|
<<
Back to News & Features
Here is the
transcript of the adjournment debate which was secured by Crispin Blunt MP, and took place on 3rd November 2004.
Diego Garcia
4.30 pm
Mr. Crispin Blunt (Reigate) (Con): I see this debate not in isolation but
as part of Parliament's role in the continuing unhappy and shaming saga of our
country's treatment of a small group of its subjects and their descendants,
namely, the Chagos islanders, who are drawn principally from Diego Garcia, the
largest island in the chain.
I use the term
"subjects" advisedly. Although it implies a rather unfashionable view
of the relationship between the people and their sovereign, I am entirely clear
that my sovereign—in practice, her Government—owes her subjects a profound
duty of care. That duty of care is cast as a sacred trust on a sovereign power
to promote the welfare and advancement of the people under article 73 of the
United Nations charter, but our Government have shamefully and disgracefully
honoured it over four decades, and mainly in the breach, in the case of the
Chagos islands.
In coming to an understanding
of this issue—embarrassingly late, given my service as a special adviser in
the Foreign and Commonwealth Office—and in raising it on behalf of my
constituents, who are now being invited to pay the nation's price, I am still
astonished that a liberal democracy in the early 21st century continues to
behave in a shabby manner towards its subjects.
I pay tribute to the hon.
Member for Islington, North (Jeremy Corbyn) for his work on the issue and for
raising it in the Chamber on 7 July. I also pay tribute to the Father of the
House, whose work over four decades on behalf of these unfortunate people is an
example to us all.
My remarks should be seen in
the context of the debate on 7 July, which focused on the Orders in Council,
promulgated on European and local election day on 10 June, which prevented the
right of return to the islands as lawfully established four years earlier in a
British court. In pursuing the matter, I am in complete harness with my hon.
Friends the Members for East Surrey (Mr. Ainsworth) and for Epsom and Ewell
(Chris Grayling) in that we all represent council tax payers of the borough of
Reigate and Banstead. I am also grateful to my hon. Friends the Members for
Chichester (Mr. Tyrie) and for Mole Valley (Sir Paul Beresford) for their
support, and for the presence in this debate of the hon. Member for Crawley
(Laura Moffatt), whose constituents are also affected by the issue and who has
been dealing with it for about a year.
My hon. Friend the Member for
East Surrey will be pursuing the issue of the Government's obligation to the
council tax payers of Reigate and Banstead in an Adjournment debate tomorrow
with the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister. I intend to focus the rest of my
remarks on the Government's obligations to the islanders.
Sir Paul Beresford (Mole
Valley) (Con): It would be very useful for the ODPM to provide the Minister
with a sincere statement about the plight of these people and the cost to local
government.
Mr. Blunt : In the era
of at least proclaimed joined-up government, I hope that the two debates can be
viewed
3 Nov 2004 : Column 120WH
in conjunction with each other. I do not know whether the Minister will have
anything to say on behalf of other Departments when he replies, but I will draw
attention in the rest of my remarks to the risks that the Government are running
under their current policy.
The only thing to be said for
the Government's position on the Chagos islanders is that it is clear. The
Orders in Council were detailed in a written ministerial statement and left no
room for doubt. The statement read:
"Accordingly, the
Government consider that there would be no purpose in commissioning any
further study into the feasibility of resettlement; and that it would be
impossible for the Government to promote or even permit resettlement to take
place. After long and careful consideration, we have therefore decided to
legislate to prevent it."—[Official Report, 15 June 2004; Vol.
422, c. 33WS.]
The lack of consultation and
the way in which the decision was taken and promulgated were outrageous, and I
am far from convinced that the decision was correct. Indeed, it is probably
practically and morally wrong, but at least it is clear.
The Chagos islanders, in the
Government's view, are not going home. That leaves 5,500 islanders and their
descendants, who live mainly in Mauritius and the Seychelles and who are now
entitled to British citizenship and residence, with no practical alternative if
they are to extricate themselves from their largely poverty-stricken existence
but to come here in increasing numbers. Some 900 passports have been issued so
far by the high commissioners in Mauritius and the Seychelles. The Prime
Minister was either misleading or misinformed when he told my hon. Friend the
Member for Epsom and Ewell last week that my hon. Friend was exaggerating the
number of people who would come. Why does the Prime Minister think that 900
passports have been applied for when these people have perfectly good Mauritian
travel documents of their own?
Now that the Government have
slammed the door closed on people returning to the Chagos islands, they must
prepare for a significant part of the community to come here. A failure to plan
will result in the events that have engulfed the borough of Reigate and Banstead
in the past month being repeated hundredfold. Uncontrolled immigration of those
people would be a disaster.
I am advised that 95 per cent.
of the original islanders are illiterate, as are 40 to 50 per cent. of their
descendants, because of how the Mauritian education system works. If someone
fails to meet the necessary standards at 12, their formal education comes to an
end. The vast majority speak not English but a French patois, and even now
interpreters are being sought to converse with the 32 islanders with whom the
borough of Reigate and Banstead is coping, as classical French speakers are
deemed inadequate to interpret the reviews of the islanders' circumstances.
The first groups of these
British citizens have arrived destitute at Gatwick over the past two years. A
few have already settled in the area. In the wake of the Orders in Council, we
are facing an uncontrolled immigration of penniless and unqualified British
citizens to one part of the country. The huge sympathy for their plight, when
understood nationally, will almost certainly rapidly turn to anger and
resentment as local services are overwhelmed.
3 Nov 2004 : Column 121WH
The islanders are bound to concentrate in one area if immigration is
uncontrolled, as they will lack the ability to communicate outside their group.
The social problems that they endured in Mauritius will simply be repeated here.
This country can and should avoid that. The least that we can do is properly
prepare those in the community in Mauritius and the Seychelles who wish to
exercise their right to move to the United Kingdom.
There is an overwhelming case
for controlled immigration. I hope that the Minister will urgently consider a
properly funded programme, which would teach such people English, equip them
with the skills and training to enable them to be part of the United Kingdom
work force, and provide services to enable them to identify jobs and homes in
the United Kingdom before they leave Mauritius and the Seychelles. Legally, we
cannot control their immigration but, practically, we can prepare for those
British citizens, now habitually resident in Mauritius, who wish to come to the
United Kingdom.
The Foreign Office is more than
capable of administering a suitable programme over several years—that is how
long it will take—that will help such people to meet the challenge. It could
co-ordinate the resources of the British Council and other Departments in order
to do that. I cannot imagine that any teachers sent to the Seychelles or
Mauritius on programmes run by the British Council or other Departments will
regard it as a punishment posting.
Also, if the Foreign Office
administers such a programme, it will at least go a little way towards making up
for its unhappy role in the affair of the Chagos islanders over the past four
decades. Failure to make investment in such a programme will not save any money.
It will cost far more to provide for education, training, housing and social
services in the United Kingdom after an unprepared population arrives, and in
all probability we would cause further social disaster for an isolated and
mistreated people. If we do not deal with the issue now, in years to come, we
may find that we have forced the islanders to turn to crime to support
themselves, and the criminal justice budget will then make a contribution to
this sorry saga.
The Government's decision to
block a return to the islands requires follow-up action now. Telling the local
authorities of Crawley, Reigate and Banstead, Surrey and West Sussex that they
are on their own could be disastrous. Controlled immigration must be the
objective of Government policy. As that means discharging our moral obligations
generously, we will be doing the right thing for the right reasons. I invite the
Government to do so.
4.40 pm
Mr. Peter Ainsworth (East Surrey) (Con): I am grateful to my hon. Friend
the Member for Reigate (Mr. Blunt) for the opportunity to make a short
contribution to this important debate, and I congratulate him on securing it. As
he will know, I intend to return to this issue from a local government
perspective tomorrow, and I will return the compliment should he wish to
participate in my debate. The issue affects both our local authorities and those
of other hon. Members whom he has mentioned.
The Minister is not responsible
for local government finance, but I hope that he is sufficiently joined-up with
the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister to understand
3 Nov 2004 : Column 122WH
that the decisions taken by his Department about the Chagos islanders have
direct consequences for local government in this country. The Orders in Council
signed by the Government in June are a key reason why three weeks ago a group of
45 people from Diego Garcia turned up at Gatwick airport. As the Minister will
know, the Orders in Council overturned a High Court ruling that the ordinance
preventing the return of the islanders to their homeland was unlawful.
Effectively, the Government acted to ensure that the islanders could not return
to their homeland.
Given that the prospect of
returning to destitute conditions in Mauritius lacks, shall we say, appeal, as
my hon. Friend and I discovered during our recent visit to Horley in my
constituency, where many of the islanders are housed, their decision to come to
Britain has a certain logic. As British citizens, they have every right to be
here but, thanks to this Government, they have no right to go home. The question
is what further rights they have to housing, food and other benefits, and those
matters are the subject of a complicated and expensive legal process.
I would be grateful if the
Minister could let me know when he responds what discussions, if any, took place
between his Department and the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister about the
likely, indeed inevitable, consequences for local government and local
authorities of the decision to issue the Orders in Council. As my hon. Friend
pointed out, the treatment of the islanders has been grossly unjust. From the
original decision of Harold Wilson's Government to round them up and evict them,
to the shabby decision earlier this year to overturn the High Court ruling, the
whole story is a discredit to this country. To that injustice is added another.
The cost of keeping the islanders in temporary accommodation is falling
exclusively on local council tax payers. That is patently unfair. The problem is
entirely of the Government's making and the Government should shoulder
responsibility for the consequences of their actions.
My hon. Friend and I will
return to the issue tomorrow, as the Minister knows. The short-term solution is
in the hands of the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, but the long-term
solution lies with this Minister's Department—a just solution that either
allows the islanders to return to Diego Garcia, which I admit is unlikely given
the Government's attitude, or, as my hon. Friend has suggested, at least
provides them with the skills that they will need in order to make successful
new lives in this country.
There have been too many
evasions and too many excuses already. We look to the Minister to come forward
with a clear and positive initiative that is fair to the islanders and to our
constituents.
4.43 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth
Affairs (Mr. Bill Rammell) : This is a genuinely important debate, and the
second opportunity that we have had to air these issues in this Chamber. I
understand the concerns that have been expressed. I congratulate the hon. Member
for Reigate (Mr. Blunt) on securing the debate. I hope that the similar debate
that takes place tomorrow with the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister will
reflect the strategic
3 Nov 2004 : Column 123WH
importance of these issues and the way in which the Government are attempting to
work on them across the board.
I assure the hon. Gentleman that I have every sympathy with the predicament in
which he and the Reigate and Banstead borough council find themselves as a
result of the arrival of that group of Chagossians in his constituency. His is
not the first constituency to see such an arrival. Earlier groups arrived in
Crawley, and I have had several meetings with my hon. Friend the Member for
Crawley (Laura Moffatt) about it. Indeed, I am due to see her early next week to
discuss it further.
There is a debate tomorrow on
local government provisions for Diego Garcians in Surrey. Therefore, I intend
today to concentrate on the history of the British Indian Ocean Territory and
the chain of events that has led to the present situation. Properly, I shall
leave local government provisions to the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister.
Mr. Andrew Tyrie
(Chichester) (Con): Given the huge pressure that councils will find
themselves under, particularly West Sussex county council, before the Minister
leaves that subject, will he give us some idea of his Department's view in
principle on how to handle the extraordinary burden that will be placed on those
county councils? How should that be met, and is it acceptable that it should be
met entirely by local people?
Mr. Rammell : The hon.
Gentleman will be aware that the best way to resolve the issues is not
necessarily by one Department telling another on the Floor of the House what it
can and should do. Nevertheless, I can assure him that the Foreign Office is in
touch with other Whitehall Departments, including the Office of the Deputy Prime
Minister, the Department for Work and Pensions and the Department of Health, on
this issue. We have also been in contact with West Sussex county council, and
that will continue. That is one reason that I am seeing my hon. Friend the
Member for Crawley next week.
Sir Paul Beresford : On
the same point, if the Minister is in discussions, he will be able to tell us
what his Department is contributing and what the other Departments are
contributing. That could make tomorrow's debate much simpler.
Mr. Rammell : As I said
earlier, it is properly the place of the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister to
respond on specific local government provisions.
Hon. Members will forgive me if
I am brief, because of the limited time available. If Opposition Members would
like more detailed information on the history of the Chagossians and the British
Indian Ocean Territory, I should be happy to be contacted after the debate to
arrange for such information to be given. However, I shall now give a brief
overview of the situation. The islands of the Chagos archipelago, located in the
middle of the Indian ocean, were ceded to Britain by the French in 1814 together
with Mauritius, of which the islands were a dependency. Under British rule, the
islands, which were populated by copra plantation workers and
3 Nov 2004 : Column 124WH
their dependants, continued to be administered as a dependency of Mauritius.
Prior to Mauritius achieving independence in 1968, and with the agreement of the
Mauritius Council of Ministers—that is an important point—the islands were
detached in 1965 to form—
Several hon. Members
rose—
Mr. Rammell : Let me finish this sentence. I want to make some progress
because I have some important background information to get on the record. The
islands were at that stage—
Mr. Blunt : May I assist
the Minister?
Mr. Rammell : I will finish this point, then I will give way. The islands
were detached in 1965 to form part of the British Indian Ocean Territory, which
was created to provide for the defence needs of Britain and the United States.
The copra plantations were becoming no longer economically viable, and partly
for that reason, and partly because of defence requirements, it was eventually
decided that the islanders should be relocated. That was done in the late 1960s
and early 1970s. The vast majority of islanders—some 1,200—were relocated in
Mauritius, but some went to the Seychelles.
Mr. Blunt : All of us
here are familiar with the background, and I hope that the Minister could start
his reply from a later point. We understand that the Government have made their
decision through the Orders in Council. Does he accept that that is a given? The
merits of that were discussed in the debate initiated by the hon. Member for
Islington, North (Jeremy Corbyn) and I do not want to revisit them now. I
instead invite the Minister to address the question of what we do now in the
light of that decision.
Mr. Rammell : With
respect to the hon. Gentleman, I was aware that two debates were coming one day
after the other, and I spoke to him yesterday to clarify what issues he intended
to address. The indication that I then received was that this debate—properly,
as it was to be a Foreign Office debate—would be about the background, history
and rationale for what we have done and that, properly, the issues about local
government finance would be addressed in tomorrow's debate. That is what I am
seeking to do.
Although the hon. Gentleman
said that people are aware of the background, some of the interventions suggest
that not everyone is fully aware of it. I should like to repeat what I said in
this Chamber on 7 July about the measures taken by successive Governments, both
Conservative and Labour. That is an important point in respect of the speech by
the hon. Member for East Surrey (Mr. Ainsworth). I heard the references to
Harold Wilson and to this Government but I think that he has forgotten the role
of past Conservative Governments. [Interruption.] With respect, that is
the point that was made, and that is what I am properly responding to.
The measures taken by
successive Governments of the 1960s and 1970s to depopulate the islands did
not—to say the least—constitute the finest hour of UK foreign policy. I do
not seek to justify what was done in the
3 Nov 2004 : Column 125WH
1960s or the 1970s. On 12 October, the Foreign Secretary indicated in the House
that he understood how controversial were the measures taken many decades ago to
relocate the Chagossians to Mauritius and the Seychelles.
The nub of the problem,
however, is that, regrettable as those measures may have been, this Government
have to deal with the situation as it exists today. The responsibility of the UK
Government for what was done in the 1960s and 1970s has been acknowledged by
successive Governments since then, as is demonstrated by the substantial sums in
compensation that have already been paid to the Chagossians.
The issue of compensation is
directly relevant to the debate. Compensation was made available on two
occasions. At the time of the relocation of the islanders, £650,000—equivalent
to almost £5.5 million in today's terms—was made available to the Mauritius
Government specifically to assist with resettlement. Subsequent to that, in
1982, an ex gratia payment of £4 million—equivalent to £9 million
today—was put into a trust fund for the benefit of the Chagossian community in
Mauritius. Furthermore, the Mauritius Government made land available to the
value of £1 million. At the time, it was agreed by all concerned, including the
Chagossians themselves with the benefit of independent legal advice, that the
payment was in full and final settlement of all claims against the UK arising
out of the Chagossians' transfer to and resettlement in Mauritius, as well as
their preclusion from returning to the Chagos islands.
Those payments amount to more
than £14 million in today's prices. The Chagossians' lawyers advised them that
that was a fair and reasonable settlement. In 2002, proceedings in the High
Court were initiated in an attempt to secure further compensation, and in
October 2003 the High Court dismissed the case in full in a comprehensive
judgment. On 22 July this year, the Court of Appeal refused leave to appeal
against the judgment.
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington,
North) (Lab): I apologise for not being present for the opening speech. I
was detained in the main Chamber at the time.
Despite all that the Minister
has said, can he not accept that the Chagos islanders have been very badly
treated? They have lived, and continue to live, in very poor conditions and
great poverty, largely in Mauritius and to some extent in the Seychelles, and
there is a moral duty on the British Government to recognise that poverty of
people who are British citizens, and to ensure that a new assistance package is
agreed with them.
As the Minister knows, a
delegation is coming here later this month. It will have the opportunity to meet
him, so that he can hear at first hand how awful the lives of many Chagossians
have been in Mauritius since they were dumped on the quayside all those years
ago.
Mr. Rammell : As my hon.
Friend knows, I respect his conviction and integrity on this issue and the way
that he has campaigned on it. Nevertheless, there has been a High Court ruling,
which makes it clear that we are not required to pay further compensation. That
is the situation. However, as is proper for any accountable Government, we will
receive and listen to
3 Nov 2004 : Column 126WH
representations. I have done that with regard to my hon. Friend and, as he
knows, I am prepared to meet with representatives of the Chagossian community
later this month.
In 2000, the High Court, in
judicial review proceedings brought by the Chagossians, held that the provisions
of the British Indian Ocean Territory Immigration Ordinance 1971, which
prohibited the unauthorised entry of any person into any part of the territory,
were invalid in so far as they applied to the Chagossians. Accordingly, the
ordinance was amended so as to remove the prohibition in respect of the
Chagossians, except with regard to entry into Diego Garcia itself. Subsequently,
an independent study into the feasibility of resettlement, which had meanwhile
been commissioned by the Government, concluded that resettlement of the islands
on anything other than a short-term and purely subsistence basis would be highly
precarious and would involve expensive underwriting by the British Government
for an open-ended period, and probably permanently. That is pertinent to some of
the points of the hon. Member for Reigate.
I emphasise that that study was
carried out by experts independent of Government, and because of that—and
equally because of the need to ensure and to maintain the availability and
effective use of the territory for defence purposes, for which it was created
and set aside in accordance with the UK's treaty obligations—the Government
decided, after long and careful consideration, that resettlement could not take
place.
Mr. Blunt : Will the
Minister give way?
Mr. Rammell : No. I need to respond to the points that have been made. I
will give way if there is time.
Accordingly, the Government legislated to restore full immigration control over
the whole territory, and that was done in June 2004.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned
the manner in which these changes came about and the fact that they were
undertaken through Orders in Council. I remind him that that has been the normal
way of legislating on the overseas territories under successive Governments.
Mr. Blunt : All those
points are familiar to anyone who read the debate or attended it on 7 July. I
understand that the proposals I have made are fresh to the Minister, but all I
am seeking from him is an acknowledgement that in the light of the Orders in
Council something needs to be done. I understand that that something would have
to be the subject of advice from his officials and other Departments.
Mr. Rammell : With
respect, I am trying to be as open and frank as I can, and there is a problem
with the hon. Gentleman seeking to initiate a debate on local government finance
matters, and then requesting that the Foreign Office responds.
The hon. Gentleman has worked
in the Foreign Office. Other hon. Members in the Chamber who have been in
Government will know the legitimate difficulties involved. Specifically in
response to some of the points that he made about the low level of literacy
among the Chagossian community, there are currently no aid programmes to assist
through the Department
3 Nov 2004 : Column 127WH
for International Development, because Mauritius particularly is a middle-income
country and there has been, at today's prices, substantial elements of
compensation. Nevertheless—and without commitment— that issue has not been
put to us before and I will consider it.
Following the arrival of the
Chagossians in Mauritius and the Seychelles, the majority automatically acquired
Mauritian or Seychelles citizenship when those countries achieved independence.
In addition, most Chagossians retain their status as citizens of the UK and
colonies, and the British Overseas Territories Act 2002 gave them the additional
status of full British citizens.
Mr. Peter Ainsworth :
Will the Minister just try to answer my question about the extent of discussions
between his Department and the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister about the
consequences of the Orders in Council for local government?
Mr. Rammell : I have
already made it clear to the hon. Gentleman and to the hon. Member for Reigate
that we have, on a number of occasions, been in contact with other Whitehall
Departments, including the ODPM, the Department for Work and Pensions, the
Department of
3 Nov 2004 : Column 128WH
Health, and with the local authority, and we will continue to be so. I also made
it clear that I am seeing my hon. Friend the Member for Crawley to discuss the
matter further. Given my responsibilities, and those of the Foreign Office, I do
not believe that I can go further in responding to something that is properly a
matter for discussion in the debates tomorrow.
I reiterate that I am not
seeking to justify what happened in the 1960s and 1970s. I have said on several
occasions that I do not regard that as the finest hour in the conduct of UK
foreign policy. However, the fundamental problem faced by this Government was
this. It is almost 40 years since the Chagossians last inhabited the islands
and, accordingly, given the independent advice on the feasibility and
sustainability of the repopulation of the islands, it would not have been
responsible for the Government to say, "The repopulation can take place and
we will pick up the financial consequences." Considering the matter in the
round, that would be a significant financial liability in the context of our
overall contingent financial liabilities for the overseas territories.
I understand the points that
have been made and I have tried, within the terms of the debate, to respond.
Question put and agreed to.
<<
Back to News & Features
|
