Letter from Mr David Snoxell to Comptroller
and Auditor General
My attention has been drawn to the section dealing
with BIOT (Chagos Islands) in your Report, Managing risk in
the overseas territories, at page 27 and at page 40 in Appendix
2. You might just remember that we touched on the issues when
you came to my office. I am afraid the wording is somewhat misleading
and I thought I should bring it to your attention in case you
wished to issue an amendment.
On page 40 (Key developments since the last
NAO Report in 1997/8) it is stated, with reference to the Territory
(not just Diego Garcia), that: "Successful court rulings
and Orders in Council have disputed the right of displaced Chagossian
natives to return to the Territory". This is not correct.
Only HMG has disputed the right of the inhabitants to return to
their homeland. But in November 2000 Robin Cook accepted the judgement
of the High Court that the Chagossians had the right to return.
Naturally he excluded the US base on Diego Garcia which is the
most southerly island of the Archipelago It is some 150 miles
from the Outer Islands, which number between 55 and 65 islands.
The exclusion of Diego Garcia is not at issue. Three years and
seven months later, in June 2004, the FCO overturned Mr Cook's
decision, and the High Court judgement by Orders in Council. At
judicial review in May 2006, the High court once again restored
the right of Chagossians to return to the Outer Islands. The FCO
appealed and lost a third time in May 2007 at the Court of Appeal.
What the FCO are now appealing to the Lords over is not the Chagossians'
right to return, restored three times by the courts, but whether
Orders in Council may be subject to judicial review. They say
they need clarification. The Lords have agreed to hear the appeal
in the spring on condition that the FCO pay all costs whatever
the outcome. That outcome must be fairly obvious. So it is not
true to say that the Courts have disputed the right to return,
rather they have upheld it.
At page 27 (Illustration of UK risks and liabilities
in the Overseas Territories) the legal costs are put at £600,000.
Legal costs paid by HMG since 2000 must be in excess of the £2.171
million which the FCO has admitted in answer to a PQ, because
that figure does not include the cost of the Appeal so far. It
is difficult to get an accurate figure (it depends what you count)
but my guess is that the FCO must have spent in excess of £3
million, not counting the cost of going to the Lords. I would
have expected the NAO to question the wisdom of this expenditure
since posts had inevitably had to be closed to fund it.
It seems to me also that the language used on
page 27 to describe the findings of the Feasibility Study has
been exaggerated. I don't think the Study added the words: "would
involve expensive underwriting by the British Government for an
open-ended period, and probably permanently." It looks as
if your Report repeated part of Mr Rammell's statement to Parliament
on 15 June 2004, rather than the exact words of the Feasibility
Study conclusions which Mr Rammell also quoted.
22 November 2007
|
