← Back to House of Commons Debates
St Helena: UK Immigration
21 October 2024
Lead MP
Stephen Doughty
Debate Type
Ministerial Statement
Tags
No tags
Other Contributors: 21
At a Glance
Stephen Doughty raised concerns about st helena: uk immigration in the House of Commons. A government minister responded. Other MPs also contributed.
How the Debate Unfolded
MPs spoke in turn to share their views and ask questions. Here's what each person said:
Government Statement
Government Statement
The Minister for the Overseas Territories announced a political agreement with Mauritius regarding the long-term future of the British Indian Ocean Territory (BIOT). Once the treaty with Mauritius comes into force, following proper parliamentary scrutiny, Mauritius will be responsible for any migrants who arrive in BIOT. A new memorandum of understanding was reached on 15 October with the Government of St Helena to transfer any new migrants arriving during the interim period until the Mauritian agreement is operational. No migrants have arrived since 2022. The UK will provide £6.65 million to improve health and education outcomes and upgrade infrastructure in St Helena, supporting a long-term partnership that has seen St Helena previously assist the wider UK community. This arrangement aims for mutual benefits and strengthening ties with an integral part of the British family.
Paul Holmes
Con
Hamble Valley
Question
Asked why the deal was not made with Mauritius initially to take in migrants from BIOT and questioned the lack of consultation with Chagossians. Also asked for details on cost, funding source, and if this signifies a policy change.
Minister reply
The Government inherited an existing situation and took pragmatic measures; St Helena is fully part of the process with full consultation. The deal will face parliamentary scrutiny. Costs are from FCDO budget (£6.65 million), aimed at strengthening ties and mutual benefits.
Meg Hillier
Lab Co-op
Hackney South and Shoreditch
Question
Asked about the logistics of transferring people from BIOT to St Helena, accommodation arrangements and ongoing engagement with St Helena.
Minister reply
No one has arrived since 2022; a contingency measure. Travel difficulties will be managed safely; St Helena Government have plans for accommodating and integrating migrants.
Andrew Mitchell
Con
Sutton Coldfield
Question
Commented on the sudden conversion to offshoring, criticism of announcement outside House, and alleged disquiet in St Helena.
Minister reply
Providing pragmatic solutions; no comparison with Rwanda scheme. £6.65 million for contingency measures. Healthcare facilities better suited in St Helena compared to BIOT; benefits mutual; St Helena's full support.
Oliver Ryan
Ind
Burnley
Question
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.
Minister reply
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.
James MacCleary
Lib Dem
Lewes
Question
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?
Minister reply
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.
Scott Arthur
Lab
Edinburgh South West
Question
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?
Minister reply
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.
Andrew Rosindell
Con
Romford
Question
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?
Minister reply
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.
Elaine Stewart
Lab
Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock
Question
Does the Minister agree that the UK’s new agreement with Mauritius will close a potentially dangerous illegal migrant route?
Minister reply
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.
Edward Leigh
Con
Gainsborough
Question
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?
Minister reply
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.
Chris Murray
Lab
Edinburgh East and Musselburgh
Question
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?
Minister reply
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.
Julian Lewis
Con
New Forest East
Question
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?
Minister reply
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.
Luke Charters
Lab
York Outer
Question
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?
Minister reply
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.
Andrew Murrison
Con
South West Wiltshire
Question
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?
Minister reply
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.
Jonathan Davies
Lab
Mid Derbyshire
Question
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?
Minister reply
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.
Jeremy Corbyn
Ind
Islington North
Question
Can the Minister explain why the applications for refugee status made by people who have come to the British Indian Ocean Territory 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?
Minister reply
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.
Desmond Swayne
Con
New Forest West
Question
The opportunities available to any migrant are vastly greater in Rwanda, aren’t they?
Minister reply
As my hon. Friend says, why didn’t they go there? I mean, four people for £700 million is an absurd comparison.
Lee Anderson
Reform
Ashfield
Question
If illegal migrants arriving in St Helena are granted asylum, does that mean they can then apply to come to the UK? If so, does that not create another market for people smugglers?
Minister reply
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.
North Cotswolds
Question
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?
Minister reply
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.
James Wild
Con
North West Norfolk
Question
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?
Minister reply
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.
Jim Shannon
DUP
Strangford
Question
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?
Minister reply
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.
Shadow Comment
Paul Holmes
Shadow Comment
The shadow minister criticised the Government's decision to make an important announcement outside the House, calling it a rushed consequence of fast-tracking negotiations. He questioned why Mauritius wasn't made responsible for illegal migrants from day one and queried whether Chagossians were consulted. Holmes also inquired about the funding source and total costs involved, questioning if this plan signals a change of heart on offshoring policy.
▸
Assessment & feedback
Summary accuracy
About House of Commons Debates
House of Commons debates take place in the main chamber of the House of Commons. These debates cover a wide range of topics including government policy, legislation, and current affairs. MPs from all parties can participate, question ministers, and hold the government accountable for its decisions.