Diego Garcia Military Base

Statement

The following Statement was made in the House of Commons on Thursday 22 May.

“With permission, Mr Speaker, I wish to make a Statement on the Diego Garcia military base.

For more than 50 years, the joint UK-US military base on Diego Garcia has been a launchpad to defeat terrorists, to prevent threats to our nation, and to protect our economic security. This base keeps Britain secure at home and strong abroad. This afternoon, the Prime Minister has signed a treaty with Prime Minister Ramgoolam of Mauritius that guarantees full continued UK control of Diego Garcia for the next 99 years and beyond.

I pay tribute to the UK’s negotiators, to the teams from the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office and the Ministry of Defence who supported them, and to the Mauritian officials who worked for two and a half years to reach this agreement. My right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary has today laid in the House the full treaty text and his formal exchange of letters with the Foreign Minister of Mauritius that confirm the agreement and the financial arrangements between our two countries. A Bill will be introduced soon.

There has been a great deal of misinformation about this treaty, much of it fuelled by the Conservative Party, but the simple truth is that our national security rests on securing a deal that protects the operational sovereignty of this vital military installation. By signing this treaty on our terms, the Prime Minister has ensured that the UK retains full control of Diego Garcia throughout the next century and beyond. It is a deal struck in the national interest and a deal that makes Britons today and generations to come safer and more secure.

The importance of Diego Garcia cannot be overstated. Some of the operations on our joint UK-US base are in the public domain; most, by necessity, are not. But all the work conducted from Diego Garcia plays a crucial role in protecting our nation, our Armed Forces and our trade routes. Diego Garcia is unique. We do things there that we simply could not do anywhere else. Its airfield allows for strike operations and rapid deployments to the Middle East, east Africa and south Asia. Its deep-water port supports missions from nuclear-powered submarines to our carrier strike group. It hosts surveillance stations that disrupt terrorist attacks, protect satellites and provide global intelligence capabilities, and it projects UK-US military power in the Indo-Pacific, to reinforce regional stability and security.

America is our closest security ally, and continued use of this base is fundamental to maintaining the special strength of that relationship. In fact, Diego Garcia is our nation’s most significant contribution to the UK-US security partnership that has kept us safe for nearly 80 years. As I have said, this is a joint military base, and almost every operation conducted from it is done in partnership with the US. That is why the treaty has the full-throated support of the US Secretary of State, Marco Rubio, who has said this afternoon:

‘This agreement secures the long-term, stable, and effective operation of the joint US-UK military facility at Diego Garcia, which is critical to regional and global security’.

President Trump himself has described this as ‘very long-term’ and ‘very strong’.

Diego Garcia also strengthens Britain’s economic security. Over one-third of the world’s bulk cargo traffic and two-thirds of global oil shipments are transported through the Indian Ocean. Our constant presence in these waters serves to safeguard trade routes, keeping down the price of food and energy for Britons here at home. Diego Garcia is also the permanent location of critical Comprehensive Nuclear Test-Ban Treaty monitoring equipment—a network that watches every moment of every day for evidence of nuclear testing, to hold nuclear and would-be nuclear powers to account. Diego Garcia is one of just four locations in the world to operate ground station antennae for the global positioning system, which everyone from astronauts to motorists and our military rely on to navigate.

Quite simply, the loss of the Diego Garcia military base would be unthinkable. And yet, without action—without this deal—within weeks we could face losing legal rulings, and within just a few years the base would become inoperable. Some have suggested simply ignoring international legal decisions, but this is not just about international law; this is about the direct impact of law on our ability to control and operate this base.

Rulings against us would mean we could not prevent hostile nations from setting up installations around Diego Garcia, on the outer islands, or carrying out joint exercises near the base. No deal would mean we could not guarantee the safe berth of our subs, patrol the waters around the base, control the airspace directly above or protect the integrity of our communications systems. Such developments would deeply damage the security interests of the UK and our allies. It would be a dereliction of the first duty of government.

Agreeing this treaty now on our terms means that the UK retains full control over Diego Garcia now and for the next century. We have laid before the House the full treaty and the associated costings. Those on the Conservative Front Bench will see how we have toughened the terms of the deal they were doing so it does now guarantee the UK’s national interest and national security. At a cost of less than 0.2% of the annual defence budget we have secured unrestricted access to, and use of, the base, as well as control over movement of all persons and all goods on the base and control of all communication and electronic systems. Nothing can be built within a 24 nautical-mile buffer zone without our say so, and we have secured an effective veto on all developments in the Chagos archipelago, and a strict ban will be imposed on foreign security forces operating on the outer islands—all provisions that were not in the draft agreement that had been negotiated by the Conservative Party before the election.

I just say to the parties opposite that anyone who would abandon this deal would abandon the base. They would weaken the security of the British people and weaken the strength of the British Armed Forces. By signing this deal, the British flag will fly over the Diego Garcia base well into the next century. By signing this deal, the relationship with our closest security ally will be strengthened. By signing this deal, our capacity to deter our adversaries and defend UK interests is secured for generations to come. As the world becomes more dangerous, Diego Garcia becomes more important. This Government will never compromise on our national security. With this deal, we have made Britain more secure at home and stronger abroad”.

15:37:00

My Lords, this is an extremely important Statement concerning the future sovereignty of the British Indian Ocean Territory. I begin by expressing my disappointment with the Government’s handling of the timing of this announcement. This is a matter of national security and territorial integrity, and this decision directly affects how our country is perceived on the international stage. To slip in an unscheduled Statement moments before these Houses rose for Recess shows a disregard for Members in both your Lordships’ House and the other place. Matters of this significance deserve to be discussed, and the Government’s actions scrutinised, in good time, and it is my view that the Government timed their announcement to disrupt that duty of scrutiny, despite efforts made the Official Opposition to raise this question on parliamentary time on the Thursday before Recess. I hope that the Minister can start his response by addressing this question. The Statement made by the Secretary of State for Defence in the other place was effusive in highlighting the importance of the Diego Garcia base. He said: “For more than 50 years, the joint UK-US military base on Diego Garcia has been a launchpad to defeat terrorists, to prevent threats to our nation, and to protect our economic security. This base keeps Britain secure at home and strong abroad”. Can the Minister explain why, given that this is the Government’s latest assessment, they are surrendering that very same British sovereign territory to a foreign power—a power that only recently has agreed to deepen maritime co-operation with Russia? Once sovereignty has been relinquished, it can never be regained. The text of the treaty also includes the provision that the UK must “expeditiously inform Mauritius of any armed attack on a third State directly emanating from the Base on Diego Garcia”. Does the Minister believe that it is in the interests of our national security to share advance information on military operations with third countries? Can he promise that this information, which we are now obliged to share with Mauritius, will never be shared with China, Iran or Russia, with whom the Mauritians are becoming increasingly friendly? I, like many other noble Lords—and honourable Members in the other place—took exception to the comments of the Prime Minister during his press conference. He said that those of us who oppose the deal are on the same side as Russia and China. That is not only deeply offensive but entirely false. Just last week, we saw news reports of China’s ambassador to Mauritius hailing this deal as a “massive achievement” for Mauritius and then confirming that China would welcome it into the belt and road initiative. It is vividly apparent that, contrary to the Government’s claims, Mauritius is becoming ever more under the influence of China. It is no surprise that China welcomes this deal; it plays right into its strategy of weakening western democracies and hobbling our abilities to operate internationally. Over the weekend, noble Lords will also have considered the renewed US views on China’s intentions towards Taiwan as context. Has the Minister considered how this treaty makes us look on the world stage? The Prime Minister has signed an agreement which will surrender a strategically vital resource to a foreign Government. He has also, it appears, committed us to sharing military information with that same Government, who show increasing signs of support for our enemies. The Prime Minister and the Defence Secretary have both argued that this agreement is necessary to safeguard our ability to operate from the Diego Garcia military base, in the face of legal challenges. However, the legal case is entirely opaque. Noble Lords will know that this all stems from a non-binding advisory opinion from the International Court of Justice, a court which counts among its number a Chinese judge who is a member of the Chinese Communist Party and who voted against condemning Russia for its illegal invasion of Ukraine. We also know that the International Telecommunication Union does not have the power to issue binding rulings against the UK in respect of the base on Diego Garcia, and it is unclear whether a case would be brought against us in the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea. Even if it had done so, it would have been a case that we could have opposed and appealed. Everyone seems to agree that the British Indian Ocean Territory is a critically important asset, not just to the UK but, by direct or indirect association, to all our allies. To crown it all, we are paying for the privilege of surrendering our own territory. The Government, to the incredulity of Members across both Houses and people throughout the country, hail this as a success. In reality, I can find no positive report of this chosen route in any media or other channel not linked to China. Does the Minister honestly believe that this is a good deal that benefits the United Kingdom? When he responds in a moment, can he say with his hand on his heart that handing the Mauritians £30 billion over 99 years to lose one of our vital strategic assets is something that we should welcome and be proud of? The Minister will be well aware that those payments are front-loaded. The agreement laid before Parliament states that, for the first three years, the United Kingdom will pay Mauritius £165 million per year, then £120 million for each of the next 10 years and an additional £45 million every year from year one for infrastructure improvements in Mauritius. That is for the next 25 years, which means that, over the next five years, we will be paying Mauritius £1 billion. Let me put that into a defence context. £1 billion could pay for 10 new F35 Lightnings, 30 Apache attack helicopters, 125 Boxer armoured fighting vehicles, or an entire Type 26 frigate—which must rankle with the noble Lord, Lord West, among many others. Given that the strategic defence review, revealed yesterday, contained 62 recommendations, all of which have been accepted by the Government, and at a time when the Chancellor is warning of additional tax rises and spending cuts, does the Minister not agree that a far better use could be found for this money? Can the Minister tell us exactly how this will be funded? Can he help the House to understand how the obligations to the British people are being fulfilled by pursuing this deal at the taxpayer’s expense? More importantly—and this is a simple question requiring a yes or no answer—will this money be paid out of the defence budget? If so, how can the Minister justify that, given the Government have spent the last few months attempting to talk up their increase in the defence budget? This agreement must make the United Kingdom less secure, weaker on the global stage and at greater risk than under the current status quo. There are good deals and not so good deals. One of the key skills in deciding to complete a deal or not is knowing when it is wiser to withdraw than continue, and that is exactly what the previous Government did. We should be mindful of the critical fact that, once sovereignty has been relinquished, it can never be regained. It is also somewhat ironic that, as the Government announce their strategic defence review on the one hand, they are wilfully disposing with the sovereignty of the British Indian Ocean Territory on the other, along with significant amounts of taxpayers’ hard-earned cash. Finally, but just as importantly, what of the Chagossian community, which is already widely displaced? A one-off token payment of £40 million to assist resettlement and readjustment to an unknown and distant sovereign power—and its intentions—in the light of the overall magnitude of the Mauritian gains, both territorial and financial, seems almost derisory. Can the Minister advise the House how this sum is to be allocated, tracked and ensured, for the benefit of all Chagossians? Noble Lords will be aware of the Motion against ratification of the treaty, tabled by my noble friend Lord Callanan. Let me be clear: we do not do this lightly, but this arrangement poses such harm to our nation and, indeed, international security, and is such a flagrant violation of the rights of the Chagossian community, that we feel it our duty to bring this fatal Motion to the House. We hope noble Lords across the House will weigh the agreement carefully and support our Motion. This deal cannot be the right thing for our country to do.

My Lords, I find myself in a rather unusual position. On most defence issues, it is very easy for the Liberal Democrat defence spokesperson to agree with the Official Opposition, and to find that the Minister will also be saying very similar things. On most issues, we find ourselves saying how vital the defence of the realm is, and that we are broadly on the same page, with a few minor differences. On this issue, however, there seems to be such a clear difference of opinion between the Official Opposition and the Government Benches that I will ask only a few clarificatory questions for those of us who are not Privy Councillors, have not been briefed on Privy Council terms and are therefore unable to express the effusive views on the importance of Diego Garcia that the noble Earl, Lord Minto, mentioned the Secretary of State had expressed. For anyone who read the Statement delivered in the other place just before Recess, the Secretary of State was indeed crystal clear about the importance of Diego Garcia to the security of the United Kingdom. The Secretary of State particularly made the point that the deal is vital because we retain control over Diego Garcia, but he also pointed out how important it is as a joint US-UK military base. So what role does the United States play on Diego Garcia? I realise that the Minister may feel that this is privileged information that he is not able to articulate in open session, but we need to understand what is going on with our relationship with the US in this regard. The noble Earl, Lord Minto, said that the only people who are really in favour of this are the Chinese, yet the Secretary of State pointed out that none other than Pete Hegseth, Secretary of State Rubio and President Trump have said that this is a “very long-term” and “very strong” deal. So whose interests is it in? Is it in the UK’s national interest or is it primarily about the US’s interest? Finally—because I want to give the Minister time to reply—this deal has apparently been two and a half years in the making. His Majesty’s Government have been in office for only 11 months. That means that, for over a year and a half, the negotiations were under the Conservative Government. What has changed between the two Governments to make one party now think that this is a vital deal, and the other implacably opposed?

My Lords, I thank the noble Earl, Lord Minto, for his comments and the articulate way in which he presented an opinion that I do not agree with. But that is the point of scrutiny and that is the point I am making back to the noble Earl. Whatever the process is, that he could stand here so that we can debate this—and others will debate it—is important to democracy and the way our country works. I also thank the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, for her comments. The Government’s position is quite clear: none of us disagrees that Diego Garcia is of huge significance and importance to the geopolitical security of us and our allies, in particular the United States. The discussion is about the best way of securing that base for the future. The Opposition’s point of view is that there is no legal jeopardy, that we can carry on ignoring the ICJ’s judgment, because it was just advisory, and that we may reach a point when a binding judgment is made. The question then becomes whether we ignore only binding agreements, if we get to them. That was clearly what the previous Government were wrestling with. In answer to the question from the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, it is clearly why, at some point, officials and Ministers under the previous Government—under Rishi Sunak if not before—decided that they needed to negotiate and discuss the future of the Diego Garcia base with Mauritius. Otherwise, what was the point of those negotiations? Were they just a delaying tactic: “We’ll just negotiate and pretend that we’re discussing something when we don’t mean it”. I can see the noble Earl’s noble friend shaking his head, but the consequence of what the noble Earl said is that the previous Government were negotiating with a country with no intention of coming to any agreement. I do not believe that. As much as I do not agree with much of what the last Government did, I do not believe that the lack of integrity in Ministers or officials was such that they would have done that. So I believe that negotiations were going on about the best way forward, and this Government have come to the conclusion that there is judicial or legal jeopardy in allowing the situation to continue. I will try to cut my remarks short to make sure that Back-Benchers get a proper opportunity. We negotiated a treaty, which will be subject to parliamentary scrutiny when it comes before Parliament to be debated. That treaty guarantees, with many conditions, the security of Diego Garcia. Our international partners are far from disagreeing. I will read what Secretary Hegseth said for the noble Baroness—and yes, the US is a really important partner for us on Diego Garcia. Of course it is. We work really closely with the US on this, and we make no apology for that. Pete Hegseth said: “Diego Garcia is a vital military base for the US. The UK’s (very important) deal with Mauritius secures the operational capabilities of the base and key US national security interests in the region”. Secretary Rubio said: “Today, the United States welcomed the historic agreement between the United Kingdom and the Republic of Mauritius on the future of the British Indian Ocean Territory—specifically, the Chagos Archipelago”. Canada said: “Canada welcomes the signing of the Chagos Archipelago sovereignty agreement”. Australia said: “Australia welcomes the signing of the historic agreement between the UK and Mauritius”. I will tell the House what I would do if I were China: I would say what a brilliant agreement it is to sow confusion, upset people and cause people to debate it. I will tell the House what I want: I want this country and our allies to determine what we should do and to tell China that we are going to act in what we consider to be our own interests, irrespective of what it might say to try to disrupt us. New Zealand said: “As a strong supporter of the international rules-based system, New Zealand welcomes the agreement”. India said: “We welcome the signing of the treaty between the United Kingdom and the Republic of Mauritius”. So, far from us being an international pariah because we have signed this agreement, many of the most important countries in that region have welcomed the deal because it confirms the security of that base. We are worried about the law of the sea. The noble Earl asked about that situation. We do not have to share information about actions taken from Diego Garcia in advance of us taking any action. I say that on the record because the noble Earl specifically asked me about it. We do not have to let Mauritius know in advance about it and then potentially share that information. The Government Actuary says that the cost of the treaty arrangements is £3.4 billion over the lifetime of the treaty. If the noble Earl and others want to take issue, let them argue with the Government Actuary, because that is the way that all Governments throughout the past few decades have costed government projects in this sense, so we are not changing that or moving any goalposts. The noble Earl talked about the Chagossians. This was a UK-Mauritius state treaty discussion, but the Chagossian community itself is not united in its response. On 22 May, two prominent Chagossian groups—the Chagos Refugees Group and the Chagossian Committee Seychelles—said that they regretted the legal action that aimed to halt what could be a landmark agreement that serves the long-term interests of Chagossians as a whole. That is Chagossians commenting on this agreement. The argument I put on behalf of the Government is that, far from undermining the base’s sovereignty in terms of its operational independence, and our ability to use Diego Garcia in the way we would all want—to protect our national security and defend our global interests—we have negotiated a treaty that is subject to parliamentary approval, which gives it the scrutiny the noble Earl would like, strengthened it and ensured that we protect our national interests and those of our friends and allies, including the US.

15:58:00

My Lords, I thank my noble friend for the Statement. He is right that this gives a long-term future to a strategically vital base not only for this country but, as he read out with his quotes, for our Five Eyes partners. China is being used as an example of why this is a bad deal. Does he agree that Mauritius’s main interlocutor in the region is not China but India, and that if China were to do anything in that region, India would certainly have something to say about it?

I thank my noble friend. He is right. That is why I read out what the Indian Government said about the treaty and the agreement that has been reached. They say clearly: “The formal resolution of the longstanding Chagos dispute through this bilateral treaty is a milestone achievement and a positive development for the region”. I for one am pleased that the Indian Government have made such a positive statement, in the face of some comments.

My Lords, if the military base on Diego Garcia is just as important to the US as it is to the UK, was the US ever asked to split the costs of leasing it back?

I am not sure of the answer to that, but I suspect not. All I can say with respect to this is that, whatever the payment is that the UK Government are making, through the MoD and the FCDO, to the Mauritian Government for the use and protection of the base, we should be clear that the US’s ability to use the base, with its equipment, its facilities, and the soldiers, airmen and sailors of its military, is the massive contribution that the US makes to it. Whatever arrangements we have, the fact that the US and the UK are standing together on that base sends a massive signal to China, the rest of those who stand against us and our adversaries. We are a proud country. We are going to stand with our friends, and we will deter those who seek to undermine us.

My Lords, may I perhaps inform the Minister? He is, of course, right that the previous Government engaged on this in good faith to try to seek a resolution. The reason why it could not be agreed, as has been said before in your Lordships’ House, was the principal issue of security. I visited at the behest of a previous Prime Minister and directly met the Prime Minister of Mauritius. One assurance that he could not give me at that time was about the long-term security of both the maritime waters and the Diego Garcia base. Linked to that, my specific question is about the other islands that make up the British Indian Ocean Territory. What assurances and, indeed, guarantees are there that there will not be a separate negotiation on them?

My Lords, I know that the noble Lord, Lord Ahmad, will have negotiated in good faith. I know too that if there had been an agreement that he felt was in the national interest then he would have recommended to his Government that it should be supported. The point that I am making is that the principle was established that negotiations were happening to see what arrangement or agreement, if any, could be made between the UK and Mauritius with respect to Diego Garcia. This Government’s judgment is that we have reached such an agreement. The noble Lord is quite right to point out the security guarantees that we have. He will know that in the treaty there is a 24-mile buffer zone around the island, and the US and the UK can veto any development within that zone. He will also know that there is a further exclusion zone beyond that encompassing the rest of the islands, which means we can prevent development that we are opposed to there as well. That is why we felt we could sign an agreement containing the sorts of security guarantees that the noble Lord himself sought but did not manage to achieve, and therefore did not feel there was an agreement that he could come to or recommend we agree to. We feel that we have guarantees that will protect the integrity of the base by excluding others who would seek to undermine it.

My Lords, the Statement twice refers to guaranteeing the UK full continued control over Diego Garcia for the next 99 years and beyond. What is the exact legal position that the Government have negotiated regarding the situation beyond the year 2124, which, after all, is little more than a single lifetime away? What concerns me is that the wording available to the public suggests that any extension depends entirely on obtaining the agreement of the Mauritian Government at the time, which does not sound much like a guarantee of full UK control of Diego Garcia beyond 99 years.

The noble Lord will know that, in addition to the 99 years, there is in the treaty an option for a further 40 years. He will know the importance of respecting a treaty, which is a legally binding agreement between two Governments, whether through an international court, national courts or sovereign Governments themselves. The important principle is that what is in the treaty is what has been negotiated. As far as I am concerned, we will ensure that the treaty is respected, and that is the legal basis on which we go forward.

I support all that my noble friend has had to say about the significance of the islands to our defence and that of our allies, but these kinds of exchanges tend to be very much about high politics. We should remember—and even though it has been said before, it needs to be repeated, preferably from the Front Bench here—that this cannot be done without a reflection on the gross abuse that took place all those years ago to the people of the Chagos Islands. There were shocking stories about Chagossians who were on holiday when the takeover took place and the military base was established who were unable even to get back into their own homeland. I really feel that there should be some additional statement from my noble friend on precisely what this deal does for the people who inhabited those islands and their descendants. I know there are differences of opinion, but what exactly will the rights of Chagossians be as and when this deal is ratified?

On the rights of the Chagossians and what happened in the past, of course there is a lot to be regretted about the situation that occurred and what has happened with the Chagossians. The Chagossians in the UK, primarily in Crawley, receive support from the UK Government to facilitate their living here. The treaty provides £40 million for a trust fund to be set up for Chagossians living in Mauritius. Notwithstanding what I think is my noble friend’s point about resettlement and the opportunity to return, this was a UK-Mauritius agreement to protect the long-term integrity of the Diego Garcia base, and alongside that we have tried to provide some support for Chagossians whether they live in the UK or Mauritius.

Successive Governments of all political backgrounds have behaved disgracefully towards the Chagossians. I presided in a case for the Court of Appeal in which we were unable to help the Chagossians but learned a great deal—I am talking about 20 years ago—about what had happened. What the Minister has not said is whether any Chagossians will be allowed to return to the other islands.

Rather than misinform the noble and learned Baroness, let me check that—I am not 100% certain of the particulars on the return of Chagossians to other islands. If she will allow me, I will check that, write to her and, with due respect to everybody, put a copy of that in the Library.

My Lords, following on from that question, there seems to be no guarantee in this agreement that Chagossians will be able to return to any of the islands. I understood that that was going to be in the agreement. Perhaps the Minister can tell me where I can read up, because obviously I am ignorant on this as I can see nothing that shows why Mauritius has such a claim on the Chagos Islands.

I will copy the letter that I said I would send to the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, directly to the noble Baroness. Diego Garcia has been regarded as part of Mauritius. It is something that Mauritius has links to. It is recognised through the international order. As part of the negotiations that have taken place, we have negotiated with that Government to come to an agreement around the future of Diego Garcia. The noble Baroness will know, with the interest she takes in security matters, that it is important for the Government to ensure the future of the Diego Garcia base. That is protected under this treaty. That is a hard and difficult position, and sometimes Governments have to make those decisions. The alternative would be a situation of judicial jeopardy and the future of the base would be uncertain. People are quite able to oppose that deal, but their position would be to let us continue with a situation that is uncertain and where there is judicial jeopardy. We think and believe that an agreement that protects the future of one of the most important bases in the world for our geopolitical security is something that—if we can agree it, and we believe we have—is worth agreeing. It protects the base, and that is the all-important principle to which we have adhered.

My Lords, I came to this matter with an open mind. I have listened to the arguments on both sides, and I have some background in the region. I conclude that the Minister has made his case on this matter.

I thank the noble Lord very much for that. That means there are two of us in this Chamber. For any journalists reporting this, that is a joke—just to ensure we have clarity. Seriously, I thank the noble Lord. At the end of the day—this is the point about scrutiny—the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, has done nothing but shake his head the whole debate. There is a legitimate debate and discussion to take place. The noble Lord has articulated a point of view that says this is essentially a sell-out. I take the view that, on the contrary, it is nothing like that. It is a Government taking seriously their responsibility to try to come to an agreement in difficult circumstances, as we have heard from some of the questions, and negotiate with the Mauritian Government to protect a base of huge, vital strategic significance. The noble Lord does not agree with the vital strategic significance, but we have sought to protect it through a treaty that we believe helps guarantee that and will guarantee it. For those who oppose it, I repeat that there is judicial jeopardy and no certainty that the base can be protected. The idea that we can just ignore international judicial opinion and not worry about where that may take us is not the right way forward. The challenge the noble Earl made, and the one I have heard time and again, is that nobody supports this and it makes us a pariah internationally. I read out statements from many of our most significant partners and allies, including the United States, Australia, New Zealand, Japan and India. All those countries said they support the arrangement and the deal we have come to. The noble Lord, Lord Callanan, may propose a fatal Motion—he is entitled to do it; I am not saying he should not, and he will anyway. My point is that Secretary Hegseth, Secretary Rubio, the Indian Government, the Japanese Government, the Australian Government, the New Zealand Government and many others all support it. Those who oppose the deal will have to say why they are opposed to something supported by all those. They will say, “Because China is the real voice”. Let me say this: China can say what it wants. This Government know the malign influence of China, as the previous Government did. None of us needs any lectures about standing up to the Chinese, and we will.

Perhaps I might take the Minister back to the questions asked by the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, about the wrong that was done to the Chagossians, and the agency and will of the Chagossian diaspora population. The Minister said at the beginning that they were divided, which is of course true—they are not a single block. I think it would address concerns on all sides of this House if this deal were made subject to a consultative referendum among the Chagossian population. Noble Lords may say that that is difficult to do because they are scattered—some are in the Seychelles and some are in Mauritius—but it is not logistically impossible. I voted not long ago on who should be the next chancellor of the University of Oxford—I voted for the noble Lord, Lord Hague—and there were people on five continents for that. You establish your credentials and then you vote, so I do not think it would be logistically unfeasible. If the Chagossian people voted for it, I think people would get behind it. Will the Minister consider giving a voice to the people who have more at stake here than anybody else?

I thank the noble Lord for his question. The answer is no. The British Government have made, and will make, their case. The treaty that has been agreed will be subject to parliamentary approval, and there will be a debate on it. No doubt the noble Lord will be able to put forward that point of view at some point. But the British Government have taken a decision on the basis of our national security and the geopolitical security of that region and beyond. Let us be clear: some of what happens at Diego Garcia has implications reaching far beyond the region, and the noble Earl, Lord Minto, the noble Lord, Lord Ahmad, and many others here will know that. The geopolitical significance of Diego Garcia is not linked just to that region; it has a global impact. As the noble Lord will know, Governments sometimes have to make very real and difficult decisions and, in the interests of the geopolitical needs of our nation and those of our friends —to combat China and others—we have taken the decision to ensure, through this treaty, that we protect the integrity and future of the Diego Garcia base so that it can continue to operate in the interests that we all share: democracy, human rights and the international rules-based order.

The fact that the Minister has made this case so effectively raises a question about what happens next. With great respect, I do not think he has answered the question about what happens when the treaty comes to an end. I cannot imagine that the needs of security will come to an end. Are we to take it that the treaty says nothing about this? If so, what happens?

I will reflect on that—I note that the noble Lord, Lord De Mauley, was shaking his head when I answered. I will see whether I can add anything further to the points made by the noble and learned Lord and the noble Lord, Lord De Mauley. Clearly, the treaty lays out 99 years, with the 40-year further option on that. If the noble and learned Lord is asking me what happens at the end of 139 years, I will reflect on that so that others who may follow me can consider their options in 139 years’ time.

I will clarify my question. My understanding, from what I read—which is available to the public—is that the Mauritian Government have to agree even to the 40-year extension, let alone what happens at the end of that 40 years.

I will clarify that. I tried to be open and frank in answer to the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, and the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss. I will reflect on that and whether I need to write to the noble Lord to ensure that we have correct factual information. We may differ on opinions, but it is important that we have factual information in front of us. If I need to, I will write to the noble Lord, Lord De Mauley, and put a copy of that in the Library, as well as giving a copy to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, just for clarity’s sake.