PARLIAMENTARY DEBATE
UK-Mauritius Treaty - 25 February 2025 (Commons/Commons Chamber)

We remain committed to concluding a deal that protects the base on Diego Garcia. Without a deal, the base cannot operate in practical terms as it should in its important role protecting the security of this country, the United States and our allies. We are currently discussing the agreement with the US and Mauritius. We will not put a deadline on its finalisation, and will come to the House in due course.

The Labour party’s determination to give away vital strategic territory in the Chagos islands, seemingly to satisfy one of the Prime Minister’s lawyer friends over our American allies, is baffling to my colleagues on the Conservative Benches. Does the Minister agree that it is far more important to maintain our special relationship with the US and the new Trump Administration than to pay billions of pounds in the face of the self-inflicted, worsening domestic economic situation, in order to give the Chinese Government access to that vital region?

There are so many things in the hon. Gentleman’s question that I disagree with that I do not know quite where to start. We are not giving away the base on Diego Garcia—the deal secures that base. If there was not a problem with its operation and its future, why did his Government start negotiations on it?

The Minister will be aware that the Chinese have a smart city situated in Mauritius, so what safeguards are in the deal to prevent Chinese installations on Diego Garcia that could compromise our western naval security?

We are absolutely clear that we will retain full control over Diego Garcia, and will have robust provisions to keep adversaries out. There will be unrestricted access to and use of the base for the UK and the US, a buffer zone around Diego Garcia, a comprehensive mechanism to ensure that no activity in the outer islands threatens base operations and a ban on the presence of any foreign security forces. I absolutely assure the hon. Gentleman that the provisions are in place to defend the security of that critical base.

I call the shadow Foreign Secretary.

The Foreign Secretary has proudly said that his Chagos surrender plan was a good deal. He told the Foreign Affairs Committee back in November that it was “a very good deal”, and that he was

“confident that the Mauritians are still sure about that”.

Three weeks ago, the Prime Minister of Mauritius told his National Assembly that since his election, he had concluded the deal

“was so bad that we said, no way!”

and that he had extracted more concessions from the UK on the length of the lease, the extension on sovereignty and the cost. Can the Minister confirm that changes have been made since the announcement of the deal on 3 October last year, and does he disagree with the account given by the Prime Minister of Mauritius?

The fundamentals of the deal remain the same, and the overall quantum remains unchanged.