Chagos Islands

Question

15:28:00

Asked by

To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the government of Mauritius reopening negotiations on the Chagos Islands.

My Lords, 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 which protects the long-term effective operation of the joint UK-US base on Diego Garcia. Although it is in everyone’s interest to progress the deal quickly, we have never put an exact date on it and we do not intend to. Following signature, the Government will bring forward a Bill to enable implementation of the treaty, and Parliament will have the opportunity to scrutinise the treaty before ratification.

I am grateful to the Minister for that Answer. It is disappointing that the Government seem determined to proceed with this dreadful surrender policy. It is worth remembering that this whole sorry saga originates from an advisory, non-legally binding ICJ opinion from a panel of judges—including those from Russia and China, who unsurprisingly were fully supportive of the UK giving up its sovereignty of a key strategic asset. Is the Minister not even a little embarrassed at having to find painful cuts in her new overseas aid budget to fund essential extra defence spending, only to then see £18 billion of that funding wasted on leasing back an asset that we already own?

What I am embarrassed by is that we inherited such a mess in our overseas development spend, with asylum accommodation being paid for by our development spend, and an Army that had been neglected—the smallest Army since Napoleon. That is what we inherited. That is what he ought to be ashamed of.

My Lords, there has been a great deal of chatter over the past few days to the effect that President Trump has approved a Chagos deal. Can the Minister advise us whether that is true? Also, whether it is true or not, is the Government’s expectation that the Americans will pay or at least make a significant contribution towards the rent?

We have received formal confirmation from the White House that the United States supports the UK proceeding with the deal. This follows a rigorous US inter-agency process. We welcome the US endorsement of the deal and the President’s recognition of its strength.

My Lords, given the synthetic anger from the Benches opposite, can my noble friend the Minister remind us how many rounds of negotiation to resolve this issue were done by the previous Government, and tell us who the Prime Ministers and Foreign Secretaries were who led those discussions?

We went through quite a few Prime Ministers and Foreign Secretaries. My recollection is that there were 12 or 13 rounds of negotiation under the previous Government.

My Lords, I am sure that the House will sympathise with the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, that his investment in Donald Trump is not getting many returns on this issue. However, perhaps it will allow us to move on to the real issue rather than the politicking of it. The Chagossians have had their rights denied over generations and many periods of government. I am aware that the Minister has not put a timetable on this, but can she indicate when we will get the draft text of the treaty? Also, will this Government honour the Grimstone rule of the previous Administration that if a committee of this House, in looking at a draft treaty, asks for a debate in government time on a Motion that can be amended then the Government will commit to that? I would be grateful if the Minister could say that that rule will continue to apply.

There will be legislation before the House to do this. I do not know exactly the process or whether a debate will be in government time—the Chief Whip is sitting to my right. As far as I am aware, we are not amending the process by which this would be considered.

Can the Minister confirm that the total cost over 99 years will be a staggering £50 billion, according to my figures? The Government did not have to give in to Mauritius at a time when we face economic headwinds. What will she say to Labour MPs in marginal constituencies that face the consequences of the Chancellor’s austerity, with cuts to libraries, children’s services, the fire service and grants to charities?

The numbers that have been quoted are completely incorrect. This is an agreement with Mauritius that we have worked out respectfully and collaboratively. The characterisation that the noble Lord puts forward is not correct.

My Lords, if we are to spend such large sums of money on the lease of an overseas military base, it is important that that base remains viable. What measures are being put in place to ensure that Diego Garcia is protected from surveillance of hostile powers, such as China?

The noble and gallant Lord is completely right. The security of the base is one of the reasons why we felt we wanted to make sure we had a stable, legal agreement. There will be provisions within the agreement that prevent the things that he is concerned about.

My Lords, the one party not mentioned in the Question is the Îlois—the Chagossians themselves. What efforts will the Government make to ensure that these communities are properly represented? Will they give some encouragement to the Mauritian Government to ensure that the Chagossians, both inside and outside Mauritius, are fully consulted during the negotiation process?

As my noble friend says, the Chagossian people have been badly treated since the very beginning of all of this. This is an agreement that has been reached between the United Kingdom and Mauritius as states, but he is right to highlight that it is important that the Chagossians are included in our thinking on this. They will be able to return to Diego Garcia on visits again, and the Mauritians will enable a programme of returning to some of the outer islands. It is a better position for the Chagossians than they have at the moment, but I accept—and we are completely open about the fact—that it will not give the Chagossian communities everything that they have wished to see since they were forced to leave.

My Lords, I will inform the House that there were 11 negotiations under the previous Government, and continuity counts— I can vouch for that. The main reason why there was no agreement was the issue of security. I seek the Minister’s assurance on that point. Also, under the new Prime Minister of Mauritius, there has been some disagreement over the possibility of the extension of the 99-year lease by another 40 years. I would welcome the Minister’s insights as to where the negotiations have got to on that point.

The thing with the new Governments is that they like to look at things afresh, and it is absolutely right that they are able to do that. The noble Lord will be reassured to know that we have managed to iron out the differences that there were, and the Government of Mauritius, the UK Government and now the US Government, it would seem, are content to proceed.

My Lords, is there any overall consistency about who pays rent for the use of overseas bases? I understand that the American Government pay the Japanese Government for the use of Okinawa, which is a substantial base. As far as I am aware, the United States does not pay the British Government for its bases in Britain, or for its use of Ascension Island and listening posts in Cyprus. They are covered simply by exchanges of letters—which, I understand, have since been lost. Why is it that in Diego Garcia, where, as I understand it, there are fewer than 20 British personnel and a much larger number of American personnel, we are paying the rent to the Mauritians, not the Americans?

Reducing this to who pays rent to whom does not really reflect the nature of the benefit to each country. We have a very close relationship with the United States. We could not be closer in terms of defence, security and intelligence. That is the benefit that we want to gain from this arrangement. It is about keeping people safe. Discussions around rent may be interesting in this Chamber, but I am concerned that we achieve a stable, secure base that we are able to benefit from for our national security in the years to come.

My Lords, my noble friend the Minister is right: the Diego Garcia base is of vital strategic importance to us in the UK and to the Americans. For the avoidance of any doubt, can she tell your Lordships’ House whether the negotiations have included any guarantees over future UK access to the Diego Garcia base?

The whole purpose of the negotiations was to enable the joint base to continue, because we feel that we work very well together as allies. That is the situation that we want to continue.