Mauritius 'will use cash from Labour's Chagos Islands deal to scrap income tax for 81% of its population and help pay off its national debt'
Sir Keir Starmer 's deal to hand over the Chagos Islands will fund sweeping tax cuts in Mauritius, it has emerged.
The Prime Minister last month signed an agreement to cede sovereignty of the stretegically-important Indian Ocean archipelago to Mauritius.
The deal will see the UK lease back a military base on Diego Garcia, the largest of the islands, with Britain paying Mauritius an average of £101million a year for 99 years.
Sir Keir said the 'net cost' of the agreement will be £3.4billion, after adjusting for factors including inflation. But opponents said the true cost is ten times as much.
According to The Telegraph, Mauritius will use almost £500million of the payments to help clear its national debt.
This will allow the east African country to abolish income tax entirely for 81 per cent of employed Mauritians and raise minimum salaries.
It has also been pointed out how, under the Chagos Islands deal, UK taxpayers are now funding more than 4 per cent of the Mauritian government's total budget.
It comes amid warnings that Britons face fresh tax rises when Chancellor Rachel Reeves unveils her next budget in the autumn.
A black hole in the public finances has been left by Ms Reeves' humiliating U-turn on axing winter fuel payments for pensioners.
The Chancellor is also under intense pressure from Labour MPs to splurge more by abolishing the two-child benefit cap.
Navin Ramgoolam, the Mauritian PM, announced the tax changes in his own budget speech last Wednesday.
He said the UK's payments from the Chagos deal for the next three years would be used to help pay off his country's national debt, which has reached 90 per cent of GDP.
Mauritius is also poised to raise the minimum salary before an employee pays income tax to £8,073 a year, which will scrap income tax entirely for 44,000 people.
'As a result of the measures I have introduced, 81 per cent of employees in our country will not pay any income tax,' Mr Ramgoolam said, according to the newspaper.
Tory leader Kemi Badenoch said: 'Labour have lost control. They've raised taxes on working families. Businesses are closing. People are losing their jobs.
'Labour's answer: fund a tax cut for…Mauritians. They are not on your side.'
Dame Priti Patel, the shadow foreign secretary, said: 'The only people benefiting from Labour's higher taxes are the people of Mauritius.
'While causing a financial black hole in Britain, whacking up our taxes and planning further tax raids, Labour's Chagos surrender deal means families in Mauritius will see their taxes cut at our expense.
'This is an insult to hard-working British people who have once again been betrayed by Keir Starmer with millions more paying more in tax.'
Dame Priti also highlighted Mauritius government documents that showed how the UK's Chagos payments are set to make up more than 4 per cent of the country's budget this financial year.
The Foreign Office has been approached for comment.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
North Wales Chronicle
41 minutes ago
- North Wales Chronicle
Government ‘putting its money where its mouth is' with £200m for Acorn scheme
Ministers confirmed they are meeting in full the request for development funding for the Acorn project in Aberdeenshire – the first time a government has provided funding of this scale for such a project to proceed. The scheme, which proposes storing emissions from across Scotland under the North Sea, had previously been overlooked for support despite repeated calls from the Scottish Government and others for it to be backed. With the UK Government also pledging to support the Viking carbon capture and storage (CCS) project in the Humber, Mr Miliband insisted the two schemes will 'support industrial renewal' with 'thousands of highly skilled jobs'. According to the sector, Acorn could support about 15,000 jobs at its peak, with up to 20,000 jobs at the Viking project. As it develops, it is planned the Acorn site will link up with the former oil refinery at Grangemouth via more than 200 miles of pipelines. An existing 175 miles of gas pipes will be repurposed for this, with 35 miles of new pipeline also being built, allowing CO2 from the Grangemouth site to be transported to Acorn's storage facilities under the North Sea. The move is seen by many as being key in securing a future for the facility, where some 400 workers were recently made redundant. Speaking as he visited the site near Peterhead, Aberdeenshire, Mr Miliband said: 'This Government is putting its money where its mouth is and backing the trailblazing Acorn and Viking CCS projects. 'This will support industrial renewal in Scotland and the Humber with thousands of highly-skilled jobs at good wages to build Britain's clean energy future. 'Carbon capture will make working people in Britain's hard-working communities better off, breathing new life into their towns and cities and reindustrialising the country through our Plan for Change.' Mr Miliband visited the site the day after Rachel Reeves promised funding for Acorn in her spending review – although the Chancellor did not put a figure on how much support would be given in her statement to MPs. Scottish Secretary Ian Murray said afterwards: 'The £200 million funding confirmed for the Acorn carbon capture project will help to support the design and preparation as it continues to progress. 'This is about revitalising our industrial communities and creating long-term economic opportunities for Scottish workers.' Tim Stedman, chief executive of Storegga, the lead developer of Acorn, said: 'We warmly welcome the UK Government's support for the Acorn project and the commitment to development funding that will enable the critical work needed to reach final investment decision.' He added the 'milestone' is 'key not only for Acorn but for establishing Scotland's essential CCS infrastructure needed to grow and scale the UK's wider carbon capture and storage industry'. Mr Stedman continued: 'We look forward to working with Government in the months ahead to understand the details of today's commitment, and to ensure the policy, regulatory and funding frameworks are in place to build and grow a world-leading UK CCS sector.' Graeme Davies, executive vice-president at Harbour Energy, which is leading the Viking project, said the commitment in the spending review 'sends a strong signal' that the project is 'an infrastructure-led economic growth priority' for the Parliament. He added: 'We will work with Government on the critical steps needed to progress Viking CCS towards a final investment decision.' However climate campaigners at Friends of the Earth said the money should instead be invested in public transport, energy efficiency and measures to support oil workers to transition to jobs in the renewables sector. Caroline Rance, head of campaigns at Friends of the Earth Scotland, said: 'This is an enormous handout of supposedly scarce public money that will only directly benefit greedy oil and gas companies. 'Politicians are paying hundreds of millions to keep us locked into an unaffordable energy system which is reliant on fossil fuels and is destroying the climate. 'Carbon capture technology has 50 years of failure behind it, so businesses, workers and the public are being sold a lie about its role in their future. 'Building new fossil fuel infrastructure will undermine the energy transition and embolden oil firms to keep on drilling in the North Sea. 'Both the UK and Scottish governments should instead be backing climate solutions that can improve people's lives such as upgrading public transport, ensuring people live in warm homes and creating green jobs for the long-term.'
Telegraph
an hour ago
- Telegraph
Tory taxpayers to bear brunt of Reeves's squeeze on police
Council taxpayers in Tory areas will bear the brunt of Rachel Reeves's squeeze on police funding, official figures show. Police forces in rural areas, which are predominantly under Tory control, have to draw twice as much of their budgets from council taxpayers as metropolitan areas, which are largely overseen by Labour police and crime commissioners. Conservative Surrey funds 57 per cent of its budget through its policing precept on council tax at the top of the table compared with 21.8 per cent for the West Midlands, 24.3 per cent for Merseyside and 27.1 per cent for the Metropolitan Police Service, which are all Labour-controlled, according to official data for 2024. This disparity means that they can only plug gaps from the Chancellor's police cuts through a disproportionate reliance on their council taxpayers who face an anticipated increase of £14 on their tax bills for Band D properties, or more than five per cent. The figures come a day after police chiefs warned Ms Reeves that the funding shortfall would mean they would be unable to deliver on the Government's pledges to put 13,000 more neighbourhood bobbies on the beat and halve knife crime and violence against women and girls. Ms Reeves pledged police forces would get an increase of 2.3 per cent in their spending power, but this included the council tax precept on which rural areas disproportionately rely for their funding.
The Guardian
an hour ago
- The Guardian
Does Labour's spending review signal a return to austerity?
Rachel Reeves usually avoids any mention of the word 'austerity' in connection with her fiscal policies, but on Wednesday, she decided to tackle the argument head on. 'In this spending review, total departmental budgets will grow by 2.3% a year in real terms,' she told MPs as she announced the next stage of her spending review. 'Compare that to the Conservatives' choice of austerity … Austerity was a destructive choice for both the fabric of our society and our economy, choking off investment and demand and creating a lost decade for growth, wages and living standards.' The chancellor argues that her decision to lift departmental budgets by 2.3% on average over the course of this parliament shows this cannot be compared with the coalition period, when spending fell by 2.9% on average. Some departments are faring particularly well. The Department of Health and Social Care will receive 2.8% more on average over the course of the parliament, taking its budget from £189bn in 2023-24 to £246bn by 2028-29. But focusing only on this week's announcement, which covers the three years from 2026-27, the settlement looks much tighter, with departmental budgets rising only 1.5% on average. Taking out certain big-ticket items of government spending, the situation looks tougher still. According to the Resolution Foundation, everything outside of health, defence, education and overseas aid will fall by 1.3% on average – a total of £2.4bn in cuts. Some departments are being particularly badly hit, including the Home Office, which is facing 1.4% annual cuts over the next three years; and the environment department, the budget of which will drop 2.3% each year on average. Sharon Graham, the general secretary of the Unite union, said: 'Spending cuts will be seen as austerity; those are the facts. Labour needs to pick up the pace on change, otherwise it will be stuck in the political slow lane while other voices get louder.' The chancellor says that the significant rise in capital spending will help offset the impact of reduced day-to-day spending for some departments. Better technology and equipment will help make processes more efficient, for example in the NHS where new scanners and testing machines should help ease the burden on doctors and nurses. Economists also point out that the growth in day-to-day spending is still set to outstrip even the OBR's relatively bullish growth forecasts. Paul Johnson, the director of the Institute for Fiscal Studies, said: 'This is not a period of austerity. This is a long period during which spending will be growing faster than the economy which, given current OBR estimates – which are more optimistic than most – is set to grow by 1.5% a year.' Reeves faces two main problems, however, when persuading the public they are not experiencing austerity. One is that the cuts are being made from an artificially inflated baseline, based on Conservative spending plans that were never realistic in the first place. Andy King, an economist and former chief of staff at the Office for Budget Responsiblity, said the £400bn uplift outlined by Reeves was 'basically the price tag for taking implausible out of the spending plans'. He said: 'Was it a spending spree? Not really. Was it austerity? Not really. It looks like a pretty conventional and sensible way of allocating the spending envelope.' The second is that unlike during the previous Labour government, Reeves is increasing overall departmental budgets after years of cuts. Local government, for example, will receive average real-terms rises of 1.1% a year over the next three years. But at the end of that period its central government funding will be 50% lower than it was in 2010. For those on the left, those previous cuts are even more reason to open the spending taps now, even if it means raising taxes at the autumn budget to do so. Theo Harris, an economist at the New Economics Foundation, said: 'To deliver the change people voted for, the government should free itself from its self-imposed fiscal rules, recognise the value of social spending and be willing to tax wealth fairly. This may not be austerity, but it doesn't look like the start of a decade of renewal.' Those close to Reeves, however, point out that she has already announced one of the biggest tax-hiking budgets in recent history to fund an immediate splurge in government spending – something Labour supporters have long called for. 'In place of decline, I choose investment,' Reeves said on Wednesday. 'These are Labour choices.'
