MoD refuses to say if Chagos deal counts toward defence spending
Labour ministers repeatedly faced questions over whether the £35bn agreement, described as a 'surrender deal' by critics, would be included as part of the newly announced goal of spending 5 per cent of GDP on defence by 2035.
The Chagos deal was announced earlier this year as part of a large settlement with Mauritius, which claims sovereignty over the archipelago.
Opponents said counting the Chagos payments towards the Nato total would undermine the credibility of the pledge, allowing ministers to claim they were spending more on defence without providing additional resources for the Armed Forces.
'Creative accounting'
James Cartlidge, the shadow defence secretary, accused the Government of 'smoke and mirrors', adding that counting the sum towards the target would be 'a total con'.
He told The Telegraph: 'With the threats we face, the UK needs to urgently increase defence spending. But this needs to be actual money for our Armed Forces, not smoke and mirrors.
'If Labour were to include the cost of Chagos in their declared Nato spend, that wouldn't just be creative accounting but a total con on the British public, inflating apparent defence spending with a £35bn commitment that makes us weaker.
'Labour must come clean on whether this massive waste of taxpayer's money will be included in our Nato spend.'
Asked whether the Chagos payments would count towards the Nato total, the Ministry of Defence (MoD) directed The Telegraph towards an answer given in the House of Lords by Baroness Chapman, a Foreign Office minister.
She told peers: 'The payments to Mauritius will be split between the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office and the MoD. The Nato qualifying status of these costs will be considered in the usual way.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
ITV News
24 minutes ago
- ITV News
Vivergo bioethanol plant near Hull faces closure after government rejects funding plea
A bioethanol plant near Hull is facing closure after the government said it would not be providing grant funding to keep it afloat. Vivergo Fuels, which employs 160 workers at the site, says it is facing closure within weeks following the decision to end the 19% tariff on American bioethanol imports as part of the recent UK-US trade deal. It had been in talks with the government to secure financial support but the Department for Business and Trade said on Friday it had taken the "difficult decision" not to offer funding as it would not provide value for money for the taxpayer. A spokesperson said: "We recognise this is a difficult time for the workers and their families and we will work with trade unions, local partners and the companies to support them through this process. "We also continue to work up proposals that ensure the resilience of our CO2 supply in the long-term in consultation with the sector." The owners of the plant said they were disappointed the media was told the decision before they were. A spokesperson for parent company ABF said: "It is deeply regrettable that the Government has chosen not to support a key national asset. "We have been fighting for months to keep this plant open. We initiated and led talks with Government in good faith. We presented a clear plan to restore Vivergo to profitability within two years under policy levers already aligned with the Government's own green industrial strategy. "In making this decision, the Government has thrown away billions in potential growth in the Humber and a sovereign capability in clean fuels that had the chance to lead the world."
Spectator
24 minutes ago
- Spectator
What's wrong with a St George's Cross flag?
Flags have become a contentious and defining issue of this year. You only have to witness the furore that has surrounded the increasing proliferation of the Progress Pride and Palestinian flags in this country to recognise this. So it was only a matter of time before that other increasingly common sight, flags denoting pride in Englishness and Britishness, should have been drawn into the fray. As reported in the Daily Telegraph this morning, Birmingham Council has ordered the removal of Union and St George's flags from lamp posts. In response to initiatives made by residents in the fortnight approaching VJ Day to install hundreds of the flags in the predominantly white British suburbs in the south-west of city, on Tuesday the Labour-run council announced plans to remove them, claiming that they put the lives of pedestrians and motorists 'at risk'. This has legitimately aroused accusations of double standards. Critics have pointed out that Palestinian flags have flown within impunity elsewhere on the city's streets since the war in Gaza began in 2023. 'This is nothing short of a disgrace and shows utter contempt for the British people,' Lee Anderson, the Reform MP, has said. Robert Alden, leader of the authority's Conservative opposition, has added: 'Our national flags are nothing to be ashamed of. Labour rushing to rip them down is shameful.' Yet, while showing eagerness to double-down on expressions of Englishness and Britishness, this week Birmingham council has been simultaneously celebrating the heritage of its sub-continent ethnic minorities. Last night it lit up the main library in the colours of orange, green and white to mark 79 years of India's independence, hours after showing the same courtesy to Pakistan. It was perhaps inevitable that on GB News last night the council was charged with a 'two-tier' approach to community relations. It's not an unreasonable accusation, given that this approach has been an increasingly common one taken by a Labour government and judiciary desperate to placate inter-communal tensions. It's difficult to escape the conclusion that that council is indulging in another form of asymmetrical multiculturalism. In other words, yet again we're seeing an arm of the state rejoicing in the cultures of minorities but being decidedly less forthright in celebrating the culture of this country's majority. The council's protestations that such flags pose a risk to safety will strike many as dubious, given that many of these flags are up to 25ft off the ground. This excuse is doubly unconvincing given that, beginning in August 2020 in Birmingham's gay village, rainbow-coloured street crossings in the style of the Pride Progress flag have been installed in the city. Yet these have been known to pose a threat to the blind and partially-sighted, as well as being confusing for police horses. The left has always been known to shirk from symbols of patriotism out of embarrassment and guilt, so the decision by the Labour-run body is true to form. But the council's proactive policy on representation of ethnic minorities has also taken place against a backdrop of the ascendency of sectarian politics in Britain. Labour is desperate to shore up its dwindling support among British Muslims, many of whom have been alienated by its less than outspoken stance on Gaza, and a minority of whom seem to show little loyalty or affection for this country at all. Labour is also mindful of the threat posed by the yet-to-be named splinter faction led by Jeremy Corbyn, a party that will cater for alienated ethnic minorities, the far-left and an idealistic graduate class. Most importantly, Birmingham's decision has taken place at a time British society is seemingly falling-apart at the seams, appearing to teeter on the point of outright disorder. In June, David Betz, Professor of War in the Modern World in the Department of War Studies at Kings College, warned that British cities were at risk of becoming 'feral' and could even descend into civil war in the next few years. This type of rhetoric is becoming increasingly common. In April, the Daily Telegraph's Tim Stanley issued the similarly foreboding words: 'I now fear Britain is heading for open sectarian conflict, possibly war, and there's nothing we can do to stop it.' Both the emergence and profusion of flags which are proxy indicators for tribal membership and sectarian affiliation – the Palestinian flag also serves as symbol of progressive internationalism for the liberal white middle-class – and moves to suppress them are indicative of the fractious nature of British society today. No wonder a traditional left-wing attitude to the St George and Union flags is gradually shifting from shame and embarrassment towards fear, given that these icons are associated with growing indigenous resentment and restiveness, not to mention a surge in support for Reform at the polls. And that, ultimately, is what strikes terror into the hearts of the establishment today.
The Independent
24 minutes ago
- The Independent
House of Lords does not need ‘Putin apologists like Farage', cabinet minister says
A cabinet minister has dismissed Nigel Farage 's call for the prime minister to allow him to nominate peers to the House of Lords, saying Parliament will not benefit from more 'Putin apologists'. Defence secretary John Healey said the Reform UK leader wanted to fill the upper chamber with 'his cronies', and accused his party of being 'conspicuously absent' from debate on the Ukraine war. In a letter to Sir Keir Starmer, Mr Farage had said that a 'democratic disparity' in the Lords needed to be addressed. Reform has four MPs and controls 10 councils in England. When asked about the party leader's demands, Mr Healey said: 'The same Nigel Farage who called for the abolition of the Lords… now wants to fill it with his cronies. 'I'm not sure that Parliament's going to benefit from more Putin apologists like Nigel Farage, to be honest.' Asked whether that accusation was 'a bit strong', Mr Healey told LBC: 'Look at what he's said about Russia, look at what he's said about Putin in the past. 'At this point, when maximum pressure needs to be put on Putin to support Ukraine in negotiations, when the maximum condemnation of Putin is required from someone who is sitting down with Trump in Alaska but turning up the attacks on Ukraine, it needs all voices. 'And I have to say, the voice of Reform is conspicuously absent in any of our discussions and any of our defence debates about Ukraine and about Russia.' The minister urged Mr Farage, the MP for Clacton, to start 'weighing in alongside us and the other parties in the House of Commons' in condemning the Russian president. Reform's deputy leader Richard Tice accused the Defence Secretary of 'an absurd smear'. 'Is Mr Healey suffering from a touch of August sunstroke?' he said. During the general election campaign last year, Mr Farage was criticised by leaders from across the political spectrum for suggesting the West provoked the Ukraine war. He also said he disliked the Russian president but 'admired' him as a political operator because 'he managed to take control of running Russia', in a BBC interview. Mr Farage has repeatedly denied that he supports Mr Putin and said he is clear that the Russian leader is to blame for the war. The Reform leader has previously called for Lords reform, writing in an article for the Telegraph in February that 'a smaller chamber is needed'. In his letter to the Prime Minister, first reported by the Times, Mr Farage said: ' Reform UK wishes to appoint life peers to the upper house at the earliest possible opportunity.' In what he described as a 'modest request', he said it was time that Reform was represented in the unelected second chamber. 'My party received over 4.1 million votes at the general election in July 2024. We have since won a large number of seats in local government, led in the national opinion polls for many months and won the only by-election of this parliament,' he said. Political appointments to the Lords are made at the discretion of the Prime Minister, who is under no constitutional obligation to elevate opposition figures but will sometimes ask other leaders to nominate individuals. In December, Sir Keir appointed 30 new Labour peers, including his former chief of staff Sue Gray – which Mr Farage said at the time showed the ruling party's 'lofty ambition' to abolish the Lords had 'fallen by the wayside'. The Conservatives appointed six new peers, while the Liberal Democrats appointed two.
