British Indian Ocean Territory

Question

15:09:00

Asked by

To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the implications for the United Kingdom’s strategic relationship with the United States of America of the decision to cede sovereignty of the British Indian Ocean Territory to Mauritius.

My Lords, on 3 October, the UK and Mauritius reached an historic political agreement that will ensure the operational effectiveness of the joint US-UK military base on Diego Garcia well into the next century. Throughout the negotiations we have worked in lockstep with the US, and this agreement is strongly supported by the US. President Biden issued a statement applauding it within minutes of its announcement. Secretary Austin and Secretary Blinken have also voiced clear public support.

My Lords, I did not fully appreciate the strategic value of Diego Garcia until I visited it in 2019 in my capacity as Minister for the Armed Forces. Yesterday, the Foreign Secretary said that there would be “robust security arrangements” to prevent other nations occupying the outer islands. Of course, the best way to do this would be to maintain sovereignty. Short of this, are we simply relying on other nations to follow the international rules-based order? We need look only at what the Chinese have done on the disputed Spratly Islands to realise that this would be naive. I simply ask: what is the rush? My understanding is that we are in such a rush that no Minister has even had the opportunity to go to Diego Garcia. Can the Minister confirm that that is not the case?

My Lords, the easiest way to put this is that there is no easy time to make this kind of decision. Noble Lords will be aware that the previous Government took part in 11 rounds of negotiation on this issue. The situation was getting to a point where legal rulings had made it clear that the sovereignty of the Chagos Islands belonged to Mauritius. I accept that those legal rulings, to which I can refer Members opposite should they need me to do so, were not legally binding; however, it is clear that they were going in that direction. We found that it would be much better to take this decision from a position of relative strength, rather than wait for a legal ruling that would be legally binding to go against us.

My Lords, I must congratulate the Chagossians on the return of their islands. How far back in time do His Majesty’s Government intend to go with their restitutionary zeal? We have seen reference made to the Falkland Islands and Gibraltar, and I should note my interests as a feudal proprietor of the Isle of Wight.

I am not quite clear where the noble Earl is going with that, but it gives me the opportunity to state not only self-determination for the Isle of Wight but the unequivocal and longstanding clarity of this Government that the future of the Falkland Islands and Gibraltar lies squarely, wholly and unarguably in the hands of the Falkland Islanders and the Gibraltarians.

My Lords, my noble friend will be aware that not all Chagossians have welcomed this agreement, not least because it precludes resettlement on the unoccupied part of the largest island, Diego Garcia, the homeland of many who were so cruelly forced off the islands. Will the Government therefore look again at the exclusion of the whole of Diego Garcia and undertake genuinely to consult all parts of the Chagossian community before finalising the treaty?

My noble friend is right that the history of the Chagos Islands is a very unhappy one, and the Chagossians have been appallingly treated over many decades. The history is that these islands were uninhabited until they were discovered by the Portuguese, then colonised by the French, then taken over by the British after the Napoleonic Wars. The British then expelled the population in order to set up a UK-US military base. The future and security of that base is what has driven this treaty. It is not for me or anybody else in this Chamber to speak on behalf of the Chagossians, but I think it a good thing that the intention of this treaty is that Chagossians will be able to return to the outer islands, and we will be resuming visits to Diego Garcia. This will not satisfy every Chagossian—as I say, they have been badly treated for many years— but it is an improvement on the situation we have had until now.

As the Minister has just confirmed, in 1967 the then Labour Government forcibly evicted 1,700 Chagossian people from Diego Garcia. Can the Minister tell us precisely how many of them or their descendants, now here in the UK, were consulted before the Government took the decision to hand over the islands to Mauritius?

My Lords, we have engaged for a long time with Chagossian communities. This was a decision made between Governments, and the noble Lord will know that it is Governments who negotiate international treaties. It is right that we offer citizenship to Chagossians who want it, and a trust fund will be set up for Chagossians. As I have said, they will have the right to return to the other islands and the right to visit Diego Garcia.

Does the Minister recognise a remarkable similarity between this exchange and the last time there was an exchange on the Chagos Islands, in the last Parliament, when the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, for whom I have the very greatest respect, stood at the Dispatch Box and defended the negotiation of an agreement to return the Chagos Islands to Mauritius, but to keep the base in being for Britain and the United States? Is it not a bit odd?

Far be it from me to comment on things that get said during Tory party leadership elections. However, I think it would help if I explained why the legal decisions have been made in this way. When Mauritius gained independence in the 1960s, the UK separated part of the country, in the form of the Chagos Islands, and that has been found to have been unlawful. Separation by the colonial power is not allowed in any circumstance under international law, and that is what the UK was found to have done at that time. That is why we have now had 13 rounds of negotiations to take us to this point.

My Lords, I agree with the Minister that the human rights of the Chagossians have been denied for generations. However, during the rounds of negotiations, and now with the agreement this Government have made, there has been no mechanism of consent for the Chagossians. I understand that we will be receiving a treaty, but in opposition Labour supported a human rights Motion on agreement for treaties. Given the seriousness of this issue, will the Government consider tabling an amendable Motion that can be voted on in both Houses in advance of the limited scrutiny of the treaty, so that all the issues, including the voice of the Chagossians, can be heard?

Noble Lords may or may not be aware that there is no single Chagossian voice on these issues; Chagossians live here in the UK, but many also live in Mauritius itself and in the Seychelles. The treaty will come before both Houses in the usual way, and there will be amendable primary legislation alongside it that will deal with some of the changes we need to make to the law in order to ratify the treaty.

My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend on solving this issue, which was handled appallingly for many years during the last Government, and which has rightly been applauded by all the American players. First, will she confirm that the Government of Mauritius, one of the African democracies, have never shown any interest in an alliance with China, least of all over anything like this? Secondly, will the question of the right of the Chagossians not only to return, which is enormously welcomed by them, but to live on the outer islands remain on the table for discussion with the Americans so that, in due course, a resolution to that problem can be made?

The agreement, which noble Lords will be able to look at in detail in the treaty, will allow for Chagossians to return to the outer islands. There has been a lot of old nonsense spoken about China in relation to Mauritius. Mauritius is one of only two African countries that do not take part in belt and road. It is a member of the Commonwealth and a close ally of India.

My Lords, the previous Government consistently consulted the Chagossian people and consistently concluded that this deal is not in the UK’s national or security interests. I am interested in the financial settlement. The Foreign Secretary said yesterday that Governments do not normally reveal payments but, of course, that is up to the Government to decide; and, for example, the US has revealed that it pays $63 million a year for its Djibouti military base. Does the Minister agree that it would be helpful, in the interests of transparency, to explain just how much taxpayers’ money is going to be spent on this deal? Where will that money come from—from the overseas development budget?

My Lords, we never reveal the cost of basing our military assets overseas—we never have, we never will, and I do not think other nations do either. There are very good reasons for that. If we started to do so, I expect we would see the prices of these things start to go up fairly rapidly. No, we will not be disclosing that.