House of Commons · Urgent Question
05 February 2025 · 27 other contributors
Opened by Nigel Farage Reform Clacton
Summarised by AI from the official record, so it can contain mistakes.
Nigel Farage raised concerns about chagos islands 2025-02-05 in the House of Commons. A government minister responded. Other MPs also contributed.
Key points
MPs spoke in turn to share their views and ask questions. Here's what each person said.
Opened the debate
Will the Minister confirm the status of negotiations over the transfer of sovereignty of the Chagos islands to Mauritius? The MP is questioning the legal and strategic basis for this potential deal, emphasising that there appears to be no binding obligation for such a transfer and highlighting concerns about national security and the impact on UK-US relations.
Question
Can the Minister confirm that there is no binding legal basis for this transfer of sovereignty whatsoever?
Minister reply
The Minister reasserted that there is no legal obligation to transfer sovereignty, referencing the previous Government's recognition of the need for negotiations and the importance of securing national security. He emphasised the role of international courts but clarified it was the International Court of Justice, not the ICC, which had made a relevant judgment.
Question
Can my hon. Friend tell us anything more about the specific reassurances we have had on the crucial area for biodiversity of the marine environment and how that will be protected after this deal?
Minister reply
The Minister confirmed that the treaty reflects both parties' commitment to upholding international environmental law, including high conservation standards across the archipelago. Mauritius has aligned its commitments with global initiatives to protect 30% of marine areas by 2030 and will establish a fit-for-purpose marine protected area.
Question
Has the Minister given away our ability to unilaterally extend the period over which the UK can exercise sovereign rights on Diego Garcia? Has the Minister given away our ability to exercise sovereign rights over Diego Garcia entirely?
Minister reply
The Minister responded that the deal aims to secure the base's future for at least 99 years and does not involve a unilateral surrender of sovereignty. He reiterated that there is no legal obligation compelling such a transfer.
Question
Does the Minister agree that, despite or because of the new US Administration’s changing foreign policy, the UK Government must provide their own independent global leadership based on UK values and interests?
Minister reply
The Minister acknowledged the importance of independent leadership but did not directly address the specifics of the question regarding US foreign policy changes.
Question
Will the Minister reassure me that when the treaty comes before the House, securing our national security will be paramount through a process that was started under the previous Government?
Minister reply
We will not scrimp on national security. There has been no change to the substance of the deal or the overall quantum agreed. We will present the process in the usual way.
Question
Does the Minister recognise that his current approach is at variance with what previous Foreign Secretaries, including my right hon. Friend and myself, would have done?
Minister reply
The deal is the right one for our national security and that of our allies. The previous Government started the negotiations which we are now concluding.
Question
Does the Minister agree that confirming the legal status of the base will cement our role in the Indo-Pacific and put us in a strong position to counter Chinese influence?
Minister reply
Absolutely right. Protecting against malign interests is at the heart of the deal, which was needed for security reasons and has safeguards for national security.
Question
Given that what the Minister has told the House today is so at variance with the report from the Prime Minister of Mauritius, does it ring alarm bells?
Minister reply
I am not going to reflect on previous Governments’ records. We are getting around to rebuilding our relationship with our armed forces and defences.
Question
Can the Minister update the House on conversations he has had with NATO partners about this deal?
Minister reply
Our commitment to NATO is clear. The Prime Minister met the Secretary-General recently, and I was at the North Atlantic Council just before Christmas. We are securing the base for the long-term future.
Question
Has the Minister engaged with Chagossians meaningfully about this deal, and can he clarify these engagements?
Minister reply
I have been clear on my engagements which include two meetings with members of the community. We continue to engage with them as their interests are at the heart of this agreement.
Question
Do the Minister and his officials understand that a good deal is about getting a good deal rather than any deal?
Minister reply
The right hon. Gentleman recognised there was a problem, started the negotiating process, and we have agreed this as a good deal after 11 rounds of negotiations.
Question
Do the Government recognise that an international rules-based system is key to our economic prosperity and security?
Minister reply
National security is our top priority, especially in dangerous geopolitical circumstances. We invest in defence, NATO partnerships, and relationships with US counterparts.
Question
How can the Minister anticipate safeguarding our interests without knowing future Mauritian Governments' relationship with China?
Minister reply
We have clear guarantees in the treaty against malign influences and the United States security apparatus has agreed to this. We would not agree a deal that did not protect us from any adverse forces.
Question
Can the Minister confirm there will be no restrictions on what the base can be used for and that we have the right to extend the lease?
Minister reply
I can absolutely confirm that there will be no change in operations, with full control over Diego Garcia and unrestricted access. The lease is for 99 years with extension possibility.
Question
Can the Minister assure us he won't rebuild the empire and confirm that Chagos islands are part of Mauritius in international law, ensuring the right of return for all Chagossians?
Minister reply
The primary purpose is national security but we recognise the rights of Chagossians. The agreement allows visits to all islands with protections and discussions on settlement on outer islands.
Question
Is it reasonable to assume that the US will make a substantial contribution to the compensatory package being negotiated?
Minister reply
Details of the compensation are not disclosed, but full details have been shared with the current US Administration for their consideration.
Question
Why won't the Minister disclose the actual quantum of money being discussed and out of which departmental budget it needs to be paid?
Minister reply
The figure of £18 billion is categorically untrue. It is speculation, not fact.
Question
Is the Minister concerned about an adverse ruling from the ICJ or another court?
Minister reply
The base was not on a sustainable footing. This deal puts it on a sustainable footing.
Question
What does this deal say about the Government's priorities, given their economic legacy and national security commitments?
Minister reply
We are picking up pieces left by previous Governments and will not scrimp when it comes to our national security, armed forces, or overseas bases.
Question
Why was the deal rushed before a general election in Mauritius?
Minister reply
There has been no rush. We have engaged with our Mauritian counterparts and the United States Administration to secure an agreement that meets all interests involved.
Question
Why is there not more Government support for this important issue?
Minister reply
There are so many different aspects to the hon. Gentleman's question that I do not recognise, including the figure of £18 billion and statements he attributes to me.
Question
Do the Government disagree with anything that the Prime Minister of Mauritius said about this deal yesterday, and if so, what is it?
Minister reply
I refer the hon. and learned Gentleman to the answer I gave a few moments ago. The comments of the Prime Minister of Mauritius are for him to make. As I said, there has been no change to the substance of the deal, nor to the overall quantum agreed.
Question
Why should Donald Trump have a say about British sovereign territory when British elected officials do not? When will the Minister ensure that this House is given a final say on the deal?
Minister reply
This House will have a final say on the deal, in the usual way for considering such measures. Legislation will be laid in due course. It is absolutely right that the United States Administration have the chance to consider the deal, to raise concerns and to be briefed on the full details.
Question
Will the FCDO team please confirm who is the lead Minister in these negotiations?
Minister reply
These negotiations are between the two Governments. There are a range of interests at play, and a range of Ministers have been involved in the negotiations.
Question
What does the Minister say to my constituents who are asking how this Government can now find billions of pounds to pay to give away British sovereign territory and, in so doing, compromise national and global security?
Minister reply
I simply do not accept the premise of the hon. Gentleman’s question. We will invest in our national security, we will secure our bases and we will invest in our armed forces.
Question
Will the Minister not rethink this terrible decision, or better still, given the clear division between this side of the House and his side, let us make that decision?
Minister reply
Of course the House will have the right to make its decision in due course when legislation is put forward. That is only right and there will be ample scrutiny.
Government Response
The Minister confirmed that both sides remain committed to concluding a deal protecting the long-term operation of the UK-US base on Diego Garcia. He stated that significant progress has been made in negotiations, involving technical talks held last month, and that the Government are closely engaging with the US Administration to secure their approval for the agreement. The minister reiterated that the deal aims to protect national security by securing the base's future for at least 99 years. Additionally, he assured Parliament of robust security arrangements within the treaty and reaffirmed that there is no legal obligation compelling the UK to transfer sovereignty.