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).
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 all legal actions brought against them (1) by, or (2) on behalf of, Chagossians in (a) courts, or (b) tribunals, in England and Wales since 1998; and whether their assessment of these costs includes the staff costs of Foreign and Commonwealth Office personnel working on these cases.
Answered by Baroness Sugg
From the accessible records held by the Foreign & Commonwealth Office, the legal costs of defending all actions brought against HMG by or on behalf of Chagossians in domestic courts or tribunals since 1998 to present are £3,971,391.17.
This figure has not been adjusted to take account of costs awarded to HMG.
It is not possible to assess the staff costs of FCO officials working on these cases, as staff time is not recorded in this way.
Asked by: Baroness Whitaker (Labour - Life peer)
Question to the Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office:
To ask Her Majesty's Government, further to the support expressed by the Prime Minister for the Black Lives Matter campaign in his message of 8 June, what steps they are taking to ensure that the ethos of that campaign is fully incorporated into their decision-making regarding the treatment of citizens of the British Indian Ocean Territory and the right of return of Chagossians to the Outer Islands.
Answered by Baroness Sugg
The UK Government has expressed sincere regret about the manner in which Chagossians were removed from the British Indian Ocean Territory (BIOT) in the 1960s and 1970s. It announced in November 2016 that resettlement of Chagossians could not be supported on the grounds of feasibility, defence and security interests, and cost to the British taxpayer. The Government further announced at that time that it would implement a support package worth approximately £40 million over ten years. The support package intends to provide Chagossians in the communities in which they currently live - predominantly UK, Mauritius and Seychelles, - with better life chances. The Government recognises the emotional connection of Chagossians to BIOT, and has expanded the heritage visit programme to allow more Chagossians to visit in the coming years.
Asked by: Baroness Whitaker (Labour - Life peer)
Question to the Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they have received the report of the United Nations Secretary-General to the United Nations General Assembly on the implementation of its resolution calling on the United Kingdom to return the Chagos Islands to Mauritius by 22 November 2019; and if not, when they expect to receive it.
Answered by Baroness Sugg
The United Nations published the Secretary General's report on the 'Advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice on the legal consequences of the separation of the Chagos Archipelago from Mauritius in 1965' on 12 June. The UK government has issued a statement following the publication of this report. A copy of the statement can be found at gov.uk, United Nations Secretary General's report on the implementation of Resolution 73/295: UK statement.
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 the consistency with which the term “freedom of religion or belief” is used in their publications instead of “religious freedom”; and what steps they will take to ensure that only the term “freedom of religion or belief” is used.
Answered by Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
The United Kingdom is committed to defending freedom of thought, conscience, religion or belief as set out in international law. We attach great importance to referring to 'Freedom of Religion or Belief' in publications, as we assess this best captures the freedom to have a faith, belief, or no belief at all. On occasion, the British Government has referred to 'religious freedom' as a short-hand, but we strive to ensure that 'Freedom of Religion or Belief' is referred as often as practicable, particularly in formal publications.