British Indian Ocean Territory

Nigel Farage Excerpts

Wednesday 26th February 2025 Commons Chamber

[Nigel Farage (Clacton) (Reform)]

What is agreed universally is that the cost is £9 billion—the Government do not question that at all. Whether there is front-loading or not, we do not yet know, but let us assume that the cost is £90 million a year for 99 years. A lot of people in the media and in politics seem to have a problem with basic arithmetic and compounding: £90 million a year, index-linked at 3%, is £52 billion—a completely eye-watering sum. I am very surprised that His Majesty’s loyal Opposition are not using that number, or perhaps they are just so embarrassed about having begun the negotiations themselves—I do not know.

[Priti Patel]

The bottom line in all this is that there is no transparency at all from the Government. We will absolutely press and hold them to account on that.

I come back to the point we have just heard from the Opposition Benches, which is that no Minister—not even the Defence Secretary today—has told us where that money is coming from. Perhaps this Minister does not know the cost, or maybe she needs permission from the Attorney General, or from Rachel from accounts, even to comment on the numbers, but the House must know. Labour has sought to hide behind the real reason for what is going on. It is constantly using the fig leaf of national security to avoid telling British taxpayers how much the deal will cost. That is simply not acceptable.

If the Government will not tell us the numbers, they should at least tell us where the budget has come from. In a written parliamentary answer of 22 November, the Chief Secretary to the Treasury confirmed to me that he had engaged in discussions and reached an agreement with Cabinet colleagues on the financial elements of the proposed lease of the military base on Diego Garcia, as part of the UK-Mauritius agreement announced on 3 October. Will the Minister confirm—she can intervene now if she would like to—whether that funding will come from the defence budget? If it does, will it count towards the new 2.5% target announced by the Prime Minister yesterday? It would be a stain on the Government if they reached that target as a result of wasting money—hard-pressed taxpayers’ money—on that unnecessary lease. The British public deserve accountability and transparency.

--- Later in debate ---

[Nigel Farage (Clacton) (Reform)]

As an elected representative of a very young political party, I watch this game going on between the two old parties and find it difficult not to conclude that it is anything other than a complete and utter charade. Although I agree with the right hon. Member for Witham (Priti Patel), who made the argument that this is British sovereign territory and that there is nothing—literally nothing—to be gained by giving it away, and I see those on the Benches behind her cheering, as we heard earlier, this was the party that went through 11 rounds of negotiations. The Conservative Government were happy to surrender the sovereignty of the Chagos islands, but did not like the final shape of the deal.

Then the Government tell us that this deal has to be done because of legal uncertainty, but of course there is no legal uncertainty whatsoever. Labour Members can shake their heads if they want, but they know I am right. The International Court of Justice has no jurisdiction over this whatsoever, so why are we doing it? I guess that it is because of post-colonial guilt and a Government run by human rights lawyers. Beyond that, I really do not understand it.

I made a comment earlier about the cost. I promise the House that £90 million a year for 99 years with 3% compounded inflation is £52 billion. That of course is madness. Members of this House have been saying, “Why are we not debating health or other issues?” Well, 50 billion quid is a very good reason to debate this.

I have tried in this House and elsewhere to make these arguments. I have explained that China already has a smart city right next to Port Louis. I have explained that Huawei is the communications system. We see now that Prime Minister Modi is worried about missing out on the action. There is a 200-mile marine park, which potentially has cobalt and other mineral resources that could be worth tens, perhaps even hundreds, of billions of pounds over the next few years, and we are prepared to give it all away.

The timing of the debate is perfect, because the Prime Minister is mid-Atlantic as we speak. I have spoken in the course of the last week to American Cabinet Ministers. While they are concerned about Chagos, they are even more concerned about bringing an end to the war in Ukraine, which I think we are all very keen to see, provided that it is on the right terms. There is also going to be a big debate about tariffs. Here is the point: Chagos is not especially high on the American agenda at the moment. I would love to see the American Administration veto this terrible deal, but I am not even sure then that this Government would move their position. They are clearly hellbent on giving away the Chagos islands, whatever the risks to global security or our own budgetary constraints, completely ignoring the will of the majority of the Chagossian people.

If that is the case, I would rather see America have the sovereignty of the Chagos islands than a corrupt Mauritius. If we are going to give up this sovereignty, we should sell and get a few billion quid for the Chagos islands. Mauritius has no legal basis and no legal claim. Investment would come, and the Chagossians could go back and get well-paid jobs. I want us to keep sovereignty, but if the Government are prepared to give away this country’s interests, they should sell the territory to America, not give it away to corrupt Mauritius.

Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill

Nigel Farage Excerpts

Wednesday 8th January 2025 Commons Chamber

[Nigel Farage (Clacton) (Reform)]

I have no doubt that the Bill is based on socialist dogma. It will reduce choice and competition, and take away parents’ freedom to educate at home. I am against it. I will vote against it, and Government Members will vote for it—that is how politics works in this country—but how on earth can we look at the words “Children’s Wellbeing” in the title of the Bill, and debate and vote on that subject, when out there in the country, our constituents are talking about what we used to call grooming gangs, although I think we have moved on to calling them mass and gang rapes?

Since 2012, I have tried to campaign for more truth and honesty about what has gone on, although the former Labour MP for Keighley, Ann Cryer, was doing that as far back as 2002. Every attempt at a proper national debate on the scale of the problem has been shut down. We thought initially that in half a dozen northern towns, there was a serious problem—mass sexual assaults, and rapes of children and young women. However, after recent research, journalist Charlie Peters at GB News says that he is certain that this has taken place in at least 50 towns in our country, and is still going on today.

[Natasha Irons (Croydon East) (Lab)]

I sincerely thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way. I appreciate the need to look at these issues in the round, but does he accept that there are measures in the Bill that will protect children, based on what we already know? Those measures will help stop children across the country being abused, and make it harder for groomers to get access to them, which is what we all want, is it not? I hope he agrees with me.

[Nigel Farage]

No, I do not. Whatever measures are in the Bill to protect children—we all want to see children protected, for goodness’ sake—will not protect them. The Prime Minister is doing his best to tell us that there has been an inquiry: the Jay inquiry. Well, there has, and it is 459 pages long. Grooming gangs are not mentioned once. Rotherham is literally mentioned once, in passing. The scope of that inquiry was like a shotgun: it was to cover a whole range of areas in which children were being abused. What we need, and are calling for, is a rifle-shot inquiry that looks specifically at the question: to what extent were gangs of Pakistani men raping young white girls? Ultimately, it seems to me that there is a deep racist element behind what happened. I might be right or I might be wrong, but does the country not deserve a full, open and national inquiry? I believe there is now overwhelming support on all sides of the political spectrum for that; Parliament should not be in denial. If the Government will not hold it, we will raise the money at Reform UK and appoint independent arbiters, because we need the truth to be out there.

I will vote for the amendment tabled by the Leader of the Opposition, although I note that as Women and Equalities Minister from 2022 to 2024, she did not meet a single victim of the rapes, and never raised the issue once. Insincere though the amendment may be, we will vote for it. However, I beg Labour Members to think. Do their constituents not need to know the truth about this great evil that has happened in our country?

[Several hon. Members rose—]