Asked by: Baroness Whitaker (Labour - Life peer)
Question to the Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office:
To ask Her Majesty's Government, further to the Written Answer by Baroness Sugg on 18 November (HL10143), whether they accept the description used by the International Court of Justice in its Advisory Opinion of 25 February 2019 Legal Consequences of the separation of the Chagos Archipelago from Mauritius in 1965 that Chagossians were "forcibly removed" by the UK between 1967 and 1973.
Answered by Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
The UK Government has expressed sincere regret about the manner in which Chagossians were removed from BIOT in the 1960s and 1970s. In its Written Statement to the ICJ, the UK accepted that the way that Chagossians were treated was wrong and that there was a callous disregard for their interests. However, the UK did not characterise their treatment in the same terms as those used in the Advisory Opinion.
Asked by: Baroness Whitaker (Labour - Life peer)
Question to the Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office:
To ask Her Majesty's Government, further to the Written Answer by Baroness Sugg on 18 November (HL10143), what assessment they have made of the extent to which their Chagossian support package, announced on 16 November 2016 (HCWS260), (1) addresses the aspiration of those Chagossians who wish to return or resettle in the Chagos Islands, and (2) takes into account the Advisory Opinion Legal Consequences of the separation of the Chagos Archipelago from Mauritius in 1965 issued by the International Court of Justice on 25 February 2019, which found that resettlement "is an issue relating to the protection of the human rights of those concerned which should be addressed by the General Assembly during the completion of the decolonization of Mauritius".
Answered by Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
The decision not to support resettlement followed an independent feasibility study of the practicalities of resettlement (published in February 2015) and a public consultation (results published in January 2016). The consultation found that there were differing indications of the likely demand from Chagossians for resettlement across the communities in the UK, Mauritius, the Seychelles and elsewhere.
The UK Government is determined to use the Support Package to address the aspirations of those Chagossians who wish to return or resettle, and all the community: the desire for better lives, and to maintain a connection to the Territory. For those that wish to return, the Support Package has funded to date eight heritage visits, with a total of 154 visiting the Territory. Unfortunately due to the pandemic we have had to suspend the Heritage Visit programme, but will resume it as soon as it is safe to do so. Beyond the programme of visits, the package focuses on improved access to health and social care, better education and employment opportunities, and cultural conservation. The detail of the package is kept under constant review and we remain committed to engaging with Chagossians to explore ways to better deliver its objectives.
The Support Package was announced in 2016 and is not affected by the International Court of Justice Advisory Opinion of 25 February 2019.
Asked by: Baroness Whitaker (Labour - Life peer)
Question to the Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what assessment they have made of allegations that (1) the removal between 1968 and 1973, and (2) the subsequent treatment, of the inhabitants of the Chagos Islands is a crime against humanity as defined in Article 7 of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court; and how they intend to respond to those allegations.
Answered by Baroness Sugg
The UK does not accept this characterisation of the removal of Chagossians from the British Indian Ocean Territory (BIOT), or subsequent treatment of former inhabitants. Nor is this a description used by either the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in its Advisory Opinion, or the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) Tribunal members in the Award in respect of the circumstances of the removal of Chagossians.
The UK Government has expressed sincere regret about the manner in which Chagossians were removed from BIOT in the 1960s and 1970s. While it has decided not to support resettlement, the UK Government is determined to address the aspirations of Chagossians which make them seek to resettle, which are the desire for better lives, and the desire to maintain a connection to the Territory.
Asked by: Baroness Whitaker (Labour - Life peer)
Question to the Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office:
To ask Her Majesty's Government, further to the Written Answer by Baroness Sugg on 3 August (HL7037), whether they will now answer the question put, namely, what has been the total cost to the public purse of the UK’s participation in recent proceedings before the International Court of Justice on the legal consequences of the separation of the Chagos Archipelago from Mauritius in 1965.
Answered by Baroness Sugg
These advisory proceedings in the International Court of Justice concerned a request for an advisory opinion from the United Nations General Assembly. All Member States of the United Nations were invited to participate in the proceedings. Thirty-one States and the African Union filed written statements, and ten States and the African Union filed written comments on the written statements. Twenty-two States and the African Union participated in the oral proceedings.
The UK participated at all stages of the proceedings. From the accessible records held by the Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office, the legal costs of the UK's participation were £309,608.20. This figure comprises Counsels' fees and Government Legal Department fees.
Asked by: Baroness Whitaker (Labour - Life peer)
Question to the Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what representations they have made to the government of Nigeria about (1) the detention of Mubarak Bala, and (2) reports that the detention has included no contact with the detainee's (a) family, or (b) legal representatives.
Answered by Baroness Sugg
The UK Government is monitoring Mr Bala's case closely. We continue to stress to the Government of Nigeria the importance of a transparent investigation that respects Mr Bala's human rights, the rule of law, and the Nigerian constitutional right to freedom of religion or belief. Our High Commission in Abuja discussed the case with the Nigerian Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the police after Mr Bala's arrest. James Duddridge (Minister for Africa) raised Mr Bala's case directly with the Nigerian Minister of Foreign Affairs on 21 May.
We welcome the recent magistrate court order instructing the police to allow Mr Bala access to legal representation. We call on the relevant authorities to ensure that the order is followed, and that Mr Bala's family are permitted visiting rights in line with local law and current Covid-19 lockdown restrictions. Defending freedom of religion or belief for all remains a UK Government policy priority and we will continue to use our voice internationally to protect this human right.
Asked by: Baroness Whitaker (Labour - Life peer)
Question to the Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office:
To ask Her Majesty's Government, further to the Written Answer by Baroness Sugg on 17 July (HL6542), what has been the total cost to the public purse of the UK’s participation in recent proceedings before the International Court of Justice on the legal consequences of the separation of the Chagos Archipelago from Mauritius in 1965.
Answered by Baroness Sugg
These advisory proceedings in the International Court of Justice concerned a request for an advisory opinion from the United Nations General Assembly. All Member States of the United Nations were invited to participate in the proceedings. Thirty-one States and the African Union filed written statements, and ten States and the African Union filed written comments on the written statements. Twenty-two States and the African Union participated in the oral proceedings, which took place in September 2018. The UK participated at all stages of the proceedings. The ICJ handed down its advisory opinion in February 2019.
Asked by: Baroness Whitaker (Labour - Life peer)
Question to the Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what has been the total cost to the public purse of defending the cases brought against them by the government of Mauritius before (1) the International Court of Justice, and (2) the tribunal constituted under Annex VII of the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea.
Answered by Baroness Sugg
The UK, alongside a number of United Nations member States, participated in recent proceedings before the International Court of Justice (ICJ). These proceedings were not contentious proceedings brought by Mauritius against the UK. Rather they were advisory proceedings following a request from the United Nations General Assembly for an advisory opinion from the ICJ.
From the accessible records held by the Foreign & Commonwealth Office, the legal costs incurred by the UK in defending the proceedings brought by Mauritius in an arbitral tribunal constituted under Annex VII of the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea were £1,505,720.00 (comprising Counsels' fees and arbitration fees which were shared with Mauritius).