British Indian Ocean Territory

Luke Evans Excerpts

Wednesday 26th February 2025 Commons Chamber

[Priti Patel]

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?

[Dr Luke Evans (Hinckley and Bosworth) (Con)]

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?

[Priti Patel]

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.

--- Later in debate ---

[Priti Patel]

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.

[Dr Evans]

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?

[Priti Patel]

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?

--- Later in debate ---

[Tom Tugendhat]

rose—

[Dr Luke Evans]

rose—

[Anneliese Dodds]

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

[Dr Evans]

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.

[Anneliese Dodds]

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.

--- Later in debate ---

[James Cartlidge]

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.

[Dr Luke Evans]

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.

[James Cartlidge]

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).