debates/debates2025-09-02e conversation_4
Source: hansard.parliament.uk (2025-09-02)

UK Parliament Hansard data: debates/debates2025-09-02e conversation_4

Luke Evans:What discussions he has had with his international counterparts on the Chagos Islands. \p Stephen Doughty: The Diego Garcia military base is essential to the security of the United Kingdom and our key allies, and to keeping the British people safe. The treaty was tested at the highest level of the United States’ security establishment, which supported the deal. The agreement has been backed by our key allies and international partners, including the US and all our Five Eyes partners. India, Japan and South Korea have made clear their support for the deal. \p Luke Evans: By not even trying to go to court or argue the case, the Government have cost the taxpayer £30 billion. Does the Minister agree with the Defence Minister who said that the deal represents “good value” for UK taxpayers? \p Stephen Doughty: As I have explained many times in the House, those figures are completely misleading. The net present value of payments under the treaty is £3.4 billion. The average cost of the deal in today’s money is £101 million per year. That is just a fraction of our Defence budget, and represents a few hours of spending on our NHS. This Government will not scrimp when it comes to the national security of the United Kingdom and our allies. \p Lindsay Hoyle: I call the Chair of the Select Committee. \p Emily Thornberry: Given that the Foreign Office has not agreed with Mauritius a defined financial allocation for the Chagos marine protected area; given that no additional money has been secured or ringfenced for environmental protection; given that no one who would be involved in the administration of the marine protected area has so much as visited the archipelago; given the very little communication between the Mauritius Government and the British scientific community, who currently protect the area; given that the capacity of Mauritius to patrol the archipelago for poachers is unknown; and given that it is not clear whether the dispute mechanism set out in the treaty can even be used if the UK deems that Mauritius is in breach of its marine protection commitments, what are the Minister’s hopes for this absolutely unique and priceless marine protected area? Can that all be fixed by the memorandum of understanding? \p Lindsay Hoyle: Order. Sorry, but I have a lot of Members to get in. I have given the Chair of the Select Committee a lot of leeway. It might be worth her putting in for an Adjournment debate, if there is so much to say on the subject; I would be more than happy with that. \p Stephen Doughty: I thank my right hon. Friend for her interest in this important issue, which she and members of the Foreign Affairs Committee have raised with me previously. The Government have secured a deal that will help to protect the unique environment of the Chagos archipelago, supported by an enhanced partnership between the UK and Mauritius, under which we will support Mauritius’s ambition to establish a marine protected area to protect the globally significant ecosystems to which she refers. The agreement of the terms of the technical support and assistance is a priority within the ongoing implementation process with Mauritius. I have listened very carefully to what she says and she can be assured that I have already been asking questions about many of those issues. \p Lindsay Hoyle: I call the shadow Minister. \p Andrew Rosindell: The Government have now been forced to admit the real cost of the catastrophic Chagos surrender deal: it is not £3.4 billion—oh no, Mr Speaker—it is a mind blowing £34.7 billion, which is 10 times more that we were told. No wonder Mauritius is planning tax cuts of its own, and it is British businesses and families who will pay the price. This deal leaves our country poorer, our defence capabilities damaged and our standing in the world weakened. Will the Minister now apologise to the British people for this epic failure in diplomacy, withdraw his Chagos surrender Bill and keep the islands British? \p Stephen Doughty: How ever many times the hon. Gentleman, the right hon. Member for Witham (Priti Patel) or the Conservative party in its emails to supporters make this claim about the cost, it does not mean that it is true—it is not. The £30 billion figure is inaccurate and misleading. It is wrong to ignore the cost of inflation and the change in the value of money, over the real cost of a deal that lasts 99 years. The figures are verified by the Government Actuary’s Department, drawing on long-established methodology. I have set out the costs. We will not scrimp on national security. Quite frankly, the brass neck from Conservative Members, after they disinvested in our armed forces and our defence over the entire time they were in office, is quite extraordinary.