Chagos Islands

12:41:00

(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs if he will make a statement on the negotiations of the transfer of sovereignty of the Chagos islands to Mauritius.

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 hon. 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.

The Mauritian Parliament had the opportunity yesterday to debate this at length, but it seems the Minister was perhaps rather more reluctant to be here today. Jonathan Powell, our national security adviser, has been doing the rounds in Washington, where he has been telling everybody, including members of the new US Cabinet, that this is necessary—that we have to give away the sovereignty of the Chagos islands—and that in those circumstances a negotiated 99-year lease is the best option. But that is just not true, is it? It is not true at all. It does not stand. There is no legal basis on which we have to give away the sovereignty of the Chagos islands. An advisory judgment from the International Criminal Court has no force of legal power whatsoever; indeed, America disregards it so much that it is not even a member. The Americans, by the way, have been pretty busy with foreign policy just lately, so it is perhaps no wonder that Diego Garcia has not been high on their agenda, but when they wake up to the fact that this has been done—wholly unnecessarily—I would not be surprised if we find ourselves, together with the European Union, in their tariff regime. Can the Minister confirm that there is no binding legal basis for this transfer of sovereignty whatsoever?

The hon. Gentleman goes over ground that he has gone over before, with questions I have answered in this House and, indeed, which were discussed in yesterday’s debate. We have been very clear, as indeed were the previous Government, that this base was not on a secure footing. This has been done in full agreement with the US national security apparatus across the piece. He refers to the ICC; it was, of course, the International Court of Justice that made that judgment. We are very clear that the joint UK-US base on Diego Garcia plays a critical role in countering an array of threats to regional and international security, and we will not scrimp on the security of that base or on the solidity of the agreements around it. We will ensure that it is in operation well into the next century and that we are able to operate unimpeded as we do today. That is exactly why the previous Government recognised there was a problem and engaged in this process, and it is why we have brought that problem to a conclusion, with a deal that protects our interests and the interests of the United States and that ensures the security of the base and its operation. As I have said, once the treaty is signed, it will be brought before the House for scrutiny before ratification in the usual way. [Interruption.] I hear chuntering from the Opposition Benches. I have to say, the Opposition seem to have collective amnesia over this issue. They know full well the reasons behind this; many of them were members of the previous Government. They have heard what the Prime Minister just said on the Leader of the Opposition’s attacks. We are very clear that this is about defending the UK’s security, putting the base on a secure footing and securing that for the future, for both us and our allies.

At the most recent Environmental Audit Committee sitting, we heard about the importance of the Chagos islands for the marine environment. Can my hon. Friend tell us anything more about the specific reassurances we have had on that crucial area for the biodiversity of the marine environment, and how that will be protected after this deal, from the discussions that he has had?

I thank my hon. Friend for his important question. It was a delight to appear before his Committee to discuss other matters just a few weeks ago. This treaty reflects both parties’ shared commitment to uphold international environmental law, including high conservation standards across the archipelago. Mauritius has expressed dedication to marine conservation and has aligned its global initiatives to protect 30% of marine areas by 2030 and its commitments under the sustainable development goals, and establishing a fit-for-purpose marine protected area is a crucial part of that. We will work with Mauritius very closely on this matter. It was a very important part of the discussions, and I am very glad we have been able to make the agreements that we have.

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

Let us be clear: Labour’s disastrous deal is one of the worst foreign policy failures in modern British history. Labour is surrendering an absolutely critical strategic defence asset that we operate together with our closest security partner—now we are told we will have to pay billions for the privilege of doing so. When Labour negotiates, Britain loses, and loses big time. While this House has been kept in the dark on the details, our counterparts in Mauritius have not. They had a robust debate in Parliament, which many of us watched on YouTube. It was just extraordinary. The Prime Minister of Mauritius gave his Parliament a detailed account, and even a chronology, of the deal and the negotiations that led to it—details that Labour repeatedly refused to disclose to this House and which the Prime Minister of Mauritius set out in no uncertain terms so that nobody should be in any doubt. This weak, hapless Government have backed down and the House deserves answers today. Has the Minister given away our ability to unilaterally extend the period over which the UK can exercise sovereign rights on Diego Garcia? The Mauritius Prime Minister says he has. Has the Minister given away our ability to exercise sovereign rights over Diego Garcia entirely? If so, what is the cost? Is it £9 billion? Is it £18 billion? Is it to be inflation-proofed, as the Mauritian Prime Minister stated in Parliament yesterday? If the Minister is frontloading payments, what other services will be cut here in the United Kingdom in the immediate term to make room and pay for the deal? When Labour is imposing taxes on education, family farms and businesses, and has cut winter fuel payments for vulnerable pensioners, how can this eye-watering amount of money be justified to lease back a territory for which—guess what—we already own the freehold? Will the Minister also say whether he will have to make defence cuts to absorb this enormous cost? Should the Ministry of Defence be shouldering the costs? What budget will it come from? Will the Government count the payments towards the 2.5% defence target? On the sovereignty of bases, does the deal pose a new precedent for other bases, such as Cyprus? The Mauritius Prime Minister said last month that his Attorney General met the Minister and the UK Attorney General. Will the Minister confirm what was discussed? Importantly, may I ask again: if the Government think this is such a good deal, does he stand by that and will he defend our interests?

I have to say again to the right hon. Lady that it was her Government—a Government that she was part of—who started the negotiations and went through 11 rounds of negotiations. She knows full well the reasons why. Quite frankly, I find it extraordinary for her to talk about defence and the national security of this country, when we are having to rebuild and clear up the mess that her Government made of our armed forces and our defence. I am very glad to be joined on the Front Bench by the Minister for the Armed Forces, my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth Sutton and Devonport (Luke Pollard). It is this Government who are rebuilding our defence, increasing our spending, and delivering for our armed forces and national security around the world. Indeed, this agreement is a crucial part of that. A lot of the figures being speculated about in the media should, as I said yesterday, be taken with a pinch of salt. We have been clear: there is no change to the substance or the quantum in relation to this agreement. The right hon. Lady raises inflation. I am surprised she mentions that, because indexation was there in the public statement made about the negotiations on 3 October. Indeed, it was part of the agreement from her Government, so I am very surprised that she asks that question. Lastly, I am deeply disappointed, as are our friends in the overseas territories around the world, that constant false comparisons keep being made with our other bases and our other overseas territories. This is not a read-across situation. We are committed to our base on Cyprus. We are committed to Gibraltar. We are committed to the Falklands. We have been absolutely and resolutely clear about that. To continue to suggest that there is some sort of threat to them quite frankly undermines our national security and does not strengthen it in any way.

Does the Minister agree that, despite the Member for the Trump Government’s misrepresentations, the UK Government must provide their own independent global leadership based on UK values and UK interests to make a safer world, despite or because of the new US Administration’s changing foreign policy, including closing the United States Agency for International Development, and on the Chagos islands?

I set out yesterday, in a very important debate on our bilateral relations with the United States, just how much we are co-operating already with the new US Administration on defence, security and our shared priorities around growth and prosperity. We are absolutely committed in our wider international obligations. We have set that out, the Minister for Development, my right hon. Friend the Member for Oxford East (Anneliese Dodds) has set that out, and my colleagues have set that out in relation to climate change. We will continue to work with the United States on all the global challenges we face.

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

I put on record the deep concern of the Liberal Democrats at the way this deal has progressed. We accept the ICJ ruling. I thought there was a consensus across the House on the importance of the UK upholding the rule of law, so I am bemused by the confected consternation of those on the Conservative Benches. It was the then Foreign Secretary, the right hon. Member for Braintree (Mr Cleverly), who in 2022 stated: “it is our intention to secure an agreement on the basis of international law to resolve all outstanding issues”—[Official Report, 3 November 2022; Vol. 721, c. 27WS.] But under this Labour Government, Chagossians have been ignored, Parliament is without a say, and the lack of foresight on how the US presidential election might affect the deal is troubling. After failing to force through an agreement, Ministers have now given Donald Trump a say about the future of sovereign British territory. Can the Minister confirm that before signature, this House will be given a vote on the terms of the final deal, in particular to see how UK security interests have been protected?

I have set out on a number of occasions why the deal is right for our national security interests and those of our allies. I have also set out very clearly the normal process. It will go through Parliament.

I thank the Minister for his response to the urgent question. I listened carefully to the concerns of the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage) about the deal. If those concerns are about the possible costs, then given that his entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests states that he has earned nearly £600,000 in the past six months since his election, perhaps the Minister might agree with me that the hon. Gentleman could make a donation to the Government to secure our national security—

Order. I am sure you want to ask a serious question.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. Apologies. Will the Minister reassure me, as he has in his response and in countless statements before, that when the treaty comes before the House, securing our national security will be paramount through a process that, as he said, was started under the previous Government?

We will not scrimp on national security, as I have said. There has been no change to the substance of the deal or the overall quantum agreed. We will present the process in the usual way, as I have said multiple occasions.

I want to try to be helpful to the Minister. I was the Deputy Foreign Secretary throughout much of the negotiations and I am in a position to tell the House that neither my right hon. Friend the Member for Braintree (Mr Cleverly) nor the noble Lord Cameron in the other place would ever, as Foreign Secretary, have done the deal that the Government are now intent upon. I think the Minister must be praying every night for a “get out of jail free” card—that, when the American Administration come to look at the deal, they will veto it and get the Government off the hook.

I set out very clearly the reasons for the doing the deal. It is the right deal for our national security and that of our allies. The right hon. Gentleman knows that because his Government started the process. We are engaged in constructive discussions with our US counterparts. It was absolutely right that they had the chance to consider the deal. We will allay any concerns raised, and that have been raised in the House previously, in terms of the security provisions. They have been provided with the full detail of the agreement.

The hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage) says he wants to help UK relations with the US, but he has a very funny way of going about it. Opposition Members state over and over again that they understand the desires and the psyche of the US military and its people, yet they ignore the fact that, the ICJ rulings aside, the previous and present US Administrations understand the language of business and agreements, and not the gentlemen’s agreements that have in the past marred discussions and negotiations about the stability and persistent military presence on the islands. It is for that reason that I ask the Minister if he agrees that the confirmation of the legal status of the base will cement our role in the Indo-Pacific and put us in a strong position to counter Chinese influence in the region.

My hon. Friend is absolutely right about protecting against malign interests. That is exactly at the heart of the deal. He is also exactly right about the history of why the deal was needed. That was, of course, recognised by the previous Government, which was why they started the negotiations. We wanted to put the base on a secure footing well into the next century, which is what I assume they were trying to do previously and spent 11 rounds negotiating. We have come to a deal that is in our national interest. Most crucially, it is our national security and that of our allies that is at the heart of it. There are multiple safeguards in place in the treaty. They will protect our national security and that of our allies.

Given that what the Minister has told the House today is so at variance with the report from the Prime Minister of Mauritius, surely it rings alarm bells in his mind about the nature of the polity and the individuals with whom he is negotiating—and has he entirely lost his moral compass? The Government are considering taxing death-in-service benefits of our servicemen while at the same time contemplating spending £18 billion on saving a base that we already own.

I am not going to reflect on the appalling record of the right hon. Gentleman’s Government on defence and our service people. We are getting around to rebuilding our relationship with our armed forces and rebuilding our defences, in view of the global threats that we face. The right hon. Gentleman asked about the Mauritian Prime Minister, who is, of course, responsible for his own words. I certainly do not recognise some of the commentary that there has been over the last 48 hours. It is clear that there has been no change in the substance of the deal or in the overall quantum agreed.

The Minister has described the conversations he has had with American allies, but can he update the House on the conversations he has had with the wider NATO partnership, given the consequences that this could have for them?

Our NATO membership is utterly crucial. We have a “NATO first” strategy. The Prime Minister has met the Secretary-General in the last 48 hours, and I was with NATO colleagues at the North Atlantic Council just before Christmas. We are absolutely clear in our commitment to our NATO allies and our commitment to the United States. They form a bedrock of our security in a globally uncertain time, and that is also why we need to secure the base into the long-term future.

A few weeks ago I had the privilege of meeting a large group of Chagossians who had come from, in some cases, as far away as France to discuss with Members of Parliament their feelings about this deal. I was one of only three MPs who turned up, and the Chagossians were devastated by that turnout. They told us that they had not been in any way meaningfully consulted about the deal, so the Minister has a challenge on his hands. He told the House that meaningful negotiations and discussions had taken place. He has a choice today: he can either tell us precisely what those consultations and negotiations were, or correct the record.

I am rather confused by that question, because I have been very clear about the engagements that I have had with members of the Chagossian community. There were two, and I have given the dates on which they took place. We continue to engage with members of that community; in fact, my officials will meet some of them next week, and I look forward to meeting them again in due course. As I have said many times before, I respect the range of differing views within the Chagossian community. For example, the Chagos Refugees Group—one of the largest Chagossian groups—has welcomed the agreement. There are a range of Chagossian groups around the world, as the hon. Gentleman knows, and we will continue to engage with them and listen to all their views. I can assure him that the interests of Chagossians are at the heart of this agreement.

The Minister, like the Prime Minister before him, keeps implying that if Members of this House were armed with the same information that they were armed with, they would come to the same decision. Well, I was armed with the information that the Minister has at his disposal; I did not come to the same decision, and neither did my direct successor, Lord Cameron of Chipping Norton. Do the Minister, the other Ministers in the Government and the officials who work on their behalf understand that the point of a negotiation is not to get any deal but to get a good deal, and that if you do not get a good deal you should walk away from the table, as we did?

As I said earlier, the right hon. Gentleman recognised that there was a problem, he started the negotiating process, and they went through 11 rounds. This is a good deal, and that is why we have agreed it.

For years, an international rules-based system has been the cornerstone of both our economic prosperity—as the hundreds of billions wasted on a pointless Brexit have illustrated—and our security. China does not get that, Russia does not get that, and the current occupant of the White House does not seem to get that. Do the Government get that?

We are absolutely clear about the fact that national security is our top priority. We need to maintain our security in all parts of the world. We are in very dangerous geopolitical circumstances, as I think all Members recognise, and that is exactly why we are investing in our defence, in our NATO partnership, and in our relationships with the United States, our European counterparts and many others. We will always put the national security of our citizens and our country first.

I have asked the Minister this question before, but if he will forgive me for saying so, his answer could have benefited from additional clarity, so, with your permission, Mr Speaker, I am going to ask it again. The Minister has made it very clear, as have his fellow Ministers, that the urgency and necessity of action in this instance is based on the imminence of an adverse court judgment against the UK. He knows that the International Court of Justice is not the court that we must be thinking of here, because the United Kingdom is not subject to the compulsory jurisdiction of the ICJ when it concerns disputes involving members or former members of the Commonwealth, so it cannot be an ICJ judgment that the Minister is worried about, can it? If it is not that, what is it?

I have explained on a number of occasions, and the last Government knew the reasons, why it was necessary to proceed with a deal to secure the future operation of the base—that was very clear—and why our allies wanted us to secure it. Let me give the right hon. and learned Gentleman an example. We currently have unrestricted and sole access to the electromagnetic spectrum, which is used to communicate with satellites and which is guaranteed and governed by the International Telecommunication Union, a United Nations body based in Geneva. If we lose it we can still communicate, but so can others. That is one of many examples. There are a series of aspects that are important to the operations and the security of the base, its maintenance into the future, and its ability to operate unimpeded. I can tell the right hon. and learned Gentleman that all those considerations, and the protections that we have secured, have been part of why we have reached this deal. We would not have agreed a deal that did not secure the unimpeded operation of the base into the future and also left it continually at risk, as it is at present.

We have not been able to obtain any facts from the Government about the cost. The deal is, of course, inflation-linked, and we do not know what inflation will be in the future. We do, however, know three facts: first, the base is crucial to our national interests; secondly, China is seeking to expand its influence across the Indian Ocean and Africa; and thirdly, the Mauritian Government will have clear, unambiguous sovereignty over the islands. How can the Minister anticipate that our interests are safeguarded if he does not know what relationship future Mauritian Governments will have with China?

I have answered that question on a number of occasions. Mauritius is one of the few African countries not to join the belt and road initiative—its alliance is with India—and we have clear guarantees in the treaty setting out the protections against malign interests on the outer islands and, indeed, in the surrounding area. That is why the whole United States security apparatus agreed to this. We would not have agreed a deal that did not protect. Let me give some examples. The UK has full control over Diego Garcia, including control over the electromagnetic spectrum, and unrestricted access to and from the base; there is a buffer zone around Diego Garcia, in which nothing can be built or put in place without UK consent; and, of course, there are the various different robust mechanisms and review processes to ensure that no activity in the outer islands or the surrounding area can impinge on the operations of the base. The right hon. Gentleman can be assured that we would not have agreed a deal that would allow any malign force, wherever it might be in the world, to use the space around the islands or to interfere with our operations. This is about putting the base on a secure footing into the future, for our national security and that of our allies.

The Prime Minister, and the Minister just now, have stressed the strategic importance of the military base at Diego Garcia. Can the Minister make it clear that there will be no restrictions in the lease as to what the base can be used for or what might be stored there, and that the UK will have the right to extend that lease when it expires?

I can absolutely confirm that there will be no change in the operations of the base. That is the basis on which this agreement is founded, along with all the provisions and protections within it. As I explained in earlier answers, the lease is for 99 years, with the possibility of an extension at the end of it.

Can the Minister assure us that he will not be dragged down the road of rebuilding the empire, as he was invited to do by the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage), and will he also confirm that in international law, the Chagos islands in their entirety have become part of Mauritius? Should we not be concentrating on the right of return of all Chagossians to the islands, for which they have been campaigning ever since the 1980s, when they were so disgracefully removed? This is an issue of decolonisation, and of the Chagossians’ right of return. I should be grateful if the Minister confirmed that any agreement with Mauritius will include their automatic right of return to the archipelago and their right at least to visit, and if necessary reside briefly in, Diego Garcia. They have suffered too long and too hard, and they have been treated so brutally that they deserve justice.

The primary purpose here is national security and ensuring the functioning of the base, but the right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to raise the issue of the Chagossians and their treatment in the past, which we all agree was wrong, and their interests are absolutely at the heart of this agreement. It will mean that, for the first time, we can resume visits to all the islands, including Diego Garcia, with the appropriate protections in place. Hopefully, it will allow settlement on the outer islands, which is part of our discussions with Mauritius on the treaty. Of course, the Chagossians can, subject to the relevant security clearances, work on Diego Garcia as well. We recognise their lands, graves and history, and our package of measures to support the Chagossian community—both globally through a trust fund and here in the UK—will be very important. Those are some of the issues on which we look forward to engaging with Chagossian representatives over the weeks to come.

The US has the most substantial interest in Diego Garcia, which is the fulcrum of what we are discussing today. Although I understand that the Minister cannot disclose the details of the compensatory package that is being negotiated, is it reasonable to assume that the US will be making a substantial contribution to that compensatory package?

As I have said, I am not going to give a running commentary on the discussions. What I will say is that the full details are being shared with the current US Administration, and it was absolutely right that they had the chance to consider them. We are always being accused of rushing, but this has been going on for more than two years. There have been lengthy rounds of discussions and lengthy rounds of negotiations, mostly under the previous Government, but it is absolutely right that the new US Administration have time to consider the deal and to be provided with the details, particularly around security issues, so that they can be absolutely sure about the security of the base and its operation into the future, which is in their interests and ours.

It is outrageous that we only know the detailed speculation about this deal because of the briefing from the Mauritian Prime Minister to his Members of Parliament. It is outrageous that the amount of money being talked about now is £18 billion, which is enough to pay for the winter fuel allowance for all our pensioners for the next 12 years. The Minister will not tell this House the actual quantum of money that he is discussing with Mauritius. Can he put it on the record now, and can he tell us out of which departmental budget it needs to be paid?

I can tell the hon. Lady that the figure that she pulled out is categorically untrue. She had the answer in her question: she said “speculation”. There is a huge amount of speculation, and I would take the vast majority of it with a pinch of salt.

My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kenilworth and Southam (Sir Jeremy Wright) spoke incredibly slowly and incredibly clearly—so much so that even I understood his question. However, the Minister did not actually give him an answer. When we joined the ICJ, we did so on the basis of a carve-out that meant that no ruling by the ICJ in respect of Commonwealth or former Commonwealth countries could be binding on His Majesty’s Government. Is it the ICJ that he is concerned about, or another court?

As we have said repeatedly, the base was not on a sustainable footing. This deal puts it on a sustainable footing.

What does it say about this Government’s priorities that they will deny pensioners the winter fuel payment, leave WASPI women with nothing and fail to support jobs on Merseyside by supporting AstraZeneca at Speke, and that they should be contemplating an emergency Budget to raise more taxes on hard-working British people, while spaffing £9 billion on Mauritius?

I am not entirely sure what the right hon. Gentleman’s question is. If he is talking about the previous Government’s economic legacy to this one, we have a substantial disagreement. The fact is that we are picking up the pieces from the mess in which his Government left the country economically and, crucially, in terms of our national defence. We will not scrimp when it comes to our national security, we will not scrimp when it comes to our armed forces, and we will not scrimp when it comes to our overseas bases and our commitments to our allies. That is exactly why we are getting this deal.

I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. There has never been a satisfactory explanation as to why this deal was rushed out hours before a very unpopular Government called a general election in Mauritius, which created the impression that this Government were attempting to interfere in Mauritius’s democratic process. The outcome was that the Mauritian Government secured only one seat in their Parliament in the general election. Can the Minister finally tell us why it was imperative to rush the deal out in that timeframe, hours before an election was called?

Again, I refer to my previous statements. There has been no rush. We have been engaging with our Mauritian counterparts and the United States Administration, and we believe that we have a deal that meets all the interests of those involved and, crucially, that protects our national security. There is no rush.

This matter must be so important if it consumes so much of the Minister’s credibility and £18 billion of taxpayers’ money. One would think there would be more than four Government Back Benchers here to speak about it. Is it that they do not care, or do they lack the literacy to discuss these issues? The Minister said on the “Today” programme this morning that we have passed the situation on to the White House, that we await its feedback and that, when we receive it, we will know exactly where we stand as a Government. Is that the type of sovereignty he is after?

There are so many different bits of the hon. Gentleman’s question that I do not recognise. For a start, I was not on the “Today” programme this morning, so I do not know who he is referring to. I certainly do not recognise the figure of £18 billion, so I do not understand at all what he is getting at.

The Minister confirmed to me in a written answer last week that we will not have a unilateral ability to extend the agreement. In December, the Minister for the Armed Forces, the hon. Member for Plymouth Sutton and Devonport (Luke Pollard), said that he was confident that Members would back it when we saw the detail. This is seemingly a renegotiated deal, and we have not seen the detail of the original deal or this deal. What are the differences between the previous deal and the renegotiated deal, and when will the details be presented to Members of this House?

There has been no change to the substance of the deal, nor to the overall quantum agreed. We will present it in due course so that it goes through the normal process of scrutiny in this House.

I have a simple question: do the Government disagree with anything that the Prime Minister of Mauritius said about this deal yesterday, and if so, what is it?

I refer the hon. and learned Gentleman to the answer I gave a few moments ago. The comments of the Prime Minister of Mauritius are for him to make. As I said, there has been no change to the substance of the deal, nor to the overall quantum agreed. We believe that we have reached a deal that is in the interests of the UK and Mauritius and, indeed, of the United States and our allies.

Parliament has been without a say on the deal, despite numerous efforts to raise concerns. Why should Donald Trump have a say about British sovereign territory when British elected officials do not? When will the Minister ensure that this House is given a final say on the deal?

This House will have a final say on the deal, in the usual way for considering such measures. Legislation will be laid in due course. It is absolutely right that the United States Administration have the chance to consider the deal, to raise concerns and to be briefed on the full details, which is why we have given them time to do so. Of course, our relationship with the United States on these islands is also governed by international law and an exchange of letters between the United States and the United Kingdom, and it is absolutely right that we meet those obligations too. We also have shared commitments to security in the Indo-Pacific, so it is absolutely right that the deal is agreed. It was agreed with the US national security apparatus prior to the election, and it is right that the new Administration get their chance to look at it and ask whatever questions they wish.

Will the FCDO team please confirm who is the lead Minister in these negotiations?

These negotiations are between the two Governments. There are a range of interests at play, and a range of Ministers have been involved in the negotiations. There are equities here for the FCDO, the Ministry of Defence and other parts of Government, so it is a joint HMG negotiation.

This Labour Government are making choices, claiming that they have no money, from taxing jobs, family businesses and family farms and cutting winter fuel payments for pensioners to delaying much-needed new hospitals such as Whipps Cross and the Princess Alexandra. What does the Minister say to my constituents in Epping Forest who are asking how this Government can now find billions of pounds to pay to give away British sovereign territory and, in so doing, compromise national and global security?

I simply do not accept the premise of the hon. Gentleman’s question. We will not scrimp on national security. We will invest in our national security, we will secure our bases and we will invest in our armed forces. We will invest in our defence and we will protect the British people. We will invest in it, not scrimp on it as the previous Government did.

Although I might have a different opinion, I always try to be respectful, and I hope that the Minister will receive my question as such. He will be aware of my opposition, and indeed the opposition on this side of the House, to the Chagos deal in terms of the citizenship and the identity of those islanders, as well as the security our base. To this, I have to add a word of caution on funding, as I see farms being attacked by the farming inheritance tax on the one hand and an open-ended cheque being given to Mauritius on the other. Will the Minister not rethink this terrible decision, or better still, given the clear division between this side of the House and his side, let us make that decision?

Of course the House will have the right to make its decision in due course when legislation is put forward. That is only right and there will be ample scrutiny. The hon. Gentleman has always had a keen interest in the interests of the Chagossians, which I deeply respect. As I have said, there is a range of different views within the community, but their interests are very much at the heart of this. He referred citizenship, and of course they will retain their right to British citizenship, which has been in place since 2022. Many Chagossians have chosen to make their home here and to take British citizenship. That is right, and we all agree that what happened historically was wrong.