Starmer signs deal with Mauritius to hand over Chagos Islands
Speaking from the UK's military headquarters, the Prime Minister said the base is 'one of the most significant contributions that we make to our security relationship with the United States'.
He added: '£101 million a year is the average cost. The net overall cost is therefore £3.4 billion overall. That's over the 99 years.'
When challenged by journalists that the annual cost he cited would add up to nearer £10 billion over the course of the agreement, the Prime Minister said it was the 'net cost' accounting for inflation over time.
The UK will retain full operational control of Diego Garcia, including the electromagnetic spectrum satellite used for communications which counters hostile interference.
A 24-nautical mile buffer zone will be put in place around the island where nothing can be built or placed without UK consent.
Not agreeing the deal would mean the UK could not prevent China or any other nation setting up their own bases on the outer islands or carrying out joint exercises near Britain's base, Sir Keir said.
'We would have to explain to you, the British people and to our allies, that we'd lost control of this vital asset,' he added.
The agreement had been due to be signed on Thursday morning but was temporarily blocked by an injunction hours before.
High Court judge Mr Justice Goose granted an injunction at 2.25am against the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (FCDO) for 'interim relief' to Bertrice Pompe, one of two British women born on the Chagos Islands who is set to bring legal action against the Government over the deal.
A different judge later said the injunction should be discharged after an urgent hearing.
The last-minute legal challenge was 'in a way…a good thing' because it forced a court to come down conclusively on the side of the Government and clear it to go ahead, Sir Keir said.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Spectator
24 minutes ago
- Spectator
What Lewis Goodall gets wrong about inheritance tax
Do you want to live in a world in which you are forbidden from giving things, such as your time, your money or your labour, to other people? It has become increasingly common in recent years for those on the left of British politics to argue that it is illegitimate for people to receive a gift after someone has died – what we call 'inheritance'. For that is all that 'inheritance' is. A dead person gives you some things and you receive them. On Thursday, clips of Lewis Goodall's LBC show showed him saying people have no right to inherit from their parents and that he'd be happy if inheritance tax were 100 per cent. Abi Wilkinson argued for the same thing a few years ago in the Guardian. The position is that the only legitimate source of income or wealth is work. Money that is 'unearned' (of course it isn't actually unearned, unless it was stolen – it was earned by someone at some point then given to others) is not legitimate. How far does this objection to gifts go? Should people be forbidden from buying a car for their children or supplying the money for a house deposit? May spouses give things to each other? Could I give a friend money to help him set up a business? Can I give money to a charity or a church? Can I give money to my niece to help her with her maintenance costs through university? Can I pay for my son's food and let him live at home if he becomes unemployed? If the answer to all the above is 'yes' – as I suspect Lewis Goodall will say it is – then what is supposed to be different about gifts given upon death? Why does the fact that the giver (perhaps explicitly, through a will) decides to gift things only at the point of death make them any less legitimate than if the same gift were given ten minutes or ten years earlier? As alluded to at the start, if you ban receiving gifts (such as inheritance) you are also banning the making of gifts. Do you want to live in a world in which you are forbidden from giving things (your money; time; or labour) to other people? And of course money is only one kind of gift. We've already mentioned gifts such as cars, housing or food. But I might give someone my labour – for example, by helping paint a mate's garage; or helping my son learn finance by educating him from my own knowledge. People also give others advice and wisdom, or the gift of moral training, or the gift of praise (in Christian Communion services the Eucharist is described as a 'sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving'). If we banned financial gifts, how could we not also ban gifts in kind – especially if the ability to give gifts in kind depended upon the giver's financial circumstances (a rich person might be more able to take a day off work to help paint her friend's garage than a poor person would be)? Many people claim there is an inconsistency here, because those on the left do not typically object to gifts in the form of state benefits or public services. So their opponents say, 'Fine – if gifts are banned then let's ban benefits!' But to be fair to those on the left this point can be easily evaded by saying that benefits and public services aren't gifts. Instead, what happens is that all property – including all the fruits of everyone's labour – is owned collectively. Then 'we' decide how that property is spread out across society. So benefits are actually just like wages – they are the allocation that 'we', through our laws, make and permit. It is only when individuals attempt to subvert that collectively-determined allocation by giving things to other individuals that the problems start. Yet I reject the premise. I own my labour as myself. I am not a slave or intrinsically only a part of a social 'us'. The fruits of that labour are genuinely mine and I, as the genuine moral owner, am entitled to give them to other people. At which point it becomes genuinely theirs and they are entitled in turn to give it to or trade it with others. The fundamental defence of the moral ownership of property, including the moral right to gift that property to others and to receive such gifts myself, is that we own ourselves as individuals. And the fundamental objection to gifting – including to gifting in the form of inheritance – always boils down ultimately to the denial that we own ourselves. Which side are you on?
Daily Record
25 minutes ago
- Daily Record
Breaking ground on a bigger, bolder Clyde Cycle Park for the West of Scotland
Clyde Cycle Park has officially broken ground on the second phase of its transformation, marking an exciting leap forward in its journey to become the leading regional cycling centre in the west of Scotland. The £1.6 million expansion will see the facility grow from a 250m circuit to a full 1km track, which will be six metres wide and built to British/Scottish Cycling specifications. Once complete, the new circuit will allow Clyde Cycle Park to host regional and national level events, while continuing to serve as a vital community asset promoting active travel, inclusive sport and environmental sustainability. Speaking at this week's ceremonial sod-cutting event, John Bachtler, chair of Clyde Cycle Park, said: 'This is a huge milestone for Clyde Cycle Park, enabling us to progress from a local cycling circuit, mainly serving people in Cambuslang and Rutherglen, to a regional cycling facility serving the whole of the west of Scotland.' The project has been made possible through significant support from partners, particularly sportscotland and Scottish Cycling, who have awarded £1 million via the Cycling Facilities Fund (CFF). The £8million CFF was established to build on the growing interest in cycling by developing a network of accessible facilities to encourage people of all ages to ride bikes and enjoy the sport. The fund, administered by sportscotland and Scottish Cycling, has helped to provide accessible community and club facilities that inspire new and existing cyclists to make cycling a sport for life. Financial backing to allow the project to reach last week's milestone includes a £400,000 commitment from South Lanarkshire's allocation of the Vacant and Derelict Land Fund. The new larger circuit will be sustainably floodlit, with renewable floodlights powered by solar panels and wind turbines, and this has been made possible thanks to funding of £97,000 from SSE Renewables and £50,000 from local firm Patersons Quarries. Mr Bachtler added: 'Providing a first-rate cycling circuit will be a huge boost for road-race cycling clubs and the development of the sport. We will also be able to host regional and national events here at the park. We are enormously grateful to sportscotland and South Lanarkshire Council for the funding to realise phase two, and to SSE Renewables and Patersons Quarries to make the floodlighting possible. 'We started on the journey to build Clyde Cycle Park ten years ago, and our progress is a tribute to the hard work and commitment of our management team, our staff and volunteers, our board members and many others in the community and the cycling world. 'But we are not resting on our laurels. We already have plans to extend the circuit further under phase three, to build a cyclocross (CX) circuit and facilities for bike trials as well as for other sports like roller skiing. We look forward to working with our partners on these ambitious plans for the future.' This week's event was attended by Rutherglen MP Michael Shanks, the town's MSP Clare Haughey MSP and Central Scotland MSP Graham Simpson MSP. They were joined by South Lanarkshire councillors Robert Brown, Maureen Devlin, Norman Rae, Margaret Walker and Kirsten Robb, as well as senior officials from sportscotland, Scottish Cycling and South Lanarkshire Council, plus board members of Clyde Cycle Park. Chief executive of sportscotland, Forbes Dunlop, said: 'I'd like to congratulate everyone involved in the Clyde Cycle Park project on another significant milestone. We know the sector is facing many challenges so to see this level of investment in a new facility is hugely encouraging. 'The Cycling Facilities Fund has succeeded in changing the cycling infrastructure in Scotland and that would not have been achieved without the hard work of local partners like everyone involved in Clyde Cycle Park.' Nick Rennie, chief executive of Scottish Cycling, added: 'This is a huge moment for cycling in Scotland, as Clyde Cycle Park will form the cornerstone of activity in the West of Scotland. From hosting regular racing and National Championships, to being the perfect hub for coaching and club activity, as well as providing a safe, closed-road circuit for people new to the sport, it really will be a transformational facility. 'I'd like to place on record my thanks and congratulations to everyone involved who has helped bring phase two of this project to life, and can't wait to return and see it buzzing with cyclists next year.' South Lanarkshire Council's chair of Community and Enterprise Resources, Robert Brown, said: 'The passion and interest in cycling has grown rapidly in recent years so I am delighted that the council has been able to assist financially to ensure the cycle park can expand in such an exciting way. 'The Clyde Cycle Park programme is contributing to the council's Sustainable Development and Climate Change Strategy, providing community-led projects encouraging local changes in attitude and behaviour towards cycling, building confidence, improving health, promoting physical activity and sustainable transport. 'With this major expansion of these facilities, it will not only become a focus for cycling at a regional and national level, drawing athletes from all levels to take part using first class facilities, but will also be a significant community asset, not least for young people.' Clyde Cycle Park isn't just about sport – it's about people. In 2024 alone, over 3000 individuals from across Cambuslang, Rutherglen and beyond took part in cycling courses and community activities at the facility. An impressive 59 per cent of park users were female, and activities reached a wide demographic including disabled groups, care home residents, primary and secondary school pupils, elderly groups and ethnically-diverse communities across South Lanarkshire and Glasgow. Local MP and UK Government Minister, Michael Shanks, said: 'It's a real pleasure to be back at Clyde Cycle Park to celebrate the groundbreaking of phase two of this fantastic project. 'Since its opening, the park has become a real asset to the local community, offering people of all ages the opportunity to develop new skills, enjoy the outdoors and build confidence through cycling. I'm particularly impressed by the work the team has done to make the park accessible and inclusive from the start, enabling people of all ages and abilities to get cycling, sometimes for the very first time. 'It's great to see sustainability built into the plans for phase two, with renewable energy powering the new floodlights. This approach not only reduces environmental impact but also sets a positive example for future community projects. 'Having been involved in previous fundraising efforts for the park, I know just how much hard work has gone into reaching this point, and it's clear that the next phase will build on that success even further.' Local MSP Clare Haughey said: 'Such a pleasure to join the Clyde Cycle Park groundbreaking ceremony for phase two of their project. "Many congratulations to all the staff and volunteers who run the many activities there already making cycling accessible for all. And a special thanks to everyone who has brought this fantastic site into being. A real asset for everyone in Cambuslang and beyond.' Carol Thompson, secretary of Clyde Cycle Park said: 'I first got involved with the park in early 2023 employed as project coordinator and have seen the park grow each year, We've enabled people to cycle who hadn't been able to before – and they love it so much they keep coming back. It's not just about bikes – it's gardening, skating, art, volunteering, and belonging.' With summer programmes for children and families already in full swing – and recent successes like the Bikes Without Borders initiative – Phase 2 will build on this momentum. By tripling the park's capacity, Clyde Cycle Park will offer parallel coaching sessions, host major events and serve as a testbed for green technology including solar-powered lighting and e-bike charging stations. Lindsay Dougan, community investment manager at SSE Renewables, said: 'Our joint venture Clyde Wind Farm (Scotland) Ltd is looking forward to work in partnership with Clyde Cycle Park. The Park is implementing an innovative low carbon lighting solution which will not only extend the safe use of the Park but will also be a model which can be replicated by communities across Scotland.' Key features of Phase Two: ■ 1km of new closed circuit, 6m wide, built to British/Scottish Cycling standards ■ Constructed on a remediated brownfield site – contributing to local regeneration ■ Solar and wind-powered lighting planned – pioneering sustainable infrastructure ■ Community hub with multisport use: cycling, skating, gardening, running, and more ■ Targeting inclusive access – regardless of age, ability, income or background Key statistics from 2024-25 ■ 59 per cent female participation ■ Participants of all ages – toddlers to care home residents ■ Adaptive bikes for ASN school bases and disability groups ■ Diverse community served – including Scottish/British, African, Asian, and European heritages ■ Strong community focus in Cambuslang / Rutherglen but reach extends across Glasgow and the west to Lanark, Bishopbriggs, Clydebank and Paisley ■ 3000+ attendees at events, courses and programmes over the past two years
Times
25 minutes ago
- Times
Rising food prices mean hefty obesity costs
Stung by the price of olive oil? Burnt by the cost of your coffee? You are not alone. The cost of food and drink is increasing fast, faster than prices in general. This is a bigger problem, politically, socially and economically, than any politician has yet noticed. The government in particular should be paying attention to food bills, and taking action. The Office for National Statistics this week put the annual inflation rate at 3.8 per cent, but also showed that food and drink prices are rising at 4.9 per cent. The average household spends a bit more than £5,000 annually on food, so those numbers add up to about £250 a year. ONS tracking of public opinion shows that the cost of living remains the number one concern for the public, with more than 90 per cent of people citing rising food bills as a reason — well above the share who cite energy bills as an inflationary worry. Being reminded that things are getting more expensive — meaning that you feel poorer — every time you fill your shopping basket is not a happy experience. Food prices rising faster than the cost of other purchases has been a dismally common feature of the UK economy since 2022, for several reasons: war in Ukraine; too much rain; not enough rain; higher energy costs; not enough migrant workers to pick fruit and veg; higher taxes. The public's daily dismay at food prices, I'd bet, is a bigger reason for Britain feeling generally dissatisfied than noisier issues like immigration or crime. Yet it gets curiously little political attention, given how much it matters to voters' lives and outlook. Labour's spin team should give more thought to finding someone else to blame for rising food bills, not least because the problem is going to get worse. The Bank of England reckons food inflation will hit 5.5 per cent by the end of the year, while the British Retail Consortium says 6 per cent. Get ready for a winter of headlines about the painful cost of your Christmas lunch. Looking further ahead, the problem is even worse, reaching beyond simple political unease into questions of fairness, public health and economic performance. Rising food prices affect some groups more than others, with the poorest facing both the greatest financial pain but also the worst long-term consequences. The worst of these is rising obesity levels. Perhaps that will surprise some readers. How do rising food prices make poor people fat? Surely if it's getting harder to buy food, people will eat less of it and get thinner? In fact, a wealth of evidence shows that when low-income households face rising food prices, they trade quality for quantity, buying more cheap foods that are high in calories but low in nutrients. Social scientists grandly call this the 'food insecurity obesity paradox' but it's arguably just the human version of a common animal instinct to put on fat when times are tough and a hard winter is coming. • From peanuts to pomegranates — the 19 foods that will keep you young Almost a third of UK adults are obese, with rates highest among the poorest. There are many links between obesity and poverty but raw economics is a significant factor. According to the Food Foundation, a campaigning charity founded by former Tory MP Laura Sandys, recent years of inflation have made it almost impossible for poorer people to eat healthily. The foundation reckons that the poorest households would need to spend almost half of their disposable income on food to afford a healthy diet high in fruit and veg with limited sugars and fats. For poor parents, a healthy grocery shop could cost 70 per cent of disposable income. Healthier foods are just more expensive per calorie than stuff that's full of sugar and fat. Government calculations show that cauliflower and broccoli might cost almost 2p per calorie; for cheap biscuits it's less than half as much. Obesity means more sickness — diabetes and heart disease, in particular — and shorter lives. It means misery for individuals and mounting costs to taxpayers. My back-of-an-envelope calculations suggest that just a one percentage point increase in the obesity rate (roughly 550,000 more people getting too fat) costs the state more than £3 billion over ten years in higher NHS and care costs. We must make good food cheaper for poorer people, but that's far easier said than done. Continuing education to overcome ignorance about nutrition helps but new ideas are needed. What about Nutrition Impact Bonds? Building on NHS 'social prescribing' models, public and private investors could pay upfront for subsidised or even free healthy food for poorer households, then be paid back from the savings the state makes from lower obesity spending. The causes of higher food prices are big, complicated and long-term. Likewise the public health challenge of obesity and poor diets. It follows that fixing them will be a long-term project, the sort of job that no government, especially an unpopular one worrying about its next election, rushes to tackle. • Eating home-cooked food 'helps you lose twice as much weight' But Labour should lift food prices and obesity up its agenda, because they interact with the government's emerging economic focus. Ministers are planning an autumn drive on productivity, correctly identifying Britain's basic economic effectiveness — how much stuff do we generate from each hour of work we do? — as a national priority. Helping business to finance and deploy technology and training to make workers more effective is a key part of productivity, but so too is ensuring the availability of a healthy workforce. And our fatter, sicker population is emerging as a drag on productivity, as more and more people go off sick or leave work outright. Last month a paper by Nesta, a think tank, and Frontier Economics put the cost of productivity lost to obesity at £31 billion a year. The study shows that obesity doesn't just drag on the economy by taking people out of the workforce through sickness. Boldly, it says that obese people just aren't as effective at work as healthy colleagues and cost the economy almost £10 billion a year, it estimates. The government rightly wants to increase productivity but the fact is that Britain is simply too fat and ill to be fully productive. And in large part that's because of bad and increasingly expensive diets. Sadly, the cost of food is even higher than you think. James Kirkup is a senior fellow of the Social Market Foundation
