|
<<
Back to News & Features
Here
is the transcript of a debate from 4 November 2004 on local government provision
to support the Diego Garcians in Surrey.
Diego Garcians
(Surrey)
Motion made, and Question proposed,
That this House do now adjourn.—[Margaret
Moran.]
6.30 pm
Mr. Peter Ainsworth (East Surrey) (Con):
I echo the expressions of concern that hon. Members throughout the Chamber have
uttered about the incident in Iraq.
I am grateful for the opportunity to raise an
issue that causes considerable and immediate concern in my constituency, but
clearly has far wider implications and has its origins in a distant place and at
a distant time. As well as my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Mr. Blunt), my
hon. Friends the Members for Mole Valley (Sir Paul Beresford), for Epsom and
Ewell (Chris Grayling), for Woking (Mr. Malins) and for Chichester (Mr. Tyrie)
have taken a keen interest in the matter—it is good to see my hon. Friends in
their places—and wish to be associated with my remarks.
I must admit that until I received a telephone
call on the evening of 19 October, I was only sketchily aware of the long and
wretched story of the Chagos islands and their people. It is a shabby story of
international power politics and betrayal. It is a stain on the integrity of
British foreign policy. I know that the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister is
not responsible for foreign policy, but I will argue that it now has a key
responsibility for the consequences of what happened.
I do not wish to replicate the excellent speech
of my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Mr. Blunt) in Westminster Hall
yesterday. The focus of this debate is on the practical problems that we face
now and in the future. It is clear, however, that past Government actions led
directly to the call that I received on 19 October, and to the problem that we
are discussing today. It is therefore worth rehearsing those briefly.
In 1966, Harold Wilson's Government acquiesced
to an American request to purchase and depopulate the British Indian Ocean
Territory in order to build an airbase on the principal island of Diego Garcia.
It has been suggested that, in return, Britain got a special offer on Polaris
submarines. Be that as it may, the plantations were closed, and with them the
island's economy. The supply ships were diverted and the majority of the
islanders were exiled to a slum area of Port Louis, the capital of Mauritius.
Some went to the Seychelles. Eventually, in November 2000, following an action
brought by the chairman of the Chagos refugees group, the High Court ruled that
the islanders had the legal right to return. Attempts to return, however, were
obstructed and proved unsuccessful.
Under the British Overseas Territories Act 2002,
a majority of the exiles became British citizens, allowing them to enter and
reside in the United Kingdom. In 2003, about 100 destitute islanders arrived at
Gatwick airport and settled in Crawley, West Sussex. It is good to see the hon.
Member for Crawley (Laura Moffatt) in her place, as I know that she has wrestled
with this issue for some considerable time. It is reported that the support that
they have so far received from West Sussex county council has cost local
taxpayers £500,000.
I have said that this is a shabby story. The
latest and, perhaps, shabbiest twist of all came in June this year. On the day
of the local government and European elections,
4 Nov 2004 : Column 541
when eyes were elsewhere, without notification to the House, let alone debate,
the Government signed two Orders in Council, the effect of which was to overturn
the High Court judgment and reimpose the legal ban on the islanders' ability to
return to Diego Garcia.
This is the position: the Government have
finally cut off the remaining hope of returning to the islands, and legislated
to enable the islanders to come to Britain. Given that the only other choice
available is to remain in Port Louis, where they claim to live in conditions of
poverty, drug abuse, unemployment and prostitution, it is hardly surprising that
many would prefer to make a new life in Britain. Certainly, I have no argument
with their decision to do so.
Now we come to the telephone call of 19 October.
It was from Councillor Mrs. Spiers, leader of Reigate and Banstead borough
council. She told me that 45 islanders had arrived at Gatwick and, following a
court decision that discharged West Sussex county council from an obligation to
house all but the most vulnerable of them, 33 had effectively thrown themselves
on the mercy of her council. They were being housed in temporary accommodation
in Horley in my constituency, at a cost of some £20 per person per night. Her
question was straightforward: she understood the plight of the islanders, but
why should the council tax payers of Reigate and Banstead be solely responsible
for footing the bill for their maintenance? That is a question that I hope that
the hon. Member for Gillingham (Paul Clark) will answer directly.
My expectations of a helpful response are not
high. When my conversation with Councillor Mrs. Spiers had ended, and having
established via the Home Office that this was not an immigration issue—on the
ground that the individuals concerned were British—but a matter for the Office
of the Deputy Prime Minister, I sent an urgent fax to the Minister for Local and
Regional Government, setting out the issue and concluding:
"I would be most grateful if you might
let me know what provisions exist for your Department to provide financial
support to the Council to cover these exceptional circumstances: and it would
also be greatly appreciated if you could arrange for an appropriate official
to contact the Council as a matter of urgency in order to discuss the
situation".
I then provided the direct contact details of
the leader and chief executive of the council.
That was on 19 October. It is now 4 November, and
nobody from the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister has bothered to make any
contact with the council. It would be helpful if the hon. Gentleman could
explain why there has been no communication at all, despite that urgent request.
My hon. Friend the Member for Reigate and I
visited the islanders last Friday. They have been moved into a block of
sheltered flats, somewhat to the alarm of a number of elderly residents, and
although their accommodation is cramped, they are being well cared for. The
council deserves to be congratulated on the way that it has handled the issue.
It immediately reacted with humanitarian assistance, while at the same time
seeking to protect local residents from a potentially open-ended financial
liability. It thus sought to discharge its moral duty to the islanders and
fiduciary duty to local people.
4 Nov 2004 : Column 542
As the Minister will know, solicitors acting for
the Chagossians successfully sought a judicial review of the council's decision
to refuse temporary accommodation in respect of one of the applicants, on the
ground that he was not habitually resident. Pending the outcome of the judicial
review, the council decided to accommodate all the islanders, in order, as it
said, to save the public purse from any further judicial review requests. The
court determined on 1 November that the council should continue to house them
until the outcome of the review into the original decision. Meanwhile, the
council is assessing the islanders' entitlements under separate homelessness
legislation. I am sorry if this all sounds a bit complicated, Mr. Deputy
Speaker, but I am afraid that it is.
The House might take the view that it was
strange for the court to come to a decision that the islanders could arguably be
considered to be habitual residents of the United Kingdom when they had only
been here for a couple of weeks. But this decision only serves to underline the
need for the Government to intervene to resolve the matter. Having looked at the
full circumstances of the case and its history, Mr. Justice Moses
acknowledged—and this is significant—that the real issue was the
Government's need to address the problems of the islanders. He said that there
were very unusual circumstances in the case, and that, in his view, a
substantive case could be made that the habitual residence occurred as soon as
the Chagossians arrived in the United Kingdom.
Mr. Justice Moses stated that he had great
sympathy with the local authority, saying that it was certainly arguable that
this was a matter not for the authority but for central Government. However, he
was quite clear that, in a humane and civilised society, it was unacceptable not
to provide any temporary accommodation for the islanders, as that would merely
mean that they would return to Gatwick, where there were no facilities whatever.
He is quoted in today's edition of the Surrey
Mirror under the rather unhelpful but
none the less true headline:
"You foot bill for homeless Diego
Garcians",
saying:
"The prospect of their wandering around
and gravitating back to Gatwick is not something that any civilised human
being can contemplate."
Given the unique circumstances of the case, this
judgment seems understandable. However, it does nothing to resolve the
difficulties faced by the council, or the basic injustice of requiring my
constituents, and those of my hon. Friends the Members for Reigate and for Epsom
and Ewell, to foot the entire bill for housing the islanders for an undetermined
period of time. And it does not end there. While the immediate issue surrounds
the 33 islanders in Horley, the hon. Gentleman will be aware that, in response
to my written question, the Foreign Office stated on 1 November that
"it is estimated that there are about
5,000 Chagossians who enjoy British citizenship with the right of abode in the
UK following the coming into force of the British Overseas Territories Act in
May 2002. Since then, the British High Commissions in Mauritius and Seychelles
have issued more than 900 British passports to Chagossians".—[Official
Report, 1 November 2004; Vol. 426, c.
73W.]
4 Nov 2004 : Column 543
My hon. Friend the Member for Reigate asked in the
debate yesterday why more than 900 passports had been applied for when these
people had perfectly good Mauritian travel documents of their own. It would be
responsible to conclude that at least 900 people are actively considering
following their compatriots to Gatwick; a further 4,100 are in a position to do
so. It would be logical to expect them to want to settle close to other former
islanders in the Horley and Gatwick areas. It would therefore be sensible for
the Government to make plans now for this event.
I am aware that solicitors acting for the
islanders are seeking an exemption from the relevant regulations so that, on
arrival, they may be deemed eligible for housing and other benefits. If they are
successful in this, it would certainly help the council's legal bills, but it
would compound the problems that they face in meeting the needs of the islanders
from their very limited means. I am sure that I do not have to warn the hon.
Gentleman of the consequences were thousands of islanders to arrive and were the
cost of their maintenance to remain a local responsibility.
I am proud to say that local people have to date
shown sympathy and good will towards the islanders, although I have already been
asked by one homeless man why he is sleeping rough in a playing field when the
islanders are not. I remind the hon. Gentleman that there are at present about
2,000 people already on the waiting list for housing in the Reigate and Banstead
area. Good will can be stretched only so far. It is therefore essential that, in
replying to this debate, the hon. Gentleman understands the potentially very
serious nature of the issue.
As I said in yesterday's debate, the long-term
solution lies with the Foreign Office, and I was pleased to hear that the
Foreign Office Minister has indicated that he would consider raising the
question of aid measures with the Department for International Development.
However, the short-term solution lies with the Office of the Deputy Prime
Minister. We are seeking a solution that is both fair to the islanders and fair
to local residents. The problem has arisen as a result of action by central
Government, and it is time for central Government to shoulder their
responsibilities.
The Minister may recall that a few years ago,
when Surrey unexpectedly played host to General Pinochet, the county police were
awarded a special one-off payment from the Home Office to help offset the
exceptional security costs associated with their new temporary resident, on the
ground that he was in Surrey for reasons to do with Government decisions
entirely beyond Surrey's control. There is an obvious parallel in the present
case.
Let me end with another quotation from the
Surrey Mirror's report of the recent
court hearing:
"Told that, until the legal issues were
resolved, there was nothing that Central Government could do, the judge
suggested: 'Well, write a cheque'".
I look forward to the Minister's response to
that simple request.
6.15 pm
Mr. Crispin Blunt (Reigate) (Con):
I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for East Surrey (Mr. Ainsworth) for
allowing me to make a brief
4 Nov 2004 : Column 544
contribution, and for his kind words about my debate with the Under-Secretary of
State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs yesterday.
Yesterday's reply was extremely disappointing.
It did not suggest that the Government were treating the issue with the
seriousness and immediacy that it requires. It is a consequence of the
Government's Orders in Council, presented in June, that we now face what is
potentially an increasingly difficult challenge for local authorities. It is
very important for the services required for these people to be established in
Mauritius and the Seychelles before they come to the United Kingdom—but if the
Government are not going to do that, they really must offer assistance to the
local authorities that have to host the people.
There is a clear need for joined-up government.
If the hon. Member for Gillingham (Paul Clark) has nothing to offer local
authorities this evening, as the Under-Secretary had nothing to offer the people
of Diego Garcia and the rest of the Chagos islands yesterday, I must tell him
that this will certainly not be the last he has heard of the matter.
6.16 pm
Paul Clark (Gillingham) (Lab):
I congratulate the hon. Member for East Surrey (Mr. Ainsworth) on securing the
debate.
The Government are well aware of the importance of
the issues facing local authorities as a result of the arrival of a number of
Chagossians in Britain. I hope that following my response the hon. Gentleman,
and the hon. Member for Reigate (Mr. Blunt), will appreciate the importance that
we attach to this, and will also take account of the resources that have been
and are available and of other issues arising from the case.
Because there was clearly a very good debate in
Westminster Hall yesterday, and because my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of
State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs responded to it, I do not want to go
into details of the history at great length; but following what the hon. Member
for East Surrey has said, I want to put one or two things on record.
The Chagos islands were part of the dependency
of Mauritius, and continue to be administered under that scheme. On achieving
independence in 1968, with the agreement of the Mauritius Council of Ministers
they were detached to form part of the British Indian ocean territory, which was
rightly created to meet the defence needs of the United States and Britain. I am
sure the hon. Gentleman will know that the plantations to which he referred were
ceasing to be economically viable at the time. For that reason as well as for
defence reasons, it was decided that the islanders should be removed. That
happened in the late 1960s and early 1970s.
The vast majority of the islanders, some 1,200,
were relocated to Mauritius, although some went to the Seychelles. They
automatically acquired either Mauritian or Seychelles citizenship when those
countries achieved independence, and they retained their status as citizens of
the United Kingdom and the colonies. Entirely correctly, under the British
Overseas Territories Act 2002 they were given the additional status of full
British citizenship. That carries the right of abode in the United Kingdom, and
as we know and the hon. Gentleman mentioned, some have taken up that
4 Nov 2004 : Column 545
opportunity. Of course, that also gives them freedom of access to other European
countries, but the suggestion that the Orders in Council may have been used in
an underhand way is incorrect. The hon. Gentleman will be well aware that it is
common practice to deal with such decisions through the use of Orders in Council
when amending the constitution of an overseas territory, so nothing different
was done in that regard. In addition, some of the islanders were in fact seeking
British citizenship before the Orders in Council were put in place. They
continue to apply for such citizenship, as we know.
Any Chagossian applying for a British passport
at our high commission in Mauritius receives clear guidance on what to expect if
they travel to the UK. This guidance—in the form of a leaflet in English and
Creole that is placed in each passport—stresses that it is their
responsibility to ensure before travelling that they have the necessary
resources, or that they can rely on friends or family who are already here.
In addition, our high commissioner in Mauritius
wrote to the leading member of the Chagossian community on 27 September. It is
worth quoting that letter, which states:
"Those Chagossians who are British
citizens are of course free to go the United Kingdom if they wish. However, as
you know, those that do exercise this right cannot expect more favourable
treatment than any other British citizen going to the United Kingdom from
abroad and, just like any other British citizen, they have to fulfil the
normal conditions of entitlement and habitual residence before qualifying for
social security benefits etc. These entitlements are clearly set out in the
leaflet which accompanies each new passport issued to members of your
community by the British High Commission passport section."
Mr. Ainsworth: I
would be grateful if the Minister explained whether that letter is legally
binding in any way, and if so, whether anyone had told Mr. Justice Moses.
Paul Clark: We
have a duty and a responsibility to ensure that we communicate clearly to such
people their position and rights, to the extent that they prevail. We are making
it clear through the issuing of that letter that those who seek to come here as
British citizens have no automatic right to accommodation or benefits. As I
understand it, that letter was given wide coverage in the Mauritian press. Such
information is also given to every new applicant for a British passport,
including the 900 people who recently applied, to whom the hon. Gentleman
referred.
Mr. Ainsworth: The
point is that such people are currently receiving accommodation at the expense
of the public purse, so something seems to have gone wrong with the Minister's
logic.
Paul Clark: Nothing
has gone wrong with the logic. What we have to understand is the legal
responsibilities and the legalities of the process of becoming a British
citizen, and the rights to which that entitles individuals. I will deal in due
course with homelessness, local authorities and the resources available.
I turn to the Reigate and Banstead case. I
listened very carefully to what was said about the number of such people who
could come to this country. That is an issue,
4 Nov 2004 : Column 546
but we have to deal with the facts. It was suggested that thousands could come,
but the fact that 900 people have applied for passports does not mean that all
will come here to seek accommodation and resources; it is not necessary to
follow that logic. Small groups of Chagossians have made their way to the UK.
The most recent group, of some 43, arrived at Gatwick airport at the beginning
of October. I have said very clearly that they are welcome to be here in the UK,
but we have also made it clear that they are expected to support and accommodate
themselves when they arrive. Income-related benefits and local authority housing
are generally not available to persons from abroad, including British citizens,
who are not habitually resident in the UK.
In the case of the most recent arrivals, I
understand that they were all accommodated by West Sussex county council for a
temporary period while care assessments were made under the National Assistance
Act 1948. I believe that the county council is continuing to accommodate a small
number of them. Most of the Chagossians were subsequently required to leave the
hotel accommodation provided by West Sussex council, and it seems that the next
port of call for them was the housing authority. Accommodation was provided by
West Sussex in Horley, in the hon. Gentleman's constituency in the district of
Reigate and Banstead borough council. About 31 applications have now been made
under the homelessness legislation.
We must recognise that homelessness legislation
is there to protect all people who are genuinely homeless or claim to be
genuinely homeless. That is why I laid out clearly what our High Commission says
to British citizens about what they can expect. When they are here, they then
fall under the provisions of the homelessness legislation, which provides an
important safety net for vulnerable people who find themselves facing a housing
crisis.
Where specified criteria are met—that is, that
applicants are eligible for assistance, have become homeless through no fault of
their own and fall within a priority need group—the local housing authority
must ensure that suitable accommodation is available for the applicant until a
settled home can be found. Lesser duties apply in cases where homelessness is
intentional or where the applicant does not have a priority need for
accommodation. Those categories are defined in the legislation.
I understand that the decision by Reigate and
Banstead, in all the cases concerning the Chagossian arrivals, was that the
applicants were ineligible for housing assistance because they were persons from
abroad who were not habitually resident in the UK, or the wider area including
the Channel Islands or the Isle of Man. I am sure that all hon. Members would
agree that it is important for proper decisions to be made concerning homeless
applications, and would understand why safeguards are built into the
legislation.
Applicants have the right to ask the local
authority internally to review a decision that they are ineligible for
assistance, and I understand that the Chagos islanders have exercised that right
with the Reigate and Banstead borough council. As a further safeguard, the
legislation also gives local housing authorities a discretionary power to
accommodate applicants while they carry out
4 Nov 2004 : Column 547
a review. Reigate and Banstead council originally decided not to exercise its
power to provide applicants with accommodation, pending an internal review.
There has also been a review of the High Court proceedings, to which the hon.
Gentleman referred.
Mr. Ainsworth: We
are running short of time, so I would be grateful if, before the Minister
concludes, he could say very simply whether he believes that it is fair that our
constituents should foot the bill, solely and by themselves, for these people
who are here as a direct consequence of the Government's actions. Does he not
think that it would be a fairer system if the Government shouldered their own
responsibility in this case?
Paul Clark: Of
course, the hon. Gentleman will be well aware of the substantial moneys that
local government receives for a whole host of activities that councils have to
carry out and have to meet in the numerous operations in which they are
involved. That was very much the point that I was making. Members cannot ignore
the substantial increases in moneys that have gone to local authorities. There
has been a 30 per cent. real-terms increase over the last seven years. That is a
fact and there is no question about it. Additionally, substantially more moneys
have been announced in the spending review earlier this year as going into local
government finance generally. Authorities in Surrey have benefited from the
extra money that we have made available. Surrey county council received a grant
increase 7.7 per cent. increase in this year's settlement, well above the
average for county councils. District councils also received good grant
increases, with Reigate and Banstead receiving a grant increase of 3.6 per cent.
Mr. Blunt: Will
the Minister give way?
Paul Clark: I
will give way if there is time, but I want to answer the hon. Member for East
Surrey properly.
4 Nov 2004 : Column 548
The House will be aware that the homelessness provision given by the Government
to local authorities is made by means of the formula block known as the
environmental, protective and cultural services. Local authorities have
substantial flexibility when it comes to its use.
We have also given local authorities substantial
direct resources through the rate support grant, but the issue at the heart of
this debate is of a piece with the difficulty in respect of homelessness and
housing that all authorities face, but especially those in London and the
south-east. The pressures are substantial.
The Government are putting substantial moneys
into meeting the requirements of making affordable housing available and making
provision for homeless families. That is true in Reigate and Banstead, and
everywhere else in the country. We are well aware of the pressures that local
authorities face, but we have made substantial additional resources available.
I know that the events under discussion were
unexpected, but we expect local authorities to plan for any such contingency
that might arise. Substantial increases in resources have been made available to
Reigate and Banstead, and substantial reserves are available to enable local
authorities meet any contingency.
Legislation is in place to protect people who
are genuinely homeless, and the necessary procedures are in hand. We expect
local authorities to be able to deal with any contingencies that arise. We
recognise the important pressures faced by local authorities, and the
Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, my hon. Friend
the Member for Harlow (Mr. Rammell), said yesterday—
The motion having been made after Six
o'clock, and the debate having continued for half an hour,
Mr. Deputy Speaker adjourned the House
without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
<<
Back to News & Features
|
