HL Deb 11 November 1982 vol 436 cc397-413

6.2 p.m.

Lord Brockway rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what is their response to the report of the Minority Rights Group on events in Diego Garcia.

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to ask the Unstarred Question standing in my name on the Order Paper. It is unusual to initiate a debate in this House on the report of an unofficial committee but the Minority Rights Group is very authoritative. Its sponsors include the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, and Mr. Jo Grimond of the Liberal Party. Its chairman is Professor Roland Oliver and its council includes Sir Robert Birley. Its director is the respected Ben Whitaker who gave up a parliamentary career because he was so dedicated to this subject. Its report won the attention of every circle in this country; the quality papers gave it the first leading article. It cannot be dismissed. I shall treat it with some of the fullness which it deserves, but I want to make it clear that it is with no pleasure that I refer to deplorable events. I do so only because I think we must take their warning. I shall conclude with certain proposals which I believe are relevant to the present time.

It was in 1965 that the British Government offered Mauritius its independence but it did so only on the condition that Mauritius surrendered the Chagos Archipelago. Diego Garcia is the largest atoll in that archipelago. It is 14 miles by four miles. Compensation of £3 million was offered to the Mauritian Government. This was the period of decolonisation but, unlike other colonies which were given their political freedom, the people of the entire territory of Mauritius were not included in that independence. The United Nations General Assembly met on the subject. It carried Resolution No. 2066XX which invited Britain: to take no action which would dismember the territory of Mauritius and violate its territorial integrity".

There was considerable opposition in Mauritius to the acceptance of independence on those terms. The Mauritian Government reluctantly accepted.

This was followed by an extraordinary event. The British Government, without any consultation of the people, incorporated Diego Garcia into a new colony—the period of decolonisation and yet a new colony established—the British Indian Ocean Territory. It is known as BIOT and I shall be referring to it as such for purposes of brevity. The object of this strange manoeuvre became clear the following year. Britain signed a defence agreement with the United States of America leasing to them BIOT for 50 years with the option of a further 20 years. Again, there was no consultation with the people concerned. The United States wanted BIOT, and particularly Diego Garcia, because it had been selected by the Pentagon as an ideal place to monitor the Soviet Navy. At that stage it was only to be an area of communications.

May I just refer to the population of Diego Garcia? They were 1,800 in number; they were coloured people, 60 per cent. of African origin from the continent itself and from Madagascar and 40 per cent. Indian. There was only one employer on the island. He had a copra plantation. The other inhabitants were harvesters of coconut and fishermen. As I have said, they were not consulted in any way when they were, first, transferred from Mauritius and, secondly, incorporated in the new colony. They were just tossed about at the dictate of Whitehall.

The Pentagon made it clear that they did not want any persons on the island except the American servicemen. Britain was required to remove the residents, the islanders. African and Indian, yes; but British citizens. The first action of the British Government to accomplish this was to prevent the return to Diego Garcia of any visitors to Mauritius. Many went on holiday, for medical treatment and to buy various articles. They found that there were no ships available for them to return to Diego Garcia. They were left stranded on the quayside. The report indicates that others in Diego Garcia itself were tricked to leave on ships to Mauritius never to be allowed to return. British citizens by the action of the British Government became refugees. There was no provision for them. Many of them starved.

The next stop of the British Government to empty the island of its residents was to stop employment. In 1967 BIOT bought out the sole employers of the copra plantation. It was to close down by 1973. The manager used these words: It was not very pleasant telling them they had to go. It was a paradise there. We told them we had orders from BIOT. I am talking about five generations of the Ilois who were buried there.

It is also alleged in the report of the minority group—I confess that I find it a little difficult to believe this—that the next step was to cut off food supplies to the residents at Diego Garcia. It states that from 1968 onwards no food supplies were sent to the people. They had their fish which they caught. They had coconuts. They had vegetables which they grew; but no supplementary foodstuffs, according to the report, were permitted, in order to starve them out.

The first American servicemen arrived in Diego Garcia in 1971. The residents, the Ilois, were told that they did not have the right to stay. In September the last of the Ilois left. One of those deported said: We were assembled and informed that we could no longer stay on the island because the Americans were coming for good. We did not want to go. We were born there. So were our fathers and forefathers who were buried in that land.

They were given two weeks to leave. BIOT transferred them in its own ships. The Foreign Office said then, and it has repeated quite recently in this House: All went willingly and no coercion was used.

I ask you to judge, my Lords, from the facts which I have given. Strangely, at that time this situation was not known in this country: no publicity: no debate in Parliament. The truth was only recorded in 1975 in an article in the Washington Post by its investigator, David Ottawa. He told how 1,000 Ilois were forcibly removed and were living in abject poverty in Mauritius. A week later the Sunday Times had a three-page exposure. It revealed what had not been known before; that the United States had given Britain an 11.5 million dollar discount on Polaris submarines to establish BIOT, which enabled Diego Garcia to become under military occupation of America. The Sunday Times said: The Ilois were the islanders that Britain sold.

This Ilois arrived in Mauritius with no plans to provide for them. There were no homes for them, no jobs and no money. They were left in dire poverty for five years without receiving any compensation. The Sisters of Mother Theresa, and other charities, gave them a little help. A nun said: They do not have enough food, children are undernourished, they need medicines and clothing.

The Comité Fraternelle reported deaths through hunger and suicides, and that a large number of the women and young girls—some aged 13, 14 and 15—left their husbands and parents to become prostitutes in order to obtain a living. It was only when Ilois on the last boat from Diego Garcia staged a sit-in that the Government acted. Then some of them were accommodated. A little assistance was given to 74 families and pensions to 57 of the aged.

I turn to this question of compensation: in 1973 the British Government agreed to pay the utterly inadequate sum of £650,000 to the Mauritian Government for the relief and resettlement of the Ilois. The Foreign Office said—and repeated many times later—that this, represented a full and final discharge of Her Majesty's Government's obligations".

In fact the Ilois did not receive their compensation until 1978. The Mauritian Government itself has a certain responsibility for delaying its distribution, and in any case the amount was utterly inadequate. Each adult received 7,590 rupees—about £650—and the children received between 356 and 410 rupees. That is not enough to rent, and certainly not enough to buy, a house or even to buy food and clothing. Any attempt by the more able to start businesses for themselves became completely impossible.

Agitation at last began in this country as well as in Mauritius. A Methodist named George Champion commenced it, and I pay my tribute to the Methodist Church for coming out in defence of the Ilois. Even the Mauritian Government pressed our Government to increase compensation, and in 1979 Britain offered to add £1.25 million to its offer, but only on the condition that the Ilois abandoned all claim to return to their island home. It was sheer poverty which compelled them to accept, though there was so much controversy about it. I claim that acceptance compelled by hunger has no moral authority.

There were continued demonstrations and hunger strikes. These were so disturbing that the Mauritian Prime Minister flew for talks with Mrs. Thatcher in April 1981. It was then agreed that the two Governments and Ilois representatives should meet in June. The Ilois asked for compensation of £8 million. Britain only offered an additional £300,000 in technical aid, and again said that this was "a full and final agreement". No agreement was reached in those talks.

Protests continued, and they were so strong that in March Britain offered an additional £4 million and the Mauritian Government offered land to the Ilois to the value of £1 million. Once more the British offer was "full and final". The Ilois, despairing, accepted even though the agreement included a clause precluding them from returning to their island.

That is a summary of the report. Commenting on it, The Times on 10th September said: It is unacceptably shameful that this was done in such a mean and dishonest way.

The British Government deny that the United States has now established a base in Diego Garcia. I do not know the military definition of a base, but last year Britain gave the United States permission to undertake a 1,000 million dollar expansion, accommodating B52 bombers, a mile-long jetty, provision for aircraft carriers and barracks for 4,000 marines. If that is not a military base. I do not know what it is.

There is a development now which is disturbing. The High Commissioner for Mauritius says that the establishment of a base violates an undertaking given by the Labour Government that the island would be used only as a communications centre. He did not even rule out an appeal to the World Court. This year an election brought a new government in Mauritius, demanding that there should be an end of the American base and a return of the archipelago to Mauritius. The issue, clearly, is not ended.

Briefly, I end with my own conclusions relevant today. First, there is evidence that the confrontation between the West and the Soviet Union, ostensibly in defence of democracy and freedom, rides roughshod over these values in order to obtain military advantage, as in Diego Garcia.

Secondly, these events continued to the eve of the Falklands crisis when military action, loss of life and immense expenditure was accepted to maintain the right of self-determination by 1,800 white residents—exactly the same number as the African and Indian British citizens deported from Diego Garcia. I ask: would they have been deported and would there have been this haggling over compensation if they had been white?

Thirdly, all the Governments surrounding the Indian Ocean, except Oman and now Somalia, are demanding that the ocean be made a zone of peace. That would mean an end of the American base in Diego Garcia as well as of the Russian presence. If the British Government sincerely desires disarmament in the world, cannot it support this demilitarisation?

Fourthly—and this is the last of my conclusions—would not this facilitate the return of Diego Garcia to Mauritius, as the new Government are demanding, and even the return of the islanders to their homeland? My Lords, I beg the Minister not to retort by saying that it was a Labour Government which began this crime against the islanders of Diego Garcia. Tory Governments since have aggravated it. Freedom and justice are not playthings in party partisanship. We have all been guilty and we should all seek to right the wrong.

6.30 p.m.

Lord Hatch of Lusby

My Lords, I believe that the House is grateful to my noble friend Lord Brockway for raising this issue tonight. I think that the House should also be grateful to the minority group for publishing the report on which this debate is based, and I pay tribute to them for so doing.

This is a most shameful incident in British history. It is shameful to those who were instrumental in the original acts and it would have been wise for the noble Lord, Lord George-Brown, and the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, who were responsible for the original treaty, to have attended this debate, as it is a debate concerning the consequences of their acts when they were at the Foreign Office. It is no pleasure to have to condemn one's own party, but there are times when it is essential for the honour of that party that some of us within it should condemn the actions that are taken in its name, and this is one of those occasions.

I differ from my noble friend Lord Brockway in one respect only. I do not think it is the case that protests have been made only from outside this country, nor that it was not until the 1970s that protests were made about this action. In fact, I should like to pay tribute to the agitation conducted by Mr. Tarn Dalyell from another place, who has consistently from 1965 condemned this action and brought it to the attention both of the public and of Parliament.

I do not envy the noble Lord who is to reply to this debate. I do not envy him for this reason, that he must know that in many parts of the world, and particularly in the Third World, the words just uttered by my noble friend Lord Brockway have been echoed very widely; that there is a parallel between British action towards the inhabitants of Diego Garcia from 1965 onwards, and the actions of the British Government in 1982 towards the inhabitants of the Falkland Islands. One cannot expect people from the Third World, with different coloured skins from our own, to fail to draw the distinction between the actions of the British Government when the British citizens concerned have white or pink skins, and their actions when their skins are of a different colour.

As my noble friend has pointed out, the inhabitants of Diego Garcia were descended from Africans, from the people of Malagasy and from Indians. They were coloured people, or they were people of a different colour from the white skin. Yet can the noble Lord, who is to reply to this debate on behalf of the Government, tell us where the difference in principle is concerned—and I emphasise the word "principle"—between the incident of 1965 onwards and that of 1982?

Surely the principle involved is whether or not all people have the right to live where they choose under a form of government of their own choice, and to participate in the determination of the form of society within which they live. Was that not the principle on which the British Government claimed that they had to send the task force to expel the Argentinians who were denying the people of the Falkland Islands that right? If it is the case that the British Government sent the task force to the Falklands in order to expel those foreigners who are interfering with the lives of the inhabitants, then how can this or any other British Government justify the actions which have been taken towards the inhabitants of Diego Garcia?

My noble friend has pointed out that the basis of these actions was an agreement with the United States Government. That agreement was a treaty which was signed in December, 1965, by the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, on behalf of the Foreign Secretary of the time, the noble Lord, Lord George-Brown. I understand that that treaty included one particular provision and I should like to ask the noble Lord directly about this. I understand that within that treaty there was the provision that, wherever possible, the building of the American base, communications centre—call it what you will—should be by the use of Mauritian and Seychellois workers. I should like to ask him how many Mauritian or Seychellois workers have been used in the building of that American base.

However little publicity there has been about this shameful act by successive British Governments from 1965 onwards, it would appear that, at least, certain Americans have greater moral scruples over the issue than has been shown—at least at all widely—in this country. I should like to give two quotations from the report which point home the issue that I have just raised. When the United States Congress was conducting its hearings on Diego Garcia, Senator John Culver from Ohio had this to say. He complained that no witness in previous hearings had mentioned that there had been inhabitants living on the island—some for generations. He went on to say: simply put, these people were evicted from their home only when and because the United States wanted to build a military base. We add nothing to our moral stature as a nation by trying to sidestep all responsibility for these people. And, I should like to add, nor do we.

Secondly, during questions which were put to the Director of the Office of International Security Operations, Senator Larry Winn, Junior, of Kansas had this to say: I just have the feeling all the way through this hearing that the American negotiators and the people involved have said, 'This is all a British problem, and let the people sink or swim and just let the British worry about'. I don't know where any human concern shows up on your part or in your report or anything else. I can't understand why we arc so damned interested in this thing as a military base that we don't have some type of input, or ask questions, or check on the human beings that are living on this island before we kick them off at our request through the British". If American Congressmen and Senators can feel so deeply about this outrage, I would suggest that our responsibility is one hundred times greater.

May I conclude by picking up one of the last points made by the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, which I was very pleased that he included in this debate: who are we to determine that the Americans should have a military base in the middle of the Indian Ocean? Have there been any consultations with the Government of India as well as with the Government of Mauritius? We know that there have been discussions with Mauritius, but what about India? Diego Garcia, in rough distance, is just as near India as it is Mauritius, and India has a very great stake in everything which goes on in the Indian Ocean. It is the Indians who have led the way in attempting to make the Indian Ocean an ocean of peace, a nuclear-free zone and a non-aligned sea.

This is a very important matter—I think the noble Lord will take this point—for the Commonwealth. The Commonwealth has discussed the future of the Indian Ocean. The Commonwealth has discussed the passionate desire of the Indians and of other Asians to prevent the Indian Ocean from becoming a scene of conflict between the great powers. But here Britain, a member of the Commonwealth, is taking positive action to bring one of the major powers, in a military form, into the centre of the Indian Ocean.

I know that he cannot give a final answer tonight, but I should like the noble Lord to consider and to take back to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office the proposal that because this is a Commonwealth matter there should be Commonwealth consultations about the future of the Ilois, who have been turned out of their homes and thrown out of their homeland, and also about whether Diego Garcia should be a military base for anyone. I reiterate that this is a matter which concerns the Government and the people of India and the rest of the Commonwealth citizens of Asia, as well as the Mauritians, even more than it concerns ourselves and that we should be prepared to withdraw from the position of openly opposing the declared policy of our fellow Commonwealth members in their ocean by bringing in one of the great powers against their wishes.

May I make the proposal to the noble Lord and ask him to give serious consideration to it, along with his noble and right honourable friends in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. If this kind of action is going to be characteristic of British Government policy, then there is very little hope for British influence in the Commonwealth. I believe that members of the Commonwealth have a responsibility and a desire to discuss the whole issue of Diego Garcia and that that discussion should be held within the Commonwealth as well as at the United Nations. However, I particularly recommend to the noble Lord further Commonwealth consultations about the future of the island, the military significance of the island and the future of the refugees whom we have made refugees from their own homeland in Diego Garcia.

6.46 p.m.

Lord Hale

My Lords, this debate has gone on for some time, but it is a very important one. I should like to say at once that I can do no more than agree with every word spoken by my noble friend and with nearly every word spoken by his seconder. Some of the little divagations into American mental attitudes and so on might have been more appropriate from the noble Lord from Peterborough, the noble Lord, Lord Harmer-Nicholls, who persistently rails at me as anti-American. I have a very good friend in this House who is a member of a society of friendship with America. I find very little to blame America for in this, if their military advisers think that the defence of the Indian Ocean will be strengthened by the construction of an American-dominated defence station in the Indian Ocean. They were very hesitant about it and had it almost pushed on them by British Ministers—let us make no mistake about that; the evidence is overwhelming—and, as my noble friend justly said, they were the first to hold a public inquiry and raise some of the problems, such as the destruction of the rare, large tortoises on that particular island.

There is much that is incredible and sheerly indefensibly immoral and contemptuous of human rights coming from a Labour Government and Labour Ministers. I do not believe that anybody like Michael Foot would ever have tolerated this kind of serious and monstrous abusage of human freedom and human liberty.

Names are mentioned in the report, so I need say only this. I came into this by chance on October 14th 1975, when my noble friend and I had each put down a Question on Diego Garcia. My noble friend put a number of supplementaries to his Question, and I put a number of supplementaries to mine. I must say that these were very hostile questions and were received with much more courtesy than I expected. I was asked not to press the questions but to indicate them in detail and to wait for a Written Answer. This duly arrived and, curiously enough, I still have it today—it is an important document. It is signed by my old friend Goronwy Roberts, whom I deeply respected. I do not believe for a moment that he was ever involved to the fullest degree in this matter. I do know that he was distressed at the situation in which he found himself; a situation in which he was having to take the responsibility for his own Government and for some of the things they had done—but not, I believe, with his knowledge. After all, he was still a junior Minister at the time, although he held an important post. It was not very long after that that we lost him. That was a great loss to this House and to the Party.

If one examines this report, one finds that underlying it all is a cynicism which will appal Members on all sides of this House who read it. The figures are almost invariably false. The method of giving absolutely false figures was that if one asked for figures for the number of people in Diego Garcia one would be given the figures for the number of people who were in the Seychelles. Or if one asked for the figures for the Seychelles, one would be given the figures for Diego Garcia. There is scarcely an accurate figure throughout these communications. Meanwhile, people of high reputations, with their own religious beliefs and their own customs, and with their reputation, which does not involve criticising them on the basis of character, are tricked in the manner of a confidence trickster. They are told that it will all be all right and that they have only to wait. They are told to step on a boat and that their interests will be looked after, but some of them have very great difficulty in ever getting off that boat again. They are deported to areas of conflict and dispute.

They starve. It is an odd thing that people can starve, even in a fruit-growing country, if they are pushed together in a heap and left. Your Lordships may have seen the film which I believe was shown on ITV some time ago. It showed what was left of these 1,000 decent people. As far as money is concerned, they did not get any money for years. When any money was paid it was not paid for the victims—it never is. Let me recall from memory the period not very far off from this when we were dealing with the problems of the Gilbert Islands and the Banabans. Time after time there was this same sort of deceit and the same sort of vague talk about compensation. I have no doubt that the Americans urged for the payment of some more compensation because of the shameful treatment of these people. I believe that to be true. After all, it is hardly a country that can afford or wish to save a few coppers at the expense of a starving tribe. But it went on. I myself am ashamed. I do not know why I seem at the end of October 1975 to have dropped out of this business for quite a time. I only saw the report yesterday and I accept a great deal of blame for not trying to ascertain the truth at the earliest possible moment. This is not a matter, if there be a solution, which should be forgotten, even in these overcrowded islands, after so many Ilois have died (some of them having committed suicide) and after little girls have gone into prostitution.

It seems that there is an island which, happily, was discovered by some British sailors who wanted to go to Diego Garcia but who were refused and who journeyed to another island some 140 miles away, where, they testify, most of the advantages which the Diego Garcians enjoyed in their early days on Diego Garcia are also available. It is virtually an uninhabited island where these people might be accommodated if they were willing and if they were given adequate compensation.

If the Americans want to go on with this massive project—and I do not believe that they do—I do not think that this is the moment to go into the question of views which certainly verge on pacifism. I do not believe that this is the moment when we ought to be criticising the military government or otherwise of this island. The attempt to rescue the American hostages from Iran was to be staged by President Carter in full secrecy from Diego Garcia. It is a long way away, but that factor—the necessity of keeping that absolutely secret for a long time—was one of the difficulties about seeking other alternatives until the day had passed when the attempt failed. Let us have a full inquiry free from unnecessary rancour, seeking to pay the debt we owe to those unfortunate people who were the victims of trickery of a like that we do not often see in British international affairs.

With those observations I shall leave out very many of the matters that I wanted to mention. I approach the situation still without bitterness and rancour because I know that I failed myself, and often do.

7.1 p.m.

Lord Strabolgi

My Lords, we are grateful to my noble friend Lord Brockway for tabling this Unstarred Question for debate this evening. I know that the House has been impressed by his moving speech. This has been very much a Labour debate and I cannot help regretting, with my noble friend Lord Hatch of Lusby, that no noble Lords from other parts of the House have taken part, except, of course, the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, who is to reply for Her Majesty's Government.

As has been said, Diego Garcia was formerly a dependence of Mauritius. It was ceded to Britain, and detached from Mauritius, before independence was given to Mauritius. It is generally believed that the island has been leased by us to the United States for 50 years—indeed, I have seen this widely reported in the press. On the other hand, I understand that the Foreign Office maintains that Diego Garcia is not leased to the United States—rather that the island has been "made available" to the United States, for defence purposes, for an initial period of 50 years, with an option for a further 20 years.

May I ask the noble Lord who is to reply to define the legal position and to describe the difference, under international law, between "leasing" and "making available"? May I also ask the noble Lord whether it is a fact that the United States' contribution, or payment if you like, took the form of the waiving of about £5 million of surcharges owed by the United Kingdom on the purchase of the Polaris missile system, which was also alluded to by my noble friend Lord Brockway? May I further ask if it is true that, in addition, Britain is receiving rent for Diego Garcia from the United States of about £½ million a month?

I am not clear why the creation of naval and military facilities required the removal of the entire population. This removal appears to have been carried out, according to the report of the Minority Rights Group—if this is accurate—in a very shabby way. As has been said, first the island was detached from Mauritius. Then the employing plantation company was bought up and closed down so that the means of livelihood of the Ilois was lost. Food imports are even reported to have been cut off. Families were then persuaded to take a holiday in Mauritius, many with offers of a free trip, and they found when they got there that they were not allowed to return home. By "winkling out" in this way the population had been reduced from 1,800 to about 800 people by 1971. These 800 souls were then removed to two neighbouring islands and two years later they were sent to Mauritius.

It appears from this report that no provision for resettlement had been made, and little was done to alleviate the hardship on arrival in a strange island of those we had exiled. Each family was allowed to take only one crate of belongings and we have had other moving examples described tonight by my noble friends. The result was that these unfortunate people had to live in poverty and squalid conditions. I understand that nine committed suicide and others died through poverty.

May I ask the noble Lord why no provision was made to resettle those whom we had uprooted, in a more fitting way? If the reports are true—and I hope that they are not—then this country bears a heavy responsibility. True, compensation was offered in 1973—some £650,000 initially—I suppose the smallest sum the Treasury thought they could get away with. In order to qualify, the islanders, many of them simple people, were asked apparently to sign a form renouncing irrevocably their right to return to Diego Garcia. Any adult not in possession of supporting documents to establish a claim was, it is reported, given the paltry sum of £650.

But the people were not as simple as that. Her Majesty's Government were obliged in the end to offer considerably more. May I ask the noble Lord if it is true that the agreed total sum is now £4 million—a long way from £650,000—plus a grant of land worth about £1 million from the government of Mauritius? It would have been more honest, I think, and more dignified, surely, if we had offered generous compensation at the outset. Why did we not do so? Was it meanness, incompetence, or indifference; or a mixture of all three?

I accept that the island is important for defence purposes, in view of its central position in the Indian Ocean—and here I differ from my noble friend Lord Brockway. But why was it necessary to remove the inhabitants? I do not know of other defence bases, or stations, which have required the removal from adjacent areas of the whole native population. In many stations as we know, the local inhabitants provide useful ancillary and support activities. Employment is provided, and the local people can often earn good money. Perhaps the noble Lord will say why Diego Garcia is the exception. Why did its setting up as a defence base have to cause so much reported suffering to the unfortunate people—the Ilois—many of whom had lived on Diego Garcia for five generations, with their own distinctive way of life, as several of my noble friends have said this evening?

The report by the Minority Rights Group is a disturbing document. I submit that the Government's views on it should be given to the House this evening. I therefore ask, in company with my noble friends, what is the Government's response to this report?

7.9 p.m.

Lord Skelmersdale

My Lords, as I see it, my job here today is not to explain away the failures of past Governments or to lay the blame on any particular individual for the current position with regard to the Ilois people. Suffice it to say that I am not—to pluck a convenient phrase from broadcasting history—one of yesterday's men. This story was a fait accompli when this Government came to power. However, I am here, as the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, has just reminded me, to answer the timely question from the noble Lord, Lord Brockway—namely: To ask Her Majesty's Government"— this one, today's Government— what is their response to the report of the Minority Rights Group on events in Diego Garcia". It is timely because the noble Lord has given us an early opportunity to debate a report which was published only in August this year. It is also timely because, as I have sought to illustrate, I am able to explain the actions taken by this Government since 1979.

From listening to the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, this evening no one can doubt his sincerity and concern for minorities. We have all known his concern to be unquestionable over a great period of years, some of us for a rather shorter time than others. Nor can anyone doubt the sincerity of the Minority Rights Group or of John Madeley, author of the report to which the noble Lord has drawn attention. I should say at the outset that we have the greatest sympathy for the hardships undergone by many of the Ilois in the past decade. Nothing that I say in response to points raised by the noble Lords who have spoken in this debate can detract from that. At the same time. I think it is helpful to look at the problems of this community in a longer time-frame than that of this decade, which is what the debate has tended to do.

Ever since the first of the islands were discovered in the 16th century they have attracted interest for two reasons: the strategic convenience of Diego Garcia's lagoon in the middle of the Indian Ocean; and the products of the coconut palms which flourish on the islands. Indeed, the Chagos were for long known as the oil islands. The economy of the archipelago depended entirely on the marketability of copra and coconut oil and underwent many vicissitudes. I shall not weary the House with a detailed history of these commodities. Suffice it to say that the market has for many years been in long-term decline and the lack of competitiveness of such small and isolated production units was bringing the economic viability of the islands seriously into question by the time that fresh interest was being shown in their strategic possibilities. Even before the last war a settlement on one of the islands had to be closed down.

The other aspect, the defence aspect, also has a long history. In the latter part of the 18th century when French and British fleets were struggling for mastery of the Indian Ocean. Diego Garcia was, because of its position in the route to India, a bone of contention until, together with Mauritius and other dependencies of Mauritius, it was ceded to Britain in 1814 under the Treaty of Paris. In the Second World War Diego Garcia again showed its military value, mainly as a staging post for flying-boats.

There was, therefore, nothing surprising or novel in the idea that the Chagos should again contribute to the defence of the West in the fresh circumstances of the second half of this century. Your Lordships are, of course, familiar with the agreement we made with the United States in 1966. The text is in Command Paper 3231 of 1967. I make no apology for the fact that this Government, like the Government of the day which signed that agreement, think it important to make available a facility in that part of the ocean to our principal ally. Indeed, developments in the north-west of the Indian Ocean and, above all, the threat posed by the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan reinforce the need for a support facility in the region.

The noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, and, indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, asked me why we call it a "support facility" and not a "military base". Essentially, a base is a self-contained place with its own defences and forces installed. This particular one is rightly described as a "support facility" because that is just what it is. It has a runway, it has fuel stocks, and it has a communications capacity. It will have a deep water berth, but there is no permanent force deployed there, naval fleet based there, or any aircraft based there. This is, of course, a reason why it would be inappropriate for islanders not belonging to the facility to be there for any length of time.

The noble Lord, Lord Hatch, asked about the building of this facility and who was to be used in building it. He obviously has in mind Article 7(a) of the 1966 agreement. This provides that: The United States Government and United States contractors shall make use of workers from Mauritius and the Seychelles to the maximum extent practicable, consistent with United States policy requirements and schedules". In recent years there have been over 200 Mauritian workers employed at the base for building purposes.

It is very much in our mind to ask, what about further expansion plans for the base? The situation has not changed since my right honourable friend the Minister of State said in another place on 30th July 1981 that: … previous United States Administration consulted us [Her Majesty's Government] about plans for a programme to expand the facilities on Diego Garcia. This programme involves numerous construction projects extending over several years. They include improving the services and utilities on the island, including refuelling arrangements, expansion of storage, warehousing, maintenance and wharf installations, and the upgrading of runway and other airfield support facilities to a standard which would allow use of the facility as required by a wide range of heavy aircraft including B52s. We [Her Majesty's Government] have agreed to these plans. The present United States Administration have confirmed that they intend to proceed with the development plan and are now seeking budgetary authority to set work in hand. Projects expected to start in 1981–82 include the construction of a new aircraft taxiway and parking apron to B52 specifications and the construction of extra accommodation for United States personnel. The Government welcomes these plans to improve the facilities on Diego Garcia which fills an important role in the protection of Western interests in the area. I shall return to this point in a minute.

As has already been mentioned, this is there directly because of the creation of the British Indian Ocean Territory in 1965. I must emphasise that the Chagos Archipelago was detached from the administration of Mauritius with the full agreement of the Mauritius Council of Ministers to form part of that territory. The report makes the astounding suggestion that this was conditional upon our agreement to Mauritius independence. Search as I could, I could find no trace of any evidence whatever for the claim that the then Colonial Secretary, who visited Mauritius in 1965 to prepare for the constitutional talks to be held later that year, made any suggestion or condition. His visit was undertaken to ascertain the views of the then Mauritius Prime Minister, Sir Seewoosagur Ramgoolam, and other party leaders on the direction which the constitutional development of the islands should take. The United Kingdom Government did, however, agree to pay the Government of Mauritius £3 million in compensation for the detachment of the islands; and we have also undertaken to cede them to Mauritius when they are no longer required for defence purposes.

I should mention in parenthesis that when the BIOT was first formed, it also included certain islands detached in a similar way from the then colony of Seychelles. When it was clear that those islands would not be needed for defence or other purposes they were returned to form part of the new Republic of Seychelles upon its independence in 1976.

It is the people involved, the Ilois, who have, rightly, been a major focus of concern of noble Lords who have taken part in this debate. I should perhaps remind your Lordships what the term—the noun—"Ilois" actually means. It is a term that has grown up over the years to describe that part of the Mauritian people who lived or have lived on the Chagos Archipelago. Nothing more and nothing less.

While the majority of those who worked on the copra plantations were returned to Mauritius or the Seychelles upon the expiry of their contracts, a proportion remained on these islands for the greater part of their lives. These were referred to as the Ilois. Noble Lords will recognise that the term is far from precise, but, whatever the degree of their connection with the Chagos, the fact is that the Ilois were brought to, and remained on, the islands purely on the basis of their contracts. Traditionally the plantation owners did not look upon the workers as settled residents in any one place but moved them according to commercial necessity. There seem to have been considerable fluctuations in the level of habitation in the islands. Neither the employees nor those who were permitted by the plantation owners to remain at the end of their contracts owned land or houses in any part of the archipelago. The point I am making is simply this: the inhabitants of these small atolls did not constitute a settled and self-sustaining community with its own institutions and civil administration.

The noble Lord, Lord Hatch, brought up the subject of the Falklands and tried to compare the two situations. Now, in contrast to what I have just said about the archipelago, in the Falkland Islands (an area, incidentally, incomparably vaster at some 4,700 square miles) a self-sustaining society had established itself, with its own civil administration, as early as the 1840s. From this base the Falkland islanders gradually built up the economy and their institutions to the levels with which we are all familiar. They, unlike the Ilois, were separated from their near neighbours by language, culture and tradition. It is purely to do with self-sustaining peoples, and nothing more and nothing less. I cannot be more dismissive of the suggestion that this is anything at all to do with racialism.

Lord Hatch of Lusby

My Lords, will the noble Lord give way?

Lord Skelmersdale

My Lords, if the noble Lord will allow me, I am trying to make a speech out of a large number of incoherent notes. I listened to the noble Lord in silence although at times I was tempted to argue with him. Perhaps I may continue with my speech and make it in my own way.

With the establishment of the British Indian Ocean Territory, the plantations were purchased by the Crown and all were eventually closed, beginning with those in Diego Garcia. The settlements in Peros Banhos and Salomon were kept going as long as was practicable and the workers from Diego Garcia were given the option, which a considerable number took, of working on Peros Banhos or Salomon for as long as possible. However, the total land area of these two groups of islands is something like six square miles. It seems unlikely that the plantations on them would have been economically viable in the long term, even with the substantial injection of new capital that would have been required. In any case, the islands were also included in the 1966 Exchange of Notes, and thus potentially available for defence purposes; and this further diminished their commercial attractiveness.

I come now to a poignant, perhaps the most poignant moment in this history. As in any final leave-taking, the departure of the Ilois from the island settlements must have been a sad and distressing occasion. But the report's description of these occasions as an act of mass kidnapping is grossly exaggerated and I suggest tendentious. There is no evidence of force having been used.

Lord Strabolgi

Nobody says so.

Lord SkelmersdaleLord Denham

My Lords, I beg to move that this House do now adjourn.

Lord Hatch of Lusby

Before the Minister sits down—

Several noble Lords

Order!

Lord Denham

I have moved that the House do now adjourn, my Lords. We are in very grave difficulty with an Unstarred Question if it is allowed to turn into a debate after my noble friend has answered.