PARLIAMENTARY DEBATE
Chagos Islands - 13 November 2024 (Commons/Commons Chamber)

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

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question. Following two years of negotiation under three Prime Ministers, on 3 October the Government secured a deal that will protect the secure operation of the UK-US base on Diego Garcia well into the next century. The Government inherited a situation where that future was under threat. International courts were reaching judgments on the basis that Mauritius had sovereignty over the Chagos archipelago. International organisations were also taking steps not to undermine Mauritian sovereignty claims. That was not sustainable.

The base on Diego Garcia plays a critical role in countering an array of threats to regional and international security. Without legal certainty, the base simply cannot operate effectively. 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, including India. 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 have secured a deal that protects our national interests, respects the interests of our partners and upholds the international rule of law. 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. We would not have signed off on an agreement that compromised any of our security interests, or those of our allies.

The agreement will be underpinned by a financial settlement that is acceptable to both sides, and will underpin a strong, long-term partnership with Mauritius. That was crucial to securing the agreement. The Government will not scrimp on our national security; however, I am sure that the House will understand that it is not normal practice for the UK to reveal the value of payments for military bases anywhere across the globe, because to do so would put at risk their future secure operation.

The deal will also deliver benefits for the Chagossian community, who were removed from the islands in the 1960s and 1970s. I know that the whole House has already expressed, and will join me in again expressing, regret for that shameful episode. Mauritius will now be able to implement a programme of resettlement to the islands, other than Diego Garcia, and we will work together to start a programme of visits for Chagossians to all the islands. The UK will finance a new trust fund for Mauritius to support Chagossians, and will provide additional Government support to those living in the UK. All Chagossians will of course remain eligible for British citizenship and free to make their home in the UK.

We will work with Mauritius to ensure the continued protection of the islands’ unique environment, with the shared objective of securing and protecting one of the world’s most important marine environments. That will include the establishment of a Mauritius marine protected area. The agreement also shuts down the possibility of the Indian ocean being used as a dangerous illegal migration route to the UK, with Mauritius taking responsible for any future arrivals.

The long-term protection of the base on Diego Garcia has been the shared UK and US priority throughout. This agreement secures its future. We look forward to engaging with the incoming US Administration. I congratulate both President Trump and Dr Ramgoolam on their recent election victories in the US and Mauritius respectively, and we look forward to working with their Governments on this matter. The agreement is in all sides’ shared interests, and in our national security interest.

Mauritius has no legal or historical claim to sovereignty over a group of islands that are 1,300 miles away from it, and the opinion of the International Court of Justice was purely advisory. There is no legal reason why we have to do any of this. I warned the Foreign Secretary six weeks ago in this Chamber that it was an enormous mistake to do this, given that we had a US presidential election coming up on 5 November. Ministers might say to me, “It’s okay—the United States is fully in favour.” Really? I can tell the House that the incoming national security adviser Mike Waltz has form on this, going right back to when the right hon. Member for Braintree (Mr Cleverly) was doing his best to give away the sovereignty of the Chagos islands; indeed, Mike Waltz wrote to Secretary of State Blinken at the time.

I assure the House, having been in America last week and knowing the incoming US Defence Secretary very well, that there is outright hostility towards this deal. Whatever is said about a lease agreement, these agreements can very easily be broken, as we saw with Hong Kong. Diego Garcia was described to me by a senior Trump adviser as the most important island on the planet for America, so the Minister will find outright hostility.

By the way, what happened to the Chagossian people was truly awful, but they are unanimous in their wish not to live under Mauritian rule; they want to live under British rule because they trust us.

There is no basis for this agreement. If the Government continue with it, they will be at conflict with a country without which we would be defenceless.

I am afraid I fundamentally disagree with what the hon. Gentleman said. Let me be clear: this Government inherited a situation whereby the long-term secure operation of this crucial military base—he is right on that one point—was under threat. International courts were reaching judgments and international organisations were taking steps not to undermine Mauritian sovereignty. That threatened the secure and effective operation of the base. In the absence of a negotiated solution, a legally binding decision against the UK seemed inevitable. That would have threatened the secure and effective operation of the base, and that was not sustainable. [Interruption.]

On the hon. Gentleman’s comments about the incoming US Administration, we very much look forward to working with them, and I am sure that they will be briefed on the full detail of the deal. I am confident that the details of the arrangement will allay any concerns, otherwise we would not have entered into any such arrangement in the first place. [Interruption.]

Order. Mr Francois, I welcome you back to the Front Bench, but I do not welcome you shouting from it continuously. Do we understand that we need calm? This is an important subject, so I do not want the rhetoric that is coming from there.

Mr Speaker, I have known the right hon. Gentleman a long time, and he knows that he can come and speak to me about these matters at any point.

Let me be clear: we will work very closely with the incoming US Administration, and we are working closely with the current US Administration. This agreement had support across the national security apparatus of the United States. Otherwise, we would never have entered into an arrangement. The previous Government recognised the threats to the long-term operation of the base, which is why they started the negotiations in the first place, but this Government did the deal. Diego Garcia is important, but it is not at risk—it is more secure as a result of the deal. What the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage) is suggesting is simply not the case.

The hon. Gentleman mentioned the Chagossians. What happened to them was completely wrong and shameful—that has been agreed on all sides of the House. I have engaged with the Chagossian community on a number of occasions. He will also recognise that there are a range of views across the Chagossian community, including those who support the deal. We have made sure that their interests are at the heart of the arrangement, whether in the trust fund, the unilateral arrangements, the continued commitment to UK citizenship for Chagossians, their ability to return to visit all the islands or the resettlement programme that Mauritius will restart under the treaty.

I am confident that this deal is the right thing for our national security, for the Chagossian community and for our allies and partners.

We heard representations from the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage) about upholding international law. Does the Minister agree that it is important that the UK fulfils its international law obligations? Does he recognise that in 2021, the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea confirmed that Mauritius has sovereignty over the Chagos islands? Does he agree that, notwithstanding that, the deal secures the long-term certainty of the base on Diego Garcia?

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Agreeing this deal now on our terms means that we have been able to secure protections that will allow the base to operate as it has done into the next century. It settles the historical sovereignty claims in a way that successfully balances our international law obligations with vital UK and US national security requirements.

I welcome Dame Priti Patel to the Opposition Front Bench.

Thank you, Mr Speaker.

The world is a more dangerous place than ever before in our lifetimes and this Government have agreed to give away a key strategic asset in the Indian ocean, ending more than 200 years of British sovereignty. It is the wrong decision, and we stand by that completely. A month has gone since the Government’s announcement, but we are still in the dark about exactly what they have agreed. That is simply not acceptable. We have no treaty and vital questions remain unanswered. That is unacceptable and the Minister needs to put it right today.

We cannot afford for our military base on Diego Garcia to be compromised in this way. What safeguards will be in place to ensure that no other states can establish themselves or place their assets, in particular strategic assets, on any nearby islands in the archipelago? How does the decision affect the strategic defence review that is under way? How much money will Labour be asking British taxpayers to send to Mauritius each year under the deal, which we do not even know the details of? Which departmental budgets will that come from? What is the total figure? The House expects transparency, including on what taxpayers will be funding. We need to hold the Government to account on this.

Will the Minister please give a cast-iron guarantee that the UK will be able to unilaterally extend the agreement on the military base beyond 99 years? That is all we have heard for now. What will be the mechanism for doing that? This is a crucial piece of scrutiny that we all need to know about, particularly as the Minister raised a point about national security and the national security apparatus agreeing to this arrangement. What discussions has the Foreign Secretary—I know he is not here today—personally undertaken with the Chagossian community, who the Minister will know are beyond distraught about the agreement?

The elections in Mauritius and the United States pose further questions, and it is right that we follow up on them. Labour rushed into the deal just before the Mauritian elections, even though Ministers must surely have realised that a change of Government was a strong possibility. Why did they do that? The Minister needs to be clear. We want to know how the Government are going to engage with the new US Administration. The Opposition oppose the Government’s decision and we intend to hold them to account.

First, I welcome the shadow Foreign Secretary to her place in this Chamber. We were in a Committee earlier today, but I welcome her to her place. I have always had good engagement with her on issues in the past and she is right to ask important questions, but the first thing I need to do is correct the idea that we are somehow giving up the base. That is exactly the opposite of what we are doing. We are securing the future of the base. The base will continue to operate. It will continue to operate as it has done.

The right hon. Lady asks an important question about security guarantees in relation to the outer islands. There will be clear commitments in the treaty for robust security arrangements, including preventing the presence of foreign security forces on the outer islands. We simply would not have signed off an agreement that compromised any of our security interests or those of our allies. Indeed, this has been discussed not just at a political level in the United States, but at a deep technical level. She will know from her time in government about the nature of the special relationship and the depth of that relationship. That is why we have proceeded only on the basis that we were all satisfied with the arrangements.

The right hon. Lady will be able to scrutinise those arrangements in due course, as will the House, Mr Speaker. The treaty will be presented in the usual way after signature. It will go through the usual process. [Interruption.] She asks when. We have just had the Mauritian election. We will be engaging with the new Administration there and seeking to present the treaty for signature. We will then present it, in all its detail, to the House.

The right hon. Lady asked about an extension period. There is a provision in the treaty for an extension period after the 99-year period.

The right hon. Lady asked about the Chagossians. Again, I gently say that there are a range of views in the Chagossian community. They have been expressed to me on many occasions, both before I came into government and since I have been in government. There is a range of views on the arrangement. We respect all the different views that are out there. We will continue to engage with the Chagossian community, but I am absolutely clear that there are important provisions in the deal that support the Chagossian community: their ability to return to the outer islands, the visits, the trust fund, the unilateral support we will continue to provide, and the fact that Chagossians are welcome to come here to the UK and take up British citizenship, which was an agreement under the previous Government.

Portsmouth is the home of the Royal Navy, and as the Member for Portsmouth North, I welcome the appointment of Jonathan Powell, who played an important part in negotiating this deal, as National Security Adviser. Does the Minister agree that with his experience in helping to negotiate the Good Friday agreement and his work on some of the world’s most complex conflicts, he is uniquely place to advise the Government on tackling the challenges ahead and to protect the advancement of UK security?

I totally agree with my hon. Friend, who I know takes a keen interest in the overseas territories, in particular Gibraltar. I totally agree with her about the new National Security Adviser. He is a remarkable individual with a huge track record in government of making deals and getting things done, which I know is appreciated by our friends on the opposite side of the Atlantic, too. He is somebody who takes the national security of this country extraordinarily seriously, so I completely agree with her characterisation.

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

Many Chagossians from all over the country gathered at a rally yesterday, where they expressed their concerns about the UK-Mauritius agreement. We reiterate our concerns here today. The exclusion of the voice of the Chagossians is wrong. It cannot be right, and surely no Member of this House could think it acceptable that the Chagossians are denied the opportunity for self-determination.

Will the Minister update the House to confirm the timescales by which Parliament will have oversight of the final treaty? Will he look again at injecting the voice of Chagossians into the process, even at this late stage? May I also raise the case of the Tamils stranded on Diego Garcia? We welcome recent news reports that they will be airlifted to the UK, but will the Minister update the House on whether that will take place and whether they will be permitted a permanent right to resettlement in the UK?

I thank the hon. Gentleman, who speaks for the Liberal Democrats, for his questions. I know that the future of the islands is hugely important to the Chagossian community. I have engaged with the Chagossian community over many, many years and since I have been in government. We have always been clear about the importance of respecting their interests. I have to say, though, that the negotiations were between the UK and Mauritius, as sovereign states, with our priority being to secure the full operation of the base on Diego Garcia. However, it is crucial that we recognise the importance of Chagossian interests within this process and we have done that.

I am confident that when the full deal is presented to Parliament, which it will be in due course, there will be important provisions in there that will reassure members of the Chagossian community. As I mentioned, some of them have already been made public: the ability to visit, the ability to resettle on the outer islands, the UK citizenship guarantees, the trust fund, and, of course, the UK’s own support, which is crucial and comes on the back of the support we have provided for some time.

The hon. Gentleman asked about the Sri Lankan migrants on Diego Garcia. This Government inherited a deeply troubling situation which remained unresolved under the last Administration for years after the migrants arrived on Diego Garcia, resulting in mounting legal challenges. We have been working at pace to find a solution that protects the welfare of individuals and the integrity of British territorial borders. Due to the exceptional nature of the cases, the Government have taken the decision to relocate a small number of the migrants to the UK, but that is subject to security checks. They will get a short period of permission to enter the UK, when the individuals can consider their personal circumstances and next steps.

One of the wonderful things about our Parliament and our democracy is that our citizens can see our proceedings, but so too can our foes. Those who wish us harm and have no good intentions towards us will look across at the Opposition Benches and see that there is not a credible national security team when they are asking questions of this Government.

I want to confine my question to a constituent of mine who has lived in the UK for the last 17 years after leaving the Chagos islands. He is keen to reunite with his family who are now UK citizens, but housing costs are an issue. Will the Minister get back to me with information on whether housing support could be part of the Government’s overall support for the Chagossian community?

I thank my hon. Friend for his question. Obviously, I do not know the full details of his constituent’s individual case, but if he writes to me, I will of course come back to him in due course.

Can the Minister confirm or deny that the right hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer) had any unminuted conversations with Philippe Sands KC about the Mauritian claim over the Chagos islands?

The Prime Minister engaged with the former Prime Minister of Mauritius and with the US Administration on these matters. We have engaged with a wide range of partners in these discussions. The right hon. Gentleman is very familiar with them, as the former Foreign Secretary who was part of that process.

I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will agree with me that, as we discuss the very important issues raised by the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage), we must acknowledge that all right hon. and hon. Members are doing what is in the best interests of our country; that right hon. and hon. Members on the Opposition Benches do not have a monopoly on national security and defence; and, indeed, that it is this Government who are reforming and improving our international reputation around the world—our decision on the Chagos islands, which will protect the base and deal with the other issues my hon. Friend has mentioned, is an important part of that.

Absolutely. The importance of national security to this Government is at the heart of the missions set out by the Prime Minister, which have been put into practice by the Foreign Secretary, the Defence Secretary and me, along with others across the Government. We would never take decisions that compromised the national security of this country, or indeed that of our allies, and that is why I am confident that this decision is the right one. Let us remember that this process was begun under the last Administration, because they recognised the challenge and recognised that something needed to be done about it.

Given that the Mauritian Government, with whom the Minister was dealing, have failed and are no longer in power, is this not a case of a deal with the wrong people at the wrong time for the wrong reasons, which has abandoned the Chagossians? The Chagossians made it very clear throughout—the fact cannot be misrepresented—that the vast majority wanted to go back, but they also wanted to remain British citizens. Now that we have an incoming Government in America and a new Government in Mauritius, what is the point of continuing with this agreement? We should start again, and recognise that the Chagossians do not want to be Mauritian. They want us to give them their property back, so why do we not just do that, and simplify the whole thing?

The right hon. Gentleman knows that the national security interests of this country and, indeed, those of our allies transcend Administrations. We have just had an election as well; his Government started this process, and we are the ones who got it done. As for Mauritius, we welcome Dr Ramgoolam’s election. I understand that he and his Government are to be sworn in over the next few days, and we look forward to working with them to take forward this agreement. He is a friend of the UK and has deep professional and personal connections with it, having studied and worked here. I should also point out that his party, in opposition, made clear that it in no way wanted to contend with the operation of our base on Diego Garcia. We are looking forward to engaging with the new Government in the days to come.

In the spirit of cross-party working, would the Minister like to take this opportunity to thank the previous Conservative Government for starting negotiations on this important matter? They realised then, even if they do not realise it now, its importance to our country’s national security.

I thank my hon. Friend for his observation. The former Foreign Secretary, the right hon. Member for Braintree (Mr Cleverly), appears to be on his way out, but he recognised, as did many others in the last Administration, that we needed to secure a long-term, sure and legal footing for this base to meet the security needs of ourselves and our allies. We are the Government who came in and got the deal done.

Does the Minister agree that the principal way to defend national security is to stand fast behind the international rules-based system, and that the principal way to do that is to adhere to the rulings of institutions such as the International Court of Justice?

A great deal of concern has been expressed during these exchanges about the sovereign democratic will of the Chagossians. What mechanism will the UK Government put in place to ensure that the House can be confident that the sovereign ambitions of the Chagossians as a people will be respected in this treaty, and not simply sacrificed for convenience?

The hon. Gentleman is right about the importance of international law and adherence to it. This Government are committed to the rule of law, including international law. One reason we wanted to get this deal done was to put that base on a secure legal footing, along with our relationships with Mauritius and other states. There has been substantial criticism from other key partners around the world about our failure to reach a settlement, which was having an impact on our interests.

As I have said repeatedly, I have engaged with the Chagossians on many occasions, and we will continue to engage with them. We will continue to listen to the range of views in the community—there are a huge number—and to ensure that their interests are protected, which I am confident that the treaty does.

I know that the Minister is a strong ally and supporter of all our overseas territories, as are this Government. Will he take this opportunity to restate the Government’s unconditional commitment to the right of the people of the Falkland Islands and the peoples of Gibraltar to self-determine, and will he also confirm that we will continue to work closely with all our overseas territories?

I thank my hon. Friend for his important question. I can absolutely confirm that, not least through my own actions and those of my ministerial colleagues. The Minister for the Armed Forces, my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth Sutton and Devonport (Luke Pollard), has visited the Falklands in the last week, where he reiterated our absolute and robust commitment to their self-determination and sovereignty. I was in Gibraltar making the same point just a few weeks ago, and I was in three of our overseas territories last week making exactly the same commitments. This Government are committed to our overseas territories. I look forward to welcoming the leaders to the Joint Ministerial Council next week to say that to them in person.

Once again the Minister has come to the Chamber and said that the last Government started these negotiations. May I remind him that it was the last Government who ended the negotiations, because the Foreign Secretary did not agree with the advisory legal opinion that was given? This Foreign Secretary capitulated in two days.

The Minister has also said that he will not reveal the cost of the deal because the Government do not release information about costs related to overseas bases, but when, on 14 October, my hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Ben Obese-Jecty) asked the Minister for the Armed Forces a question about the total cost related to an overseas base in Kenya, the answer revealed the cost of what the Government were giving to that base. What is so different in this case?

There is a very clear difference. That is a training area, not a major base, and I will not go into the details of the operation on that base. I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman continues to ask for details relating to a base that is hugely important to our national security, when providing such information would put the security of the base at risk.

I know that the Minister is a strong friend of our overseas territories. Could he explain the importance of putting the US base on a legal footing, and give us a bit more detail about how that will enable us to work with our allies in countering any potential Chinese threat in the region?

My hon. Friend has raised an important point, which has been raised in good faith by Conservative Members and, indeed, by others. I am absolutely confident that when the detail of the treaty is provided—along with other technical details, at appropriate levels—it will make clear our commitments to robust security arrangements to deal with the challenge to which he has referred, and that will include preventing the presence of foreign security forces on the outer islands. Let me reiterate that we simply would not have countenanced a deal that would in any way put our national security or that of our allies at risk.

Quite simply, do we have the unilateral right to extend—yes or no?

I have made it very clear that we have the right to extend the treaty beyond the 99-year period, and the right hon. Gentleman will be able to scrutinise the detail of that in due course.

It is difficult to fathom concerns raised by the Opposition about the consequences of governmental transition, as it was the former Conservative Foreign Secretary, the right hon. Member for Braintree (Mr Cleverly), who said, when leading negotiations with Mauritius:

“Our primary objective is to ensure the continued effective operation of our defence facility on Diego Garcia.”—[Official Report, 13 June 2023; Vol. 734, c. 151.]

Does my hon. Friend agree that this Government have now delivered that, and should the Conservatives not be welcoming the agreement?

Let me first thank my hon. Friend for his service for our country and its national security—and, indeed, thank all new Members who have served in our armed forces. I completely agree with his comments: we are indeed protecting our national security and putting matters on a secure footing

Alexander Downer, a former Australian Foreign Minister, a former high commissioner to this country, a former United Nations special adviser on Cyprus and a good friend of this country, says that the surrender of the Chagos Islands is

“symptomatic of a country that no longer has geopolitical perspective.”

What is the Minister’s response to Mr Downer’s remarks, and does he agree with his comment that the last Labour Government were prepared to capitulate on the two Cypriot sovereign base areas, Dhekelia and Akrotiri? Who would have thought it? Is not the Chagos surrender just same old Labour—strong on post-colonial guilt and weak on safety, security and stability?

I do not recognise those comments in the slightest, not least because we have repeatedly made clear our commitment to our overseas territories: to the Falklands, to Gibraltar, and to the sovereign base areas in Cyprus, which, as the right hon. Gentleman well knows, are protected under the 1960 treaty. I have made statements to that effect. We are clear about our support for those territories and their importance to us. This is not about handing something over; it is about Diego Garcia being on a secure footing, with our military base and our presence secure for the future.

The expulsion of the Chagossian people from both Diego Garcia and the archipelago was an act of wanton brutality by the British forces at the time. The Chagos Islanders have fought a doughty battle for more than 40 years in courts all over the world, at the United Nations and in courts in this country, and they have demanded their right to return. All along, they have been determined to achieve that right, and they deserve our congratulations on that. Their right to return must be recognised, and international judicial systems have all shown that the Chagos Islands should clearly be part of Mauritius. Therefore, returning the islands to Mauritius is obviously the correct thing to do.

Can the Minister assure me that the Chagossians’ right to return to the archipelago, Peros Banhos and the other islands will be accompanied by the right to have a presence on, or to visit, Diego Garcia itself? It is perfectly possible that such things could be arranged. I ask him not to send us down the road of rebuilding the British empire, which is apparently what the Conservative party and Reform want to do. We do not live in an age of empire; we live in an age of the right of people to live their lives according to international law, and that is what is on offer.

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his question. I have been very clear that the way the UK removed the Chagossians from the archipelago in the 1960s and ’70s was wrong. I know that there is agreement across the House on this issue, and we are committed to building a relationship with the community that is built on respect and on acknowledgement of the wrongs of the past.

The right hon. Gentleman asks a very technical question. He is absolutely right to say that Chagossians will have the right to visit all the islands. Given the sensitivity of the facilities on Diego Garcia, he will understand that some procedures are in place around that, but it will be possible to have visits. We hope to be able to announce the scheme for that in due course next year. Most importantly, the treaty allows for resettlement of the outer islands by Mauritius.

Further to the question from my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) about incoming Administrations in Mauritius and the United States, our allies in the United States will clearly have serious concerns about what the proposals are. Will the Minister set out when the treaty is expected to be signed and, indeed, whether this House will get a say over whether that treaty should be signed before it is cast into law?

As someone who has been in the House a long time, the hon. Gentleman will be aware of the procedures for dealing with treaties in this place. The treaty will be signed, it will come through this place, and it will have the appropriate scrutiny—it is only right that it does and that questions are asked. I am absolutely confident that when the full details of the treaty are provided to the incoming Administration in the United States, they will be absolutely confident that it meets US and UK national security interests and is in the mutual benefit of all parties involved.

If the incoming President Trump Administration confirm that they are against this dreadful deal, will the Government stop negotiations and apologise to this House, or will they try to force it upon our most important international strategic partner?

The hon. Gentleman will surely know that the convention is that we deal with one Administration at a time. We have very positive and warm engagement with President-elect Trump and Vice President-elect Vance’s incoming Administration. We look forward to discussing these matters with them, and we will engage with the United States in the usual way. We are absolutely clear that this treaty is in the UK-US national security interests. It meets the security concerns, and it puts the base on a secure footing into the next century.

Can the Minister explain why the Government rushed into this deal so that it could be completed just before the Mauritian election? Is it proper for the British Government to give diplomatic kudos to a party in a foreign election?

I completely reject those comments. Given that the previous Government spent over two years engaging in multiple rounds of negotiations in preparing the basis on which we got a deal done, the idea that we rushed into something is simply not true. It was not done in a rush. We are getting the job done, and keeping our national security and our interests secure.

The Minister’s answers have not been what we have sought from him, so I will ask my question in a different way. Does he acknowledge the feelings of the Chagossians, who have peacefully protested about having their sovereignty stripped from them behind their backs? Does he recognise that the deal struck with China over Hong Kong has not been respected, and that our withdrawal has left the people of Hong Kong saying that they have been abandoned? That should serve as a warning. Will the Minister rethink the decision and respect the wishes of the Chagossians?

The hon. Gentleman knows that I have a great deal of respect for him on these matters, and for his care for people and human rights around the world. I am very clear that the treaty and the deal respect the rights and interests of the Chagossians, and we have sought to put them at the heart of the arrangements. I have engaged with many Chagossians, who have a range of views, as we have heard today. It is absolutely clear to me that we need to put their interests at the heart of the deal, and we have done that. I am confident that when they look at the detail, they will see very positive outcomes for them and their communities, and we will provide that detail to the House in due course.

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker.

Points of order come after urgent questions and statements, unless they are directly relevant to the UQ or statement. Is the point of order directly relevant to the urgent question?

Yes, very much so.

Go ahead.

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.

Obviously, the issue of cost is of huge importance, because it is public money, and the Opposition think that the public should know about the cost involved in this agreement. The Minister said to my hon. Friend the Member for Hamble Valley (Paul Holmes) that the Government do not give out the figure because they do not state the cost of overseas bases. My hon. Friend pointed out that the Minister for the Armed Forces, the hon. Member for Plymouth Sutton and Devonport (Luke Pollard), has clearly stated the cost of the base in Kenya. The Foreign Office Minister said that that is only a training base, but I can confirm to the House that back in November 2022, James Heappey, the then Minister for the Armed Forces, stated the cost of running the base in Akrotiri to the then Member for East Lothian, and that is not a training base at all. Mr Heappey gave three years’ worth of figures. Such a request is therefore clearly not unprecedented and it is an extremely important point of public interest, because this is public money. How can we hold the Government to account if they will not tell us what they will pay to rent back the base that we already own?

That is not a matter for the Chair, but the hon. Member has put his robust point of order on the record.