PARLIAMENTARY DEBATE
British Indian Ocean Territory: Sovereignty - 18 December 2024 (Commons/Commons Chamber)

(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs if he will provide an update on the negotiations between His Majesty’s Government and the Government of Mauritius over the future sovereignty of the British Indian Ocean Territory.

I thank the right hon. Lady for her question. We welcome yesterday’s reiteration by Prime Minister Ramgoolam of his willingness to conclude a deal with the UK. We are confident that the agreement is in both sides’ shared interests, and we will continue working with the new Mauritian Government to finalise the deal. Prime Minister Ramgoolam’s comments follow his commitment to completing the negotiations, following his election, in an exchange of letters with the Prime Minister.

As part of the usual Government-to-Government engagement, the Prime Minister’s BIOT envoy, Jonathan Powell, met PM Ramgoolam in late November to start the process, and that was followed last week by a visit to Mauritius by the UK’s chief negotiator Harriet Mathews and other officials for the talks. Those talks were productive, and it is completely understandable that the new Mauritian Government will want time to study the details.

It would not be appropriate or usual for me to give a running commentary on what was discussed during routine and private engagements, nor on any potential future engagements. I am confident, however, that we have agreed a good and fair deal that is in both sides’ interests. It protects the base at proportionate cost; it has been supported across the national security architecture in the United States and by India for those very reasons. As I have said a number of times in this House, the treaty will contain clear commitments on robust security arrangements, including preventing the presence of foreign security forces on the outer islands and ensuring the base can continue to operate securely and effectively.

The agreement is subject to finalising a treaty. Following signature, the Government will bring forward a Bill to enable implementation of that treaty. Both Houses of Parliament will have the opportunity to scrutinise that treaty before ratification.

Thank you for granting this urgent question, Mr Speaker. Once again Ministers have been reluctantly dragged to the House—in fact, I have just seen the Foreign Secretary leg it. In a world of increasing danger, change and uncertainty, why are they so keen to surrender this strategic asset? We have been repeatedly told by Ministers that this is a good deal and that it has the support of the national security apparatus—we keep hearing that, but where is the evidence to justify those hollow claims?

If the deal is so good, why have the Government been so secretive about the details? Can the Minister explain? I am sorry that the Foreign Secretary has abandoned the House and not even come to this statement, because yet again we are responding to media reports. Can the Minister confirm that we will be able to extend the lease on the military base after 99 years, as reported? Will we and the US still have full autonomy of operations? What safeguards will be in place to stop other countries, including China, trying to establish themselves on the base or near the military base on Diego Garcia? How much is the British taxpayer going to be liable for each year and in total over 99 years, now that we know we will be paying for the privilege of giving away these islands? What exactly is our money going to be paying for?

The Government claim that they cannot disclose information about the lease, but surely the Minister can at least say—explain and be honest—where on earth the budget is coming from. If it is accounted for in the Budget forecast presented in the autumn—we all heard about those Budget forecasts recently—will the Minister tell us what the funding will be for the economic partnership and the trust fund for Chagossian people? Can the Minister also tell us what aspects of the deal the new Mauritian Government want reconsidering in the response? What consideration is being given to provide more funding or to weaken any protections that may be in this lease? Importantly, can he explain why the views of the Chagossian community have been so ignored?

When the whole world can see that this proposed deal was falling apart, the Foreign Secretary and this Government have tried to flog it constantly. Not only is this a monumental failure of statecraft from this Labour Government, but it is also a significant humiliation for the Foreign Secretary and his credibility and for the Prime Minister. Why are Labour putting our security at risk, ignoring Chagossians, and letting our standing go into freefall in this world?

I remind Members that these contributions should take no longer than two minutes.

We are absolutely not damaging our security; we are protecting it through this deal, and that is why this deal has been agreed—to protect the operation of that base; to protect it against the legal uncertainty; and to ensure it is on a safe footing well into the next century.

The right hon. Lady constantly refers to our somehow giving up the base on Diego Garcia, but the deal does exactly the opposite—[Interruption.] It protects the base on Diego Garcia. [Interruption.] It protects the base to continue operating—[Interruption.]

Order. Mr Gemmell, we had enough all the way through Prime Minister’s questions. If I hear any more, you are out. I seriously mean that; I am not putting up with it.

The right hon. Lady constantly talks as if somehow we are giving up the base on Diego Garcia. That is the exact opposite of what this deal does—unlike the failure to secure the deal under the last Administration, which I might remind the House went through 11 rounds of negotiations yet failed to secure a deal to protect our base. This deal protects the base.

The right hon. Lady asked a series of other questions. She asked whether we would be able to extend the lease, and the answer is yes. Would we continue to have autonomy for our operations and those of our allies? Absolutely, yes. Are there safeguards in place to prevent foreign forces or others on the outer islands? Absolutely, yes.

I have answered the questions on costs a number of times in the House. We are very clear that it is not normal practice for the United Kingdom to confirm the value of its payments for military bases anywhere across the globe. We have not done that in the case of any other base, such as the one in Oman, and the United States itself has not confirmed the value of its direct payments for bases, including in Djibouti and the Marshall Islands.

The right hon. Lady spoke about the Chagossians and, having engaged with Chagossian communities over many years, I am confident that this deal has clear benefits for Chagossian communities and will allow the resettlement of the outer islands and the restarting of visits. She also mentioned the trust fund.

The right hon. Lady referred to media reports, and there is a huge amount of speculation. Let us get back to the actual facts. The Mauritian Prime Minister himself has confirmed to his Assembly that he is willing to conclude this deal with the United Kingdom. Those are the facts, and we will protect our national security and our interests.

Under the Mauritian criminal code, anyone who questions the integrity of Mauritian territories, including the Chagos archipelago, is potentially subject to 10 years’ imprisonment. Most British Chagossians have, at one time or another, effectively given that level of disconsideration to the Mauritian Government. What conversations has the Minister had with the Mauritian Government to ensure that this part of the code is removed so that it is possible for British Chagossians to visit Chagos, in the event that the deal goes through?

As I said, we take the interests of Chagossian communities incredibly seriously. The deal provides for Chagossians to return to the outer islands and to resettle them if Mauritius decides to pursue a programme of resettlement. Most importantly, we will get on with getting those visits going so that they can go back and visit the islands, including Diego Garcia, with the appropriate protections in place.

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

The Foreign Secretary told this House on 7 October that his deal is in the UK’s “security interests”. The chaos we have seen since then does nothing to assure our allies or to repel our enemies. In retrospect, does the Minister think it was wise to announce an agreement just weeks before elections in Mauritius and the US? Does he agree it would be wise for any future agreement to come before this House for scrutiny and a vote before signature?

It is important that any agreement complies with the opinion of the International Court of Justice, but self-determination remains an important principle, too. Now that negotiations have reopened, can the Minister say how the Chagossian people will be represented in those talks?

A court ruled this week that Tamil asylum seekers were illegally detained, in terrible conditions, on Diego Garcia. Will the Minister apologise for their treatment and assure the House that the camp in which they were held is now closed for good?

As I have repeatedly said in this House, the interests of the Chagossians have been absolutely at the heart of this deal, and I am sure they will be confident that there are a number of provisions that will satisfy the concerns that Members are raising in good faith, and that Chagossians have raised with me directly. This was a treaty negotiation between the United Kingdom and Mauritius. The hon. Gentleman is aware of the ICJ judgment, and I will let him read that in his own time.

The hon. Gentleman specifically asks about the situation of the migrants, and we recognise and are carefully considering this week’s judgment, but I make it clear that this Government inherited a deeply troubling situation that remained unresolved under the last Administration, four years after the migrants’ arrival on Diego Garcia. I believe that the shadow Foreign Secretary was Home Secretary when the migrants first arrived, and the situation went unresolved. We were absolutely clear that the situation was unsustainable, and we worked at pace to resolve it. We will carefully consider the judgment of that court.

Those of us who have spoken to the American military know the importance of this base. Will the Minister confirm that he said that, since the agreement was announced, the American military and security services have raised no concerns with this Government?

Yes, indeed. As far as I am aware, that is the case. In fact, the opposite is true. There has been a warm welcome for this agreement from across the United States security apparatus because it puts this base and our shared operations on a secure footing into the future. I remind the House again that that is the very reason why this Government acted and, indeed, why the previous Foreign Secretary started the process in the first place, so we are told.

Let’s go over to James Cleverly, then.

Will the Minister answer this with a simple yes or no? Did the Prime Minister, the right hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer), have any conversations with Philippe Sands KC about Diego Garcia without the presence of Foreign Office or other Government civil servants? Yes or no?

I do not have details of all the Prime Minister’s meetings. I am sure the right hon. Gentleman can ask the Prime Minister that question himself.

For those of us who have served for the US military, who retain genuine and close links with the US military, and who know that this issue does not bring about the concern that others are trying to conflate with it, will the Minister say what his view is on how it is seen by our US military friends?

I praise my hon. Friend for his service and work. I am very clear: our allies in the United States and, indeed, our other allies who rely on the important guarantees that the base provides are supportive of the deal. It has been supported across the security apparatus at every level and that is absolutely crucial. We would not have signed up to a deal if it did not protect our interests and those of our closest ally.

I call the Father of the House.

We very much welcome, as I have said before, the election of President-elect Trump and Vice President-elect Vance. During the transition period, there are restrictions on what conversations can go on. As I have said repeatedly in the House, we are confident that when the full details of the deal are provided by the US national security apparatus, any concerns will be allayed.

I know that the Minister is a strong supporter of the overseas territories, as are the Foreign Secretary and the Prime Minister. Despite this being documented already in the House and in Gibraltar, to avoid any doubt or further scaremongering, and for Members on the Opposition Benches, will the Minister once again confirm that this Government are completely committed to supporting the right of self-determination for the people of Gibraltar and the Falklands?

I thank my hon. Friend for her important work on Gibraltar, as I thank you for yours, Mr Speaker. I have said this before and I will confirm again that we are absolutely and resolutely committed to the sovereignty and self-determination of Gibraltar and the Falkland Islands. Indeed, I enjoyed meeting our overseas territories family at the Joint Ministerial Council just a few weeks ago.

It is truly baffling that such decent Ministers have allowed themselves to be bamboozled by the blob. Will the Minister confirm that this is not being rushed through in advance of the takeover of the White House by an incoming President in one month’s time? If, in one month’s time, that new President says that this is a terrible deal, will it be too late to change it?

The right hon. Gentleman knows that I have immense respect for him and his work in this House. I take issue with his choice of words. We have incredible officials in this Government who have loyally served Governments from parties on both sides of this House. They work incredibly hard to defend the national security and interests of this country. If anything, this was not rushed at all: there were 11 rounds of negotiations under the Government of the right hon. Gentleman’s party. We got in and we got a deal done that protects our national security and our interests.

What assurances can the Minister provide Parliament about the scrutiny that the agreements, which will be struck in due course, will receive?

As I have said a number of times in the House, the treaty, once signed, will go through the normal procedures in the House. I confirmed that in my answer to the right hon. Member for Witham (Priti Patel). There will be the opportunity for ample scrutiny by both Houses and legislation will be laid in due course.

The Minister gets ahead of himself. He says the Government have moved at pace to resolve the situation; the situation is not resolved. He criticises the last Government for not securing a deal; his deal is not secured either. The last time we talked about this, we talked about the President-elect not being keen on the deal and the Chagossians not being properly consulted on it. When will he come back to the House on this situation and tell us something positive about this cack-handed deal?

I have repeatedly stated a number of positive things, including the support for Chagossians that will be inherent in the deal. The positive fact is that after 11 rounds of failed negotiations under the previous Government, we achieved and have done a deal. We are confident that that deal will be supported by our partners and we will continue to present details of it in due course.

Does the Minister agree that confirming the legal status of the base, which was left outstanding by the previous Government, will cement our role in the Indo-Pacific and provide an important pillar in our strategy to counter Chinese influence in the area?

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Despite the attempts to constantly whip up the idea about Chinese influence, the deal contains specific precautions to prevent foreign forces. I remind the House again that Mauritius was one of the only countries that did not join the belt and road initiative. Its ally is India, not China.

The Government clearly want to dismantle legacies of empire. Why, then, do we think it is so important to attach the Chagos islands to Mauritius when, in fact, that link was only established when both territories were acquired by the French empire and later by the British empire? Why do we not listen to the Chagossians, instead of imposing the legacy of empire on them?

I have engaged with many Chagossian groups. The hon. Member will know, as I have said multiple times, that there are a range of views across the Chagossian community. He is perfectly able to look at the legal judgments himself. The fact is that the Government wanted to secure the long-term operation of the base, our national security and our interests. We have engaged with our partners and secured a deal, which his Government failed to do.

The current situation is clearly unsustainable. Most of the negotiations took place under the previous Administration. It is now becoming a political football. Has the Minister heard any other serious recommendations for the future of the island?

No, I have not, and I certainly have not heard them from the Opposition Benches.

I will repeat the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Bicester and Woodstock (Calum Miller), which the Minister studiously avoided. Clearly, the deal was not ready to be signed, so why was it announced two weeks before the election?

When we are looking to protect the national security of this country, we will operate at the fastest and most appropriate pace that we can. This matter had been left languishing under the previous Administration, with the future of the base unsecure. We have secured it.

May I wish you a merry Christmas, Mr Speaker?

Does the Minister recognise that the issue is being raised by the Opposition again and again, despite the cognitive dissonance that it was they who opened the negotiations in the first place? I have to endorse the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth North (Amanda Martin) about the scaremongering and the irresponsible way in which the Opposition have conducted the debate with regard to other overseas territories and self-determination.

Order. I am a little bit concerned, as I granted the urgent question. I have taken a judgment call; I hope we are not questioning that.

It is absolutely right that the House scrutinises these matters and it will continue to have the opportunity to do so in a range of forums; indeed, I will meet parliamentarians later today to discuss them. There appears to be collective amnesia among Conservative Members. I have raised this a number of times. Many of them served as Ministers in the previous Government and they knew exactly what the risks were to our national security.

I have just returned, hotfoot, from a very full Mar-a-Lago. I spoke to several members—senior administrators, especially—of the incoming Administration, which will be in the White House in 32 days’ time. Let me assure you that there is very deep disquiet among them all as to what this deal may mean for the long-term future of Diego Garcia and whether such a deal will hold, given the precedent of the deal break over Hong Kong. They also cannot understand why we would surrender the sovereignty of the islands on an advisory judgment from a pretty obscure court. This is about sovereignty, and you keep saying yourself that the sovereignty—

Order. We cannot both stand. When you say “you”, you mean me. I have no ownership of this decision.

That is fair enough, Mr Speaker. If we respect the sovereignty of Gibraltar and the Falkland Islands, on the basis that it is what the people want, can we have a referendum of all the eligible Chagossians and let them decide the future sovereignty of the Chagos islands? That, surely, is the only fair solution.

We have been very clear that these negotiations are between the United Kingdom and Mauritius, and I have set out in the past the reasons for that. The interests of the Chagossians are absolutely at the heart of this agreement, and as I have said, I have repeatedly engaged with them. The hon. Gentleman continues to speculate, but with the greatest of respect, he does not know the detail of what has been agreed. He does not know the detail of what has been shared. And he does not know the detail that the national security apparatus of the United States has considered. I am confident that his concerns will be allayed once he sees the detail of this deal.

Merry Christmas, Mr Speaker. The Minister says that views across the Chagossian community are mixed. In my experience, Mr Speaker, when politicians say that, they are simply choosing the views that they want to hear. Will the Minister take the opportunity that has been given by the incoming Mauritian Government to take a breathing space in which he can consult formally and in a structured way with the Chagossians to find out what they want?

I have engaged with the Chagossian community twice in recent months, as I have made clear in answers to a number of parliamentary questions tabled by the right hon. Gentleman’s colleagues. The interest of the Chagossians will continue to be at the heart of this agreement, and I take their concerns very seriously. I am being quite honest, Mr Speaker, that there are a range of views: some oppose the deal; and some are in favour of it. That is completely natural in a democratic process.

Let us go to a long-term campaigner, Jeremy Corbyn.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. Having been a member of the Chagos Islands (British Indian Ocean Territory) all-party parliamentary group ever since it was founded and had a lot of interaction with Chagossians over the past 25 years, I can assure the Minister that I have met many Chagossians in this country and in Mauritius. They were abominably treated and short-changed by the deal of 1968 and then later removed from the islands. Their one unifying cause is the right of return and settlement, and I hope the Minister will confirm that that right will be upheld. I understand all the negotiations surrounding the base, but there is no reason why they should not include the right of at least visiting, if not residing on, Diego Garcia itself.

The International Court of Justice was very clear that the decolonisation process was not properly carried out by Britain in the 1960s, when Mauritius achieved its independence, and that has to be made right. That has been voted on by the ICJ, voted on by the UN General Assembly, and endorsed by the Security Council. Is any more evidence necessary to indicate that it is clearly part of Mauritius, and that Chagossians have rights within Mauritius as well as on the Chagos Islands, where hopefully they will be able to return?

I agree with the right hon. Member’s characterisation of what happened to the Chagossians in the past. It is a matter of deep regret for this Government, and, indeed, I think that regret is shared across the House. As I have said, we will have the interests of the Chagossians at the heart of this agreement. He is right to characterise the range of views across the Chagossian communities in response to the question that has just been put to me. I can confirm that the programme of visits will include the ability to visit all the islands, including Diego Garcia, with the appropriate safeguards in place. I hope, too, for a resettlement of the outer islands. A provision certainly exists for that to happen, and I think that that is one of the most likely scenario in which Chagossians can finally return to those outer islands.

The Minister is trying to say that nothing has changed on this deal, yet media reports suggest that the new Prime Minister of Mauritius believes that the deal is not good enough, and the Minister is now saying that it is the same deal. Clearly, there is something that we are not being told in this House. Either the amount of money that we are paying for the rental of the space will have to increase, or some terms and conditions have changed. Thank you, Mr Speaker, for ensuring that this House can scrutinise the position. The Minister should have given a statement to that effect, rather than having to have an urgent question. Can we therefore pause this process to allow the Chagossians to have their say and to look at what the incoming American Government have to say, and then, before we proceed with this giveaway, make sure that everyone is in agreement?

The Prime Minister of Mauritius has made it very clear in his exchange of letters with the Prime Minister of this country and also in his statement yesterday that they are willing to conclude an agreement with us. That is very clear. Therefore, on the fundamentals, nothing has changed. We are engaged in conversation. It is only natural that, after an election, they would want to do that and to be able to scrutinise the agreement. That is entirely proper. That is why officials have been having these conversations, but I will not give a running commentary on private discussions.

I know the Minister will want to give the House the greatest possible clarity on what has brought us to this point. The Foreign Secretary has been clear that one of the central considerations for the Government was the likelihood, if not the inevitability, of a binding legal judgment against the UK in this matter. The Minister will know that the judgments of the International Court of Justice are not binding on the United Kingdom when disputes are between the UK and another state which is or was a member of the Commonwealth. That would include Mauritius. I do not expect the Minister to disclose the legal advice that the Government have received, but will he please give the House some more clarity about the nature of the legal jeopardy that the Government perceive here?

I will not, for that very reason, go into that type of advice. The right hon. and learned Member knows that from his extensive and distinguished experience on these matters. I have to ask this fundamental question: if there was not a problem, why did his Government start negotiations on this?

I think we can forgive our overseas territories for being a little concerned about this Government’s commitment to their right to self-determination. Those of us who, like me, are a bit older and have long memories will remember when the previous Labour Government opened negotiations with the Spanish Government over the future of Gibraltar. But what I am more interested in today is having reassurance from the Minister that any decision will be well informed, so can he say which of his Ministers has visited the British Indian Ocean Territory?

I like the right hon. Lady, but I have to say that I find it extremely unhelpful the way that the Falklands, Gibraltar and other overseas territories, which are not comparable with this situation, are constantly brought up. I have just been with the leaders at the Joint Ministerial Council—Mr Speaker, you graciously hosted a reception as well—and we were absolutely resolute in our commitment to the Falklands and Gibraltar. I have been there and said it myself directly on the Rock. The Minister of State for the Armed Forces has just been in the Falklands saying exactly the same thing to the Falkland Islanders. I can tell you, Mr Speaker, they are getting fed up with the nonsense that we are hearing about this. It is hugely problematic for their interests going forward.

I refer Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. Surely the Minister must accept, though, that the timing of this announcement was one of the biggest diplomatic gaffes of modern times. It came literally hours before a general election was called. There was a widespread perception in Mauritius that this Government were trying to give a leg up to a very unpopular sitting Government who subsequently scored zero out of 60 directly elected seats in the Mauritian Parliament. Does he not agree that it is wholly appropriate that the new Labour Mauritian Government would be wary of the intentions of his Government?

I simply do not recognise the right hon. Member’s characterisation.

Can the Minister update the House on the measures being taken to safeguard against the emergence of Chinese military and surveillance capabilities in the British Indian Ocean Territory?

I have been very clear that, within the agreement, there are provisions to ensure the security of the outer islands. This deal would not have been agreed by the United States security apparatus or, indeed, by us were it to give that kind of benefit to another country. I have been very clear about the position of Mauritius in relation to China, and there are provisions and safeguards in place that should allay any fears on that matter.

The Minister did not seem to answer the questions raised by the shadow Foreign Secretary, so may I ask this just one more time: from which budget do the Government plan to make the annual payments that he is proposing to the Mauritian Government?

I have been very, very clear—[Laughter]. Conservative Members can guffaw all they like, but I will give the answers that relate to the facts here and that relate to the national security interests of this country. The previous Government were involved in 11 rounds of negotiations and they failed to achieve a deal. We achieved that deal. We will provide further details in due course.

Yet again, this new Labour Government rushed into an ill-judged and regrettable policy decision: to cede the British Indian Ocean Territory to Mauritius, against expert advice and with no regard to the wishes of Chagossians in this country and elsewhere. It is like the Government’s awful policies on scrapping the winter fuel payment for pensioners, the heartless family farms tax, and their jobs tax. Will the Government show some leadership, admit that they have got this wrong, scrap the deal and keep this vital territory under British control, to protect UK interests, the marine environment and ultimately global security in an increasingly unstable and dangerous world?

I gently suggest that the hon. Gentleman spends a bit more time reflecting on the failures of his Administration on this and a series of other issues, from the public finances to our national security. This Government are clearing up the mess that his party left behind on not only this issue but so many others.

I thank the Minister for his answers; however, I am a sponsor of the British Indian Ocean Territory (Citizenship) Bill, which calls for descendants born to individuals within the British Indian Ocean Territory to be able to register as BIOT. There is now an even greater imperative because of the Chagos decision, which was made with no input from local people. What discussions will take place with those who consider themselves British? The Chagossians seem not to be assured, so what will be done to ensure that they receive all the necessary information in a timely manner, and will not get answers to their questions through news media outlets?

I have a deep respect for the hon. Gentleman. As I have said a number of times, the Government deeply regret the way that Chagossians were removed from the islands and treated thereafter. We have always been clear on respecting the interests of Chagossian communities. I have engaged, and will continue to engage, with Chagossian communities. Their interests are at the heart of the deal, from the trust fund to the ability to resettle on and visit the islands, and a series of other measures that we have taken here in the United Kingdom. I am confident that their interests are being respected.