Occupied Palestinian Territories: Israeli Settlements

Paul Monaghan Excerpts

Thursday 9th February 2017 Commons Chamber

[Ian Austin]

The hon. Gentleman is completely right to raise that important point. I am pleased that it has been raised because it has not been discussed or mentioned by anyone who has spoken so far.

It is important for the House to recognise that 75% of the settlers are on 6.3% of the land, so when people talk about the west bank being concreted over, they are factually wrong—it is not true.

[Dr Paul Monaghan (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (SNP)]

rose—

[Ian Austin]

I will not give way any more—I have given way twice.

This issue can be dealt with through land swaps. That was accepted as a principle for building a peace process in all recent negotiations. In 2008, Ehud Olmert outlined a plan under which this could have been achieved.

I say all this because I want to argue that with compromise, creativity and concessions on both sides, the rights of both the Israeli and Palestinian peoples to self- determination and to peace can be secured. There are considerable further challenges facing a two-state solution, such as the status of Jerusalem, security, and refugees. However, it is also important to recognise, as has not been sufficiently recognised in this debate so far, that majorities on both sides still favour a two-state solution. None of these issues is insurmountable if there is a willingness on both sides to negotiate, to compromise, and to make concessions.

The solution is not one-sided, simplistic motions and calls for grand international gestures unilaterally imposed on the peoples of Israel and Palestine. In fact, grand gestures are counter-productive to the cause of peace because they suggest to the Palestinian people and the Palestinian Authority that there is a route to a Palestinian state that can be imposed from outside that does not involve face-to-face direct talks and negotiations, which is the only way this issue is going to be solved. The truth is that there is no alternative that will end the bloodshed.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab)]

I would like to draw the attention of the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. Last year, I went to the west bank. My visit was paid for by Fatah UK and organised by Travel2Palestine.

It is clear that the settlements are in breach of international law. The International Court of Justice and the UN resolution in December last year found that to be the case. There should not be any argument about that; we should just accept that the settlements are illegal and work from there. The hon. Member for Kettering (Mr Hollobone) is absolutely right. The motion before us is about the settlements and we should concentrate on that. That is what we are discussing today. No one is saying that they are the only barrier to peace, but they are a barrier. Removing the settlements would not create a peaceful agreement. Nevertheless, while the settlements are there—certainly while they continue to be built—we are not going to get a peace agreement. That is the reality.

The Israelis say they want talks to begin without preconditions, but they do not. They want the precondition that they can carry on building settlements while negotiations take place. That is absolutely fundamental. For the Israelis to say that they will stop building the settlements and negotiate while no settlements are being built would be an important step forward.

The problem with the settlements being a barrier—this point has just been made—is that they fragment the land that Palestine will form as a state. It is impossible to form a geographical entity of the state while there are settlements dotted around it. That is the problem. We could partly deal with it by swaps and land swaps. The Palestinian Authority does not rule out land swaps as part of eventual settlement, but the more settlements that are built, the harder an eventual peace agreement will be to formulate. That is the reality.

[Dr Monaghan]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, given that the settlements in the west bank are illegal, there will be no peace unless Israel starts to recognise and adhere to international law?

[Mr Betts]

Absolutely. There cannot be a peace agreement when one side does not recognise international law. That goes without saying.

The impact of the settlements on the economy of Palestine has to be understood. Palestinian people describe their journeys to work, a distance of 6 or 7 miles, as taking two or three hours because of the checkpoints that exist by and large to protect the settlements and Israeli interests. That is the reality of everyday life for Palestinian citizens and it damages the economy. The mayor of Hebron explains that the city wants and needs to expand. It cannot expand because the area outside Hebron is in area C, which is controlled by the Israelis, who do not allow the Palestinians to build there. Hebron is constrained. It cannot expand and that destroys its economic base.

There is hate and division. Go to the checkpoints and see the hatred that is formed between young Palestinians held up at gunpoint and strip-searched in the street, and the young Israeli soldiers who are the same age. The whole process brutalises both sides and sows the seeds of hatred for years to come.

Look at the racism. I am sorry, but it is racism when, because of their race, people are treated differently on whether they can build on a piece of land, get through a checkpoint easily or have to go to a different checkpoint, or, most fundamentally, have access to water. Israeli settlements have access to water seven days a week in the summer. Palestinians have to put water tanks on their roof, because they do not have the same access. What could be more discriminatory than that?

The Government supported the UN resolution in December. What will they now do to implement it?

[Tommy Sheppard (Edinburgh East) (SNP)]

This is the longest-running conflict in the modern era and its solution seems further away than ever, but its very intractability is a reason why we should rededicate ourselves to trying to move the process forward. Every time the international community has considered the competing claims in the region, they have arrived at the same conclusion: that two states living side by side, one Jewish in character and one Arab in character, in peaceful coexistence is the solution to aim for. That was true when Balfour and Sykes looked at it 100 years ago; it was true when the fledgling UN considered what to do after the mandate in the late 1940s; and it was true when the Palestinians and the Israelis met in Oslo, under international support, in the last round of peace talks.

There are two fundamental truths for people who believe in the two-state solution. First, one state exists and one state does not. Trying to create and bring into existence the state of Palestine is therefore the world’s unfinished business, and we should support that. Secondly, there cannot be a two-state solution while one state is in military occupation of the lands designated for the other. At some stage, the occupation will have to end if there is to be a two-state solution.

In Oslo, it was agreed that the occupied territories would be divided into zones, with the new Palestinian Authority taking responsibility for the urban areas and the Israeli occupying force responsible for 62% of the land in area C. That, however, was envisaged as a transitional arrangement. People thought that by the end of the century that land and that responsibility would transfer to the Palestinian Authority as it emerged and became a fully-fledged Palestinian state. Not only has that not happened, but the actions of the Israeli Government since have made it even further away than it was then 25 years ago.

[Dr Monaghan]

Does my hon. Friend agree there is an enormous power imbalance between Israel, a state with the fourth largest and strongest army in the world, and Palestine, which is not a state and does not have an army? Palestinians have already conceded 78% of their land. International pressure is needed now. Ignoring UN resolution 2334 is not the way forward.

[Tommy Sheppard]

I agree, which is why the people who talk about face-to-face talks really ought to consider that this is a David and Goliath situation. In any conflict where that situation has existed and peace has been achieved, it has been with international support and an international framework. It was true with the Good Friday agreement in Northern Ireland, too. We need to listen to the Palestinians when they appeal for our help and support to try to achieve a resolution.

Over the past 25 years, the Israeli Government have, in contravention of the fourth Geneva convention, moved half a million of their own civilian population into an area in which they are in military occupation. That is why people call the settlements illegal. At some stage, they will have to be dealt with. There will need to be land swaps. Some settlers may wish to be Palestinian citizens and some may wish to take advantage of relocation schemes to go into Israel proper, but the issue will have to be dealt with. Every brick that is laid and every new apartment that is built in the settlement complex puts a solution further away. When in a hole, stop digging; that is why the resolution calls on the Israeli Government to review their policy and to put a cessation on settlement building so that peace talks can begin. To have peace talks, there has to be a ceasefire; stopping building settlements would be the equivalent.

I will finish with four asks to the Minister and the Government. The first is that we implement UN resolution 2334, particularly with regard to differentiation of the occupied territories in Israel proper. The second is—I am out of time.

Yemen

Paul Monaghan Excerpts

Thursday 12th January 2017 Commons Chamber

[Chris White]

I am sorry, but I am probably getting well past the Deputy Speaker’s patience.

To return to the statement made by the Secretary of State for Defence on 19 December and to the specific question raised by the hon. Member for Hyndburn, we learned the Government’s finding that British made cluster munitions had been used by the Saudi-led coalition in May 2016. That has a number of implications and is a cause for concern, and I challenge the Minister on the responsiveness of our arms exports licensing regime. It is unacceptable that an international ally used a weapon manufactured in Britain with complete disregard for the 2008 convention on cluster munitions, of which the UK is a signatory.

[Dr Paul Monaghan (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (SNP)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Chris White]

I will continue; my apologies. We will see. If I get a strange look, I might give way shortly.

We are duty bound by the 2008 convention to prevent the use of cluster munitions, so what steps were taken to convince the Saudis of our opposition to the use of such munitions and to convince them to decommission those weapons? I recognise that the Government have not sold cluster munitions to Saudi Arabia since 1989, but it is important to consider the durability of our munitions.

[Dr Monaghan]

We know that the UK Government stopped supplying cluster munitions to Saudi Arabia in 1989. However, we also know that the UK Government continued to maintain those horrific weapons until 2010. No doubt, the Minister will tell us why that contract was in place for 21 years, but does the hon. Gentleman not agree that the crucial point is that accountability should extend beyond simply sales to maintenance contracts?

[Chris White]

I agree with the hon. Gentleman that it will be interesting to hear the Minister’s response to that intervention.

The humanitarian crisis requires an urgent and comprehensive response from the international community. Everyone in the Chamber agrees with that. As each month goes by and casualties grow, the case for an independent, UN-led investigation of potential breaches becomes all the more compelling. From a UK perspective, and to protect our reputation as an example to the world in arms export licensing, it is right that we suspend our sale of arms to Saudi Arabia until such an investigation is completed.

Chagos Islands

Paul Monaghan Excerpts

Thursday 17th November 2016 Commons Chamber

[Sir Alan Duncan]

The link with Diego Garcia as a potential payer, as it were, for all this is illusory, particularly because following consultation and the discussions that followed the KPMG report, it was clear that few, if any, Chagossians really wanted to work on the base.

[Dr Paul Monaghan (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (SNP)]

On the rights of Chagossians, the United Nations has found in their favour in regard to return, and recently the UN Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination has found against the UK Government and criticised their policy. Why is the Minister ignoring the view of the United Nations?

[Sir Alan Duncan]

We are not ignoring the view of the United Nations, and I do not accept the hon. Gentleman’s interpretation. For all the reasons that I have described at length today, this would be an impractical proposal that would not lead to happy lives for those who might choose to go there.

Dog Meat (South Korea)

Paul Monaghan Excerpts

Monday 12th September 2016 Westminster Hall

[Dr Paul Monaghan (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (SNP)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Hertsmere (Oliver Dowden) on leading this debate so effectively, and also congratulate other Members on contributing in a very positive and intelligent manner.

E-petition 120702 has attracted over 100,000 signatures —many from Scotland—and I feel that reflects widespread concern across the nations of the UK about animal welfare generally, and the welfare of dogs in particular. Today we have heard alarming and upsetting reports of dogs being mistreated and abused in the dog meat trade; however, we must be cautious in our approach towards other countries’ cultural practices and be sensitive in working to bring about change, as noted by my hon. Friend the Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West (Margaret Ferrier). This is particularly the case given the prevalence of animal crimes such as dog fighting in the UK. It is clearly important that we recognise our own weaknesses and respect the sovereignty of other nations. Again, I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for West Dunbartonshire (Martin Docherty-Hughes) for making that point so clearly, along with the hon. Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson).

Many Asian countries have only relatively recently begun to consider dogs as pets and so the animals are viewed very differently from the way they are viewed in the west. The reverse is also true. Some Asian countries consider cattle and pigs in very sacred terms and view our slaughter and consumption of those species as completely unacceptable. I hope that highlights the extent to which we must be mindful of other nations’ rights and cultural practices. Again, that point was well made by the hon. Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy).

The SNP Government in Scotland take the welfare of animals very seriously and have led the way in protecting and promoting animal rights. I wish that approach to be sustained. In that context, my colleagues and I in the Scottish National party strongly condemn the abuse and inhumane treatment of all animals, including dogs within the dog meat trade. We encourage a cautious and culturally sensitive approach to bringing about change that supports animal rights groups in South Korea, and indeed, in other countries. Some progress is being made in that regard, with a growing political movement in South Korea championing animal rights. We should encourage that movement, as I think we all agree.

E-petition 120702, which relates specifically to South Korea and the dog meat trade, seeks to urge the South Korean Government to end the unsympathetic and often brutal treatment of dogs. We know that in South Korea an estimated 5 million dogs are slaughtered every year for their meat and we understand that during the 1988 Seoul Olympics, the South Korean Government attempted to hide dog meat restaurants from the international media to avoid criticism. That act implies, of course, both an awareness of the dog meat industry in South Korea and, perhaps more importantly, an understanding by South Korea of how that trade is perceived by the outside world.

Thirty years later, many of us here today are concerned that the International Olympic Committee has authorised South Korea to hold the 2018 winter Olympics, given that the use and abuse of dogs remains the same, if perhaps not worse, as the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) suggested. On behalf of the Scottish National Party, I ask the UK Government to speak against the IOC’s judgment and ask the South Korean Government to respond to the dog meat issues identified here today, with a view to making the abuse of dogs in this trade illegal.

I alluded earlier to the fact that South Korea is not alone in allowing the breeding and slaughter of dogs for human consumption. As we have heard, the World Dog Alliance has produced an important analysis of this lucrative trade across Asia. Sadly, the trade is common across Asia, with countries such as China, the Philippines and Vietnam, in addition to South Korea, considering it culturally acceptable to varying degrees to eat dog meat. Many will be surprised, however, to learn that dog meat is also consumed in Switzerland, Mexico, the Arctic and the Antarctic, despite most western cultures considering the slaughter of dogs for meat unacceptable.

What is perhaps important here is the condition in which dogs are often kept prior to being slaughtered for human consumption. Some argue that dogs are often tortured before being killed because of a belief that it causes their meat to be tender. There are also concerns that most so-called “meat dogs” are stolen companion dogs and strays who are kept in terrible conditions while being transported from country to country. There are distressing accounts that reflect practices that are inconsistent with the Korea Food and Drug Administration’s regulations classifying dog meat as a “repugnant” food.

I am also pleased that South Korea’s Animal Protection Amendment Act 2007 expressly prohibits some cruel methods used by people in the dog meat trade to handle and slaughter dogs. However, animal rights groups have found that the regulations have had little impact to date on the trade in dog meat. Perhaps more promisingly, animal rights groups have pointed out that the consumption of dog meat is going out of favour with younger generations. Again, that should be encouraged.

Given that there are no international laws prohibiting the consumption of dog meat, the challenge for the UK Government is not one of intervening or implementing trade measures against countries where the consumption of dog meat is regarded as culturally acceptable, it is one of diplomacy—and for the UK Government to instruct ambassadors and Foreign Office officials to raise the issues highlighted here today with the Governments of China, the Philippines, Vietnam, Switzerland, Mexico, South Korea and others.

[Alex Chalk (Cheltenham) (Con)]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that for those approaches to be successful, they have to be handled extremely sensitively to avoid them being counter-productive? If they are handled sensitively, that gives us the best chance of achieving the progress we all want to see.

[Dr Monaghan]

I absolutely agree with the hon. Gentleman. Clearly, if we are to have an impact and an influence on other nations that are trading in dog meat and allowing its consumption, we have to do so very sensitively, in ways that are culturally sensitive and reflective of our practices here in the UK.

[Dr Lisa Cameron (East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow) (SNP)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that despite the apparent desperation of the UK Government regarding the potential trade ramifications of Brexit, that should be no rationale for failing to put pressure on countries that engage in animal welfare and cruelty issues, as is the case with South Korea and the dog meat trade?

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Monaghan]

I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. There is nothing to say that Brexit and our attempt to influence the practices of other nations cannot occur in parallel.

In doing all that, the UK Government must reflect the interests and concerns of all those who have signed this petition and advance those interests in a sensitive and supportive manner, as I said, to bring about an end to the abuse of dogs farmed or stolen for human consumption. The UK Government should also provide diplomatic support for animal rights groups that are operational in South Korea and support their valuable work in taking action in a culturally sensitive and educational manner.

In response to this petition, the UK Government have stated:

“The British Embassy in Seoul has raised the issue of cruelty towards animals on numerous occasions with the South Korean authorities and explained that the UK public and parliamentarians would like to see Korean regulation that would bring the practice to an end. We will continue to seek further opportunities to raise the issue, in particular as we approach the Winter Olympics in 2018, and will monitor developments in the practice in the Republic of Korea.”

In the absence of international norms, laws or agreements governing the trade and consumption of meat, the Scottish National party believes that it is necessary to work with Governments around the world to build consensus on animal welfare standards and to phase out cruel and inhumane farming.

The trend in South Korea is such that dog meat consumption seems likely to diminish and perhaps even end due to the growing public awareness and recognition of animal rights and the health risks associated with eating dog meat. Dogs are known to be intelligent, trusting and empathetic and possess a range of senses of such acuity that we have only just begun to identify and fully understand them.

Dogs are one of the few animals capable of following a human’s gaze, implying an awareness of “other”. Those attributes arguably differentiate dogs from other animals, and certainly other animals that are normally farmed. We ask the Government to take affirmative action, to listen and to hasten an end to the consumption of dog meat in South Korea. The Scottish National party will support that diplomatic mission.

Child Prisoners and Detainees: Occupied Palestinian Territories

Paul Monaghan Excerpts

Wednesday 6th January 2016 Westminster Hall

[Bob Stewart]

Yes, I accept that point. Of course there is that belief among some people. It is wrong. It should not happen.

It is with a certain amount of bewilderment that I watch how Israeli law in practice differs from one individual to another in an area controlled by Israel, specifically the west bank. There is certainly not equality before the law for all who live there. Jewish settlers are treated very differently from Palestinians. It worries me that two kinds of law apply in the west bank, depending on race and nationality identity. If someone transgresses and they are a Jewish settler child, they are tried under civil law, but if they are a Palestinian minor, they automatically go before a military court, which has very different procedures and punishments.

[Dr Paul Monaghan (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (SNP)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Bob Stewart]

No, I am sorry. I will not take any more interventions.

I understand and accept that legally applying civil law to Palestinians in the west bank would be tantamount to unlawful annexation of the area. I agree with that point but, when dealing with civilians, both civil and military laws should be equalised so that children—whether they are Jewish or Palestinian—are treated equally. At this point I pay tribute to Gerard Horton of Military Court Watch—a great lawyer.

According to the Israeli prison service, 407 Palestinian children aged 12 to 17 have been in military detention since 30 November 2015, which is a 33% increase on the previous month. The number of children in detention is now at its highest level since March 2009, and is 54% above the level that Foreign Office lawyers witnessed when they produced their report. Of course that is wrong. Who would not dispute circumstances in which children can be arrested at night, blindfolded and hooded? Who would dispute that lawyers should be present at every interrogation, that parents should be given the option to be present too, that all interrogations should be audio-visually recorded and, importantly, that no child should be transferred out of the west bank into Israel?

In the past, when I commanded British forces in Bosnia—I am sad to say this—I witnessed what were clearly crimes against humanity. Many people, including children, were arrested because of their race. They were ill-treated, detained and improperly locked away in totally inappropriate circumstances. It saddens me to make an analogy—I do so with huge hesitation because of my love for Israel and what it has achieved, and because of the Jewish historical experience—yet I am sorry to say that the way Palestinian children are dealt with in the west bank has some disturbing similarities with what I witnessed happening to children in the Balkans. To me it is utterly wrong that a democratic, enlightened, pro-western state such as Israel, with two different legal systems, clearly differentiates—

--- Later in debate ---

[Simon Danczuk (Rochdale) (Ind)]

I thank the hon. Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion) for securing this very important debate. As a former chairman of Labour Friends of Palestine and the Middle East, this issue is very close to my heart.

The treatment of child prisoners in the Occupied Palestinian Territories is deeply concerning, counterproductive and completely discriminatory. As has already been pointed out, currently in the west bank we see two laws: Israeli civilian law, which only applies to those with Israeli citizenship; and Israeli military law, which applies to the Palestinian population.

Since 2000, at least 8,000 Palestinian children have been arrested and prosecuted in Israeli military detention facilities, which are notoriously bad in their treatment of children. A UN report found that out of 208 affidavits that had been collected, 91% of those spoken to reported being painfully hand-tied and 82% reported physical abuse.

[Dr Paul Monaghan]

Does the hon. Member agree that the current situation and the current sustained level of child imprisonment evidences a judicial process in Israel that lacks all proportionality and requires international intervention to protect victims on both sides of this conflict?

Oral Answers to Questions

Paul Monaghan Excerpts

Tuesday 24th November 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hammond]

Again, the short answer is that the hon. Lady has correctly identified that the situation is extremely complex. As the Prime Minister has said, we have to resolve these two things in parallel: we have to get a political solution to the civil war in Syria so that we can get everybody dealing with the challenge posed by Daesh, instead of fighting each other, and that is what our comprehensive strategy will seek to achieve.

[Dr Paul Monaghan (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (SNP)]

3. What recent discussions he has had with the Governments of British overseas territories with financial centres on central registers of beneficial ownership.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (James Duddridge)]

I discussed progress on central registers of beneficial ownership with the Premiers of the Cayman Islands, the British Virgin Islands and Bermuda yesterday and will have a further opportunity to do so when they are in London next week for the joint ministerial council.

[Dr Monaghan]

In April 2014, the Prime Minister wrote to the overseas territories:

“The rest of the world is watching us closely and public registries will demonstrate the sincerity of our commitment to improve corporate behaviour and set a new standard for transparency of company ownership.”

It is clear he wants overseas territories to have public registers of beneficial ownership. Will the Minister ensure that overseas territories adopt public registers or, at the very least, ensure access for the public in line with the fourth EU anti-money laundering directive?

[James Duddridge]

The hon. Gentleman should give the overseas territories credit where credit is due. Progress has been made towards the greater use of central registers, and we are currently working on security and police forces’ access to them, but, in the longer term, he is entirely right: ultimately, we will have to move in the direction of public access to that information. But the overseas territories are making progress.

Chagos Islands

Paul Monaghan Excerpts

Wednesday 28th October 2015 Westminster Hall

[Dr Paul Monaghan (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (SNP)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the Chagos Islands.

Thank you, Mr Rosindell, for the opportunity to consider the many issues that confront the UK Government in respect of the Chagos islands. It is my privilege to serve under your chairmanship as a member of the all-party parliamentary group on the Chagos islands.

It would be remiss of me not to begin the debate by highlighting the presence of the Chagossians, other interested parties and Members from all political parties who have taken the time and trouble to be present here today; it is rare for a humble Westminster Hall debate to be so well attended. The interest in the debate reflects the widespread concern, and high levels of interest, from across the world for the people of the Chagos islands. Many here today have worked tirelessly to highlight the injustices perpetrated on the indigenous people of the Chagos islands over many years by a nation state that, quite bluntly, should know better.

On 8 November 1965—almost 50 years ago to the day—Harold Wilson, the then Prime Minister, authorised the creation of the British Indian Ocean Territory. That act was far from benign. The establishment of that territory was nothing less than a cynical and calculated plan to annex the Chagos archipelago, expel its indigenous people and deploy resources for military advantage.

The plan hinged on shameless exploitation. During a five-year period from 1968 to 1973, every single Chagossian man, woman and child was forcibly removed in secret from the islands. None has since been allowed to return. For the past 50 years, Chagossians have lived in poverty. To the utter shame of every UK Government and the 17 Foreign Secretaries since, that ethnic cleansing of an entire people has been variously ignored, glossed over or actively misrepresented.

The purpose of the annexation was to facilitate the leasing of the largest island in the Chagos archipelago, Diego Garcia, to the United States to allow the construction of an enormous military base. The base remains today. We now know that, in return for annexing the archipelago and expelling its people, the UK Government received a cash discount of £11 million on Polaris nuclear missiles, which is equivalent to about £200 million today when adjusted for inflation.

The story of Chagos has been a chronicle of abuse, naked greed and bullying on a grand scale. Indeed, it is a narrative of the hideous abuse of power and trust perpetrated against a humble people and an account of the success of a plan that hinged on the reprehensible neglect of a people’s inalienable human rights. Many believe that abuse of power falls within the International Criminal Court’s definition of a crime against humanity. That may be so, but we can be certain that human rights were sacrificed by the UK Government in a sordid deal to secure weapons of mass destruction. I am sure the Minister agrees that that is an appalling legacy.

Before 1968, more than 2,000 people lived on the Chagos islands, with many having family histories dating back almost 200 years. Chagossians had a thriving society, with numerous villages, schools, hospitals, churches and businesses, and a unique way of life. Unknown to Parliament, and in clear breach of United Nations charters, the UK plotted to deliberately destroy that society. The truth about the cleansing of the Chagossians, and the Whitehall conspiracy to deny that there had ever been an indigenous population, did not emerge for almost 20 years, until files were unearthed at the Public Record Office in Kew by the historian Mark Curtis, the journalist John Pilger and lawyers acting for the former inhabitants of the islands, who were campaigning for a return to their homeland.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

I am not familiar with the geography of Diego Garcia, but is there enough room on the island for the military base to remain and the people to return?

[Dr Monaghan]

The islands are an archipelago. There are hundreds of islands and more than enough space for everyone.

In 1982, when the truth leaked out, the islanders exiled to Mauritius were awarded derisory compensation of less than £3,000 per person. Those exiled to Seychelles were awarded no compensation. It was noted then that it had been

“entirely improper, unethical, dictatorial to have the Chagossian put their thumbprint on an English legal, drafted document, where the Chagossian, who doesn’t read, know or speak any English, let alone any legal English, is made to renounce basically all his rights as a human being.”

Was the annexation improper? Certainly. Unethical? I have no doubt. Dictatorial? Absolutely. Those are strong words, but that is exactly how the UK Government have treated and continue to treat the people of Chagos. That is what the Minister is here today to explain.

I understand that Diego Garcia remains the United States’ largest military base outside north America. There are two runways, over 30 warships, more than 4,000 troops and a satellite spy station located on the island. The base has been used as a launch pad for invasions, including those of both Afghanistan and Iraq. It is still in use, and that use is still encouraged by the UK Government.

In 1966, terms for the lease of Diego Garcia were agreed at $1 a year. On expulsion, the indigenous population were allowed to take just one suitcase each. They were forced into the hold of the SS Nordvaer and transported to Seychelles, where they were held in prison cells before being transited elsewhere, many to Mauritius. Wherever they were sent, they were left without financial support.

A Foreign Office memo on the subject at the time, from Sir Paul Gore-Booth to diplomat Denis Greenhill, stated:

“We must surely be very tough about this. The object of the exercise was to get some rocks which will remain ours; there will be no indigenous population except seagulls…The United States Government will require the removal of the entire population of the atoll.”

Denis Greenhill replied in August 1966:

“Unfortunately, along with the birds go some few Tarzans or Men Fridays whose origins are obscure and who are hopefully being wished on to Mauritius etc. When this has been done I agree we must be very tough and a submission is being done accordingly.”

It is impossible for the UK Government to hide behind that correspondence. The casual disregard for human life it evidences is chillingly calculated, unambiguous and staggering. Nevertheless that “tough” action provoked legal action that has ultimately led to all of us being here for this debate today.

[Margaret Ferrier (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (SNP)]

It was estimated in 2007 that the litigation costs to the UK taxpayer for Government action against the Chagossians had amounted to over £4 million; that has no doubt increased after more recent legal proceedings. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is hypocritical of UK Governments to spend money in that way when many Chagossians have been denied fair compensation from the UK?

[Dr Monaghan]

My hon. Friend has raised a valid point that I will come to shortly.

In 1975, a former resident of the Chagos archipelago, Mr Michel Vencatassen, initiated a claim for compensation in the courts of England against the UK Government. The claim was settled in 1982 in an agreement under which the United Kingdom would pay £4 million into a fund for the former residents of the archipelago. Together with a previous payment of £650,000 made to the Government of Mauritius in 1966, that £4 million was later held as

“full and final settlement of all claims”

arising from the removal or resettlement of the population of the Chagos archipelago—despite the fact that many Chagossians have received no compensation at all.

Other verdicts in the English courts went in favour of the Chagossians, in 2000, 2006 and 2007. But in 2008 the House of Lords overturned them all and ruled in favour of the UK Government. That bizarre ruling argued that the Chagossians were deprived of their right of abode lawfully. The ruling resulted in the formation of the all-party group on the Chagos islands, which has since met over 50 times and has attracted members of every single political party represented at Westminster. Full cross-party representation on such a group is very rare indeed.

Undaunted by the 2008 ruling, a group of Chagossians continued to pursue their claims before the European Court of Human Rights. In December 2012, the European Court judgment Chagos Islanders v the United Kingdom held that the claim was inadmissible, on the grounds that in settling their claims previously in 1982 and accepting and receiving compensation, the applicants had effectively renounced further use of legal remedies. Following the ruling, the right hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve), then Attorney General and speaking for the UK Government, said:

“we regret very much the circumstances in which they were removed from the islands and recognise that what was done then should not have happened.”

Fine words on a flawed judgement—flawed because, I note again, not all Chagossians were compensated.

Five weeks before the general election in 2010, parallel to the actions on deprivation of right of abode, the then Foreign Secretary, David Miliband—now, it is worth noting, president and chief executive officer of the International Rescue Committee, where he oversees humanitarian relief—ignored the advice of diplomats and rushed through the establishment of a marine protected area around the UK-controlled Chagos islands. That declaration was another significant, desperate and cynical attempt to anticipate legal claims on right of abode and to continue subverting the human rights of the Chagos people.

At The Hague on 18 March 2015, in its judgment Chagos Marine Protected Area Arbitration (Mauritius v United Kingdom), the Permanent Court of Arbitration ruled in favour of Mauritius against the UK Government concerning the declaration made on 1 April 2010 by David Miliband on behalf of the UK Government. The tribunal found that consultations on the marine protected area were characterised by a lack of information and an absence of sufficiently reasoned exchanges between the parties involved. It noted in particular that the UK Government engaged far less with Mauritius about establishing the marine protected area than it did with the United States. We need not speculate why.

More recently, on 4 August 2015, the UK Government announced a three-month consultation exercise on purported resettlement of Mauritians of Chagossian origin in the Chagos archipelago. That consultation period ended yesterday, when Mr Pierre Prosper, chair of the Seychelles Chagossians Committee, told me that although all Chagossians have responded to the consultation stating that they want to return, all have refused the terms of the UK Government’s offer,

“which reduces us to cheap labour for the military base, with no rights at all”.

Considering that consultation on resettlement, the Minister should know that the proposed conditions of resettlement amount yet again to a gross violation of the Chagossians’ most basic human rights.

The Prime Minister of Mauritius has also rejected the premise of the UK Government’s consultation and has demanded that Chagossians who wish to resettle on the archipelago should be able to live in dignity and enjoy their basic human rights. I support that view. The Prime Minister of Mauritius stated earlier this month at the United Nations General Assembly:

“The Chagos archipelago was illegally excised by the United Kingdom from the territory of Mauritius prior to its accession to independence, in breach of international law and resolutions of this Assembly.”

In the wake of that illegal excision, the Mauritians residing in the Chagos archipelago at the time were forcibly evicted by the British authorities, with total disregard for those people’s human rights. Most of them were moved to the main island of Mauritius. The Government of Mauritius are fully sensitive to their plight and their legitimate aspiration as Mauritian citizens to resettle on the archipelago. Mauritius welcomes the award of the arbitral tribunal delivered on 18 March 2015 against the United Kingdom under the United Nations convention on the law of the sea:

“We welcome the tribunal’s decision that the ‘marine protected area’ purportedly declared by the United Kingdom around the Chagos archipelago was established in violation of international law.”

That is an excellent summary of the current situation.

The current resettlement proposals offer no right of abode and stipulate that Chagossians must return to their islands as “contract workers”, with no right to buy land or property. Moreover, the resettlement is intended to be for a trial period, beginning with a two-year pilot, after which resettlement may be cancelled. During the pilot period, Chagossians will not be allowed visitors on their islands, despite hundreds of wealthy tourists visiting the islands each year, mooring their yachts, living in Chagossians’ abandoned homes and spending their time on the islands largely unmonitored. Similarly, unlike with Tristan da Cunha and Pitcairn, the UK Government’s resettlement proposals advise that no education services will be provided, thereby effectively excluding families with children from returning to their islands.

In short, the consultation and the terms of resettlement are transparent, unsatisfactory and quite obviously designed to scare the indigenous people and ensure that resettlement on the Chagos islands fails. The refusal of the consultation document to guarantee support for Chagossians if resettlement is cancelled after two years means that Chagossians face an unenviable dilemma, and an unattractive and very insecure future. Furthermore, many Chagossian groups in Europe—for example, in Switzerland and France—have not been consulted on the resettlement proposals at all. As an exercise in engagement, the consultation is therefore effectively worthless and should be viewed and condemned as such.

To be clear, the UK Government’s consultation fails spectacularly to address the key issues and should be roundly dismissed. It is, of course, welcome that the UK Government are considering how to make Chagossian resettlement a reality, but the terms of resettlement must be fair to Chagossians. The current proposals are not.

The basic premise advanced by the UK Government of there being “uncertainty” over both resettlement costs and demand is simply inaccurate. Indeed, recent freedom of information requests reveal that KPMG, which evaluated resettlement options and developed the costings, has described its own estimates as having been made with “pessimism”. It remains unclear who instructed that pessimism, but I am sure we will find out at some point. To put that pessimism into context, one estimate suggests “capital and training” costs of £267.5 million over six years to resettle 1,500 people. Another scenario is costed at £4.04 million per person to meet the capital costs of “resettlement and security” over the first 10 years.

[Bob Stewart]

The hon. Gentleman mentioned a figure of 1,500 Chagossians. Roughly that number of people were dispossessed in the first place. I would have thought the number was greater now, given everything that has happened with families. Is it still 1,500?

[Dr Monaghan]

It is not 1,500. I think the number of Chagossians and their dependants is now approaching 5,000, but one of the scenarios put forward in the consultation document suggests that 1,500 people might be resettled.

There is, in fact, no consistency and no credible explanation for the overly high cost estimates of resettlement in the consultation document, but perhaps the Minister will take this opportunity to explain the pessimism included in the figures. KPMG’s pessimistic estimates suggest resettlement costs could start at £64 million over three years, which represents a tiny percentage of the Department for International Development’s budget. It is certainly far less than the £200 million cash discount achieved by the UK Government on the leasing of Polaris nuclear missiles in 1966. Indeed, £64 million seems a bargain by comparison.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew Rosindell (in the Chair)]

Before the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Dr Monaghan) rises again, I point out that we only have between 15 and 20 minutes for the six Back Benchers who would like to contribute to this debate. The hon. Gentleman might consider that in his remarks.

[Dr Monaghan]

Thank you, Mr Rosindell. This is clearly a complicated and important debate for the many people who are in the room today. I absolutely agree with the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey): this is not and should not be a debate about money. There are moral imperatives attached to the resettlement of the Chagos islanders.

As the UK-US agreement on the use of Diego Garcia approaches expiration on 30 December 2016, the UK Government find themselves at an opportune point to renegotiate the terms of the lease for a further 20 years. The relationship began with the UK Government abnegating their responsibilities, accepting a discount on Polaris nuclear weapons and implementing a programme of forced expulsion of the Chagossian people. It should end on 21st-century humanitarian terms. Will the Minister ensure that the United States support for the resettlement of the Chagos islands is a prerequisite for extending the current agreement? If the United States had fundamental concerns about sharing Diego Garcia with Chagossians, it would not have allowed resettlement to be considered in the first place.

Will the Minister confirm that Mark Simmonds’s statement on 19 November 2013 remains the position of the UK Government and that resettlement can be made compatible with the security needs of the base, as is the case with all other United States military bases around the world? If not, I am sure the Minister will want to take this opportunity to explain what differentiates the Chagos islands and requires the continued marginalisation of Chagossians and subversion of their human rights, because it is frankly absurd to claim that Chagossians are a serious security threat.

Beyond all that, however, there is a human, moral imperative to resettlement. I have already noted that there are Chagossians here today. Some of them want to return to their homeland to live out their lives. Some younger Chagossians want to live and work in the land of their parents and grandparents. All of them want to see their homeland grow and prosper again. All of them want their right of abode reinstated, and, in respect of their right of abode, the decision of the Supreme Court is awaited. Regardless of the Supreme Court’s ruling in respect of the 2008 majority Lords verdict, all right-minded people must continue to argue for the most fundamental and basic human rights to be restored to the Chagossian people.

I urge the Minister not to rise at the end of this debate to recount yet another pitiable series of excuses as to why the UK Government should not, cannot or will not act to resettle the Chagos islands. Excuses, and we must be very clear on this point, are not acceptable. The UK Government’s continuing human rights abuses perpetrated upon the Chagos islanders are simply unacceptable. All of us in this room today know the truth about Chagos. We know what the islands are used for. We know who uses the islands. We know the ecology of the islands and the ecology of the ocean surrounding the islands. We know the rainfall pattern of the islands and that the islands are not dangerous, uninhabitable or sinking. We know the social history of the islands. We also know the true scale of the wrongs that have been perpetrated and the true cost of resettlement.

Rise today, Minister, and tell us—all of us here and those watching at home—what you are going to do now to right the wrongs inflicted upon this people. Rise today, Minister, to apologise to the Chagos islanders and to explain to all of us what you and your Government intend to do now to compensate Chagossians, particularly those in Seychelles. Explain how you will work to support the resettlement of all Chagossians, and how you will reinstate the vibrant society that they once maintained and which the UK Government so casually destroyed, and continue to deliberately and wilfully subvert today.

Minister, return to the Chagossians their human rights, as codified in the universal declaration of human rights, including their right of abode. Provide clarity on their citizenship status and their right to develop economic activity. Chagossians offer no threat to the operational activities of Diego Garcia, and I urge you to use the period in which the terms of the UK-US agreement on the use of Diego Garcia are being renewed to agree that both Governments will support the Chagossian people.

[Andrew Rosindell (in the Chair)]

We only have 12 minutes left for six Back-Bench speakers, so I ask Members to keep their remarks as short as possible. I call Henry Smith.