Latest news with #BritishIndianOceanTerritory
Telegraph
5 minutes ago
- Business
- Telegraph
Revealed: Chagos deal to cost 10 times what Starmer claimed
Sir Keir Starmer's Chagos Islands deal will be 10 times more expensive than he has claimed, official figures reveal. The Government's own estimate of the cost of giving away the British Indian Ocean Territory to Mauritius is almost £35bn, according to documents released under the Freedom of Information Act – far higher than the £3.4bn figure Sir Keir has previously used in public. Labour ministers now face claims that they misled Parliament and the press with an 'accountancy trick' to hide the size of the bill from taxpayers. Under the terms of Sir Keir's deal, the UK will give up the Chagos Islands by the end of this year and lease back the Diego Garcia military base, a facility built there in the 1970s that has been used by UK and US forces. The cost of the agreement has been fiercely disputed. Sir Keir claimed in May that it would cost £3.4bn over 99 years, accounting for inflation and other discounts, but the Conservatives said it would total £30bn. An official document produced by the Government Actuary's Department shows the cost of the deal was first estimated at 10 times Sir Keir's figure, at £34.7bn, in nominal terms. It explains how the cost was lowered by the Government using inflation estimates, then reduced again under a controversial accounting method sometimes used by the Government for long-term projects. The total cost, which ministers refused to release to Parliament, is equivalent to 10 Queen Elizabeth-class aircraft carriers, or more than half the annual schools' budget. Sir Keir now faces accusations that he misled Parliament, because he told MPs in February that cost estimates between £9bn and £18bn were 'absolutely wide of the mark' and suggested the true figure was lower. The document shows that civil servants were first instructed to lower the cost of the deal on paper to £10bn, to account for an estimated annual inflation rate of 2.3 per cent over 99 years. Then it was reduced again by between 2.5 and 3.5 per cent per year using the Treasury's Social Time Preference Rate, a principle that money spent immediately is more value than funds earmarked for future spending. The final figure was calculated to be 90 per cent lower than the cash value of the payments the UK will make to Mauritius over the next century, in what critics say was a deliberate attempt to mislead the public. Writing for The Telegraph (read the article below), Dame Priti Patel, the shadow foreign secretary, said: 'Instead of owning up to the costs, Labour have used an accountancy trick to claim the amount was only a mere £3.4bn. 'We've all known it's a terrible deal with huge costs to hard-pressed British taxpayers. But for months, ministers in public and Parliament have sought to cover up the true amounts.' Foreign Office sources insisted ministers had used a 'standard' calculation for long-term government spending, and denied accusations that it was part of a 'cover-up'. However, other projects announced by Labour have not used the same method, which has allowed ministers to advertise higher spending on popular policies. Angela Rayner has since launched a 10-year affordable homes plan that included inflation-level increases in government spending as part of the cost of the policy – a method not used with the Chagos deal. The calculations behind the deal were revealed in response to a freedom of information request submitted by the Conservatives. MPs have previously requested the document in Parliament but ministers have refused to release it, in an apparent breach of government transparency rules. Darren Jones, a Treasury minister, said in June that it was 'not normal practice' for the Government to release 'corresponding financial analysis' alongside policy announcements. Official guidance by the Cabinet Office says any information subject to FOI should also be released to MPs, while the ministerial code states that departments 'should be as open as possible with Parliament and the public'. Dame Priti is expected to demand a correction and apology over the 'cover-up' from Sir Keir when MPs return from their summer break on Sept 1. Kemi Badenoch, the Tory leader, said: 'It's bad enough that Starmer and Reeves' economic mismanagement has created a £50bn black hole in the public finances, prolonging the cost of living crisis. 'Now our research has uncovered the Government's own figures showing Labour's Chagos surrender is costing the country another £35 billion. Add that to their £50 billion black hole, and it's clear – when Labour negotiates, Britain loses.' A Government spokesman said: 'The Diego Garcia military base is essential to the security of the UK and our key allies, and to keeping British people safe. 'The average cost is £101 million per year, and the net present value of payments is £3.4 billion – this is less than 0.2 per cent of the annual defence budget. 'The deal is supported by our closest allies, including the US, Canada, Australia and Nato. The costs compare favourably with other international base agreements, and the UK-US base on Diego Garcia is larger, in a more strategic location and has unparalleled operational freedom.' Starmer has been caught red-handed lying to the public Keir Starmer and David Lammy have been caught red-handed lying to the British public over the costs of Labour's Chagos surrender deal, writes Dame Priti Patel. This pair of diplomatic dunces have left Britain humiliated, weak, and the laughing stock of the international community. We've all known it's a terrible deal with huge costs to hard-pressed British taxpayers. But for months, ministers in public and Parliament have sought to cover up the true amounts. Even when the treaty was published and we could see the payments schedule, Labour tried to pull the wool over our eyes and deny the costs. When it was asked questions about the cash payments over the 99 years of the deal, it refused to answer. And when reports suggested the cost of the deal could be from £9 billion to £18 billion, Starmer claimed this was 'absolutely wide of the mark' whilst the Foreign Office tried to claim it was 'entirely inaccurate and misleading'. In fact, instead of owning up to the costs, Labour has used an accountancy trick to claim the amount was only £3.4bn – still a vast waste of money. But now we know the costly truth, having dragged the figures out of Government, kicking and screaming, through a freedom of information request. It's an mind-blowing £35bn. That's almost double the entire annual policing budget. Ten brand new aircraft carriers, 70 hospitals or a 5 per cent income tax cut. New prison places to lock up criminals, funding for social care, and millions upon millions of potholes could be fixed, with the £17bn local highways maintenance backlog covered twice ever. The list goes on. Every single Labour minister is complicit in this cover-up. Instead of paying for front line services in Britain and reducing our tax burden, these payments have lead to Mauritius being able to pay down its debt, cut income tax and slash VAT. Just think, as Rachel Reeves plots tax rises in the autumn to cover her catastrophic financial mismanagement, Labour is forcing you to pay for tax cuts in a foreign country. Is it any wonder the Mauritian prime minister has been bragging about how he secured concession after concession from Labour? From more money up front to the removal of a unilateral right to renew the proposed lease on Diego Garcia to the exercise of sovereign rights over the crucial military base, time and time again Britain backed down in negotiations. It's not just Starmer and 'Calamity' Lammy who are to blame for this diplomatic humiliation. Starmer's friend Lord Hermer, the Attorney General, and Jonathan Powell – Tony Blair's top advisor during the last Labour government's dodgy dossier scandal – have both been involved in these negotiations. They must be the worst team of negotiators in history. And it gets worse. Labour has manipulated parliamentary process to deny the House of Commons a meaningful debate and vote. So frightened are they of democracy that they have wilfully misled Parliament and ignored long-standing parliamentary conventions on holding debates and votes on treaties. The scale of the financial cost is bad enough, but Labour's Chagos surrender deal has profound and serious consequences for our national security and defence. This isn't just about paying for the privilege of something we owned last month. This is a critical strategic asset. In a world that is becoming increasingly dangerous, giving away a military base to a friend of our enemies is a supreme act of self-harm. Under the terms of the treaty, we need to disclose key information to Mauritius about the movements of UK, US and our allies' vessels and aircraft around Diego Garcia, and any military strikes we take from there. This is deeply concerning as, in recent years, Mauritius has grown closer to our key strategic threats – China, Russia and Iran – forging new partnerships, including one with Russia just days before the treaty was signed in May. This means that sensitive information risks being handed over to a friend of our enemies. Again, rather than facing up to the truth of what they are doing to our national interest, Labour ministers, including the Prime Minister himself, attempt to baselessly lie their way out of it. Starmer has tried to claim China, Russia and Iran were against the deal and it was necessary for our national security. That could not be further from the truth. China has welcomed the treaty since it was signed, while Iran and Russia have issued supportive statements towards Mauritius securing sovereignty over the Chagos Islands. Senior Mauritian officials have also publicly thanked China and Putin for their support. Starmer and Lammy must think the British public are gullible to swallow their lies. But we all know the truth. Labour has recklessly undermined our national security just because it wants to appease the whims and demands of its Left-wing lawyer and activist friends, and non-binding opinions issued by obscure international bodies few in Britain have heard of. As a result of Labour's stupidity, lies and incompetence, British taxpayers face a huge £35bn cost, our national security and defence capabilities have been damaged, and it has undermined our standing in the world. When Labour negotiates, Britain loses, and friend and foe alike have seen how feeble Labour is at negotiations over the Chagos Islands and will take advantage of us for years to come. Today, it has become all the clearer why Labour's Chagos surrender deal must be ripped up and consigned to the rubbish bin of history – and that Starmer and Lammy are incapable of understanding, let alone defending, the British national interest. Throughout this whole sorry saga, it is only the Conservative Party that has been fighting against Labour's Chagos surrender. We've challenged the Government in Parliament and in the public to the point where ministers are complaining about the pressure we're putting them under. And we'll keep on exposing Labour's lies and failures as we do all we can to oppose this deal, stand up for hard-pressed British taxpayers and fight for our national interests to be put first.
The Independent
02-07-2025
- Politics
- The Independent
Labour urged to ‘have courage' to trigger vote on Chagos deal
Dame Priti Patel has urged ministers to 'have the courage' to trigger a vote on the Chagos Islands deal. The Government won a vote in the Lords on Monday, when 205 peers struck down a Tory bid to reject the treaty which cedes control of the archipelago to Mauritius. But the Conservative Party's shadow foreign secretary Dame Priti has called for a similar vote in the Commons. 'With the 21-day Crag (Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010) process about to conclude, it is a disgrace that Labour have breached the parliamentary conventions and denied this House a meaningful debate and vote on ratification,' she told MPs. To accompany the treaty, MPs will need to sign off on a Bill to wind up the current governance of the British Indian Ocean Territory (BIOT). The treaty will only come into force once the legislation is 'in place', according to the Government. Dame Priti added: 'Having a vote on the Bill is not the same as voting on the treaty under Crag. Earlier this week, the House of Lords – the other place – had a debate and vote where the Lib Dems sided with Labour in backing this £30 billion surrender treaty, which is subsidising tax cuts in Mauritius. 'So, why can't we have a debate and vote in this House? What are ministers afraid of? 'Are they afraid that their backbenchers, now worried about benefit cuts and the impact of unpopular tax rises, will question why so much money is being handed over for a territory that we own and force them into another embarrassing U-turn?' Dame Priti urged ministers to 'scrap this treaty or at least have the courage to bring it here for a proper debate, full scrutiny, and finally, a vote in this House'. Treaties are laid before Parliament before they are ratified, but there is no requirement for a debate or vote. Peers in their vote, which Conservative shadow Foreign Office minister Lord Callanan triggered, agreed not to reject the treaty by 205 votes to 185, majority 20. Responding, Stephen Doughty told the Commons he was 'disappointed by the tone' of Dame Priti's comments. 'I don't know who writes this stuff,' the Foreign Office minister said. 'I don't know whether it's just performative politics or rhetoric, I don't know what. 'But I should point out that I have received and answered over 100 written parliamentary questions from (Dame Priti), I've answered over 250 questions on this deal and the process in total. 'We've had no less than six urgent questions in this House. We have had two statements from this Government by the Foreign Secretary (David Lammy) and the Defence Secretary (John Healey). 'I personally briefed (Dame Priti) and answered many of her questions in my office just a couple of weeks ago in good faith and in detail, and indeed, I was subjected – quite rightly – to robust scrutiny not only from the Foreign Affairs Committee of this House, but also from the International Relations and Defence Committee in the other House, and indeed the International Arrangements Committee in great detail on these issues.' Mr Doughty said a Bill would follow 'in due course' but added the deal with Mauritius, presented to Parliament in May, 'secures' the UK-US military base on Diego Garcia, 'secures our national security and that of our allies'.
Yahoo
02-07-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Labour urged to ‘have courage' to trigger vote on Chagos deal
Dame Priti Patel has urged ministers to 'have the courage' to trigger a vote on the Chagos Islands deal. The Government won a vote in the Lords on Monday, when 205 peers struck down a Tory bid to reject the treaty which cedes control of the archipelago to Mauritius. But the Conservative Party's shadow foreign secretary Dame Priti has called for a similar vote in the Commons. 'With the 21-day Crag (Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010) process about to conclude, it is a disgrace that Labour have breached the parliamentary conventions and denied this House a meaningful debate and vote on ratification,' she told MPs. To accompany the treaty, MPs will need to sign off on a Bill to wind up the current governance of the British Indian Ocean Territory (BIOT). The treaty will only come into force once the legislation is 'in place', according to the Government. Yesterday dozens of Chagossians came to Parliament to tell us how they feel let down, neglected and betrayed by Labour's £30bn Chagos Surrender Treaty. Labour are denying them their rights and blocking the House of Commons from a meaningful debate and vote! @CllrABClarkson — Priti Patel MP (@pritipatel) July 1, 2025 Dame Priti added: 'Having a vote on the Bill is not the same as voting on the treaty under Crag. Earlier this week, the House of Lords – the other place – had a debate and vote where the Lib Dems sided with Labour in backing this £30 billion surrender treaty, which is subsidising tax cuts in Mauritius. 'So, why can't we have a debate and vote in this House? What are ministers afraid of? 'Are they afraid that their backbenchers, now worried about benefit cuts and the impact of unpopular tax rises, will question why so much money is being handed over for a territory that we own and force them into another embarrassing U-turn?' Dame Priti urged ministers to 'scrap this treaty or at least have the courage to bring it here for a proper debate, full scrutiny, and finally, a vote in this House'. Treaties are laid before Parliament before they are ratified, but there is no requirement for a debate or vote. Peers in their vote, which Conservative shadow Foreign Office minister Lord Callanan triggered, agreed not to reject the treaty by 205 votes to 185, majority 20. Responding, Stephen Doughty told the Commons he was 'disappointed by the tone' of Dame Priti's comments. 'I don't know who writes this stuff,' the Foreign Office minister said. 'I don't know whether it's just performative politics or rhetoric, I don't know what. 'But I should point out that I have received and answered over 100 written parliamentary questions from (Dame Priti), I've answered over 250 questions on this deal and the process in total. 'We've had no less than six urgent questions in this House. We have had two statements from this Government by the Foreign Secretary (David Lammy) and the Defence Secretary (John Healey). 'I personally briefed (Dame Priti) and answered many of her questions in my office just a couple of weeks ago in good faith and in detail, and indeed, I was subjected – quite rightly – to robust scrutiny not only from the Foreign Affairs Committee of this House, but also from the International Relations and Defence Committee in the other House, and indeed the International Arrangements Committee in great detail on these issues.' Mr Doughty said a Bill would follow 'in due course' but added the deal with Mauritius, presented to Parliament in May, 'secures' the UK-US military base on Diego Garcia, 'secures our national security and that of our allies'.
Telegraph
02-06-2025
- Business
- Telegraph
Tory peers in last-ditch attempt to block Chagos Islands giveaway
Conservative peers have launched a last-ditch attempt to stop Sir Keir Starmer from giving the Chagos Islands to Mauritius. Tories in the Lords have put forward a fatal motion to block the Chagos Islands treaty signed by Sir Keir last month. The deal will give up British sovereignty over the archipelago, known in the UK as the British Indian Ocean Territory, and see the UK pay Mauritius £30 billion over 99 years. Lord Callanan, the shadow foreign minister in the Lords, put forward a motion demanding that the Government 'should not ratify the agreement', citing cost and security concerns. The peer told The Telegraph: 'Spooked by a last minute legal fight, the Government's unnecessary political decision to sign away our sovereignty over the Chagos Islands will cost the British taxpayer £30 billion and put our strategic defence interests at risk. 'Taxpayers and businesses have already been hit hard by Labour's vindictive tax rises, and pensioners have been left cold from the cruel winter fuel payment cut. This Chagos sellout shows Labour's true priorities. That is why Conservatives are leading the fight against this shameful surrender deal in the House of Lords.' The Lords motion cites 'concerns about the cost of the agreement, the absence of any legal requirement to conclude such an agreement, its impact on international security, the lack of any meaningful consultation of the Chagossian people, and recognising the right of Chagossians to be registered as British Overseas Territory citizens under the Nationality and Borders Act 2022'. If a subsequent vote passes, the Government could be forced to make a statement in the Commons to explain why it is ignoring the upper chamber. It is the first time a Lords front bench has sought to use the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act, passed in 2010, to block a treaty. A fatal motion, if passed, halts the process of the legislation, and the Government would ordinarily have to start again. But in the case of the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act, a minister can choose to override the Lords by making a statement in the Commons. Meanwhile, Misley Mandarin, a British Chagossian, is being supported by the Great British PAC, a conservative movement headed by Ben Habib, the former Reform deputy leader, to take legal action against the Government. The organisation said it had raised enough money to launch a review and cover legal fees, but is seeking another £20,000 to underwrite the case. Mr Mandarin said: 'We were evicted from our homeland by a past Labour government. Now the current Labour Government is doing something even worse – stripping us of our right to self-determination.' Mr Habib said: 'This is not just a treaty, it's a national betrayal, done behind closed doors and without a democratic mandate. But it's not too late to stop it. This is a test of whether our Government is accountable to the law, and whether Parliament has the facts to do the right thing'. The Government's announcement of the Chagos Islands deal was temporarily delayed after a legal challenge was launched by Beatrice Pompe, a Chagossian. But the last-minute bid was dismissed by the High Court, allowing Sir Keir to sign the agreement and announce that a deal had been done. Last week, China welcomed the agreement as a 'massive achievement', despite the Prime Minister having claimed that Beijing had opposed it. Beijing's ambassador to Mauritius confirmed that the nation would soon join Beijing's Belt and Road initiative.
Telegraph
22-05-2025
- Politics
- Telegraph
Shame on Starmer for his spineless betrayal of the Chaggosians
On Tuesday, Labour looked as though it might pull itself together. Aware that paying Mauritius while simultaneously cutting the winter fuel allowance was what political strategists call 'bad optics', it had put the surrender of the British Indian Ocean Territory on hold. The Mauritian government had given it plenty of excuses, constantly demanding more cash to take on a territory over which it had never exercised sovereignty, and for which it had already been paid a tidy sum in exchange for renouncing its claim. Might Labour come to its senses and scrap the whole deal? In the event, Sir Keir Starmer could not bring himself to question the supremacy of international lawyers. Rather than cancelling the Chagos surrender, he cancelled the attempt to trim our unaffordable benefits system. Taxpayers are being rinsed twice over. Commentators struggle to explain Labour's determination to hand the Chagos archipelago to a country more than 1,300 miles away. Mauritius will now be free to fish in the archipelago's protected waters, to build resorts on the outer atolls, to lease other islands in the chain to unfriendly powers. Incredibly, Starmer agreed to hand over tens of billions of pounds into the bargain, surely the most needless and humiliating capitulation since – well, since Monday, when he agreed to pay the EU for the privilege of giving it control over British regulations. What puzzled commentators miss, I think, is the almost religious power that the movement known as 'decolonise' has over human rights KCs like Starmer – especially when linked to appeals to international law. Wokesters dislike flags with Union Jacks in the corner. Their 'decolonise' imperative trumps strategic concerns (Mauritius revived its claims in earnest only when China became interested); economic concerns (why pay for the privilege of surrendering territory?); political concerns (every Labour tax rise will now be howled down as 'money for Mauritius'); and legal concerns (Britain only accepted the jurisdiction of the international court on the basis that it had no jurisdiction over disputes with other Commonwealth states). For the Doughty Street/Matrix Chambers nexus that appears to run Labour, framing is everything. Here, in their minds, was a quarrel between a colonial power and a former colony, between a largely white population and a largely non-white one, between a rich country and a poor, between virtuous human rights lawyers and dyspeptic retired colonels. But that framing is false. It ignores the truly wronged party, namely the indigenous Chagossians, removed from the archipelago by the then Labour Government in the late 1960s to make room for the air base on Diego Garcia. The largest concentration of Chagossians is in Crawley, in what used to be my Euro-constituency. They were a diverse bunch, with lots of views about what they ultimately wanted. But one thing united almost all of them: they did not want to be Mauritians. Several had come to Britain via Mauritius, where they complained of racism and discrimination. The surrender deal spurred them into holding protests around the country. I spoke to more than 500 at a rally in Hackney – by far the largest assembly of Chagossians I have seen in one place. There were protests outside Parliament and the Foreign Office. Indeed, the signing was held up by a last-minute legal challenge from Bertrice Pompe, who was removed from Diego Garcia when she was six, and who argued that being handed over to Mauritius was a breach of her and her community's rights. All to no avail, alas. For the student activists who run our country, withdrawing from British territory is all that matters. Shame on them. And shame on us for letting them get away with it.
