Diego Garcia Military Base

Baroness Smith of Newnham Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd June 2025 Lords Chamber

[The Earl of Minto (Con)]

My Lords, this is an extremely important Statement concerning the future sovereignty of the British Indian Ocean Territory. I begin by expressing my disappointment with the Government’s handling of the timing of this announcement. This is a matter of national security and territorial integrity, and this decision directly affects how our country is perceived on the international stage. To slip in an unscheduled Statement moments before these Houses rose for Recess shows a disregard for Members in both your Lordships’ House and the other place. Matters of this significance deserve to be discussed, and the Government’s actions scrutinised, in good time, and it is my view that the Government timed their announcement to disrupt that duty of scrutiny, despite efforts made the Official Opposition to raise this question on parliamentary time on the Thursday before Recess. I hope that the Minister can start his response by addressing this question.

The Statement made by the Secretary of State for Defence in the other place was effusive in highlighting the importance of the Diego Garcia base. He said:

“For more than 50 years, the joint UK-US military base on Diego Garcia has been a launchpad to defeat terrorists, to prevent threats to our nation, and to protect our economic security. This base keeps Britain secure at home and strong abroad”.


Can the Minister explain why, given that this is the Government’s latest assessment, they are surrendering that very same British sovereign territory to a foreign power—a power that only recently has agreed to deepen maritime co-operation with Russia?

Once sovereignty has been relinquished, it can never be regained. The text of the treaty also includes the provision that the UK must

“expeditiously inform Mauritius of any armed attack on a third State directly emanating from the Base on Diego Garcia”.

Does the Minister believe that it is in the interests of our national security to share advance information on military operations with third countries? Can he promise that this information, which we are now obliged to share with Mauritius, will never be shared with China, Iran or Russia, with whom the Mauritians are becoming increasingly friendly?

I, like many other noble Lords—and honourable Members in the other place—took exception to the comments of the Prime Minister during his press conference. He said that those of us who oppose the deal are on the same side as Russia and China. That is not only deeply offensive but entirely false. Just last week, we saw news reports of China’s ambassador to Mauritius hailing this deal as a “massive achievement” for Mauritius and then confirming that China would welcome it into the belt and road initiative. It is vividly apparent that, contrary to the Government’s claims, Mauritius is becoming ever more under the influence of China. It is no surprise that China welcomes this deal; it plays right into its strategy of weakening western democracies and hobbling our abilities to operate internationally.

Over the weekend, noble Lords will also have considered the renewed US views on China’s intentions towards Taiwan as context. Has the Minister considered how this treaty makes us look on the world stage? The Prime Minister has signed an agreement which will surrender a strategically vital resource to a foreign Government. He has also, it appears, committed us to sharing military information with that same Government, who show increasing signs of support for our enemies. The Prime Minister and the Defence Secretary have both argued that this agreement is necessary to safeguard our ability to operate from the Diego Garcia military base, in the face of legal challenges. However, the legal case is entirely opaque. Noble Lords will know that this all stems from a non-binding advisory opinion from the International Court of Justice, a court which counts among its number a Chinese judge who is a member of the Chinese Communist Party and who voted against condemning Russia for its illegal invasion of Ukraine.

We also know that the International Telecommunication Union does not have the power to issue binding rulings against the UK in respect of the base on Diego Garcia, and it is unclear whether a case would be brought against us in the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea. Even if it had done so, it would have been a case that we could have opposed and appealed. Everyone seems to agree that the British Indian Ocean Territory is a critically important asset, not just to the UK but, by direct or indirect association, to all our allies.

To crown it all, we are paying for the privilege of surrendering our own territory. The Government, to the incredulity of Members across both Houses and people throughout the country, hail this as a success. In reality, I can find no positive report of this chosen route in any media or other channel not linked to China. Does the Minister honestly believe that this is a good deal that benefits the United Kingdom? When he responds in a moment, can he say with his hand on his heart that handing the Mauritians £30 billion over 99 years to lose one of our vital strategic assets is something that we should welcome and be proud of?

The Minister will be well aware that those payments are front-loaded. The agreement laid before Parliament states that, for the first three years, the United Kingdom will pay Mauritius £165 million per year, then £120 million for each of the next 10 years and an additional £45 million every year from year one for infrastructure improvements in Mauritius. That is for the next 25 years, which means that, over the next five years, we will be paying Mauritius £1 billion.

Let me put that into a defence context. £1 billion could pay for 10 new F35 Lightnings, 30 Apache attack helicopters, 125 Boxer armoured fighting vehicles, or an entire Type 26 frigate—which must rankle with the noble Lord, Lord West, among many others.

Given that the strategic defence review, revealed yesterday, contained 62 recommendations, all of which have been accepted by the Government, and at a time when the Chancellor is warning of additional tax rises and spending cuts, does the Minister not agree that a far better use could be found for this money? Can the Minister tell us exactly how this will be funded? Can he help the House to understand how the obligations to the British people are being fulfilled by pursuing this deal at the taxpayer’s expense? More importantly—and this is a simple question requiring a yes or no answer—will this money be paid out of the defence budget? If so, how can the Minister justify that, given the Government have spent the last few months attempting to talk up their increase in the defence budget?

This agreement must make the United Kingdom less secure, weaker on the global stage and at greater risk than under the current status quo. There are good deals and not so good deals. One of the key skills in deciding to complete a deal or not is knowing when it is wiser to withdraw than continue, and that is exactly what the previous Government did.

We should be mindful of the critical fact that, once sovereignty has been relinquished, it can never be regained. It is also somewhat ironic that, as the Government announce their strategic defence review on the one hand, they are wilfully disposing with the sovereignty of the British Indian Ocean Territory on the other, along with significant amounts of taxpayers’ hard-earned cash.

Finally, but just as importantly, what of the Chagossian community, which is already widely displaced? A one-off token payment of £40 million to assist resettlement and readjustment to an unknown and distant sovereign power—and its intentions—in the light of the overall magnitude of the Mauritian gains, both territorial and financial, seems almost derisory. Can the Minister advise the House how this sum is to be allocated, tracked and ensured, for the benefit of all Chagossians?

Noble Lords will be aware of the Motion against ratification of the treaty, tabled by my noble friend Lord Callanan. Let me be clear: we do not do this lightly, but this arrangement poses such harm to our nation and, indeed, international security, and is such a flagrant violation of the rights of the Chagossian community, that we feel it our duty to bring this fatal Motion to the House. We hope noble Lords across the House will weigh the agreement carefully and support our Motion. This deal cannot be the right thing for our country to do.

[Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)]

My Lords, I find myself in a rather unusual position. On most defence issues, it is very easy for the Liberal Democrat defence spokesperson to agree with the Official Opposition, and to find that the Minister will also be saying very similar things. On most issues, we find ourselves saying how vital the defence of the realm is, and that we are broadly on the same page, with a few minor differences.

On this issue, however, there seems to be such a clear difference of opinion between the Official Opposition and the Government Benches that I will ask only a few clarificatory questions for those of us who are not Privy Councillors, have not been briefed on Privy Council terms and are therefore unable to express the effusive views on the importance of Diego Garcia that the noble Earl, Lord Minto, mentioned the Secretary of State had expressed. For anyone who read the Statement delivered in the other place just before Recess, the Secretary of State was indeed crystal clear about the importance of Diego Garcia to the security of the United Kingdom.

The Secretary of State particularly made the point that the deal is vital because we retain control over Diego Garcia, but he also pointed out how important it is as a joint US-UK military base. So what role does the United States play on Diego Garcia? I realise that the Minister may feel that this is privileged information that he is not able to articulate in open session, but we need to understand what is going on with our relationship with the US in this regard.

The noble Earl, Lord Minto, said that the only people who are really in favour of this are the Chinese, yet the Secretary of State pointed out that none other than Pete Hegseth, Secretary of State Rubio and President Trump have said that this is a “very long-term” and “very strong” deal. So whose interests is it in? Is it in the UK’s national interest or is it primarily about the US’s interest?

Finally—because I want to give the Minister time to reply—this deal has apparently been two and a half years in the making. His Majesty’s Government have been in office for only 11 months. That means that, for over a year and a half, the negotiations were under the Conservative Government. What has changed between the two Governments to make one party now think that this is a vital deal, and the other implacably opposed?

[The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Lord Coaker) (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Earl, Lord Minto, for his comments and the articulate way in which he presented an opinion that I do not agree with. But that is the point of scrutiny and that is the point I am making back to the noble Earl. Whatever the process is, that he could stand here so that we can debate this—and others will debate it—is important to democracy and the way our country works. I also thank the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, for her comments.

The Government’s position is quite clear: none of us disagrees that Diego Garcia is of huge significance and importance to the geopolitical security of us and our allies, in particular the United States. The discussion is about the best way of securing that base for the future. The Opposition’s point of view is that there is no legal jeopardy, that we can carry on ignoring the ICJ’s judgment, because it was just advisory, and that we may reach a point when a binding judgment is made. The question then becomes whether we ignore only binding agreements, if we get to them.

That was clearly what the previous Government were wrestling with. In answer to the question from the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, it is clearly why, at some point, officials and Ministers under the previous Government—under Rishi Sunak if not before—decided that they needed to negotiate and discuss the future of the Diego Garcia base with Mauritius. Otherwise, what was the point of those negotiations? Were they just a delaying tactic: “We’ll just negotiate and pretend that we’re discussing something when we don’t mean it”. I can see the noble Earl’s noble friend shaking his head, but the consequence of what the noble Earl said is that the previous Government were negotiating with a country with no intention of coming to any agreement. I do not believe that. As much as I do not agree with much of what the last Government did, I do not believe that the lack of integrity in Ministers or officials was such that they would have done that. So I believe that negotiations were going on about the best way forward, and this Government have come to the conclusion that there is judicial or legal jeopardy in allowing the situation to continue.

I will try to cut my remarks short to make sure that Back-Benchers get a proper opportunity. We negotiated a treaty, which will be subject to parliamentary scrutiny when it comes before Parliament to be debated. That treaty guarantees, with many conditions, the security of Diego Garcia. Our international partners are far from disagreeing. I will read what Secretary Hegseth said for the noble Baroness—and yes, the US is a really important partner for us on Diego Garcia. Of course it is. We work really closely with the US on this, and we make no apology for that.

Pete Hegseth 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”.


Secretary Rubio said:

“Today, the United States welcomed the historic agreement between the United Kingdom and the Republic of Mauritius on the future of the British Indian Ocean Territory—specifically, the Chagos Archipelago”.


Canada said:

“Canada welcomes the signing of the Chagos Archipelago sovereignty agreement”.


Australia said:

“Australia welcomes the signing of the historic agreement between the UK and Mauritius”.


I will tell the House what I would do if I were China: I would say what a brilliant agreement it is to sow confusion, upset people and cause people to debate it. I will tell the House what I want: I want this country and our allies to determine what we should do and to tell China that we are going to act in what we consider to be our own interests, irrespective of what it might say to try to disrupt us.

New Zealand said:

“As a strong supporter of the international rules-based system, New Zealand welcomes the agreement”.


India said:

“We welcome the signing of the treaty between the United Kingdom and the Republic of Mauritius”.


So, far from us being an international pariah because we have signed this agreement, many of the most important countries in that region have welcomed the deal because it confirms the security of that base.

We are worried about the law of the sea. The noble Earl asked about that situation. We do not have to share information about actions taken from Diego Garcia in advance of us taking any action. I say that on the record because the noble Earl specifically asked me about it. We do not have to let Mauritius know in advance about it and then potentially share that information.

The Government Actuary says that the cost of the treaty arrangements is £3.4 billion over the lifetime of the treaty. If the noble Earl and others want to take issue, let them argue with the Government Actuary, because that is the way that all Governments throughout the past few decades have costed government projects in this sense, so we are not changing that or moving any goalposts.

The noble Earl talked about the Chagossians. This was a UK-Mauritius state treaty discussion, but the Chagossian community itself is not united in its response. On 22 May, two prominent Chagossian groups—the Chagos Refugees Group and the Chagossian Committee Seychelles—said that they regretted the legal action that aimed to halt what could be a landmark agreement that serves the long-term interests of Chagossians as a whole. That is Chagossians commenting on this agreement.

The argument I put on behalf of the Government is that, far from undermining the base’s sovereignty in terms of its operational independence, and our ability to use Diego Garcia in the way we would all want—to protect our national security and defend our global interests—we have negotiated a treaty that is subject to parliamentary approval, which gives it the scrutiny the noble Earl would like, strengthened it and ensured that we protect our national interests and those of our friends and allies, including the US.