Mr.
Borrow: On that point, does my hon. Friend agree that it
would be wise of the Government, having been successful in the case of
the Chagos islands in the House of Lords last week, to adopt a
constructive, conciliatory approach to see if the wrongs that have been
done in the past can be righted by discussion and negotiation, without
the threat of legal action, which has been the excuse for not having
constructive dialogue for many
months?
Andrew
Mackinlay: Yes, of course. I do not wish to digress, but
the matter is relevant because the document says that there are no
citizens there. That is why I raised the
issue. On
European Union norms, the document also relates to access to the
jurisdiction of the European Court. In my view, having read the
document twice, everyone in the territories and, by inference, the
people from the Chagos islands, can and should have access to the
European Courts. We should welcome that. However, the Minister’s
clarification on that point would be
welcome. The
document says that the overseas territories are not members of, or
subject to, Europol. That is interesting, because clearly and
demonstrably they should be and I think that that was the view of Her
Majesty’s Government. My reaction is: let us get on with it and
ensure that they are subject to the various law enforcement agencies of
the European Union and western Europe. That would be a good idea. I
suspect that the territories of the other countries that I mentioned
are subject to such agencies.
I was sorry to
see the previous Minister leave her post. She was dismissed, although I
do not use that word unkindly. The trouble is that too many Ministers
are dismissed too often here. There is never a settlement, so it does
not matter how talented the current Minister is because she
cannot—I am not knocking her—be on top of the brief.
Under a system whereby Prime Ministers are fickle and change people
around, there is a cost and loss to Parliament, because, demonstrably,
new Ministers have to learn things
again. The
previous Minister was cognisant of the deficiencies in law and order in
some overseas territories. To her credit, she appointed somebody to
investigate the stewardship, conduct and government of the Turks and
Caicos Islands and that person is about to embark on that
investigation. It took the Foreign Affairs Committee to reveal that. As
you know, Mr. Pope, at best the Committee was only able to
have a cursory look at some overseas territories. However, again, the
Foreign Office hides behind the governors, and the Government and the
Opposition are reliant on them. In many cases, we do not know whether a
governor is good, bad or indifferent. In some cases, in my view, they
have been indifferent and that needs to be remedied. Of course, if I
were in France, the Netherlands or Denmark, I would probably know
because they send a representative to their legislature, but that does
not happen
here. There
are European norms on issues such as discrimination. We know that there
is a significant disparity in our overseas territories regarding things
such as sexual orientation discrimination and gender discrimination.
The British Government should say to the European Union, “We
think there should be a constant European norm in our overseas
territories in that regard.” We can say to the national
legislatures, “Look, you can implement your own domestic
legislation, but it has to be within these parameters and it is now
time that you did it.” Of course, there is a precedent for that
because the United Kingdom did it in respect of the abolition of
capital punishment. However, for reasons that I cannot understand, Her
Majesty’s Government and the Opposition acquiesce by their
silence in standards that are not acceptable or up to European Union
norms. This was an opportunity for the United Kingdom to proclaim that
it was going to act and, if there was any similar disparity in the
overseas territories of the other three countries, we could have shown
the
way.
Mr.
Borrow: Will my hon. Friend comment on the difference
between the UK position and its overseas territories, and France and
most of its overseas territories? As French overseas territories are
directly represented in the French Assembly, the same law that applies
to mainland France also applies to, for example, the islands of the
Caribbean in relation to many of these
issues?
Andrew
Mackinlay: I am totally at one with my hon. Friend. I am
certain that there is no disparity between France and its territories.
However, as I have said, we—this United Kingdom Parliament, of
which I am a Member, and the Government, who are answerable to this
Parliament—acquiesce by our silence in that disparity. Possibly
that might be news to the Minister, in which case I hope she will stand
up and say, “I will not put up with this any further. I will
instruct Sir Peter Ricketts and all those people to get a move on and
bring forward an order whereby we can get these norms into
existence.”
It is worth
noting that paragraph 27 of the Foreign Affairs Committee report
states: “We
agree with the Environmental Audit
Committee”— a
Committee of this
House— “that
the Government does not appear to have carried out any kind of
strategic assessment of Overseas Territories’ funding
requirements for conservation and ecosystem management. We conclude
that given the vulnerability of Overseas Territories’ species
and ecosystems, this lack of action by the Government is highly
negligent.” The
report goes on to say
that “the
FCO cannot abdicate responsibility for setting levels of funding given
its knowledge of Overseas Territories’ capacity and
resources.” On
the occasion of considering this European document, this debate, the
view of the Environmental Audit Committee and that of the Foreign
Affairs Committee should send a message to the Government—and,
if I might say, the Opposition too, who also have obligations with
regard to this matter—that they should have a root and branch
review of our attitudes to the overseas territories. This situation
cannot go on any longer and if we do not act, we will suffer
substantial embarrassment, as we did in relation to the Pitcairn
Islands. I hope the Minister will acknowledge that some of these
matters are a high priority for
her.
The
Chairman: I apologise to Jo Swinson for calling her second
to speak, but Mr. Mackinlay was so swift on his feet, I
called him
instead. 5.14
pm
Jo
Swinson: I should have leapt to my feet more quickly,
Mr. Pope, so that is not a problem at all.
I shall
briefly make several points about the overseas territories and the
documents that we are discussing. Obviously, the relationship between
UK overseas territories and the EU is important, not least for the
140,000 people who live in those territories. To pick up on
a point made by the hon. Member for Thurrock, it strikes me that those
people add up to the equivalent of two parliamentary
constituencies.
The Minister
referred to the vulnerability of overseas territories, and how, if that
is measured by poverty and GDP per capita, many do not fall into a
vulnerable category. However, they are vulnerable in terms of
environmental protection and the impact of climate change on what are
mainly island states, as well as to natural disasters, as we saw
recently with Hurricane Ike in the Turks and Caicos Islands.
I was in Cuba
during the summer and had the opportunity to meet officers from the
British vessel, Wave Ruler, which patrols in that area throughout the
year. I confess that I was somewhat ignorant about the excellent work
done by the Ministry of Defence and the British officers out there. The
event that the ambassador organised was very informative, and I thought
it worth putting on the record the gratitude and relief that I and, I
am sure, other hon. Members feel for their hard work in dealing with
drug smuggling and counter-narcotic activities, but when there is an
emergency, such as a hurricane, they can slip in in its wake, even
before the aid agencies arrive, to provide basic assistance in the
first hours after it strikes. I know that that was welcomed when the
devastation hit the islands.
I want to pick
up on some of the points made by the hon. Member for Thurrock, and to
underline the importance of environmental protection in our overseas
territories. The British Virgin Islands have been described in the UN
environmental vulnerability index as being extremely vulnerable.
Climate change has been transformed since the last review 10 years ago,
so it is right that environmental protection and measures to mitigate
and to adapt to climate change must be in the Government’s mind
when they respond to the Green Paper and produce the finished document.
The situation now is totally different from that of a decade
ago. I
am a member of the Environmental Audit Committee, which heard evidence
from the UK overseas territories conservation forum during our recent
inquiry into biodiversity. It said that the Government’s
approach to environmental protection “remains fragmentary and
inadequate”. The Foreign Affairs Committee’s report also
highlighted that, and we heard evidence that there are 240 globally
endangered species just in the UK overseas territories, 74 of which are
on the critical list. The importance of the problem cannot be
overstated. The
Government may utter warm words, but I want to know—perhaps the
Minister will tell the Committee today or take the matter up
later—what they will do to respond to the Foreign Affairs
Committee’s report and the claims and criticisms that the
Environmental Audit Committee made in subsequent reports in recent
years. It is important that the Government act.
In the
context of funding streams, there is a danger that we are asking the EU
to do what the Government are unwilling to do. The Green Paper states
that “questions
are being asked about the interest of having the Community promote the
sustainable development of the OCTs...where a Member State has
ceased to provide direct bilateral development assistance to some of
its own
OCTs.” If
we are not doing what we need to do, we are in a weak position if we
then argue about what the EU should
do. I
welcome the brief discussion about the Chagos islanders, about whom an
appalling decision was made. It is important that the Government not
only get things right for territories that are inhabited, but have a
proper management regime for territories that are not. I draw the
Committee’s attention to the rendition flights that went through
Diego Garcia. We were told that they had not happened, but it was later
admitted that two such flights had gone through Diego Garcia, although
how much confidence we can have in that, when, effectively, the
American Government had already misinformed us about the flights, is
debatable. In the light of such information, the UK Government need to
rethink how they manage their territories with regard to protecting
human rights around the world.
Andrew
Mackinlay: In the longer version of the hon. Lady’s
speech, as in mine, I would have drawn attention to the fact that a
great refugee problem from Haiti is hitting and over-burdening some of
our overseas territories, yet there is no constant Royal Navy presence
in those areas. It is not seen as a core business for the Royal Navy to
protect and resist, but in the interests of the United Kingdom and of
the European Union, we need to address the issue. In a sense, it
involves one of our borders, because if one gets into an overseas
territory
and works for citizenship, one gets European Union citizenship. Should
not our Foreign Office use our armed forces to protect and promote the
borders of the overseas territories against the refugee problem from
Haiti and elsewhere?
Jo
Swinson: The hon. Gentleman certainly makes a lot of
sense, but the armed forces are hugely overstretched—in part due
to the dismal failure of our efforts in Iraq, which the Government,
again, should rethink. However, rather than stray too far, I was about
to conclude my remarks, and I do so
now.
5.21
pm
Gillian
Merron: I thank the Committee for discussing this
important matter, which is about the links between the EU and the
overseas territories and how we might improve them. It is worth
restating that Britain’s close links with the overseas
territories are based on partnership and on mutual responsibilities and
obligations.
I shall make
a few general points before going on to some of the specifics that have
been raised in the debate. I re-emphasise to the Committee the
importance of those links, and, in that context, the Government welcome
the Green Paper as a valuable contribution to the start of a
renegotiation of the overseas association decision. I am encouraged
that the process has started early and is being conducted openly and
transparently, and I wish that to continue. The Green Paper poses a
number of questions, and it is helpful that the Commission has taken a
close look at the current relationship and suggested areas where we,
collectively, might concentrate our efforts for the good of all the
overseas countries and territories. As today’s debate has
clearly demonstrated, the relationship between the EU and our overseas
countries and territories covers many areas and provokes a range of
views, and, frankly, it demands change.
Although the
Commission has not yet posted on its website its responses to the Green
Paper, hon. Members will be interested to know that the Joint Nature
Conservation Committee’s response focuses on the importance of
environmental issues and sustainable development, and that features in
the Green Paper. It is also worth saying that although some areas will
be challenging to us, there is some recognition of the tremendous
opportunities for the overseas territories. For example, the Commission
holds the opinion that overseas countries and territories should be
regarded as centres of excellence, and that gives us huge opportunities
to move forward.
As I said in
my opening remarks, there are still some five years before any new
association or partnership comes into effect, and, for the overseas
countries and territories and the European Union, there will no doubt
be many new developments during that time. Whatever the future holds,
however, I restate to hon. Members that we will continue to work
closely with the overseas territories on the future of their
relationship with the EU. We have not ruled anything out, and I look
forward to hearing how the Commission plans to take forward the
renegotiation of the overseas association decision. The first
opportunity will be at the annual forum, which takes place in the
Cayman Islands next month. I want to encourage territory leaders, as I
meet them over the next few days, to continue to engage with the
process. I will be restating that point.
I turn now to
specific points raised by Committee members; if I have missed any, I am
more than happy to write to them. On the Turks and Caicos Islands and
corruption, I pay tribute to the Foreign Affairs Committee for raising
a number of concerns and allegations that led to a commission of
inquiry being appointed to examine whether corruption and serious
dishonesty in relation to past and present Members of the Turks and
Caicos Islands House of Assembly may have taken place in recent years.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock has mentioned, that inquiry
will be led by the right hon. Sir Robin Auld. There has been a delay;
the inquiry will not be able to report until mid-February, as a result
of the hurricane. However, a number of additional steps have already
been taken in the Turks and Caicos to reduce the scope for corruption,
including the establishment of an integrity commission, the human
rights commissioner, complaints commissioner, a ministerial code and a
public service code of ethics and integrity, the appointment of an
experienced chief auditor and the adoption of a comprehensive proceeds
of crime ordinance. I want the Committee to be aware that the
investigation will continue, but that there is no sitting back and
waiting. I look forward to seeing the results of the
investigation. The
hon. Member for East Dunbartonshire also made generous comments, which
I will relay back, on the UK response to the hurricane. I thank her for
those comments. In terms of preparedness, there is no doubt that there
were tremendous moves forward. There were no casualties, although there
could have been. The Committee should acknowledge the improvements that
have been made. British advisers and additional staff provided support
before and after the storm. HMS Iron Duke and RFA Wave Ruler landed
personnel and provided aerial reconnaissance and emergency assistance
in the immediate aftermath and the Department for International
Development contributed to the immediate relief effort through the Red
Cross and the Pan-American Health Organisation, as well as moneys for
the supply of the Royal Navy ships. We will continue to work closely
with the Turks and Caicos Government in support of efforts to repair
the damage that was
done. My
hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock and the hon. Member for East
Dunbartonshire mentioned the important matter of the environment.
Committee members may be aware that we already have a number of
projects funded by the overseas territories environment
programme—an FCO and DFID-funded programme of some £1
million a year—to eradicate rodents and invasive plants, for
example, in the territories. I would be happy to make further detail
available on that. My general point is that we, as a Government, take
our environmental responsibilities seriously, in this regard and in
others. The territory Governments are responsible for the environment.
The British Antarctic Territory is a world leader in environmental
stewardship. Fishery management in South Georgia has been certified as
meeting the highest global standards. I use those as examples of the
commitment that we have shown, but, again, our commitment, directly and
through the EU, will
continue. My
hon. Friend raised the matter of voting in the European Parliament. I
understand that this proposal has not been raised by the Governments of
the territories. The wish has not been expressed as yet. I am not aware
that it is forthcoming.
|
