With permission, Mr Speaker, I will make a statement on the conclusion of negotiations on the exercise of sovereignty over the British Indian Ocean Territory.
On Thursday the third of October, my Right Honourable Friend the Prime Minister and Mauritian Prime Minister Jugnauth made an historic announcement.
After two years of negotiations,…
…and decades of disagreement,…
…the UK and Mauritius have reached a political agreement on the future of the British Indian Ocean Territory.
Mr Speaker, the treaty is neither signed nor ratified.
But I wanted to update the House on the conclusion of formal negotiations at the earliest opportunity.
Members will appreciate the context.
Since its creation, the Territory and the joint UK-US military base on Diego Garcia has had a contested existence.
In recent years, the threat has risen significantly.
Coming into office, the status quo was clearly not sustainable.
A binding judgement against the UK seemed inevitable.
It was just a matter of time before our only choices would have been abandoning the base altogether.
Or breaking international law.
If you oppose the deal, which of these alternatives do you prefer?
Doing this deal - on our terms - was the sole way to maintain the full and effective operations of the base into the future.
Mr Speaker, this must be why, in November 2022, the then Foreign Secretary, the Right Honourable Member for Braintree, initiated sovereignty negotiations.
It's also why my immediate predecessor, Lord Cameron of Chipping Norton, ultimately continued with those talks.
Under the previous Government there were eleven rounds of negotiations, the last one held just weeks before the General Election was called.
So, in July, this Government inherited unfinished business.
Where a threat was real, and inaction was not a strategy.
Inaction posed several acute risks to the UK.
First, it threatened the UK-US base.
From countering malign Iranian activity in the Middle East to ensuring a free and open Indo-Pacific, it is critical for our national security.
Without surety of tenure, no base can operate effectively - nor truly deter our enemies.
Critical investment decisions were already being delayed.
Second, it impacted on our relationship with the US,…
…who neither wanted nor welcomed the legal uncertainty,…
…and strongly encouraged us to strike a deal.
I am a trans-Atlanticist.
We had to protect this important relationship.
And third, it undermined our international standing.
We are showing that what we mean is what we say on international law and desire for partnerships with the Global South.
This strengthens our arguments when it comes to issues like Ukraine or the South China Sea.
Mr Speaker, further legal wrangling served nobody's interests but our adversaries'.
In a more volatile world,…
…a deal benefited us all,…
…the UK, US and Mauritius.
This Government therefore made striking the best possible deal a priority.
We appointed Jonathan Powell.
As the Prime Minister's Special Envoy for these negotiations, he has worked closely with a brilliant team of civil servants and lawyers.
Their goal was a way forward which serves UK national interests,…
…respects the interests of our partners,…
…and upholds the international rule of law.
This agreement fulfils these objectives.
It is strongly supported by partners,…
…with Present Biden going so far as to 'applaud' our achievement within minutes of the announcement!
Secretary Blinken and Secretary Austin have also backed this 'successful outcome' which 'reaffirms [our] special defence relationship'.
And the agreement has been welcomed by the Indian government and commended by the UN Secretary-General.
In return for agreeing to Mauritian sovereignty over the entire islands, including Diego Garcia,…
…the UK-US base has an uncontested long-term future.
Base operations will remain under full UK control well into the next century.
Mauritius will authorise us to exercise their sovereign rights and authorities in respect of Diego Garcia.
This is initially for 99 years, but the UK has the right to extend this.
And we have full Mauritian backing for robust security arrangements…
…including preventing foreign armed forces from accessing or establishing themselves on the outer islands.
The base's long-term future is therefore more secure under this agreement than without it.
If this were not the case, I doubt the White House, State Department or Pentagon would have praised the deal so effusively.
This agreement will be underpinned by a financial settlement that is acceptable to both sides.
Members will be aware the Government does not normally reveal payments for our military bases overseas.
And so it would be inappropriate to publicise
