| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: My Lords, if there is to be an airport, there will be a need for a heritage experience for tourists to encounter. Do the
4 Mar 2009 : Column 732
Lord Tunnicliffe: My Lords, my understanding is that the island has considerable tourist-attraction potential. I have seen no figures that would require any non-commercial investment in that heritage experience other than the provision of communications links to enable it to happen. Those who have studied this say that, given the communications, the island will be a specialist, upmarket holiday destination. Despite all those encouraging words, this project will be expensive in difficult times.
Lord Grocott: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that it is further evidence of the strength in depth and quality of this Government that, when we get a Question about an airport runway, it is answered by a former airline pilot?
Lord Tunnicliffe: My Lords, I always agree with my noble friend’s questions.
Gaza: Reconstruction
Question
3.24 pm
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what steps they will take to bring reconstruction aid into Gaza following the Sharm el-Sheikh conference.
Lord Tunnicliffe: My Lords, there was broad support at the Sharm el-Sheikh conference for the immediate, unconditional and sustained re-opening of crossings so that Gaza can be rebuilt. The United Nations promoted its new draft framework for humanitarian access. We hope that this will be endorsed at the Ad Hoc Liaison Committee meeting in April, which Israel will attend. The UK Government will continue to press Israel at the highest levels to increase access.
Lord Dykes: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer. but is he able to reassure this House? In view of the present Israeli Government’s flat refusal even to consider reopening the crossing points into Gaza, how on earth will rebuilding materials and equipment get in as soon as possible, bearing in mind the urgent humanitarian need?
Lord Tunnicliffe: My Lords, the nail has been hit on the head. The Israeli Government’s position is not a flat refusal, but there is no question that Israel can do most to help this situation by addressing the whole issue of access. Her Majesty’s Government take the access position extremely seriously. We have put particular effort into diplomacy, going back to 19 January when Mike Foster met Isaac Herzog, the Minister responsible for access. On 21 January, the Foreign Secretary had a private luncheon with the Israeli Foreign Minister to urge access and joined EU Foreign Ministers. On
4 Mar 2009 : Column 733
Lord Wright of Richmond: My Lords, will the Minister explain how international aid will get into Gaza, not only so long as the Israelis maintain their blockade, but, perhaps as importantly, so long as we and our partners in the quartet refuse to speak to the effective authority in Gaza? What assurances have we received or sought from Mr Netanyahu that his continuing threat to destroy Hamas will not reduce any rebuilding done in Gaza to rubble yet again?
Lord Tunnicliffe: My Lords, I believe that the last assurance possibly is beyond the British Government and certainly way beyond my pay grade. We in DfID are trying to ensure that there are methods of getting aid through. We are using the present agencies that are working in Gaza. They are getting some aid through. We recognise that those agencies have to treat with Hamas. As noble Lords know, we do not believe that it is proper at this time to treat with Hamas, but that does not stand in the way of aid getting through. We certainly agree with the general thrust of the noble Lord’s question that a long-term solution to peace in the area will need Arab and Palestinian reconciliation. The need for all countries to work together for a long-term solution is crucial. We praise very much Egypt’s role in the recent past and we are very pleased to see the emphasis that the Obama Administration are putting on that.
Lord Turnberg: My Lords, we hope that this aid gets through to those who desperately need it. Gaza has a border with Egypt. Presumably, the Egyptians have as many anxieties as Israel about the diversion of funds by Hamas for the purchase of arms, just as it has hijacked the funds going through the UN and UNRWA. What steps can we take to ensure that the aid will reach the needy Palestinians rather than Hamas?
Lord Tunnicliffe: My Lords, the noble Lord is right that Egypt is concerned that aid gets to the right place. We are concerned. We believe, as a generality, that aid is getting to where it is needed. The agencies delivering that aid are giving us those assurances.
Baroness Rawlings: My Lords, the DfID website informs us that as of 26 February nearly £16 million had been allocated out of the £27 million pledged to help aid in Gaza. Is the Minister aware that, on 1 March, Douglas Alexander announced an extra £20 million in funding for reconstruction? Can the Minister give us further details on exactly how this and the £10 million not yet allocated from the previous announcement will be spent?
Lord Tunnicliffe: My Lords, it is being spent on an extremely wide selection of projects. This is not a money problem: the outcome of the Sharm conference, as the noble Baroness rightly says, was to bring our aid commitment up to £50 million in the short term and something above £250 million over the long term.
4 Mar 2009 : Column 734
Baroness Northover: My Lords, does the Minister not think it absolutely extraordinary that Tony Blair, who has been the quartet’s envoy to the Middle East for the past two years, had not even visited Gaza until this week? What does that say for the even-handedness of the international community concerning that area of the world?
Lord Tunnicliffe: My Lords, having read through all of the briefings to prepare for this Question, the international community is being extraordinarily even-handed. It has, for instance, been forceful in getting across to Israel the importance of its duties in this situation. It has been even-handed in getting across the importance of stopping the smuggling; that is part of it. Tony Blair is doing the right job at the right time. The international community really does seem to be putting together a good, co-ordinated effort on this. It is now a matter of getting the Palestinians to work together, and of getting long-term peace in the region.
The Minister of State, Department of Energy and Climate Change & Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Hunt of Kings Heath): I am sorry, my Lords, but we are past the 30 minutes.
Corporation Tax Bill
First Reading
3.32 pm
The Bill was brought from the Commons, endorsed as a money Bill, and read a first time.
Borders, Citizenship and Immigration Bill [HL]
Bill Main Page
Copy of the Bill
Explanatory Notes
Amendments
3rd Report from DP Committee
5th Report from Constitution Committee
Committee (Third Day)
3.33 pm
92: After Clause 41, insert the following new Clause—
In section 6 of the British Overseas Territories Act 2002 (c. 8) (The Ilois: citizenship) omit subsection (2).”
Lord Avebury: In moving Amendment 92 and speaking to Amendment 101A, I want to make it clear from the outset that they are not intended as a substitute for the right of the Chagos Islanders to return to their homeland, from which they were evicted by the decision of the Prime Minister, Harold Wilson, in April 1969. I declare an interest as vice-chair of the Chagos Islands APPG,
4 Mar 2009 : Column 735
As the Committee will be aware, the plight of the dispossessed Chagos Islanders has been considered by the courts, and what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hoffmann, called “the whole sad story” of how,
- “the removal and resettlement of the Chagossians was accomplished with a callous disregard of their interests”
is related in the judgment of the Judicial Committee in the case of Bancoult. It is also being considered by the Foreign Affairs Select Committee in another place as part of its report of July 2008 on the overseas territories. In response to that report, the Government said that they regretted,
- “the way the resettlement of the Chagossians was carried out and the hardship that resulted for some of them. We do not seek to justify the actions taken in the 1960s and 1970s. These regrets have been repeated on many occasions”.
Those pious sentiments have not been any benefit to the children of the Islanders born in exile. Although some of the 1,000 who are resident in the UK have become full UK citizens, they have to pass the habitual residence test and, even then, many cannot afford the enormous fees that are payable for full citizenship.
The Home Office does not seem to be properly aware of these problems, although they were highlighted by the Foreign Affairs Committee. I wonder whether the Minister could at least tell us how many of the 1,000 people in the UK have managed to get full British citizenship.
We are asking your Lordships now to consider the rights of the Chagos Islanders and their descendants to full British citizenship. Under Section 6 of the British Overseas Territories Act 2002, a person who was born after 26 April 1969 and before 1 January 1983 to a woman who was a citizen of the United Kingdom colonies by virtue of her birth in the British Indian Ocean Territory, and who was neither a British citizen nor a BOTC immediately before commencement of Section 6, became a British citizen by descent. The omission of subsection (2) would mean that they became a full citizen and thus able to pass on their citizenship to their own children.
Amendment 101A would delete the requirement in Section 6(1)(a) that a person be born after 26 April 1969 to be eligible for British citizenship. That was the date when the removal of the population from the islands was authorised. It appeared in Section 6 without consultation with the Chagossians or their advisers. I believe that the idea was that, before that date, anyone who left the islands was free to return. In that scenario—for example, if they went to Mauritius—they were voluntarily absent and any mother who wished to do so could have returned to give birth and thus to confer citizenship on her child.
That was not in fact the case. It has now been made clear that difficulties of return arose much earlier. The planning for the evacuation of the islands was started in August 1964; the Exchange of Notes with the USA on Diego Garcia was at the end of 1966; and the
4 Mar 2009 : Column 736
In response to the Select Committee, the Government said that there was no precedent elsewhere in nationality law for citizenship to be extended to a third generation born outside the UK or in an overseas territory. But that is not correct. They concede that, until 1914, there were exceptions, but even under the British Nationality Act 1981 a person serving in the Armed Forces or in a community institution who was a British citizen by descent could transmit his or her citizenship to a child. Even if there were no precedents at all, equally there is none that I am aware of for the expulsion from the dependent territory of the whole population. That was a shabby and disreputable episode. It becomes even more despicable if we now prevent the children of the victims regaining rights that they would have had if their parents had been able to remain in their ancestral lands. I beg to move.
Baroness Whitaker: I warmly support these two amendments. It is generally held that the Chagos Islands have had an extremely raw deal. Many people have been sent into hardship and exile against all natural justice, and the right solution is certainly to find a way for them to return to their home. We hope that the deliberations of the all-party group with the Minister this afternoon will be a step in that process. However, this amendment at least will deliver something by way of a small quantum of justice in the interim. I hope that the Minister can entertain both amendments.
I apologise in advance if the length of the debate prevents my hearing the Minister’s answer, because I have an appointment, but I shall certainly read it with great care in Hansard.
Lord Ramsbotham: I, too, support the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, in these amendments, and declare a similar interest, holding a similar position in the Chagos Islands all-party group. My interest was heightened when, three years ago, I was invited by the Mauritius Government to inspect their prison system and was made aware of the situation regarding the Chagos Islanders, which was represented to me as being rather a blot on the UK’s human rights record. At that time it was mentioned that the Foreign Office had carried out a feasibility study on the return in 2002, but it had been turned down for, among other things, being too expensive. I suggest that that feasibility study of 2002 is now totally out of date. It may be of interest to the Committee to know that the Chagos Islands all-party group brought this situation to the personal attention of the new President of the United States, because not only is Diego Garcia a United States base but the agreement with the United States is due for renewal in 2016. It is extremely appropriate to press ahead with what is required; while it may seem strange to attach the issue to this Bill, in the whole context of nationality and our records in this area it is an extremely appropriate vehicle. I hope that the Government will listen to what is being said.
4 Mar 2009 : Column 737
Lord Brett: I rise to respond to the very powerful arguments made by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury and my noble friend Lady Whitaker, and with regard to the enormous respect that we all have for the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, and the powerful case that he puts yet again.
I have several pages of Civil Service prose to read out and, indeed, for the remainder of the amendments to this part of the Bill I have copious pages of Civil Service prose. However, I should like to suggest a different approach. In responding to Amendment 90—it seems a long time ago, but it was on Monday—I gave an undertaking that the Government would consider amendments from the noble Lord. I suggest that we should consider Amendments 92 and 101A, along with the remaining amendments to clauses in Part 2, with the exception of Amendment 105A which, to my embarrassment I must return to, having failed to deal with it on Monday.
The purpose of my suggesting that I discuss those amendments not in the form of a considered debate today, which would take a very long time, but in the form of a discussion, is to look at the cases that have caused noble Lords to table the amendments, to consider the decisions taken in respect of those cases and the principles behind those decisions, and to see whether policy and other practical measures can be found to resolve them. The noble Lord will, of course, be perfectly able to bring back any or all of his amendments at Report, but I hope that we can at least make some progress on some of them in the intervening period. That would be the most practical way in which I can offer the House urgent attention to the points raised, with the opportunity for a fuller debate at Report.
Lord Avebury: A few days ago, I did not expect to get such a favourable answer from the Minister on either this amendment or all the other amendments that will affect Part 2, so we seem to be making good progress. I accept with alacrity his offer of further discussions on these matters before Report, and particularly on the one currently under discussion, on the situation of the Chagos Islanders. I am sure that my colleagues who are meeting Gillian Merron in Portcullis House at this very moment will be delighted to hear what the Minister has said. I hope that Gillian Merron will have been on message and will have told the special meeting of the Chagos Islands APPG about the Minister’s kind offer to your Lordships this afternoon. For the time being, I am happy to withdraw this amendment. We will no doubt be able to dispose of the subsequent amendment on Part 2 in good time so that we can finish by 10 pm. I beg leave to withdraw this amendment.
3.45 pm
93: After Clause 41, insert the following new Clause—
“Stateless children of British nationals
(1) Schedule 4 to the British Nationality Act 1981 (c. 61) (amendments to Immigration Act 1971) is amended as follows.
(2) In paragraph 4, omit sub-paragraph (1)(c).
4 Mar 2009 : Column 738
(3) In paragraph 4, for sub-paragraphs (2)(a) and (2)(b) substitute—“shall be registered under it as a—
(a) British citizen, or
(b) in the case of a child whose mother or father is, or would have been but for their death, a British overseas territories citizen, as a British overseas territories citizen.”
(4) In sub-paragraph (4) of paragraph 4, for “sub-paragraphs (1) to (3)” substitute “sub-paragraph (1)”.”
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: The purpose of this amendment is to insert into the Bill a new clause dealing with the stateless children of British nationals. This amendment ensures that those stateless children born after 1 January 1983 to British nationals of any type, wherever in the world, are entitled to be registered as British citizens; and that the children of British Overseas Territories citizens can be registered as both British citizens and British Overseas Territories citizens.
A British citizen born outside the UK and British Overseas Territories will be a British citizen by descent. That is, he or she will not be able automatically to transmit citizenship to his or her children. In addition, a British Overseas Territories citizen born outside the overseas territories will be a British Overseas Territories citizen by descent. That is, he or she will not be able automatically to transmit citizenship. It is not always possible for the children of British citizens to satisfy existing provisions for registration to obtain citizenship for want of compliance with residence requirements in the UK or in the British Overseas Territories. In certain circumstances, where the state of residence prohibits the acquisition of its nationality, often on racially discriminatory grounds, the children of such persons are left stateless.
| Next Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |