| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Business without Debate
Interleaving of Bills and Explanatory Notes
That this House approves the First Report of the Procedure Committee (House of Commons Paper No. 377). —(Mark Tami.)
Business of the House
That, at the sitting on Tuesday 21 April, notwithstanding Standing Order No. 20 (Time for taking private business) the Private Business set down by the Chairman of Ways and Means shall be entered upon (whether before, at or after 7.00 pm), and may then be proceeded with, though opposed, for three hours, after which the Speaker shall interrupt the business. —(Mark Tami.)
Delegated legislation
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),
That the draft Access to Justice Act 1999 (Destination of Appeals) (Family Proceedings) Order 2009, which was laid before this House on 25 February, be approved. —(Mark Tami.)
administration
That Mr Simon Burns be discharged from the Administration Committee and Alistair Burt be added. —(Mr. Frank Roy, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.)
Dr. Andrew Murrison (Westbury) (Con): On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. At 2 o’clock this afternoon we learned that the Senior Salaries Review Body was recommending a 2.3 per cent. pay rise for Members of Parliament, yet the Armed Forces Pay Review Body’s report has been sitting with Ministers for weeks without an announcement having been made. It is simply not acceptable for MPs to know their pay award while the men and women serving on the front line do not know theirs. Has a Minister applied to you for leave to come to the House to explain the report and what he plans to do about it?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Sylvia Heal): I have received no notification or request from any Minister, but the hon. Gentleman’s comments are now on the record.
Petitions
Immigration (Tony Lola)
10.1 pm
Mr. John Leech (Manchester, Withington) (LD): I wish to submit a petition on behalf of more than 2,000 people who are campaigning against the deportation of my constituents Tony Lola and his mum, Mireille, back to the Democratic Republic of the Congo. The petition has my full support and states:
The Petition of persons concerned at the Government’s decision to refuse Tony Lola’s application for asylum,
Declares that over Christmas 2005, Tony Lola, then aged 6, was being held in custody by police in the Democratic Republic of Congo; notes that his parents had objected to the politics of the governing party; further notes that soon after, Tony was released but because he was felt to be at risk, he was sent to join his mother, Mireille, who had fled the DRC in 2002; further declares that, since his arrival, Tony has amazed and delighted those in the community he has joined at Didsbury CE Primary School and in the congregation at Emmanuel Church, Didsbury; further notes that he is fully integrated and participates with evident enthusiasm in his studies and activities at both the school and in the church; believes that he shows real potential to develop his already impressive talents to the benefit of the whole community; further notes that in 2007, his application for asylum was turned down by the Home Office as HM Government believes the situation in the Democratic Republic of Congo does not pose a threat to Tony or Mireille; and further declares that he and Mireille are now at risk of removal back to DR Congo.
The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to review its decision and the Home Office to use their powers of discretion and allow Tony and Mireille to stay.
And the Petitioners remain, etc.
Sea Defences (Essex)
10.4 pm
Bob Spink (Castle Point) (Ind):
The massive petition, supported by thousands of people, shows the strength of feeling of Canvey residents against the Environment
Agency plan to flood a large section on the west of Canvey Island. The Environment Agency wants to do that to reduce flood risk along the Thames corridor and provide tidal habitat, as required by the European Union. At least it is now starting to consult Canvey residents, as I demanded, and the consultation commences tomorrow. I think that it will find that sacrificing part of Canvey Island is totally unacceptable, and rejected by Canvey people. If necessary, I will personally stand defiant in front of the diggers to protect Canvey people from the disastrous scheme.
I am delighted that so many people have joined my Stop Canvey Flooding campaign, and I congratulate and thank each one who signed the position. They are all stars.
The Petition of Councillor Dave Blackwell, Canvey Island residents, and others,
Declares that the Environment Agency proposal to abandon to the sea 800 acres of land on the west of Canvey Island is wrong. Sacrificing such a large ecologically and environmentally important area could increase Canvey’s problems. Canvey issues, such as flooding, building 1,000 more houses, an additional Canvey access road, hazardous industrial plants and protecting Canvey’s very special environment, are interlinked. These should be considered together as they affect island people’s future safety and quality of life.
The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to abandon its plans to flood such a large area of Canvey Island and to meet the hon. Member for Castle Point, Councillor Dave Blackwell and Canvey councillors to discuss their plans.
And the Petitioners remain, etc.
Tsunami Memorial
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—( Mark Tami.)
10.5 pm
Mr. Phil Willis (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (LD): I am especially grateful to have the opportunity this evening to remind the House of one of the deadliest natural disasters ever recorded in history—the Asian or Boxing day tsunami of 2004. Resulting from an undersea earthquake with its epicentre off the west coast of Sumatra, the sudden explosion, with a power estimated by the US Geological Survey to be the equivalent of 23,000 Hiroshima-type atomic bombs, caused the entire planet to vibrate. The resulting tsunami, despite travelling for hours, impacted on the coastal areas of Indonesia, Sri Lanka, India and Thailand with devastating force, as well as causing fatalities as far apart as Somalia and South Africa.
For many of us, the horror of what was happening became clear over the following days and weeks, and I suspect that the memories of the sheer devastation will remain with us for the rest of our lives. As ever, the generosity of the British public, led by the Government, was quickly evident and we made a significant contribution to the $7 billion that was donated in humanitarian aid worldwide.
For the 1.7 million who lost their homes and their livelihoods—some 90 per cent. of all those living and working around the coast—the aid has made a considerable difference. Moreover, the setting up of an early warning infrastructure in the Indian ocean, promised by the United Nations, will bring a greater sense of security to some incredibly poor people. What cannot be compensated for, of course, is the estimated 230,000 people in 12 countries, a third of them children, who perished in the tsunami. Among those killed on 26 December 2004 were 9,000 foreign tourists, mostly Europeans, including 151 British citizens. Approximately 850 British citizens were injured in the Tsunami, and some remain severely disabled.
There was considerable criticism of the support given by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office to survivors and to relatives whose loved ones were missing. Initial response teams were sent to Sri Lanka, whereas most UK citizens were in Thailand; emergency response lines to the UK were inadequate; British casualties were among the last foreign visitors to be contacted in hospitals; and the National Audit Office report, which examined those claims, recommended sweeping improvements. Unlike for the 7 July bombings, no funds were specifically allocated to support British families, some of whom have lost their main income providers.
However, the focus of the debate tonight is not the handling of the disaster, but the failure after four long years to resolve, build and dedicate a permanent memorial to the British citizens who lost their lives so tragically in 2004. For all those families who lost relatives in the tsunami, such a permanent memorial is tremendously important, but for the families whose loved ones have never been found—there were six—and who have no focal point to pay their respects, a permanent memorial is absolutely essential.
Sarah Bent was just 19 when she and her friend Robert Rowbottom, both students from Yorkshire, set off on what was to be the adventure of a lifetime in 2004.
They were staying at Koh Phi Phi in Thailand and were enjoying the fabulous hospitality that Thai resorts have to offer when the tsunami struck. The Christmas day call home to say that they were having a fabulous time was the last communication that their parents had with them. Four years later, Sarah and Robert’s remains have never been found and we can only speculate about the sheer pain that their parents, relatives and friends must still be going through. In all, six bodies of UK citizens have never been recovered. It is to give those families some comfort that I am urging the Minister to act more decisively over the decision to identify a site and to commission and fund a permanent memorial to the tsunami victims.
Let me make it absolutely clear to the House that I do not accuse the Government—and certainly not the Minister—of a lack of interest or an unwillingness to see a permanent memorial in place. However, it is clear that without a greater sense of urgency and leadership, the resolution of the issue will simply drag on. It would be unacceptable if this Parliament came to an end without the matter being resolved.
It is of course difficult to make a comparison with the Government’s speed of reaction in other tragedies, but it is worth noting that in the case of the July 2005 London bombings, £1 million was donated by the Government. In addition to plaques at each of the locations of the five bombings, 52 three-metre tall stainless steel pillars will be erected in Hyde park and unveiled on 7 July this year. A sculpture at Clive steps opposite St. James’s park with the names of all those who died in the Bali atrocity in 2002 was unveiled four years later, at a cost of £300,000, £100,000 of which was donated by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. A memorial to commemorate those who lost their lives in the 2001 terrorist attack on the World Trade Centre in New York was opened in Grosvenor gardens two years after the event at a cost of £500,000, paid for by the Government.
The fact that those memorials and others commemorating the lives of the Queen Mother and Princess Diana have been progressed swiftly and efficiently by the Government is, I believe, evidence of good intent by Ministers, so why has there been no resolution on the tsunami memorial? First, there appears to be confusion over the amount of money made available by the Government and other donors and a lack of debate over whether the reported £500,000 offered by the Government is sufficient to meet the aspirations of Tsunami Support UK. Secondly, there is confusion over possible locations, with, it seems, the royal parks being ruled out without proper explanation. Thirdly, the possibility of a permanent memorial plus a major exhibition about the tsunami at the Natural History museum appears to have first won favour, but then been put on the back burner without explanation. Above all, however, there appears to be an almost complete lack of face-to-face discussions among Ministers, members of Tsunami Support UK and the board of the Natural History museum, which has led to suspicion and a lack of understanding about what is and what is not being proposed. This debate is an opportunity for the Minister to spell out clearly where the obstacles to a permanent memorial lie, and what the Government are prepared to do to resolve them and in what time frame.
The relatives of tsunami victims were initially offered a choice of three sites, including Victoria Tower gardens and the Natural History museum, although I suspect
that many would have preferred a permanent memorial in a royal park. Can the Minister explain why the royal parks became off limits and why the original choice of sites was made? There appeared to be considerable support for the Natural History museum, where the link with natural disasters could be made, particularly if an exhibition could be mounted explaining how the 2004 Asian tsunami affected the world and why it is important in an era of global warming and rising oceans to protect natural low-lying shore lines. However, it now appears that the board of the Natural History museum is not only ruling out a permanent outdoor memorial for what it says are “insurmountable” reasons, but is now holding the Government to ransom over a small indoor exhibition. Could the Minister confirm the Government’s support for a permanent outdoor memorial on the site of the Natural History museum, and if so, can she explain what the “insurmountable” problems are with placing such a permanent memorial on what is, after all, a public space?
I trust that the Minister would accept that an indoor memorial, particularly one that could not be accessed on 26 December each year, would hardly be acceptable to the relatives or the victims, many of whom might wish to visit the memorial on the anniversary of the tsunami. If she agrees with that, will she make clear the Government’s support for an outdoor permanent memorial, irrespective of whether the Natural History museum agrees to mount an exhibition as part of its existing gallery entitled “The Power Within”? The proposal by the board of the museum to mount an indoor plaque as a permanent memorial is surely unacceptable to the Government.
Let me seek some assurances from the Minister over the proposed exhibition at the Natural History museum. There is little doubt about the value of an indoor exhibition in drawing public attention to the 2004 tsunami and explaining such phenomena. A year ago, the museum appeared to be enthusiastic about such a proposal. Now, the response is at best lukewarm, with support for work on the Darwin centre seeming to take precedence. Will the Minister explain what discussions she has had with the museum about the tsunami exhibition and tell the House whether she is satisfied that the change of heart is justified, considering the pain and suffering already being felt by families who will see this prevarication as deeply unjust?
Finally, may I return to the inevitable issue of cost? As I understand it, the Government have allocated £500,000 to erect and maintain a permanent memorial and to cover any other costs, including a possible exhibition at the Natural History museum. Clearly, when the original sum was agreed, the possibility of an additional exhibition was not envisaged, and it seems deeply unjust to expect all the costs of an exhibition and a permanent memorial to be covered by the initial allocation. What steps has the Minister taken to obtain a more accurate estimate of the costs for the outdoor permanent memorial and for the exhibition, and what plans does she have to increase funding to ensure that the tsunami victims are remembered with appropriate dignity?
I fully accept that this is not an easy matter to resolve, but after four years, resolved it must be. The Minister is ideally placed to bring this matter to a just conclusion. If she does so, she will have the lasting gratitude of the relatives of the 151 UK citizens who perished on Boxing
day 2004. In particular, she will have the deep gratitude of the parents of Sarah and Robert, who saw their children go off on an adventure from which they never returned.
10.17 pm
The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Tessa Jowell): I thank the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis) for raising this issue with such passion, and for keeping alive the memory of those terrible events. I hope that, in the time available, I shall be able to answer his many important questions, which have an audience beyond this Chamber.
As the hon. Gentleman said, the Indian ocean tsunami was unprecedented in its scale. The waves killed some 300,000 people, including 151 British citizens. Millions more were left without food, homes and livelihoods, and hundreds of British nationals returned home seriously injured and traumatised to the extent that their lives would never be the same again. As the hon. Gentleman so poignantly said, bereaved families such as the parents of Sarah and Robert were never really able to say goodbye properly to the people they loved.
For a number of years, as Minister for humanitarian assistance, I have had the responsibility of supporting families in the aftermath of terrorist attacks and major disasters. Commemoration—including services of remembrance and, later, memorials—can be absolutely vital in helping people to cope with their terrible grief and sense of loss. That is why I have been working closely with members of the Tsunami Support UK group since 2007 to help them to achieve their aim of establishing a fitting memorial to their relatives and the other British nationals who lost their lives in the tsunami.
Formulating plans for a memorial is necessarily a slow process, and I would ask the hon. Gentleman to understand that. In every case, including 9/11, 7/7, the tsunami and the Bali bombings, the process has mostly been determined by the pace of the families, and their ability to reach agreement about what they want before the memorial is commissioned. As so often, decisions about location and character simply cannot be rushed, as those involved need time to reflect on what the memorial will mean to them individually and then to reach a shared plan for the memorial. At no point has there been a deliberate or inadvertent sense of a loss of urgency about this issue; rather, there has simply been a wish to match the pace of development and the nature of the plan to the wishes—the express wishes—of the affected families.
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |