‘Lying' Starmer reported to watchdog over true cost of Chagos deal

Telegraph

23-05-2025

The official statistics watchdog has been asked to investigate Sir Keir Starmer's claims about the cost of giving away the Chagos Islands.
The Prime Minister was accused of 'lying to the public' on Thursday as he signed an agreement to give the Indian Ocean islands to Mauritius and rent back a key military base.
He claimed the deal would cost £101 million annually, amounting to £3.4 billion over 99 years.
However, the true cost is likely to exceed £30 billion in cash terms because of rising inflation and additional schemes to fund development projects in Mauritius.
The Tories have now written to Sir Robert Chote, the chairman of the UK Statistics Authority, asking him to examine the numbers cited by the Prime Minister.
In the letter, James Cartlidge, the shadow defence secretary, accused Sir Keir of 'misuse of statistics'.
As the statistics watchdog, Sir Robert can rebuke ministers in a letter if he believes they have misled the public.
The criticism can be highly embarrassing for ministers, but he has no further powers.
In his letter, Mr Cartlidge said Sir Keir was guilty of a 'statistical sleight of hand' and may have breached the code of practice on statistics.
'Yesterday, when asked about the cost of the deal, the Prime Minister claimed it would be £3.4 billion, even after accounting for inflation,' he said.
'This figure is inaccurate. Independent analysis suggests that, once a conservative rate of inflation is accounted for, the true cost of the deal is likely to be in excess of £30 billion.
'That's a difference of £27 billion – a substantial amount that could mislead the public about the real financial cost.'
Britain has agreed to pay to rent the Diego Garcia military base for the next 99 years, and contribute more than £1 billion in development funding.
Sir Keir said on Thursday that the average annual cost of the deal would be £101 million.
This figure over 99 years would equate to £10 billion – but the Prime Minister claimed that the total 'net cost' over a century would be £3.4 billion.
This is because the Government has performed calculations on the payments that factor in 'the value society attaches to present as opposed to future consumption' and an estimated rate of inflation over time. This is called the 'social time preference rate'.
Analysis by The Telegraph shows the cash-terms cost is likely to be around £30 billion, including a century of lease payments, most of which will be increased in line with inflation, plus two schemes to support native people of the Chagos Islands and pay for infrastructure in Mauritius.
In his letter, Mr Cartlidge wrote: 'I understand the Government has used the social time preference rate (STPR) to calculate the figure used by the Prime Minister. The figure is therefore a representation of 'social time preference', not a representation of the direct cost to the taxpayer. However, the Prime Minister stated that this is the 'net cost'.
'The Prime Minister has therefore misrepresented the figure by stating that it is a net cost when in reality it is a figure for the social time preference.
'Such discounting in the public sector is intended to allow the costs and benefits of different policies with varying time spans to be compared on a common basis.
'But in this case, it is being used as a statistical sleight of hand to hide the true cost to taxpayers of this surrender deal and appears to be a breach in the code of practice on statistics which states that 'statistics, data and explanatory material should be presented impartially and objectively'.'
He also said Sir Keir should have published the source statistics.
'The Government's failure to publish the statistical methodology therefore appears to be in breach of the code,' he said.
'As the UK Statistics Authority, your role is to promote transparency and accuracy in the use of public data.
'I therefore ask you to investigate whether the Prime Minister's figure follows the code of practice on statistics to make sure that public confidence in public statistics is upheld.'
On Thursday, both Conservatives and Reform UK accused Sir Keir of misleading the public.
Dame Priti Patel, the shadow foreign secretary, said: 'Labour are lying to British taxpayers with their made-up numbers and dodgy accounting, and the true reality of these costs is frightening for all to see.
'We are now bound by treaty to both pay for the indignity of the surrender, and to line Mauritius's own coffers – and the true cost of this 'surrender tax' to the British public now seems set to top an eyewatering £30 billion.'
On Friday, Penny Mordaunt, the former defence secretary, said the deal would help China 's ambitions.
'In atoning for our colonial 'wrongs of the past' Labour have enabled China's colonial future,' she posted online.
'The Chagos Islands 'deal' does not secure the base and it will impact military operations… It restricts where we can place maritime installations such as sensors, it requires we share our defence planning with Mauritius, it raises confusion over who will manage the electromagnetic spectrum.
'In trying to resolve a minor problem in the FCDO's in-tray they have created much greater ones both the immediate and long term.'
Sir Iain Duncan Smith, the former Tory leader, said: 'This is a terrible agreement. Future operations will be in jeopardy and Mauritius will be able to interfere. A weak agreement from a weak government.'
A Downing Street source said the figures had been signed off by the Government Actuary's Department.
'This deal is vital for our security and is opposed only by Russia, China, Iran and the Conservatives,' the source said.