Oral Answers to Questions

Andrew Rosindell Excerpts

Tuesday 4th February 2020 Commons Chamber

[Andrew Rosindell (Romford) (Con)]

5. What recent discussions he has had with his Chinese counterpart on the situation in Wuhan.

[The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs and First Secretary of State (Dominic Raab)]

I spoke to Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi on 28 January about the evacuation of UK nationals from Wuhan and also about UK medical supplies to help the Chinese authorities tackle the coronavirus.

[Andrew Rosindell]

I thank the Foreign Secretary for his reply, but does he agree that the safety and security of British nationals must be our primary concern, and will he therefore press the Chinese authorities to co-operate in granting any assistance necessary to ensure that our nationals are looked after while they remain in China?

[Dominic Raab]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and those are precisely the issues that I raised with the Chinese Foreign Minister. In fairness, we have seen 83 British nationals repatriated on Friday, and another seven British nationals and four dependants evacuated on a French flight that returned to the UK on Sunday. I can also tell him that we have been allocated 14 places on an Air New Zealand flight today for UK nationals and their dependants.

Global Britain

Andrew Rosindell Excerpts

Monday 3rd February 2020 Commons Chamber

[Dominic Raab]

I can, and I pay tribute to the hon. Gentleman for his tireless efforts on behalf of his constituent. It is a difficult case, but we will continue to do as much as we can to support the family and to secure release. The consular teams in the Foreign Office, as well as the missions and the geographic departments, work very hard on this. A lot of the consular work takes place beneath the surface, privately; the exercise of diplomacy has to be done out of the public limelight, almost by definition. But I assure the hon. Gentleman that we work tirelessly to secure release in cases such as this.

[Andrew Rosindell (Romford) (Con)]

Will the Foreign Secretary give a cast-iron guarantee that under no circumstances will the territorial sovereignty of Gibraltar be part of any type of negotiation as part of the trade agreement? Will he also confirm that any free trade agreement with the EU—and, indeed, the rest of the world—in future will include benefits for all our overseas territories and the Crown dependencies?

[Dominic Raab]

I thank my hon. Friend, who has been a tireless champion of not just Gibraltar but all the overseas territories. We are absolutely clear: the UK will not exclude Gibraltar from our negotiations with the EU. We will negotiate on behalf of the whole United Kingdom family, and that includes Gibraltar.

Britain in the World

Andrew Rosindell Excerpts

Monday 13th January 2020 Commons Chamber

[Tom Tugendhat (Tonbridge and Malling) (Con)]

I remember that my maiden speech was rather quicker—about four minutes—so I am glad you have given us a little bit longer, Madam Deputy Speaker.

I would like to start with some condolences. Not only do the people of Ukraine and Iran deserve our condolences, but the people of Oman. Sultan Qaboos was a great friend of the UK. His partnership with our country has enabled a peace process in the region to go on for years, very quietly and very sensitively. He has been an enormous friend. I look forward to our Government working with Sultan Haitham in the years to come.

The past two years in Parliament have, for me, been shaped by chairing the Foreign Affairs Committee. It was a huge pleasure to have had that chance. We published some 23 reports and 24 special reports. We had amazing help from the most fantastic Clerks in Parliament. I would like, if I may, to name three Clerks of the Committee—Chris Stanton, Tom Goldsmith and Chris Shaw—and thank them for their amazing work. I would also like to pay tribute to the former Member for Fife, Stephen Gethins, who was a very dear friend of ours, and to Ann Clwyd, who sat with us and was absolutely inspirational in many different moments.

The overarching area that we covered was not the academic exercise of foreign ideas; it was how we best promote the interests of the British people. How do we ensure the prosperity and happiness of these islands? What should we aim for? Who should we work with and how? We looked for solutions to the problems we face and sat patiently through hours of testimony, listening carefully to witnesses to find ideas that would help us to change the world for the better for all of us. I hope that as a Committee we served this House and our country well.

Many ideas came out of our inquiries and some, I am glad to say, have been adopted. Others are enduring and could still be adopted, should the Minister wish to do so. The top five areas of work for me were defending democracy against autocracies such as China and Russia; building bridges with partners such as India and Japan; growing businesses in new markets such as South America; our own organisation and the skills we need in our own Department to succeed; and, of course, starting afresh in Europe. We addressed the dangers to democracy in many reports, but none more so than our two reports entitled “Moscow’s Gold”, about the price of Russian money, and “A Cautious Embrace”, about the way in which some autocracies prey on our educational and cultural institutions. We argued each time that the Government must stand up for the values that make us stronger.

Those values define others, too. I am very glad that the Prime Minister is keen on bridge building, because there is a bridge that we would like him to build on: the living bridge that Prime Minister Modi speaks about—that link between peoples and between diasporas. The Home Secretary, who was an important contributor to that report, now has the power to put in place some of the recommendations she herself wrote: on simplifying the visa system; on making it easier for students, businesses and skilled workers to come to the UK from countries such as India; and on using technology to make things faster and cheaper. We must also look at new friends. Our report on South America did just that, calling for the trade commissioner’s team to be boosted and looking at how our great companies, such as JCB and Diageo, were already embedded in the continent and how much further we could go. When we look at the law, we see a platform that is being built on in those countries and could be built on elsewhere.

Closer to home, our new relationship with the European Union, and separately with the 27 sovereign nations that make it up, will be built on co-operation and friendship. I hear what the hon. Member for Stirling (Alyn Smith) says, but we must hope for the continuation of that good will and co-operation. I know that we are asking a lot of our partners. We are asking them to change when they did not choose to, but the truth is change is coming to Europe anyway. We know that there are changes within the European Union and between European states already. The world has changed, so it is hardly surprising that we must look to change with it.

The transformation that Britain is about to undergo internationally will define much of the work of this Government. Despite that, the Committee found, sadly, that the Foreign and Commonwealth Office was too often unable to bring policy together. Sadly, it is not even paying diplomats as much as other civil servants. If we are to deliver a global Britain, we need a clear direction and high morale to attract those who will shape our place in the world. That means a clear focus on the task ahead. We have an opportunity and a Government ready to set a course for ourselves and, I hope, for the world, with the kind of foreign policy that will be exciting and ambitious, and which I believe can be done.

Why am I so confident? The mandarin who was quoted in The Sunday Times last week, saying that this Administration do not care about foreign policy, is clearly wrong. The handling of the Iran crisis, leaving pressure to mount on the dictators in Tehran and not giving them an easy escape, has shown a deftness that we have been lacking for too long. Last month, the Government won the ability to deliver, and for the first time in almost a decade, we have a British Government that can decide a policy, shape it and make it happen. That will change the calculations of others, and while our partners may struggle, our Prime Minister is for the moment unchallenged at home. That gives confidence to friends and focuses the minds of enemies. The word of No. 10, the Foreign Secretary and the Defence Secretary is now real and deliverable and can be relied on, so now is the moment to build new partnerships.

I was privileged as Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee to welcome delegations from around the world, and one thing that struck me was, as the hon. Member for Stirling put it, how we are seen ourselves—[Interruption.] Forgive me for waking him from his reverie. When I met groups from South Korea, Japan, Colombia and many others, I heard from them that we are a partner that they seek to join. That is important, because they see not just our departure from the European Union, but our co-operation in networks such as the UN, NATO and the Commonwealth, which my hon. Friend the Member for Romford (Andrew Rosindell) champions so frequently, and many more besides—many of them born out of the imagination of British diplomats over many years.

[Andrew Rosindell (Romford) (Con)]

I am proud to serve under my hon. Friend’s chairmanship of the Foreign Affairs Committee, on which I have served for the last 10 years. He would not want to end his remarks without referring to our reports on the British overseas territories and our success in persuading the Foreign Office at last to allow territories and dependencies the right to lay a wreath on Remembrance Sunday to remember those from the overseas territories and Crown dependencies who fought and died. It has taken years for that to happen and, because of our report, it has finally occurred.

[Tom Tugendhat]

I would love to claim credit for that, but the truth is that it is my hon. Friend’s work. He has championed that over a decade and has made a difference not just to the high commissioners, ambassadors and premiers who come to London, but to the hundreds of veterans and thousands of their families who are watching from around the world, seeing this home of remembrance every year.

The British Government should recognise that we have two pretty simple aims that we can, and should, go for: the happiness and the prosperity of the British people—no more than that. That is the strategic goal of any British Administration, and the question now is how we should deliver that. I think that we can build on three areas. We want an open world where the rule of law, freedom of navigation and freedom of trade, alongside the protection of our climate and human rights, work together by defending international treaties, by creating common practice and sometimes by independent action. This is what shaped our past, and although we should not try to go back there, we should certainly learn from it.

Fractures with Europe over history have seen us sail to the East and West Indies developing trading networks in ways that we would never replicate today, but that reminds of us a wider world. Today, partnering with new independent trading nations as equals, we have a new opportunity: to bring the new Indies together.

Over the past 70 years, we have heard one mantra constantly: alignment—alignment with everyone, alignment around the world. Whether it is with the European Union or others, it has seemed that the only way to get ahead is to replicate, and we must look to change that. More than ever, we need a world that dares to experiment and innovate, to get the best ideas and solutions for the challenges that we face. That requires an independence of mind. Not being part of the three great continental trading blocs—China, the European Union and the United States—this new group could focus on recognition, rather than alignment, and new ways of working together: a less rigid partnership, more Commonwealth, perhaps, than common purpose. That may be the better starting point. Many of my friends may be surprised to hear me say this, because I remain a passionate European— I would have to be with a wife who is French, and I remain still afeard of her. However, as my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Sir William Cash) put it, Britain is and will remain in Europe, but of course, Europe is not Brussels.

Europe is 450 million people. Its cultures are as diverse as the people in northern Finland and southern Italy. It is what has given us and the world amazing art and culture, science and innovation. That came not from common alignment, but from competition and experimentation that led to the natural selection of ideas. Europe’s fractured land mass allowed ideas to take root and allowed experiments to find different solutions to the problems we face. Co-operation, not unanimity, should be what we aim for, and not just with Europe. The new Indies—the new partnerships—will be a way to build that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew Rosindell (Romford) (Con)]

Mr Deputy Speaker, it is wonderful to see you back in the Chair. We are all thrilled to have you back in your rightful position.

I would like to commend all those who have made their maiden speeches today, particularly the ones I have just heard from my new hon. Friends the Members for Wakefield (Imran Ahmad Khan) and for Rutland and Melton (Alicia Kearns). They have both left the Chamber, but in their absence I would like to commend them for their passion for their constituencies, but also for their patriotism for their country. That is why we are here—because we love our country and believe in what is right for Britain. That is why we are here to stand up for our country.

Today, I can say with great pride that the British people can be confident that Her Majesty’s Government and this House will now uphold the democratic instruction they were given on 23 June 2016 to take the United Kingdom out of the European Union, along with all of its political entanglements. Once again, we can stand tall in the world, knowing the future destiny of our island nation is now back in the hands of the British people themselves. No longer will we be a supplicant to a higher European authority, with our freedom and right of self-government being restored as a truly sovereign and independent nation.

As you will know, Mr Deputy Speaker, the British people have a deep attachment to and a love for the basic concept of freedom. We have always been a free people; our forebears fought for and defended that over many centuries. Those who believed that it did not matter and that the people would not notice if our freedom was traded away underestimated the lion-hearted spirit of the British people. This Gracious Speech lays the foundations for, I believe, a brighter future, with our nation led by a Prime Minster who truly believes in this country and will stop at nothing to see us succeed and play an ever increasing role in the wider world.

Yes, Britain is back: back as a global free trading nation, with an independent trade policy, making new alliances and renewing those that we have neglected over the mistaken period of political union with Europe; back on the international stage, taking our place in global organisations, speaking up for British interests and co-operating with our wider Commonwealth family of nations; and back as a force for good in the world, with the most professional armed forces and security services of any nation, while at the same time providing support for the poorer nations of the world and those in need of relief from natural disaster, as well as promoting democracy, the rule of law and good governance.

We have a proud history, but our island story continues, with greater things to come as we regain our place in the world. The title of this debate, “Britain in the World”, says exactly where we as a nation have always been and must continue to be. In passing the withdrawal agreement Bill, this House has already delivered on our promise to get Brexit done, and we will be leaving the European Union in less than three weeks’ time. The British people understood that the world is much more than Europe, and our future must be global rather than tied to a political union that is essentially representing the interests of Germany and France. Britain’s role in the world has been and always will be much greater than that of a continental power. Britain is a country with a global history and global connections, and once we leave the EU on 31 January, we can once again play an independent role in foreign affairs on the world stage.

We must have a post-Brexit foreign policy that takes into account Britain’s unique history, as well as its present reality and future aims. We must not allow questions over the future relationship with Europe to dominate foreign policy thinking over this entire Parliament. The key areas of focus must be a new free trade agreement with both Europe and the United States of America, as many of my hon. Friends have pointed out, and there must be a renewed focus on the Commonwealth, most especially Canada, Australia and New Zealand, with whom we must forge a much closer relationship with the aim of creating a new CANZUK alliance. The CANZUK nations share so much in common, tied together by language, a common heritage, the same common-law legal system, a love of freedom, democracy, human rights and the rule of law, which began in 1215 with Magna Carta, and by sharing Her Majesty the Queen as our sovereign. That is not the case for the United States of America of course, but from speaking to many Americans, as I do, Mr Deputy Speaker—and you will know this only too well—one might be forgiven for thinking that our Queen is as much their Queen too; Americans seem to love and adore the British royal family, so I think we can share them with the United States if it would like to do so.

[Sir John Hayes]

My hon. Friend is making a bold and confident case for our relationship with the Queen’s realm, and I wonder if, in the spirit of Joseph Chamberlain, he might recommend to the Government some preferential trading arrangements with those countries of the realm; it seems to me that that would be a way of cementing our economic ties and complementing our political ones.

[Andrew Rosindell]

My right hon. Friend interjected at just the right point, because I was about to talk about the importance of trade and co-operation with all of Her Majesty’s realms, of which there are 15 apart from the United Kingdom, but he will also not be surprised to hear me referring to the 21 cherished British overseas territories and Crown dependencies, which are part of our wider British family in what I would describe as an all-encompassing Britannic Kingdom; from the Falkland Islands to the Isle of Man, from Bermuda to the Pitcairn Islands, the British family stretches far and wide and all are part of our global family which we must defend and cherish, and include in any future free trade agreements.

Over the coming years, our nation, our Government and our people must work tirelessly to bring about this transformation, putting Britain back where we belong, as a global free-trading nation, to create the wealth and prosperity we need to make our nation stronger and to give our people the best chances and opportunities for the future. Getting this right will not be plain sailing—we understand that—but with ambition, determination and the kind of leadership demonstrated by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister we will be able to revitalise our foreign policy and put the UK firmly back on the world stage.

That is a far cry from the days when British embassies were being shut down across the world—I remember that in the 1990s and during the period of Mr Blair’s premiership—only to be replaced by EU external action missions, and when British Foreign Secretaries stopped visiting our closest friends like Australia and New Zealand, and when the Commonwealth was sidelined by the then Government. And—I make no apologies for referring to this—in that period our overseas territories were shamefully treated as bargaining chips in EU negotiations, as happened with the Labour Government’s attempted joint sovereignty proposals over Gibraltar with Madrid in 2002. What a shameful action and betrayal of the people of Gibraltar that was; what a sad period that was for British foreign policy. It felt like we were in retreat—well, not anymore.

Our Prime Minister, just like his magnificent and courageous predecessor Margaret Thatcher, will reinvigorate our international relations and Britain’s standing in the world. After three years of muddle caused by a Parliament that refused to accept the democratic will of the nation, not before time we now have the leadership we need to take Britain forward.

Britain is a great nation—a founding member of the UN and a permanent member of the Security Council. We are the sixth largest economy in the world. We are a leading member of NATO and the Five Eyes security alliance, plus a range of other organisations, which I will not refer to now. Those who have sought to downplay Britain over the past few years were on the wrong side of history, and today we must all—yes, all of us—be proud to support a confident, independent foreign policy that reflects Britain’s true place in the world.

Our Prime Minister has already shown us just how much can be achieved if we demonstrate self-belief and confidence; as we approach the next stage of negotiating a free trade agreement with the EU we must have a clear and unflinching vision, and tough negotiators who will not crumble at the first hint of dissent from Brussels. That vision should look like a comprehensive free trade agreement, which ensures that Britain maintains its close economic relationship while never preventing us from diverging if we choose to do so. And leaving the EU must mean that we are completely free: the EU tentacles must be cut away fully so that we can make our own way in the world once again.

At the end of the day, we must all be prepared to walk away if, as happened before, the EU treat us not as an equal partner but as a supplicant; otherwise, as the last three years have shown, the EU will try to land us with a poor agreement or a bad deal, and nobody is willing to accept that now, least of all the British people, who voted overwhelmingly to get Brexit done and take Britain forward in a new direction. By taking a confident approach, setting out clear proposals and keeping the threat of no deal on the table, I believe our Prime Minister will secure a free trade agreement which will benefit both the United Kingdom and retain friendly co-operation with the nations of Europe.

But our foreign policy has to look beyond Europe. Though anchored to Europe by geography, Britain is unbounded in its global ambition, and we must engage our friends on a global scale. And what better way to develop global connections than by rebuilding our long-neglected ties with the Commonwealth, a diverse worldwide network of 53 countries, which together make up a third of the earth’s population. Our exit from the EU means that we can take full advantage of the economic opportunities of the Commonwealth. We can have our own independent trade policy and strike trade deals across the globe without being limited by the lengthy process of EU ratification. We can strike bilateral trade deals based on mutual benefit without handing over political powers which no proud sovereign nation should ever do.

Defence and security, the protection of our global environment and wildlife, climate change, tax evasion and immigration are all areas where Britain should take an active role in the Commonwealth and work together with our historical allies to form dynamic arrangements fit for the modern world.

As Britain exits the archaic protectionist structures of the European Union, it must once again reclaim its place as a global leader for free trade. Britain used to account for more than half the world’s trade and free trade is in our blood. We must make the development of free trade networks a British Government priority once again, and I believe that under this Government we will.

Britain also retains huge soft power and influence across the globe, which we can use to our advantage. The English language is the language of the world, and our historic institutions, such as the monarchy and our parliamentary democracy, are universally recognised. The emerging markets in Latin America, the far east and Africa are places where Britain must be in the future. As one of the Prime Minister’s trade envoys representing the UK to Tanzania, I believe that these are vast markets that we can develop in the years ahead as we leave, rightly, the EU customs union. Those markets of the future present massive opportunities for British businesses to export goods and services, as well as the potential for lower prices for all our constituents and consumers across Britain. We must ensure that our new trade policy takes full advantage of the opportunities presented by Brexit, and that we get on with negotiating and striking new free trade agreements as quickly as possible, perhaps starting with the USA on 1 February.

We are now in a post-Brexit age. The title of this debate, “Britain in the World”, serves as an effective reminder that Britain is now no longer just in Europe, but part of a much wider global community. We must refocus how we think and act, to benefit from all the advantages of our new-found independence. That means our foreign policy must be about far more than our relationship with Europe. We must set out a truly global foreign policy from this day forth, with the Commonwealth and global free trade at its heart, underpinned by friendly co-operation between independent sovereign nations. The British people will expect nothing less.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew Rosindell]

I thank my hon. Friend for everything he is saying about the Chagossians and for his incredible work on the all-party parliamentary group on the Chagos Islands. If we, as a Government, uphold the right to self-determination for Gibraltar, the Falkland Islands and the British people of all British territories, why should the Chagossians be treated differently?

[Henry Smith]

My hon. Friend is entirely right about self-determination. As a democracy, we have been talking about our own self-determination to leave the European Union and how people were seeking to thwart it. As a country, we believe in self-determination for ourselves and for other people around the world. It is absolutely right that, just like every other British overseas territory, the people of the Chagos Islands should be able to decide their own future, not an international court that seeks to pass and hand down judgments. The Chagos islanders have been ignored for far too long, and my hon. Friend is absolutely right that it is their territory and that it is for them to decide their own future. If given that choice, I think they will correctly choose to be part of the British family.

In conclusion, because I know other hon. and right hon. Members want to speak, I will mention our overseas territories and the important role that Britain is playing and can play in promoting environmental sustainability. Through our overseas territories, we are responsible for millions of square miles of ocean around the world. I commend this Conservative Government for the Blue Belt programme that we have initiated around many of our British overseas territories. The programme plays an important role in marine conservation around the world.

That is Britain at its best: outward looking, ambitious, free-trading, promoting liberty, promoting the environment and promoting justice around the world, and doing so as a responsible global state. The best years of Britain as a global nation are ahead of it, and I am grateful that is a key policy of this Government.

Libya

Andrew Rosindell Excerpts

Monday 8th April 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mark Field]

I think it a little unfair of the hon. Lady to suggest that there was no humanitarian issue in 2011. We went in because of what was happening in Benghazi. I accept that the early optimism and successes were not sustained, and that would clearly have to happen at UN level.

I mentioned earlier the amount of aid that we continue to put into Libya. We have invested some £75 million in the migration programme, working across the whole route from west Africa to Libya via the Sahel. As I have said, we will also do all that we can in the camps that are not run by the Libyan authorities. We are all very concerned that a further outbreak of hostilities will only lead to even more humanitarian misery.

[Andrew Rosindell (Romford) (Con)]

Whatever the result of the power struggle in Libya, the priority of our Government will still be to work towards compensation for the victims of Semtex supplied by Libya to the IRA. I welcome the appointment of William Shawcross to look into the whole issue, but will my right hon. Friend assure the victims that it will not be sidelined, and that the Government will continue to pursue it to ensure that justice is done and compensation is paid to those who suffered so horribly at the hands of the IRA?

[Mark Field]

May I first correct something that I said earlier? The UN Secretary General did not flee Libya, and I am sorry if I gave that impression and there was a misapprehension. Obviously, the UN still has a significant presence in Libya.

We all want to see a just solution for all the victims of Gaddafi-sponsored IRA terrorism, but the political and security situation in Libya has, I am afraid, effectively stalled further discussion with the authorities about a resolution of the important legacy issues to which my hon. Friend referred. He also referred to the appointment of William Shawcross as the special representative on UK victims, which forms part of the UK’s ongoing commitment to helping the victims of Libya-supported IRA terrorism. I share many of his concerns and much of his impatience: we would have liked to see more progress. I think he will understand that the general instability in Libya has made that difficult, but we are working steadfastly and will continue to do so.

Libyan-sponsored IRA Terrorism

Andrew Rosindell Excerpts

Thursday 10th May 2018 Commons Chamber

[Andrew Rosindell (Romford) (Con)]

It is an honour to follow the hon. Member for Jarrow (Mr Hepburn) and I agree with every word that he has uttered this afternoon. I also congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Tewkesbury (Mr Robertson) on getting this debate on to the Floor of the House at last. It is time that this long outstanding matter was given the full attention of Parliament, and I hope that our deliberations today will prompt Her Majesty’s Government to take the action that I believe is long overdue to ensure that all victims of IRA and INLA terrorism sponsored by the former Libyan regime are fully compensated for their loss and suffering.

I am sad to say that IRA terrorism, supported by Colonel Gaddafi’s regime, is the most significant example in recent times of British citizens being failed by their own Government when seeking justice for crimes committed against them. I believe that it is the paramount duty of Her Majesty’s Government to use their power to act to resolve this issue either by making provision for the seizing of the assets of the Gaddafi family in London or by awarding compensation now and fighting for the money to be reclaimed for the UK Government later. It is not an option for our Government simply to expect the individuals and families affected to seek justice directly from the Libyan Government on their own. When it comes to state-sponsored acts of terrorism, it is surely right that the responsibility to represent the victims should be carried by the United Kingdom Government, whose duty must always be to defend the rights of British subjects.

As chairman of the parliamentary support group established to help the victims of Libyan-sponsored IRA terrorism, I am pleased to have worked on a cross-party basis alongside many colleagues who are here in the Chamber today to champion the just cause of obtaining compensation for the victims of these dreadful crimes, which they rightly deserve. We all lived through IRA bombings in the 1970s, ’80s and ’90s in London, Belfast and other towns and cities throughout Britain and Northern Ireland, carried out with explosives used by the Libyan regime, yet so many years later, the victims have still not received the fair compensation that they rightly deserve.

As we have heard today, some of victims and families who have suffered this trauma are elderly or have passed away, and others might not have much longer to live, yet their justified claims have not been dealt with. As a result of these appalling and devastating events, which caused unimaginable damage and suffering, countless people died leaving widows and children behind or were left severely disabled and with life-changing injuries, yet nothing has happened to solve this issue. That is wholly wrong, and the Government really need to act.

I ask the Minister: how can it be justified that some victims have received compensation while others have not? We have heard that other countries, such as the United States of America, Germany and France, have fought for their citizens and got the compensation that our successive Governments have failed to obtain. How can this not be settled while the victims and their families are still alive? It has to be sorted out soon. It is truly terrible that British victims have been treated so differently from American victims. Their Government stood by their victims, but our Government failed to stand by ours. That cannot be right. This approach of indifference must not carry on. It remains a fact that victims who happened to have an American, French or German passport were comforted by the fact their Governments had negotiated a compensation settlement on their behalf, yet British victims still have nothing.

Each time the issue of compensation for these deserving victims is raised, we have until now received the same empty response from successive Governments. Each time, we hear weak excuses for not pursuing a way of bringing this matter to a satisfactory conclusion for the British victims of terrorism. Each time, the long-hurting victims of the IRA and of Gaddafi’s regime listen in, only to be let down and left to wait indefinitely.

Time is running out, and successive Governments have both missed and avoided opportunities to bring justice to the victims. This cannot be allowed to happen one moment longer. To settle this now, our Government should at least consider a compensation scheme to be paid now, with the money claimed back from Libyan assets in due course, otherwise many victims face the prospect of never being compensated.

The former Gaddafi regime has £9.5 billion-worth of frozen assets in our capital alone. If not now, in the future a percentage of those assets should be used to compensate the victims. Let the British Government take the lead. They have the power to do so. Her Majesty’s Government must act decisively against the perpetrators and backers of these horrific crimes and deliver justice for all those whose lives were so cruelly cut short or who suffered injury or loss. The powers lie here, and we must give hope to all British citizens who have suffered at the hands of terrorism.

I truly hope it is not too late, otherwise the consequence of this missed opportunity to secure compensation will be a stain on our nation. Now is the time to correct past failures, to hold the enablers of terrorism to account and, once and for all, to right this wrong by giving the victims the justice and compensation they deserve.

Oral Answers to Questions

Andrew Rosindell Excerpts

Tuesday 21st February 2017 Commons Chamber

[Boris Johnson]

If the hon. Lady is suggesting that we should boycott Israeli goods, I must say that I completely reject her advice.

[Andrew Rosindell (Romford) (Con)]

Does the Foreign Secretary agree that any global Britain strategy should include the whole of the global British family, which means the British overseas territories and the Crown dependencies? What guarantees will the Government give that they will be included in any new arrangements post-Brexit?

[Sir Alan Duncan]

I am certain I can give my hon. Friend the assurance he seeks. I know that one prime focus of his thoughts is Gibraltar, and I can assure him that the sovereignty position remains totally unchanged. Gibraltar is fully involved in the preparations for the process of leaving the European Union.

Chagos Islands

Andrew Rosindell Excerpts

Thursday 17th November 2016 Commons Chamber

[Andrew Rosindell (Romford) (Con)]

(Urgent Question): To ask the Minister of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs to make a statement on the future of the British people of the Chagos Islands and the British Indian Ocean Territory.

[The Minister for Europe and the Americas (Sir Alan Duncan)]

The islands of the Chagos archipelago have been British territory since 1814, when they were ceded to Britain by France. In 1966, the UK agreed with the United States to make the British Indian Ocean Territory available for the defence purposes of the US and the UK, and the Chagossian people were removed from the islands. Like successive Governments before them, this Government have expressed their sincere regret about the manner in which Chagossians were removed from the British Indian Ocean Territory in the late 1960s and early 1970s. It is right that the UK Government paid substantial compensation to Chagossians—nearly £15.5 million in current prices—and the British courts and the European Court of Human Rights have confirmed that compensation has already been paid in full and final settlement.

We must now look forward, not back, on decisions about the future of the British Indian Ocean Territory. The Government have considered this complex issue very closely and carried out an independent feasibility study of the practicalities of resettlement and a public consultation, which sought better to gauge the demand for resettlement by illustrating the most realistic way in which resettlement would hypothetically take place. The Government have looked carefully at the practicalities of setting up a small remote community on low-lying islands and the challenges that such a community would face. We were particularly concerned about the difficulty of establishing modern public services, about the limited healthcare and education that it would be possible to provide—which would create difficulties for any new population and especially for elderly Chagossians returning to the islands—and about the lack of realistic economic opportunities.

The Government have now considered all the available information and decided against the resettlement of the Chagossian people on the grounds of feasibility, defence and security interests, and the cost to the British taxpayer. Although the Government have ruled out resettlement, we are determined to address the aspirations that drove Chagossians to seek to resettle—for instance, their desire for better lives and their wish to maintain a connection to the territory. To meet those aspirations, the Government are creating a significant and ambitious support programme to provide Chagossians with better life chances and developing an increased visits programme. The British Government intend to liaise with Chagossian communities in the UK and overseas and to work closely with the Governments involved to develop the kind of cost-effective programmes that will make the biggest improvement in the life chances of those Chagossians who need it most.

[Andrew Rosindell]

I thank the Minister for his reply, but does he not understand the shock, anger and dismay among members of the Chagossian community in the United Kingdom, in Mauritius and in the Seychelles who were displaced from their homeland in the 1960s at the Government’s decision not to allow resettlement? Does he not realise that they are British subjects who are entitled to the same rights, freedoms and self-determination that all British citizens should have? How can the Government defend the right of self-determination for the people of the Falkland Islands, Gibraltar and other British overseas territories, while completely denying the same rights to the people of the Chagos Islands?

Why have the Government ignored the arguments put forward over the years by the all-party parliamentary group on the Chagos Islands and by experts concerning viability, sustainability, cost, funding, defence and security, international human rights obligations and the views of the courts, which since 2000 have deplored the treatment of the Chagossians? Have the Government properly considered the Supreme Court conclusion that, in the light of the KPMG study, maintaining the ban on Chagossian return might no longer be legal?

Does the Minister accept that the United States was not opposed to resettlement and that any security concerns would be easily manageable, just as they are when indigenous people around the world who live around military installations are accommodated? Will he clarify whether the right of abode, which is different from resettlement, can be restored, giving Chagossians the right to visit their homeland whenever they wish? Does he not see that this decision continues to undermine the United Kingdom’s human rights record and the British sense of fair play? Why should Chagossians, who are British, be treated any differently from other nationals of overseas territories? How does this leave the Government’s so-called “unwavering commitment” to human rights?

British Chagossians should have the right of self-determination that is afforded to all Her Majesty’s subjects, who rightly expect the protection of the Crown, which is being denied to the Chagossians today.

[Sir Alan Duncan]

I fully accept my hon. Friend’s passion on this subject, which he has demonstrated for many years. He has become a champion of this issue. However, as he will appreciate, the Government and I do not agree with many of his points. First, we do not consider that the right of self-determination actually applies to the Chagossians. In fact, the issue here is one of sustainability and viability—[Interruption.] Well, let me go into that.

When I was an International Development Minister, looking at communities such as the Pitcairn Islands, one needed to appreciate that it is demographically difficult to sustain a population of that size in such a remote area: services cannot be provided; the travel distances are enormous; and the costs are quite significant. The costs here have been estimated to vary between £55 million for a mere 50 people and something like £256 million for 1,500. The obligation on Her Majesty’s Government to pay on an annual basis the costs of sustaining the population would be triggered. When no hospital is available and when care cannot be delivered urgently, it is unsustainable to expect a community of any such size to exist in such a setting.

British Indian Ocean Territory and the Chagos Islands

Andrew Rosindell Excerpts

Tuesday 25th October 2016 Westminster Hall

[Andrew Rosindell (Romford) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered Government policy on the British Indian Ocean Territory and Chagos Islands.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Betts. I rise to address the House as chairman of the Chagos Islands British Indian Ocean Territory all-party parliamentary group, a role I gladly accepted exactly one year ago when I took over from my predecessor, the right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn), when he became Leader of Her Majesty’s Opposition. He founded the group back in 2008, having championed the cause of justice for the Chagossian people since his election to Parliament in 1983. Today I am proud to follow his good work at such a crucial point, with a decision being made on resettlement, so we understand, in the very near future.

I say to the Minister and to the whole House that, before the end of 2016, the United Kingdom has a duty to put right this great wrong. It is a wrong that has failed to be resolved by every UK Government for more than half a century. Now is the moment to end the years of shame and bring justice and dignity, which the Chagossian people so rightly deserve. Today, the Chagos BIOT all-party parliamentary group includes 47 Members representing all 10 political parties in Westminster, as well as House of Lords Cross Benchers. I speak on behalf of the broadest possible spectrum of politicians as well as many in the general public, media and international community, all of whom seek justice for the Chagossian people.

BIOT and Chagos islands policy has been debated in both Houses since the 1970s. The most recent debate was a year ago in this very Chamber, led by the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Dr Monaghan), and there has been a steady flow of interventions and parliamentary questions from Members on both sides of the House. Fifty-one years after the creation of the British Indian Ocean Territory and 49 years since the expulsion of the Chagossians began, this must surely be one of the longest periods of exile in the history of the world.

[Sir Henry Bellingham (North West Norfolk) (Con)]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way, and congratulate him on this important debate. He mentioned that it is a pivotal time in this saga. He may well come to this point, but does he agree that the Anglo-US agreement gives a big opportunity to secure some additional rights for the Chagossians—for example, perhaps more Chagossians can be employed on the US air base at Diego Garcia?

[Andrew Rosindell]

I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention, which was absolutely to the point. As a former Minister for the British overseas territories, my hon. Friend knows only too well that those possibilities exist. As he rightly said, I will come to those points later, but I thank him for his support over many years for the Chagossian cause.

[Sir Peter Bottomley (Worthing West) (Con)]

The whole House will be grateful to my hon. Friend for raising this issue, and he has rightly pointed out the all-party support that there is. Given the enormous amount of money—millions of pounds—spent by the Government in resisting resettlement initiatives, does he agree that the only serious issues now are conservation and resettlement, where there does not seem to be a major problem, the Americans, where there does not seem to be a major problem, and economic existence? If some of the money spent on resisting their claims had been spent on resettlement, we would have had the pilot resettlement and would know how much further we can go.

[Andrew Rosindell]

My hon. Friend makes a superb point. He is completely right: had previous Governments addressed that long ago, we would not be in this very unfortunate position today. It only takes common sense to realise that this could have been resolved a long time ago, and that the money spent has been a huge waste. The appalling record that we have left in not dealing with this when it should have been dealt with has left many of us feeling very sad. That is why we hope that, today, we will get some indication of whether the Government will now resolve the matter once and for all.

Hope for a resolution came in November 2000 following the High Court judgment and the decision of the then Foreign Secretary, the late Robin Cook, who restored the right to return to the outer islands. That remained the case until that right was withdrawn in June 2004 by Order in Council—thus overturning the High Court and bypassing Parliament. Then, nearly four years ago, as Foreign Secretary, William Hague announced a review of the policy, the results of which are still awaited. The Government now state that they intend to make a decision on resettlement before the Christmas recess this year, so today I will focus on why the decision should be in favour of resettlement and on the consequences of not doing so.

The expulsion of the Chagossian people from their homeland remains a blot on the UK’s human rights record, and a breach of international human rights law and, many would argue, of Magna Carta itself, the very basis of our cherished liberties. As long as this situation prevails, I believe the United Kingdom remains guilty of double standards. How can Her Majesty’s Government argue that the people of the British overseas territories of Gibraltar or the Falkland Islands should have the right to remain living peacefully in their homelands and their right of self-determination, and be prepared to use the British armed forces to defend their rights, yet at the same time refuse to accept that the exact same principle applies to the Chagossian people of the British Indian Ocean Territory who, despite their forced removal from their island home, have remained loyal subjects of the Crown throughout and cherish the fact that they are British subjects?

If the UK refuses to allow the Chagossians the right of return to live in their homeland if they choose, will the Minister explain how that fits with Britain’s desire to be re-elected to the United Nations Human Rights Council next year? A decision to grant the right of return would surely demonstrate that, under the leadership of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, the United Kingdom is now taking its human rights responsibilities very seriously indeed.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

I am sorry, Mr Betts, that I was a few seconds late. I ask my hon. Friend whether the right to return should also imply a right to a job. I really am concerned that when the Chagossians get home, there will not be a decent economy for them to function in, apart, perhaps, from working for Americans. We should try to build up some kind of support society, as it were.

[Andrew Rosindell]

My hon. Friend makes a valid point. We are talking about a community that has not lived there for more than 50 years, and just giving the right of return on its own is not good enough. We will need to ensure that there are adequate facilities for the people to live in an appropriate way and to work. There are many options, including working for the Americans on the base on Diego Garcia and possibly working in conservation in the marine protected area—I will come to those matters later. He is absolutely right: we cannot just say, “Go home if you wish”, but do nothing to support the community. It was our British Government who forcibly removed them in the first place, so if they go back, we have a duty to ensure that they have adequate resources to have a sustainable community.

This is surely an appropriate time for our new Prime Minister to end this shameful episode once and for all, and to make a right decision after so many years of procrastination by her predecessors. The recent report by the UN Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination urged the UK to

“hold full and meaningful consultations with the Chagossians...to facilitate their return to their islands and to provide them with an effective remedy, including compensation.”

To argue, as sadly Her Majesty’s Government seem to, that the convention does not apply because the British Indian Ocean Territory has no population when the UK expelled those people in the first place must rank as the height of cynicism. The UN Human Rights Committee, which monitors observance of the UN human rights covenants, has on two occasions urged Her Majesty’s Government to rectify the situation and report on the measures they have taken to comply with the international covenant on civil and political rights. The committee’s last report said:

“The State party should ensure that the Chagos islanders can exercise their right to return to their territory and should indicate what measures have been taken in this regard. It should consider compensation for the denial of this right over an extended period. It should also include the Territory in its next periodic report.”

In June, the UK Supreme Court concluded that, in the light of the 2014 KPMG feasibility study that found no obstacle to settlement, maintaining the ban on a Chagossian return may no longer be lawful. The judgment noted that if the Government failed to restore the rights of abode, it would be open to Chagossians to mount a new challenge by way of judicial review on the grounds of irrationality, unreasonableness or disproportionality. After 17 years of litigation, is it not high time that our Government stopped incurring litigation costs that must now amount to several million pounds? Although there is one outstanding case relating to the marine protected area, which the Supreme Court will hear next year, surely the Minister must agree that the resumption of further litigation cannot be in our national interest.

The extension on 30 December this year of the 1966 UK-US agreement for the use of the island of Diego Garcia for a further 20 years provides an ideal peg for agreeing to resettlement. It is the unanimous view of the all-party parliamentary group that the extension should be conditional on both parties agreeing to support and facilitate resettlement. If the UK does not make the extension conditional, there is a danger of losing important leverage with the United States. A decision in favour of resettlement might then be postponed for many years to come. We simply cannot allow that to happen.

[Kate Hoey (Vauxhall) (Lab)]

I am sorry for being a couple of minutes late to the debate. After the debate last year, I received a letter from one of my constituents who had watched, having previously known nothing about the situation. He said to me, “What is behind this? After all these years, what would make Her Majesty’s Government decide not to allow resettlement?” Can the hon. Gentleman tell us, from his long experience, what is behind the fact that the Government might not agree to what seems to be an absolutely just case for allowing the Chagossians to go back home?

[Andrew Rosindell]

As always, the hon. Lady makes an excellent point and gets to the heart of the issue. I only wish that I could give her an answer. Perhaps the Minister can. I certainly know that it is not down to the United States of America because, as a member of the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs, I have raised the matter every time I have been to Washington. When I ask why it is not possible for the Chagossian people to go back and why Washington blocks it, the Americans say, “We’re not blocking anything.”

I find it astonishing that the situation has gone on for 50 years—half a century—and that no one has got to the bottom of it. Of course there are financial implications. Any responsible Government cannot just agree to something without working out how things will be funded, but we have a moral responsibility. This has gone on for so long and it has been handled totally differently from all our other overseas territories, where self-determination has been paramount.

[James Duddridge (Rochford and Southend East) (Con)]

I hope to catch Mr Betts’ eye later and make a contribution, but I have visited the islands with the Americans. They were very clear when we were on the island and in subsequent discussions with me when I was a Minister and with the Government more generally that they unequivocally oppose resettlement. I am not sure exactly who my hon. Friend has spoken to but, as far as I am concerned, the Americans have always opposed resettlement.

[Andrew Rosindell]

I thank my hon. Friend, a former Minister, for his helpful intervention, but that is not what I have discovered when I have directly confronted the Americans. I would love to know which particular American said that they oppose resettlement because when I speak to senior level Americans in Washington, they are baffled and do not really understand.

The Leader of the Opposition has raised the matter with President Obama, and I understand that even he had no understanding of what objections there could possibly be. It is completely contrary to the attitude when Americans have air bases elsewhere, where the local community work on the bases. There is no sense and there is no moral justification.

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

We might as well have the full list of the former Ministers with responsibility for the matter. It may be that President Obama is not very well sighted on the precise situation of the Chagossians, but it is certainly true that every single American official that I had formal dealings with in relation to the British Indian Ocean Territory was absolutely clear that they wholeheartedly opposed any resettlement. That should not be the defining point for a British Government, but it is an important factor to bear in mind.

[Andrew Rosindell]

We will move on from this point because, even if it is correct—I do not believe it is—this line has been carried forward by every generation without anyone questioning its original purpose. The duty of Her Majesty’s Government is to defend the rights and freedoms of Her Majesty’s subjects. These people are Chagossians. They are British. They are of equal status to the people of the Falkland Islands or Gibraltar, and there is no way on this planet that we can justify treating them in an inferior way. Sadly, that is what successive Governments have done but, in this very year, we have a chance to rectify it. In my view, it has been clear for many years that there is no fundamental objection from the United States to resettlement, even if it is of the outer islands, rather than Diego Garcia.

[Sir Peter Bottomley]

My hon. Friend has come to an important point. I hope he will forgive me for not being able to stay for the rest of the debate. When I was a Minister, I put forward a good suggestion, and the officials said, “That’s against ministerial policy.” I asked the Secretary of State, “Is it against your policy?”, and he said, “No, it’s not against mine.” That is an example of the historical negative: one cannot do something in a new way because it has not been done that way before.

The Americans ought to be big enough to say which island they want protected and what will happen with all the rest. We are not talking about something as small as the Isle of Wight, close to the mainland. We are talking about the Indian Ocean Territory. There are plenty of opportunities. Any sensible American could say, “Yes, there’s no problem. Let’s argue about some margin, but there is no particular problem, and there is no particular reason for total exclusion.”

[Andrew Rosindell]

My hon. Friend is correct. We must fully accept the need to secure the base and its operations, but I believe that a resettlement, even on Diego Garcia, can be made compatible with that requirement, as is the case with other US bases around the world. Indeed, the US may find that a neighbouring community of Chagossians could provide a convenient source of workers and security personnel when they are trained for work on the base.

The all-party parliamentary group had expected the Government to make a decision on resettlement following the KPMG report in February last year. We were not convinced of the need for yet another consultation with Chagossians, this time on likely costs and the demand for resettlement. Although it is impossible to remove all uncertainty, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office consultation showed 98%—or 825 Chagossians—in favour of resettlement. In reality, fewer will take up that offer, but there will certainly be enough to make resettlement viable. Of course, all Chagossians rightly want the restoration of their basic right to visit their homeland at any time of their choosing.

Our all-party group believes that a pilot resettlement for 50 to 100 people on Diego Garcia is the best starting point, but we should consider the outer islands if the Americans have genuine security concerns. That would cost more and would not please some conservationists, although many think that conservation and resettlement can be compatible and are necessary for an effective marine protected area. Chagossians could fill a much-needed conservation protection role. Travel would then be via the Maldives. The APPG would not support any alternative options to resettlement unless they were the collective wish of the Chagossian groups in Mauritius, the Seychelles and here in the United Kingdom. We see the restoration of the right of return and abode, which was denied by Orders in Council in June 2004, as a basic requirement.

As the United States was complicit in the removal of the Chagossians from their homeland, it is perfectly reasonable to expect the US to contribute in kind and money to the resettlement. Also, we would expect the Department for International Development, which already finds it hard to spend its budget, to contribute as the British overseas territories are, I believe, supposed to have a first call on the aid budget. With further support from non-governmental organisations and private sector funding, the costs of resettlement need not be much of a burden on the UK taxpayer.

The Times published a letter from the APPG on 7 November 2015, which said:

“Discussions with the US, for the renewal next year of the 1966 agreement on the use of the Territory, provide a unique opportunity to resolve the future of the Chagossians and of the Chagos Islands. Fifty years on Britain should dispose of this albatross and rectify the injustices and human rights violations of the past.”

The continuing damage to the UK’s reputation for promoting human rights far outweighs the costs, liabilities and risks of trying out resettlement. There would be all-party support for resettlement, not least from the leader of the Labour party, who is now the honorary president of our APPG. There would be negative international repercussions if we did not restore the rights of return and abode to the Chagossian people. There would be damage to the UK’s reputation in Africa and wider afield, playing to those who accuse us of ongoing colonialism, with a knock-on effect for the Falkland Islands and Gibraltar and for the ongoing actions in the United Nations General Assembly, the United Nations Human Rights Council, the African Union and the Commonwealth.

Hopes having been raised more than four years ago, the Chagossian and Mauritian reactions will, inevitably, be greater than ever before. The national and international campaign is certain to continue, with ever more negative publicity for the United Kingdom Government. As a Government-supporting MP, that is something that I do not wish to see. It cannot be in the UK’s interests for that situation to continue for a further 20 years. Allowing resettlement will be welcomed by the United Nations, by Parliament, by the media and, I believe, by the vast majority of the British people.

There could be no better time than now to make this decision. As the all-party group said in its letter to The Times on 4 July 2016:

“It is time for a political decision which restores the rights of the Chagossians to return to Chagos and to put this shameful episode behind us.”

[Several hon. Members rose—]

--- Later in debate ---

[Henry Smith]

I am grateful for the interest that my hon. Friend is showing in this debate. I have yet to meet a Chagos islander or somebody of Chagos descent who does not want the right of return. I think hundreds of people, or possibly a few thousand, want to return. However, the important thing is the principle of being allowed to return. As for the makeup of the current population on Diego Garcia, it is of course US and British military personnel, as well as a lot of Filipinos who work on the base in a service capacity.

[Andrew Rosindell]

Perhaps my hon. Friend can enlighten me because I am puzzled by this. The former Minister said the Americans absolutely object to Chagossians going there, but Filipinos go there. How can that be right? I do not understand what the problem is. As it is their homeland, the Chagossians are surely the right people to help on the airbase. This puzzles me.

[Henry Smith]

I am as perplexed as my hon. Friend. It is one of those appalling ironies that appear time and again when we debate this sorry matter in British history. I am a patriotic person, but on this issue the British Governments of many persuasions over many decades should be ashamed.

I do congratulate the Government on convening an independent commission on the right of return, which has concluded that return is possible. Mention has been made of the international aid budget. The costs of return have been estimated at well below £100 million, which is a small fraction of the overseas aid budget. As my hon. Friend the Member for Romford says, the British overseas territories have first call on that budget.

In conclusion, there is no reason why Chagos islanders should not have the right of return. We cannot turn back time and we cannot undo the past four and a half decades, but we can put things right now. Time is running out with regard to the leverage that we have with the United States and their lease renewal, so I therefore implore the British Government to do the honourable, decent, British thing and allow these British citizens to return to the British Indian Ocean Territory.

--- Later in debate ---

[James Duddridge]

I think the hon. Gentleman is citing a debate in this room. It was certainly not my intention that things would be left quite so far. We have had a change of Prime Minister and the focus has been elsewhere, but at that time we were waiting for the full consultation to complete. I also met other hon. Members, so I extended the consultation. There is a broader process; it is not simply one Minister making a decision.

The islands have a great use for prepositioned ships. I went on board one of the five prepositioned ships. They have five or six storeys—like multi-storey car parks—with the smallest vehicles being almost the width of this room. Two Afghanistan and Iraq style wars could be conducted for a month using those ships. They are absolutely essential to American, British and global security. Many other nations use that area.

I also met the Filipinos who worked there. They lived in not great accommodation, in what I would describe as a prefabricated hut with rooms on either side and a shared bathroom in the middle. Those cost contractors about £1 million to put in place for accommodation for two, because of the costs of getting all the equipment on to the island. I do not think we can underestimate the costs.

I also visited a hospital that was used by the Americans, the Brits and the Filipinos. Provision was basic, so anyone giving birth or experiencing complications needed to be flown off the island, and it was very difficult to move around the island.

[Andrew Rosindell]

Is the former Minister suggesting that we go round the world and perhaps depopulate lots of other British overseas territories, such as Pitcairn, St Helena and Tristan da Cunha? Shall we just depopulate? Is that the right thing to do?

[James Duddridge]

Certainly, if Tristan da Cunha or Pitcairn were unpopulated, I think it would be wrong to repopulate those islands. If the Americans were not on the island I am not sure it would be the right thing to repopulate Diego Garcia. We cannot provide the level of services that people demand. In the United Kingdom we are already providing benefit to people in Diego Garcia as members of the British public. After I stopped being a Minister, I visited Mauritius, where I saw the community—[Interruption.]

I apologise for taking longer than I might have over my speech and for not taking more interventions. I am happy to attend the all-party group—and, indeed, to join the group, if I would be accepted as a dissenting member—and to discuss my visit and experiences with parliamentarians in a bit more detail.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew Rosindell]

I thank hon. Members from all political parties who have contributed to this important debate today. However, we still do not know what will happen. We are still waiting anxiously to find out what Her Majesty’s Government’s decision will be. It is not only those of us here in Westminster Hall today who are waiting but the people of the Chagos islands, whose spirit has been broken these last 50 years.

We in this House have a duty, first and foremost, to stand up for the interests of the British people, and the Chagossians are British. They are as entitled to their human rights, their dignity and their right of self-determination just as much as we are in this Chamber and just as much as our constituents are. We defend our overseas territories and their rights to remain British and to self-determination, and yet we single out one of them and say, “Your rights are not at the same level as the others.” There is no moral justification for that.

I say to the Minister that my right hon. Friend the Member for Broadland (Mr Simpson) made it clear when he was shadow Foreign Minister that this issue had to be addressed when we were in government. Why after six years have we failed to do so?

I do not buy for one moment the idea that the islands cannot be inhabited. That is propaganda. Other remote islands around the world—the Maldives are not that far away from the Chagos islands—are fantastic tourist destinations. If they can be inhabited and used, whether for marine conservation or as a military base—we defend the importance of the military base on Diego Garcia—there is absolutely no reason why we cannot come up with a plan to put right this situation, which has gone on for far too long.

I know the Minister is a defender of the rights of British subjects to self-determination in the rest of the overseas territories. I ask him please to take this back to the Foreign Secretary and the Prime Minister. Please say to them that this is the last chance—the very last chance—that we are going to get, prior to the potential renewal of the agreement between the US and the UK, finally to resolve this injustice and to give the Chagossian people the same rights that we would always defend for our own constituents.

The British way is to stand up for human rights and self-determination, and to give people the right to determine their own destiny. As my hon. Friend the Member for Crawley (Henry Smith) said, let us do the British thing and give the people of the Chagos islands the right to continue to be British in their own homeland.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered Government policy on the British Indian Ocean Territory and Chagos islands.

Victims of Libyan-sponsored IRA Terrorism: Compensation

Andrew Rosindell Excerpts

Tuesday 13th September 2016 Westminster Hall

[Andrew Rosindell (Romford) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Ryan. I commend my hon. Friend the Member for South Suffolk (James Cartlidge) for bringing this matter to the Floor of the House and for the extremely valuable contributions that he has made to the parliamentary support group for United Kingdom victims of Libyan/IRA terrorism. I thank all hon. Members for their support for this very important and worthwhile cause.

I would like to refer directly to the debate earlier this year initiated by the hon. Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Jim Fitzpatrick), in whose constituency the docklands bombing took place in 1996, and to some of the answers given by the Minister who replied to that debate, in the hope that the Minister today will consider different responses to the issue. The Minister in that debate, my hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds), tried to claim that the issue of compensation in this case was different from others. I would like to address directly some of his points and explain why I and members of the parliamentary support group believe that the UK should obtain compensation for the victims. I appeal to this Minister to rethink how the Government approach the issue.

The Minister in the previous debate implied that victims of bombs that contained Libyan-supplied Semtex should be somehow treated differently, as those bombings were indirect acts of state agents from Libya. Of course, the Lockerbie bombing victims were treated as victims of direct actions by Libyan agents. Why are the two types of terrorism treated differently? To me, that makes no sense, and I doubt that uncompensated victims will agree with such meaningless distinctions between the two types of terrorism.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr Tobias Ellwood)]

First, I want to make it clear that this is a passionate debate and very important points have been made, but the Lockerbie bombing was directly linked to the Libyans. Where things become difficult is when a third party is involved in state sponsorship of terrorism. That is the distinction that we find. I am not saying that we should not pursue this issue. I am actively doing that and doing my best to do it, but it is not as clear-cut as when an aeroplane is taken out of the sky deliberately by the Libyans themselves. That was the link that the Americans made in seeking compensation. In addition to that, they wrapped into the compensation package other events as well, just to conclude the entire deal. That made it extremely fuzzy, but the US managed to succeed in doing that. I question why the Government of the day in this country did not do something similar.

[Andrew Rosindell]

I hear what the Minister says, but the reality is that if someone is a victim of terrorism, they are a victim of terrorism and the UK Government have a responsibility to act and ensure that there is fairness and that compensation is paid.

The reason why Gaddafi supplied the IRA was to retaliate against UK policy at the time. The Libyan regime may have used the IRA to do its dirty work, but it was a political decision by Tripoli, and Her Majesty’s subjects were harmed as a result.

The Minister at the time of the debate earlier this year, my hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire, also stated that the US victims received compensation because Libya approached the US directly and Gaddafi wanted to be readmitted “to the international fold”. The facts are that in January 2008 the US Congress passed a law that allowed victims of Libyan terrorism to enforce their damages against Libyan assets held by US companies. The end result was the 2008 US/Libya Claims Settlement Agreement. Why did the United Kingdom not pursue a similar approach? Why did Britain not make it a condition of its détente with Libya that the compensation issue had to be resolved? If this gave the United States a bargaining chip with the Gaddafi regime, that begs the question why the UK did not raise this when the Prime Minister at the time, Tony Blair, travelled to Tripoli in 2004 and 2007. Surely the UK should have used opportunities such as those visits to raise this vital issue for UK victims too, and to negotiate a settlement with Libya. Why did that not happen?

[Mr Ellwood]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way again. The Select Committee needs to invite Tony Blair to stand in front of it and answer those questions. That is what I would encourage the Select Committee to do and I am aware that its Chair is here listening to this.

[Andrew Rosindell]

I hope that the former Prime Minister will make himself available to the Committee, but that is a matter for the Select Committee. I would like to address what our Government can do today to help the victims of that terrorism.

There have been multiple opportunities to raise this with the new Libyan Governments following the fall of the Gaddafi regime. Given our offer of financial and military assistance as well as trade, why has this not been pursued at the same time? My hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire also said that one of the reasons the Lockerbie bombing claimants received compensation was that they had the support of a United Nations Security Council resolution, so why should the UK not be lobbying the Council for the same support?

Lastly, I refer to the point made by the former Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire that:

“The Libyans see themselves as victims of Gaddafi, not the bearers of his legacy.”—[Official Report, 23 February 2016; Vol. 606, c. 33WH.]

That, too, is no excuse not to proceed. The UK victims of Libyan-sponsored IRA terrorism are also victims of Gaddafi. It is clear that if the victims are to receive any kind of justice and compensation, Her Majesty’s Government urgently need to consider two options. Either Her Majesty’s Government accept that they have failed to defend the interests of their civilians and pay compensation directly to the victims, or the Government agree to pay compensation in an interim period, to prevent victims waiting any longer, with the intention of recovering that money from those responsible when the time is appropriate. The point underlying those options is that the victims should receive compensation as soon as possible.

With regard to the first option, the Government must accept some responsibility for the fact that the victims have not received compensation up to now. Nobody has received one single penny, and that should not be acceptable. It is the responsibility of the UK Government to protect UK citizens from international terrorism and, in the case of failing to secure compensation for victims of Libyan-sponsored IRA terrorism, they have failed. It is true that Libya is currently an unstable state, and that setting up negotiations with the Libyan Government would be difficult, but this is the fault of the UK Government for not having attempted such negotiations before 2011. Her Majesty’s Government must surely not miss any opportunity to raise this issue with the Government of Libya—fragile or not—today. Will the Minister assure the House that this will now happen?

The second option is for Her Majesty’s Government to espouse the claims by paying the victims compensation themselves, with the objective of recovering the money from Libya through either negotiations or the use of frozen assets. That would allow for the current instability in Libya, but address the fact that the victims have been waiting too long and indefinitely. We have a responsibility to obtain compensation for the victims as soon as possible, not years down the line when many may no longer be with us. Additionally, the UK Government should allow the UN and the EU to change the current licensing framework so that frozen assets can be used to recover the money. I understand the challenges that such a task would involve, but it would send a strong signal, at home and abroad, that the UK supports its victims of terrorism and that they will not be abandoned.

Until now, it is clear that the UK Government have not done enough to support the UK victims of Libyan-sponsored IRA terrorism. The Foreign and Commonwealth Office unit that was set up by Gordon Brown’s Government appears to have done little for the victims, apart from provide them with false hope. The Department holds the policy of not espousing private claims, but these are not simply private, because their cause is tied up with international politics. This is an abdication of its moral and legal responsibility and I do not believe that Members of this House should accept it for one moment longer. I say to the Minister that Her Majesty’s Government have a duty to act immediately to secure compensation for the long waiting, and greatly deserving, victims of these atrocities.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

Europe, Human Rights and Keeping People Safe at Home and Abroad

Andrew Rosindell Excerpts

Tuesday 24th May 2016 Commons Chamber

[Hilary Benn]

Oh heavens! I shall give way to the hon. Member for Romford (Andrew Rosindell) and then to the hon. Member for Gloucester (Richard Graham); then I must make some progress.

[Andrew Rosindell (Romford) (Con)]

Trade in the economy is very important, and the right hon. Gentleman is right to say that, but is there not something that is more important? Did not his late, great father say that when he looked at the European Union, what he saw was clearly not democratic? Is not our democracy more fundamental than all the points he is making today, and should not the sovereign right to govern this country rest in this House and with the British people?

[Hilary Benn]

I would say to the hon. Gentleman that it does. My father and I were in agreement 41 years ago when we both campaigned to leave the Common Market, but the British people in their wisdom voted to stay. I change my mind, and my late, dear father did not. However, he taught me many things, one of which was stand up for what you believe in and to say what you think, and that is what I am doing from this Dispatch Box today. Also, every subsequent change relating to our membership of the European Union has been agreed by this House—by our democracy—and the referendum will give the British people the chance to take this really important decision. I am making my argument as to why we on this side of the House are passionately in support of remaining in the European Union.