| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, frankly, I do not know the answer to that. I shall write to the noble Lord on what the treaty states on this point and on what action was taken.
Equitable Life: Penrose Inquiry
3.33 p.m.
Lord Higgins asked Her Majesty's Government:
- Whether they will give an assurance that the report of the Penrose Committee on Equitable Life will be published.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, it is the Government's intention to make public as much as possible of the results of the inquiry. Ideally, this will be the full report. However, much of the information being considered by the inquiry is subject to legal and commercial confidentiality restrictions, and such restrictions may also apply to information included in the report of the inquiry. It is possible that such restrictions may prevent the report from being published in full.
Lord Higgins: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply and declare an interest in Equitable Life. Is it not clear that the Treasury, in its regulatory role, totally failed to prevent the Equitable Life disaster? The Treasury then set up the Penrose inquiry with restricted terms of reference. Lord Penrose will eventually reply to the Treasury, and the Treasury will then decide what it is appropriate to publish. The Minister's Answer suggests that the inquiry has been set up in a way that will prevent its findings being published in full. Meanwhile, other inquiries—for example those by the Treasury Select Committee and the ombudsman—have been put on hold while people suffer. Does the Minister agree with the ombudsman's statement that the root cause of the problem is the failure of the authorities to establish at the outset a single inquiry with terms of reference covering all aspects of the Equitable Life affair?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, that is an awful lot of questions when the noble Lord is supposed to ask only two. He began with an anticipation of what the result of the inquiry will be—which I entirely reject. It is normal practice for inquiries of this sort to be commissioned by the Treasury and addressed to Ministers of the Treasury. I have made it clear that we shall publish as much as we can of the findings of the inquiry which is being conducted entirely independently by a senior member of the Scottish judiciary. There will be no influence to it. In the end, it is up to Parliament what action it sees fit to take as a result. The ombudsman's inquiry has not been put on hold as a result.
Lord Newby: My Lords, is the Minister aware that in a letter to my colleague in another place, Dr Cable, earlier this month, the ombudsman, Sir Michael Buckley, said that he could not proceed with the investigation of Equitable Life cases because of the partly overlapping mandate of the Baird report and the Penrose report? Will not that mean very severe delays in the possible payment of compensation? Yet, a week later, the Financial Secretary to the Treasury
stated in a letter that she understood that there was no suggestion that the work of the ombudsman was being delayed due to the Penrose inquiry. Clearly, the Treasury is not speaking to the ombudsman. Will the Minister please suggest to the Treasury that Ministers there speak to the ombudsman and get this matter sorted out? It is delaying possible payment of compensation.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I should make it clear that the ombudsman's inquiry is not a matter for the Treasury. The ombudsman will report to the Public Administration Committee in the House of Commons. The Treasury has no responsibility for the ombudsman's inquiry. It would be impertinent for the Treasury to intervene. My understanding is that the ombudsman's inquiry is almost, if not already, at drafting stage. There is the possibility of some delay because the present ombudsman, Michael Buckley, is retiring today and his successor, Ann Abraham, will want to assure herself that the inquiry is fit for publication.
Lord Higgins: My Lords, will the Minister please check on the information that he has given to the House? The press release by the ombudsman a few days ago made it absolutely clear that he has put his inquiry on hold because of the Penrose committee report. At the same time, he complained that the report will be inadequate because of its restrictive terms of reference. I think that the Minister will find that the statement that he has made to the House is not correct.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, of course I will check. If there is any possibility of what I have said being incorrect, the House will be due an apology. It is in fact the ombudsman's report which is more restrictive, because it is concerned only with the period from 1st January 1999 to 8th December 2000; whereas the Penrose inquiry goes right back over time to when problems first arose in Equitable Life. I think that the issue is at the very least more complicated than noble Lords opposite appear to think.
London Local Authorities Bill [HL]
3.38 p.m.
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Tordoff): My Lords, I beg to move the first Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper. Both this and the second Motion are purely procedural, allowing the carry-over of two Private Bills. I commend them to the House.
Moved, That the promoters of the Bill have leave to suspend any further proceedings thereon in order to proceed with it, if they think fit, in the next Session of Parliament, provided that notice of their intention to do so is lodged in the Office of the Clerk of the Parliaments not later than 12 noon on Wednesday 6th November and that all fees due on or before that day have been paid;
That the Bill be deposited in the Office of the Clerk of the Parliaments not later than noon on the second sitting day in the next Session with a declaration annexed, signed by the agent, stating that the Bill is the same in every respect as the Bill at the last stage of the proceedings thereon in this House in the present Session;
That the proceedings on the Bill in the next Session of Parliament be pro forma in regard to every stage through which the Bill has passed in the present Session, and that no new fees be charged to such stages;
That the Private Business Standing Orders apply to such Bill in the next Session only in regard to any stage through which the Bill has not passed during the present Session.—(The Chairman of Committees.)
On Question, Motion agreed to; and it was ordered that a message be sent to the Commons desiring their agreement thereto.
London Local Authorities and Transport for London Bill [HL]
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, I beg to move the second Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the promoters of the Bill have leave to suspend any further proceedings thereon in order to proceed with it, if they think fit, in the next Session of Parliament, provided that notice of their intention to do so is lodged in the Office of the Clerk of the Parliaments not later than 12 noon on Wednesday 6th November and that all fees due on or before that day have been paid;
That the Bill be deposited in the Office of the Clerk of the Parliaments not later than noon on the second sitting day in the next Session with a declaration annexed, signed by the agent, stating that the Bill is the same in every respect as the Bill at the last stage of the proceedings thereon in this House in the present Session;
That the proceedings on the Bill in the next Session of Parliament be pro forma in regard to every stage through which the Bill has passed in the present Session, and that no new fees be charged to such stages;
That the Private Business Standing Orders apply to such Bill in the next Session only in regard to any stage through which the Bill has not passed during the present Session.—(The Chairman of Committees.)
On Question, Motion agreed to; and it was ordered that a message be sent to the Commons desiring their agreement thereto.
Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Bill
3.39 p.m.
Clause 12 [British citizenship: registration of certain persons without other citizenship]:
Lord Dholakia moved Amendment No. 1:
- Page 9, line 27, after "inaction" insert "after the coming into force of this section"
The noble Lord said: My Lords, there is a slight difference between what the Minister has proposed and what we have in mind. I thank him for the facility granted to me to have discussions with his officials about this matter. However, I hope that he will be able to see the strength of our case in relation to a matter affecting a small group of British passport holders, particularly those now residing in Kenya. Our amendment would ensure that people are not barred from acquiring British citizenship under this clause because of things they did not do before the section's coming into force. I spoke at some length on this matter on Report, and I did not repeat those arguments.
The concern centres on a small and finite group of British overseas citizens in Kenya who lose their Kenyan nationality if they do not renounce their British nationality between the ages of 21 and 23. Until 5th March 2002, such people could apply for a special voucher to come to the United Kingdom on reaching their 23rd birthday, and their Kenyan nationality dropped away through inaction. They could consequently naturalise as British citizens. On 5th March 2002, the voucher scheme was abolished without warning. People had no chance to regularise their position.
The Liberal Democrat amendment is modest. It will not assist those who have grown up expecting to be able to acquire British citizenship but who have not lost their chance to apply for Kenyan nationality by the time this provision, which does not come into force on commencement, becomes law. It will assist those who, by that time, have already lost their Kenyan nationality. These people are British overseas citizens with no right of abode, which is the very mischief that this clause was designed to address. They live in Kenya on work permits and business visas, and there is no guarantee that those will be renewed or that they will be able to apply for Kenyan citizenship in future. There are problems with naturalisation in Kenya. For example, since a change in the Kenyan constitution, those born in Kenya to non-Kenyan parents who cannot pass on their Kenyan nationality have been left stateless.
Our amendment would ensure that our obligation to that group of people is met. People with a long memory may remember that when the Kenyan constitution was devised, the then Colonial Secretary, Ian McLeod, promised that their government would honour their obligation to British passport-holders. Unfortunately, the Labour government later removed the right of British passport-holders to come to the United Kingdom. They classified them as British overseas citizens, with no rights whatever, and asked them to come in an orderly manner, for which a quota system was established. Many people gradually settled in this country through the quota system. It is therefore a shame that the system was abolished so soon—on 5th March this year—leaving a group of people without any nationality.
Many of us have received heart-rending letters from this small group of people. These British passport-holders have been treated shabbily. This is one opportunity to put right the mistakes that we all made in the past as regards these people. I beg to move.
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page