Chagos Islands

Question

11:48:00

Asked by

To ask His Majesty’s Government what plans they have to engage with the new administration in the United States to discuss the future of the Chagos Islands.

My Lords, this deal protects UK and US national security interests by ensuring the long-term effective operations of the base. However, given the importance of the base to the US, it is right that the new Administration have the chance to consider the full agreement. We look forward to discussing the deal with them, which will include sharing the full detail of what has been agreed, including the detailed protections that we have secured for the base.

I am grateful for that Answer. Is the Minister aware that, on independence, Mauritius was paid an extra grant to waive any future right to the Chagos Islands? Furthermore, is she aware that, because the UK did not contest the recent ICJ judgment, we are not bound by it, so it is purely advisory? Does she agree that it was a diplomatic error to push ahead with the treaty before the elections in Mauritius and the States? Has the time not now come to work with our American partners on a fresh treaty that protects the rights of the Chagossians while providing some sort of financial package for Mauritius? Above all, rather than a 99-year lease on Diego Garcia, which will only encourage the Chinese, should we not go for a sovereign base island in perpetuity?

Of course we are aware that the ICJ ruling is advisory—we have discussed it many times in this House—but just because that ruling was advisory does not mean that there would not be future rulings. We believe that we are in a stronger position to negotiate ahead of a binding ruling than we would be waiting for one. Interestingly, the previous Government shared that view, which is why they commenced two years and 11 or 12 rounds of negotiations themselves. We are working very closely with the new Administration in the United States, and we will talk to them in great detail about what this deal means.

My Lords, one of the groups that feels so alienated from this entire process is the Chagossians who live here in the United Kingdom. Since the deal was announced by the Government, there has been little to no engagement with that group. I plead with the Minister to engage with those people, who live here in the United Kingdom and have a clear view as to the way they want to see things happen.

It is absolutely right that the noble Baroness raises the views of the Chagossian community, which has been badly treated over very many years. What matters now is that we are straightforward and upfront with them about what has been agreed, so that they do not feel that we are hiding things from them. We would be happy to engage with the Chagossian community. I believe my honourable friend Stephen Doughty, the Minister responsible for this arrangement, has met them in the recent past, but I will certainly take on board her encouragement that we do some more of that engagement.

My Lords, has the Minister seen reports that these negotiations and discussions—which, incidentally, as she said, were started by Members opposite—have led to some people suggesting that there is some doubt about the sovereignty of the Falkland Islands and Gibraltar? Does she agree that these comments from Members opposite are mischievous, and can she confirm that they are untrue?

They are not just mischievous; they are opportunistic, wrong, misleading and undermine the confidence of the Falkland Islanders. Our commitment to the Falklands is non-negotiable, and our commitment to self-determination remains as strong as it has ever been.

Will the Minister confirm that, whatever solution is adopted, there will be payments to the Government of Mauritius? If so, will the United States make a contribution? Will she confirm that the Ministry of Defence will not make a contribution?

The noble and gallant Lord invites me to go further than my briefing allows. We do not comment on the payments made for military bases—we never have done and I do not think we will do that any time soon.

The previous Administration, on whose behalf the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, will be able to respond in a moment, opened sovereignty negotiations in 2022. The national security interests of the United States are legitimate. Our interests are also about upholding international law and ensuring that Chagossians do not receive any more mistreatment under international law. Will the Minister assure me that, although the American Administration have a right to discussions, decisions on UK national security should ultimately be in our hands, not in those of Donald Trump?

As I know the noble Lord understands, this is an agreement between the UK Government and the Government of Mauritius, but practically, given that the base on Diego Garcia is a joint base between the UK and the US, we think, and the Mauritian Government agree, that it is right that a new Administration in the United States have the opportunity to look at this and give their view. We are very happy for that to happen.

My Lords, first, I refute the allegation that anyone on these Benches believes that any of our overseas territories should be given away. Security comes first, and I am sure that view is shared across your Lordships’ House—just to be clear. Secondly, on the issue of the British Indian Ocean Territory, yes, there were 11 rounds of negotiations. There was a reason why 11 rounds took place: because the issue of security could not be addressed. I was there when we worked with President Trump’s first Administration, who were very clear—as, indeed, is the spokesman for this new Administration—that security comes first. We could not agree, which is why there were so many rounds. What changed to allow the Government to sign that deal?

If the noble Lord is concerned about comments by Members on the security and future of the Falklands, he ought to have a word with some of his colleagues about the comments that they have made.

Oh!

I am responding to the points raised by the noble Lord. There were 11 rounds, and it was very clear in the Statement made to this House and in the other place by the then Foreign Secretary, Mr Cleverly, that those negotiations took place in good faith in order to secure the future of the base on Diego Garcia. That is something that this Government have been able to negotiate. Why the noble Lord’s Government failed to get there is a matter for him.

My Lords, perhaps we failed to get there because it was not the right deal for the UK. Has the Minister had the chance to read last week’s excellent Policy Exchange report on this Chagos handover? She says that she has. The forward to that report say that “our overseas military bases—so indispensable to British national security—are an invaluable currency. So too is the strength and depth of our relationship with the United States. For reasons that are difficult to fathom, the Government risks jeopardising both of these assets as it apparently remains determined to cede sovereignty of the Chagos Islands—the home of our … Diego Garcia military base—to Mauritius”. That foreword was written by the noble Lord, Lord West of Spithead, a former Labour Defence Minister. Does she agree with her noble friend?

I think noble Lords will be pleased to know that I have not had time to read the foreword to that Policy Exchange document. It is our view, which we maintain, that we needed to resolve this issue. We prioritised security and defence when we made our decisions. That is the UK Government’s position. We have secured an arrangement with the Mauritians that we believe guarantees the security of that base. We continue with the process towards the signing of that treaty.

My Lords, the mean height of the Chagos Islands is four feet above sea level. Is global warming going to take this political bickering out of all of our hands?

I hope not. I do not see it as political bickering, actually; it is a legitimate debate. These are important decisions and I am very happy to be held to account for the decisions that we are taking. The noble Lord is right, however, to alert us to the plight of many small islands across the world that are suffering from the impact of climate change. That is why this Government have a commitment to doing everything we can to reduce our carbon emissions.

My Lords, does the Minister agree that the net result of the negotiations has been to introduce instability? The word is out to the Mauritian Government that if they go back to the original deal and ask for more money, they will get more money. This insecurity will be very damaging. If we now abandon the foolish deal that the Government have reached under instruction from President Trump, will we not look rather foolish and rather abject?

No. Like the previous Government, we think that this situation needed to be resolved in a way that gave security for the future. We have a deal that will last at least 99 years. It is far better to deal with that ahead of any binding ruling, where the UK was likely to lose support, than to wait for a binding ruling and negotiate from a position that would have been far weaker.