| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Cook: The promise of early retirement has not made the right hon. and learned Gentleman any more emollient. I am glad that he included the sentence saying that he welcomed our proposals because, apart from that sentence, it was hard to tell that he did.
The bones of what I have announced today have been in the public domain since 4 February 1998, when I addressed the Dependent Territories Association. Nothing in the White Paper will particularly surprise those who have paid attention to the debate since then.
On citizenship, of course it is important that we are protected against an unreasonable number of people taking advantage of the proposal. We are fully protected, because the White Paper makes it plain that British
citizenship will be available only to those who already have a residence qualification for British dependent territory citizenship. Those residence qualifications are quite severe in most of the territories precisely because, as I have said, they themselves are anxious about uncontrolled settlement in their area.
I can assure the House and the right hon. and learned Gentleman that nothing in the White Paper threatens changes to the constitution of any territories. Their constitutions will continue. What the White Paper is about is how the Government relate to them and how we can better service their Governments.
I am surprised that the shadow spokesman on foreign affairs does not understand that the European convention on human rights has nothing to do with the European Union. Indeed, this country was committed to the convention long before we joined the European Union.
I make no apology for the proposal. Britain is committed to the European convention. We accept any obligations that are imposed on us by the European Court of Human Rights. We also are fully signed up to the two international covenants--on civil and political rights and on economic and social rights. We abide by them. We have a perfect right to tell those overseas territories that we represent throughout the world that we expect them to abide by them, too, so that we can defend them throughout the world. We have a particular obligation to all the residents of those territories, including any minorities within them, to ensure that they have the same rights that we claim for ourselves.
Mr. Jim Marshall (Leicester, South):
May I warmly congratulate my right hon. Friend on his statement and plead with him to ignore the hypocrisy from Opposition Members? He is aware that the nationality legislation that the previous Government introduced some 17 years ago treated residents of dependent territories shamefully. The previous Government made them carry the buck for the problem that they foresaw arising from Hong Kong. To resolve the problem of Hong Kong, they withdrew the right of abode of all residents of the dependent territories. It is right and proper--great credit is due to the Government--that they have decided to give back those people their right of abode in this country and, with it, Britain citizenship. May I welcome that?
Clearly, there will be a--
Madam Speaker:
Order. I cannot allow hon. Members to make speeches on the matter. I am waiting for a question on the statement, so that the Foreign Secretary can answer.
Mr. Marshall:
I prefaced my remarks by asking whether my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary agreed with my comments--if I did not do so, I do it in retrospect.
Clearly, there will be a time lag before the legislation comes in. Will my right hon. Friend give those people who are resident in dependent territories an assurance that, if they wish to come to the United Kingdom before the
legislation is on the statute book, they will not have to apply for visas, as they do at the moment, but will be able to travel freely?
Mr. Cook:
I appreciate my hon. Friend's question and am happy to say that the answer is yes, I accept his welcome.
I have put right something that has long been wrong. What we have said today will be welcomed throughout the dependent territories, particularly by people who felt a strong sense of grievance that they were cheated out of their right of abode in the UK.
I give an assurance that British dependent citizens will not require a visa to come to Britain and do not require one at present. Of course, whether it is possible to anticipate the change in legislation is a matter for my colleague at the Home Office, but we will seek to put the changes in the legislative programme and to bring them into effect as quickly as we can. It should be appreciated that that is important for their access not just to Britain, but to Europe.
Many citizens of British overseas territories find it an affront that, when they visit other European countries, they are treated as non-EU citizens. They see a contrast between their treatment and that of citizens of territories of the Netherlands and of France. After the legislation and in the light of the White Paper, that insult will have been removed.
Mr. Menzies Campbell (North-East Fife):
I welcome both the statement and the White Paper. Given the rather febrile atmosphere of the times, may I assure the Foreign Secretary that I have not seen a pre-publication version of the White Paper?
Is the Foreign Secretary satisfied that the arrangements for ministerial responsibility that he has described will prevent a repeat of the rather undignified scramble--almost a turf war--of the summer of 1997, which erupted, to coin a phrase, over the island of Montserrat? Is he aware that many hon. Members regard the events of the early 1980s that resulted in citizenship being taken away from people living in overseas territories as a particularly shameful chapter in the history of the United Kingdom, and will welcome what he has said today about the restoration of those rights? The sense of grievance to which he referred has been entirely justified, has it not?
There is to be no extension of the offer of citizenship to citizens of British dependent territories who were associated with the British Indian Ocean territory. Am I right in thinking that will apply to the Chagos islanders? If so, why?
If there is any procrastination or unreasonable delay in the introduction of domestic legislation to deal with the issue of homosexual rights, will the Foreign Secretary ensure that the necessary Order in Council will be promoted through the House of Commons at the earliest opportunity?
Mr. Cook:
I thank the right hon. and learned Gentleman for what he has said. For the record, I should say that a pre-publication copy of the White Paper was given to the Chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee, which is today on a welcome visit to one of the overseas territories, Gibraltar.
I agree with the right hon. and learned Gentleman about what has been done in the past to the citizenship of islanders and other citizens of overseas territories. We put that right after taking office, as quickly as we reasonably could.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman is correct is assuming that what I have announced will not apply to former residents of the Chagos archipelago. That is because they left 30 or 40 years ago, and no one has lived there since. Moreover, they all have access to Mauritian citizenship. The offer of British citizenship that I have made today applies to residents of our territories to whom no other national citizenship is available.
I can give the right hon. and learned Gentleman the assurance that he seeks. If there is no progress to put right the legislation on human rights to which I referred, we shall do it by Order in Council. We would prefer not to do that; we would prefer those concerned to do it themselves, because that would respect the principle of self- government on which our relations are founded. Should they fail to do so, however, we will carry out our obligations to the international community, and also to minorities in the territories.
Mr. Peter Bradley (The Wrekin):
I should not presume to speak on behalf of St. Helenans, but I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his statement, and assure him that the restoration of those citizens' rights--withdrawn by the last Government in 1982--will be very welcome. I imagine that the islanders will be celebrating joyously today.
Will my right hon. Friend acknowledge the tremendous contribution made by the few relatives but many friends of St. Helenans in this country who have campaigned so tirelessly on their behalf, and whose appeals for justice fell on deaf ears throughout the lifetime of the last Administration but have been met in full today?
Mr. Cook:
I thank my hon. Friend for his comments. When hon. Members have a chance to read the White Paper, they will note that we have made a number of specific commitments in relation to the development of St. Helena. Today's statement will be welcome in relation to its citizens' constitutional status, and our commitments to the development of their infrastructure and communications with the outside world will be almost as welcome.
Sir Teddy Taylor (Rochford and Southend, East):
European treaties contain many references to overseas territories of member states. Is there any difference in the rights, entitlements or obligations of their citizens as a consequence of the change of name? In order to avoid any misunderstanding, will the Foreign Secretary also make it abundantly clear that the statement has no relevance to the Channel islands?
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |