PARLIAMENTARY DEBATE
St Helena: UK Immigration - 21 October 2024 (Commons/Commons Chamber)

(Urgent Question): To ask the Foreign Secretary if he will make a statement on the new immigration arrangements between the UK Government and St Helena.

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question. I have been asked to reply as the Minister for the Overseas Territories. I know that these are issues of keen interest to you, Mr Speaker.

The House is aware that a political agreement has been reached with Mauritius about the long-term future of the British Indian Ocean Territory. Once any treaty with Mauritius comes into force, following its proper parliamentary scrutiny, Mauritius will be responsible for any migrants who arrive there. However, we needed to find an interim contingency solution for the period before that agreement comes into force. Given that there is no permanent population, BIOT has never been an appropriate long-term location for migrants due to the logistical challenges of providing appropriate care in such a remote place without civilian infrastructure.

On 15 October, a new memorandum of understanding was reached with the Government of St Helena so that any new migrants arriving in the interim period will be transferred to St Helena. The intention is for that agreement to last until the treaty with Mauritius comes into force, recalling that, in practice, no new migrants have arrived on Diego Garcia since 2022.

We are hugely grateful to the St Helena Government for their assistance. Their Chief Minister has said:

“This arrangement presents a unique opportunity for a British Overseas Territory to be in a position to assist the UK, and we are pleased to be able to work in close partnership with the UK Government towards a mutually beneficial solution.”

The UK Government have agreed to provide one-off funding of £6.65 million to St Helena to improve health and education outcomes, and upgrade government infrastructure. This is consistent with our long-term support to the community in St Helena, which is of course crucial. This is a long-term, consistent partnership. We will support St Helena by providing technical support, and funding the transfer and subsistence costs for any migrants affected. Of course, this is not the first time that St Helena has supported the wider UK family. The agreement is testament to its integral place in our family. We thank it for its support.

Thank you, Mr Speaker, for granting this urgent question. I must say that I am disappointed that, once again, the Government have chosen to make an important announcement outside this House, not within it, as they should.

Following on from the Government’s shameful decision to fast-track and capitulate on negotiations to hand over the British Indian Ocean Territory to Mauritius, it is clear that the policy announced over the weekend is a rushed consequence of a deal that does not serve British taxpayers well. This aspect of the deal has not been properly scrutinised by this House, and there has been no announcement on how we will scrutinise the wider issue of the transfer of sovereignty of the British Indian Ocean Territory to another country.

During the treaty negotiations, was this plan discussed? If the Government were so keen on signing away sovereignty, why was it not part of the deal that Mauritius would take responsibility for illegal migrants and take them to Mauritius from day one? Were Chagossians consulted on the plan? The Foreign Secretary said that they were updated throughout, but parliamentary questions have revealed that not to be the case.

Finally, how much will the deal cost, and what Department will be responsible? Will there be a drawdown of Treasury funds, or will the money come from Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office budgets? Will the cost be added to the overall cost estimated for the sovereignty deal with Mauritius? Does this plan signify a change of heart on the policy of offshoring as a whole? Before Labour MPs stand up to espouse the deal and say how good it is, they should remind themselves that in the election campaign, they wrote in their leaflets that the offshoring of British citizens was immoral. Does this plan represent a change of policy from this Government?

I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman has taken that tone. I set out very clearly in my statement the answer to a number of points that he raised. Matters have also been set out very clearly by the St Helena Government. They have indicated their full agreement. In fact, they were fully part of the process and there was full consultation with them. This is a mutually beneficial win-win for the UK Government and St Helena. As I said, the Chief Minister of St Helena has said that it is in a unique position to help the UK Government, and this will strengthen its reputation and enhance its partnership with the British family.

The hon. Gentleman asked a lot of questions about the arrangements with Mauritius. The Foreign Secretary spoke at great length about the arrangements with BIOT recently. The agreement will go through this House in the proper way, as has been set out, and will face proper parliamentary scrutiny. I am sure that it will attract scrutiny, and that is only right. As I explained, this is a contingency agreement for the period before any agreement with Mauritius comes into place; after that, it will take any migrants. The situation on BIOT is not suitable, long term, for migrants. We have explained that at great length.

I have to say that the Government inherited a mess, and we are taking pragmatic, sensible and proactive measures to address the situation. I am hugely grateful to St Helena for the role it is playing. This is a mutually beneficial win-win. The hon. Gentleman asked where the funds will come from. They will come from the FCDO. We already have a long-term established partnership with St Helena, and it has hugely welcomed this plan. It will help it to deal with a number of ongoing issues. I have set out the details fully. The full details of the agreement are also available from the St Helena Government.

It is welcome to hear St Helena mentioned in the House. The money going there amounts to an increase of about 20% in financial aid from the UK this year, which is sorely needed in a community that is so challenged; but will the Minister explain how he will convey people from BIOT to St Helena, given the travel difficulties, and tell us what conversations he has had with the Chief Minister and her Ministers about where these people will be accommodated, if they do arrive?

I thank my hon. Friend for her interest in St Helena, which has been long-standing. I understand that she visited the island recently, and I welcome her ongoing engagement with the people and the Government there. We have made it clear that we would support the transfer of anyone who did arrive, but let me reiterate that no one has actually arrived on BIOT since 2022. This is a contingency measure only, and, of course, it is not a safe place for people to attempt to go to. This is about closing that route and ensuring that if anyone did make that attempt, they could go to a safe place and be properly supported. The St Helena Government have made clear how they would accommodate and integrate people in that community.

I call the shadow Foreign Secretary.

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Hamble Valley (Paul Holmes) for raising this important matter. The whole House will welcome the Government’s sudden conversion to offshoring, even though this plan was not announced in the House in accordance with your specific instructions, Mr Speaker. I may be one of the only Members to have had the privilege of visiting St Helena, along with the hon. Member for Hackney North and Shoreditch—

I have.

And you, of course, Mr Speaker. We may have been the only Members to survey the island’s new airport, which will in time relieve the British taxpayer of cost and open up the island to a very bright future, with connectivity massively enhanced.

While I was in St Helena, I met the oldest mammal on the planet, born a few years after Napoleon’s death: Jonathan the tortoise. I also visited the island’s impressive hospital, which provides very good healthcare but is a small facility whose function has been specifically tailored to serve the commensurately small community of St Helena. The cohort of people who might arrive from Diego Garcia are likely to have medical needs—indeed, as experience shows, quite complex medical needs. That will place additional pressure on St Helena’s healthcare infrastructure. What will the Minister do to help St Helena with that?

There is some disquiet among residents of St Helena at the thought that an influx of migrants could have an adverse impact on social cohesion and social provision in this very tightly knit community. What is the estimated number of migrants who will be sent there? Bearing in mind that the entire population is less than 5,000, will the Minister impose a limit—admittedly low, but nevertheless a limit? Has he made an assessment of how much this transfer policy will cost the British taxpayer? Of course, Conservative Members do not oppose the principle of offshoring, but we are perplexed by the Government’s choice of destination, a small British overseas territory thousands of miles from Diego Garcia, not least because a number of asylum seekers who landed on the British Indian Ocean Territory have already been transferred to Rwanda. Labour has of course scrapped the Rwanda scheme, so can the Minister tell the House whether the Government’s approach has changed, and whether they welcome offshoring as a means of injecting deterrence into the complexities of illegal migration?

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his comments and questions. He has always taken a keen interest in the overseas territories, and St Helena in particular. I am surprised that he is perplexed, because he and his fellow Ministers were grappling with these very decisions and issues in the last Government. We are providing pragmatic and practical solutions to respond to the situation that we inherited. There is no comparison with the Rwanda scheme. He will have just heard the Home Secretary say that spending £700 million of taxpayers’ money resulted in four volunteers for that scheme. This is a mutually beneficial win-win agreement between the United Kingdom and one of our overseas territories. I have set out the cost very clearly: £6.65 million for the contingency arrangement, and then the costs for anyone who does arrive. Let me reiterate, however, that no migrants have arrived on BIOT since 2022. This is a contingency arrangement that is absolutely necessary, but of course we hope that no one will choose to take such a dangerous route.

The right hon. Gentleman referred to the healthcare position. That is exactly why St Helena is a more suitable location for any theoretical migrants to be relocated to; facilities on that level do not exist on BIOT. He mentioned that there is allegedly disquiet in St Helena, but that is simply not the case. I read out very clearly what the St Helena Government and Chief Minister have said, and there are huge benefits to this plan. St Helena is a wonderful place. I have not had a chance to visit it, but I have had a chance to experience its culture, food and people, and I look forward to welcoming the Chief Minister to the Joint Ministerial Council in due course.

I am interested to hear how offshoring is being rebranded; the Rwanda scheme was a huge failure. Does the Minister agree that any comparison between this plan and the Rwanda scheme is rubbish? The latter cost £700 million and resulted in four volunteers being sent to Rwanda. This is a far better scheme.

My hon. Friend makes the point himself in his question: this is a mutually beneficial, win-win agreement between us and St Helena, whereas the other scheme cost £700 million and sent four volunteers to Rwanda. There is no comparison.

We come to the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

The Liberal Democrats have already put on the record our concerns about the deal that was struck with Mauritius and how it excluded the voices of Chagossians. We also have concerns about the terms of the agreement. What will happen to the individuals who have been moved to St Helena after 18 months elapse? We cannot just abandon them. Will the Minister update the House on what will happen if an agreement with Mauritius has not been reached by the end of the 18-month period?

Can the Minister also update the House on the asylum seekers who have been detained on Diego Garcia, such as the 60 Sri Lankan Tamils? They are not in the scope of the agreement. Will the Government support those individuals in claiming asylum where they need it?

Finally, it has been reported today that there is an investigation under way into a major hack of the British high commission’s phones during the Chagos islands talks. What action are the Government taking to address this potentially major security breach?

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his questions. As I said, the Foreign Secretary answered questions about the agreement with Mauritius on BIOT earlier, but the hon. Gentleman asks for further details of the arrangement with St Helena. Under the arrangement, if any migrants arrive on BIOT in the future, they will be transferred to St Helena. They will remain free to depart, and to return to their country of origin, but they will not be able to stay on BIOT. St Helena would take responsibility for accommodating those individuals and, if appropriate, processing asylum claims.

The hon. Gentleman mentions existing migrants on the island. They are not included in this arrangement, and we continue to work at pace to find long-term, durable solutions. I will not go into the details; that would be inappropriate, given the legal complexities around the small group of individuals who are there. On his point about the media coverage of alleged hacks, those are subject to an ongoing police investigation in Mauritius, so I do not want to comment, but my understanding is that the allegations are historical, rather than related to the recent negotiation period.

I really welcome the statement, and the clarity that has come with it. Who will ultimately be responsible for people when they find themselves in St Helena?

I thank my hon. Friend for his question. Fundamentally, as a result of this agreement, St Helena has agreed to take responsibility for any theoretical migrants who arrive, but I draw him back to what I said earlier: Mauritius would take responsibility for any migrants who arrived after the agreement of the treaty, which we will seek to finalise following parliamentary scrutiny.

The Minister really should understand that the British overseas territories are self-governing democracies, and they must make decisions about their own islands’ governance. Has the Legislative Council of St Helena voted in favour of this agreement? Have the people of St Helena been consulted? What impact will the influx of people potentially have on this small island territory of only 4,500 people, and will the agreement have any impact on Tristan da Cunha and Ascension Island, which, as the Minister knows, form part of the overall British overseas territories?

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question; I know he takes a very keen interest in this matter. We have discussed the overseas territories on many occasions, and he knows how seriously I take their democracy and autonomy. That is why it is important to reiterate to the House that this agreement was freely entered into by the Government of St Helena. They have publicly welcomed it profusely and explained why it is beneficial. Obviously, they are responsible for their internal processes within St Helena. We will continue to work with the Government of St Helena, their representatives and, indeed, their Attorney General as we move forward with the agreement. If I may, I will come back to the hon. Gentleman on the point he raises about Tristan da Cunha and Ascension, but the agreement is primarily about St Helena because of the facilities that are available there.

Does the Minister agree that the UK’s new agreement with Mauritius will close a potentially dangerous illegal migrant route?

My hon. Friend is right: BIOT is not a suitable place for migrants to be present. There is no permanent population and there are not the necessary education and health facilities. That is why we needed to put in place that part of our agreement with Mauritius: to ensure that during the interim, contingency period, were any migrants to arrive—as I said, none have arrived since 2022—they could go to a place where there were hospitals, education, and an economy and a community to support them. We thank St Helena for its help in this matter.

I call the Father of the House.

If it is possible legally to deport illegal migrants from Diego Garcia to St Helena, is there any legal reason why we cannot deport illegal migrants landing on these shores to St Helena or any other overseas territory? Is it, as a former Home Secretary told me recently, because after five years they would acquire rights to British citizenship?

We are absolutely confident that this agreement is compliant with international law, and we will be working closely with the Attorney General of St Helena to ensure that it is compliant with our law, with St Helena law and with all our international obligations.

Does the Minister agree that the Government inherited a deeply troubling and complex situation for any migrants involved that the last Government failed to resolve over a number of years, and that we have now taken the decisive action needed to find a solution to this problem?

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. As I have set out, we inherited a mess, quite frankly, on some of these issues and we are taking the pragmatic, practical steps to ensure that we have agreements that meet the needs going forward.

I accept what the Minister says—that there have been no immigration arrivals since 2022—but does he accept in turn that there is a danger of creating a pull factor? If that happens, and a much larger number arrive than expected, will he put a cap on the number that can be transferred to St Helena?

That is exactly why we have concluded these agreements with Mauritius and St Helena. BIOT is not a suitable place for migrants to be present; there is no permanent population and there are no suitable facilities. We are taking these steps to close down that route and ensure that people do not make that dangerous journey.

Can the Minister confirm that British sovereignty over the overseas territories is non-negotiable, and that the comments from Conservative Members are not only wrong but deeply irresponsible?

My hon. Friend makes an important point. I have repeatedly made it clear, not least in the Falklands and Gibraltar, that we stand by their sovereignty and self-determination and will defend them. Indeed, that goes for the British overseas territories family, and it is a commitment that I will be making in person when the leaders join me at the Joint Ministerial Council in a few weeks’ time.

Since no migrants have arrived in BIOT since 2022, and given that this agreement lapses after 18 months, what is the problem that the Minister is trying to solve? And given that Rwanda was apparently considered immoral and this is not, is he not simply offering an insult to Kigali?

Absolutely not. This is prudent contingency planning. Unfortunately, we inherited a situation from the previous Government where many holes had been left in these very arrangements and where there were significant problems. We are now taking steps to pragmatically address that.

I welcome the Government’s commitment to St Helena. Does the Minister agree that the comparisons with the Rwanda scheme that have been made throughout this urgent question are irresponsible and unhelpful, given that it cost £700 million and sent only four volunteers?

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. There is no comparison with the £700 million of taxpayers’ money that was spent on four volunteers, as the Home Secretary just set out. This is a sensible, win-win, beneficial agreement that benefits both the United Kingdom and St Helena and involves potentially very few people.

Can the Minister explain why the applications for refugee status made by people who have come to the British Indian Ocean Territory, as it is currently called, cannot be processed now? Why is he instead taking them to St Helena? Will he guarantee that St Helena is not going to become an offshore base for Britain to evade its international human rights obligations by simply sending large numbers of refugees there in the future?

I do not agree with the right hon. Gentleman’s characterisation of St Helena. It is a wonderful place with wonderful people, and its Government have voluntarily entered this agreement. It is obviously a much more suitable place, were people theoretically to arrive, than BIOT, which is not suitable. I am very confident that all our processes comply with international law.

The opportunities available to any migrant are vastly greater in Rwanda, aren’t they?

Why didn’t they go there, then?

As my hon. Friend says, why didn’t they go there? I mean, four people for £700 million is an absurd comparison. We are taking pragmatic steps to address the situation we inherited from the previous Government, and there is no comparison to be made between the situation in Rwanda and the situation in St Helena.

No, absolutely not. There is no automatic right for them to travel from St Helena to the UK. St Helena will undertake the processing of any cases in a proper way. Of course, anyone who fails to get a positive decision will be removed. St Helena will process them, but there is no automatic right to come to the UK. As with any overseas territory, people will be able to apply for British overseas territory citizenship after a period of time, but it is not automatic.

The Minister has repeated several times this afternoon that no migrants have gone to BIOT in the last two years. He studiously avoided answering my right hon. Friend, the shadow Foreign Secretary’s important question about how many migrants he is providing contingency for. In order to calculate the £6.5 million, he must know how many migrants are likely to go to St Helena—or not, as the case may be. Will he now tell the House what that number is, and will he publish the full impact assessment?

Like most people, I do not have a crystal ball. Our expectation, based on the evidence, is that hopefully nobody will make that journey because it is dangerous and BIOT is not a suitable place for migrants. However, it is only right that we put contingency arrangements in place were anyone to do so before any treaty is concluded with Mauritius, which will then take responsibility for dealing with any migrant arrivals. The £6.65 million figure is for health and education. As part of the agreement with St Helena, any support for additional costs, were anyone to arrive, would be negotiated on a case-by-case basis.

The Minister says this deal will cost taxpayers £6.65 million. Will he now be transparent and tell the House how much UK taxpayers will pay to Mauritius so that we can continue to use Diego Garcia, which he gave away?

The facts relating to the agreement with Mauritius will be set out in due course, following proper parliamentary scrutiny. This is very specifically about the agreement with St Helena, and I have set out the amount of money and what it will be used for.

Will the Minister outline how the airbase’s security will be best served within this new management, considering the importance of vetting anyone seeking to enter a military base under regular circumstances, never mind in this situation? What assurance do military personnel have that their safety is important to this Government?

I think the hon. Gentleman may be referring to Diego Garcia, which is obviously not a suitable place for migrants, for the reasons he sets out. We have ensured that we put the base on a secure, long-term footing, in the interests of the national security of the UK and our allies.

That concludes the urgent question. As the House can see on the Order Paper, there are many Bills to be presented today. In order to save time and get on with today’s main business, for Members presenting more than one consecutive Bill, I will accept private notice of the Second Reading dates for those Bills. Those dates will be recorded and published accordingly in Hansard and in the Votes and Proceedings. For Members presenting individual Bills, they will name the date for Second Reading as usual.