Asked by: Lord Ramsbotham (Crossbench - Life peer)
Question to the Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office:
To ask Her Majesty's Government who authorised the cancellation of the High Commissioner to Mauritius' annual party to mark Her Majesty the Queen's official birthday on 4 June; and why that party was cancelled.
Answered by Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon - Minister of State (Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office)
Queen's Birthday Parties are a celebration of Her Majesty The Queen's Birthday. They are an opportunity to celebrate the relationships between the UK and other countries.
Coming so soon after the unjustified and incendiary remarks made about the UK by the Mauritian Prime Minister at the United Nations General Assembly, it would not have been appropriate to have held one this year. A decision to cancel Her Majesty The Queen's Birthday Party was taken at Ministerial level.
We have no doubt about our sovereignty over British Indian Ocean Territory, which has been under continuous British sovereignty since 1814. We have made a long-standing commitment to cede sovereignty of the territory to Mauritius when it is no longer required for defence purposes. We stand by that commitment.
Asked by: Lord Ramsbotham (Crossbench - Life peer)
Question to the Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what assessment they have made of the impact of the cancellation of the High Commissioner to Mauritius' annual party to celebrate Her Majesty the Queen's official birthday on reaching a settlement on the issues arising from the UN General Assembly resolution 73/295 Advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice on the legal consequences of the separation of the Chagos Archipelago from Mauritius in 1965 of 22 May which demanded that the UK "withdraw its colonial administration from the Chagos Archipelago unconditionally within a period of no more than six months from adoption of the present resolution."
Answered by Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon - Minister of State (Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office)
Queen's Birthday Parties are a celebration of Her Majesty The Queen's Birthday. They are an opportunity to celebrate the relationships between the UK and other countries.
Coming so soon after the unjustified and incendiary remarks made about the UK by the Mauritian Prime Minister at the United Nations General Assembly, it would not have been appropriate to have held one this year. A decision to cancel Her Majesty The Queen's Birthday Party was taken at Ministerial level.
We have no doubt about our sovereignty over British Indian Ocean Territory, which has been under continuous British sovereignty since 1814. We have made a long-standing commitment to cede sovereignty of the territory to Mauritius when it is no longer required for defence purposes. We stand by that commitment.
Asked by: Lord Ramsbotham (Crossbench - Life peer)
Question to the Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office:
To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether the 1976 UK–US Exchange of Notes concerning the British Indian Ocean Territories allows free use of the airfield and anchorage on Diego Garcia for aircraft and ships owned or operated by them, or on their behalf; and if so, whether they could charter civilian aircraft to transport Chagossians on (1) visits to, or (2) work opportunities in, the Chagos Islands.
Answered by Baroness Anelay of St Johns
Ships and aircraft owned or operated by or on behalf of the Governments of the United Kingdom and United States may freely use the anchorage and airfield on Diego Garcia. A civilian aircraft chartered by Her Majesty's Government would fall within this scope. Under the Exchange of Notes, routine access to Diego Garcia is restricted to: members of the Forces of the United Kingdom and of the United States; the Commissioner and public officials in the service of the British Indian Ocean Territory; representatives of the Governments of both countries; and, subject to normal immigration requirements, contractor personnel. Access for any other person, ship or aircraft requires prior consultation between the appropriate administrative authorities of the two Governments.
The facilities on Diego Garcia are intended for military use and it is unlikely that approval would be granted under the Exchange of Notes for a charter aircraft carrying visitors to land. Any Chagossians who were successful in securing employment on Diego Garcia with the US contractor would be transported in the same manner as all other employees after the completion of security checks.
Asked by: Lord Ramsbotham (Crossbench - Life peer)
Question to the Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office:
To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether, under the 1966 UK–US Exchange of Notes concerning British Indian Ocean Territories, the US were consulted about the possibility of resettlement on Diego Garcia; and if so, what was their response.
Answered by Baroness Anelay of St Johns
The decision against resettlement has taken into account a wide range of views from all stakeholders, including the US. But security of the military facility is not the only factor in our decision against resettlement. Even if it were possible to work around the security implications of resettlement, the overwhelming practical challenges and costs of resettlement remain.
Asked by: Lord Ramsbotham (Crossbench - Life peer)
Question to the Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office:
To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether the discussions with the government of the US over the extension of the 1966 agreement concerning the British Indian Ocean Territory will be followed by discussions with Mauritius over the future sovereignty of the Chagos Islands.
Answered by Baroness Anelay of St Johns
The Government is disappointed at recent action by Mauritius in seeking a UN General Assembly resolution requesting “an advisory opinion from the International Court of Justice on the legal consequences of the separation of the Chagos Archipelago from Mauritius in 1965”. We believe this is an inappropriate use of the International Court of Justice advisory opinion mechanism and sets an unwelcome precedent for other bilateral disputes. Whilst we are disappointed that this item has been added to the UNGA agenda, we are pleased that discussions at UNGA will be deferred until at least June 2017 in order to allow for bilateral discussions with Mauritius. We are hopeful that we can reach an agreed way forward through such bilateral discussions.