St Helena: UK Immigration

In the House of Commons debate on the new immigration arrangements between the UK Government and St Helena, the Minister of State for the Overseas Territories, Stephen Doughty, outlined the government's position. He explained that a political agreement has been reached with Mauritius regarding the long-term future of the British Indian Ocean Territory (BIOT), and that in the interim period, any new migrants arriving will be transferred to St Helena. Doughty stated that this arrangement presents a unique opportunity for a British Overseas Territory to assist the UK, and that the UK Government has agreed to provide £6.65 million in one-off funding to St Helena to improve health, education, and infrastructure. The official opposition, represented by Paul Holmes, the MP for Hamble Valley, responded with disappointment, criticizing the government for making this announcement outside of the House rather than within it. Holmes questioned whether the plan was discussed during the treaty negotiations with Mauritius, and whether Chagossians were consulted on the matter. He also raised concerns about the cost of the deal and which department would be responsible for it. The debate that followed covered a range of topics. Several MPs, including Dame Meg Hillier and Mr Andrew Mitchell, welcomed the additional funding for St Helena and the opportunity for the territory to assist the UK. However, they also raised concerns about the impact on St Helena's healthcare and social infrastructure, as well as the potential cost to the British taxpayer. The shadow Foreign Secretary, Mr Andrew Mitchell, expressed perplexity at the government's choice of St Helena as the destination for any migrants, given its remote location and small population. The Minister, Stephen Doughty, reiterated that the agreement with St Helena is a mutually beneficial, "win-win" arrangement, and that it is a pragmatic and practical solution to the situation inherited from the previous government. He emphasized that no migrants have arrived on BIOT since 2022, and that this is a contingency measure to ensure that if anyone does attempt the dangerous journey, they can be accommodated in a suitable location. Doughty also defended the government's approach, stating that it is compliant with international law and that the St Helena government has freely entered into the agreement. The debate also touched on the government's previous plans for the Rwanda asylum scheme, with some MPs drawing comparisons and questioning the government's stance on offshoring. Doughty dismissed these comparisons, stating that the St Helena agreement is fundamentally different and does not involve the same level of cost or controversy as the Rwanda scheme. Overall, the debate highlighted the complexities surrounding the UK's immigration policies and its relationships with the Overseas Territories, with both the government and the opposition presenting their perspectives on the new arrangements with St Helena.