12 Nov 2007 : Column 241
12 Nov 2007 : Column 241
12 Nov 2007 : Column 241
Monday, 12 November 2007.
The House met at half-past two: the LORD SPEAKER on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Truro.
Iraq: Resettlement of Citizens
Lord Fowler asked Her Majesty’s Government:
What progress they have made in the implementation of their scheme to help in the resettlement of Iraqi citizens who have worked for the United Kingdom forces in Iraq.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord West of Spithead): My Lords, on 8 October 2007 the Prime Minister announced assistance for directly employed Iraqi staff working for Her Majesty's Government in Iraq, in recognition of their invaluable contribution to the work of our Armed Forces and civilian missions. Work to implement the scheme is in progress and the relevant departments are putting in place the required mechanisms. Details of how eligible Iraqis wishing to receive assistance can contact employing departments have been published. The total cost of the scheme will reflect the take-up of the different elements. It is impossible to estimate accurately, but it will be at least £20 million.
Lord Fowler: My Lords, I welcome the Government’s recognition that we owe a special duty to the Iraqi staff, although the scheme that they have devised discriminates against those who left British employment prior to August 2007. Many former staff and their families have been forced to flee Iraq and live in other countries. The Government now say that they will be given the opportunity of resettlement in the United Kingdom under the refugee resettlement programme, but the numbers will be limited to 600 places for staff and their dependants. How is such a limit compatible with the Government’s duty to consider each application on its merits?
Lord West of Spithead: My Lords, the first point to make is how difficult it is to establish where people have worked and served with us in Iraq. That is part of the reason why we went for the method of separating the two types of claims. There will be direct claims for those people currently working, which will be for some 600 currently serving staff, about 280 of whom will have done more than 12 months, and then between 400 and 500 former staff meeting the criteria. Getting hold of those staff, finding where they are and getting hold of the people whom they worked with in Iraq is extremely difficult, which is why we have gone down the route of the gateway system for those people.
12 Nov 2007 : Column 242
Lord Crickhowell: My Lords, the noble Lord said that the provision will be for up to 600 people. Why is there a limit and why are the eligibility criteria for those who served before 8 August 2007 so much tighter than for those who served after?
Lord West of Spithead: My Lords, I go back to the numbers. We are talking about 600 people currently serving of whom 280 have done 12 months or more, and about 400 to 500 people who have left our employ. So the numbers are not that greatly different. In terms of interpreters, we think that there are about 91 of them and about 170 who are non-Iraqi in that area, so the numbers are not too different. We think that we have been quite generous in how we have allocated the places and the opportunity for those people to come to the UK. As I have said, the provision will cost in the region of £20 million if the take-up is about 75 per cent, and it could be considerably more than that. The rules for whom those people can bring with them in terms of next of kin, such as spouses, children below the age of 18 and parents over the age of 65, go up to about five personnel. They can, of course, go for a monetary recompense as well.
Lord Wright of Richmond: My Lords, are steps being taken to advertise the Government’s offer, such as it is, to the millions of refugees in Jordan and Syria, who are in a fairly parlous state?
Lord West of Spithead: My Lords, the scheme has been put on to the various websites; that is, the MoD web and the Foreign Office web. Within country, we have told those who are working for us that this scheme exists. They have the ability to find out the details.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My Lords, could the Minister comment on the report in the press from Lieutenant-Colonel Nicholas Mercer, who claimed that his interpreter was turned away by British officials when inquiring about the requirements of the scheme?
Lord West of Spithead: My Lords, I cannot go into specific cases. It is impossible to discuss that case but clearly if he has worked for 12 months for us in the past he will be looked at under the gateway scheme.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock: My Lords, did my noble friend hear on the radio at the weekend a serving officer in Iraq saying that he was disappointed at the lack of positive coverage in the British media of the successes of the military? Why are the Government reluctant to promote the economic, humanitarian, military and other successes in Iraq? Are they being cowed by the media?
Lord West of Spithead: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that interjection. The difference between the country after the invasion in 2003, when I first went there, and the last time I went there, which, admittedly, was a year and a half ago, was quite dramatic in terms of the availability of white and other goods. There have been successes but there is no doubt that it is still an extremely dangerous place to be and that is extremely unfortunate. However, people in the south are beginning to take control of their own affairs.
12 Nov 2007 : Column 243
Baroness Hanham: My Lords, perhaps I may return to the Question. Will the noble Lord confirm that if 600 places are available to nuclear families comprising a wife and two children, that would enable only 150 Iraqis who have served us well in Iraq to come to this country?
Lord West of Spithead: My Lords, the figure of 600 may well relate to the 600 staff, who are allowed up to four people each, which would make 2,400. I think that is the number but I shall confirm it in writing.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean: My Lords, will the Minister now answer the questions asked by my noble friends Lord Fowler and Lord Crickhowell?
Lord West of Spithead: My Lords, I hope that I have answered them. To go into more detail: as of Friday, 30 staff who completed 12 months’ service and have been made redundant since 8 August will qualify for support. None of those has yet made an application for entry to the UK. Therefore, no one has formally applied for entry clearance. Employing departments have contacted former staff and by Sunday 11 November 242 of those had contacted the MoD, which is considering whether they would fall within the eligibility criteria for assistance. That is where we stand.
Northern Ireland: Belfast Peace Wall
2.44 pm
Lord Dubs asked Her Majesty’s Government:
Whether they will reconsider their decision to build a peace wall through the playground of Hazelwood integrated primary school in north Belfast.
Lord Rooker: My Lords, the decision to erect a security fence at the perimeter of Hazelwood integrated primary school was taken on the basis of a security assessment by the Police Service of Northern Ireland and in consultation with local residents and the school. While we do not propose to reconsider the decision at this time, this security measure will be subject to review, which will include input from the Northern Ireland Community Relations Council.
Lord Dubs: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for his Answer, disappointing though it is. Is he aware that Hazelwood integrated primary school is a highly successful school, which is oversubscribed? Does he agree that there has been no trouble in that area for at least a year, and that erecting a 25-feet-high fence in the area of the school and dividing it off from half its catchment area is a sign of no confidence in what is going on in Belfast? I urge my noble friend to have the decision reconsidered.
Lord Rooker: My Lords, my noble friend accepts that it is not a wall. It is at the perimeter of the school; in fact it is at the edge of the staff car park. It is simply designed to stop people entering the school and firebombing the new houses nearby, which is what they were doing. That is why the residents demanded some action. It has taken a while to get to the point
12 Nov 2007 : Column 244
Lord Glentoran: My Lords, it has emerged recently that there are 57 peace lines still dividing communities in Belfast—46 walls or fences and 11 gates in north Belfast. Is there not, at this stage of Belfast’s progress, a better way?
Lord Rooker: My Lords, the figures that the noble Lord just quoted are for Northern Ireland, not Belfast. The figures are 46 walls or fences and 16 gates or barriers in Northern Ireland. I fully accept that the majority are in Belfast, but other parts of Northern Ireland are included in those figures. The police assessment is that all those measures are required and should be retained for now. Obviously, we all hope that the situation will improve. Anyone who visits Belfast in particular will see massive changes, massive development and substantial capital investment. There are areas where, I am sad to say, the barriers separating the communities are still required, and that is the current assessment.
Lord Smith of Clifton: My Lords, one of the antidotes to the sectarianism that bedevils Northern Ireland has been the development of integrated schools. What possessed the Minister, Mr Paul Goggins, to sanction this wall? What signal does it give?
Lord Rooker: My Lords, the situation is that some nearby houses—which were new, private sector, mixed community houses—were first arson attacked in 2005 and attacked for a second time in 2006. These are the homes of young families. Rightly, the residents said that the school fence was giving easy access to those who were firebombing the houses and that something had to be done. There have been lots of discussions with the school, the head teacher, the board of governors, the police, the residents and the community council. Following the assessment by the Police Service of Northern Ireland, the Minister decided to take that decision.
Lord Dubs: My Lords, that assessment was made a long time ago. I am assured that there has been no trouble in the area for a year. Is there not a case for looking at it again? I have the utmost respect for the Police Service of Northern Ireland, but if things have settled down in the area, surely there is a case for saying, “Do we really need this?”.
Lord Rooker: My Lords, in that case, the assessment of the Police Service of Northern Ireland would change. I have to say to my noble friend that it has not changed.
12 Nov 2007 : Column 245
Zimbabwe: Human Rights
2.49 pm
Lord Blaker asked Her Majesty’s Government:
What steps they are taking to ensure that the political situation and the position with regard to democratic freedoms and human rights in Zimbabwe are on the agenda for discussion at the forthcoming Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting in Uganda.
Baroness Royall of Blaisdon: My Lords, as Zimbabwe is no longer a member of the Commonwealth, those matters will not be on the formal agenda of the upcoming Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting in Uganda. The issue is, however, likely to be discussed at the margins of the meeting. My noble friend Lord Malloch-Brown, who is today at the Commonwealth meeting discussing Pakistan, and his ministerial colleagues will certainly raise the issue in bilateral discussions with regional leaders.
Lord Blaker: My Lords, is the noble Baroness not aware that at the Millbrook conference in New Zealand in 1995, the Commonwealth declared that it may concern itself with the affairs of a country that is no longer a member? Does the noble Baroness recall that the SADC countries eight months ago gave a mandate to President Mbeki of South Africa to facilitate negotiations between the parties in Zimbabwe? When the Prime Minister is in Kampala, will he ask President Mbeki what progress he is making in pursuit of that mandate, bearing in mind that a long time has elapsed, that conditions in Zimbabwe are as bad as they have ever been and that elections are due in March?
Baroness Royall of Blaisdon: My Lords, I take this opportunity to thank the noble Lord for keeping the subject of Zimbabwe on the agenda. He does that consistently and we are grateful. Although the situation has changed, I note what the noble Lord said regarding Millbrook. In respect of the SADC countries, I am sure that my right honourable friend the Prime Minister will take the opportunity to have discussions with President Mbeki, but whereas the president had hoped to report on the outcome of his discussions by 15 November, we are now looking at the end of the month.
Lord Anderson of Swansea: My Lords, my noble friend will have noticed allegations in the weekend press that Barclays Bank has been giving subsidised loans to leading members of the Zimbabwe regime, such as Didymus Mutasa, who are under sanctions. Have these allegations been investigated and with what result?
Baroness Royall of Blaisdon: My Lords, we have seen the reports and we are absolutely determined that EU sanctions should be properly enforced. This is a complex area and we are investigating urgently to see whether loans represent a breach of the EU assets freeze. If so, we will of course act, and report to the House accordingly.
12 Nov 2007 : Column 246
Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, now that Mozambique has joined, almost all Zimbabwe’s neighbours are members of the Commonwealth. Clearly, working with Commonwealth members in southern Africa, not just South Africa, has to be the most effective way of bringing pressure to bear on Zimbabwe. Is that not, in effect, what Her Majesty's Government need to do—and, we hope, will do—at CHOGM?
Baroness Royall of Blaisdon: My Lords, that is indeed what Her Majesty's Government will be doing at CHOGM, not in the main plenary meeting, but certainly on its margins. We also want to use the opportunity afforded by the Commonwealth People’s Forum and the civil society organisations affiliated to the Commonwealth to provide the people of Zimbabwe with greater support. We want to work not only on the margins of CHOGM, but with those other civil society organisations.
Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, I know that the Commonwealth action group meeting in London today is concerned mainly with Pakistan, but, given what my noble friend Lord Blaker rightly said on the role of the Commonwealth—even though Zimbabwe has left it—and given that Mr Mbeki is proving a damp rag in trying to bring the parties together, is there not a case for taking a lead and suggesting that we should find a new candidate who might be much more effective in bringing the parties together, and be less fazed, as apparently Mr Mbeki seems to be, by the dominant personality of Mr Mugabe, as this is getting us nowhere?
Baroness Royall of Blaisdon: My Lords, I note the views of the noble Lord and I understand and share his frustration at the time that this is taking. However, it is important to note that President Mbeki has a task and a timescale in which to deliver. We must wait until the end of November before looking for other candidates. I am afraid that that is the situation. That does not prevent us having discussions with other countries in southern Africa on the margins of CHOGM.
Baroness Sharples: My Lords, will the noble Baroness confirm that Ministers of Mugabe’s Government are restricted from coming here? Does that apply to their children, who, I understand, are in education here?
Baroness Royall of Blaisdon: My Lords, Ministers from the Mugabe Government are restricted: they are not allowed to come here. We are currently looking at whether their children should be allowed to continue to study here, and that issue is ongoing.
Lord Elton: My Lords, does the Minister accept that for those of us who feel that the Commonwealth has figured very low on the Government’s list of priorities and, indeed, in the Queen’s Speech, it is very encouraging to hear that the Government now propose to use our membership of that very important organisation? Will they use it on many other occasions in order to breathe new life into an institution that the world cannot afford to lose?
12 Nov 2007 : Column 247
Baroness Royall of Blaisdon: Yes, my Lords. I think that the Commonwealth, with members from north and south, rich and poor, is an ideal organisation to pursue the values that we share.
Lord Roper: My Lords, will the Government take advantage of CHOGM to have discussions with President Kufuor of Ghana, the president of the African Union, about inviting Zimbabwe to the EU-Africa summit in Lisbon in December?
Baroness Royall of Blaisdon: My Lords, I am sure that that will be one of the matters discussed. I am told that invitations to that meeting were issued last week, so it is still too soon to know who has accepted. However, the invitations have been issued.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, if it is found that Barclays Bank, of which I am a customer—that is a declaration of interest—
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, perhaps I may start again. If it is found that Barclays Bank has been lending money to Zimbabweans against the EU sanctions policy, what action will be taken against it? As questions have been raised about Barclays’ abilities in finance, can we be assured that Bank of England money has not been used to finance these loans?
Baroness Royall of Blaisdon: My Lords, I shall have to come back to the noble Lord in writing because, although I am told that we will act—as I am sure we will—I am not sure in what way we will.
Lord Blaker: My Lords, the noble Baroness said that President Mbeki has a timescale. Can she tell us what it is?
Baroness Royall of Blaisdon: My Lords, I understand that he was supposed to deliver his report by 15 November but I am told that we now expect it at the end of November. It is very important that we go no further than the end of November because, as noble Lords know, we in the EU are hoping to have a special envoy, who we hope will be able to visit the region between the publishing of President Mbeki’s report and the EU summit on 8 and 9 December.
| Next Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |