Labour’s Overseas Territories Minister, Steve Doughty, faced a bruising appearance before the Foreign Affairs Select Committee today, as he attempted to defend the government’s contentious deal to cede control of the Chagos Islands to Mauritius, a move critics have dubbed the “Chagos surrender.”
Doughty opened his remarks by congratulating the Labour government for its supposed transparency, claiming the deal’s financial breakdown had been made public in a break from usual protocol.
“It’s not normal to provide the costings,” Doughty told MPs, “but in this case we have decided to, for the benefit of transparency… the government green book methodology has been used over all of this… it averages out at £101 million per year.”
However, within moments, Doughty was unable, or unwilling, to answer a basic follow-up question: how the £30.3 billion total cost would be split between the Ministry of Defence (MoD) and the Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office (FCDO).
“So there will be a share between the two departments,” Doughty stammered, “but I’m not able to give that at this stage.”
So much, it seems, for transparency.
Observers were quick to point out that the timing and tone of Doughty’s self-congratulation, mere seconds before evading questions on cost breakdown, was indicative of the wider obfuscation that has dogged Labour’s handling of the Chagos matter. Despite Labour’s attempt to frame the agreement as a pragmatic geopolitical move, the financial realities paint a different picture.
Doughty attempted to downplay the eye-watering bill with some rhetorical sleight of hand:
“Even if the MoD was paying the full amount here – which it isn’t – it’s just a fraction of 1% of the total annual defence budget… The value to us of this facility is… quite frankly priceless.”
Critics were quick to seize on the irony of Doughty calling the deal “priceless”, given the billions in taxpayer money being committed without public debate or clear accountability. Many also questioned whether British strategic interests have been sacrificed in favour of political optics.
Meanwhile, sources close to the Great British PAC confirmed that a Judicial Review challenge is being prepared to contest the legality of Labour leader Keir Starmer’s signing of the deal. Legal experts are reportedly exploring whether constitutional or procedural breaches occurred in the rushed agreement. The question is will MPs ratify the deal in Parliament if it is proven to be unlawful?
As further scrutiny mounts over the deal’s secrecy and scale, many are left wondering whether Labour’s grand gestures on the world stage are masking a concerning lack of due diligence at home.
Watch this space.
