PARLIAMENTARY DEBATE
Chagos Islands: UK-US Defence Relationship - 2 December 2024 (Commons/Commons Chamber)

(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the impact of the Government’s Chagos negotiations on the UK-US defence relationship.

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing this urgent question. The Secretary of State has asked me to respond on behalf of the Department.

On 3 October, the UK and Mauritius reached an historic agreement to secure the important UK-US military base on Diego Garcia, which plays a crucial role in regional and international security. The agreement secures the effective operation of the joint facility on Diego Garcia well into the next century. The agreement is strongly supported by our closest friends and allies, including the United States. It has been supported by all relevant US Departments and agencies, following a rigorous scrutiny process.

This base is a key part of UK-US defence relationships, as it enables the United Kingdom and the United States to support operations that demonstrate our shared commitments to regional stability, provide a rapid response to crises and counter some of the most challenging security threats we face. The President of the United States applauded the agreement. To quote him directly:

“It is a clear demonstration that through diplomacy and partnership, countries can overcome long-standing historical challenges to reach peaceful and mutually beneficial outcomes.”

Several other countries and organisations, including India, the African Union, the UN Secretary-General and others, have welcomed and applauded this historic political agreement.

Our primary goal throughout these negotiations, which started over two years ago under the previous Government, was to protect the joint UK-US military base on Diego Garcia. There will be clear commitments in the treaty to robust security arrangements, including arrangements preventing the presence of foreign security forces on the outer islands, so that the base can continue to operate securely and effectively. The operation of the base will continue unchanged, with strong protections from malign influence.

For the first time in 50 years, the base will be undisputed and legally secure. Continued uncertainty would be a gift to our adversaries. That is why the agreement has been welcomed by all parts of the US system, and other critical regional security partners. Agreeing the deal now, on our terms, meant that we were able to secure strong protections that will allow the base to operate as it has done. We look forward to engaging with the upcoming US Administration on this and many other aspects of the UK-US special relationship.

Finally, hon. Members can be reassured that the long-term protection of the base on Diego Garcia has been the shared UK and US priority throughout, and this agreement secures its future. We would not have signed off on an agreement that compromised any of our security interests, or those of the US and our allies and partners.

Thank you, Mr Speaker, for granting this urgent question.

At a time when we face the most challenging military threats for years, surely our top priority should be to preserve the strongest possible US-UK relations, given that this is so vital to our national security, yet it appears that the Government are seeking to agree a deal surrendering the sovereignty of the Chagos islands before President Trump is formally in post. We know that the new US Administration are concerned about the Government’s deal because presumptive nominee US Secretary of State Marco Rubio has said that the deal

“poses a serious threat to our national security interests”.

He has also suggested that

“it would provide an opportunity for communist China to gain valuable intelligence on our naval support facility”.

Let us be clear: our military base on Diego Garcia is a vital strategic asset for the UK in the Indian ocean, and it is critical to our presence and posture in the Indo-Pacific region. In particular, it is an especially important base for the United States, and we believe that anything that damages its defence posture, particularly in relation to China, also undermines our national security. We understand that the new Mauritius Government have now launched a review of the deal.

Will the Minister therefore confirm that the Government’s policy really is to try to rush through their Chagos deal before President Trump’s inauguration? Does he not see how that would be hugely disrespectful to the new Administration and President Trump’s democratic mandate? Given that we now know it is common for the MOD to state the cost of overseas bases, will he be transparent and finally tell the House how much we will have to pay to rent back the vital military base that we currently own?

Finally, although we would prefer the Government to cancel the whole deal, at the very least will the Minister pause any further ratification until the new US Administration are in place and the Mauritius Government have concluded their review?

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his questions and his strong focus on this matter. I think he has a bit of amnesia from when the Government he was a part of started these negotiations. They held 11 rounds of negotiations, and it took a Labour Government to conclude them. We have done so in the best interests of our national security, and the national security concerns of our closest allies. It would not have been possible to secure a deal and the support of the United States if all parts of the US security apparatus were not in support of it, and as a former Defence Minister, the hon. Gentleman will know that to be true, regardless of the politics he must play today.

The hon. Gentleman asked two quick questions. We intend to continue our dialogue with the new Mauritian Government and our friends in the United States. He will be aware, of course, that it is illegal under US law for us to engage directly with the new Administration until they come into place, but we will continue to have dialogue with our US and Mauritian friends.

I am surprised that as a former Defence Minister, the hon. Gentleman is asking about costs. He will know that it is usual for us to declare the operating and running costs of overseas bases, but it would compromise our operational security and long-term relationships if we were to declare the Government-to-Government payment for overseas bases. We have declared the operational running costs of our overseas bases, and we will continue to do so in response to parliamentary questions. Detailing the security payments for Government-to-Government interactions is not something that this Government do, and was not something that his Government did either.

I call the Chair of the Defence Committee.

The UK-US base on Diego Garcia is of great significance for defence and has strategic international significance. Steps must be taken to ensure that its legal status is secure in the future, and of course the voice of the Chagossians must be central in any future arrangement. It has been reported that President-elect Trump has reservations about the proposed treaty, and newly elected Prime Minister Ramgoolam of Mauritius has ordered a review into the treaty. What further representations have been made to both our partners to ensure that we have the support of our international partners?

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The continuing operation of Diego Garcia is in the interests of UK and US national security, and this deal secures that operation. I congratulate Dr Ramgoolam on his election. In a letter to the Prime Minister on 15 November, he noted his commitment to completing the negotiations, and Jonathan Powell was in Mauritius this week to start that process.

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

We, and all those who care about the resolution of this issue, are deeply disappointed about the way we have been led to this point, with 11 rounds of negotiations under the Conservatives, and more under the new Government. Just four weeks ago, the Foreign Secretary presented his deal to the House. Now the new President-elect and the new Prime Minister of Mauritius are expressing doubts. Is it not striking and shocking that it has unravelled so quickly? Does the Minister agree that whatever happens next, it is vital that the voices of the Chagossians are finally injected into the process, and that they are able to fulfil their rights of self-determination?

Whatever lies ahead in these talks, the Liberal Democrats have strongly argued that all treaties should come before the House before signing, and I believe that members of the Government, including two who are on the Front Bench today, supported that in the past. Will the Minister commit to allowing meaningful opportunities for parliamentarians to examine the detailed proposals, including the necessary assurances on elements of the deal relating to our national security, before anything is signed?

We will follow the normal process for treaty ratification, which is that after signature, the treaty will come before this House, with details given to colleagues and with the ability for full parliamentary scrutiny, as would be expected as part of the normal process. The hon. Gentleman is right to raise the Chagossians. My ministerial colleague, my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty), who is sat next to me, has been meeting Chagossian communities in the UK. He will continue to meet those communities. This Government deeply regret how they were treated and removed from the islands originally. It is one reason why we have made the relationship with the Chagossians such an important part of the future of the islands, as the Foreign Secretary has previously outlined to the House.

Can the Minister confirm that the operations of the vital UK-US base on Diego Garcia will continue, completely unaffected by the terms of this deal? Separately, will he confirm that our commitment to the Falkland Islands, to Gibraltar and to the rights of the people there to self-determine remain completely unaffected by this deal?

As the first Minister from the new Government to visit the Falklands, I was able to say clearly that the Falkland Islands are British for as long as they would like to be. The message I gave to the Gibraltarians was that Gibraltar is British for as long as the people of Gibraltar want it to be. I confirm to my hon. Friend that this deal secures the future of the UK-US base on Diego Garcia. That is something that our US allies have supported.

There are specific arrangements in the treaty that prevent any foreign power from putting security apparatus or security forces on any of the outgoing islands. The right hon. Gentleman will be able to see that when the treaty comes before the House. In relation to the support of the United States, we would not have signed an agreement if it was not supported by our US friends. This deal secures the operation of the UK-US base on Diego Garcia well into the next century. I expect that when everyone looks at the detail of the deal, they will back it too.

Chagos belongs to the Chagossians. A quarter of the global population of Chagos lives within my constituency. I am aware of statements made by Ministers that they have met representatives of the Chagossian community; I do not know who those representatives are, but I know of representatives in my constituency who have not yet been consulted. Does the Minister agree that before any further dialogue takes place, the Government should engage fully with the community representatives in my constituency?

The Foreign Office Minister beside me, my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff South and Penarth, has met a range of representatives from the Chagossian community and will continue to do so as this process continues. I know that he would welcome a conversation with my hon. Friend to make sure that that dialogue is as complete as it can be.

First, may I ask, what is the rush? Why is the Minister in such a hurry to get this done? May I suggest that it would be to the Government’s advantage, if their case is so strong, to allow this House to debate the agreed text in public before it is signed? May I also suggest that it stretches incredulity for him to tell the House that there have been no discussions at all with the incoming American Administration? Can he at least tell the House what informal dialogue there is with the incoming Administration about what their view really is? Can he report that to the House, please?

As a long-standing Member of this House, the hon. Gentleman will be familiar with how treaties are debated and agreed by this House. After signature, they come forward for ratification. This process was started a number of years ago by the Government that he supported. Eleven rounds of negotiation have taken place. We have secured a deal that is in support of the UK and US base on Diego Garcia, which will continue to operate well into the next century. When he and others see the detail of the deal, I am sure they will back it.

It is hard to imagine anything said from that Dispatch Box over the past five months that has survived contact with reality, and this is no different. In the tripartite relationship between the United States, the United Kingdom and Mauritius, two of those partners now have doubts about this arrangement, so what is the unseemly rush about? In the tension between national security and the human rights of the Chagossians, this Government, as usual, have managed to reconcile neither.

I am not certain whether the SNP’s record on national security really gives the hon. Member the platform that he is pretending to have on this one. I recognise, however, that he is trying to make a serious point about the deal. When the deal is signed, it will come before the House in the usual way. That will allow parliamentarians of all parties to look at the detail of the deal and take a judgment, and the House will vote in the usual way, as it will do on other treaties.

What is it in particular that the new regime in Mauritius have doubts about? It is that they want more money, isn’t it?

I think it is quite normal for any new Government to look again at a deal signed by their immediate predecessor—[Interruption.] The reason I say that is that when they look at the deal, they will see that the detail is convincing; just as it will be for our US friends, because it is a deal backed by the entirety of the US security apparatus that secures the future operation of the UK-US base well into the future and deals with the uncertainty around the base that existed until the deal was made. Hopefully, the right hon. Member will back the deal when the details come before the House—let us see.

The presentation of what the American Administration believe is a fantasy. Joe Biden is going—in fact, many think that he has gone already. I have been contacted by very senior officials and advisers from the incoming Republican Administration, and every single one of them is appalled at this deal. They know that the leasehold agreement will not survive, just as the deal with China over Hong Kong did not survive. Has not the time come for the Government to admit that this is a rotten deal for the UK, a rotten deal for America and an even worse deal for the Chagossians? If the Minister cares so much about the sovereignty of the Falklands being in the hands of the Falkland Islanders, why not have a referendum of the Chagossians and ask them to settle who should have sovereignty over those islands?

As someone who has been in the Falklands recently, let me say that whipping up uncertainty about their future is not helpful for the security of the Falkland Islanders. Let us be absolutely clear: the Falklands are British for as long as the people of the Falkland Islands want to be British.

When it comes to this deal, I am certain that when its detail has been put before this House and before our US friends and other allies, they will see that it not only secures the future of the UK-US base—something that is not the case until the deal is signed—but secures it well into the next century, when the hon. Gentleman and I will no longer be in this place but the UK-US base on Diego Garcia will still be operating, securing our national interests.

We in this House all know how the People’s Republic of China has been able to use commercial vessels, including fishing vessels, to impinge on how we operate. Will the Minister set out how large an exclusion zone there will be around Diego Garcia to ensure that our interests and US interests are properly protected?

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his serious question and the way in which he presented it. It is important that we have certainty about the security of the future relationship. That is why the treaty sets out clearly security arrangements for the outer islands that will prevent foreign nations from putting security forces or security apparatus on those islands. The full details will be in the treaty. It is important to note that Mauritius was one of only two African countries that did not join the Chinese belt and road initiative, and maintaining a strong relationship with it—especially in more contested times—is vital. That is what the deal helps to deliver.

The Minister says that the outgoing Biden Administration in the US are keen on the deal, which may or may not be the case, but the British public plainly are not—for good reason—and they see the payment of a dowry to Mauritius as rubbing salt into the wound. If he is not prepared to comment on the quantum that he has in mind, will he at least explain the structure of the costings he is applying to come to the figure that he wishes to give Mauritius for taking on these islands?

I thank the former Minister for his question. As he served in the Department that I now serve in, he will know that it is normal to reveal the operating costs for overseas bases, but that we do not—he did not and we do not—reveal the Government-to-Government payments. That was standard procedure for his Government and every Government before, and it remains the policy of this Government. This deal secures the future of the UK-US base, and I am hopeful that when the details come out, he will be able to understand why it secures that for so long, and hopefully he will be able to back it.

The Minister has said that he is not willing to give details of the financial arrangement, although he will be aware that the Mauritian Prime Minister has described the deal as a sell-out. Can he at least give an assurance that the Government will not commit to giving yet more money to get the deal through before the new US Administration arrives in January?

We think that this is a good deal. When the details come out, others will be able to make their judgment, but I think they will conclude that it is a good deal. It secures the future of the UK-US base on Diego Garcia, which was the overriding objective when the right hon. Gentleman’s party was in power. The Conservatives set that objective, and we are glad that this deal secures the future of the base well into the next century. That is an important step for UK and US national security.

Will the Minister set out how he intends to implement safeguards against China establishing military capabilities and surveillance capacity in the British Indian ocean territories?

That is an important question, and one that I responded to a few answers ago. Let me reassure the hon. Gentleman that safeguards in the treaty will detail that no foreign security forces will be able to set up on the outer islands, providing that security perimeter around Diego Garcia that we and our US allies have sought. This is a good deal because it secures not only the future operation of the base but the future security around the base. I am hopeful that when the details come out, he will be able to see that for himself.

I return to a question asked but not answered this afternoon. If as a result of the review the Mauritian Government demand more money, will the Government pay up in order to save face?

I am confident that this is a good deal. The Mauritian Government will look at the deal that has been signed and see that it is a good one. Our US friends know that it is a good deal, and anyone looking at it in future will see that it is a good deal because it achieves our No. 1 objective of securing the UK-US base on Diego Garcia well into the next century.

The shadow Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for South Suffolk (James Cartlidge), alluded to the presumptive nominee Marco Rubio’s comments that the deal represents a serious threat to US national security. Does the Minister agree?

All the representatives of the US security apparatus who have seen the detail of the deal back it. It secures the future of the base and it allays US fears around the future of the base. There has been some barking from the Opposition Front Bench about this, so it is important to say that the base on Diego Garcia is not currently secure for the long term. There are questions over its long-term sovereignty, and people are building support against our sovereignty claim. This deal secures the long-term operation of that base well into the next century.

Having been one of many in this House to have vehemently opposed the ceding of the Chagos Islands without consulting the residents, and having stood in solidarity with those who opposed it, I am anxious to ensure that the Americans take control. In turn, we must offer them support and allow those residents who consider themselves British to be a part of the equation. What steps has the FCDO taken to ensure that the US is aware of the strength of opposition to this decision from those from the Chagos Islands?

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his serious question. This deal not only settles some of the outer islands for the Chagossian communities but allows visits to Diego Garcia for the Chagossian communities who were removed in a way that this Government so deeply regret. The detail of the deal is good to secure our national security and US national security, and it takes important steps to recognise and remedy the pain suffered by Chagossian communities.