British Indian Ocean Territory: Negotiations

Question

Mitchell criticises the Government for delivering what the previous one tried to do but failed. He expresses concern over the strategic importance of the territory, its impact on British defence interests in the Indo-Pacific, and questions the potential presence of Chinese military assets nearby. He also seeks assurance regarding other sovereign territories like Gibraltar and the Falkland Islands being unaffected by this deal.

Question

Inquired about the protection of the British Indian Ocean Territory's marine environment once administration is handed over to Mauritius, and the involvement of Chagossians in this process.

Question

Welcomed efforts to comply with ICJ ruling while protecting national security, expressed concerns about exclusion of Chagossians in the process, questioned language used by Opposition regarding other British overseas territories.

Question

Asked about mechanisms to ensure strategic defence importance of US-UK base remains after deal expiration, and central role of Chagossians in future arrangements.

Question

Described it as 'a shameful day for British democracy', questioned whether the people of the Chagos islands have less worth compared to other British overseas territories, demanded right of self-determination.

Question

Asked Foreign Secretary to clarify that nothing in the agreement affects settled status or self-determination of citizens in Gibraltar, Falkland Islands.

Question

Critiqued the rush to conclude deal before Mauritian election, questioned Government's support for 'disgusting' Mauritian Government.

Question

Asked about enforcement of marine protected area, raised concerns over insufficient penalties for illegal fishing.

Question

Inquired about potential approval from future US Presidents, given importance of relationship with America.

Question

Can the Foreign Secretary confirm that, despite others trying to score cheap political points and recklessly scaremonger among the residents of our other overseas territories, this Government are completely committed to supporting the right of self-determination of the people of Gibraltar and of the Falklands?

Question

The old principle that we used to apply was the Wilson principle—the principle of self-determination—which the Foreign Secretary may remember is the defence of the Falkland Islands and the defence of Gibraltar. He has now just violated that principle by undermining the rights of the Chagossian people in favour of a claim that was abandoned in 1965—it was never really made because it was only administrative, and the islands were never properly governed from Mauritius anyway—and by being in favour of a Court judgment that was advisory, he has sold out the sovereignty of the British people. Truly, nobody apart from a boy called Jack has ever made a worse deal on the way to market, and he has come back with a handful of beans that he is trying to sell as a prize.

Question

Can I begin by congratulating Conservative Members on their sudden interest in national security? They must have forgotten all about the millions and millions of Russian roubles swilling about in the party’s bank accounts. I do have a question for the Foreign Secretary, and I want to ask a question on behalf of my constituents in Plymouth and of the constituency of the Royal Marines community in the UK. The Falklands and Gibraltar represent something really personal and special to anyone who has served in the Navy or the Royal Marines. These are places that hold a real emotional weight: not only does it say “Gibraltar” across the Royal Marines cap badge, but it is written across our hearts. Can the Foreign Secretary please assure that constituency about what this Government’s plans are for the Falklands Islands and Gibraltar?

Question

Did the Government take the trouble to consult the head of their own strategic defence review, Lord Robertson of Port Ellen, before announcing this decision? If so, what did Lord Robertson say? The SDR is supposed to report early next year. Would it not have been more sensible to see what its findings were before taking a militarily risky decision such as this?

Question

Will the Foreign Secretary confirm that the vital operations on the base on Diego Garcia will remain completely unaltered and without disruption thanks to this agreement?

Question

Over the past 210 years Chagossians have been traded, deprived of their liberty and of their dignity. They have been displaced from their homeland and now, thanks to this process, they face the prospect of being dispossessed from their islands and from their future hope of self-determination. Chagossians are not children, and they do not require or ask for a trust fund. They are a proud community of many thousands of people who have been wronged time after time, and who today are looking to the Foreign Secretary, to the UK, and to Members of this House to ensure that their right to self-determination is understood and respected. Many of those Chagossians are outside right now. Can the right hon. Gentleman offer them that reassurance and think again on this negotiation?

Question

Does the Foreign Secretary agree that the threat of illegal migration on to Diego Garcia carried the threat of creating a further smuggling route into the UK, and has that threat now been shut down?

Question

I do not know how many people in the Chamber have visited these islands, but I went there with the Defence Committee 38 years ago. It was crucial in our whole effort in the cold war against the Soviet Union. We never appeased once in that cold war, and we won it. The question I want to ask—it is a serious question—is this: given that Mauritius has a close relationship with China, and given that we cannot trust a single word the Chinese say with our experience on Hong Kong, and given that they are militarising islands all over the Pacific, are we absolutely sure that sometime in the future the Chinese will not exert pressure on the Mauritian Government to have a base on these islands?

Question

This Government have committed to a reset of the UK’s relationship with the global south. Does the Foreign Secretary agree that putting this issue to bed will help neutralise the charge that the UK plays by double standards where international law is concerned?

Question

We have just handed sovereign British territory to a small island nation that is an ally of China, and we are paying for the privilege, all so the Foreign Secretary can feel good about himself at his next north London dinner party. In whose interests does he think he serves: those of the global diplomatic elite or those of the British people and our national interest?

Question

It is fairly unseemly, seeing a leadership race being conducted in the middle of a foreign policy debate—that is what is happening—but does the Secretary of State agree that clarity over the legal status of Diego Garcia, achieved through diplomacy with a Commonwealth partner, cements our influence in the Indo-Pacific?

Question

I do not think it will come as a huge surprise to anyone that, unlike the outraged masses sat to my right, I have absolutely no problem with the principle of the United Kingdom divesting itself of what little remains of its colonial past. Can I ask the Minister about the involvement of the Chagossian people in this process—a people who he accepts have been treated shamefully by the United Kingdom and whose forced displacement is rightly regarded as a crime against humanity? Will he be clear about when his Government met the Chagossian people, the nature of the discussions that were had and the extent to which the opinion of the Chagossian people was represented in this deal?

Question

When the former Foreign Secretary was leading negotiations with Mauritius, he said that our primary objective is to ensure the continued effective operation of our defence facility on Diego Garcia. The Government have now delivered this goal. Should the Conservatives not welcome this agreement?

Question

Given the Foreign Secretary’s performance today, this agreement is an abject surrender of British sovereign territory for nothing. It risks a Chinese veto over our military facility on Diego Garcia. How much in rent will we now pay Mauritius to lease back what is already ours?

Question

Since the previous Government began these negotiations, does the Foreign Secretary agree that while Opposition Members may now be more interested in the views of Tory party members, this Government will always act in Britain’s national interests?

Question

Given a tough geopolitical environment, how does the Foreign Secretary think that China or other countries will respect this agreement after we have given up sovereignty over British territory?

Question

I welcome the agreement that helps right a historic wrong and guarantees our security. Amongst Opposition Members' outrage, can you confirm that Gibraltar’s sovereignty will never be altered without Gibraltarian people's consent?

Question

The Foreign Secretary said he established a trust fund and that Chagossians will be able to apply for British citizenship. What discussions did you have with the Chagossian people about this, and is Home Office ready to deal with applications?

Question

Does my right hon. Friend agree that this agreement has no bearing on the Government’s relationship with other overseas territories and that our policy towards the Falkland Islands, Gibraltar and others remains unchanged?

Question

Does the Foreign Secretary recognise that this agreement poses a grave security risk to the UK and undermines our position in places like the Falklands, despite US support?

Question

President Biden and his team have welcomed this agreement. Does the Foreign Secretary agree that Tory critics do not know more about US national security than White House or Pentagon?

Question

Why does the right hon. Gentleman think that Admiral Lord West of Spithead, a former Labour security Minister, views this deal as posing a grave security risk and undermining our position in the Falklands?

Question

Thanking Secretary of State for his statement, can he reassure us that this deal is in our strategic interest and also the interest of our partners?

Question

How does the cost of leasing compare with savings made on winter fuel allowance?

Question

How much will the UK have to pay for the privilege of ceding our sovereignty?

Question

Does the Foreign Secretary agree that this Government’s commitment to our populated British overseas territories is fundamental, unshakeable and unbreakable. I am glad to hear him make his statement, and I think this is a good thing for Britain.

Question

Will the Foreign Secretary take the opportunity to recognise that what happened to the Chagossian people in the 1960s and 1970s was abominable, abusive, illegal and disgraceful? Many of them lived in poverty for many years after in the Seychelles and Mauritius. They have long demanded their right to return to Diego Garcia and to the archipelago, which has been denied until now. It is right for the Foreign Secretary to pay tribute to those Chagossians who led that campaign for the right of return and resettlement on their home islands. An apology is due to the Chagossian people for the way they were treated.

Question

I do not believe I ever had the pleasure of flying into our joint base on Diego Garcia, either in the US Air Force or as a pilot in our own Royal Air Force, but its strategic value in terms of the capabilities that it offers and the relationship it cements with our US partners is clear, as was its contested existence. Does my right hon. Friend agree that it was a Tory Government that started the negotiations, because they recognised the dangerous situation facing the base, and that this Labour Government have now ensured that the base is undisputed and on a secure footing?

Question

After that performance from the Foreign Secretary, I am delighted to read that there will be reshuffle at Christmas. He should revisit his statement, as he said that my noble Friend Lord Cameron carried on the negotiations—I was his Parliamentary Private Secretary when he ended the negotiations; this Foreign Secretary capitulated in three weeks. Given the sham negotiation that he has carried out, can he assure me that no military equipment will be allowed to be stationed on not only the outer islands but the inner islands under this agreement over the 99 years? Can he outline to the House—he has not managed to outline much this afternoon—what scrutiny structures and how many votes we will be allowed in this House when he lays the treaty?

Question

In the Foreign Secretary’s oral statement he said: ‘A binding judgment against the UK seemed inevitable’. That seems misleading verbal baby food at best. So far, there has been a non-binding advisory opinion and nothing to suggest that we will breach any form of international law. At a time of increasing global conflict, will the Foreign Secretary explain to the House why there is such urgency to do what he is proposing? It seems to be a case of acting in haste and repenting at leisure.

Question

I must say that I am surprised by Labour’s conversion to the merits of leasehold rather than the security of freehold ownership—I did not think that was its position. In addition to being an unsinkable aircraft carrier, the British Indian Ocean Territory is host to unique space observation capabilities. It is the only remote monitoring place in the southern hemisphere that is able to see parts of the sky to which we would otherwise be blind. Space is a heavily contested military domain, so did the Foreign Secretary even know about these space monitoring capabilities? What are his plans to secure alternatives to save our freedom and security?

Question

There is no dispute in the House that Diego Garcia is a vital strategic base in the heart of the British Indian Ocean Territory. Will the Foreign Secretary undertake, when he publishes the details of the treaty provisions, to include two things: first, the exclusion zone around Diego Garcia—how many miles—and secondly, provisions to prevent any other foreign power establishing a sovereign military base on any of the archipelagos of the British Indian Ocean Territory?

Question

The Foreign Secretary has come to this House with the smile of a favourite, having exchanged British sovereign territory for a 99-year lease from a Chinese ally, and expects to be applauded for it. He claimed in his statement that we can extend the lease, but can he inform the House whether that right is unilateral and, if so, how many years will that extension be? Why does he think that this piece of paper will prevent Chinese encroachment?

Question

We have heard with great interest all these other countries that the Foreign Secretary is looking to please. I am interested in our country. I am interested in what goes on in this House. Will the Foreign Secretary confirm that we will have a vote, and the mechanism by which that vote will come to this House, so that we can have a say on our sovereignty and what we own?

Question

We saw a previous Labour Government sell off this country’s gold. We now have a Labour Government who are surrendering our sovereignty and giving away our territory. Has the Foreign Secretary had any specific discussions with the Chagossian people as part of the negotiations?

Question

Those of us who have had the privilege of visiting some of the overseas territories or meeting their representatives here in Westminster are very much aware of their strong loyalty to and admiration for the United Kingdom. Even if they have heard what the Foreign Secretary said this afternoon, perhaps they are right to have a nagging doubt that that loyalty will not be returned, are they not?

Question

Given the exploitative response of Argentina in the context of the Falklands, is it not clear that those with malevolent aspirations about British territory are drawing comfort from the belief created by this deal that this Government are weak on the question of sovereignty? Does that not come off the back of the fact that Westminster, within the United Kingdom, surrendered sovereignty in over 300 areas of law in Northern Ireland to a foreign Parliament—namely, the European Parliament? If the Foreign Secretary wants to demonstrate that his assurances to Gibraltar and the Falklands are to be taken seriously, then should he not begin by reclaiming sovereignty over all of the United Kingdom and reverse the surrender of sovereignty in over 300 areas of law in Northern Ireland?

Question

In the mid-1960s, when Mauritius was granted independence, it agreed, as part of that deal, to relinquish all claims to this British sovereign territory, which we have owned since the treaty of Paris in 1814. Why does the Foreign Secretary see fit to do a deal with a nation that has reneged on a previous deal, and why are we selling a sovereign asset that we all agree is of great value for no money up front? We are paying them. It is negligent.

Question

The Foreign Secretary has made a very clear point. In 1982 Margaret Thatcher set the precedent that the United Kingdom would do everything necessary to defend our overseas territories. Some 42 years later, it is important that that legacy is carried on. Will the Foreign Secretary commit to ensuring that this decision has no bearing on other overseas territories, such as the Falklands or Gibraltar? I have many friends who live in the Falklands and Gibraltar. What steps will be taken to protect and preserve them?