Chagos Islands

Commons Urgent Question

The following Answer to an Urgent Question was given in the House of Commons on Wednesday 5 February.

“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 honourable 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”.

00:00:00

My Lords, the leader in the Times this morning says that this agreement is “the worst negotiated by a British government in living memory”. It goes on to say that the Prime Minister and the Attorney-General “have taken leave of their senses”. Current Labour Cabinet Ministers describe the deal in off-the-record quotes to the BBC as “‘terrible’, ‘mad’ and ‘impossible to understand’”. At a time when Labour Ministers seem to spend half their time at this Dispatch Box bemoaning the supposed black hole in the public finances, how does it make any sense whatever to spend up to £18 billion leasing back an island that we already own?

I was an Opposition Front-Bench Spokesman for 12 years, so I know how this goes. I do not think I ever resorted to reading out a Times leader from the Dispatch Box as my primary source. Perhaps the kindest thing I could do is to invite the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, to come to the FCDO, to put the kettle on and to brief him properly so that he knows what is going on. I could point him in the direction of a communiqué issued by the Mauritian Government, which stated: “Mauritius has never said that the financial package in the agreement between Mauritius and the UK on the Chagos Archipelago had doubled as alleged”. I also point out that the cost of this is not for nothing; it is to buy a security arrangement that has served this country very well, alongside our allies, the United States, for very many years. It is a base and an arrangement that we are committed to. In order to secure the future of that base, we need to come to a legally sound agreement with Mauritius.

My Lords, the dogged perseverance of the previous Conservative Government to cede sovereignty over 11 rounds of negotiations—insisting on 11 rounds of negotiations before the general election—is in some ways admirable. What was not admirable was that the Chagossians were excluded from all parts of those 11 rounds of discussions on the ceding of sovereignty. Could the Minister confirm to me, first, that the funding package that the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, referred to was agreed by the previous Conservative Administration and inherited by the current Government, and—

Nothing was agreed. That is not true.

This is a question to the Minister, not to the Opposition Front Bench. Secondly, can the Minister confirm that, to avoid the Chagossians becoming a political football again, if any agreement is reached as a result of the pause, either with the United States or the Mauritian Government, it will be for Parliament to vote on it, to ensure that the Chagossians can have representation in the debates here in Parliament?

The negotiations were conducted state to state. Regrettable though it may be, it is a fact that the Chagossians were not party to that, and the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, is right to remind us of it. The Chagossians have been terribly treated since their forced removal all those years ago. My own view is that it is better and fairer to the Chagossians to be clear that, as long as that base is there on Diego Garcia, there will be no ability for them to resettle that island. That is the fact of the situation that we are in, and to give any hope of anything otherwise would be irresponsible and a mistake. But, as the noble Lord says, there will be a process, and the involvement of both Houses of Parliament will be needed as we put the treaty before them and make the appropriate legislative changes that are needed for this deal. As the noble Lord says—and I look forward to it—the voices of Chagossians will be heard through their representatives in this House and in the other place.

My Lords, I am sure there are great complexities behind this issue which maybe we have not been fully briefed on. One curiosity is that the Chagos people do not feel great fondness for Mauritius at all. It is 1,000 miles away, and it is a puzzle as to why we have somehow got tangled up with Mauritius, with its present inclinations in the direction of China. Should we not be much more acutely aware than we are of the intense Chinese interest in every move in this area, where they see great advantages for themselves? Indeed, they see it as a major part of the general hoovering-up of small islands around the world, including many in the Commonwealth, as part of their grand strategy to dominate the maritime area. Should we not be a bit stronger on that?

It is precisely because we need to ensure the legal certainty of the Chagos archipelago and the ability of the base to operate and function fully. That is so important to security, as I am sure the noble Lord agrees, and is not something that our adversaries would wish to see established. This deal strengthens our presence and arrangements in Chagos. I am aware that the Chaggosians in this country do not, in large part, agree with this deal and, as the noble Lord says, they do not feel an identity or affinity with Mauritius. These things happened during decolonisation, and that is why we find ourselves in our present legal situation. However, it is also true that there are Chaggosians living in Mauritius who take a different view. There is not one view of this deal from the global Chaggosian community.

My Lords, have our NATO allies commented on this deal?

We are working very closely with our allies in the United States. Jonathan Powell, our National Security Adviser, is in Washington at the moment working through the deal with the Americans. It is right and understandable for any new Administration to want to know every precise detail of this, because it has a profound impact on security and the stability of the base on Diego Garcia.

My Lords, why were this Government so keen to reach an agreement when, because we did not contest it, the UN court case was only advisory? Why is there this rush on the part of the Minister and her ministerial colleagues?

We have been through this in the House several dozen times, but I am happy to take the question again. I invite the noble Lord to consider a situation where we had allowed for the legal processes to continue. The advice that we received was that it was likely that the advisory decision would be followed by a decision to which we would have to adhere. Our view—this is a judgment—is that we would be in a stronger position to negotiate ahead of a binding judgment rather than afterwards. Noble Lords can disagree with that, but it is the reason for our timing. It is also the reason for the 11 rounds of negotiation under the previous Government. It is also true that there are Members opposite and Members in opposition in the other place who know that very well.

My Lords, I am always grateful to my noble friend the Minister for the very careful tone with which she discusses these very sensitive subjects in a non-partisan way, despite obscene provocation to the contrary. I wonder whether she agrees that it is all very well to talk about ICJ rulings being advisory and to laugh them off, but we would not have been in the ICJ without the overwhelming support of the UN General Assembly. If we want the global South, and countries in Africa in particular, to think differently about China and to respect us going forward, we need to respect institutions such as the UN General Assembly.

My noble friend makes a very clear point. For the record, I am happy to come here and take questions and challenge on this issue—it is important and right that the Government are held to account on it. She made a point about the geopolitics of this, with which I agree. One also needs to think about the practical, day-to-day functioning of a base in the middle of the Indian Ocean and our reliance upon third countries to enable it to function as well as we need it to. There would have been an impact on that, should we have waited for a binding judgment.

My Lords, the Chagos archipelago contains some vital marine habitats—and I recognise that in the past there have been difficulties of marine protection in the area. Can the Minister give us any indication of the level of marine protection that has been agreed in this treaty?

That is an important point. There will be marine protection considerations in the agreement, because the waters around the Chagos Islands are precious and need to be protected. It is difficult when there is also a base there, but the protections that we would need to secure to enable the base to function securely and without interference could also serve the marine environment well.