Chagos Islands

(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs if he will make a statement on the negotiations of the transfer of sovereignty of the Chagos islands to Mauritius.

As we and Mauritius have repeatedly said, including in joint statements on 20 December and 13 January, both sides remain committed to concluding a deal on the future of the Chagos archipelago that protects the long-term, effective operation of the UK-US base on Diego Garcia. Securing the long-term future of the base has been and remains our primary objective throughout this process.

Following technical talks between the UK and Mauritius last month, we have made very good progress towards this deal. Both sides have agreed that, given the importance of the base to the United States as well as to us, it is right that the new US Administration have the chance to consider the full agreement properly, as I discussed with the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage) in yesterday’s Westminster Hall debate. We are closely engaging with the Administration, including sharing the full details of the agreement. It would not be appropriate or usual for me to give a running commentary on the detail of those discussions or the agreement. As I have said on a number of occasions, Parliament will have the opportunity to scrutinise the deal in the usual way. Following signature, the Government will bring forward a Bill to implement the treaty.

I must reiterate that the Government inherited a situation where the long-term future of the military base, which is vital to UK and US security, was under threat, as opposition Members know. The previous Government recognised that, which is why they began negotiations in 2022 and held 11 rounds of negotiations. This Government have secured a deal that protects the base for at least the next 99 years—a period that can be extended. That means that the UK and the US will be able to operate the base unchanged well into the next century.

There will be clear commitments in the treaty for robust security arrangements, including preventing the presence of foreign security forces on the outer islands and ensuring that the base can continue to operate securely and effectively. We would only agree a deal that we are confident protects our national security and that of our allies.

The Mauritian Parliament had the opportunity yesterday to debate this at length, but it seems the Minister was perhaps rather more reluctant to be here today.

Jonathan Powell, our national security adviser, has been doing the rounds in Washington, where he has been telling everybody, including members of the new US Cabinet, that this is necessary—that we have to give away the sovereignty of the Chagos islands—and that in those circumstances a negotiated 99-year lease is the best option. But that is just not true, is it? It is not true at all. It does not stand. There is no legal basis on which we have to give away the sovereignty of the Chagos islands. An advisory judgment from the International Criminal Court has no force of legal power whatsoever; indeed, America disregards it so much that it is not even a member.

The Americans, by the way, have been pretty busy with foreign policy just lately, so it is perhaps no wonder that Diego Garcia has not been high on their agenda, but when they wake up to the fact that this has been done—wholly unnecessarily—I would not be surprised if we find ourselves, together with the European Union, in their tariff regime.

Can the Minister confirm that there is no binding legal basis for this transfer of sovereignty whatsoever?

The hon. Gentleman goes over ground that he has gone over before, with questions I have answered in this House and, indeed, which were discussed in yesterday’s debate. We have been very clear, as indeed were the previous Government, that this base was not on a secure footing. This has been done in full agreement with the US national security apparatus across the piece. He refers to the ICC; it was, of course, the International Court of Justice that made that judgment.

We are very clear that the joint UK-US base on Diego Garcia plays a critical role in countering an array of threats to regional and international security, and we will not scrimp on the security of that base or on the solidity of the agreements around it. We will ensure that it is in operation well into the next century and that we are able to operate unimpeded as we do today. That is exactly why the previous Government recognised there was a problem and engaged in this process, and it is why we have brought that problem to a conclusion, with a deal that protects our interests and the interests of the United States and that ensures the security of the base and its operation.

As I have said, once the treaty is signed, it will be brought before the House for scrutiny before ratification in the usual way. [Interruption.] I hear chuntering from the Opposition Benches. I have to say, the Opposition seem to have collective amnesia over this issue. They know full well the reasons behind this; many of them were members of the previous Government. They have heard what the Prime Minister just said on the Leader of the Opposition’s attacks. We are very clear that this is about defending the UK’s security, putting the base on a secure footing and securing that for the future, for both us and our allies.

At the most recent Environmental Audit Committee sitting, we heard about the importance of the Chagos islands for the marine environment. Can my hon. Friend tell us anything more about the specific reassurances we have had on that crucial area for the biodiversity of the marine environment, and how that will be protected after this deal, from the discussions that he has had?

I thank my hon. Friend for his important question. It was a delight to appear before his Committee to discuss other matters just a few weeks ago. This treaty reflects both parties’ shared commitment to uphold international environmental law, including high conservation standards across the archipelago. Mauritius has expressed dedication to marine conservation and has aligned its global initiatives to protect 30% of marine areas by 2030 and its commitments under the sustainable development goals, and establishing a fit-for-purpose marine protected area is a crucial part of that. We will work with Mauritius very closely on this matter. It was a very important part of the discussions, and I am very glad we have been able to make the agreements that we have.

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

Let us be clear: Labour’s disastrous deal is one of the worst foreign policy failures in modern British history. Labour is surrendering an absolutely critical strategic defence asset that we operate together with our closest security partner—now we are told we will have to pay billions for the privilege of doing so. When Labour negotiates, Britain loses, and loses big time.

While this House has been kept in the dark on the details, our counterparts in Mauritius have not. They had a robust debate in Parliament, which many of us watched on YouTube. It was just extraordinary. The Prime Minister of Mauritius gave his Parliament a detailed account, and even a chronology, of the deal and the negotiations that led to it—details that Labour repeatedly refused to disclose to this House and which the Prime Minister of Mauritius set out in no uncertain terms so that nobody should be in any doubt.

This weak, hapless Government have backed down and the House deserves answers today. Has the Minister given away our ability to unilaterally extend the period over which the UK can exercise sovereign rights on Diego Garcia? The Mauritius Prime Minister says he has. Has the Minister given away our ability to exercise sovereign rights over Diego Garcia entirely? If so, what is the cost? Is it £9 billion? Is it £18 billion? Is it to be inflation-proofed, as the Mauritian Prime Minister stated in Parliament yesterday? If the Minister is frontloading payments, what other services will be cut here in the United Kingdom in the immediate term to make room and pay for the deal? When Labour is imposing taxes on education, family farms and businesses, and has cut winter fuel payments for vulnerable pensioners, how can this eye-watering amount of money be justified to lease back a territory for which—guess what—we already own the freehold?

Will the Minister also say whether he will have to make defence cuts to absorb this enormous cost? Should the Ministry of Defence be shouldering the costs? What budget will it come from? Will the Government count the payments towards the 2.5% defence target?

I have to say again to the right hon. Lady that it was her Government—a Government that she was part of—who started the negotiations and went through 11 rounds of negotiations. She knows full well the reasons why. Quite frankly, I find it extraordinary for her to talk about defence and the national security of this country, when we are having to rebuild and clear up the mess that her Government made of our armed forces and our defence. I am very glad to be joined on the Front Bench by the Minister for the Armed Forces, my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth Sutton and Devonport (Luke Pollard). It is this Government who are rebuilding our defence, increasing our spending, and delivering for our armed forces and national security around the world. Indeed, this agreement is a crucial part of that. A lot of the figures being speculated about in the media should, as I said yesterday, be taken with a pinch of salt. We have been clear: there is no change to the substance or the quantum in relation to this agreement.

The right hon. Lady raises inflation. I am surprised she mentions that, because indexation was there in the public statement made about the negotiations on 3 October. Indeed, it was part of the agreement from her Government, so I am very surprised that she asks that question.

Lastly, I am deeply disappointed, as are our friends in the overseas territories around the world, that constant false comparisons keep being made with our other bases and our other overseas territories. This is not a read-across situation. We are committed to our base on Cyprus. We are committed to Gibraltar. We are committed to the Falklands. We have been absolutely and resolutely clear about that. To continue to suggest that there is some sort of threat to them quite frankly undermines our national security and does not strengthen it in any way.

Does the Minister agree that, despite the Member for the Trump Government’s misrepresentations, the UK Government must provide their own independent global leadership based on UK values and UK interests to make a safer world, despite or because of the new US Administration’s changing foreign policy, including closing the United States Agency for International Development, and on the Chagos islands?

I set out yesterday, in a very important debate on our bilateral relations with the United States, just how much we are co-operating already with the new US Administration on defence, security and our shared priorities around growth and prosperity. We are absolutely committed in our wider international obligations. We have set that out, the Minister for Development, my right hon. Friend the Member for Oxford East (Anneliese Dodds) has set that out, and my colleagues have set that out in relation to climate change. We will continue to work with the United States on all the global challenges we face.

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

I put on record the deep concern of the Liberal Democrats at the way this deal has progressed.

We accept the ICJ ruling. I thought there was a consensus across the House on the importance of the UK upholding the rule of law, so I am bemused by the confected consternation of those on the Conservative Benches. It was the then Foreign Secretary, the right hon. Member for Braintree (Mr Cleverly), who in 2022 stated:

“it is our intention to secure an agreement on the basis of international law to resolve all outstanding issues”—[Official Report, 3 November 2022; Vol. 721, c. 27WS.]

But under this Labour Government, Chagossians have been ignored, Parliament is without a say, and the lack of foresight on how the US presidential election might affect the deal is troubling. After failing to force through an agreement, Ministers have now given Donald Trump a say about the future of sovereign British territory. Can the Minister confirm that before signature, this House will be given a vote on the terms of the final deal, in particular to see how UK security interests have been protected?

I have set out on a number of occasions why the deal is right for our national security interests and those of our allies. I have also set out very clearly the normal process. It will go through Parliament.

I thank the Minister for his response to the urgent question. I listened carefully to the concerns of the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage) about the deal. If those concerns are about the possible costs, then given that his entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests states that he has earned nearly £600,000 in the past six months since his election, perhaps the Minister might agree with me that the hon. Gentleman could make a donation to the Government to secure our national security—

Order. I am sure you want to ask a serious question.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. Apologies. Will the Minister reassure me, as he has in his response and in countless statements before, that when the treaty comes before the House, securing our national security will be paramount through a process that, as he said, was started under the previous Government?

We will not scrimp on national security, as I have said. There has been no change to the substance of the deal or the overall quantum agreed. We will present the process in the usual way, as I have said multiple occasions.