Lindsay Hoyle
Main Page: Lindsay Hoyle (Speaker - Chorley)Department Debates - View all Lindsay Hoyle's debates with the Ministry of Defence
Diego Garcia Military Base
Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts(2 days ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Defence (John Healey)
With permission, Mr Speaker, I wish to make a statement on the Diego Garcia military base.
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. This afternoon, the Prime Minister has signed a treaty with Prime Minister Ramgoolam of Mauritius that guarantees full continued UK control of Diego Garcia for the next 99 years and beyond.
I pay tribute to the UK’s negotiators, to the teams from the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office and the Ministry of Defence who supported them, and to the Mauritian officials who worked for two and a half years to reach this agreement. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has today laid in the House the full treaty text and his formal exchange of letters with the Foreign Minister of Mauritius that confirm the agreement and the financial arrangements between our two countries. A Bill will be introduced soon.
There has been a great deal of misinformation about this treaty, much of it fuelled by the Conservative party, but the simple truth is that our national security rests on securing a deal that protects the operational sovereignty of this vital military installation. By signing this treaty on our terms, the Prime Minister has ensured that the UK retains full control of Diego Garcia throughout the next century and beyond. It is a deal struck in the national interest and a deal that makes Britons today and generations to come safer and more secure.
The importance of Diego Garcia cannot be overstated. Some of the operations on our joint UK-US base are in the public domain; most, by necessity, are not. But all the work conducted from Diego Garcia plays a crucial role in protecting our nation, our armed forces and our trade routes. Diego Garcia is unique. We do things there that we simply could not do anywhere else. Its airfield allows for strike operations and rapid deployments to the middle east, east Africa and south Asia. Its deep-water port supports missions from nuclear-powered submarines to our carrier strike group. It hosts surveillance stations that disrupt terrorist attacks, protect satellites and provide global intelligence capabilities, and it projects UK-US military power in the Indo-Pacific, to reinforce regional stability and security.
America is our closest security ally, and continued use of this base is fundamental to maintaining the special strength of that relationship. In fact, Diego Garcia is our nation’s most significant contribution to the UK-US security partnership that has kept us safe for nearly 80 years. As I have said, this is a joint military base, and almost every operation conducted from it is done in partnership with the US. That is why the treaty has the full-throated support of the US Secretary of State, Marco Rubio, who has said this afternoon:
“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.”
President Trump himself has described this as “very long-term” and “very strong”.
Diego Garcia also strengthens Britain’s economic security. Over one third of the world’s bulk cargo traffic and two thirds of global oil shipments are transported through the Indian ocean. Our constant presence in these waters serves to safeguard trade routes, keeping down the price of food and energy for Britons here at home. Diego Garcia is also the permanent location of critical comprehensive nuclear test ban treaty monitoring equipment—a network that watches every moment of every day for evidence of nuclear testing, to hold nuclear and would-be nuclear powers to account. Diego Garcia is one of just four locations in the world to operate ground station antennae for the global positioning system, which everyone from astronauts to motorists and our military rely on to navigate.
Quite simply, the loss of the Diego Garcia military base would be unthinkable. And yet, without action—without this deal—within weeks we could face losing legal rulings, and within just a few years the base would become inoperable. Some have suggested simply ignoring international legal decisions, but this is not just about international law; this is about the direct impact of law on our ability to control and operate this base.
Rulings against us would mean we could not prevent hostile nations from setting up installations around Diego Garcia, on the outer islands, or carrying out joint exercises near the base. No deal would mean we could not guarantee the safe berth of our subs, patrol the waters around the base, control the airspace directly above or protect the integrity of our communications systems. Such developments would deeply damage the security interests of the UK and our allies. It would be a dereliction of the first duty of Government.
Agreeing this treaty now on our terms means that the UK retains full control over Diego Garcia now and for the next century. We have laid before the House the full treaty and the associated costings. Those on the Conservative Front Bench will see how we have toughened the terms of the deal they were doing so it does now guarantee the UK’s national interest and national security. At a cost of less than 0.2% of the annual defence budget we have secured unrestricted access to, and use of, the base, as well as control over movement of all persons and all goods on the base and control of all communication and electronic systems. Nothing can be built within a 24 nautical-mile buffer zone without our say so, and we have secured an effective veto on all developments in the Chagos archipelago, and a strict ban will be imposed on foreign security forces operating on the outer islands—all provisions that were not in the draft agreement that had been negotiated by the Conservative party before the election.
I just say to the parties opposite that anyone who would abandon this deal would abandon the base. They would weaken the security of the British people and weaken the strength of the British armed forces. By signing this deal, the British flag will fly over the Diego Garcia base well into the next century. By signing this deal, the relationship with our closest security ally will be strengthened. By signing this deal, our capacity to deter our adversaries and defend UK interests is secured for generations to come. As the world becomes more dangerous, Diego Garcia becomes more important. This Government will never compromise on our national security. With this deal, we have made Britain more secure at home and stronger abroad.
James Cartlidge (South Suffolk) (Con)
I am grateful to the Secretary of State for advance sight of his statement. Before I go into the detail, however, I wish to place two important points on the record. First, it was beneath contempt for the Prime Minister in his press conference to state that those who oppose this deal are on the side of Russia and China. I am intensely proud of the role that my party has played in supporting Ukraine— I have worn this badge of the Ukrainian flag every day. I and many of my colleagues have been sanctioned by Russia and China and passionately believe that we must stand up to them. Indeed, that is one of the reasons we oppose this deal.
Let us not forget that only last week Mauritius agreed to deepen maritime co-operation with Russia, and this week China said that it wanted to deepen its strategic partnership with Mauritius and that that country was well placed with strategic advantages. This is a democracy: if we as elected parliamentarians choose to take a different view on this issue and vote against the deal, that does not make us pro-Russian or pro-Chinese. Voting against this deal does not make us traitors to this country; it makes us patriots.
Secondly, the Secretary of State and his Defence Ministers have said 26 times on the Floor of the House that the urgently needed strategic defence review would be delivered by the spring, but he has broken that promise. Here we are, at literally at the last sitting moment of this spring, and instead of the SDR he has come to the House to announce a total, abject surrender of our territory and a fundamental betrayal of the UK’s national interest. The Government are not surrendering British sovereign territory because of military defeat, or because of a binding legal verdict, but wilfully due to a total failure to take a stand and fight for Britain’s interests on the world stage—a complete and utter negotiating failure.
Yes, it is true that we held talks with the Mauritians when in government, but we never signed a deal. Why? Because we fundamentally oppose the idea of spending billions of pounds on a surrender tax to lease back land that we currently own freehold. And it is billions of pounds. Will the Secretary of State confirm that the deal will cost £1 billion over the next five years?
When the Prime Minister recently gave a statement to the House about defence spending, he used the cash figure to state by how much spending would rise. Will the Secretary of State confirm that, on the same basis, this deal will cost UK taxpayers over £10 billion? Will he confirm definitively how much of that cost will come from the Ministry of Defence budget?
Mr Speaker, you will be interested to hear that, on military operations, the treaty confirms that we must
“expeditiously inform Mauritius of any armed attack on a third State directly emanating from the Base on Diego Garcia.”
Will the Secretary of State confirm that that means we would need to tell Mauritius if the base were to be used to launch strikes against Iran or its proxies? What guarantees has he received that Mauritius would not tell potential adversaries?
As we all know, the key issue is that the Government fear a binding legal judgment. [Interruption.] They are following the legal advice to act definitively to our detriment, entirely on the basis of hypothetical risk that has not yet materialised and that we could challenge, and that is part of a pattern.
On Monday, with the EU defence pact, the Secretary of State admitted that he has secured only “potential participation” in the rearmament fund, but despite no guarantee of hard cash for defence, the Government have already given up our sovereign fishing grounds for over a decade.
Yesterday, the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland refused to explain why this Government failed to appeal the legal decision that now threatens our veterans with a new era of lawfare for the crime of serving this nation and keeping us safe all those years ago.
And today, with Chagos, once again the Government have prioritised heeding the most pessimistic legal advice, even though we have exposed the fact that fear of binding threats from the International Telecommunication Union or the United Nations convention on the law of the sea are overblown. As the hon. Member for Crawley (Peter Lamb), a Labour Back Bencher, said earlier, we are all “Getting real tired of this ‘the courts have settled it’ line of argument”.
It is not so much a case of “no surrender”, as “yes, surrender” every single time, always listening to the lawyers instead of our national interests, even if that means surrendering our veterans, our fishing grounds and the Chagos islands—[Interruption.] May I suggest they change the lyrics of their Labour party song, because we all know that they will keep the white flag flying here?
Mr Speaker
Order. I do not want to interrupt, but Mr Gemmell, you are not being helpful to your cause. It is the worst day to be thrown out, so please, I want to hear no more from you—it has been continuous.
James Cartlidge
Perhaps the hon. Gentleman was expecting to hear the strategic defence review, as all of us were, given the Government’s multiple promises.
Finally, the Chagossian community has been shamefully sidelined by this Government from start to finish, with only tick-box engagement by junior Ministers. Is it not the case that the treaty offers no protection to the Chagossians whatsoever?
When Labour negotiates, Britain loses. The Government should not be surrendering strategically vital sovereign territory, especially when we face such threats, and they certainly should not be paying billions for the privilege. We would abandon this deal, but we would never abandon the Chagos islands. This is a bad deal for Britain and we will do everything possible to oppose it.
Mr Speaker
Order. I will decide what is and is not shameful. I am going to say this once and for all: Mr Cartlidge, you have been pushing and pushing for quite a while. Emotions are running high, but I do not want a continuous barracking and that level of noise coming from you. You should be setting a good example as the shadow Secretary of State, keeping calm and being effective, not bawling.
John Healey
Quite simply, if you do not back the deal, you cannot back the base. There is no viable alternative option than this deal. The senior military figure who was part of the treaty signing this afternoon, General Sir Jim Hockenhull, confirmed that publicly. The shadow Defence Secretary knows that—he was a Defence Minister until the last election. He knows that that was the advice he and the previous Government were given. Even the spokesperson for his party’s leader admitted in February that a deal was needed. Politico’s “Playbook” reported:
“A spokesperson for Badenoch insisted she understands negotiations over the islands are needed due to the international legal position.”
That is the job that we have done. The Conservatives conceded the principle that negotiation was necessary and a deal was required to safeguard the long-term protection and control of this base; they conducted 11 rounds of negotiations before the last election.
The hon. Gentleman talks about this being part of a pattern. The previous Government failed to deliver a trade deal with India, and we did it. They failed to deliver a trade deal with the US, and we did it. They failed to safeguard Diego Garcia, and we have done it. We picked up those negotiations and strengthened the defence protections for the UK, and we did the deal today.
The hon. Gentleman asks me about the money. Once again, he was not just a Defence Minister, but also a Treasury Minister before the last election—in fact, he was Exchequer Secretary when the negotiations first kicked off. He knows that the Government Actuary tells us that the full accounting cost of this deal over the 99 years is £3.4 billion. That is the figure reported and laid before the House today.
The hon. Gentleman will know that there is a long-established method—used under our Government, his Government and the previous Government—for accounting for long-term projects, like this base, the nuclear commissioning programme, big infrastructure projects and pensions liabilities. The facts for me, as Defence Secretary, are that the cost of this deal is less than 0.2% of the annual defence budget; that this is an essential deal for our national security that will ensure Britain is better equipped to face down the rising threats we face; and that our armed forces are stronger and safer because of the deal done today.
The hon. Gentleman asks me about the Chagossians. We have been concerned, since we were elected just 10 months ago, to restore good communication and better relations with a wide range of Chagossian groups. The Foreign Office Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty), has met them regularly, and he and my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary met them this morning. The negotiations, however, were between the Mauritian Government and the UK Government, just as they were under the previous Government. We have worked to ensure that the agreement reflects the importance that Chagossians attach to the islands, so we will finance a new £40 million trust fund for Mauritius to support the Chagossian community.
I will conclude where I started. I say to the shadow Defence Secretary: we have worked together on a cross-party basis on Ukraine, and we have offered him and his party’s leader security briefings on any of the big issues that we face. This deal is in the national security interest. That is why, when we were in opposition, we backed his Government when they set out to try to negotiate that deal, just as we backed his Government when he led the UK’s support for Ukraine. When he looks at the treaty, considers that there was no alternative and recognises that this is a tougher deal that is better for our base, better for our forces and better for protecting our British people in this country, I hope that he will back it.
John Healey
I have known my hon. Friend for a long time, and he has been a loud and strong voice for Chagossians in this country. I hope he will recognise, first, that this has been a negotiation that the British Government have conducted with the Mauritian Government. I hope he will also recognise and respect the fact that my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary and the Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff South and Penarth, have tried to set a new tone in relationships and communications with the range of Chagossian groups in this country. Finally, I hope he will recognise that that range of Chagossian groups includes a range of Chagossian views, some of which support this deal and see the need for it. I trust he will be strong in advocating for the use of the trust fund and the programmes we will put in place to help the Chagossian people.
James MacCleary (Lewes) (LD)
Liberal Democrats support the UK complying with international law, but the process for agreeing this deal has been more than a little bit bumpy. While the Conservatives have feigned anger, bordering on hysteria at times, despite it being their Foreign Secretary who first signalled the UK’s intention to secure an agreement, this Government have failed consistently to provide any clarity on the progress of the deal. We do not need a running commentary, but we do need to know that public money is being used wisely.
It was also clear that the Government were prepared to give Donald Trump the ultimate veto over any agreement, without regard for the priorities of Chagossians themselves. As the deal has now been reached, can the Secretary of State confirm what issues Chagossians raised during their meetings with Ministers, and how the Government have responded to ensure their voices and issues have been addressed in this deal? In attempting yesterday to humiliate South Africa’s President Cyril Ramaphosa, President Trump proved once again his instincts as unreliable and an unpredictable bully. Having now confirmed this deal on a shared UK-US asset, how confident is the Secretary of State that Diego Garcia will not be used by this White House to advance foreign policy objectives that we deem contrary to our principles and interests?
Hard-working families around the country will rightly be questioning why the Government are reportedly willing to negotiate such significant sums paid to Mauritius at a time when the personal independence payment is being severely scaled back. Will the Secretary of State put on record today the proposed schedule of payments as they relate to the deal, and when it is expected that that schedule will commence?
As the Government have previously confirmed, the treaty must come before the House for scrutiny, especially given its importance to our national security and its implications for the Exchequer. I hope this sets a valuable precedent that could be applied to future trade deals, for instance, so can the Secretary of State confirm when this House will have an opportunity to scrutinise the proposed deal, as well as a chance to vote on its ratification?
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Speaker
Shaking your head and making comments —that is certainly not the example I want to see when I am looking to keep the House calm. I do not need the backchat; that has been going on for a while.
Alex Ballinger (Halesowen) (Lab)
The Conservatives started negotiations on handing over the Chagos islands because they understood the national security implications of not doing a deal. Indeed, they did 11 rounds of negotiations on this deal. Now, with our closest security partners—the Americans, the Canadians, the Australians and the New Zealanders—all welcoming this deal, why are the Conservatives playing politics with our national security?