The UK Chagos Support Association

Photo: Getty images

An article by Dr Sean Carey, published in the UK Independent blog, is reproduced below:

“Being in Chagos is an incredibly special experience,” says Rachel Jones, deputy team leader of the Aquarium at ZSL London Zoo, in a new YouTube posting extolling the “unique” environment of the warm, pristine waters of the archipelago. “It’s literally like going back in time… It’s what reefs, I imagine, were like 50 or 60 years ago. She adds: “It’s very special being somewhere where you know you’re the only one there. There’s no one else around.”

How nice, you might think, that UK marine scientists can explore the corals and monitor shoals of fish in the British Indian Ocean Territory. But what Jones omits to mention is that 50 or 60 years ago there was a vibrant community of around 1700 islanders living in harmony with the environment. The only reason there isn’t now is that the entire population was exiled.

The shameful history of what happened was neatly summarised by Baroness Whitaker in the debate on the Queen’s Speech in the House of Lords recently. She said: “In 1965 our Government detached the Chagos Archipelago from Mauritius in order to form a separate British Indian Ocean Territory, in defiance of four UN resolutions. They reclassified the inhabitants as contract workers, made the largest, most southerly island Diego Garcia, available to the United States for use as a military base, and gradually removed the Chagossians from all the islands, eventually depositing them in Mauritius and the Seychelles during 1971 to 1973.”

Since then the islanders, the descendants of African slaves and Indian indentured labourers, have been fighting a marathon legal campaign to restore the right of return. After a series of spectacular victories in the lower courts, the Chagossians, led by Port Louis-based electrician Olivier Bancoult, were narrowly defeated by 3-2 majority in the House of Lords in 2008. There was a further setback last December when the European Court of Human Rights ruled that the case was inadmissible, because many of the islanders exiled in Mauritius (though not those in the Seychelles) had accepted compensation from the UK in 1982.

Back in the Upper House, Lord Astor, the Coalition Government’s spokesman replied with customary courtesy. “The noble Baroness, Lady Whitaker, asked why the Chagos islanders could not return. We regret what happened in the late 1960s and 1970s. The responsibility for decisions taken then has been acknowledged by successive Governments. However, the reasons for not allowing resettlement, namely feasibility and defence security, are clear and compelling.”

Lord Astor was clearly reading from an old brief because the Foreign & Commonwealth Office is now being forced to come to terms with overwhelming evidence that neither reason given is clear and compelling. Why? Well, first the base is around 140 miles from the outer islands in the Archipelago, such as Peros Banhos and Salomon, which could be resettled. It’s simply not credible to believe that a few hundred Chagossians would jeopardise US operations. Secondly, if Diego Garcia remains viable for some 3,500 military personnel and ancillary workers then logic dictates that the other islands can also be made suitable.

Furthermore, pressure continues to mount both in the UK and internationally. Earlier this year in an article for The Mirror, former Deputy Prime Minister John Prescott made his feelings clear. “I’m ashamed the UK governments allowed this to happen. It was wrong and we must make amends,” he wrote. (Since then Lord Prescott has joined the Chagos All Party Parliamentary Group; so too has former Deputy Chairman of the Conservative Party Lord Ashcroft.)

A few days ago, in an article for Libération, JMG Le Clezio also denounced the brutal removal of the islanders from their homeland as an “organised denial of human rights”. He claimed that the failure of the court in Strasbourg to take action was a “denial of justice” and a clear example of “moral cowardice”. The 2008 Nobel Prize winner for literature, who holds dual French and Mauritian nationality, calculates that it is part of the “indifference of the powerful” to those who are obliged to live on the margins.

It’s difficult to disagree – unless, of course, you work for the ZSL and other conservation groups which are apparently content to ignore the misfortune and misery of those who were in Chagos long before they were.

Yesterday’s debate on the Queen’s Speech included the following speech by Baroness Whitaker, supported by Lords Ramsbotham and Avebury. They mention the pre-election commitment of the government to deliver justice to the exiled Chagossians. In the limited time the Minister has to reply to a long debate covering foreign affairs, defence and development he simply reads off the lines from a general brief provided by officials. Clearly the bit on Chagos had not been updated for some time but no attempt is made to answer the points raised by speakers.

Lord Ramsbotham (Crossbench)

My Lords, in noting the antics in the other place following the non-inclusion in the gracious Speech of a possible referendum on Europe, I am confident that they will not be repeated in this House if my contribution is devoted to the surprising absence of another issue. Before I come to that, as a vice-chairman of the Chagos Islands all-party group I agree with everything that will be said by the noble Baroness, Lady Whitaker, on the Chagossian return.

Baroness Whitaker (Labour)

My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, for his trailer for my remarks, and for his support.

The gracious Speech promises to “ensure the security, good governance and development of the Overseas Territories”.—[ Official Report , 8/4/13; col. 3.]

This is sorely needed for the Chagos Islands, the inhabitants of which were exiled from their homeland by the British Government in the late 1960s and early 1970s. I am indebted to our former high commissioner to Mauritius, Mr David Snoxell, for his advice.

It is not as if anyone now thinks this exile was an example of good governance. On 23 April 2009 the then shadow Foreign Minister, Keith Simpson, said: “There is no doubt that there is a moral imperative”, and that, “I suspect … the all-party view is that the rights of the Chagossian people should be recognised, and that there should at the very least be a timetable for the return of those people at least to the outer islands”.—[ Official Report , Commons, 23/4/09; col. 176WH.]

In a letter to a member of the public on 23 March 2010 the shortly to be Foreign Secretary William Hague said: “I can assure you that if elected to serve as the next British government we will work to ensure a fair settlement of this long-standing dispute”.

I will briefly remind noble Lords of how this tragic fate overtook the Chagossians. In 1965 our Government detached the Chagos Archipelago from Mauritius in order to form a separate British Indian Ocean Territory, in defiance of four UN resolutions. They reclassified the inhabitants as contract workers, made the largest, most southerly, island, Diego Garcia, available to the United States for use as a military base, and gradually removed the Chagossians from all the islands, eventually depositing them in Mauritius and the Seychelles during 1971 to 1973. Some came to Britain from 2001.

Now, fewer than 700 of the original islanders remain. The United States base on Diego Garcia is 140 miles away from the outer islands, to which some would like to return. When the Government of the United States were asked by our Foreign Office publicly to affirm, as was reported in a WikiLeaks cable from the United States embassy in London, that they required the whole of the British Indian Ocean Territory for defence purposes, they did not do so. The State Department has indicated informally to a member of the Chagos Islands (British Indian Ocean Territory) All-Party Parliamentary Group, of which I also am a member, that if asked it will review the security implications of a limited return. Our Law Lords described official letters that claimed that there was a defence risk as “fanciful” and “highly imaginative”.

In 2014 the agreement with the United States will come up for renewal. I suggest that this gives an excellent opportunity for exploring whether a small number of Chagossian people could return to the outer islands. It would seem to have no security or defence implications for the base on Diego Garcia. I am assured that many will not want to return, but all want their right to do so restored, and some will want only to visit their homeland and come away.

Would this be a burden to the British taxpayer? The Foreign Office set up a feasibility study in 2001, which claimed that resettlement was not feasible and anyway was very expensive. The infeasibility argument has been discredited by one of its own consultants and by others, most recently in a report by Professor Paul Kench of Auckland University. As for the cost, it would be idle to pretend that justice would not carry some. However, the United Kingdom would not have to bear the whole burden of restoring the tiny infrastructure. The European Union high representative has confirmed to Charles Tannock MEP that funds are available. The UNDP may have capacity and it would surely be right for the United States, Mauritius and the Commonwealth to do their bit.

What of the marine protected area, with its full no-take ban on fishing—except, as it happens, around the waters of Diego Garcia, where recreational fishing can be practised—which was hastily declared by David Miliband, as Foreign Secretary, just before the last election? It is unlike most other MPAs, for instance around the Galapagos Islands, where the people who live there help to maintain it.

There is worldwide support for a marine protected area that takes account of the interests of the Chagossians and Mauritius. However, it should have been properly conceived, with a defined role for inhabitants. As it stands, there is only one vessel to patrol the ban over 640,000 square kilometres, and I have seen photographs of very recent substantial illegal fishing operating within the MPA.

The MPA was proclaimed without taking account of the views of the Chagossians, who applied for judicial review in the high court, or of Mauritius, which has brought a case under the Permanent Court of Arbitration for breach of the Convention on the Law of the Sea. There is much work to be done to make the MPA what it ought to be so that everyone can wholeheartedly support it.

In the time available I have simply tried to pinpoint the chief aspects of a manifest and agreed injustice of a fundamental kind. This hardly matches the human rights standards of the Commonwealth charter, which we signed only last March. However, it is very good news that the Foreign Secretary has shown indications of a positive attitude to righting these wrongs in his statement following the end of the human rights case in Strasbourg, and that he is reviewing the policy on resettlement. I hope that the Minister can say how the Government will now proceed and when Parliament will be consulted about the review of that policy.

Lord Avebury (Liberal Democrat)

My Lords, I warmly echo the remarks of the noble Baroness, Lady Whitaker, and the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, on the right of the Chagossians to return to their homeland, from which they were ejected many years ago in one of the most shameful episodes in British colonial history. I also join her in welcoming the review by the Government of their Chagos policy, which I hope will lead to the removal of this blot on our reputation.

Lord Rosser (Labour)

At this point, I refer to the speech made by my noble friend Lady Whitaker and the issue of the Chagos islanders—a matter also referred to by the noble Lords, Lord Ramsbotham and Lord Avebury. The issue is whether they should be able to return to the outer islands. My noble friend referred to the statement made in 2010 by the now Foreign Secretary that he would,

“work to ensure a fair settlement of this long-standing dispute”.

My noble friend asked what the Government were doing or intending to do in the light of that undertaking. I do not know what that statement by the Foreign Secretary was meant to mean. I hope that the Minister will provide a direct answer to my noble friend’s question when he responds.

Lord Astor of Hever (Parliamentary Under Secretary of State, Defence; Conservative)

The noble Baroness, Lady Whitaker, asked why the Chagos islanders could not return. We regret what happened in the late 1960s and 1970s. The responsibility for decisions taken then has been acknowledged by successive Governments. However, the reasons for not allowing resettlement, namely feasibility and defence security, are clear and compelling. The Government will continue to look at the issues involved and engage with all those with an interest.

Photo: Gail Johnson

The Chagos Islands (BIOT) All-Party Parliamentary Group held its postponed 35th meeting on 24 April 2013.  Olivier Bancoult, the Chairman of the Chagos Refugees Group, visiting the UK for the Judicial Review of the Chagos MPA, was invited to address the Group. He was accompanied by the new chair of the UK Chagos Support Association, Sabrina Jean.

Photo: Gail Johnson

The Chagos Islands (BIOT) All-Party Parliamentary Group held its 34th meeting on 13 February 2013. The Chairman welcomed two new members, Lord Prescott, former Deputy Prime Minister, and Lord Ashcroft.

Members discussed the letter of 15 January from the Chairman  to the Foreign Secretary, in which the Group’s views on the way forward had been set out and  a request made for a meeting to follow up the last one with him in December 2011. As no reply had yet been received the Group asked the Chairman to send a reminder. Members felt that Parliament should be closely involved in consideration of the policy options being put by officials to the Foreign Secretary, before decisions were taken. These could best be discussed in a meeting with him.

The  Group discussed the decision on 15 January of the Arbitral Tribunal (of the Permanent Court of Arbitration) on the Mauritian case, lodged  with ITLOS in December 2010, challenging the legality of the MPA. The Tribunal had decided against the FCO and that it would consider both jurisdiction and merits together, but this would probably not be until the middle of 2014. The Group felt that this provided ample time for the FCO and Mauritius to come to an accommodation and settle out of court. Members did not think it was appropriate to describe the Mauritius case as being hostile and aggressive litigation. Cases came to court to enable  judges to decide whether or not there had been a breach of the law. This was a legal, not a hostile process. Also in a case between states, especially as they were both members of the Commonwealth, there was plenty of opportunity to come to a diplomatic solution. The Group noted that the 2015 Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting would be held in Mauritius. It was therefore crucial that the FCO and Mauritius settled their differences in a friendly manner before then. Mauritian support for Chagossian resettlement was noted.

The Group considered the 19 Parliamentary Questions  on Chagos issues which had been tabled and answered since their last meeting. Members detected, for the most part, a more positive and open minded approach to the issues. Lord Prescott, whose article in the Sunday Mirror of 19 January, was considered, suggested that he should raise the issues with the Commissioner for Human Rights of  the Council of Europe and in one of the Council’s Monitoring Bodies. Members agreed to continue to press for debates in both Houses of Parliament. They also asked the Chairman to invite David Miliband, who had just been appointed a Co-Chair by the Pew funded Global Marine Conservation, to attend an APPG meeting.

The next meeting will be held on 20 March 2013. A further meeting on 17 April 2013 was pencilled in so that the Group could meet Olivier Bancoult, since he would be in London at that time for the Chagos Islanders Judicial Review of the MPA.

The ruling by the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg on 20 December 2012 that the Chagos Islanders’ case was inadmissible was not the end of the road for Chagossians (RV article 29 December). It may be the end of the Strasbourg road but there are other ways of attaining the Holy Grail.

Leaving aside remaining legal options the best way forward and always has been, is in the political arena. The Foreign Secretary, William Hague clearly had this in mind in his response to the Strasbourg ruling – “The Government will take stock of our policy towards the resettlement of BIOT.” This presumably is the review of policy promised by Mr Hague soon after the Coalition Government took office in May 2010. It has been a long time in coming but Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) officials had persuaded Ministers that until Strasbourg had given its verdict the policy could not be changed lest it prejudice their case, although the Court had on two occasions invited the FCO to seek an out of court settlement. Even when Vince Cable, a leading Liberal Democrat member of the Cabinet, announced on 9 September 2010 that the Coalition Government was “dropping the case in Strasbourg, opting instead for a friendly settlement” he was obliged to recant a week later.

How then could an overall political settlement be achieved? Firstly the parties have to talk to each other – they include the main Chagossian groups in Mauritius and in UK and the Governments of the UK, US and Mauritius. There have never been substantive discussions on the future of BIOT and of the Chagossians. Perhaps an envoy of international standing could be invited to facilitate these discussions.
The issues break down into five interrelated areas – the right to return and resettlement, defence and security, feasibility and cost, conservation and the Marine Protected Area (MPA) and future sovereignty. All need to be treated separately as well as collectively for an overall settlement to be reached. There must be complete transparency and confidence building measures so that trust can be established between the parties. A deadline should be set, as there was for the handover of Hong Kong to China. An obvious deadline is 2015 which is the year of the fiftieth anniversary of the establishment of BIOT, the end of the Coalition Government’s five year mandate, a UK general election and the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting in Mauritius. It is also the year by which the 1966 UK/US agreement, which made BIOT available to the US for defence purposes, can be re-negotiated before it is rolled over for a further twenty years in 2016.

Mr Hague envisages an inclusive process. As he said, “we will be as positive as possible in our engagement with Chagossian groups and all interested parties”. The Chagos Islands (BIOT) All-Party Parliamentary Group is clearly an interested party. Since it was established in December 2008 it has held 32 meetings and in that time has made many suggestions to Ministers for resolving the issues. Its purpose is “to help bring about a resolution of the issues concerning the future of the Chagos Islands and the Chagossians”. It has forty members which include several members of the current Government. Five former FCO Ministers who had responsibility for the Indian Ocean have joined, although two have since left Parliament. With its all-party complexion and wealth of parliamentary and ministerial experience the Group is well placed to offer advice and suggestions.

But what could be the overall shape of a settlement? In my view it should consist of the following elements:
1. Restoration of the right of the Chagossians to return to their islands.
2. In consultation with the Chagossians an independent scientific study by leading world experts into the practicalities of resettlement and a survey of the number wishing to re-settle. Without sound science future policy will continue to be based upon the false assumptions of the past.
3. Depending upon the results of that study and survey an experimental settlement for a viable group of Chagossians, initially on Peros Banhos. Mauritius supports resettlement – many Chagossians are both Mauritian and British.
4. Discussions with the US leading to an understanding that a settlement 130 miles away from Diego Garcia does not threaten the security of their base and that the US will give benign support to the settlement.
5. Resumption of talks at ministerial level between Mauritius and the UK to consider the future of the Archipelago and a time table for how the UK’s oft-repeated commitment, to return the islands to Mauritius when no longer needed for defence purposes, is to be discharged. As a first step this could be co-management or joint sovereignty of the Outer Islands.
6. Agreement on how the interests of Chagossians and Mauritius are to be safeguarded in the Marine Protected Area. This could include an inshore fishing zone for Chagossians, a management role for Mauritius in the MPA and a joint application by the UK and Mauritius to UNESCO for designating the Archipelago as a World Heritage Site.
7. Provision for Chagossians who resettle to be employed in conservation work, managing the marine reserve and protecting the unique marine and terrestrial environment of the Archipelago.

After 13 years of litigation and mistrust none of this will be easy. It will take courage, reconciliation and compromise through diplomacy and negotiation to achieve. But it surely must be in the interest of all concerned, not least that of the Coalition Government, finally to put this relic of the Cold War behind them and redeem Britain’s reputation for upholding human rights. 2013 could be the breaking of the Chagos logjam.

David Snoxell
Coordinator of the Chagos Islands (BIOT) All-Party Parliamentary Group
British High Commissioner to Mauritius 2000-04

Photo: Gail Johnson

The Chagos Islands (BIOT) All-Party Parliamentary Group held its 33rd meeting on 10 January 2013 to consider the situation following the Strasbourg ruling that the case of the Chagos Islanders was inadmissible and the political options available for making progress.

While noting that Strasbourg had not ruled on whether the treatment of the Chagossians had been a violation of the European Convention on Human Rights the Group understood that Court procedure did not allow for appeals to the Grand Chamber against a majority decision of inadmissibility by the seven judge Chamber. Leaving aside other legal options the Group considered how best to respond to the Foreign Secretary’s statement, following the Court’s decision, that “the Government will take stock of our policy towards the resettlement of BIOT” and that “we will be as positive as possible in our engagement with Chagossian groups and all interested parties”. The Group felt that this was an encouraging response and that it offered an opportunity to begin the process of bringing about an overall political settlement of all the issues concerning the future of the Chagossians and BIOT. These issues were the right to return and resettlement, defence and security, feasibility, and cost, the need for an independent scientific study, conservation and the Marine Protected Area and future management and sovereignty of the Archipelago.

The Group considered a range of ideas for helping the Foreign Secretary to move forward on these issues and to establish the common ground between all the parties. It was agreed that the Chairman should write to Mr Hague to set out the Group’s ideas and to ask for a meeting to discuss them. Members also decided to table a number of PQs and to ask for urgent debates in both Houses of Parliament. The Group felt that substantial progress should be made this year before 2014 when the 1966 UK/US agreement comes up for renewal and potential renegotiation. 2015 would be the year of the 50th anniversary of the establishment of BIOT, the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting in Mauritius and the end of the Coalition’s five year mandate. For the Government to meet its pre-election promises of a just and fair settlement in time it was important to begin discussions as soon as possible.

So says Dr Sean Carey, a research fellow at the University of Roehampton, UK, in an article for The Independent. The article was written in the wake of the seven-judge chamber of the European Court of Human Rights deciding by majority that the case regarding the right of return of the exiled Chagos Islanders was inadmissible.

The article charts the campaign for justice waged by the Chagossians over the years, and the tactics used by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office to block them, the most recent being the creation of a Marine Protected Area.

The article concludes:

“Although recent UK governments have expressed “regret” about the past, it is very revealing that no formal apology has been made to the Chagossians. Irrespective of the decision of the Strasbourg court, on moral and ethical grounds, it is time for a change in tone and policy. That should include a debate in Parliament in the New Year, and the Foreign Secretary working in close collaboration with the Chagos All Party Parliamentary Group. William Hague should also take the opportunity to invoke the spirit of William Wilberforce by apologising for the mistakes of previous UK governments and allow the islanders to return to their homeland.”

Press Release All Party Parliamentary Group – Chagos Islands
Chair: Jeremy Corbyn MP, Vice Chairs: Lord Ramsbotham; Lord Avebury; Andrew Rosindell MP; Henry Smith MP
Secretary/Treasurer: Andrew George MP
House of Commons London SW1A OAA

Strasbourg ruling on Chagos Islanders v United Kingdom

The Chagos Islands (BIOT) All-Party Parliamentary Group regret that a 7 judge chamber of the European Court of Human Rights has after 8 years, by a majority ruling, decided that it does not have jurisdiction to give judgment on the case of the Chagos Islanders and that the case is therefore inadmissible. The Court concluded that the Chagossians had no right of individual petition.

The European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights guarantees that no one shall be subject to inhuman or degrading treatment. It is obvious to all right thinking people that depriving the Chagossian people, for whom Britain was responsible, of their homes, livelihoods and homeland and deporting them 40 years ago, was a grievous violation of their fundamental human rights. This was compounded as late as 2004 by Privy Council Orders, a means by which Parliament was bypassed. The Orders overturned a November 2000 High Court judgment and the decision by Foreign Secretary Robin Cook to restore the right to return to the Outer Chagos Islands. It is inconceivable that Parliament would have agreed to deprive the Chagossians of this fundamental birthright.

What happened has been described by English courts as shameful, an abuse of power, repugnant, deplorable and unlawful. Strasbourg also concluded that this was “the callous and shameful treatment which they….suffered from 1967 to 1973, when being expelled from, or barred from return to, their homes on the islands and the hardships which immediately flowed from that”. In 2008 two of the five Law Lords held that without the authority of Parliament these Orders were unlawful, anachronistic and against the principles of democracy. Lord Bingham, presiding, said that there was “no (other) instance in which the royal prerogative had been exercised to exile an indigenous population from its homeland”.

Now that the European Court of Human Rights has decided that it does not have jurisdiction we ask the Coalition Government to stand by their pre-election promises to bring about a just and fair settlement to one of the great tragedies of the twentieth century, perpetrated by the UK on the defenceless – the brutal removal of an entire people from their homeland and their way of life, into a life of exile, poverty and hardship. We expect our Government to be guided by the British sense of fair play and to ensure that the same basic human rights apply to Chagossians, who are British, as apply to the people in the UK. As the Foreign Secretary himself has said “The British public expects its Government to act with moral integrity”. He is also quoted in the FCO Annual Report to Parliament (Human Rights and Democracy, Cmd 8339, April 2012) as saying “It is not in our character as a nation to have a foreign policy without a conscience: neither is it in our interests”. The Report states that “The promotion of human rights, democracy and rule of law is at the heart of Britain’s foreign policy.

To speak to Group Chair, Jeremy Corbyn MP
tel 020 7219 3545 or 07773 429 690
e corbynj@parliament.uk

Photo: Gail Johnson

The Chagos Islands (BIOT) All-Party Parliamentary Group held its 32nd meeting on 5 December 2012. The Chairman welcomed a new member, Henry Bellingham MP who is the fifth former FCO Minister with responsibility for BIOT or the Indian Ocean to have joined the Group.

Members considered legal developments since the last meeting on 17 October. They noted that the Judicial Review of the MPA had been postponed to March to allow the FCO more time to prepare their case, in view of additional pleadings agreed by judges on 13 November, concerning traditional fishing rights and the requirement under the EU Treaty for social and economic development of the OTs. The Group also discussed the Mauritius case at ITLOS which would be heard by a Tribunal next July. Until these cases were resolved it was difficult to see how the MPA ,declared on 1 April 2010, could progress. The Group discussed ways in which these issues might be resolved through diplomacy and compromise, such as providing Mauritius with a role in the MPA and the Chagosians with a designated fishing zone, as is provided for the Pitcairn fishermen in the forthcoming Pitcairn marine reserve.

The Group also considered the implications of the Information Commissioner’s Decision that the BIOT Administration was subject to FOIA and EIRs. There seemed to be no good reason why the FCO should want the BIOT Administration, which is part of the FCO, to be immune from freedom of information and disclosure of environmental information. It was possible that the FCO would appeal to the First Tier Tribunal. The Chairman said he would table a further PQ on the subject.

The FAC meeting (postponed to 11 December) concerning the Overseas Territories White Paper, at which the new FCO Minister Mark Simmonds would be questioned, was discussed. Andrew Rosindell, the Vice Chairman of the Group, would be raising various issues regarding the section in the WP concerning BIOT.

The Group discussed the 1966 UK/US Exchange of Letters, due for renewal in 2014. It was felt that this provided a golden opportunity to discuss with the US an overall settlement of the issues and that the sooner these discussion began the better.

Lord Avebury’s intervention in the Lords debate on piracy in the Indian Ocean on 24 October was discussed. He had proposed that following up the meeting between the two prime ministers of 8 June, and once the court cases were out of the way, discussions between the UK and Mauritius on the future of the Chagos Islands should take place. Since Lord Avebury had received an unsatisfactory reply to his proposal during the debate it was suggested that he should write to the Minister concerned.

The next meeting of the APPG will be on 13 February 2013. As Philippa Gregory and the Comite Chagos were unable to meet the Group on this occasion it was agreed that they should do so before the next meeting.

Photo: Gail Johnson

The Chagos Islands (BIOT) All-Party Parliamentary Group held is 31st meeting on 17 October 2012.

The Group considered legal developments since its last meeting on 12 July. It was hoped that the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) in Strasbourg would take the Chagos case this month. If so, judgment was likely before Christmas. Members noted that the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) had suffered three legal reverses, viz the decision in July that wikileaks was admissible evidence and that two FCO officials (the Commissioner and former Administrator of BIOT) would be required to give evidence under oath to the Judicial Review of the MPA (set for 21-23 November in the High Court) on the wikileaks (US cables) in which they were quoted; the judgment of the First-Tier Information Tribunal (FTT) in September that two submissions in 2002 to FCO Ministers from their officials, concerning the Feasibility Study, must be disclosed; a recent decision by the Information Commissioner that the Freedom of Information Act and Environmental Information Regulations apply to BIOT. Regarding the Mauritius case against the MPA it was understood that Mauritius had submitted its memorial to the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea and that the FCO had until the end of October to submit their response.This case would therefore continue until well into 2013. The Group felt that the FCO ought to be settling these cases quickly out of court rather than spending time and taxpayers’ money fighting them through the courts.

Members discussed the answer on 18 September to a parliamentary question from Andrew George MP about the proposed MPA Management and Conservation Plan. They were pleased to note that the Chagos Conservation Trust (CCT) had amended its website to make clear that this was not a final plan. They also noted that the answer from the new FCO Minister, Mark Simmonds (the 9th incumbent of the post since 2000) had welcomed constructive comment from all stakeholders on the drafting of the Management Plan.The Group thought that it would be sensible to hold off submitting comments until the two cases against the MPA had been decided.

It was noted that Mr Simmonds would give evidence on the FCO White Paper (The Overseas Territories: Security, Success and Sustainability, June 2012) to the Foreign Affairs Committee (FAC) on 20 November. This was an opportunity for FAC members to raise issues concerning BIOT, arising from the report and also the omission of Overseas Territories, governed exclusively from the FCO in London, from scrutiny of the Parliamentary Commissioner, on which the Chairman of the Group had submitted evidence to the FAC in June 2011.

The Group discussed Anglo-Mauritian relations in the wake of the meeting between the two prime ministers on 8 June 2012. It was noted that both sides had had different understandings of the outcome, leading to a contradiction in what was reported to the two Parliaments and the media. Four months later it was disappointing that nothing tangible on Chagos had emerged from this, the first prime ministerial meeting since 1994. It was felt that relations between the two countries were bound to suffer as a consequence. The Group would wish to discuss the future of Anglo-Mauritian relations with ministers.

The Group agreed to a request from Philippa Gregory for the Comite Chagos to meet them before the next meeting. This will take place on 5 December.