Ministers face fury of MPs over Chagos Islands sovereignty 'surrender'

Ministers are braced for the fury of MPs today amid a rising backlash at handing over sovereignty of the Chagos Islands. 

Foreign Secretary David Lammy is expected to make a statement in the Commons over the controversial move to hand control of the British territory to Mauritius.

Tories have complained that Keir Starmer is doing 'completely the wrong thing', with the US also alarmed that China could get a new foothold in the region.

The government has also been scrambling to ease fears that the concession will help fuel Argentina's demands for the Falklands.

Keir Starmer trumpeted an agreement with Mauritius on Thursday, after years of negotiation over the future of the Indian Ocean islands. 

He insisted the pact secured the rights of the UK and US to operate the military base at Diego Garcia - the largest island in the archipelago - for at least the next 99 years. 

The Foreign Office argued that the status of the base - which hosts navy ships and long-range bomber aircraft - will now be undisputed.

However, the UK will pay a regular annual sum of money - yet to be disclosed - during the agreement and there will be funding for Chagossians. 

The United Nations' highest court, the International Court of Justice, had previously ruled the UK's administration of the Indian Ocean territory was 'unlawful' and must end. But critics pointed out that it has no enforcement powers.

Former prime minister Boris Johnson described the government's decision as 'sheer political correctness'.

He told GB News: 'Why are we doing this? Sheer political correctness, a desire to look like the good guys, the desire to look as they were unbundling the last relics of our empire. It's nonsense.

'It's a bad idea in hard geopolitical terms because the (military) base in Diego Garcia is, I'm sure you know … of huge strategic importance for the US, for the West, and it's a key component of the Anglo-American alliance.

'It's one of the things we bring to the table and has been for decades, that base.

'Why are we trading away our sovereignty over Chagos? Completely the wrong thing to do.'

As part of the agreement, the UK and US will maintain a military presence on Diego Garcia for 99 years, with an option to renew.

Shadow foreign secretary Andrew Mitchell suggested there is a question mark over 'Chinese encroachment' into the archipelago which MPs must probe in the Commons.

He told Sky News's Sunday Morning With Trevor Phillips programme: 'This is definitely – from what we have seen – not the deal the last Conservative government would have done.'

Pressed on the Tories' role in starting the Chagos talks in 2022, Mr Mitchell replied: 'Starting the negotiations is not the same as concluding them, and from what I've seen this is definitely not a deal either (former foreign secretaries) David Cameron or indeed James Cleverly would have done, and we need to see the terms that they're offering.

'We need to know about what protection there is against Chinese encroachment into the archipelago, we need to know what money is being provided by the British taxpayer. We need to probe the terms of the lease.'

Mr Mitchell added: 'And we need to do all those things, and the right place to do them is in the House of Commons, and His Majesty's Opposition will put down tomorrow (Monday) an urgent question in the House of Commons if there isn't a statement from the Government so that we can probe the terms of this.

'But from what we have seen so far – and, by the way, it should've been announced in the House of Commons, which is the right place to do these things – from what we've seen so far, this looks like a bad deal for Britain.'

Labour's Stephen Doughty, the Foreign Office minister responsible for the Overseas Territories, dismissed the idea that the Falklands Islands could be next.

But he has not yet said how much the Chagos deal will cost British taxpayers.

'Full details will be set out in due course,' he has previously said.

'We inherited a completely unsustainable situation, and we're confident that we've achieved a deal here that's both legally sustainable, that reaches a settlement that's financially sustainable and, crucially, protects the national security interests of this country, and indeed our allies.'