The future of Diego Garcia and its place in UK defence accounting came under scrutiny during questions in the House of Commons on Monday, as MPs pressed ministers on the cost and implications of the recent UK-Mauritius agreement.
Mid Buckinghamshire MP Greg Smith asked what estimate had been made of the Ministry of Defence’s costs under the deal. In reply, Armed Forces Minister Luke Pollard said, “As the Defence Secretary has said, the cost of the agreement represents less than 0.2% of the annual MOD budget. This has secured unrestricted access to and use of the base on Diego Garcia, control over movement of all persons and goods on the base, and control of all communications and electronic systems. It is a good deal.”
Smith responded with concerns over both the cost and its classification under NATO metrics. “I do not know that I agree with the Minister that this is a good deal,” he said. “Although I am curious about the £30 billion. Does it count towards the new NATO target of 3.5%, or the additional 1.5% on top of that? As we have to inform the Mauritian Government before we do anything particularly useful from that base, should that cost actually be counted in the defence numbers at all?”
Pollard dismissed that interpretation of the treaty arrangements. “Let me squash the hon. Gentleman’s last comment, which is wrong: we do not have to inform Mauritius before taking any military action,” he said. “Under the treaty, we have to provide notification after the event. I have explained this 13 times in written answers to Members on the Conservative Front Bench.”
He contrasted the current government’s progress with that of its predecessors. “They could not do a deal after 11 rounds of negotiation, whereas this Government did it after two rounds, securing the future of that vital base for UK and US operations.”
Labour’s Luke Akehurst noted that a number of international partners had supported the arrangement. “Is it not the case that our closest allies—the United States, Australia, Canada, New Zealand and even India—have all welcomed this deal, precisely because they recognise the irreplaceable role of Diego Garcia in global security?”
Pollard replied, “This is important, because the future of Diego Garcia is absolutely vital. Having accepted the principle that sovereignty could be secured only by a negotiated settlement—that was the decision taken by the last Government—it is right that we secured a deal.”
He added, “The deal is good value for the UK taxpayer, because it secures the most valuable piece of military real estate on the planet, and keeps it under UK control for the next century and beyond.”
I am not sure I would ever boast about the success of ceding sovereignty of U.K. territory in just 2 rounds of negotiations compared to the previous Government’s 11 failed attempts.
We are actually paying for the privilege of doing so and as for Chogassians they have been largely forgotten by our Human Rights lawyer PM and his cronies in their haste to do this deal.
Apparently the Mauritian KC is one of Starmers best buddies! So a little buddy buddy talk goes a long way it seems.
This should preclude any negotiations. You want someone to negotiate on your behalf find a lawyer outside the U.K.
Unfortunately the chance to ever label it as UK territory or have the Chagosians live there was lost in 1971 by the under handed actions of the British government. This is just picking up the pieces.
I forgot to add these payments with everything else being shoved into the budget.
Pensions. SIA. Ukraine money. DNE.
Is this in the 3% or the1.5% it isn’t clear?
Baes leasing is in the 3%.
One of the worst voluntary international deals in the post war world. I’m sure China or Iran will set up tracking equipment on the nearest island not covered in the deal.
Funny enough there was a Chinese video that did appear of said KC on the Chagos islands waving a Mauritius flag before the deal was completed!
Didn’t last long but it was out there,so the Chinese are very much involved here!
Anyone know what it was costing the UK tax payer before this £30 billion bill landed on the floor ?
“Proof one can be Educated to Stupid levels”.
As the yanks were covering the cost of running the base probably not a lot!
Cost a one of payment of £4 million to Mauritius back in 1971 and a promise to return it when it was no longer needed for military purposes. There was no ongoing payment and no final term limit. All of which were reason to find it was a colonial land grab against international law (a law the UK wrote)
If we had out a term limit in it like Hong Kong then it would not have been a problem