Diego Garcia Military Base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill

Commons Urgent Question

My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat in the form of a Statement the Answer given by my honourable friend the Minister of State for Europe, North America and Overseas Territories to an Urgent Question in another place on the Diego Garcia Military Base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill. The Statement is as follows:

“On 22 May, the Diego Garcia treaty was signed and laid before the House. As the Defence Secretary told the House on the day of signature, the treaty secures the strategically important UK-US military base on the island of Diego Garcia. The Diego Garcia military base is essential to the security of the UK and our key allies, including the United States. It is essential to keeping British people safe. It is also one of our most significant contributions to the transatlantic defence and security partnership, because it enables rapid deployment of operations and forces across the Middle East, east Africa and south Asia, helping to combat some of the most challenging threats, including threats from terrorism and hostile states. Its unique strategic location creates real military advantage across the Indo-Pacific. The facility has also helped the collection of data used to support counterterrorism operations, including against high-value Islamic State targets in recent years.

As we have made clear many times, the UK will never compromise on our national security. As we have repeatedly made clear, the agreement that we have struck is vital for protecting our national security, guaranteeing the long-term future of a vital base for both the UK and the United States, which had been under threat, as the Opposition fully understood and on which they were briefed. The deal secures the operations of the joint UK-US base on Diego Garcia for generations. It was publicly welcomed by the US, Australia and all other Five Eyes partners, as well as key international partners, including India, Japan and South Korea.

Just last week, the House spent two hours debating the Lords amendments to the Bill. The Opposition will know, of course, that programming of business in the other place is a matter for them and not for us. However, the Lords consideration of Commons amendments has been delayed because the Opposition tabled a wrecking amendment hours before the other place rose and on a day before a scheduled debate. This is irresponsible and reckless behaviour from the Official Opposition in the second House, using programming tactics to frustrate the implementation of a treaty on a critical national security matter.

I have to say that it stands in stark contrast to the reasoned and constructive criticisms, questions and suggestions from Members in other parties, and indeed from Cross-Benchers, which we have engaged with in good faith at every stage, and we will continue to do so. This is on the Opposition, because their amendment is not only unnecessary; it is toying with our national security. It is only right that we take some time to consider next steps on programming, because we remain confident that this treaty is the best way forward.

The Lords will consider the Commons amendments in due course, and that will be announced in the usual way. The Government are committed to the deal that protects the joint UK-US base on Diego Garcia. Some have sought to sabotage the process through procedural Motions and parliamentary stunts. We are instead focused on delivering this Bill to protect our national security”.

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for repeating that Answer. In repeating it, she has accused my amendment of being “wrecking”. That is simply not true, and I have it in writing from our excellent clerks that the amendment is dilatory and not fatal. It is not wrecking. I hope the noble Baroness will take the opportunity to apologise when she answers those questions.

Instead of answering many of the serious concerns raised from all opposition parties about Chagossian rights and many other serious flaws in this agreement, all we heard in the other place from the Minister was bluster and an accusation that those of us asking those questions are somehow playing parliamentary games. This is a serious issue, so let me ask a couple of serious questions to the noble Baroness.

First, in her letter, sent to me, somewhat bizarrely, at 11.30 pm on Friday—she is lucky to have such dedicated private office staff—she referred to international arrangements needing to be in place before they can ratify the Mauritius treaty. For the benefit of the House, can she confirm that what she means by that is that the US Government must formally agree to amend the 1966 treaty and that, by failing to do this before they concluded the treaty, the Prime Minister has, in effect, given Trump a veto on this deal?

Secondly, if the Government do persuade President Trump to update that treaty—which looks unlikely—can she confirm that the amended 1966 treaty would then need to go through the full CRaG process in this Parliament before they can ratify their new deal?

I am glad that the noble Lord opposite has finally reread my contributions in this place from, I think, November, when I talked about an exchange of notes that would be needed with the United States in relation to the 1966 treaty. I am glad he has internalised what I said then as a fact. There would need to be an exchange of letters, and that is in hand. He asked whether that would then necessitate a CRaG process, and we will look at that when we get the detail of the letters. If it does then we will do that, but it may well not.

On whether or not the noble Lord’s amendment is a wrecking amendment, it is wrecking in its effect. As I understand it, the only wording in it that would be binding on the Government is the date, which he put as 23 March. This would breach the agreement we have with Mauritius. It may be a self-imposed deadline, but that is the deadline we have set ourselves as part of this agreement.

My Lords, with regard to the 1966 treaty, it is worth acknowledging that Article 2 is the basis upon which, under the euphemism of what the treaty calls an administrative measure, the expulsion of a population from that archipelago, and its forced depopulation, took place. That treaty is the basis on which this Government, and, I hope, every subsequent Government, will feel shame.

However, that treaty is the basis of the relationship with the United States. Therefore, it is quite extraordinary that the terms under Article 11, which stated that the treaty would expire in 2017 and then have an automatic extension for 20 years, were not chosen to be extended by the previous Conservative Government. This treaty—which we should now all depend upon for our long-term security relationship with the United States—would, under the previous Government, run out in 2037. Article 1 of the treaty, however, states that

“The Territory shall remain under United Kingdom sovereignty”.

Can the Minister confirm whether, when the previous Government opened negotiations with Mauritius on the basis of ceding sovereignty, there were any diplomatic messages to our ally the United States that Article 1 needed to be reviewed and updated?

It is my understanding that the situation with regard to the 1966 treaty has certainly been understood by my Government, and, I am assuming—I cannot see that it would not have been—by the previous Government. That makes this rather late-in-the-day pseudo-alarm seem rather strange—but here we are. I agree with the noble Lord about the shame we should feel at the forced displacement of the population. He is right to bring that up and I feel that way.

My Lords, my noble friend the Minister suggested that this agreement was supported by our Five Eyes partners, including the United States—the Secretary of State to the US made a statement to that effect. I know from briefings we have had in the ISC the important nature of this base for us, the United States and our Five Eyes partners. They were looking for stability, which this agreement gives. In the other place today, it was suggested by some that the National Security Adviser has misled the United States in this agreement. Can the Minister tell the House that that is completely and utterly untrue?

I thank my noble friend, the chair of the ISC, for drawing that to our attention. I was not aware that that accusation had been made, but of course it is completely untrue and unfounded. I can only think that these things get bandied around in the heat of debate, but whoever said it might want to consider their words.

My Lords, when challenged about the defence and security implications of the UK-Mauritius treaty, the Government have prayed in aid the United States, Five Eyes and AUKUS. Last week, the President of the United States called the treaty an “act of great stupidity”, Five Eyes is not a military operation alliance, and that leaves only AUKUS. What recent engagement have the Government had with the Australian Department of Defence and what was the response?

We talk with our allies and partners on this constantly, and we continue to talk to our friends in the United States because they are integral to this agreement.

My Lords, the Minister in the other place called the House of Lords irresponsible, not just the Opposition. I find that very offensive. Many of us have spent a long time trying to get this issue debated properly. I have a simple and straightforward question and I hope I will get a straight answer. Can the 1966 treaty be rewritten unilaterally?

I do not know of any treaty that can be rewritten unilaterally. As for the words of my honourable friend Stephen Doughty, I will let him know that this House considers its role as a revising Chamber to be very serious. I know that the vast majority of Members of this House, on all sides, see that as their job. We will continue to do that to a very high standard, in the way that this House has always done.

My Lords, the Minister appears to be in a parallel universe. Can she comment on what the President of the United States, Scott Bessent and Marco Rubio said last week? Is it not perfectly obvious that they are not going to agree to amend the 1966 treaty?

I do not know about it being perfectly obvious. There were many things said last week that it is probably best we do not treat as emblematic or representative of the nature of the relationship between the United Kingdom and the United States. We continue to have detailed conversations about this particular treaty and many other issues, as we can all remember talking about recently.

My Lords, we are told by the media that four-star generals and admirals have written to President Trump saying:

“A base held under lease, subject to international arbitration, political pressure, or third party treaty obligations, is inherently less secure than one held under sovereign authority”.

Are they wrong?

I do not think they are wrong. The problem, however, is that that option was unlikely to be available to us indefinitely. We needed to find a solution that was legally secure and that could not be challenged. Had we waited, as noble Lords opposite have encouraged the Government to do, for a binding judgment, then what kind of deal would we have been able to seek? The price was only ever going to go up. It was much better to seek a solution before a binding judgment could be reached, following the advisory opinion. I am assuming it is for James Cleverly, the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, and others to explain what on earth they were doing negotiating, on repeat, for the same deal that we achieved. Why were they doing that if they had no intention of ever securing the base?