PARLIAMENTARY DEBATE
British Indian Ocean Territory - 26 February 2025 (Commons/Commons Chamber)

I advise the House that Mr Speaker has not selected the amendment in the name of the Liberal Democrats.

I beg to move,

That this House regrets the reported multi-billion pound cost of the UK-Mauritius deal; notes the risk the deal presents to the UK’s strategic interests; further notes that it was a policy choice, not a legal necessity, and the concerns held by Chagossians over the Government’s failure to engage comprehensively with them; and calls on the Government to—

(1) lay before this House a chronology of the negotiations between the UK Government and the Government of Mauritius, since 4 July 2024;

(2) confirm whether the account of Prime Minister Ramgoolam given to the Mauritius National Assembly on 4 February 2025 is correct that (a) there has been a change in the sovereignty arrangements over Diego Garcia from those previously agreed, (b) changes have been made to the terms of the lease on Diego Garcia, and (c) changes have been made to the costs of the deal since it was first agreed and announced in the UK-Mauritius joint statement on 3 October 2024;

(3) confirm from which departmental budgets the costs of this deal will come and what they will be, including whether any of the proposed increase in defence spending, as announced by the Prime Minister on 25 February, will be used to pay for this;

(4) explain what involvement the Attorney General has had with this deal;

(5) set out the negotiating objectives established by the Prime Minister’s Special Envoy for BIOT negotiations and the reasons the Government sought to accelerate negotiations and conclude them before the Mauritian elections.

When Labour negotiates, Britain loses. Nowhere is that more obvious than in Labour’s botched, embarrassing, humiliating and secretive deal with Mauritius to surrender the sovereignty of the British Indian Ocean Territory. In a world that is increasingly dangerous and uncertain, where threats from both state and non-state actors are growing and our national economic and security interests face threats from new technology, it is inconceivable that a Government, whose first concern and priority must be the defence of the realm, would give away one of the most important strategic military assets that we hold, let alone pay a foreign Government for its continued use. It is like handing over your house to someone else, and having to pay for the privilege of continuing to live there.

This socialist Government are committed to the principles of redistributing wealth—Government Members were cheering about that—but redistributing the sovereignty of key strategic and military assets in this way is not just socialism but recklessness. It is incompetent and, quite frankly, irresponsible. We cannot afford to gamble in any way when it comes to our national security and defence.

I am a little confused—[Interruption.] If the Conservative party wants to take back Tunbridge Wells at the next election, its Members would do well to listen. Will the shadow Foreign Secretary clarify why she is criticising a deal for which the negotiations were started by the Conservative party?

I cannot speak to the hon. Member’s confusion, but let us be clear that it is not the Conservative party that is putting forward a surrender deal. Let me be crystal clear: we are not surrendering our territory or sovereignty in any way whatsoever.

While the Labour Government, inspired by their dogmatic commitment to misguided—

Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Of course I give way.

Let me help the confused Liberal Democrat Member. I was in the Foreign Office during the whole of the Tory negotiations. I witnessed exactly what my right hon. Friend the Member for Braintree (Mr Cleverly) and the noble Lord Cameron did in those negotiations. I can tell my right hon. Friend, the House and the Liberal Democrats that the deal that has been done by the Labour party is one that Tory Ministers would never have countenanced.

My right hon. Friend is fast-forwarding to some of my wider remarks, but he is absolutely right. I thank him for his time in the Foreign Office. It was under Lord Cameron when all this was stopped. It was an advisory opinion. In 2019, it was the Conservative Government and Conservative Foreign Office Ministers who made that point and stopped all this nonsense from going on in the first place.

Conservative Members stand in support of the national interest. I pay tribute to my colleagues in previous Conservative Governments for resisting the efforts of some countries, including China and Argentina, who voted at the UN General Assembly in May 2019 to demand that the UK withdraw from its administration of the Chagos archipelago within six months. The former Foreign Secretary Lord Cameron deserves credit for resisting the claims made by Mauritius and for ensuring that our sovereignty was not surrendered while he was Foreign Secretary.

How have we got here? As you will know, Madam Deputy Speaker, from the sheer volume of urgent question applications that you and Mr Speaker have presided over on the issue, the Government have acted in a secretive manner, providing little information on the deal agreed and how it was reached. Getting facts and information out of the Government has been like extracting water from a stone, but after asking many questions we have managed to secure some information.

What do we know? [Interruption.] I can tell Government Front Benchers who are chuntering away—perhaps they would like to listen to some of the information—that less than three weeks after taking office, on 23 July, the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary prioritised this issue by meeting the then Prime Minister of Mauritius, Pravind Jugnauth. We do not know what was discussed at that meeting, but on 6 September the Foreign Secretary announced that Jonathan Powell would be the special envoy. On 3 October—less than three months after coming into office and when the House was not sitting—the Foreign Secretary confirmed that he had waved the white flag of surrender. He confirmed that the Labour Government would hand over the sovereignty of the British Indian Ocean Territory, pay a lease for the use of the base at Diego Garcia—the amount has been kept secret—and pay towards an economic development partnership with Mauritius and a Chagossian trust fund.

Not only was the deal put together in haste and in secret, but serious concerns were raised about the timing of the agreement. The then Mauritian Prime Minister called a general election the following day—4 October 2024—and, of course, the presidential election of our ally and partner in Diego Garcia, the United States of America, was held the following month. The result of both those elections led to changes in Administrations; I will touch on that shortly. The decision over the future of this key strategic military and security asset has been taken in advance of the strategic defence review being completed, the spending review and the China audit. How can the Government justify giving away the Chagos islands and losing control of this asset before they have thoroughly assessed the threats we face and our long-term defence and security needs?

Unlike lawyer-led Labour—

If I may caveat my remarks, unlike those unqualified, pretend lawyers—not even actual lawyers—Conservative Members believe that decisions over the future of key strategic military assets cannot be taken on advisory opinions issued and by motions agreed in international organisations, especially when such votes have been cast against us by nations, and indeed judges, who may pose a threat to us and have their own interests.

Britain is a global power, and we face global threats. The base of Diego Garcia is one of the most important strategic and military assets in the Indo-Pacific for us and for our US partners. If our sovereignty over the base and the Chagos islands is lost, diluted or compromised, we are weaker, and our rivals, competitors and enemies grow stronger.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that those who are led by lawyers—there is nothing wrong with that—should at least get the law right? If there is legal jeopardy here, does she agree that we should understand what that jeopardy is? She knows that the International Court of Justice cannot make a binding ruling against the UK on this matter because Mauritius is a member of the Commonwealth and we have not accepted its jurisdiction in those circumstances. If there is legal jeopardy that makes a deal necessary, does she agree that this is a good moment for the Minister to explain to us precisely what that legal jeopardy is?

My right hon. and learned Friend absolutely speaks sense on this issue and that is exactly why I enjoyed working with him so much on some of the challenges we faced in government. That is exactly the point.

Turning to the substance, or proposed substance, in the proposed treaty, the Labour Government failed to provide any transparency over plans, but we are fortunate that the new Prime Minister of Mauritius, Navin Ramgoolam, and his Government have been much more open and candid about the negotiations, sharing the details of the humiliating concessions that Labour Ministers have made in this epic failure of diplomacy.

I just wanted to prompt my right hon. Friend to pursue one other matter, which is quite important. I was looking at the list of the judges who sat on the ICJ panel. It is quite interesting. Apart from there being a Russian who was fully supportive of the invasion of Ukraine, it turns out that Vice-President Xue, who wrote the whole case, also voted to support the Russian invasion of Ukraine and was heavily involved in the Chinese Government previously. To what degree does that represent balanced and informed judgment—here internationally—as we would have in the UK?

My right hon. Friend is spot on and makes a point that I have made. There are people—judges in particular—who clearly are undermining our integrity, sovereignty and the decision making in our own Government. They are pursuing their own interests and that is why we have to call out this deal.

On that point, did my right hon. Friend see the report in The Daily Telegraph on 26 February that one of the other judges who took part in that judgment, Patrick Robinson, believes that the United Kingdom should be repaying at least £18 trillion in reparations for slavery in the past?

I did read that report. I have to say that that is exactly why we questioned the deal. It is the wrong approach, it really is. For all the lawyers sitting on the Labour Benches and in the Government—well, supposed lawyers—why are they not effectively looking at the integrity of the proposed deal and providing the scrutiny that is needed?

We need Ministers to confirm when they decided that the proposed deal should be shared with the new American Administration, because there are so many questions as to how we got into this position. For weeks, Ministers refused to say—here at the Dispatch Box—that they would wait until President Trump took office, including failing to answer questions directly on 14 January. While they were refusing to say anything, the Mauritius Government suggested that Ministers here were not just eager but desperate to complete the deal by 20 January. But on 15 January, through a Downing Street briefing—not a statement to this House, Madam Deputy Speaker—we learnt that the Government would now wait to brief the new President and that the Prime Minister of Mauritius told his Assembly that it was a unilateral decision of the United Kingdom to postpone matters. When the Minister responds to the debate, will she finally confirm on which date the Government policy towards consulting the new US Administration and delaying the deal was agreed?

My right hon. Friend makes an excellent point. The attitude of the Government of the United States is absolutely central. There has been a profound change in the stance taken by the Government of the United States, with the election of the new President. Instead of embracing that and seeing it as an opportunity, the Labour party seems determined to railroad through a deal that does not, it appears, command the support of the Government of the United States. It is a preposterous position to be in.

My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. It is shameful, because these are exactly the questions that we on the Opposition Benches were putting forward to the Government, and they were simply refusing to be transparent and answer any questions whatsoever. The fact of the matter is that the credibility and integrity of the Government is at stake. If they cannot come clean on these simple questions, what else are they hiding?

This was compounded even further only yesterday, when the statement was handed to the Leader of the Opposition with redacted information. That is absolutely shameful. The duty of His Majesty’s Opposition is to hold the Government to account. How can they do that if they do not get the information needed to make the best decisions for the country?

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I am afraid that the Government need to reflect on their own conduct. The British public are about to have to fork out huge amounts of money for a deal that has had no scrutiny or public airing whatsoever. The lack of transparency is one thing, but when we see this being repeated across every Government Department and even in a Prime Minister’s statement, it is simply unacceptable. There is something deeply shameful about the conduct and the lack of transparency of this Government.

Secondly, on the negotiations, the Mauritius Prime Minister has publicly given a chronology of the counterproposals his Government have put forward to change the agreement reached and announced by his predecessor and the UK Prime Minister. He has stated to his National Assembly that, upon taking office in November, he had—guess what?—reviewed the deal. This is exactly the same deal that the Foreign Secretary has described as “a very good deal”, and one he was “confident” that the Mauritians were still really sure about, yet the Mauritian Prime Minister concluded that the deal

“was so bad that we said, no way!”

There is video footage of that as well. It is available online for everyone to see. He claimed that he subsequently submitted a counterproposal to the UK and that the UK Government responded on 16 December.

Then, on 31 December, Mauritius submitted its response and requested a meeting in January, which was quickly arranged and held. That meeting took place. The Mauritius Cabinet then met on 15 January and, soon after, its delegation, led by its Attorney General, Gavin Glover, came to London to meet the Minister and the Attorney General, Lord Hermer. So, according to the Mauritians, a series of counterproposals and responses were exchanged, but when we have asked the Government about whether counterproposals were received and what they were, including at questions yesterday, Ministers have continually refused to say.

I find it astonishing that this House has had to rely on Hansard from the Mauritius National Assembly. It is very good; I recommend that colleagues read it. We have had to rely on that Hansard to find out what UK Government Ministers are up to. That is why our motion demands the publication of a chronology so that we can know what has happened. When we hear from the Minister, perhaps she can confirm whether this account from the Prime Minister of Mauritius is correct.

The Minister should also explain to the House the role that the Attorney General has been playing in these negotiations, because written answers have stated that his meeting with the Mauritius delegation last month was a “courtesy meeting”. But the Prime Minister of Mauritius has stated that when his Attorney General met his British counterpart, Lord Hermer, and the Under-Secretary of State in the Foreign Office, they both assured him of the commitment of the UK Government to signing the agreement between Mauritius and the United Kingdom. Giving that assurance seems to demonstrate that the Attorney General was actively playing a part in the negotiations, rather than attending a “courtesy meeting”, and in view of that previous interest in the British Indian Ocean Territory, questions will rightly be raised about his involvement. So can the Minister confirm whether the Attorney General has recused himself from these matters?

Thirdly, we know from the account given by the Prime Minister of Mauritius that concessions have been made over sovereignty, even though Ministers here have refused to confirm or admit it. The joint statement of 3 October said:

“For an initial period of 99 years, the United Kingdom will be authorised to exercise with respect to Diego Garcia the sovereign rights and authorities of Mauritius required to ensure the continued operation of the base well into the next century.”

When we asked yesterday whether a change had been made, the Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, the hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty) said:

“The fundamentals of the deal remain the same”.—[Official Report, 25 February 2025; Vol. 762, c. 618.]

But if the fundamentals of the deal remain the same, why has the Mauritius Prime Minister said that

“there have been changes. The British agreed. We insisted that the sovereignty issue is the crucial and the most important issue…We insisted that it be clear that we have complete sovereignty on the Chagos, including Diego Garcia. The British agreed to that and this has been changed.”

And why is it that, in a letter sent to me this week by the Foreign Secretary, he does not use the word “sovereignty” in relation to the lease, only stating:

“The UK would retain all the rights and authorities we need to ensure the long-term, secure and effective operation of the base.”

The difference in the language between the joint statement from October and this letter to me matters. The Minister, the Foreign Secretary and the Prime Minister might not realise it, but removing sovereignty is a fundamental change, and it matters for the defence and security of our country.

My right hon. Friend’s point is not merely semantic, because in international law—which I know holds great sway on the Labour Benches—those who interpret our entitlements will look closely at whether we have sovereign power or only power by means of an agreement that can be torn up by Mauritius.

My right hon. Friend is absolutely correct. Sovereignty matters, and the Minister could not admit it to the House yesterday in the Chamber, but perhaps when a Minister sums up today they can confirm that change in position. We need to know whether we have lost sovereignty and lost control.

Fourthly, it is clear there has been a change in the lease agreement—this letter makes that crystal clear. When the Foreign Secretary made his statement to the House on 7 October 2024, he stated that the lease

“is initially for 99 years, but the UK has the right to extend that.”—[Official Report, 7 October 2024; Vol. 754, c. 46.]

The impression given was that this could be unilaterally extended, as he would not say at the time that both parties needed to agree.

The reality is that the present Prime Minister of Mauritius has publicly stated—by the way, he also mentioned that the cost would be up to £18 billion—“Interestingly, we would have happily looked at joint sovereignty where it was clear, but the British Government did not want it.”

My right hon. Friend is absolutely correct, and I am afraid it shows the lack of commitment to even understanding the sovereignty of the territory.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is already a campaign, led by local celebrities in Mauritius, to ensure that once sovereignty is restored to Mauritius, the treaty is reneged on and an attempt is made to close the airport?

My right hon. Friend makes an important point, and that is why we on the Opposition side of the House will be scrutinising the Government even further on this. We will be holding them to account. They simply do not value sovereignty and they are about to give away control, and that is simply unacceptable.

This issue of sovereignty is crucial. First, it is not about restoring sovereignty to Mauritius; Mauritius never had sovereignty in the first place. Moreover, the moment at which the United Kingdom Government concede the point of sovereignty, all else is lost in the negotiation; we will have not a leg to stand on. So clarity on this point is essential.

My right hon. Friend is absolutely right, and the Government seem to have a complete disregard for this. He is absolutely right that Mauritius never had sovereignty in the first instance, and now look at this terrible mess. This is a complete surrender and an epic failure of diplomacy.

Will my right hon. Friend give way?

I will give way shortly.

We also know from the Mauritius Prime Minister that the lease extension provisions have—guess what—been changed and diluted. He told his National Assembly, talking to their Leader of the Opposition, that

“the agreement was for an agreement of 99 years, and then, unilaterally, the British would decide on an extension of that agreement for 40 years. We had no say in it. We disagreed completely! It cannot be that an agreement is signed for 99 years, and then the British on their own would decide that they will renew the agreement and we have no say in it.”

He went on to say that he has got this changed:

“The extension has to be agreed with both parties. It cannot be unilateral from the British. And I am glad to inform the Leader of the Opposition that the British have agreed to that also.”

The Foreign Secretary, in his letter to me, remarked that the 99-year lease

“can be extended if both sides agree. We will have the right of first refusal, meaning it can’t be given to any other country at the end of the treaty without us first agreeing.”

That is, frankly, an astonishing response to receive, and an astonishing concession for the Labour Government to make. This deal was bad enough at the outset, but now we know that, despite the Minister’s claim that the

“fundamentals of the deal remain the same”,—[Official Report, 25 February 2025; Vol. 762, c. 618.]

we have gone from the UK being able unilaterally to extend the lease by 40 years to now being able to extend it only with the agreement of Mauritius, and there is a “right of first refusal” caveat in that lease too.

The House should be shocked by this, and we need answers. I urge the Minister to answer these questions when she responds. What happens at the end of the 99-year period if both parties cannot agree? What happens if we want to extend and Mauritius does not? What will happen to the base and the equipment under those circumstances? What if, at the end of 99 years, the price that Mauritius asks for is too high? If we cannot unilaterally extend the lease, then—guess what—we have lost control. The Labour Government may not realise this, but Mauritius knows it very well. The British taxpayer knows this extremely well, and of course our enemies know it—they are sitting back and watching, rubbing their hands with glee, because on all the key negotiation points, Labour has backed down and Britain is losing control.

My right hon. Friend makes an incredibly important point about how the Government are giving this away, but we only know that because of what Mauritius is saying to the public. We in this House have been constantly left in the dark—so much so that even when I was recently on “Politics Live” with the Leader of the House, she refused point blank and totally lost the plot when I started to question her about what this Government are doing. Is transparency not absolutely at the core of what we need to hear from the Government?

My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. I have already made the point—Madam Deputy Speaker, you will have heard many of us say it—that there is a failure to be transparent. The fact that I have quoted so much from the Mauritius National Assembly’s Hansard speaks volumes about the conduct of this Government. It has been a great read, and the video clips are absolutely astonishing, but I certainly think that the Government should learn some lessons on high standards and raising the bar.

What my right hon. Friend describes is truly shocking. This Labour Government are going to give away British sovereign territory, and they are going to charge the poor elderly pensioners and our businesspeople to do so. They are going to fundamentally fail in their first duty to keep Britain safe by making our country less safe. What on earth is motivating them to do this dreadful thing?

There is plenty of speculation as to why the Government wish to go down this course, and it is not in our national interest. I will say it: Labour does not represent the national interest when it comes to sovereignty and fighting for the real freedoms that the British people believe in.

I have spoken already about the terms of the lease. The Labour Government have also made concessions on the cost—the price that British taxpayers will be forced to pay because of this shambolic, economically illiterate Government. For weeks we have been asking about the cost and any changes made from the position in October, and for weeks Ministers have failed to give answers, but the Prime Minister of Mauritius has confirmed that concessions have indeed been made. He told his National Assembly that

“we also wanted to do front loading; some of the money had to be front loaded,

—he said that with a lot of enthusiasm—

“and that also is being agreed to”.

It was only after I wrote to the Foreign Secretary to highlight this that he finally accepted that this has happened and that changes have been made. He wrote in his letter to me:

“There have been some changes to the financial arrangements to enable a limited element of frontloading, but the overall net present value of the treaty payments (which accounts for the impact of indexation) has not changed since”.

That change was not announced to the House, and nor did the Minister, or any Minister, mention that in this Chamber or when I raised it in the House yesterday.

We know that the costs will be front-loaded, but we still do not know what they will actually be. The Foreign Secretary told me in his letter that the £18 billion figure reported

“is false and significantly exceeds the quantum.”

So what is the figure? Is it £9 billion, £12 billion, £15 billion? Is it higher or lower? The Minister need only nod to give us clarity on that, but perhaps she does not even know the cost.

The Defence Secretary was asked this morning on LBC where the funding was coming from. He said:

“There will be no payments unless and until the deal is struck.”

That does not answer the question. Who would go into a deal without knowing how they will pay for it? Which budget is the funding coming from—the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office budget or the Defence budget? Is it included in the new defence spending or not? Those are questions that the Prime Minister refused to answer today. Does my right hon. Friend have any thoughts on how we can get those answers now?

I thank my hon. Friend for that essential question, which remains unanswered. At the end of the day, the Government must be clear about which budget that money is coming from, because we need to know. We do not even know the sums, but this is taxpayer’s money. How can any Government justify those extraordinary sums?

What is agreed universally is that the cost is £9 billion—the Government do not question that at all. Whether there is front-loading or not, we do not yet know, but let us assume that the cost is £90 million a year for 99 years. A lot of people in the media and in politics seem to have a problem with basic arithmetic and compounding: £90 million a year, index-linked at 3%, is £52 billion—a completely eye-watering sum. I am very surprised that His Majesty’s loyal Opposition are not using that number, or perhaps they are just so embarrassed about having begun the negotiations themselves—I do not know.

The bottom line in all this is that there is no transparency at all from the Government. We will absolutely press and hold them to account on that.

I come back to the point we have just heard from the Opposition Benches, which is that no Minister—not even the Defence Secretary today—has told us where that money is coming from. Perhaps this Minister does not know the cost, or maybe she needs permission from the Attorney General, or from Rachel from accounts, even to comment on the numbers, but the House must know. Labour has sought to hide behind the real reason for what is going on. It is constantly using the fig leaf of national security to avoid telling British taxpayers how much the deal will cost. That is simply not acceptable.

If the Government will not tell us the numbers, they should at least tell us where the budget has come from. In a written parliamentary answer of 22 November, the Chief Secretary to the Treasury confirmed to me that he had engaged in discussions and reached an agreement with Cabinet colleagues on the financial elements of the proposed lease of the military base on Diego Garcia, as part of the UK-Mauritius agreement announced on 3 October. Will the Minister confirm—she can intervene now if she would like to—whether that funding will come from the defence budget? If it does, will it count towards the new 2.5% target announced by the Prime Minister yesterday? It would be a stain on the Government if they reached that target as a result of wasting money—hard-pressed taxpayers’ money—on that unnecessary lease. The British public deserve accountability and transparency.

Will my right hon. Friend give way?

I will give way one more time.

She is being very generous in giving way. Does she agree that the Government stand accused of perhaps being guilty of some creative accounting? If they are transferring money from the international development budget to defence, and then transferring the self-same money from defence to Mauritius, allowing Ministers to benefit from the fiction of an uplift in the defence budget, the public are entitled to smell a rat.

My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. It is completely duplicitous. That is no way for any Government to conduct themselves, particularly in relation to such a matter.

To conclude, in negotiating this deal and agreeing to surrender—

Will my right hon. Friend give way?

I am sorry, Madam Deputy Speaker, but I did say that I would give way to my hon. Friend.

I hope my right hon. Friend will forgive me if she was coming to this point in her final words, but is it not extraordinary that we should be doing something that so many people in Washington profoundly object to, when the Prime Minister is about to have an extremely delicate discussion with the President of the United States about whether he will reaffirm his guarantees for the security and peace of our whole continent, and indeed of our country? Is this not a kind gift that the Government should take to Washington and say, “We will drop this if you have the slightest objection”?

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. This is a critical time for our two countries when it comes to both our place and our standing in the world. All we have seen from this Government is an epic failure in diplomacy, and concession after concession. The Labour Government have shown themselves to be weak. Not only have they undermined our strategic defence interests and our very close relationship with our dear ally, but they are putting our territories at risk and wasting taxpayers’ money. We need a Government who stand tall in the world and who fly the Union flag with pride rather than the white flag of surrender.

The deal is an epic failure in diplomacy and it is causing our standing in the world to fall. The House must vote for our motion to defend our national interests and Britain’s standing in the world.

Order. Before I call the Minister, I must inform the House there will have to be an immediate five-minute time limit on Back-Bench contributions, which obviously excludes those from the Front Benches.

I am grateful to the right hon. Member for Witham (Priti Patel) for bringing this Opposition debate to the House. As she knows, for over 50 years the UK-US base on Diego Garcia has been a bulwark in the Indo-Pacific, supporting critical missions against terrorists, countering hostile states and keeping us, and the rest of the world, safe. This Government are committed to protecting our base, protecting our position and capabilities in the Indian ocean, and protecting national security. The deal that we have negotiated achieves all of those goals. It is rooted in a rational and hard-headed determination to protect our country’s security, which is the first duty of any Government. It is this Government who are delivering on that and not ducking questions, as the right hon. Lady well knows.

I will make progress and then I will be very happy to take interventions.

The status quo is not sustainable. It imperils UK and US strategic interests. A deal, as the right hon. Lady knows, is necessary. This deal will ensure the continued, uninterrupted operation of the base on Diego Garcia, well into the next century. It will cement UK and US presence in the Indo-Pacific for generations to come. I did not hear a single suggestion in the right hon. Lady’s lengthy speech about how she would secure that base at all. Base operations have been under increasing threat for decades—[Interruption.] The right hon. Lady knows that and many Members on the Conservative Benches also know it.

Claims that there were no legal necessities to negotiate are absolutely wrong; they misunderstand the legal jeopardy and immediate operational challenges that the base faces. [Interruption.] I will come on to that; I am well aware of that. Ever since the legal certainty of the base was called into doubt, its ability to operate in practical terms, as it should be able to operate, given that it is such a critical facility, has been undermined. I know that the right hon. Lady is aware of that.

The 2019 International Court of Justice advisory opinion might be the most eye-catching of the legal developments in recent years—

Is the Minister going to give way or not?

I will happily give way to the right hon. Gentleman.

Okay, excellent. I want to bring the right hon. Lady back to her statement that there was an imperative to resolve the situation. She knows very well that in the original advisory opinion by the ICJ it is very clear, as has been made clear by the ex-Attorney General, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kenilworth and Southam (Sir Jeremy Wright), that nothing regarding the Commonwealth falls within the directive, so by definition it is advisory. At the bottom of that agreement, the Government have a waiver that says that if they want to dismiss the advisory opinion, they can go ahead on that basis, so I ask the right hon. Lady: have this Government issued a waiver on the provision that nothing has to be a directive from that court? Have they issued a waiver?

The right hon. Gentleman is well aware that of course we know about that ICJ carve-out in relation to the Commonwealth. That is common knowledge. I find it slightly strange that he is presenting that as something that the House is not aware of—that is very peculiar indeed. He would have done well to wait for the rest of what I was going to say in relation to legal jeopardy, because this is by no means—

Will the Minister give way?

No, I will make progress.

Will the Minister give way?

No, I said that I would make progress.

Order. As the shadow Minister will know, the Minister is not obliged to take interventions from the Dispatch Box.

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. Let me explain to Conservative Members, because I feel they are perhaps unaware of the fact that the ICJ advisory opinion is simply the most eye-catching of a huge number of legal concerns around the present situation. Those who had the genuine security of that base at the front of their minds would be determined to secure its future. Without a deal, it is inevitable that Mauritius would pursue a legally binding judgment against UK sovereignty.

Since 2015, 28 international judges and arbitrators have expressed views on the sovereignty of the Chagos archipelago. [Interruption.] Conservative Members are keen to shout. I wonder if they can tell me how many have agreed with the UK’s position. They are very quiet. That is because not a single one of those arbitrators and judges have expressed support for the UK claim about sovereignty. That lack of legal certainty would have real-world impacts on base operations and create space for our enemies. Some of those impacts would be on simple but crucial things, such as securing contractors and getting overflight clearances. I regret that the Opposition said not a single word about the issue of securing contractors and getting overflight clearances. There were other matters that they did not talk about.

The right hon. Lady is absolutely entitled to explain the Government’s position, but if her argument is that there is legal uncertainty, she had better get used to it, because there is legal uncertainty about a lot of things. If her argument is that lots of people disagree with the UK’s position, she had also better get used to that. As I have understood the Government’s position, it has thus far been that the advisory opinion we have received may one day become a binding judgment against the UK, obliging the UK Government to act as they now seek to do. I want to know from where that binding judgment may come, and I have not yet heard an answer.

I note that when the right hon. and learned Gentleman talked about the potential for real-world consequences coming from legal uncertainty, some on the Conservative Benches laughed. We do not find this subject amusing; we view it as incredibly serious. If we do not have a deal with Mauritius, Conservative Members know that it would have every incentive to do a deal with someone else. We would face the risk of joint military exercises around the base—I did not hear a single word about that from Opposition Members. We would face the risk of other countries setting up outposts on surrounding islands, which appears not to be a concern for Opposition Members. We would also have the risk of hostile actors trying to interfere with crucial communications, and crucial communications they are. That is what is in our strategic defence interest, which the shadow Foreign Secretary mentioned. Without a negotiated solution—

Will the Minister give way on exactly that point?

No, I will make progress.

Will the Minister give way?

No, I will keep speaking, as is my right. Without a negotiated solution with Mauritius, it would pursue its legal campaign; it has made that very clear, as the shadow Minister knows. That would lead to an inevitable, legally binding judgment, which would be—[Interruption.]

Order. I will not have this level of shouting at the Minister. I will hear her, and of course, it is within her right not to take interventions. Please can Members approach this debate in an orderly fashion?

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.

As I was saying, in that kind of situation, we would unfortunately see international organisations following that determination, such as the International Telecommunication Union. [Interruption.] I heard from the Opposition Front Bench, “Let them have a go.” The consequences of letting them have a go could be that critical spectrum for telecommunications that is essential for our security is compromised, another issue about which I sadly heard nothing from the right hon. Member for Witham.

The legal necessity of this deal has rightly been recognised by successive Governments.

This is absolutely risible.

I agree with the chuntering; it is risible that the Conservatives undertook 11 rounds of negotiations on this subject, and they simply will not admit to having done so. The right hon. Lady herself stated that that was something she could not speak about.

I am grateful to the Minister for giving way on that point, because she is at risk of not necessarily being accurate in her remarks. She is absolutely right that the Conservative Government went into negotiations with Mauritius, but she seems to think that starting negotiations means that the end result must be capitulation and abiding by Mauritius’s ideas. Before other Members stand up and read out the Labour party briefing, can I remind the Minister that under a Conservative Foreign Secretary, Lord Cameron, it was deemed that those negotiations were going in a direction that was not in the British national interest, and they were ended?

I find the approach of Opposition Members to this subject to be very confusing. [Hon. Members: “Shocking.”] Some say shocking—I say confusing. Some Opposition Members have said that they cannot speak about those 11 rounds of negotiations. A moment ago, we heard an intervention stating that those negotiations must have been completely different in content, without spelling out why they were different. I find this a peculiar situation. Of course, there are many things that the Conservatives started that Labour did not want to continue—economic chaos and damage to our public services are some—but the Conservatives began those negotiations, and indeed had 11 rounds of them.

I am happy to give way to the hon. Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Dr Johnson).

Unlike some of my esteemed colleagues, I am not a learned lawyer or a former Attorney General, but to an ordinary layperson like me, it sounds very much like the right hon. Lady and her Government are prepared to give away sovereign British territory and billions of pounds of taxpayers’ hard-earned income, simply in case somebody brings a court case sometime in the future that may or may not be successful. Can she please reassure me that that is not true?

I think that the ordinary general public would be pretty concerned about a situation in which we had the risk of joint—[Interruption.] Opposition Members laugh. They laugh about the risk of joint military operations around the base. They laugh about the risk of other countries setting up outposts on surrounding islands, and they seem unconcerned about the threat of hostile actors trying to interfere with crucial communications. Those matters are of concern to the public, and they are of concern to the Government.

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I apologise, but to prevent the Minister from inadvertently misleading the House, in answer to a parliamentary question, we have it from Sir Chris Bryant, ironically—

Order. Mr Francois, you know that you must not refer to Members by their name.

We have it from the telecoms Minister that the International Telecommunication Union has no power to veto the use of military spectrum, so it could not interfere with satellites. That is the Government’s official position; does the Minister now wish to correct her remarks?

Order. I think I will respond to the point of order first. The shadow Minister will know that that was not a point of order, but a point of debate.

I do not want to embarrass the right hon. Gentleman, but he surely understands the difference with access to spectrum, which is the key issue here. It is critical. I find it strange that he allots that issue so little consideration, when it could be of such strategic importance to our country.

The right hon. Member for Witham talked about remarks from Mauritian Prime Minister Ramgoolam. It appears that she has been spending a lot of time looking him up at length on the internet. I therefore find it rather strange that she did not see what he stated on 5 February, where he set the record straight about the terms of the deal. Perhaps she does know about this, but chose not to refer to it in her remarks. He confirmed what this Government have been saying with clarity and consistency since the announcement of a political agreement in October, so let me spell out what we have said about the duration and terms of the treaty and what Prime Minister Ramgoolam confirmed, which appears to have been missed in previous comments.

The deal will be for 99 years and can be extended if both sides agree. The UK will additionally have a right of first refusal, meaning that the islands cannot be given to any other country at the end of the treaty without us first agreeing, and there are no changes to the rights and authorities that we will have to operate the base. Parliament will have the opportunity to scrutinise the details of the treaty after signature, when it is laid for scrutiny under the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010 process before ratification. We would be delighted to have the right hon. Lady’s scrutiny, as would be usual.

To suggest that there was an acceleration of the negotiations before the Mauritian election flies in the face of the facts, as has been the case with many comments from the Opposition on this matter. When we took office, the negotiations had been ongoing for two years. We continued to engage with the Mauritian Government and to work in lockstep with the United States. While we recognise that it was in the interests of all sides to finalise the deal quickly, we did not put a completion date on the negotiations. We did not do so then and we do not intend to do so now. We are of course engaging with the new US Administration, including discussing the full details of the agreement, just as we engaged with the previous US Administration. I find it rather strange that the Opposition are confused about the nature of modern negotiations.

As we and Mauritius have said repeatedly, 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, continuing the practice of the previous Government. As is usual in these circumstances, negotiations have been led by officials with clear guidance and oversight from Ministers.

I give way to the hon. Member for Hinckley and Bosworth.

I have a feeling that if I had an invisibility cloak like my right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge (Tom Tugendhat) seems to have, it might well help us win in Ukraine. I simply ask this: negotiators have been given a negotiation to do, so in the name of transparency, can the Government tell us which budget the funding will come out of? They must know when they go to negotiate what they are actually negotiating.

I am more than happy to go into the financial question in a few moments, because this too, sadly, is an issue about which the Opposition have been deeply confused.

As for the question regarding the Attorney General, he met his Mauritian counterpart for a courtesy call. As was stated when he was in the UK in January, that meeting did not constitute part of the formal negotiations. I find it strange that the term “formal negotiations” is not understood by the Opposition; again, they are confused. On the broader question, the Attorney General has been clear that, as has been the case with every other Attorney General, whenever a conflict might be identified in any hypothetical circumstance, it would be dealt with as part of the proper process and he would recuse himself, if that were needed.

Will the Minister give way?

I am happy to do so.

I appreciate that the Minister’s budget has been cut so much that she is now put on suicide watch to defend the indefensible for the Government—[Interruption.] And I appreciate that the howls of outrage from Labour Members will be confected when it comes to this issue, for the simple reason that the Minister has nothing to add on a budgetary question that has gone from $13 billion to $6 billion and is now coming out of her budget. Will she make it absolutely clear to the House that there is no way that she will take hard-earned taxpayers’ money that should be going to support the poorest in the world and instead pay off a Government who actually have no legal claim?

I know that the right hon. Gentleman is honourable, and he may wish to reflect on his opening remark, because that was not his normal style at all. As for his question about finances, it is clear that a financial element was vital to securing a deal to protect the operation of such a vital base over the course of 99 years. If we do not pay—I will say it again—someone else will. Our adversaries would jump at the chance to establish outposts on the outer islands. There has been a lot of inaccurate speculation about the cost of this treaty.

I genuinely appreciate the opportunity that the Minister has given me to speak about this matter, but I want to clarify a point. She has said this a couple of times now, and I want to understand. She keeps saying that if we do not pay, someone else will. Who would be the recipient of that payment, given that the Chagos islands are British sovereign territory? Is she suggesting that another country would pay us? Why would another country pay Mauritius? The Chagos islands do not belong to Mauritius.

I know that the right hon. Gentleman understands full well that this is because of the legal uncertainty that is created by the current situation. That has been recognised time and again. It was the reason his Government engaged in 11 rounds of negotiations, and it is why there is this problem. I am surprised that Conservative Members are so unconcerned about the contestation that we see in that part of the world, and the need for our country’s interests to be put first.

No, I will not take another intervention from the right hon. Gentleman. My response was very clear.

On the subject of inaccurate speculation about the cost of the treaty, Prime Minister Ramgoolam has confirmed that the reports of a doubling in value are completely false. The overall cost of the deal has not changed from that negotiated with the former Mauritian Prime Minister. There have been some changes in the financial arrangements—

Why?

I was just about to come on to that. There have been some changes to enable a limited element of front-loading, but the overall net present value of the treaty payments, which accounts for the impact of indexation, is not higher than it was. I will not press this point, because it would be very unfair to Opposition Members, but surely, when they talk about economic illiteracy, they are not falling into the trap of confusing timing with magnitude, because there is a pretty obvious difference between the two.

We will provide more information on the departmental budgetary impacts in due course. The details will be set out when the treaty is laid before Parliament. We are seeing more bizarre claims about this issue even just within this debate. Frankly, we heard wild enough ones earlier when the Leader of the Opposition had her say, and the Prime Minister explained that she was wide of the mark. Of course, as colleagues would expect, any funding arrangement and the departmental split of any costs arising from the treaty with Mauritius will be finalised through the spending review. I have to say that I am used to hearing some pretty wild maths from the Conservatives, and we had the true Tory kamikaze Budget of course, but they are surpassing themselves, because it is ridiculous to compare—

Will the Minister give way or tell us how much?

I will continue to explain why the Conservatives cannot compare speculative figures for the lifetime cost of a 99-year-long agreement to protect our national security with an annual uplift to defence spending that is the largest since the cold war. There is clearly a difference of many orders of magnitude, and I feel that they really need to reflect on the bizarre claims they are making.

Although this has necessarily been a state-to-state negotiation, with our priority being to protect the base, we recognise the importance of the islands to Chagossians, and we have worked hard to ensure that this agreement reflects the importance of the islands to Chagossians. Some may say that it is farcical to talk about Chagossians, but I do not believe it is farcical. As we have already announced, we will finance a new trust fund for Mauritius to use in support of the Chagossian community. We will work with Mauritius to start a new programme of visits for Chagossians to the Chagos archipelago, including to Diego Garcia, and Mauritius will be free to develop a programme of resettlement on the islands, other than Diego Garcia.

I have to say that the Minister is putting up a very loyal and heroic defence of her Government’s policy. However, I predict that if the Government persist with this proposal, it will become a running sore for the governing party, and they will rue the day. The British people will know that they have just given away a sovereign territory unnecessarily, and what is more, they have put the icing on the cake with billions of pounds of taxpayers’ money. They will never live it down, so my advice to the Government is to quit while they can.

I do appreciate the kind tone in which the hon. Gentleman expressed his remarks. However, I would say, respectfully, that the running sore is the situation that has led to our country’s national security being subject to legal jeopardy because this issue had not been resolved. The Conservative Government, on whose Benches he sat, had 11 rounds of negotiations with Mauritius on this subject, and this Government have been determined to make progress for the sake of our national security.

What was the point of the Conservatives starting a negotiation if there was no intent to reach an agreed solution? If there was a red line, which they are now saying there was, where is it published?

I could not have said it better myself. That is indeed the nub of the point.

I want to inform the House that, separate from the agreement, we will increase our support to Chagossians who are living in the UK and around the world through new and existing projects.

Another issue that has been of considerable interest to Members is the environment. We have secured a deal that will help to protect the unique environment of the Chagos archipelago—one of the world’s most important marine environments—to which both the UK and Mauritius have committed. The agreement will be supported by an enhanced partnership between the UK and Mauritius, under which the UK will support Mauritius’s ambitions to establish a marine protected area that protects the globally significant ecosystems in the Chagos archipelago. That is particularly important when it comes to protecting the islands’ biodiversity and ensuring they are protected against threats such as illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing activities.

I am struck by the fact that it has taken nearly an hour of discussion and debate in this Chamber for Chagossians to be mentioned for the first time—not a single member of His Majesty’s loyal Opposition chose to mention Chagossians in their multiple interventions. I have spoken to Chagossians over many months and years, and they have told me they are genuinely fearful of being traded from the United Kingdom to Mauritius, a Government who have—

Order. I am sure the hon. Gentleman is getting to his point, but interventions really should be shorter. He could have put in to speak in the debate, had he wished. He has a few more moments—that is all.

I would simply ask the Minister: what role have Chagossians played in the negotiations thus far? She mentions a marine protected area—I know for a fact that Chagossians have not been consulted on that particular point.

The hon. Gentleman is right to raise this issue. Of course, he will understand that the negotiations were between the UK and Mauritius, and that our priority was to secure the full operation of the base on Diego Garcia, as we have been discussing. We do recognise the importance of the islands to the Chagossians, which is why they were engaged with after this deal. It is important to respect the fact that there are different views within the Chagossian community. They do not speak with one voice; no community does. The Chagos Refugees Group, for instance—one of the largest Chagossian groups— has welcomed the agreement. We will continue to have those discussions with the Chagossian community, particularly those based in the UK.

On the environment, I will lastly mention that the agreement, with its environmental focus, has been welcomed by instrumental conservation non-governmental organisations, including the Zoological Society of London.

Will the Minister for a moment acknowledge the hardship and horrors that all Chagossians have been through since they were illegally expelled from their islands many years ago? They all deserve recognition, the islands themselves should never have been separated from Mauritius anyway, and what we are doing now is correcting an historical wrong. I ask her not to be invited down a neo-colonial route by the Conservative party.

I will not be invited down any route by the Conservative party. We all know where that leads—to rack and ruin.

Of course, the situation for many Chagossians has been very difficult. I know this is an issue of concern to many Members, particularly those who represent UK-based Chagossians. That is why, as I said, that engagement has been important.

I will take one last intervention.

The Minister is putting up a gallant fight in a very difficult situation. For the avoidance of doubt, is she saying that there is another court—other than the ICJ—that could compel this country to give up the Chagos islands? If so, will she identify that court?

What I have said is that there is clear risk to critical functions of that base on Diego Garcia because of legal jeopardy. Conservative Members do not appear to be aware of those issues for contractors, insurers and communications and from the risk of hostile states when it comes to the outlying islands, while the Government are concerned about that risk. I detailed earlier the 28 different judges and arbitrators who have expressed an opinion on this. To suggest that there is no legal jeopardy is, I am afraid, for the birds.

To conclude, this deal has had support across the US national security apparatus. The previous US Administration supported the deal. The new US Administration is rightly ensuring that they are satisfied. The deal has been welcomed by India and the UN Secretary General. The shadow Foreign Secretary mentioned China in her remarks. Again, I know that Conservative Governments have been confused about China. They have oscillated all over the place in their relationship, but can she or anyone tell me whether China has welcomed this deal. No? A pin could drop, Madam Deputy Speaker. China has not welcomed it because it knows that it will strengthen our country’s position in the region for the foreseeable future. Security must be our priority, but we have also negotiated an agreement that protects the unique marine environment and reflects Chagossians’ demand. This deal will protect the base, solidify our relationship with our closest ally and reinforce the UK’s global leadership. Anyone who values UK national security and that of our allies should back this deal.

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

Before I address the position of the Government, I feel obliged to respond to the comments of the shadow Foreign Secretary, who has so kindly spent her evenings reviewing the proceedings of the Mauritian Parliament for all our benefit. She has pressed the Government on why they have advanced this deal, yet she had no answer to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Tunbridge Wells (Mike Martin) on why her Government began talks with Mauritius.

The pronouncements of the right hon. Lady about lawyers and the judiciary are consistent with a party that has long since given up on upholding the rule of law. The right hon. and learned Member for Kenilworth and Southam (Sir Jeremy Wright) is a lone voice in standing up for the force of law. He rightly observes that the UK does not subject itself to the rulings of the International Court of Justice in respect of contentious cases with Commonwealth countries, yet he raises two points that the right hon. Lady did not address. First, the UK has subjected itself to the jurisdiction of the ICJ and its predecessors since 1929. Secondly, as this discussion flows from an advisory opinion of the ICJ, which she now says is unjustified or irrelevant, why did the Conservative Government feel compelled to begin talks and conduct more than 10 rounds of negotiations?

The Liberal Democrats, unlike the Conservatives or Reform, believe that the UK is stronger when it works co-operatively with other countries, stronger when it supports the rule of international law, and stronger when it takes action to support international institutions. That is why we believe that the UK should take seriously the advisory opinion of the ICJ and other legal opinions on this question and why the Conservative Government were right to open negotiations and the Labour Government were right to continue them.

All that said, the process of agreeing a treaty over the past few months has been nothing short of shambolic. There are three critical issues in this sorry tale and I regret to say that the Government have failed on each of them. First, on the security of the United Kingdom, for decades, Diego Garcia has been a key strategic asset. Its importance has only increased over time, in light of the changing threat picture and the increasing aggression shown by China. The chaos of this negotiation has not given any reassurance that our security is being safeguarded. Secondly, on the rights of the Chagossian people, since the 1960s, they have been displaced and decisions taken about them without them—to use a phrase that the Foreign Secretary and the Prime Minister have recently adopted. In October, outside Parliament, I met Chagossians who live in the UK and want to have a say in the future of their islands. They were highly critical of not being a part of the negotiations.

Thirdly, on the role of Parliament in the negotiations, Liberal Democrats have long argued that international treaties should come to this House before signature so that parliamentarians can scrutinise the Government’s proposals. In this case, the Government rushed to an agreement with Mauritius that promptly unravelled. Why have the Mauritian Parliament and Donald Trump been given a say about British sovereign territory, but this Parliament has not?

The Government have repeatedly obfuscated and refused to provide detail of the deal to Parliament. If it is true that the cost is in excess of £9 billion, UK taxpayers will want to know how the Government have found that funding when winter fuel payments have been scrapped, family farms are being threatened and charities and health providers are being hit with national insurance increases. Will the Minister please answer the following questions? What security guarantees are contained in the draft treaty? Will Parliament be given a vote on the treaty before it is signed? How much will be paid to Mauritius as part of the deal? Finally, will Chagossians be included in the future process of agreement?

The Conservative party pretends to recognise the serious threats that we face, but bringing forward yet another debate on the topic, just as our Prime Minister heads out to Washington to broker a just peace for Ukraine, is an act of blatant sabotage against our national interest. Yesterday, we saw a superficial and unconvincing performance of consensus from Opposition Front Benchers, who cannot bring themselves to recognise that this Government are delivering on national defence and security commitments in a way that they could not for the past 14 years, in particular regarding increasing defence spending to 2.5% of GDP to protect our country.

Let us face it: the Leader of the Opposition is so desperate for shares on X that she is incapable of engaging with sobering geopolitical realities, just when national consensus is needed. The truth is that none of us yet knows the exact details of the financial or security components of the proposed deal with Mauritius, which means that the purpose of the debate is clear. It is not intended to enable an honest and informed debate about how we can best secure our UK defence and security interests in the Indian ocean over the next century. Instead, it is designed to maximise the chance of a damaging dispute about this with our US allies, just when all our energy and diplomatic capital needs to be brought to bear to persuade the US of the need for continued commitments to European security and security guarantees for Ukraine. That is why certain voices have turned up today, when they have been absent in all our national security discussions or discussions on Ukraine. If the Opposition succeed, they will do enormous damage to our national security and that of our European allies.

Another aspect of the issue, which the Opposition are determined to disregard, is the fundamental importance of the rule of international law for our national interests and security. First and foremost, that is critical to our diplomacy in support of Ukraine. Russia’s invasion is a clear breach of the UN charter and it is on that basis that many countries around the world continue to vote with us, including earlier this week and in cases where countries are non-aligned. I fully understand that there are a range of views about legalities, but the direction of travel is clear and we cannot uphold the principle of a rules-based international order on the one hand while completely disregarding the multiple findings of international courts on the other.

Finally, as I have said many times in this place, my experience of discussions with US defence colleagues shows a clear and settled preference for legally binding and secure agreements, particularly around the basing arrangements. Those preferences are important for long-term relationships with the US and so is the clear support for the deal from India, whose partnership we must prize highly in this increasingly fragmented world. These live diplomatic questions should be dealt with sensitively and in a way that seeks cross-party consensus, most of all at this critical time when we need to present a united face to a bitterly divided world.

Ultimately, if a treaty with Mauritius is delivered, it will ensure the continued ability of UK and US defence and security assets to operate in the region for many decades to come. That objective is vital for our national security, in contrast to the Opposition’s motion, which does nothing but undermine it.

We are short of time and other Members wish to speak, so I will try to be as brief as possible. I follow my constituency neighbour, the hon. Member for Leyton and Wanstead (Mr Bailey), whom I know and respect very much. I do not agree with him fully on this, but he made his point forcefully. I want to come back to legal uncertainty. The point is whether it is unclear if the original ICJ judgment stood as an absolute judgment. We know very well that the agreement said clearly that any dispute with a Government of any other country that has been a member of the Commonwealth is therefore beyond it.

When the court made its ruling, it was clear from the very beginning that it was an advisory judgment and not based on a legal position. I remind Members of what I said earlier: many of those who were part of that judicial process are not the long-standing judiciary in the sense that we would understand it here in the UK. Many of them are political. Vice-President Xue wrote this from the word go. She has been heavily engaged with the Chinese Government for some considerable time. The Chinese are not so stupid as to publicly welcome something, to give us an excuse to say that it is terrible—I say that as someone who is sanctioned by them—but the reality is that they are the major threat. China watches and knows that it is in a far better and stronger position if there is considerable doubt here about what is going on with ownership. We faced that problem from the word go.

I asked the Minister a very important question. I do not believe that the last Government, when they entered into discussions, waived the requirement that Commonwealth issues cannot be touched by this court. Under that agreement, they have to waive submitting themselves to the judgment of that court. I ask her again, and I will happily take an intervention—[Interruption.] Before she starts giving us that lecturely look, let me say to her—[Interruption.] No, she does. Instead of putting on the “tut-tutting” face, could she just answer this question? Did this Government, at any stage during these negotiations, waive their right for the ruling to be seen as anything other than advisory? Have they waived that exemption?

I have made that very clear previously. That carve-out for the Commonwealth is very clear within the ICJ. I think I looked at the right hon. Gentleman with a smile. If that is somehow looking at him in a “lecturely” way, I am terribly sorry.

If she is not careful, I might ask her to share a drink with me later. [Interruption.] I know, it’s irresistible, isn’t it? The main point is that she did not. That is as clear as mud. I asked a very specific question: did they waive their right over this particular agreement? That makes this, from the word go, not inconclusive and not, therefore, a mysterious judgment. It is an advisory judgment and the Government are under no pressure to accept it.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is ironic that we are apparently willing to give in to a judgment from a judge from China who oversaw the erosion of rights of the people in Hong Kong, in violation of our agreement with them? That is shocking and shows the weakness of slavishly adhering to international law.

The interesting point, which I raise because the hon. Member for Leyton and Wanstead said that we should remember that this is also about the security of Ukraine and others—I fully agree—is that three of those judges voted against censure of Russia when it invaded Ukraine. We have to be very careful, because that ulterior motive is quite different from what he claims, quite legitimately, is part of our reasoning; I fully agree with him on that basis.

On obeying the law, this is the law, and we do not have a judgment from a court that can be held by other United Nations bodies as standing. If that is the case, all the other legal points, which the Government started raising only after they realised that the ruling was advisory, do not stand either. It would be ultra vires of bodies such as the International Telecommunication Union suddenly to claim that there was a judgment against us and to act on that basis, as that would be a transgression of the original agreement.

The hon. Member for Bicester and Woodstock (Calum Miller), who spoke for the Liberal Democrats, made some of these points, but I want to raise this quickly with the Minister. The Chagossians I have spoken to have all said that they would rather be UK passport holders, and they just want to go home—and “going home” means turning around that bad judgment from the ’60s so that they can go back to their territory. I would love that to have happened from day one; that would have solved this. The Chagossians do not want to be under the suzerainty of any country other than the UK; and they want their possessions back. The reality is that we did not really ask them about that, but we should have done from day one.

It would help the Government’s argument that they are acting in the public interest if they were much more open about what has been going on in these negotiations. There is a legitimate question about that. We all unite behind the idea of the Prime Minister raising defence spending, and we wish him the best when he goes to Washington; that is in our public interest. As I made clear at the statement yesterday, I would stand behind nobody in my support for him on that.

I therefore ask the Government why they simply will not answer the question about where any money in the agreement is going to be taken from. Surely that would end the debate. They do not have to say what the amount is; they simply have to say that it will come from the defence budget, or whatever budget it is. If they said that, that would look open. Will they please also open up about what they have been discussing? It is all stalled now, so maybe they should reflect on the difficulties.

The reality is that this whole process has been ill-thought through. What we need to do now is ensure that the Government stop, rethink the process and do not search for excuses that are not legal at all, but accept that our security and that of all the trade routes that cross through the area are under threat if they proceed with this process.

I am pleased to speak in the debate. However, it is disappointing that His Majesty’s Opposition felt the need to use part of their Opposition day to debate this issue, given that important negotiations continue between His Majesty’s Government and Mauritius on the future of the Chagos islands. It is never wise to give a running commentary on complex negotiations—perhaps the Opposition should have been more patient.

I understand that the negotiations so far have been productive, with both countries reiterating their commitment to finalising a treaty as soon as possible, with terms agreeing to ensure the long-term, secure and effective operation of the existing base of Diego Garcia and Mauritian sovereignty over the archipelago. I believe that the deal will protect UK and US national security interests by ensuring long-term, effective operations of the base.

Since its creation, the British Indian Ocean Territory and the UK-US military base have had a contested existence. It was only a matter of time before the UK would have to choose between breaking international law and negotiating from a position of weakness and risking national security. It was therefore necessary to pursue an agreement to ensure the stability of the base. It is right to give the new US Administration the chance to consider the full agreement properly.

I am pleased that the Government will finance a new trust fund for Mauritius to use in support of the Chagossian community. Together, Mauritius and the UK will also work to start a new programme of visits to the Chagos archipelago for Chagossians. This is a bilateral agreement between the UK and Mauritius. We are mindful that the future of the islands is an important issue for the Chagossian community. Their interests have been an important part of the negotiations. As the UK has previously made clear, the way Chagossians were removed from the Chagos archipelago and the way they were treated thereafter was wrong. The Government have restated their commitment to supporting Chagossians in the UK, with all Chagossians remaining eligible for British citizenship and making a home in the UK. The FCDO has also declared that officials will continue to engage with different Chagossian groups over a range of issues.

The agreement also shuts down any possibility of the Indian ocean being used as a dangerous illegal migration route to the UK, with Mauritius taking responsibility for any future arrivals. I am reassured that Parliament will have the ability to scrutinise the treaty under the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010, as is standard for international agreements.

I am also reassured that this will be a unique agreement. The Government have stressed that it has no bearing on wider UK Government policy regarding the overseas territories. The agreement does not signal any change in policy to Britain’s other overseas territories and past press speculation was factually wrong. The Chagos islands are a very different issue with a very different history. We stand 100% behind the right to self-determination for the people of the Falklands and Gibraltar.

The military base on Diego Garcia is vital to our national security and I welcome the Government taking on the negotiations as the best way to secure the future of the base. The Government inherited a situation where the long-term future of the military base was under threat. I am therefore glad that the Government have secured a deal that protects the base for at least 99 years, a period that can be extended. Within the deal, there will be clear commitments for robust security arrangements. That, along with our guarantees to the Chagossian people, gives me confidence that the Labour Government are doing the right thing.

I thank Nick Coombes from my office for helping me draft a long speech, most of which I will not be using, given the time constraints.

May I try to lower the temperature in what has been a very passionate debate? I have immense respect for the Minister. She has had a very difficult outing today and she has held her head up high. Her former career as a lecturer will hopefully hold the House in good stead and perhaps she can educate us on some basic questions, because this is the second time this week I have asked questions about the Chagos islands and I am still confused.

The Conservative Government entered into negotiations 11 times. [Interruption.] I know the junior Parliamentary Private Secretary is very eager, but please do let me say a few more words. My Government entered into negotiations 11 times. As anyone with any semblance of business experience will know, you enter negotiations but you do not always achieve an end result. The Labour Government won on 4 July. Within three months, they decided to do things differently from what my Government did 11 times, when Lord Cameron closed the negotiations.

Can the Minister explain the rationale and what materially changed—we have heard about the advisory judgment by the ICJ; I am not a lawyer and have never claimed to be—to help us to understand, and to better educate me and my constituents, why they are giving our sovereign islands away when the world is becoming increasingly dangerous? Various media reports suggest that there will be increased lobbying from the Mauritius Government, and those they listen to, to revisit the terms of whatever deal we do to their benefit. The frustration heard from the Conservative Benches is about the lack of detail.

I welcome the hon. Member’s interest in the Chagos islands and his desire for detail. It is obviously an issue he is very passionate about, but he has not mentioned it previously in his time in Parliament. I wonder whether, given his desire for detail, he could let us know the names of the four main Chagos islands?

I have not been to that part of the world but, as the new Member will learn the longer he is in this place, certain positions do not give us the ability to speak in the Chamber, and one of those is that of a Government Whip. I was also the Parliamentary Private Secretary to the Foreign Secretary, and again, we do not speak about our own Department.

Going back to the substance of the debate, I have tried to approach this issue with a modicum of decency in order to get the reasonable answers that we all want to hear. One of the concerns we have on the Opposition Benches is the “bull in a china shop” way in which this Government are choosing to force through a deal that we will not have sight of until after it is signed. There are also continuing questions about money. I know that the Prime Minister’s redacted statement that was shared with those on my Front Bench yesterday was quickly amended. It did not allow those on our side enough time to scrutinise it properly.

I would say to the hon. Member for Leyton and Wanstead (Mr Bailey), whom I thank for his gallant service, that we are in a democracy and the ability to debate and disagree is what makes us stronger. I hope the Minister for Development, or whoever is winding up on behalf of the Government, will be able to clarify some of the reasonable questions we have consistently asked. Given her former academic background, I hope she understands that if a student says that they do not understand something, she should find a different way of explaining it. If she could do that, we on this side would have a better rationale of what the Government are trying to achieve.

The frustration we have heard from my right hon. Friend the shadow Foreign Secretary about information coming from the Mauritian Hansard reflects a discourtesy to this House. I know that if Mr Speaker were in the Chair, he would want the House to be informed of any details that were in the public domain, and he is rightly going to investigate why certain details were in the public domain yesterday before they were put forward to this House. I urge those on the Government Front Bench to share information that is in the public domain with us so that we can properly analyse and scrutinise it. The role of any parliamentarian is to be a critical friend of legislation and the future of our country.

I think Mr Speaker and the Speaker’s Panel continue to allow debates on this issue because not only us on the Conservative Benches but the great people in the Chair are not satisfied. There will continue to be urgent questions and statements. I would prefer Foreign Office Ministers to be out in the world flying the British flag on our behalf, but I will continue to lobby for UQs on this topic, because I think that having basic details of what the Government are trying to achieve is perfectly reasonable.

The fact that the Opposition have picked this topic again is very symbolic to me. They have decided that their outright rejection by the electorate last year is based not on the fact that they had not done a good job of delivering improvements to what my constituents care about, but on their making the mistake of getting the vibes wrong. So they spend their time putting out little pictures online, vowing to defend western civilisation, informing us that they are Conservative realists and again debating the Chagos islands. We could have chosen to discuss health and the NHS. My constituents in Killamarsh frequently have issues accessing GP appointments, because we simply do not have enough GPs. NHS dentist appointments for adults are almost non-existent, so I welcome the recent announcement of several thousand extra appointments in Derbyshire. Perhaps we could have heard what the Conservatives’ solution to those issues would be—

I am a bit confused, once again. I thought this debate was about the British Indian Ocean Territory, rather than about GP surgeries.

The hon. Gentleman need not worry. The night is young, and I will come to that.

Perhaps we could have heard what the Conservatives’ solution to those issues would be, now that they have had time in opposition to reflect on the many ways they caused the issues in the first place. Instead, we are talking about the Chagos islands. Perhaps we could have discussed what other measures are desperately needed in constituencies like mine, such as better buses, investment in transport infrastructure such as light and heavy rail, a step change in educational opportunities for our young people, energy security and how we can provide affordable houses.

I pay tribute to my gallant and hon. Friend for her service and pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton and Wanstead (Mr Bailey) for his. Will she look back to that experience and say what kind of support those in the forces want? Did they want more funding for our defence or did they want another debate about the Chagos islands?

My hon. Friend is exactly right. Those in the armed forces would have liked to have heard about the support they need to do their jobs, the improvements to their accommodation, what we are doing to improve their forces and of course how we are ensuring the future of a very important base that many of them are relying on.

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for giving way—not only an hon. Lady but an honourable comrade, as we both formerly were. We both heard the announcements yesterday and today of the extra money going to defence and I think we both welcomed that. The thing that troubles me and my party colleagues, about which I am sure she shares concern, is that if we look at the way the maths seems to be working out, particularly given the comments made by the Prime Minister’s spokesman today, it appears that this is not a rise in defence spending but, once these issues are taken into account, a cut in defence spending. Does she agree that that is a matter of some concern? When we factor in the cost of the Chagos, the single intelligence account and the other elements, this increase actually looks like a decrease.

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his opinion and remind him that this is the largest increase in defence spending for a long while. I am sure he is aware of the considerable damage done to the armed forces over the last 15 years, which I and others who served saw at first hand.

We are talking about the Chagos islands again when we could have been discussing antisocial behaviour and other crime in my constituency. In Dronfield we struggle with car theft, gangs exploiting county lines and issues with off-road bikes, as well as mobile phone theft.

Does the hon. and gallant Member not think that her constituents have a right to know how much this deal is going to cost them before it is negotiated and finished?

There have been many questions, as recorded in Hansard, about the projected cost, and I look forward to seeing the final result of the negotiation in due course.

It is already well documented in Hansard that these negotiations were started by the Conservative Government and we all deserve to know why they decided to start them. They said they were necessary to

“ensure the continued effective operation of the joint UK/US military base on Diego Garcia”.—[Official Report, 3 November 2022; Vol. 721, c. 27WS.]

They knew that the status quo was untenable and a poor choice. This deal is the only way to ensure legal certainty for a vital base. Like it or not, doing nothing has left us under the threat of legal challenges which jeopardised the future of the base.

In my corner of the military I was well aware of the vital importance of this base and I am glad that we are now securing it. I assure Members that, unlike the Leader of the Opposition, who as of a couple of weeks ago had, I understand, refused a classified briefing on the base—Members can correct me if I am wrong—I know what I am talking about. If the Conservatives would like to suggest a better idea that is not just to do nothing, I would be interested to hear a credible point of view; otherwise, forgive me but I will support what will actually work.

When I go back to the constituency and have my surgeries and knock on doors, as I will tomorrow, I will be happy to tell my constituents that answer, but I know that it will not be needed, because they will not be asking about the Chagos islands. Instead my constituents rightly prioritise health, transport, education, immigration and housing. They would rightly wonder why these are not also the priority of a political party interested in their vote. Doing nothing was the hallmark of the previous Conservative Government. It looks like irrelevance will be the hallmark of this Conservative Opposition.

As an elected representative of a very young political party, I watch this game going on between the two old parties and find it difficult not to conclude that it is anything other than a complete and utter charade. Although I agree with the right hon. Member for Witham (Priti Patel), who made the argument that this is British sovereign territory and that there is nothing—literally nothing—to be gained by giving it away, and I see those on the Benches behind her cheering, as we heard earlier, this was the party that went through 11 rounds of negotiations. The Conservative Government were happy to surrender the sovereignty of the Chagos islands, but did not like the final shape of the deal.

Then the Government tell us that this deal has to be done because of legal uncertainty, but of course there is no legal uncertainty whatsoever. Labour Members can shake their heads if they want, but they know I am right. The International Court of Justice has no jurisdiction over this whatsoever, so why are we doing it? I guess that it is because of post-colonial guilt and a Government run by human rights lawyers. Beyond that, I really do not understand it.

I made a comment earlier about the cost. I promise the House that £90 million a year for 99 years with 3% compounded inflation is £52 billion. That of course is madness. Members of this House have been saying, “Why are we not debating health or other issues?” Well, 50 billion quid is a very good reason to debate this.

I have tried in this House and elsewhere to make these arguments. I have explained that China already has a smart city right next to Port Louis. I have explained that Huawei is the communications system. We see now that Prime Minister Modi is worried about missing out on the action. There is a 200-mile marine park, which potentially has cobalt and other mineral resources that could be worth tens, perhaps even hundreds, of billions of pounds over the next few years, and we are prepared to give it all away.

The timing of the debate is perfect, because the Prime Minister is mid-Atlantic as we speak. I have spoken in the course of the last week to American Cabinet Ministers. While they are concerned about Chagos, they are even more concerned about bringing an end to the war in Ukraine, which I think we are all very keen to see, provided that it is on the right terms. There is also going to be a big debate about tariffs. Here is the point: Chagos is not especially high on the American agenda at the moment. I would love to see the American Administration veto this terrible deal, but I am not even sure then that this Government would move their position. They are clearly hellbent on giving away the Chagos islands, whatever the risks to global security or our own budgetary constraints, completely ignoring the will of the majority of the Chagossian people.

If that is the case, I would rather see America have the sovereignty of the Chagos islands than a corrupt Mauritius. If we are going to give up this sovereignty, we should sell and get a few billion quid for the Chagos islands. Mauritius has no legal basis and no legal claim. Investment would come, and the Chagossians could go back and get well-paid jobs. I want us to keep sovereignty, but if the Government are prepared to give away this country’s interests, they should sell the territory to America, not give it away to corrupt Mauritius.

We have all seen what disregard for international law looks like when it plays out on the world stage, and that is why it is right and necessary to take a deliberate, considered approach when taking decisions that affect our national security and our global standing. Decisions must protect us here at home and be in step with our allies. With an agreement on the future of the Chagos islands, we have upheld our commitments and protected our interests in the Indian ocean.

As someone who has sat around diplomatic tables over the years, I would caution anyone against reading meaning into a look or, indeed, a smile. It is the words on the page at the end of the day that matter.

National defence always comes first. It is important to recognise the strategic role of ensuring a stable environment. As the Minister has highlighted, the Chagos marine protected area, which was established in 2010, demonstrates UK leadership. It is a crucial and shining example of marine protection, covering over 640,000 sq km—more than eight times the size of the UK. As a fully protected marine protected area, the site is of global significance, providing an important refuge for many and playing a crucial role in building resilience.

The Conservatives started these negotiations. Eleven rounds of talks later, they failed to deliver. We have reached an agreement that safeguards the long-term future of the base, strengthens our relationship with Mauritius, and protects our strategic interests in the region. This Government have delivered where the previous Government failed—an outcome that the Opposition must start to get used to.

May I start by paying tribute to Henry Smith, a former Member of this House? He did an enormous amount of work over many years to represent the Chagossian voice in our country, ensuring that it was heard in these important debates. I agree with Henry that we, as a country, did a huge wrong to those people in not allowing them to return to their country. Sadly, this deal embeds that wrong in perpetuity. It is a wrong that should have been righted on many occasions; a wrong that should never have been done in the first place. To embed it in this treaty is genuinely shameful. This country, and those people, deserve better than that.

We have heard the debate about security. It is a bizarre argument that to swap a freehold for a leasehold is somehow to guarantee security in the long term. If any Labour Members would like to sell me their house and then rent it back from me, I would be delighted to enter those negotiations. Clearly, that seems to be the way they believe property ownership works.

I am reminded of the Annington Homes deal under a previous Conservative Government, but that is not the point of my intervention. If the right hon. Gentleman believes that there was absolutely no reason to have started the negotiations, would he say that the Conservative Government made a mistake in doing so?

The hon. Lady will be aware, because I have been on the record on this, that I was entirely critical of the beginning of those negotiations when I was in government.

I am grateful to the former Security Minister for giving way. I put this question to him:

“How can the base—which serves as an indispensable naval, air, and intelligence asset—be more secure under the sovereignty of another nation, rather than under our own?”

Not my words, but the words of another former Security Minister, Lord West.

As my right hon. Friend knows, the noble Lord, a former Labour Security Minister—and, of course, a former First Sea Lord—knows well that those bases occupy a crucial part not just in our airbases, with strategic reach into the middle east and south-east Asia, but in the intelligence collection business that sadly we need to engage in to keep our people safe. The idea that we should hand over those bases in order somehow to satisfy an advisory ruling is, I am afraid, wrong.

My right hon. Friend touches on the point about the ICJ. Does he agree that the ICJ decision is not only non-binding but perverse? Two of the judges on the court—Kirill Gevorgian, who is a key acolyte of Putin, and Xue Hanqin, a Chinese official—voted against condemning Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, and do not represent anything other than the interests of our adversaries.

The point that my hon. Friend makes correctly is that this is a political judgment. It is a rational and reasonable political judgment for Moscow and Beijing to make; the problem is that it is being made in Westminster.

This is an error. It is an error for which we will pay for generations; an error that will haunt us and cost us. On that basis, I urge the Government to do what they know is right, and not to continue with the argument that the hon. Member for North East Derbyshire (Louise Jones) made in pointing out that the Conservatives should never have started the talks. If that is true, why is Labour finishing them? Drop these talks and end this argument.

Order. Time is short, so I will now call the Front-Bench spokespeople. I call the shadow Secretary of State for Defence.

I am grateful to all colleagues who have participated in today’s debate.

In a week when the biggest domestic issue has been defence spending, there was one thing that we needed from the Government today: transparency. Every penny involved in this terrible Chagos deal will be public money, taken from the pockets of hard-pressed taxpayers. The Government must be straight with the British people about how much money is being spent and on what. The fact is that after the Opposition have raised the cost of the Chagos deal and all the related issues in six separate Defence and Foreign, Commonwealth and Development oral questions, six urgent questions and multiple written questions, points of order and Prime Minister’s questions, we are still none the wiser about how much Labour’s terrible Chagos deal will cost and what its impact will be on the defence budget.

The Prime Minister has led from the front on the complete failure to be open with taxpayers about where their hard-earned money will to go. Yesterday, before the Prime Minister made his statement on defence spending, the Leader of the Opposition was, as is the convention, given a copy of his speech in advance. However, as Mr Speaker made very clear is definitely not the convention, all the key financial information was completely redacted. As an Opposition, we had no chance before the statement to do the sums that would have shown that the claim of a £13.4 billion increase to defence spending was, in the words of Paul Johnson of the Institute for Fiscal Studies,

“playing silly games with numbers.”

The Prime Minister continued to make that claim about defence spending today, despite the Secretary of State for Defence—who, after all, has to spend that budget—saying this morning that the figure is actually £6 billion. Even if the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Defence are at odds on overall defence spending, they are united with the rest of their Government in total silence about the cost of their Chagos deal.

The Prime Minister was asked by the Leader of the Opposition and my hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle (Dr Mullan) three straight yes-no questions today about whether the cost of the Chagos deal would come from the defence budget. Three times, the Prime Minister refused to give a straight answer. Why can the Government not answer that question? Is it because reports in the press are right that the total cost is between £9 billion and £18 billion, not including indexation—potentially three years’ worth of the entire additional defence increase, using the Secretary of State for Defence’s figure, not the Prime Minister’s figure? Or is it much simpler, and the Government know that if the truth about the actual spending figure came out, the public would be aghast? The public understand one basic truth: to lease back a military base for billions of pounds that we currently own freehold makes no sense at all.

Does the hon. Gentleman not accept that the Government have said that they will bring the full details of the deal to the House for discussion and consideration, and that that will include the cost? Does he also not accept that the deal is with President Trump’s team, and that it is right that our US allies consider the details of the deal before they come to the same conclusion as the previous Administration?

The hon. Gentleman is doing well on getting a role as a Parliamentary Private Secretary. This is Parliament. Ever since it started, Parliament’s constitutional role has been to approve money for the Executive, but it cannot carry out that role unless the Government tell Parliament the truth about how much money they are going to spend.

As the shadow Defence Secretary is aware, it was the Prime Minister who came forward and said how he was going to spend that funding. The Opposition need to know if the defence increase he announced includes the Chagos deal. The Government have made that decision but they have to put it to the House first. It does not make any difference if the announcement has already been made to Parliament, because we are talking about the defence budget.

My hon. Friend is right. Why can the Government not tell us whether the Chagos deal will come from the defence spending uplift? It is public money, not the Government’s money. It comes from taxpayers who are already overtaxed, so the Government could at least tell them where the money will come from.

The Chagos deal may make sense through the eyes of internationally focused lawyers and officials responding with utmost caution to the advice they are given, but the Opposition believe fundamentally that sovereignty is not something to be lightly surrendered, including to the United States of America, if I may say so to the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage).

What we do know about the financial deal is that it is linked to inflation. It is therefore inconceivable that Ministers will not have had that modelled. They will have a view about the likely increase in inflation and the total sum involved, and it will be astronomical, which is why they are trying to disguise it.

My right hon. Friend is spot on. They know how much it will cost; they are just not being transparent with public money.

I turn to the speeches made by my hon. Friends. My right hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois) made an excellent point of order earlier, in which he made the point that the Minister had said—this is the crucial argument that they depend on—that the ITU could somehow threaten our spectrum at Diego Garcia. Yet, as my right hon. Friend pointed out, the Telecoms Minister was very clear in a written answer dated 12 February:

“The ITU cannot challenge the UK’s use of civilian or military spectrum.”

That is bang to rights.

The most extraordinary point that we have heard today from a galaxy of Government Back-Bench speakers is that somehow the Opposition should not be calling for this debate. The hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Lillian Jones), the hon. and gallant Member for Leyton and Wanstead (Mr Bailey) and the hon. Member for North East Derbyshire (Louise Jones) all said that somehow we should be debating important issues, such as buses and so on, yet the argument from Ministers is that this is critical to national security. If that is the case, surely we should be debating it in Parliament. We are going to keep on debating it until we finally get some answers.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge (Tom Tugendhat) made an excellent point. Along with the shadow Foreign Secretary, I recently had a wonderful and very moving meeting with many Chagossians up in one of the Committee Rooms, and they were clear that they have had no meaningful consultation with the Government and no face-to-face meetings. That is absolutely shameful.

I made this point earlier: the Government’s position throughout all this has moved. First, we were told that this was an absolute legal requirement under international law. When it was demonstrated that there was a get-out for Commonwealth issues, they moved to talking about legal uncertainties, but there can be no legal uncertainties unless they have waived their right to have the Commonwealth overrule the judgment and it becomes an advisory position. Does that not make one understand that they simply do not know what they are doing?

My right hon. Friend puts it brilliantly. He put the question about the waiver and it was ignored, like all the other questions we have asked. We have asked point-blank questions repeatedly—UQs, oral questions and debates—and the Government never answer any of them.

I conclude with this:

“Surrendering sovereignty over the Chagos Islands would be an irresponsible act, which would put our strategic interests—and the interests of our closest allies—in danger.”

Those are not my words, but those of the former Labour Security Minister, Lord West. As Ed Arnold of the Royal United Services Institute put it so rightly on Monday, the Prime Minister

“should shelve his Chagos Islands deal—it is peripheral to the UK’s current security challenges and the money could be better spent on defence.”

The Opposition 100% agree. We believe that this deal is bad for our security and that of our closest ally, the United States. It undermines a military base that is strategically crucial, particularly in the face of the growing threat from China, and above all, it involves the unacceptable notion of paying billions to lease back land we currently own.

It is time that Ministers told us the truth about how much this deal will cost and where the money will come from. They cannot keep redacting when it comes to the cost of Chagos. This is public money, and the public have a right to know the truth.

We have heard some really interesting contributions during this debate. We have had some wild maths, which Carol Vorderman would have had a word or two to say about. We have had some insulting comments from the right hon. Member for Tonbridge (Tom Tugendhat), who was downright playing the man—or the woman—and not the ball, earlier in the debate. However, I will try to respond to some of the points raised, and certainly those that the Minister for Development did not answer. I think she did a pretty good job in opening the debate.

As my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Leyton and Wanstead (Mr Bailey) said, the Chagos islands deal is paramount for our national security. It secures the joint UK-US base on Diego Garcia; without it, the operation of that base is at risk. Once finalised, the deal will ensure that the base can operate as it has done well into the next century. As Members know, Diego Garcia is a joint UK-US base, and it is only right that the new US Administration has the opportunity to review the agreement—that point has been made on a number of occasions tonight. We will continue to hold constructive discussions with the US on the deal. As my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for North East Derbyshire (Louise Jones) said, we will only agree a deal that is in the UK’s best interests and protects our national security. She, of course, has extensive experience in security and defence matters.

Many colleagues have asked about the cost of the deal and whether payments have increased. The claims being circulated in the media are categorically untrue. The overall cost of the deal has not changed from that negotiated under the former Mauritian Prime Minister. The initial political agreement signed in October was clear that the annual payment would be indexed, and that position has not changed. As the right hon. Member for Braintree (Mr Cleverly)—who is no longer in his place—has said, this was a policy of the previous Government, one that had long been agreed in writing with the previous Mauritian Government. Once the treaty is signed, it will be laid before both Houses for scrutiny in the usual way.

This deal has not been rushed. In fact, it was the subject of several—

Will the Minister give way?

I will just finish this point.

The new UK Government inherited a situation in which the long-term future of the base was under threat. The previous Government obviously agreed with this Government that there was a need to act, and rightly so—otherwise, the two years of negotiations would not have taken place. Successive Conservative Prime Ministers, Foreign Secretaries and Defence Secretaries recognised this and gave instructions to begin negotiations in 2022, holding 11 rounds before July 2024.

If the Government are so confident that this deal offers excellent value for money and that taxpayers will welcome it, why do they not just tell us how much they are going to pay?

What this debate has shown is that some Members are finding it difficult to deal with the fact that a treaty is between two sovereign Governments, and that when a Government are operating, they have the right to make negotiations in their own way, particularly with the sort of majority that was achieved last July. Of course, we have to have parliamentary debates and questions have to be asked.

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Are there any rules whereby the amount of transparency from a Government should be determined according to the size of their majority?

I think the Member knows that that is not a matter for the Chair. Let the Minister continue.

That was the second point of order that was not really a point of order. It is quite fun to be in opposition, but what we have seen in the past 24 hours is genuine leadership on defence matters, as opposed to some very high jinks.

Does the Minister agree that what is important is assuring the security of this base’s future, and that until the Opposition put forward a credible alternative, they should support the Government, who are fixing this issue?

I rest my case.

Before the Minister concludes, will she put it on record that this debate is about the most grotesque injustice that was done to people under colonial subjection by this country? Since the 1980s, they have fought for their right to return to their islands. Righting the historic wrong done to the Chagossian people should be central to our thoughts.

The right hon. Member has a long history of being active in the all-party parliamentary group with the hon. Member for Romford (Andrew Rosindell), who is not in his place but is on the shadow Foreign Office team. It goes to show that across the House, there has long been a desire, including from the former Member for Crawley, to bring the true situation of the Chagossians to light. I pay tribute to all Members from all parts of this House who have fought for a long time for the Chagossians to be treated properly.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Lillian Jones) said—in a sensible contribution, as opposed to some of the other contributions to the debate—we regret how the Chagossians were removed from the island and how they were treated thereafter. The negotiations were between two states, and our consistent priority and that of the previous Government has been to protect the base, and we have not necessarily always focused on the needs of those people. I thank those Members this afternoon who have brought forward the interests of the Chagossians, including some Lib Dem Members.

The Government will finance a new trust fund for the support of the Chagossian community. We will also take forward visits to the archipelago. For the first time, Mauritius will be free to implement a programme of resettlement to the islands other than Diego Garcia. I know that that will also be a positive development for my hon. Friend the Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East (Mike Kane), whose community includes an active group of Chagossians.

I have a lot of respect for the hon. Lady, and that is why I will have one more go at this: is there any court, other than the ICJ, that could come to a judgment against Britain over the sovereignty of the islands?

As the right hon. Member is aware, given his long background in intelligence, the lack of legal certainty is why we have acted. The base cannot operate in practical terms as it should. It is bad for our national security, and a gift to our adversaries, if we fail to secure legal certainty for the base.

To continue the point on the Chagossians, there are many different views within the Chagossian community. To give one example, the Chagos Refugees Group, often represented by Olivier Bancoult, is one of the largest Chagossian groups. It has welcomed the agreement.

On the environment question, my hon. Friend the Member for South East Cornwall (Anna Gelderd) mentioned the unique environment around the Chagos islands. The most important marine environments need to be protected. While security is paramount, we have also secured a deal that will help protect the unique environment of the Chagos archipelago. There will be an enhanced partnership between the UK and Mauritius, under which the UK will support Mauritius’s ambitions to establish a marine protected area that protects the globally significant ecosystems in the Chagos archipelago.

Does my hon. Friend the Minister agree that it is somewhat unfortunate that, after some consensus in the Prime Minister’s statement yesterday on matters of national security, we are now seeing, sadly, Opposition Members reverting to type by flirting with populism on important issues?

I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention.

I will conclude our debate—I am looking at you, Madam Deputy Speaker—by saying that—