What is happening with people claiming asylum on the Chagos islands?

On 7 October 2024 the Foreign Secretary made a statement to the House of Commons, explaining that the United Kingdom and the Republic of Mauritius had reached agreement for the UK to agree that Mauritius has sovereignty over the British Indian Ocean Territory (the Chagos islands) and that Mauritius would then authorise continued use of the military base on Diego Garcia.

We have previously covered the plight of the small group of people who had arrived on the island and sought asylum.

On 16 October 2024 the government of St Helena announced that agreement had been reached with the UK for any people arriving on the Chagos islands from that date onwards to be taken to St Helena which will assume responsibility for their welfare. The statement said that “all arrivals will be dealt with on a case-by-case basis and in line with St Helena’s Immigration Control provisions”.

This agreement is to remain in place until the transfer to Mauritius has taken place, expected to be 18 months, at which point Mauritius will take responsibility for any further arrivals. The announcement notes that there have been no new arrivals to the islands since 2022 and the UK is “paying £6.65 million to accelerate the work we have started in health, education and internal IT, including funding to clear our current overseas medical referral waiting list”. The statement also says that essential services on the island are under threat because of outward migration, a problem which can only be changed by addressing population decline.

In a separate statement, St Helena’s government said that the agreement could be cancelled on six months’ notice from either side.

So it seems at least possible, if not likely, that no one will actually be sent to St Helena under this agreement. More important at this stage, is what will happen to the people who have been on Diego Garcia since 2021. It has been reported that some of the group have been offered a temporary move to a centre run by the UN in Romania while their claims are processed and they may then end up in the UK.

Excluded from this offer and instead offered financial incentives to return to Sri Lanka are those who have had their claims rejected (although it is unclear from the report what opportunity they have had to challenge those rejections), unaccompanied men whose protection claims remain pending, and those with a criminal conviction (including some individuals in family units and one person with a positive protection decision, who but for their convictions would have been part of the Romania cohort).

It is difficult to understand the argument against bringing them to the UK at this point in time, given the UK can hardly argue there is a risk of incentivising that journey now that any future arrivals would end up in St Helena.