Decisions will sit entirely with Mauritius, with no mechanism for proper oversight by Parliament and no guarantee that the Chagossians themselves will see the benefit. There is no accountability to them, no accountability to us, and no accountability for how British money is spent. There are many questions about the fund, not least what guarantees and safeguards exist to ensure that it reaches all the Chagossians, given that so many of their communities are spread around the world.
Time and again, Ministers have refused to come clean with Parliament about the terms of this deal. We have had contradictory accounts from the Mauritians and from Whitehall, confusion about the sums involved and secrecy so deep that even officials were asked to leave the room during negotiations. If Ministers cannot be open with Parliament, they have no business asking Parliament to support this Bill.
Before I conclude, I will touch briefly on the other overseas territories. Let me be clear: we are debating and discussing the Chagos islands, and at no stage have those on this Front Bench ever conflated surrendering the sovereignty of the Chagos islands with that of the other overseas territories. It is clear that when Labour negotiates, Britain loses. That is the story of this deal. This is not a settlement forced on us by law. The Government have chosen to hide behind advisory opinions, rather than to stand firm, defend our sovereignty and protect our national interests. It is simply the behaviour of this unpatriotic Labour Government. We on the Opposition Benches could not be clearer: Britain should not surrender the Chagos islands and we will fight this Bill every step of the way.
I will conclude, but I had hoped that the new Foreign Secretary would be here today. Where is she? She has chosen to be elsewhere, rather than answer to the Chagossian people. I will end with a plea to the Minister, for whom I have the highest personal respect. We have often been in opposite positions across the Dispatch Box, but I ask him please to step back, pause and reflect. Britain does not need to surrender the Chagos islands. Do the right thing by our country, by our taxpayers and by the Chagossian people. Stand firm and keep the Chagos islands British.
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Stephen Doughty)
What a debate. I genuinely think there were some thoughtful contributions from all parts of the House, but some were simply rhetoric and, frankly, a lot of nonsense. I single out the Chair of the Defence Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Slough (Mr Dhesi), and my hon. Friend the Member for Crawley (Peter Lamb). Although I disagree with him, I thought he made passionate points of conviction on behalf of his constituents. There were also thoughtful contributions from my hon. Friends the Members for Dunfermline and Dollar (Graeme Downie), for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Lillian Jones), for Macclesfield (Tim Roca), for Bolton West (Phil Brickell), for Halesowen (Alex Ballinger), for Hyndburn (Sarah Smith) and for Leyton and Wanstead (Mr Bailey).
On the other side there were particularly thoughtful contributions—which I might not have agreed with—from the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith), the right hon. and learned Member for Kenilworth and Southam (Sir Jeremy Wright), who is a former Attorney General, and the right hon. Members for Maldon (Sir John Whittingdale) and for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn). There was a thoughtful contribution from the hon. Member for Hinckley and Bosworth (Dr Evans), until he got on to the overseas territories at the end. I was pleased to hear that commitment from my opposite number, the right hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Wendy Morton), although she may want to check the Conservative Twitter feed for what it was putting out about the overseas territories, which I thought was deeply shameful and damaging.
I want to be clear about the purpose of this Bill and the decisions we have taken, which are about defending this country and our national security. That is the first duty of this Government. It is the first priority of our Prime Minister, our Foreign Secretary, our Defence Secretary and the entire ministerial team. I am afraid that whatever exhortations to the contrary we hear from the Opposition Benches, we will not take risks with our national security or engage in gambles in courts or anywhere else. That is not the action of a responsible Government, and we are not prepared to take those risks.
That is why this Bill will ensure that we ratify the treaty with Mauritius, resolve the legal status of this vital base and, crucially, protect its operations, which is the most fundamental aspect of what we are discussing today. It will ensure that we retain the critical security capabilities that support key operations around the world. Those are capabilities not only for ourselves, but for our allies. Fundamentally, those capabilities keep the people of this country safe on our streets, they keep our armed forces safe, and they keep our allies safe. We will not scrimp on national security or take gambles with it, which is essentially the argument that we have heard from the Opposition today.
I will start with the reasoned amendment, because it is full of so many holes and so many wrongs, including claims about the costs. It says that the treaty
“does not secure the base on Diego Garcia”.
That is wrong. It says that we do not have the “right to extend” the lease. That is wrong. It says that
“the measures in the Treaty leave the base vulnerable”.
That is wrong. It says that the treaty does not
“protect the rights of the Chagossian people”.
That is wrong. And it say that the treaty does not protect
“the future of the Marine Protected Area”.
That is wrong. I urge the House to reject the reasoned amendment today.
This all comes back to a fundamental question: if there was not a problem, why did the previous Government start negotiating? Why did they continue negotiating until just weeks before the general election? It is simply not correct to claim that the negotiations were stopped. We have heard what the official readout of the meeting with the former Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Richmond and Northallerton (Rishi Sunak), said and it was very, very clear: he instructed the teams to act at pace in order to make the agreement. The evidence is there, and claims to the contrary are simply wrong.
A number of important points have been made today, but I will start with those about operations, because some very sensible questions have been raised. It is the operations of the base that are currently under threat from the legal uncertainty. That is why we have taken steps to secure it, and why our allies and Five Eyes partners—the United States and others—back this deal. In the future, those operations will now be secure. The Bill ensures that we can exercise all rights and authorities granted through the treaty. We will retain full operational control over Diego Garcia, which we have continued to have for the last 50 years—the Bill secures that.
I want to reiterate our commitment to expeditiously inform Mauritius of military action. Let me repeat for the record: we are not obliged to give Mauritius advance notice of any action under the treaty. No sensitive intelligence will be shared, nor operations put at risk—it is there on the face of the treaty. Our allies, especially the United States under two Administrations, have gone through it with a fine-toothed comb. They would not be supporting this deal and signing off on it if that operational autonomy was not protected.
I turn to Members’ points about the law. Many reasonable questions have been raised, and we have heard some historical revisionism at different points. The right hon. Member for Tonbridge (Tom Tugendhat) expressed worries about lawfare, but we have acted precisely because of the threats of action that could impede the operations in the short, medium and, indeed, long term. It is totally wrong to say that Mauritius had no claim; decades ago, we agreed that sovereignty would ultimately revert to Mauritius. The Government’s legal case has been published—it was there for all to see on the day of treaty signature. In summary, Mauritius would have secured a binding judgment that would have harmed the operation of the base. That has been the consistent position of the Government. We have set it out on a number of occasions, and our position is that the UK would not have a realistic prospect of successfully defending its legal position on sovereignty in such litigation.
The right hon. and learned Member for Kenilworth and Southam (Sir Jeremy Wright), who is a former Attorney General, and others have reflected on a number of issues. I will not go into all of them but, for the record, let me refer to the comprehensive rejection of our arguments by 13 judges to one at the ICJ in 2019; the loss in the UN General Assembly vote by a margin of 116 to six; the maritime delimitation judgment that is binding on Mauritius and the Maldives, which was handed down in 2021 by the special chamber of ITLOS; the obligations placed on the BIOT Administration by UN bodies to cease specific activities; and a series of complications and blockages at international organisations, including the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty Organisation. We have also set out where future risks are likely to take place, and we are not willing to gamble with that. Those are the fundamental facts here, and that is why it is necessary to do this deal.
Questions were raised about the extension. It is very clear that we have the right of first refusal, and that we might extend the lease for a further 40 years.
Sir Jeremy Wright
The point I made in my contribution was that I relied entirely on what Ministers had said to this place about the Government’s legal justification for their actions. That chain starts with the former Foreign Secretary saying that, in the Government’s view, a binding legal judgment was inevitable. The Minister has just given us a list of a variety of opinions and clear opposition —it is true—to the UK’s position from a variety of different organisations. As far as I can tell, he has not told us from which court a binding judgment might come. We have said that it cannot be the ICJ. Which court could give a binding judgment against the UK in this matter?
Stephen Doughty
First, the right hon. and learned Gentleman knows that I am not going to disclose the full privileged legal advice to the Government, which the previous Government received, for very good reasons. We have set out very clearly that provisional measures could be brought forward that would immediately affect operations—within six to eight weeks—and the conditions in chapter 7 of ITLOS. In a number of areas, there were very significant risks. I will not, and he understands why I will not, go into the details of that, but it is simply not a risk that this Government are willing to take or, as he knows, that the previous Government were willing to take, which is ultimately why they started the negotiations.
I am conscious of the time, and I have explained the extension, but I want to talk a little about our allies and opponents. The shadow Foreign Secretary said that people have not said publicly what they feel about the deal, but that is not the case. We have heard from President Trump and US Defence Secretary Hegseth. US Secretary of State Rubio said:
“The U.S. welcomes the historic agreement between the UK and Mauritius on the future of the Chagos Archipelago. This agreement secures the long-term, stable, and effective operation of the joint U.S.-UK military facility at Diego Garcia, which is critical to regional and global security.”
Our Five Eyes allies support it, with Canada’s Foreign Ministry saying that it welcomes the signing, and Australian Foreign Minister Penny Wong saying that Australia welcomes the signing, while Australia’s ambassador to the US said that it was great to see a resolution to this important issue. New Zealand’s Foreign Minister and India’s Ministry of External Affairs have said the same. Japan has commended the efforts of the Governments to reach agreement, and the Republic of Korea similarly welcomed its signing. In addition, the Chief Minister of Gibraltar and others have welcomed the deal.
It is, therefore, clear that the Government are on the side of the United States, our Five Eyes partners and other allies around the world, and we are protecting our operations and national security. Given the US bipartisan support, what is not good enough for the Opposition? Our key security partners back the deal, and that is why they have agreed to it.
Quite frankly, we have heard some outrageous claims about the costs. We have been very clear about them, and the £34 billion figure is absurdly misleading and inaccurate. It ignores inflation and the changing value of money over 99 years—£1 today will not be worth the same in 99 years’ time—and the £101 million annual average cost compares favourably with other countries’ bases. Our accurate figures reflect how the Government account for long-term project spend. Funnily enough, when we add a sum each year, which is entirely reasonable, over a 99-year period, it adds up to a larger sum. This is equivalent to the spending on the NHS for a few hours, and a tiny proportion of our defence budget. It compares very favourably with what France has paid for its base in Djibouti. This base is 15 times larger, while France’s base is next to a Chinese facility, and ours has unique security provisions in place.
Quite frankly, it shows some brass neck for the Opposition to be making claims about defence and security when they presided over the hollowing out of our armed forces, appalling accommodation and decline. That is changing under this Government. We are spending on our national defence, our NATO commitments and our security relationships with the United States, and we will absolutely not apologise for that or scrimp on our national security. One final point is that a financial element was always key to the deal, as the Conservatives conceded in their engagements under multiple Prime Ministers.
Important points were made about the environment and the marine protected area. Fundamentally, Mauritius will determine the area’s future, but Prime Minister Ramgoolam recently reaffirmed to the former Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, my right hon. Friend the Member for Streatham and Croydon North (Steve Reed), his country’s commitment to protecting that unique ecosystem. We are engaged in active discussions with the Mauritians about that, and I will keep right hon. and hon. Members updated.
I conclude as the Minister of State, Ministry of Defence, my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth Sutton and Devonport (Luke Pollard) started, by paying tribute to the Chagossians who have joined us here today. Both in opposition and in government, I have repeatedly met a range of Chagossian communities with a range of views, and I have a deep respect for their dignity and their different views. There will be people who fundamentally disagree with this treaty, but there are many who fundamentally agree with it, as we have heard in this debate.
The Government deeply regret how Chagossians were removed from the islands. We have heard concerns about the impact on them and their ability to access British nationality. The Bill will ensure that Chagossians have no adverse effects on their nationality rights—no Chagossians will lose their existing rights to hold or claim British citizenship. It will be for Mauritius to set the terms of and manage any future resettlement. Reasonable questions have been asked about why people cannot resettle on Diego Garcia, but it is an active military base with security restrictions so that is not realistic, but we will restart the heritage visits.
Stephen Doughty
To anticipate what the Liberal Democrat spokesperson might be about to ask me, I confirm to him that before ratification, there will be a ministerial statement. I will not give him the exact date, because I do not set the dates of business, but it will provide a factual update on resettlement eligibility and how the trust fund will work. I am engaged actively in those discussions, and that will enable further discussion in a proper manner.
Calum Miller
Will the Minister please confirm, as Lord Collins did in the other place, that time will be set aside in both Houses for a debate on the statement?
Stephen Doughty
Absolutely. I confirm that we are happy to discuss that further. Such decisions are not for me, but for the usual channels and the leaders in both Houses. However, I want to confirm the commitment that was made previously.
This comes down to one fundamental question: why did the Opposition start the negotiations if there was not a problem? Why did they continue the negotiations until just weeks before the general election? It was because fundamental national security interests and the protection of the British people were at risk. This Government recognise that, our allies recognise that and we have acted to secure a deal to protect Diego Garcia and its operations well into the next century. While Reform and the Conservatives speak of national security but fail to do anything to secure it, this Labour Government negotiate and deliver. We deliver deals—with the United States, with India, with the European Union and on new frigates—and, fundamentally, we deliver national security by securing this base on Diego Garcia. I commend the Bill to the House.
Question put, That the amendment be made.