British Indian Ocean Territory

Iain Duncan Smith Excerpts

Wednesday 26th February 2025 Commons Chamber

[Priti Patel]

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.

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)]

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?

[Priti Patel]

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.

--- Later in debate ---

[Priti Patel]

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.

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith]

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.”

[Priti Patel]

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.

--- Later in debate ---

[Anneliese Dodds]

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.

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith]

rose—

[Anneliese Dodds]

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

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith]

Is the Minister going to give way or not?

[Anneliese Dodds]

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

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith]

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?

[Anneliese Dodds]

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—

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)]

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?

[Anneliese Dodds]

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.

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith]

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.

[Dr Kieran Mullan (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)]

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.

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith]

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.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith]

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?

[James Cartlidge]

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.