Diego Garcia Military Base

Peter Lamb Excerpts

Thursday 22nd May 2025 Commons Chamber

[John Healey]

Quite simply, if you do not back the deal, you cannot back the base. There is no viable alternative option than this deal. The senior military figure who was part of the treaty signing this afternoon, General Sir Jim Hockenhull, confirmed that publicly. The shadow Defence Secretary knows that—he was a Defence Minister until the last election. He knows that that was the advice he and the previous Government were given. Even the spokesperson for his party’s leader admitted in February that a deal was needed. Politico’s “Playbook” reported:

“A spokesperson for Badenoch insisted she understands negotiations over the islands are needed due to the international legal position.”

That is the job that we have done. The Conservatives conceded the principle that negotiation was necessary and a deal was required to safeguard the long-term protection and control of this base; they conducted 11 rounds of negotiations before the last election.

The hon. Gentleman talks about this being part of a pattern. The previous Government failed to deliver a trade deal with India, and we did it. They failed to deliver a trade deal with the US, and we did it. They failed to safeguard Diego Garcia, and we have done it. We picked up those negotiations and strengthened the defence protections for the UK, and we did the deal today.

The hon. Gentleman asks me about the money. Once again, he was not just a Defence Minister, but also a Treasury Minister before the last election—in fact, he was Exchequer Secretary when the negotiations first kicked off. He knows that the Government Actuary tells us that the full accounting cost of this deal over the 99 years is £3.4 billion. That is the figure reported and laid before the House today.

The hon. Gentleman will know that there is a long-established method—used under our Government, his Government and the previous Government—for accounting for long-term projects, like this base, the nuclear commissioning programme, big infrastructure projects and pensions liabilities. The facts for me, as Defence Secretary, are that the cost of this deal is less than 0.2% of the annual defence budget; that this is an essential deal for our national security that will ensure Britain is better equipped to face down the rising threats we face; and that our armed forces are stronger and safer because of the deal done today.

The hon. Gentleman asks me about the Chagossians. We have been concerned, since we were elected just 10 months ago, to restore good communication and better relations with a wide range of Chagossian groups. The Foreign Office Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty), has met them regularly, and he and my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary met them this morning. The negotiations, however, were between the Mauritian Government and the UK Government, just as they were under the previous Government. We have worked to ensure that the agreement reflects the importance that Chagossians attach to the islands, so we will finance a new £40 million trust fund for Mauritius to support the Chagossian community.

I will conclude where I started. I say to the shadow Defence Secretary: we have worked together on a cross-party basis on Ukraine, and we have offered him and his party’s leader security briefings on any of the big issues that we face. This deal is in the national security interest. That is why, when we were in opposition, we backed his Government when they set out to try to negotiate that deal, just as we backed his Government when he led the UK’s support for Ukraine. When he looks at the treaty, considers that there was no alternative and recognises that this is a tougher deal that is better for our base, better for our forces and better for protecting our British people in this country, I hope that he will back it.

[Peter Lamb (Crawley) (Lab)]

In the ’60s and ’70s, Labour and Conservative Governments removed the Chagossian people from their islands in the interests of national security. In response to written questions, the Foreign Office has confirmed that many certainties that would be required for Chagossians to return to the islands have not been secured as a part of this deal—once more banning them in the name of national security. What should I tell my Chagossian constituents when they ask about the moral basis on which the UK is once again ignoring their right to self-determination while we fight for it in Ukraine for Ukrainians? On what basis can members of British overseas territories feel any certainty that they will retain possession of their islands in the event that our national security interests are suddenly piqued?

[John Healey]

I have known my hon. Friend for a long time, and he has been a loud and strong voice for Chagossians in this country. I hope he will recognise, first, that this has been a negotiation that the British Government have conducted with the Mauritian Government. I hope he will also recognise and respect the fact that my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary and the Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff South and Penarth, have tried to set a new tone in relationships and communications with the range of Chagossian groups in this country. Finally, I hope he will recognise that that range of Chagossian groups includes a range of Chagossian views, some of which support this deal and see the need for it. I trust he will be strong in advocating for the use of the trust fund and the programmes we will put in place to help the Chagossian people.

War in Ukraine: Third Anniversary

Peter Lamb Excerpts

Thursday 27th February 2025 Commons Chamber

[Peter Lamb (Crawley) (Lab)]

As Members have said, a number of us were in Ukraine at the end of last week, and four days ago we were sat in a bomb shelter in Kyiv as the Ukrainian military worked to clear the sky of drones. Kyiv is a beautiful European city—one of the great cities of Europe—filled with a freedom-loving, well-educated population that are committed to liberating their country, and it is a place no different from our own. We were there as one of a 16-strong delegation to the Yalta European strategy conference. Never before in the history of that conference has that city come under bombardment while European parliamentarians were present, so great did Russia consider the risk of killing members of a NATO country. Something has changed, and we all know what it is. We need to wake up.

For most of America’s history, the country has been isolationist. After the first world war, it retreated back into isolationism. After the second, it would have done so were it not for the cold war. Since the end of the cold war, September 11 brought George W Bush back into the world, having been elected on a programme of isolationism. All three Democratic Presidents since the end of the cold war have in part retreated from international affairs. That is the default status of America, and we have to wake up to that reality—it is not about a single American President.

This is about the future of Europe. It is about the fact that we no longer can rely on an American security guarantee. Were we living in peaceful times, that would be worrying enough, but the fact is that Europe is at war. The arguments against appeasement have already been well made, and we know that if Ukraine falls, it would be a NATO country next and, in all possibility, a general nuclear war as part of Putin’s quest to rebuild the Russian empire.

We must accept the reality that we are at war—a cold war, but a war none the less. Neutral countries do not attack UK infrastructure or test UK airspace and territorial waters. Neutral countries do not release nerve agents into the streets of Salisbury, or openly discuss in the papers, as they are doing now, that the Americans have given them licence to bomb London. Those are the actions of an enemy state. Since the announcement on Tuesday, which I greatly agree with, I have received correspondence from constituents expressing concerns about the cuts to international aid. I want to be frank that many more painful decisions will follow if we are to do what is necessary to ensure the defence of our country against an enemy power.

We must mobilise. With no American security guarantee, the only choice is a European security guarantee, of which the UK must play a central role. For us, this will be a mobilisation not of men and women, for the most part. If we must replace the total manpower of the US military, that number—one million—already exists within the Ukrainian armed forces. Ukraine does not need the people; they are already on Europe’s frontlines holding back the enemy. They need our combined economic and intellectual power across the continent dedicated to our collective victory.

Speaking with those in Ukraine, not only politicians, soldiers and analysts, but the everyday residents who we met along our travels, they are determined to go on fighting however long it takes—alone if they must, hand to hand if totally necessary. We cannot allow things to come to that. Three years into the combat, why do Ukrainians still want for bullets and shells? Why do they struggle to access sufficient electronic countermeasures? Why are we training soldiers in batches in the UK and have not set up colleges in Ukraine to train them en masse? If Putin was standing on the French coast, would we have not resolved this in months, if not weeks?

We are at war. It is a war we can and must win. To do that, we must be prepared to do whatever it takes, starting today. Slava Ukraini.

Chagos Islands: UK-US Defence Relationship

Peter Lamb Excerpts

Monday 2nd December 2024 Commons Chamber

[Luke Pollard]

There are specific arrangements in the treaty that prevent any foreign power from putting security apparatus or security forces on any of the outgoing islands. The right hon. Gentleman will be able to see that when the treaty comes before the House. In relation to the support of the United States, we would not have signed an agreement if it was not supported by our US friends. This deal secures the operation of the UK-US base on Diego Garcia well into the next century. I expect that when everyone looks at the detail of the deal, they will back it too.

[Peter Lamb (Crawley) (Lab)]

Chagos belongs to the Chagossians. A quarter of the global population of Chagos lives within my constituency. I am aware of statements made by Ministers that they have met representatives of the Chagossian community; I do not know who those representatives are, but I know of representatives in my constituency who have not yet been consulted. Does the Minister agree that before any further dialogue takes place, the Government should engage fully with the community representatives in my constituency?

[Luke Pollard]

The Foreign Office Minister beside me, my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff South and Penarth, has met a range of representatives from the Chagossian community and will continue to do so as this process continues. I know that he would welcome a conversation with my hon. Friend to make sure that that dialogue is as complete as it can be.