Written evidence from the UK Chagos Support Association (UKChSA) (OTS0073)

1. About UKChSA:

1.1.            The UK Chagos Support Association is an entirely voluntary non-Chagossian advocacy and support group.

1.2.            We support the Chagossian community in two principle ways:

1.2.1.            Through individual and community project grants and hardship funds. For example, we have funded funerals, English lessons and visa and residency applications.

1.2.2.            By campaigning with the community for the right of return to the islands and for improved circumstances in the UK. In recent years much of our campaigning effort has been to reform citizenship law so that anyone of Chagossian descent can access British citizenship

2. Our reason for submitting evidence:

2.1.            Since being founded two decades ago, we have worked closely with Chagossian individuals and groups. Our relationship with the community places us well to make an informed submission to the committee. 

2.2.            The fact that we are a non Chagossian group allows us to talk dispassionately about issues affecting the community and to avoid getting involved with disagreements within the community.

2.3.            However, we submit this application with an important caveat: that we cannot and do not speak on behalf of the Chagossian people.

3. Executive summary

3.1.            Our submission will look in turn at:

3.1.1.            The right to return of the islanders, which the Government decided against on 16 November 2016 on the grounds of “feasibility, defence and security interests, and cost to the British taxpayer.”

This section will examine each of the Government’s arguments in turn and conclude by recommending the Government review their policy on resettlement.
 

3.1.2.            The £40m support package that the Government unveiled on 16 November 2016, which intends to “support improvements to the livelihoods of Chagossians in the communities where they now live”.

This section will examine the way in which the £40m figure was calculated, the way in which it was announced and the way in which it has since been administered. The section concludes with a number of recommendations, including that the Government improve their consultation with the community and find a third sector organisation to conduct a needs analysis with the community.
 

3.1.3.            We will lastly look at the Marine Protected Area (MPA). This section will look at the way in which the MPA was established and recommend that efforts to conserve the environment and fisheries in the Chagos atoll are not used to prevent Chagossians from returning to their native islands.

4. Right of return:

4.1.            This section relates to Point 1, ‘The governance of the OTs, including their adherence to human rights frameworks’ in the Terms of Reference because of the human rights implications of the forced removal and continued exile and because questions over the right of return have a direct bearing on questions over future governance of the British Indian Ocean Territory (BIOT).

4.2.            Background:

4.2.1.            The Chagossian population of the BIOT were forcibly removed between 1968-1973 by the UK and US Governments, so that the US military could build a base on the largest island - Diego Garcia.

4.2.2.            In the years that have since followed, many Chagossians have campaigned for the right of return to be granted.

4.2.3.            In 2016, following a policy review, the FCO denied the Chagos Islanders the right to return to the islands “on the grounds of feasibility, defence and security interests, and cost to the British taxpayer[1].” We believe the FCO’s reasoning is flawed. The following paragraphs explain why by addressing each point in turn.

4.3.            Feasibility:

4.3.1.            In 2015, the Government published a document entitled ‘Feasibility study for the resettlement of the British Indian Ocean Territory’[2]. The study found no practical impediment preventing the right of return.

4.3.2.            In a Westminster Hall debate in October 2015, the then Minister, Mr Duddridge, made the point that “resettlement could indeed be practically feasible[3].”

4.3.3.            There has never been any explanation as to what changed between the Minister’s statement on 28 October 2015 and the Government’s decision against resettlement on 16 November 2016.

4.3.4.            We recommend that the Government give a detailed explanation as to what exactly in a resettlement programme is not feasible. 

4.4.            Defence and security

4.4.1.            Defence and security are not covered by the KPMG feasibility study which informed the Government’s decision. It is therefore difficult to assess the grounds on which the Government make this argument. 

4.4.2.            Despite Urgent Questions being raised in both houses on 17 November 2016 following the decision against resettlement, the UK Government have never expanded on their statement that defence and security would prevent the right of return being granted.

4.4.3.            The US Government has never publicly rejected the right of return. The former Assistant Secretary of Defence under Ronald Reagan, Lawrence Korb, has said that there is “no good…reason” to oppose the Chagossians’ return, a view also held by Stewart Barber, the designer of the base on Diego Garcia[4].

4.4.4.            Former US President Barrack Obama is reported to have made no objections to Chagossian return when the matter was raised with him by Jeremy Corbyn on a Presidential visit in 2016[5].

4.4.5.            The Trump administration’s views on resettlement are not known.

4.4.6.            There are many civilian populations adjacent to military bases all over the world such as, for example, on Ascension Island in St Helena.

4.4.7.            The BIOT is visited regularly by yachtists. To allow yachtists to visit the islands freely but not the Chagos Islanders themselves looks like double standards on behalf of the UK Government.

4.4.8.            Without a full and thorough review into how return might impact security and defence, questions will remain over the validity of the government’s arguments against return.

4.4.9.            Recommendation: The UK Government should raise the the right of return for the Chagos Islanders with the Trump administration as a matter of priority, making it clear that the UK Government would like to support resettlement.

4.4.10.            Recommendation: For the sake of transparency and goodwill with the Chagos Islanders, the Government should provide evidence to support their case that defence and security interests are incompatible with the right of return.

4.5.            Cost to the taxpayer:

4.5.1.            The most crucial point is that cost must not be an obstacle to righting a historic wrong such as the forced removal of the Chagossians from their homeland. However, in the rest of this section we will dissect some of the Government’s figures and examine the cost of upholding the exile.

4.5.2.            The KPMG Feasibility study for the resettlement of the British Indian Ocean Territory gave various cost estimates for the right of return depending on what programme of resettlement the Government embark on.

4.5.3.            The report looks at three options for return. Option 3 is the lowest in cost and would allow 150 Chagossians to return to the islands, initially on a temporary basis, which can then be reviewed and extended.

4.5.4.            The main infrastructure components for Option 3 are estimated at £54.6 million[6]. Annual recurrent costs are estimated at £4.7 million per year[7].

4.5.5.            The Government have never specified a limit as to what they are willing to spend on a resettlement programme. But figures such as the above cannot be so high as to not be feasible, especially taking into account the £40m support package for Chagossians that was announced in the same statement as the denial of the right of return.

4.5.6.            There are costs associated with keeping Chagossians out of the islands. A specific figure is not known but litigation costs associated with upholding the exile are in the millions. Three court cases, one in 2000 and two in 2005, cost the Government £1,455,355.41[8]. Adjusted for inflation to today’s money, the figure is over £2m[9].

4.5.7.            Since that time, and before, there have been many other challenges in the courts. Most recently, the UK was challenged in the International Court of Justice by Mauritius over the sovereignty of the BIOT. The legal fees of the case are not yet known but it is safe to assume they will be significant.

4.5.8.            It is also worth noting that there are thousands of Chagossians living and working in the UK, making tax contributions to the state.

4.5.9.            Recommendation: There needs to be explicit clarification of the Government’s estimation of the costs involved in implementing the right of return before it can be seen as a barrier.

4.5.10.            Recommendation: There are costs associated with upholding the exile. A preference should be given to using public money to support resettlement than to upholding exile.

4.6.            In conclusion:

4.6.1.            In 2008, the then Foreign Affairs Committee said:

4.6.2.            “We conclude that there is a strong moral case for the UK permitting and supporting a return to the British Indian Ocean Territory for the Chagossians...The FCO has argued that such a return would be unsustainable, but we find these arguments less than convincing”[10].

4.6.3.            We believe the circumstances remain the same. The Government’s assertions that the right of return cannot be granted do not stand up to scrutiny. For that reason, we recommend that the Government permit the resettlement of the Chagos Islands by their inhabitants.

5. £40m support package

5.1.            This section falls within the remit of this inquiry chiefly under point 3 of the Terms of Reference,  financing of the OTs, as this fund exists exclusively for the benefit of former residents of the British Indian Ocean Territory and their descendants.

5.2.            Background:

5.2.1.            In November 2016 the UK government announced a £40m funding package, to be used over a decade, “to support improvements to the livelihoods of Chagossians in the communities where they now live[11].”

5.2.2.            We have concerns about how this fund has been managed, communicated and distributed so far. Before outlining these concerns, it should be noted Chagossian community groups have expressed different views on how they wish to engage with the fund. Some have stated they will not engage with the support package on principle. Others have stated they will engage under particular conditions.

5.2.3.            We recognise it is a decision for Chagossians groups and individuals to make on how and if they engage with the proposed support package.  Our comments and recommendations reflect the feedback we have received and events we have witnessed from those Chagossians who have so far engaged with the support package.

5.3.            Engagement with the Chagossian community

5.3.1.            The chief feedback we have received from Chagossians attempting to engage with support package programme has been that engagement from the FCO has not been sufficient. Meetings between community leaders and those charged with administering the programme has been sporadic and community members do not feel adequately informed about the timeline, scale, remit or process of the project. These sentiments are evidenced in written correspondence between Chagossian community leaders and the FCO[12].

5.3.2.            Almost two years into the project, this failure to sufficiently engage with the Chagossian community appears to be a chief cause of the slow progress in distributing funds to appropriate projects.

5.3.3.            The decision to announce this package simultaneously with the decision against Chagossian right of return return has fuelled suspicion of the support package in the community. Misreporting of the package as “compensation,” has been particularly unhelpful, with Chagossians having clear memories of how accepting previous compensation was used against them in court to deny their right of return[13].

5.3.4.            Recommendation: Regular open meetings should be organised between the Chagossian community and the FCO to give updates on progress and upcoming decisions. The frequency of these meetings should be agreed with Chagossian community group leaders. The FCO must make more of an effort to ensure these meetings are accessible in some form to Chagossians living in all locations around the world.

5.3.5.            Recommendation: The Foreign Office should make an explicit and unequivocal acknowledgement that engagement with the support package does not in any way equate with relinquishment of right to return.

5.4.            Needs analysis procurement

5.4.1.            In order to identify how the £40m support package is best used, the FCO is currently planning to carry out a needs analysis based of different Chagossian communities around the world and in the UK.

5.4.2.            So far this appears to have been an ad-hoc process, with processes beginning in the Seychelles and in Crawley, but not in other areas, such as Manchester and Mauritius.

5.4.3.            In both Crawley and the Seychelles, the main community group leaders have not endorsed the process and have stated they have felt inadequately consulted about how the process should be carried out.

5.4.4.            In Crawley, the FCO commissioned Crawley Borough Council (CBC) to undertake the needs analysis. Earlier this year, CBC pulled out of the process, saying in an email to UKChSA on September 6 2018 that the “work was compromising our position in supporting the Chagossian community in Crawley.”

5.4.5.            We warned both the FCO and CBC that local authorities and public sector organisations were not the right bodies to deliver the needs analysis, as there is significant distrust of the council and other public sector organisations in the community.

5.4.6.            Instead, we suggested that a third sector organisation, such as Citizens Advice Bureau, or universities, such as Sussex or Manchester, would be better placed to undertake the work, due to the fact that they do not have previous, difficult relationships with the community.

5.4.7.            Despite introducing members of staff from Crawley Citizens Advice to Crawley Borough Council and to the FCO, the FCO have been adamant that CBC are the right organisation to deliver the work. Their subsequent decision to not undertake the work demonstrates that they are the wrong organisation to do so.

5.4.8.            Recommendation: Needs assessment processes should be developed in co-operation with local Chagossian communities. The needs analysis should be carried out by organisations with relevant specialist knowledge and expertise, such as third sector organisations like Citizens Advice Bureau or relevant universities. The public sector should be avoided due to strong distrust between the community and Government - local or national.

5.5.            Heritage Visits to the Chagos Islands

5.5.1.            A widely reported frustration has been the use of the £40m support package to fund heritage visits to the Chagos Islands. While these visits are appreciated by some in the community (although several Chagossian groups have chosen to boycott the visits), it is widely felt that it is not appropriate to fund these from the support package.

5.5.2.            These visits had been funded for several years by the Foreign Office before the introduction of the support package. So it is difficult to understand why they should now be funded out of a new funding package.

5.5.3.            It is also difficult to see how heritage visits to the islands achieve the goal set out for this fund (“to support improvements to the livelihoods of Chagossians in the communities where they now live now”).

5.5.4.            Considering the high cost of these visits (each visit of 20 participants costs approximately £70,000[14]), there is concern among community members that these visits – which after two years are the only visible outcome most in the community have seen from this package – will limit the amount of benefit which can be derived from the support package.

5.5.5.            Recommendation:  Heritage Visits continue to be available at the same or increased frequency and scale as currently offered, but the funds are derived from the general FCO budget (as was the case prior to November 2016) rather than from the support package.

5.6.            Amount and timeline of the support package

5.6.1.            Despite requests, we have not received any indication as to why the amount of £40m was proposed as the limit for the support package. Nor has it been made clear why this package is time-limited to ten years.

5.6.2.            Needs analysis are only now being commissioned by the FCO. This prompts the question; on what basis and with what evidence was the decision for a support package of £40m across ten years made? Currently the figure and time-limit appear arbitrary and serve no purpose.

5.6.3.            Recommendation: The FCO must publish clear and transparent documents outlining how and why the £40m figure and 10 year period was arrived upon.

5.6.4.            Recommendation: The Government should acknowledge an ongoing commitment to the Chagossian people, as a consequence of their deportation, and commit to supporting the Chagossian people with further financial assistance if necessary. 

5.6.5.            Recommendation: There should be a commitment to increase the amount available and the time limit of the support package if required.

5.7.            Remit of support package

5.7.1.            The stated remit of the support package is to “to support improvements to the livelihoods of Chagossians in the communities where they live now.” But in consultations with the Chagossian community, the one issue which hampers Chagossian livelihoods more than anything is the cost – financial, time and emotional – of acquiring citizenship rights to remain in the UK.

5.7.2.            Under current legislation, only those native to the islands and the first generation born in exile have access to British Citizenship. The second generation and further generations, if they were born in Mauritius or the Seychelles, are regarded by the UK Home Office as immigrants like any other. However, had the initial forced removal from the islands never happened, all those Chagossians would be British Overseas Territories Citizens today.

5.7.3.            The current situation has led to a number of deportations, which attracted significant media attention over the summer due to similarities with the so-called ‘Windrush Scandal.’

5.7.4.            In January, Henry Smith MP brough the British Indian Ocean Territory (Citizenship) Bill to Parliament. The Bill would allow anyone of Chagossian descent to acquire British Overseas Territory Citizenship.

5.7.5.            In their Windrush Children report, the Home Affairs Committee called on the Government to support Mr Smith’s Bill. But despite ongoing pressure to do so, the Government have so far only “committed to consider” the Bill.

5.7.6.            Another recurring issue in the community is housing, with a number of Chagossians reportedly struggling to get council housing and struggling to pay rent in the private rental sector. Despite pressure from the community, the FCO seem to suggest that housing is beyond the remit of the support package.

5.7.7.            Recommendation: If the Government are serious about supporting the Chagossian community in the UK, there is nothing they can do that would have a greater impact than giving support Henry Smith MP’s British Indian Ocean Territory (Citizenship) Bill.

5.7.8.            Recommendation: The Government must look at innovative ways in which they can address housing issues for Chagossians in the UK, such as working with local housing co-operatives and with third sector organisations.

6. The Marine Protected Area (MPA)

6.1.            Background:

6.1.1.            In February 2018, the UK Supreme Court endorsed the verdict that the Marine Protected Area (MPA) in the BIOT was not established for an improper purpose and that the consultation process preceding its creation was not unlawful[15].

6.1.2.            However, the motives behind the establishment of the Marine Protected Area (MPA) have been questioned and reinforced by leaked material[16]. In addition, the decision behind the ruling was deemed disappointing from members of the Chagossian community[17].

6.1.3.            Recommendation: We are supportive of attempts to conserve the unique marine ecosystem in the BIOT atoll but it must be acknowledged by the UK Government that the MPA does not prevent the right of return for the islanders.

6.1.4.            Recommendation: The Chagossian community must be consulted and included in any efforts to conserve the marine environment in the BIOT atoll.

ENDS

Appendixed items below.

Director, By e-mail

Overseas Territories King Charles Street

25 June 2018

London SW1A 2AH

Ad-hoc Committee: Chagos Islanders Movement Diego Garcia and Chagos Islands Council Crawely British Chagossian Community

I wanted to write to you in response to the letter you gave me at the meeting on 9 May with the Crawley Chagossian community – my sincere apologies for the delay responding. I am circulating my response more widely as it may be of interest to the wider Chagossian community.

Your letter informs me of the formation of the Ad-hoc Committee on 2 May and says the Ad-hoc Committee will work together on the subject of the £40 million support package as well as issues faced by Chagossians. You express concern that the BIOT team at the FCO has not engaged with you and that you do not feel like stakeholders. I consider every Chagossian to be a stakeholder in this process. I hope I underlined the importance I attach to this by holding a meeting for Chagossians in Crawley at which I emphasised the importance of understanding the constraints and barriers faced by Chagossians.

As highlighted at the meeting, we have asked Crawley Borough Council to look to progress a needs analysis of the Chagossian community in Crawley. This needs analysis will hopefully identify any constraints and barriers and inform our work around the support package. This is an opportunity for the Chagossian community to tell us what issues they face and, in particular, what additional support they may need in the areas of improved access to health and social care and to improved education and employment opportunities. We are keen for as many Chagossians as possible to engage in this needs analysis to ensure we get a wide range of views - only by hearing from Chagossians can we understand more the issues of concern.

Please contact my team (Alison.Cairns@fco.gov.uk) if you have any further questions or queries.

September 2018

Ben Merrick

Director, Overseas Territories Foreign and Commonwealth Office

MEETING BETWEEN FOREIGN & COMMONWEALTH OFFICE, CRAWLEY BOROUGH COUNCIL AND CHAGOSSIAN COMMUNITY: WEDNESDAY 9 MAY 2018, CRAWLEY

Present: Ben Merrick, Overseas Territories Director and HM Commissioner for BIOT, FCO Alison Cairns, BIOT Policy Officer, FCO Paul Stokes, BIOT Desk Officer, FCO Pav Randhawa & Kathryn Ripley, Community Development Officers, Crawley Borough Council Members of Crawley Chagossian community (approximately 100 persons) CNN and Al Jazeera film crews (not filming)

Introduction

The first half of the meeting focused on two issues: a call for expressions of interest in the next three Heritage Visits; and the needs analysis Crawley Borough Council is conducting to identify the constraints and barriers the Chagossian community is experiencing. The second half of the meeting was an opportunity for open discussion and for members of the community to ask questions. A variety of issues were raised. Key points were as follows:

Heritage Visits

● The next three Heritage Visits are scheduled for end of October 2018, end of November 2018 and February 2019. Twenty participants can be accommodated on each visit.

● Each visit of 20 participants costs approximately £70 000;

● Given the size of the Chagossian communities in Mauritius, Seychelles and UK, Chagossians present felt the size of each group visiting and the number of Heritage Visits was insufficient.

Needs Analysis

● Crawley Borough Council intends to start work around the needs analysis in June 2018, with consultations with the Chagossian community starting in July 2018;

● Crawley Borough Council hoped Chagossian volunteers would help deliver the needs analysis to ensure it was as accurate as possible. Volunteers would be trained and their expenses paid;

● The needs analysis would feed into work around the support package, particularly improving access to health and social care and to improved education and employment opportunities;

● Further details of how to get involved are available from Crawley Borough Council.

UK Immigration and Nationality

● Concern was expressed around Chagossians being asked by the Home Office to leave the UK after they had lived in the UK for many years, as well as the prohibitively expensive visa fees to bring other family members to UK.

Housing Issues

● Chagossians felt they were at the bottom of waiting lists for council houses, particularly if they owned a home overseas, as they were told they were making themselves intentionally homeless by coming to UK.

Other Issues Raised by Chagossians

● The Chagossian community felt the older generation of Chagossians should receive pensions (in addition to any State pension);

● Chagossians were forced to collect money from their community to pay for funeral expenses as no assistance was forthcoming;

● Concern was expressed around young Chagossians turning to drug abuse.