British Indian Ocean Territory

12:38:00

(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs if he will make a statement on the status of the negotiations surrounding the future sovereignty of the British Indian Ocean Territory.

I thank the right hon. Lady for her question. 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 joint UK-US base on Diego Garcia. We are now working with Mauritius to finalise the agreement, and although it is in everybody’s interest to progress the deal quickly, we have never put an exact date on it, and we do not intend to do so now. Following signature, the Government will bring forward a Bill to enable the implementation of the treaty, and Parliament will of course have the opportunity to scrutinise the treaty in the usual way before ratification. I repeat that the Government inherited a situation in which the long-term future of the military base was under threat. This deal is rooted in a rational and hard-headed determination to protect UK security and that of our allies. It will protect the base on Diego Garcia, and cement the UK and US presence in the Indo-Pacific for generations to come.

Thank you, Mr Speaker, for granting this urgent question. It is incredibly disappointing that, only a day after Foreign Office oral questions, Ministers have had to be hauled back to the House to explain what is going on. Yesterday at lunch time, Downing Street briefed that the agreement between the UK and Mauritius, under which the UK would give away the Chagos islands and pay for the privilege, has been finalised. That was not said in this House yesterday. The Prime Minister of Mauritius has also issued a public statement confirming that. Despite being interrogated on this botched deal in the Chamber yesterday, Ministers gave no indication of this very significant development. We are still completely in the dark about fundamental questions of enormous importance. How many billions of pounds of hard-pressed British taxpayers’ money will we be expected to fork out to lease back territory that we already own? This comes as vulnerable pensioners are having their winter fuel payments ripped away, and family farms and businesses are being punished with new taxes by this Labour Government. What safeguards will be in place to protect the military base on Diego Garcia from other states that may try to establish a foothold on the archipelago? Ministers have so far refused to publish even a map of the buffer zone. What happens to the vital military base on Diego Garcia at the end of the treaty, and what kind of sovereign rights, if any, will we be able to exercise over Diego Garcia in the meantime? The Prime Minister of Mauritius says that he forced changes to the arrangements on the exercise of sovereign rights and the lease extension. Will the Minister finally confirm that the account given by the Prime Minister of Mauritius is correct? He cannot simply stand here and avoid these questions. The House does deserve answers; so do the British public—the taxpayers. Put simply, the British Indian Ocean Territory should remain British, but Labour has prioritised appeasing the whims of left-wing lawyers and activists, rather than standing up for our national interests. It is high time this deal was ditched. Finally, there have been reports of implied military threats to the Chagos islands, a British sovereign territory—Labour Members may laugh, but this issue is fundamental to the security of our country—from the regime in Tehran. The Iranian regime has threatened this space. These purported military threats are important. We understand that, in response to such reports, there has been an unusual build-up of American bomber aircraft and equipment-carrying aircraft at the joint UK-US military base on Diego Garcia. This is very serious, and we clearly need to take these threats seriously. We would welcome clarity about the Foreign Office’s diplomatic response on this issue.

On parliamentary accountability for this issue, I have answered no fewer than five urgent questions on the subject in the last six months, and I have answered 130 written questions from her and her colleagues. We discussed this twice at Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office questions yesterday. As I have repeatedly said, when the details of the treaty are finalised, it will be presented to this House, and there will be full scrutiny in the usual way. I have explained that a Bill will be brought in to put into force the important aspects of the treaty that require legislative change, and there will of course be full debates, as there should be, in this House. I simply reject the basis of much of the right hon. Lady’s question. As I have said repeatedly, if there was not a problem, why did the Government of whom she was a part start negotiations, and go through 11 rounds of them? There is a significant challenge, and this deal is paramount for our national security. We will not scrimp on our security, and it is important that the deal is put in place, as has been recognised by all the parties. We will only agree a deal that is in the UK’s best interests and protects our national security. Importantly, the right hon. Lady asked about the security provisions to protect the base. These will include full UK control over Diego Garcia, including control of the electromagnetic spectrum, and unrestricted access to and use of the base, as well as a buffer zone around Diego Garcia in which nothing can be built or put in place without our consent. There will be a robust mechanism and review process to ensure that no activity on the outer islands can impinge on the base’s operations. Indeed, there will be a prohibition on the presence of foreign security forces, either civilian or military, on the outer islands. As the Prime Minister has said, the full details will of course be set out when the treaty is laid before Parliament, and that will include costs. We will not scrimp on security. The right hon. Lady asked an important question in relation to Iran. She will understand that for operational reasons and as a matter of policy, we do not offer comment or information relating to foreign nations’ military aircraft movements or operations. The UK, in close co-operation with our allies in the United States, closely monitors the security environment in the Indian ocean region to identify and mitigate any potential threats to the base on Diego Garcia.

I share the Minister’s bafflement at the Opposition’s utter obsession with this issue. Can he confirm that under the agreement, the vital US-UK military base and its operations will be completely unaltered?

I share my hon. Friend’s bafflement. With so many issues going on in the world, I do question the number of times this one has been raised. We have answered all the questions before. We welcome the fact that the United States recognises the strength of the deal. It is rooted in a rational and hard-headed determination to protect UK security and that of our allies. Once signed, it will protect the base on Diego Garcia, which was under threat, and cement the presence of the UK and the US in the Indo-Pacific.

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

Following yesterday’s intervention by President Trump, it appears that the White House has the final say on the future of sovereign British territory. Meanwhile, the Chagossians continue to be ignored. The process of securing the deal has been shambolic. Chagossians have been denied their right to a say, and it is shameful how they have been treated. Will the Minister confirm whether there are any plans to ensure that the Chagossians are finally included in discussions at this eleventh hour of the negotiations? Hard-working families around the country will rightly be questioning why the Government seem to be willing, reportedly, to negotiate such significant payments to Mauritius at a time when winter fuel payments have been scrapped. The confected consternation of the Conservatives is also bemusing, given that it was their Foreign Secretary who first signalled the UK’s intention to secure an agreement. As the Minister confirmed, the treaty must come before the House for scrutiny, especially given its importance to our national security. Can he confirm when that will happen and that this House will have a vote on any final deal?

It was absolutely right, as I have said on many occasions, that the new United States Administration had a chance to consider the agreement. We welcome the fact that the United States recognises the strength of the deal—we heard the comments that have been made—and that is because it will fundamentally protect UK and US security interests. I remind the hon. Lady that we have legal obligations with the United States in relation to the operation of the base and it was only right that it was consulted, with full engagement in the process. The hon. Lady asks about the Chagossians. We deeply regret, as I have said many times, the way Chagossians were removed from the islands, but the negotiations were between the UK and Mauritius, with our priority being to secure the full operation of the base on Diego Garcia. However, we have worked hard to ensure that the agreement reflects the importance of the islands to Chagossians. I have set out to the House a number of times the mechanisms and systems that will be in place to do that. It is really important to respect the many different views within the Chagossian community. There is not one settled view. For example, the Chagos Refugees Group, one of the largest Chagossian groups, has in fact welcomed the agreement.

Can the Minister confirm that the confirmation of the legal status of the base on Diego Garcia will strengthen our influence in the Asia-Pacific and put us in a strong position to counter the influence of China?

I absolutely can. Our national security, and that of our allies, has been at the heart of the agreement. There was a significant problem. The former Government knew that, which is why they started negotiating. We have completed the deal, with the full involvement of the United States and with consideration of all the important measures, which I have set out on many occasions, to keep the base safe.

The Minister knows the regard I have for him, but when he says he has appeared at the Dispatch Box many times with this information, he knows that it has had nothing to do with giving us information—it means he was dragged here. The question I want to ask—the No. 1 question, which was not covered in the detail he set out today—is how much will taxpayers pay for this settlement, and out of which budget will it come? Can he guarantee that at no stage will it come from the defence budget increase?

As I said yesterday, a financial element over 99 years was crucial to protect the operation of such a vital base—we will not scrimp on our security. Once the treaty is signed, it will be put before the House for scrutiny before ratification in the usual way, and that will include the costs. The right hon. Gentleman asks where the budgets are coming from. The terms of the treaty and the associated funding arrangements are still being finalised. Financial obligations, including departmental budgetary responsibilities, will, of course, be managed responsibly within the Government’s fiscal framework.

Does the Minister agree that it is vital the UK Government fulfil their obligations under international law? Does he recognise that the January 2021 binding judgment of the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea—[Interruption]—which was handed down under the Conservative Government, found that the UK’s current administration of the archipelago “constitutes a wrongful act…and…must be brought to an end as rapidly as possible”?

There does appear to be some confusion about the different legal judgments among the Opposition, as I can hear from the chuntering. There are a number of ways in which the operation of the base was not sustainable. We are very clear that without a deal—as the previous Government recognised—we would face serious, real-world operational impacts on the base that would erode our ability to operate key frequencies vital for our own communications and to counter hostile states, affecting everything from overflight clearances to securing contractors, with consequential rocketing costs, declining investment and a degraded facility. We were not willing to take that risk, and have therefore secured this base for our security and that of our allies.

The United States is busy increasing its presence on Diego Garcia, most recently with its B-2 Spirit aircraft, probably facing towards Iran. Given that, how much will the Trump White House be contributing to the endowment that the Minister proposes we hand to Mauritius?

As I have set out on a number of occasions, and again today, when we present the treaty, we will present the costs and the arrangements, and the House will have the chance to scrutinise them. We welcome the fact that the United States recognises the strength of this deal, which is because it is rooted in a rational and hard-headed determination to protect our security and that of the United States, and our presence in the Indo-Pacific. As I said before, I am not going to get into operational discussions about matters at the base in relation to the presence of aircraft.

I thank the Minister and his team for their tireless efforts to secure the future of this vital base, which is exactly the right thing to do. Will he assure me that no less than the most robust of security provisions will be in place?

I can absolutely assure my hon. Friend of that fact; it has been at the core of the detail of this arrangement. We will retain full control over Diego Garcia and have robust provisions to keep adversaries out, including unrestricted access to and use of the base for the United Kingdom and the United States, the buffer zone I mentioned, the comprehensive mechanism to prevent activity on the other islands threatening the base operations, and a ban on the presence of foreign security forces.

In all inhabited British overseas territories, British sovereignty flows, in my opinion, from the self-determination of the islanders and residents, and that is exactly the same with the British Indian Ocean Territory. Even though the population is displaced, British sovereignty flows from Chagossians and their right to self-determination. I ask the Minister again what efforts he has made to engage with the widest possible constituency of Chagossians, and whether he will give them a veto over this deal if it is not acceptable to them.

The islands are not permanently inhabited, and that is one of the fundamental issues in this situation. As I have said repeatedly, we are doing many things that will be supportive of the Chagossian community, including engaging with a number of different groups. There are a range of opinions, and I think it is important that we recognise that—there are, of course, some who support this deal. We continue to put the interests of the Chagossians at the heart of this agreement. Again, full details of that will be available in due course.

Yet again, the Opposition are attempting to sow division between the UK and its allies, and indeed to share our allies’ sensitive operational information. If they succeed, it will have impacts on our strategically vital relationships with the US and India. Does my hon. Friend agree that the Opposition should consider waiting until the treaty is ready for scrutiny, rather than damaging our vital national interests in this way?

I completely agree—I think some of the speculation has been hugely unhelpful. We have been hugely grateful for the close co-operation between the United Kingdom and the United States throughout the negotiations, and to the Administration for their extensive and detailed engagement, which has helped us to make progress on this deal. As my hon. Friend rightly points out, this agreement has been welcomed by other important partners, including India. China has not welcomed it, of course, because it knows that the agreement will strengthen the presence of the United Kingdom and the United States in the region.

Today marks the 43rd anniversary of the start of the war in the Falklands—another key overseas territory. Government Members keep referring to the non-binding advisory judgment as the basis of the Chagos deal. If the Argentinians were to seek a similar judgment against the Falklands, would the Minister cede control?

I have to say, as I have said on a number of occasions in this House, that such attempts to make a false comparison are extremely unhelpful, and would not be welcomed by the residents of the Falkland Islands. I can absolutely assure the hon. Lady that our support for the sovereignty and territorial integrity of the Falkland Islands is absolute and iron-clad. I have made that clear on many occasions, as have the Minister for the Armed Forces and the Government as a whole.

Will the Minister confirm once again that any agreement that is made will return to this House for scrutiny?

My hon. Friend asks a very important question. As I have set out, there will be multiple opportunities for this House and the other place to consider this matter, not only through the normal Constitutional Reform and Governance Act process, but through the Bill that will be brought forward to make the necessary provisions under the treaty, which will go through the normal process. Full scrutiny will be afforded to Members of this House.

The President and Vice-President of the United States have made clear their detestation of countries freeloading on defence and security matters. We are not asking for the detail, we are not even asking for the quantum, but we do deserve to know in this House today whether the Government have asked the US to contribute to the base on Diego Garcia that is so vital to it—yes or no?

As I have said on a number of occasions, we welcome the US endorsement of the deal and of its strength, and we are grateful for the close co-operation between the United Kingdom and the United States. The full details will be provided when the treaty is presented to the House.

I thank my hon. and gallant Friends the Members for North East Derbyshire (Louise Jones) and for Leyton and Wanstead (Mr Bailey) for their questions. Can the Minister confirm that this agreement will close potentially dangerous routes for irregular migration? Is that possibly one of the reasons the Conservatives opened and presided over 10 rounds of negotiations on it?

I can absolutely confirm that. That is also why we agreed an important arrangement as an interim with St Helena, which I have spoken to the House about. That has absolutely been at the heart of it, but our primary objective has been to protect the national security of the United Kingdom, our ally the United States and our partners.

I want to go back to the questions from the right hon. Members for South West Wiltshire (Dr Murrison) and for Beverley and Holderness (Graham Stuart), and indeed the question I asked the Minister the last time this issue was raised in the House. The Minister is well aware that what we are talking about is primarily a US base. Surely he can at least tell the House today that conversations have been held with the US, and that it fully understands that a compensatory package will be made and that there is a question over who will primarily contribute to that package. Can he make that clear to the House today?

I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer I gave a moment ago. We are absolutely clear that the United States recognises the strength of this deal. We have had excellent co-operation with the US throughout. The full details will be provided in due course.

Not only are the Government preparing to give away sovereign British territory, but they are preparing to pay for the privilege of doing so by handing over billions to Mauritius. The Minister cannot say where the money is coming from, but can he at least agree that that money would be better spent restoring the winter fuel payment to pensioners in need and relieving social care providers, hospices and charities from their national insurance increases here in the UK, rather than being handed over to Mauritius?

Quite frankly, the hon. Member neglects to mention the shocking mess that his former Government left us to inherit. I have been clear in this House on many occasions that we will not scrimp when it comes to the national security of this country, whether that is in relation to Diego Garcia or investment in defence and our armed forces. That is exactly what my hon. Friend the Minister for the Armed Forces and the Defence Secretary have been setting out on our wider defence spending. What we are doing in this deal is protecting our national security and defence and that of our ally the United States.

The Minister will have heard the feelings of the House, so can he provide us with the specific guarantees that the Foreign Secretary has secured in relation to preventing hostile states such as China from increasing their influence in the Chagos islands while we as a nation are still paying for them?

The hon. Member has asked an important question, and I have answered it a number of times. To reiterate, there will be robust security provisions in that regard. That is why China has not welcomed this deal. We will have full UK control with the United States over Diego Garcia. We will have a buffer zone around Diego Garcia, and we will have a robust mechanism to ensure that no activity in the outer islands can impinge on the base’s operations. Crucially, there will be a prohibition on the presence of foreign security forces on the outer islands, either civilian or military.

What a disgrace this shabby Chagos deal is turning out to be. Labour are not just giving away our national security; they are going to pay billions to Mauritius for the pleasure. Instead of raising taxes on people and businesses in this country, why does the Minister not stand up for Britain and stop this deal?

We are standing up for Britain, by defending our security and that of our allies, and we will not scrimp on that. It is critical to secure the operation of this base. It is crucial to our interest and that of our allies. As I have asked many times, if there was no problem, why did the hon. Member’s former Government start negotiating over this?

This is perhaps a question for the Minister for the Armed Forces, who I notice is also on the Front Bench. On the buffer zone, can the Minister state categorically that it will be sufficiently wide to protect all the capabilities on the base?

Yes.

Surrendering sovereign territory based on a non-binding legal judgment and forking out taxpayer money for the privilege—what kind of deal is that? It is one done behind closed doors, evading the scrutiny of this House. Does the Minister agree that this deal is a prime example of what happens when we have a Government of lawyers, for lawyers, rather than a Government for the British people?

I simply reject the premise of the hon. Member’s question. The Government inherited a situation where the effective operation of the base was under threat. Claims that we negotiated this deal simply because of the 2019 International Court of Justice advisory opinion are wrong. That is not the only challenge that we faced, as the previous Government knew. Without a deal, Mauritius would have inevitably pursued a legally binding judgment, and there would be huge implications from that. Not having a deal would affect the real-world operational functionality of the base, which is so crucial to our national security and that of our allies.

The Minister made reference to the UK having full control over Diego Garcia, but earlier this month I received this response from him: “The right to operate and maintain the naval support facility Diego Garcia is held by the Government of the United States. This includes functions as are necessary for the development, use, maintenance, operation and security of the facility.” Will he explain what control we would have over Naval Support Facility Diego Garcia in the event that US and UK defence priorities do not align, and at what level the control over the base lies?

The hon. Member asks an important question. The US operates its naval support facility, and although I will not get into the operational details of that for obvious reasons, the full details will be provided. I can absolutely assure him that we will have control over Diego Garcia and will be working closely with the United States over it.

As we come to the end of this urgent question, I am still no clearer on the substance of this disastrous deal, so the House must now make assumptions. Given that the Minister is sat next to the Minister for the Armed Forces, can we assume that this deal will be coming out from the Ministry of Defence?

Naturally, the Foreign Office and the Ministry of Defence work closely together on this matter, as indeed Departments do across all Government. I have been very clear that the terms of the treaty and the associated funding arrangements are still being finalised. The responsibilities will be managed responsibly within the Government’s fiscal framework. As for understanding the reasons for this deal and why it is necessary, I suggest that the hon. Member asks some of his formerly ministerial colleagues on the Conservative Benches.

The Minister is an incredibly honourable man, and he is much liked in this House, so I say this with all gentleness. My constituents are telling me that the deal with the Indian ocean territory is overwhelming and that the cost factor is something that they cannot quite understand—and neither can I. Does the Minister understand why pensioners in my constituency and across this great United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland are wondering why, at a time of reduced help and aid, the Government are handing over sovereignty of land and then renting it back at a cost to the public purse? Will the Minister outline where the money will come from, when it has been decided that pensioners and ill people on personal independence payments cannot have the support they deserve due to the lack of money within Government?

I know that the hon. Gentleman asks his question with sincerity, and he is much liked in this place too. I suggest that he makes it clear to his constituents that a financial element to this deal was crucial to protect operations. It is crucial for the security of his citizens in Strangford and the citizens of the United Kingdom and of the United States, and our interests overseas. Some of the figures that have been quoted in the media are simply inaccurate, and of course, this will happen over a 99-year period. We will not scrimp when it comes to our security. It is important that we invest in it, and that is exactly what this Government are doing.

On a point of order, Mr Speaker.

Is it relevant to the questions we have just had?

It is linked to the comments of the Liberal spokesperson, the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Helen Maguire). In her question to the Minister, she noted that the winter fuel payment had been scrapped. This is simply not true. The winter fuel payment has not been scrapped, it has been means-tested, and to say otherwise is misleading. It is similar to when the Liberal Democrat-Tory coalition Government means-tested child benefit—

Order. I think we have got the gist; it is a point of clarification rather than a point of order, and the hon. Lady has got it on the record. Let us move on.