A tantalising story that needs more research:
My aunt Victoria Woods has a necklace which was left to her by Aunt Vivian, the daughter of Nellie Grant and Algernon Sartoris, who died in 1933 . The necklace was kept until her 18th birthday, May 29, 1935, so she never had the chance to ask Aunt Vivian about its provenance, but the history related by her mother, my grandmother, Margaret Lady Stanley of Alderley (grand daughter of Adelaide Sartoris and daughter of Mary Theodosia Evans Gordon nee Sartoris) was that the necklace was given to Julia Dent Grant by emissaries of the Mexican Emperor Maximilian, as an inducement, to persuade her to influence the General not to support Juarez and the Republicans in the Mexican civil war. Grant of course had a close interest in Mexico stemming from his service there in 1845-47.
If the story is true, the bribe must have been tendered some time before the end of the US Civil War on April 9, 1865 , but after Maximilian came to the throne on June 10, 1864. When Lee surrendered, quite a few Confederates fled across the border and took service under Maximilian, and Grant actively supported the Republicans, with the tacit support of President Johnson. Less than a month after the surrender at Appomatox, Grant sent Sheridan with 42,000 men to the Rio Grande, hoping that a show of strength would persuade Napoleon III to withdraw the French troops propping up Maximilian’s puppet régime . By that time it is inconceivable that the Emperor would have sent a delegation to Grant, or to have sought to influence him through his wife.
Ishbel Ross, Julia Dent Grant’s biographer, says that among the wedding presents given to Nellie was ‘a necklace and earrings of diamonds’ , but they are not in the long list of presents in the New York Herald . The Herald reporter says he was the only journalist invited to the great event at the White House, and if the diamonds were on display with the rest of the presents, he could not have missed them. Perhaps they were concealed because of the awkward problem of how to explain where they came from. The Grants did have a reputation for accepting unsuitable gifts, but if my grandmother’s story was accurate, it could have been really embarrassing.
Eric Avebury
September 20, 2004
Sunday, April 19, 2009
Recess over
Tomorrow Parliament resumes, and its a busy week ahead. In the morning I'm chairing a seminar in Committee Room 3 on the current political situation in Bangladesh, followed by lunch with an academic who is hoping to start a Kurdish Studies Programme at SOAS.
JW has beaten me 2-0 twice in a row, bringing the score up to 101-100. After two years of keeping the records, I suspect that my eyesight and agility may not be improving, whereas his may be. Fifty eight years difference between us may possibly make a slight difference.
We had tea today with Rhoda Torres (see above), who used to work for me more than 30 years ago, when we were at Eccleston Square Mews. She still lives round the corner from there, in a flat with views on two sides, overlooking the traffic lights at the end of Ebury Bridge. Her daughter Diana, a little girl in those days, has a high powered job in New York.
JW has beaten me 2-0 twice in a row, bringing the score up to 101-100. After two years of keeping the records, I suspect that my eyesight and agility may not be improving, whereas his may be. Fifty eight years difference between us may possibly make a slight difference.
We had tea today with Rhoda Torres (see above), who used to work for me more than 30 years ago, when we were at Eccleston Square Mews. She still lives round the corner from there, in a flat with views on two sides, overlooking the traffic lights at the end of Ebury Bridge. Her daughter Diana, a little girl in those days, has a high powered job in New York.
Monday, April 13, 2009
Blogs
There is much ado in the media about the use of the blogosphere for 'political' purposes, which seems to mean almost entirely for attacking other parties and their members. We read that the three principal Tory bloggers get about 100,000 hit a month, while a leading Labour blogger, Tom Harris MP, notches up only 22,000. My own sitemeter recorded a paltry 1,497 hits in April, but sorry, readers will have to look elsewhere for scandal.
Ping-pong today 1-1, cumulative score Dad 101 JW 96
Ping-pong today 1-1, cumulative score Dad 101 JW 96
Friday, April 10, 2009
Reuter on Bahrain press conference
Bahrain opposition wants EU, UN monitors at "show trial"
Wed Apr 8, 2009 2:03pm EDT
* EU, U.N. asked to attend trial of government opponents
* British lawmaker: protesters face "merciless onslaught"
* Bahrain minister says trial is not politically motivated
By Peter Griffiths
LONDON, April 8 (Reuters) - International monitors should attend the trial in Bahrain of opposition figures accused of plotting to overthrow the Gulf state's government to ensure they receive a fair hearing, their supporters said on Wednesday.
British lawmaker Eric Lubbock, vice chairman of the human rights group in the upper house of parliament, called the trial "an iniquitous act of persecution against those who stand up for human rights".
After weeks of violent anti-government protests, he said, Bahrain's Sunni Arab leaders had grown "increasingly ruthless" and observers from the European Union and United Nations were needed at the trial in the island kingdom.
He told a London news conference he feared the fate of Hassan Mushaima, leader of the Shi'ite opposition group Haq, would be sealed in a political "show trial" manipulated by the ruling family in Bahrain, home to the U.S. Navy Fifth Fleet.
Bahrain strongly denies those claims. It says Mushaima and others will receive a fair trial and rejects claims the hearings are politically motivated.
"Potentially very serious terrorist attacks were uncovered and prevented in December, and the government has a duty to investigate and prosecute individuals against whom there is evidence," the Foreign Ministry said in a statement to Reuters.
Saeed Shehabi, of the Bahrain Freedom Movement, an opposition group, told the news conference: "The presence of EU observers in the forthcoming trials will be crucial."
Lubbock said some anti-government protesters had been injured by police and some of those arrested were tortured.
EU representatives attended the last hearing and should attend the next court date on April 28, and the U.N. torture envoy should also try to go, Lubbock said. (Additional reporting by Frederik Richter in Manama)
Wed Apr 8, 2009 2:03pm EDT
* EU, U.N. asked to attend trial of government opponents
* British lawmaker: protesters face "merciless onslaught"
* Bahrain minister says trial is not politically motivated
By Peter Griffiths
LONDON, April 8 (Reuters) - International monitors should attend the trial in Bahrain of opposition figures accused of plotting to overthrow the Gulf state's government to ensure they receive a fair hearing, their supporters said on Wednesday.
British lawmaker Eric Lubbock, vice chairman of the human rights group in the upper house of parliament, called the trial "an iniquitous act of persecution against those who stand up for human rights".
After weeks of violent anti-government protests, he said, Bahrain's Sunni Arab leaders had grown "increasingly ruthless" and observers from the European Union and United Nations were needed at the trial in the island kingdom.
He told a London news conference he feared the fate of Hassan Mushaima, leader of the Shi'ite opposition group Haq, would be sealed in a political "show trial" manipulated by the ruling family in Bahrain, home to the U.S. Navy Fifth Fleet.
Bahrain strongly denies those claims. It says Mushaima and others will receive a fair trial and rejects claims the hearings are politically motivated.
"Potentially very serious terrorist attacks were uncovered and prevented in December, and the government has a duty to investigate and prosecute individuals against whom there is evidence," the Foreign Ministry said in a statement to Reuters.
Saeed Shehabi, of the Bahrain Freedom Movement, an opposition group, told the news conference: "The presence of EU observers in the forthcoming trials will be crucial."
Lubbock said some anti-government protesters had been injured by police and some of those arrested were tortured.
EU representatives attended the last hearing and should attend the next court date on April 28, and the U.N. torture envoy should also try to go, Lubbock said. (Additional reporting by Frederik Richter in Manama)
Wednesday, April 08, 2009
Seminar on Bahrain
Today we held very successful seminar on the political and human rights crises in Bahrain at Millbank House, a Parliamentary annex. Our regular guest Dr Abdul Jalil Al-Singace wasn’t able to attend because he is one of the main defendants in the show trial, but he sent us an excellent video statement. We also had a video statement from Maitham Al-Sheikh, who was severely tortured during his 15 months in prison and had to be released for urgent hospital treatment. Then we had a short account of the March 25 court proceedings from Dr David Gottlieb of the Islamic Human Rights Commission; an analysis of the origins of the present crisis by Dr Saeed Shehabi, and comments on the role of women in the popular uprising by Zainab Meftah. There was a general discussion, and it was agreed that we would urge the Czech EU Presidency to commission an observer to attend the adjourned court proceedings on April 28, and that we would contact the UN Special Rapporteur on Torture, Manfred Nowak, asking him to investigate the many allegations of torture made by detainees.
My introductory remarks:
The Paradoxes of the Kingdom of Silence
This is an unhappy time for the Kingdom of Silence we are here to discuss, and there is also silence in the western media about the escalating crisis in Bahrain. There is negative feedback between the harsh and repressive acts of the authorities, and the growing resistance of ordinary people on the streets. More people including many schoolchildren are being injured by the security forces and foreign mercenaries, and we have photographs of their injuries. More people are being detained, and many of those detained are being tortured, including the victims of the show trial of 35 who are accused of acts of terror.. The main defendant Mr Hassan Mushaima has been a frequent attendant at our previous seminars, and we strongly believe the trial is an attempt to stop him engaging in political activities. The Haq movement, of which he is leader, is the main
opposition to the regime, and makes no secret of the fact that it wants constitutional reform to replace the absolute monarchy by a democratic system with a genuine Parliament, independent courts of law, freedom of expression, and an end to the demographic engineering exposed by Dr Salah al-Bandar three years ago.
For upholding principles that we say we support all over the world, Mr Mushaima, and our other good friend Abdujalil al-Singace, also a regular guest here, face a trial which has been severely criticised by Human Rights Watch, and I'll come onto that in a minute. But first I want to tell you about a message I had from Dr Singace yesterday, which he was able to send as the only one of the 22 arrested who was granted bail.A friend of his, a professor from the Hoover Institution, a well-known think tank which is part of Stanford University in the US was on a cruise ship that called in at Manama, and he invited Dr Al-Singace to lunch on board the ship with him and his academic colleagues.
When Dr Al-Singace presented himself at the port, officials first said they needed an instruction in writing from the ship's captain or the travel agents to allow him on board. The travel agent then arrived, with a list of visitors that included the name of Dr Al-Singace. But he was still detained by port officals in a security room for an hour and a half, until a senior government official turned up, to announce that the Foreign Ministry had issued an instruction giving permission for only three persons to board the ship and speak to the travellers. These were a member of the ruling family who is an assistant under-secretary of the Foreign Ministry; a Mrs Allison Samaan, Deputy Head of the Shura Council, and Dr Mansoor alJamri, editor-in-chief of Al-Wasat newspaper, tolerated by the government because he knows what not to say on sensitive topics.
The American professor was dismayed, that his idea of asking Dr Al-Singace to speak to the visiting academics was hijacked by the regime, and turned into a circus to polish their image. The professor learned, by hints dropped in his discussions with officials, that Dr Al-Singace was not to be allowed to speak to the visitors for political reasons, but none of
them had the guts to come out and say so plainly. So finally, the professor gave up the idea of having lunch on board as had been agreed with the tour organisers and the ship's agent and decided to come on shore for lunch with Dr Al-Singace. As they were leaving the port area together, they came face to face with Mr Al-Khalifa, who was being greeted with kisses on the nose by port officials, and Ms Samaan, who were waiting to be escorted in their Mercedes to regale the Americans with a fairy story about the 'democracy, transparency and openness' enjoyed by citizens of Bahrain.
Now to return to reality. At the end of last year, the state-controlled TV screened a group of young opposition activists who had been held incommunicado for 11 days confessing to acts of violence at a Haq rally. They said that Mr Mushaima had told them to do this, as part of a plot to overthrow the government, but when they first came to court on February 23, their lawyer said they had been tortured. They said they had been beaten with water hoses on their feet, and given electric shocks, especially on their genitals, and I have asked her whether she has submitted a formal complaint to the UN Rapporteur on Torture, Manfred Nowak.
At the last hearing on March 25, the court unprecedentedly agreed to reinvestigate the case, to order an end to the solitary confinement of the defendants, and to appoint a medical committee to investigate the torture allegations. The presence in the court of representatives of the EU Presidency, as well as numerous human rights NGOs such as Human Rights Watch and the Islamic Human Rights Commission, may have had some bearing on this outcome, and I suggest this meeting ask the EU Presidency to attend the resumed hearing on April 28.
But this trial, though it is indeed an iniquitous act of persecution against those who stand up for human rights in Bahrain, is only one aspect of the increasing ruthlessness of the hereditary dictatorship. Seeing that the population has lost patience waiting for the reforms that never came after a controlled Parliament with no real power was established, the al-Khalifas have clamped down on every expression of dissent, using violence on the streets, blocking access to human rights websites, and spying on members of the opposition.
Even the US, Bahrain's staunch ally, has to criticise the regime in the State Department's report on human rights. They say that in 2008
“Citizens did not have the right to change their government The government restricted civil liberties, including freedoms of press, speech, assembly, association and some religious practices. Domestic violence against women persisted, as did discrimination on the basis of gender, religion, nationality, and sect, particularly against the Shia majority
population”.
Yesterday the Washington-based Committee to Protect Journalists wrote to the King protesting against the recent deterioration of press freedom in Bahrain and the government's ongoing campaign against critical or opposition Web sites and blogs. The crackdown against those sites has resulted in dozens of them being blocked inside the kingdom, including the Bahrain Center for Human Rights.
The State Department report had already detailed mass arrests of demonstrators and their allegations of torture from the whole of last year, and defects in the court system now glaringly apparent to the whole world. The king appoints all judges by royal decree, and he is chairman of the Supreme Judicial Council which supervises the work of the courts
and public prosecutors. There is no right of access by defendants to evidence held by the government.
What can we do to persuade our own Government to be as plain as that, instead of being so careful to avoid commenting on human rights violations in Bahrain, as they have been ever since the Parliamentary Human Rights Group first took up the problems in January 1994? In 1996 we published our correspondence with Foreign Office Ministers under the
title A Brick Wall, and you would have to look at that compilation to see how Ministers evaded expressing any opinion on the disastrous violations of human rights over those years. But when Labour came to power in 1997, it can't be said there was any change of attitude.
When Sheikh Hamad succeeded as ruler, there may have been some temporary grounds for hope of genuine reforms, but it soon turned out that what the ruling family was after was an imitation democracy, with the real power kept in the hands of the king, his uncle, the longest serving Prime Minister in the world, and the rest of the al-Khalifa family, who get appointed to nearly all the highest offices. But the Foreign Office resolutely ignores both the fact that Bahrain continues to be a hereditary dictatorship, and the unscrupulous methods used by the regime to sustain itself in power. Their annual report on human rights for 2008, unlike the State Department's, contains not a word about unlawful detention or torture, or the severe discrimination against the Shi'a.
We shouldn't ever give up on trying to persuade Whitehall to adopt a more robust attitude to the crimes of the al-Khalifas against their own people, but at the same time perhaps we need to concentrate more on Brussels, with the Czech Presidency of the EU at least having an observer at the trial. And the European Parliament has just passed a resolution
calling for the proclamation of 23 August as a Europe-wide Remembrance Day for the victims of all totalitarian and authoritarian regimes.
With the European elections coming up in June, why don't we send a briefing to all the candidates here in the UK on the situation in Bahrain? They could ask the High Representative for the Common Foreign and Security Policy, Javier Solana, to issue a statement on the administration of justice in Bahrain, and more widely on the causes of unrest. The tension between the royal family, terrified of losing one iota of their power, and the people, frustrated by their total exclusion from policy-making, can only lead to instability in a key state of the region, and that must surely be of great concern to Europe.
Finally, we need to activate the UN Human Rights Council Special Procedures, which could play a larger role in highlighting what's going on now. The Working Group on Arbitrary Detention visited the country 8 years ago, shortly after the government had repealed the emergency legislation which had been used to keep opposition leaders in custody for years in the 90s. Now that people are being detained under fabricated
charges, its time for the Working Group to take another look. The Special Rapporteur on Torture, who has never been to Bahrain, should be seeking an invitation. The Special Rapporteur on the Independence of Judges and Lawyers has an obvious interest in the current situation, as does the Special Rapporteur on Human Rights Defenders. Above all, the Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Religion and Belief, Ms Asma Jehangir, should investigate the systematic discrimination against the Shi'a, mentioned by the US State Department.
Let us send a message of solidarity to our brothers Hassan Mushaima, Abdul Jalil Al Singace, and all other victims of the regime's persecution. Lets resolve to step up the campaign to protect all the people of Bahrain against the merciless onslaught by the hereditary dictatorship, and to mobilise the international human rights process in their defence.
My introductory remarks:
The Paradoxes of the Kingdom of Silence
This is an unhappy time for the Kingdom of Silence we are here to discuss, and there is also silence in the western media about the escalating crisis in Bahrain. There is negative feedback between the harsh and repressive acts of the authorities, and the growing resistance of ordinary people on the streets. More people including many schoolchildren are being injured by the security forces and foreign mercenaries, and we have photographs of their injuries. More people are being detained, and many of those detained are being tortured, including the victims of the show trial of 35 who are accused of acts of terror.. The main defendant Mr Hassan Mushaima has been a frequent attendant at our previous seminars, and we strongly believe the trial is an attempt to stop him engaging in political activities. The Haq movement, of which he is leader, is the main
opposition to the regime, and makes no secret of the fact that it wants constitutional reform to replace the absolute monarchy by a democratic system with a genuine Parliament, independent courts of law, freedom of expression, and an end to the demographic engineering exposed by Dr Salah al-Bandar three years ago.
For upholding principles that we say we support all over the world, Mr Mushaima, and our other good friend Abdujalil al-Singace, also a regular guest here, face a trial which has been severely criticised by Human Rights Watch, and I'll come onto that in a minute. But first I want to tell you about a message I had from Dr Singace yesterday, which he was able to send as the only one of the 22 arrested who was granted bail.A friend of his, a professor from the Hoover Institution, a well-known think tank which is part of Stanford University in the US was on a cruise ship that called in at Manama, and he invited Dr Al-Singace to lunch on board the ship with him and his academic colleagues.
When Dr Al-Singace presented himself at the port, officials first said they needed an instruction in writing from the ship's captain or the travel agents to allow him on board. The travel agent then arrived, with a list of visitors that included the name of Dr Al-Singace. But he was still detained by port officals in a security room for an hour and a half, until a senior government official turned up, to announce that the Foreign Ministry had issued an instruction giving permission for only three persons to board the ship and speak to the travellers. These were a member of the ruling family who is an assistant under-secretary of the Foreign Ministry; a Mrs Allison Samaan, Deputy Head of the Shura Council, and Dr Mansoor alJamri, editor-in-chief of Al-Wasat newspaper, tolerated by the government because he knows what not to say on sensitive topics.
The American professor was dismayed, that his idea of asking Dr Al-Singace to speak to the visiting academics was hijacked by the regime, and turned into a circus to polish their image. The professor learned, by hints dropped in his discussions with officials, that Dr Al-Singace was not to be allowed to speak to the visitors for political reasons, but none of
them had the guts to come out and say so plainly. So finally, the professor gave up the idea of having lunch on board as had been agreed with the tour organisers and the ship's agent and decided to come on shore for lunch with Dr Al-Singace. As they were leaving the port area together, they came face to face with Mr Al-Khalifa, who was being greeted with kisses on the nose by port officials, and Ms Samaan, who were waiting to be escorted in their Mercedes to regale the Americans with a fairy story about the 'democracy, transparency and openness' enjoyed by citizens of Bahrain.
Now to return to reality. At the end of last year, the state-controlled TV screened a group of young opposition activists who had been held incommunicado for 11 days confessing to acts of violence at a Haq rally. They said that Mr Mushaima had told them to do this, as part of a plot to overthrow the government, but when they first came to court on February 23, their lawyer said they had been tortured. They said they had been beaten with water hoses on their feet, and given electric shocks, especially on their genitals, and I have asked her whether she has submitted a formal complaint to the UN Rapporteur on Torture, Manfred Nowak.
At the last hearing on March 25, the court unprecedentedly agreed to reinvestigate the case, to order an end to the solitary confinement of the defendants, and to appoint a medical committee to investigate the torture allegations. The presence in the court of representatives of the EU Presidency, as well as numerous human rights NGOs such as Human Rights Watch and the Islamic Human Rights Commission, may have had some bearing on this outcome, and I suggest this meeting ask the EU Presidency to attend the resumed hearing on April 28.
But this trial, though it is indeed an iniquitous act of persecution against those who stand up for human rights in Bahrain, is only one aspect of the increasing ruthlessness of the hereditary dictatorship. Seeing that the population has lost patience waiting for the reforms that never came after a controlled Parliament with no real power was established, the al-Khalifas have clamped down on every expression of dissent, using violence on the streets, blocking access to human rights websites, and spying on members of the opposition.
Even the US, Bahrain's staunch ally, has to criticise the regime in the State Department's report on human rights. They say that in 2008
“Citizens did not have the right to change their government The government restricted civil liberties, including freedoms of press, speech, assembly, association and some religious practices. Domestic violence against women persisted, as did discrimination on the basis of gender, religion, nationality, and sect, particularly against the Shia majority
population”.
Yesterday the Washington-based Committee to Protect Journalists wrote to the King protesting against the recent deterioration of press freedom in Bahrain and the government's ongoing campaign against critical or opposition Web sites and blogs. The crackdown against those sites has resulted in dozens of them being blocked inside the kingdom, including the Bahrain Center for Human Rights.
The State Department report had already detailed mass arrests of demonstrators and their allegations of torture from the whole of last year, and defects in the court system now glaringly apparent to the whole world. The king appoints all judges by royal decree, and he is chairman of the Supreme Judicial Council which supervises the work of the courts
and public prosecutors. There is no right of access by defendants to evidence held by the government.
What can we do to persuade our own Government to be as plain as that, instead of being so careful to avoid commenting on human rights violations in Bahrain, as they have been ever since the Parliamentary Human Rights Group first took up the problems in January 1994? In 1996 we published our correspondence with Foreign Office Ministers under the
title A Brick Wall, and you would have to look at that compilation to see how Ministers evaded expressing any opinion on the disastrous violations of human rights over those years. But when Labour came to power in 1997, it can't be said there was any change of attitude.
When Sheikh Hamad succeeded as ruler, there may have been some temporary grounds for hope of genuine reforms, but it soon turned out that what the ruling family was after was an imitation democracy, with the real power kept in the hands of the king, his uncle, the longest serving Prime Minister in the world, and the rest of the al-Khalifa family, who get appointed to nearly all the highest offices. But the Foreign Office resolutely ignores both the fact that Bahrain continues to be a hereditary dictatorship, and the unscrupulous methods used by the regime to sustain itself in power. Their annual report on human rights for 2008, unlike the State Department's, contains not a word about unlawful detention or torture, or the severe discrimination against the Shi'a.
We shouldn't ever give up on trying to persuade Whitehall to adopt a more robust attitude to the crimes of the al-Khalifas against their own people, but at the same time perhaps we need to concentrate more on Brussels, with the Czech Presidency of the EU at least having an observer at the trial. And the European Parliament has just passed a resolution
calling for the proclamation of 23 August as a Europe-wide Remembrance Day for the victims of all totalitarian and authoritarian regimes.
With the European elections coming up in June, why don't we send a briefing to all the candidates here in the UK on the situation in Bahrain? They could ask the High Representative for the Common Foreign and Security Policy, Javier Solana, to issue a statement on the administration of justice in Bahrain, and more widely on the causes of unrest. The tension between the royal family, terrified of losing one iota of their power, and the people, frustrated by their total exclusion from policy-making, can only lead to instability in a key state of the region, and that must surely be of great concern to Europe.
Finally, we need to activate the UN Human Rights Council Special Procedures, which could play a larger role in highlighting what's going on now. The Working Group on Arbitrary Detention visited the country 8 years ago, shortly after the government had repealed the emergency legislation which had been used to keep opposition leaders in custody for years in the 90s. Now that people are being detained under fabricated
charges, its time for the Working Group to take another look. The Special Rapporteur on Torture, who has never been to Bahrain, should be seeking an invitation. The Special Rapporteur on the Independence of Judges and Lawyers has an obvious interest in the current situation, as does the Special Rapporteur on Human Rights Defenders. Above all, the Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Religion and Belief, Ms Asma Jehangir, should investigate the systematic discrimination against the Shi'a, mentioned by the US State Department.
Let us send a message of solidarity to our brothers Hassan Mushaima, Abdul Jalil Al Singace, and all other victims of the regime's persecution. Lets resolve to step up the campaign to protect all the people of Bahrain against the merciless onslaught by the hereditary dictatorship, and to mobilise the international human rights process in their defence.
CTC forms: four years of irresponsible carelessness
Since the beginning of 2005, the Buddhist Prison Chaplaincy has been trying to get the Prison Service to process the confidential Counter-Terrorist Check (CTC) forms quickly and with proper care for the sensitive personal information demanded. After endless attempts to get the matter taken seriously including much correspondence with Ministers and changes of procedure, forms are still being lost and seriously delayed for no apparent reason. Not only are chaplains reluctant to trust that personal information is being held securely, but the effect of the system's unreliability is to demotivate existing chaplains so that they resign, and new potential chaplains who don't like hanging around for six months before the prisons are satisfied they aren't terrorists.
From Lord Avebury P0904044
020-7274 4617
ericavebury@gmail.com
ericavebury.blogspot.com
April 4, 2009
Dear Jack,
I’m turning to you in desperation, having corresponded unsuccessfully with a series of Home Office and then Justice Ministers on the Counter-Terrorist Check (CTC) forms that have to be submitted by Buddhist Prison Chaplains for the last four years, starting with Paul Goggins in March 2005 and continuing with Fiona Mactaggart, Patricia Scotland, Gerry Sutcliffe, and finally Philip Hunt. We still haven’t got a workable solution to the simple problem of dealing with CTC Application Forms quickly and effectively after much correspondence and hundreds if not thousands of hours spent on it by the Buddhist Prison Chaplaincy Angulimala (of which I have been Patron for some 23 years) and Government Departments. In the hope that it may give you some idea of the intractability of the matter, I attach a pdf of most of the correspondence I have had with all those Ministers.
The CTC forms contain sensitive personal information, yet the processing of them is casual in the extreme, as a few recent examples attached demonstrate. Forms get lost, and not infrequently they are ignored for six months, having then to be re-submitted. It doesn’t seem to be appreciated that Buddhist prison chaplains are providing a valuable service, and treating them in this way is disastrously demotivating. We were assured that the processing of the forms by Shared Servicing was going to solve the problem, but that hasn’t been realised. Maybe there isn’t anything wrong with the process itself, but there should be a very simple additional procedure, that the documents be kept in a file with a cover sheet, which the person responsible would sign and date. This would mean that if an official sat on the file for six months, you could tell who is to blame.
The Rt Hon Jack Straw MP,
Secretary of State for Justice and Lord Chancellor,
102 Petty France,
London SW1H 9AJ
Dharmachari Sunanda's experience so far:
June 2005
As part of the paperwork chase prior to a security audit, HMP Birmingham insist he complete a CTC form. He was already covered by the one submitted at the end of 2004, so he refused.
They said he had to resubmit the form as they did not have the 2004 one on file. He replied that they had no reason to keep the CTC form on file and it would be illegal to do so.
The matter was allowed to lapse
June 2007
He was aware that his CTC would expire at the end of 2007 but did not want to submit a form via HMP Birmingham unless they could assure him they were using a secure and auditable method of keeping the forms safe.
He emailed Sue Chapman, his line manager, in June 2007 telling her this. He had no reply, and she retired from the prison service December 2007.
January 2008
His CTC clearance had expired, and he heard nothing from the prison. He kept Ven Khemadhammo, Spiritual Director of the Buddhist Prison Chaplaincy, informed of his status.
February 2008
Ven Khemadhammo received a letter from Head of Prison Service, Phil Wheatley, referring in part to the Buddhist Chaplain at HMP Birmingham. Mr Wheatley said he has asked West Midlands Area Manager Sue McAlister to contact Dharmachari Sunanda, but she has not done so
Approx April 2008
Omar from Personnel asked him verbally a couple of times to give him a fresh CTC form; and indicates that he will personally keep it safe. He said he was waiting for a response from his line management first.
October 2008
Prior to another security audit, HMP Birmingham asked him to complete a CTC form, and he referred them to previous correspondence, especially that with Phil Wheatley.
November 2008
Rev Saido told him of a trial procedure that permits CTC to be submitted directly to Shared Services vetting team. He sent them a form on November 17, 2008, and informed HMP Birmingham accordingly.
December 2008
Shared Services return the form as he had signed it in only one of the two places necessary. He corrected this and sent it again.
February 2009
On February 27, Shared Services telephoned him with a query about the form and he answered, to their satisfaction.
April 2009
As of April 2, he has heard nothing more.
Ven. Phra Maha Sangthong Dhammacaro - Brixton
His completed CTC form and his nomination to be Buddhist chaplain to HMP Brixton was submitted through Brixton in July 2008. In January 2009 it was returned for him to sign again because it was six months old and therefore out of date. There has been no further word on any progress. The former Buddhist chaplain to Brixton resigned on April 27, 2008, after serving as Buddhist chaplain to Brixton for many years. He had been asked to complete a CTC form in 2007 and it had been lost. He complained to the Information Commissioner but with no result. Ven. Sangthong was ready to replace him immediately but it took until July to get his form properly filled in - he is Thai and was not immediately in possession of all the facts asked for - and submitted.
Jean Spinks - Bedford
Her completed CTC form and nomination to be Buddhist chaplain to HMP Bedford was submitted through Bedford in July 2008. It has since been returned for her to sign again because it was six months old and therefore out of date. Jean was also required to appear at the prison with her passport etc to submit to an identity check, this is normal procedure but it had to be on a Friday, because that was the only day that the person responsible for establishing identity since the disbanding of local personnel departments was available to do it. That meant that Jean had to take a day off work. Again, no further word on the progress of this CTC application.
Dh. Jayamitra (Julian Kreeger) - Pentonville.
On January 21st he wrote to Ven Khemadhammo:
Today I received back my CTC from the vetting service people in Newport, to be signed by me and dated again as the signatures are now more than 6 months old.(This is the original; when I went into Pentonville they had `lost` it, so I filled out another copy there). I`ll send it back to them today.
Actually it looks like it hadn't been lost but sent on to Shared Services but the person in Pentonville didn't know that, so now he has filled in another! Pentonville has been a very difficult prison to deal with and get anyone appointed to. To date, no further word.
020-7274 4617
ericavebury@gmail.com
ericavebury.blogspot.com
April 4, 2009
Dear Jack,
I’m turning to you in desperation, having corresponded unsuccessfully with a series of Home Office and then Justice Ministers on the Counter-Terrorist Check (CTC) forms that have to be submitted by Buddhist Prison Chaplains for the last four years, starting with Paul Goggins in March 2005 and continuing with Fiona Mactaggart, Patricia Scotland, Gerry Sutcliffe, and finally Philip Hunt. We still haven’t got a workable solution to the simple problem of dealing with CTC Application Forms quickly and effectively after much correspondence and hundreds if not thousands of hours spent on it by the Buddhist Prison Chaplaincy Angulimala (of which I have been Patron for some 23 years) and Government Departments. In the hope that it may give you some idea of the intractability of the matter, I attach a pdf of most of the correspondence I have had with all those Ministers.
The CTC forms contain sensitive personal information, yet the processing of them is casual in the extreme, as a few recent examples attached demonstrate. Forms get lost, and not infrequently they are ignored for six months, having then to be re-submitted. It doesn’t seem to be appreciated that Buddhist prison chaplains are providing a valuable service, and treating them in this way is disastrously demotivating. We were assured that the processing of the forms by Shared Servicing was going to solve the problem, but that hasn’t been realised. Maybe there isn’t anything wrong with the process itself, but there should be a very simple additional procedure, that the documents be kept in a file with a cover sheet, which the person responsible would sign and date. This would mean that if an official sat on the file for six months, you could tell who is to blame.
The Rt Hon Jack Straw MP,
Secretary of State for Justice and Lord Chancellor,
102 Petty France,
London SW1H 9AJ
Dharmachari Sunanda's experience so far:
June 2005
As part of the paperwork chase prior to a security audit, HMP Birmingham insist he complete a CTC form. He was already covered by the one submitted at the end of 2004, so he refused.
They said he had to resubmit the form as they did not have the 2004 one on file. He replied that they had no reason to keep the CTC form on file and it would be illegal to do so.
The matter was allowed to lapse
June 2007
He was aware that his CTC would expire at the end of 2007 but did not want to submit a form via HMP Birmingham unless they could assure him they were using a secure and auditable method of keeping the forms safe.
He emailed Sue Chapman, his line manager, in June 2007 telling her this. He had no reply, and she retired from the prison service December 2007.
January 2008
His CTC clearance had expired, and he heard nothing from the prison. He kept Ven Khemadhammo, Spiritual Director of the Buddhist Prison Chaplaincy, informed of his status.
February 2008
Ven Khemadhammo received a letter from Head of Prison Service, Phil Wheatley, referring in part to the Buddhist Chaplain at HMP Birmingham. Mr Wheatley said he has asked West Midlands Area Manager Sue McAlister to contact Dharmachari Sunanda, but she has not done so
Approx April 2008
Omar from Personnel asked him verbally a couple of times to give him a fresh CTC form; and indicates that he will personally keep it safe. He said he was waiting for a response from his line management first.
October 2008
Prior to another security audit, HMP Birmingham asked him to complete a CTC form, and he referred them to previous correspondence, especially that with Phil Wheatley.
November 2008
Rev Saido told him of a trial procedure that permits CTC to be submitted directly to Shared Services vetting team. He sent them a form on November 17, 2008, and informed HMP Birmingham accordingly.
December 2008
Shared Services return the form as he had signed it in only one of the two places necessary. He corrected this and sent it again.
February 2009
On February 27, Shared Services telephoned him with a query about the form and he answered, to their satisfaction.
April 2009
As of April 2, he has heard nothing more.
Ven. Phra Maha Sangthong Dhammacaro - Brixton
His completed CTC form and his nomination to be Buddhist chaplain to HMP Brixton was submitted through Brixton in July 2008. In January 2009 it was returned for him to sign again because it was six months old and therefore out of date. There has been no further word on any progress. The former Buddhist chaplain to Brixton resigned on April 27, 2008, after serving as Buddhist chaplain to Brixton for many years. He had been asked to complete a CTC form in 2007 and it had been lost. He complained to the Information Commissioner but with no result. Ven. Sangthong was ready to replace him immediately but it took until July to get his form properly filled in - he is Thai and was not immediately in possession of all the facts asked for - and submitted.
Jean Spinks - Bedford
Her completed CTC form and nomination to be Buddhist chaplain to HMP Bedford was submitted through Bedford in July 2008. It has since been returned for her to sign again because it was six months old and therefore out of date. Jean was also required to appear at the prison with her passport etc to submit to an identity check, this is normal procedure but it had to be on a Friday, because that was the only day that the person responsible for establishing identity since the disbanding of local personnel departments was available to do it. That meant that Jean had to take a day off work. Again, no further word on the progress of this CTC application.
Dh. Jayamitra (Julian Kreeger) - Pentonville.
On January 21st he wrote to Ven Khemadhammo:
Today I received back my CTC from the vetting service people in Newport, to be signed by me and dated again as the signatures are now more than 6 months old.(This is the original; when I went into Pentonville they had `lost` it, so I filled out another copy there). I`ll send it back to them today.
Actually it looks like it hadn't been lost but sent on to Shared Services but the person in Pentonville didn't know that, so now he has filled in another! Pentonville has been a very difficult prison to deal with and get anyone appointed to. To date, no further word.
Tuesday, April 07, 2009
More from the
South China Morning Post
UK set to make HK minorities citizens
1,000 BN(O) holders to get British abode
Ambrose Leung
Mar 31, 2009
Hundreds of stateless members of Hong Kong's ethnic minorities are set to gain full British citizenship, when peers in the UK decide tomorrow to relax an immigration rule which has stranded them in Hong Kong since the handover.
The amendments to the Borders, Citizenship and Immigration Bill will benefit mainly people of Nepali and South Asian origin, estimated to number about 1,000.
But the altered law will still bar Hong Kong Chinese holding British National (Overseas) passports from applying for full citizenship.
The two amendments, originally proposed by Lord Avebury, of the opposition Liberal Democrats, were adopted by the government and are now sponsored by the Labour Party's Home Office spokesman, Lord West of Spithead. They will open the door to people who were left stateless when, for various reasons, they failed to apply for full British citizenship before the handover.
Speaking from London, Lord Avebury, who has long campaigned for resolving what he called unfinished business left open by London before 1997, welcomed the British government's latest position.
"I am very happy indeed. In 1997, the government promised nobody would be stateless as a result of the handover. This is a fulfilment of the promise they made. We are just insisting they fulfil all their promises."
Lord Avebury estimated the number of people affected was about 1,000.
The expected change to the law would end one of what London has admitted is a series of "anomalies" in its immigration policies. Before the handover, about 8,000 British Dependent Territories Citizens (BDTC) - mostly former Gurkhas in the British forces and their descendants - were granted British citizenship. But some who applied, including those who did not fulfil the requirement of being ordinarily resident in Hong Kong on or before February 4, 1997, because they were abroad at the time either studying or as minors travelling with their parents, were denied citizenship.
They were given BN(O) passports - which carry no right of abode in Britain - after the BDTC passport expired at the handover. They include Nepalis who had renounced their nationality before seeking British citizenship, as Nepal did not recognise dual nationality. Being non-Chinese and unable to receive Chinese nationality they were considered "stateless" by the British, and some were only allowed to stay in Hong Kong at the government's discretion.
Lord Avebury expected the earliest date those concerned could apply for British citizenship would be in the summer, after the expected passage of the bill in the House of Lords, and expected endorsement in the House of Commons by the Labour majority.
He said it would rectify the problems left over by a 2002 law, which granted citizenship to British overseas citizens, British subjects and British protected persons but not to BN(O) holders. In Hong Kong, a spokesman for the British consulate said the move was intended to address "various anomalies" relating to the awarding of British citizenship. If passed, it would only cover a limited number of stateless people and would not confer British citizenship to anyone already eligible for nationality of another state.
Law Yuk-kai, director of Human Rights Monitor, said Britain "has a moral obligation to correct its mistakes, and should not leave behind its former subjects because of technical reasons". Ganesh Kumar Ijam, spokesman for the Hong Kong Nepalese Federation, said: "This would definitely be one more option for Nepalese to live and work in the UK. Whether they will go would depend on their individual judgments."
The Immigration Department said about 4,800 foreigners had applied for Hong Kong SAR passports in the past three years. Foreigners can renounce their nationality and apply to be naturalised as Chinese citizens.
Thousands may qualify under UK abode plan
Ambrose Leung
Apr 01, 2009
The number of stateless people belonging to ethnic minority groups in Hong Kong, who may become British citizens as a result of an imminent change in an immigration law, may reach into the thousands, the British government says.
This latest estimate by the British Home Office is higher than the original estimate by the politician pushing for changes to the Borders, Citizenship and Immigration Bill, which will be put to a vote today in the House of Lords.
Members of the Nepali community in Hong Kong welcomed the Labour government's adoption of the two amendments moved by Lord Avebury, of the Liberal Democrats.
They urged officials to state clearly who would be eligible if the bill was passed.
The South China Morning Post (SEHK: 0583, announcements, news) yesterday cited Lord Avebury's estimate of about 1,000 predominantly Nepali people who could benefit from the move. A spokesman for the British consulate said the number would not be too high.
"In practice, only a limited number of people will be eligible under these proposals," he said. "The Home Office believes that the numbers are in the thousands, not tens of thousands. Detailed eligibility criteria will be published after the law is passed."
If the amendments are passed - which is also likely to ensure support in the House of Commons because of the Labour majority, it would end one of what Britain has admitted is a series of "anomalies" in its immigration policies. Before the handover, about 8,000 British Dependent Territories Citizens (BDTC) - mostly former Gurkhas in the British forces and their descendants - were granted British citizenship.
But some who applied, including those who did not fulfil the requirement of being ordinarily resident in Hong Kong on or before February 4, 1997, were denied citizenship.
They were given British National (Overseas) passports - which carry no right of abode in Britain - after the BDTC passport expired at the handover. They included Nepalis who had renounced their nationality before seeking British citizenship. Being non-Chinese and unable to receive Chinese nationality, they were considered "stateless" by the British, with some allowed to stay in Hong Kong only at the government's discretion.
Ekraj Rai, chairman of the Hong Kong Minority Communities Association, called on the British government to clarify what he described as a very complex system of immigration regulations that had seen multiple amendments in past years.
Fermi Wong Wai-fun, director of Unison Hong Kong for Ethnic Equality and who works with Nepali groups, said the British government had a moral duty to cater for the rights of those who had previously served it in the colonies.
"The British should clarify who would be eligible as soon as possible," she said.
Lords back citizenship for BN(O) holders
Ambrose Leung
Apr 02, 2009
Peers in the House of Lords last night endorsed a long-desired change to British immigration law, which would open doors to Britain for thousands of Nepali and South Asian people currently living in Hong Kong.
The amendment to the Borders, Citizenship and Immigration Bill sought to give full British citizenship to a group of British National (Overseas) passports holders who do not have citizenship in any country.
Speaking in the debate, Lord Avebury, of the opposition Liberal Democrats, said he was grateful to the Labour government for adopting his amendment, which would solve the long-standing problem in the immigration system that left some of its former colonial subjects stateless.
"When transferring Hong Kong to the Chinese, the government did promise to leave nobody stateless. But in the end it did leave people stateless. This amendment now rectifies this anomaly," he said.
Lord Brett, speaking on behalf of Lord West of Spithead, the Labour government's Home Office spokesman who co-sponsored the amendment, said the amendment would "provide a new route" for BN(O) holders in Hong Kong who are stateless to become British citizens.
"I would confirm that was a relatively small number," he said, saying the figure to benefit would amount up to "thousands".
Last night the lords continued to debate and vote on the remaining clauses of the bill. Lord Avebury's other amendment which dealt with the transfer of citizenship by descent was withdrawn.
Lord Avebury expected the bill to be quickly passed by the Labour majority when it reaches the House of Commons. He said the application for citizenship could begin in the summer.
About 8,000 British Dependent Territories Citizens - mostly former Gurkhas in the British forces and their descendants - were granted British citizenship before the handover in 1997. But some, including those who did not fulfil the requirement of being ordinarily resident in Hong Kong on or before February 4, 1997, were denied citizenship.
South China Morning Post
UK set to make HK minorities citizens
1,000 BN(O) holders to get British abode
Ambrose Leung
Mar 31, 2009
Hundreds of stateless members of Hong Kong's ethnic minorities are set to gain full British citizenship, when peers in the UK decide tomorrow to relax an immigration rule which has stranded them in Hong Kong since the handover.
The amendments to the Borders, Citizenship and Immigration Bill will benefit mainly people of Nepali and South Asian origin, estimated to number about 1,000.
But the altered law will still bar Hong Kong Chinese holding British National (Overseas) passports from applying for full citizenship.
The two amendments, originally proposed by Lord Avebury, of the opposition Liberal Democrats, were adopted by the government and are now sponsored by the Labour Party's Home Office spokesman, Lord West of Spithead. They will open the door to people who were left stateless when, for various reasons, they failed to apply for full British citizenship before the handover.
Speaking from London, Lord Avebury, who has long campaigned for resolving what he called unfinished business left open by London before 1997, welcomed the British government's latest position.
"I am very happy indeed. In 1997, the government promised nobody would be stateless as a result of the handover. This is a fulfilment of the promise they made. We are just insisting they fulfil all their promises."
Lord Avebury estimated the number of people affected was about 1,000.
The expected change to the law would end one of what London has admitted is a series of "anomalies" in its immigration policies. Before the handover, about 8,000 British Dependent Territories Citizens (BDTC) - mostly former Gurkhas in the British forces and their descendants - were granted British citizenship. But some who applied, including those who did not fulfil the requirement of being ordinarily resident in Hong Kong on or before February 4, 1997, because they were abroad at the time either studying or as minors travelling with their parents, were denied citizenship.
They were given BN(O) passports - which carry no right of abode in Britain - after the BDTC passport expired at the handover. They include Nepalis who had renounced their nationality before seeking British citizenship, as Nepal did not recognise dual nationality. Being non-Chinese and unable to receive Chinese nationality they were considered "stateless" by the British, and some were only allowed to stay in Hong Kong at the government's discretion.
Lord Avebury expected the earliest date those concerned could apply for British citizenship would be in the summer, after the expected passage of the bill in the House of Lords, and expected endorsement in the House of Commons by the Labour majority.
He said it would rectify the problems left over by a 2002 law, which granted citizenship to British overseas citizens, British subjects and British protected persons but not to BN(O) holders. In Hong Kong, a spokesman for the British consulate said the move was intended to address "various anomalies" relating to the awarding of British citizenship. If passed, it would only cover a limited number of stateless people and would not confer British citizenship to anyone already eligible for nationality of another state.
Law Yuk-kai, director of Human Rights Monitor, said Britain "has a moral obligation to correct its mistakes, and should not leave behind its former subjects because of technical reasons". Ganesh Kumar Ijam, spokesman for the Hong Kong Nepalese Federation, said: "This would definitely be one more option for Nepalese to live and work in the UK. Whether they will go would depend on their individual judgments."
The Immigration Department said about 4,800 foreigners had applied for Hong Kong SAR passports in the past three years. Foreigners can renounce their nationality and apply to be naturalised as Chinese citizens.
Thousands may qualify under UK abode plan
Ambrose Leung
Apr 01, 2009
The number of stateless people belonging to ethnic minority groups in Hong Kong, who may become British citizens as a result of an imminent change in an immigration law, may reach into the thousands, the British government says.
This latest estimate by the British Home Office is higher than the original estimate by the politician pushing for changes to the Borders, Citizenship and Immigration Bill, which will be put to a vote today in the House of Lords.
Members of the Nepali community in Hong Kong welcomed the Labour government's adoption of the two amendments moved by Lord Avebury, of the Liberal Democrats.
They urged officials to state clearly who would be eligible if the bill was passed.
The South China Morning Post (SEHK: 0583, announcements, news) yesterday cited Lord Avebury's estimate of about 1,000 predominantly Nepali people who could benefit from the move. A spokesman for the British consulate said the number would not be too high.
"In practice, only a limited number of people will be eligible under these proposals," he said. "The Home Office believes that the numbers are in the thousands, not tens of thousands. Detailed eligibility criteria will be published after the law is passed."
If the amendments are passed - which is also likely to ensure support in the House of Commons because of the Labour majority, it would end one of what Britain has admitted is a series of "anomalies" in its immigration policies. Before the handover, about 8,000 British Dependent Territories Citizens (BDTC) - mostly former Gurkhas in the British forces and their descendants - were granted British citizenship.
But some who applied, including those who did not fulfil the requirement of being ordinarily resident in Hong Kong on or before February 4, 1997, were denied citizenship.
They were given British National (Overseas) passports - which carry no right of abode in Britain - after the BDTC passport expired at the handover. They included Nepalis who had renounced their nationality before seeking British citizenship. Being non-Chinese and unable to receive Chinese nationality, they were considered "stateless" by the British, with some allowed to stay in Hong Kong only at the government's discretion.
Ekraj Rai, chairman of the Hong Kong Minority Communities Association, called on the British government to clarify what he described as a very complex system of immigration regulations that had seen multiple amendments in past years.
Fermi Wong Wai-fun, director of Unison Hong Kong for Ethnic Equality and who works with Nepali groups, said the British government had a moral duty to cater for the rights of those who had previously served it in the colonies.
"The British should clarify who would be eligible as soon as possible," she said.
Lords back citizenship for BN(O) holders
Ambrose Leung
Apr 02, 2009
Peers in the House of Lords last night endorsed a long-desired change to British immigration law, which would open doors to Britain for thousands of Nepali and South Asian people currently living in Hong Kong.
The amendment to the Borders, Citizenship and Immigration Bill sought to give full British citizenship to a group of British National (Overseas) passports holders who do not have citizenship in any country.
Speaking in the debate, Lord Avebury, of the opposition Liberal Democrats, said he was grateful to the Labour government for adopting his amendment, which would solve the long-standing problem in the immigration system that left some of its former colonial subjects stateless.
"When transferring Hong Kong to the Chinese, the government did promise to leave nobody stateless. But in the end it did leave people stateless. This amendment now rectifies this anomaly," he said.
Lord Brett, speaking on behalf of Lord West of Spithead, the Labour government's Home Office spokesman who co-sponsored the amendment, said the amendment would "provide a new route" for BN(O) holders in Hong Kong who are stateless to become British citizens.
"I would confirm that was a relatively small number," he said, saying the figure to benefit would amount up to "thousands".
Last night the lords continued to debate and vote on the remaining clauses of the bill. Lord Avebury's other amendment which dealt with the transfer of citizenship by descent was withdrawn.
Lord Avebury expected the bill to be quickly passed by the Labour majority when it reaches the House of Commons. He said the application for citizenship could begin in the summer.
About 8,000 British Dependent Territories Citizens - mostly former Gurkhas in the British forces and their descendants - were granted British citizenship before the handover in 1997. But some, including those who did not fulfil the requirement of being ordinarily resident in Hong Kong on or before February 4, 1997, were denied citizenship.
Sunday, April 05, 2009
Saturday
Yesterday I spent editing a report on the Chittagong Hill Tracts (as co-chair of the Chittagong Hill Tracts Commission); constructing a letter to Jack Straw about security procedures in the prisons for visiting chaplains (as Patron of the Buddhist Prison Chaplaincy Angulimala); writing to two British aid workers in Colombia about an announcement of a change in our policy on Colombia; helping a neighbour who married a Japanese citizen when she was awaiting the outcome of an appeal against refusal of her application for an extension of leave to remain as a student, and writing to Home Office Minister Lord West to correct a point I made in one of the debates on Wednesday. I had misinterpreted a note, while I was sitting on the bench, about correspondence between the Scottish Justice Minister Kenny MacAskill and the Home Office Minister who deals with immigration, Phil Woolas MP.
The recess will allow me to prepare for a press conference on the human rights situation in Bahrain next Wednesday, and looking ahead a bit further, a seminar on Traveller accommodation in London in City Hall at the end of the month, as well as continuing to clear the piles of paper off the floor and make sure I've dealt with them!
Ping-pong with JW yesterday 1-1, cumulative score 100-95.
The recess will allow me to prepare for a press conference on the human rights situation in Bahrain next Wednesday, and looking ahead a bit further, a seminar on Traveller accommodation in London in City Hall at the end of the month, as well as continuing to clear the piles of paper off the floor and make sure I've dealt with them!
Ping-pong with JW yesterday 1-1, cumulative score 100-95.
Friday, April 03, 2009
Victoria came over today and did another blitz on the filing, cleared a lot of the papers off the floor, and rearranged a lot of the stuff, liberating quite a few boxes. We had a game of ping-pong before she left, which I won 2-0. Also had one game with JW which I won, but he defeated me 2-0 yesterday, making the total 99-94. JW has been working as a volunteer in Simon Hughes' office today.
Thursday, April 02, 2009
Borders, Citizenship & Immigration Bill
Yesterday was the second and final day of Report Stage of the Bill, in which our long-running campaign to secure gender equality of citizenship rights between children born abroad was finally brought to a successful conclusion. Now, it will make no difference to a child whether the claim is based on descent through the female or male line. That was in the Bill as drafted, but we also got some of what we wanted through amendments - the right to registration as a citizen of a minor born to a British citizen by descent, and another on the right of a British National (Overseas) who has no other citizenship to register s a British citizen. These amendments were tabled by the Government in response to our requests made earlier in the Bill, and over some years before that.
In addition, we and the Tories voting together won two major amendments, on the 'common travel area', and the transfer of judicial review cases from the High Court to the 'upper tribunal', though it is possible these victories will be reversed when the Bill gets to the Commons.
Apart from these changes to the text of the Bill, we also had an undertaking to consider further, our proposal to equalise the right of an illegitimate child who can prove their paternity, in circumstances where they would have been entitled to British citizenship if the father had been married to the mother. We also had a sympathetic response from the Minister, Bill Brett, on the citizenship rights of descendants of the Chagos Islanders, who were evicted from their homeland in 1969 to make way for a US base. The Government weren't prepared to give way, but said that discussions between the islanders' representatives and the Foreign Office could include questions of citizenship. We entered the caveat that if the offer is accepted, it should be without prejudice to their claim to be allowed to return.
There was also a promise to add a glossary of the technical terms used in the Bil, as there was in the draft Bill published last July.
The Bill implements an undertaking by the Government for the immigration service to safeguard and promote the welfare of children, as all other public authorities are already obliged to do under the Children Act 2004. But, inexplicably, the duty will only apply to officials in the UK, and not to either officials or contractors escorting families being deported, or at the detention centres we maintain in France and Belgium. We tried to put that right, but couldn't persuade the Tories to vote on it.
Finally, we got an undertaking right at the end, to discuss the position of the children born to British mothers and foreign fathers overseas, who are already being granted citizenship rights under Clause 43 of this Bill as a result of our earlier campaigning over many years, but who are on some other and inferior route to British citizenship. If there are deadlines in the latter process, how would they be allowed to put that process on hold, pending the coming into force of Clause 43? That's what we need to discuss with Ministers now.
In addition, we and the Tories voting together won two major amendments, on the 'common travel area', and the transfer of judicial review cases from the High Court to the 'upper tribunal', though it is possible these victories will be reversed when the Bill gets to the Commons.
Apart from these changes to the text of the Bill, we also had an undertaking to consider further, our proposal to equalise the right of an illegitimate child who can prove their paternity, in circumstances where they would have been entitled to British citizenship if the father had been married to the mother. We also had a sympathetic response from the Minister, Bill Brett, on the citizenship rights of descendants of the Chagos Islanders, who were evicted from their homeland in 1969 to make way for a US base. The Government weren't prepared to give way, but said that discussions between the islanders' representatives and the Foreign Office could include questions of citizenship. We entered the caveat that if the offer is accepted, it should be without prejudice to their claim to be allowed to return.
There was also a promise to add a glossary of the technical terms used in the Bil, as there was in the draft Bill published last July.
The Bill implements an undertaking by the Government for the immigration service to safeguard and promote the welfare of children, as all other public authorities are already obliged to do under the Children Act 2004. But, inexplicably, the duty will only apply to officials in the UK, and not to either officials or contractors escorting families being deported, or at the detention centres we maintain in France and Belgium. We tried to put that right, but couldn't persuade the Tories to vote on it.
Finally, we got an undertaking right at the end, to discuss the position of the children born to British mothers and foreign fathers overseas, who are already being granted citizenship rights under Clause 43 of this Bill as a result of our earlier campaigning over many years, but who are on some other and inferior route to British citizenship. If there are deadlines in the latter process, how would they be allowed to put that process on hold, pending the coming into force of Clause 43? That's what we need to discuss with Ministers now.
News from The Forest Hermitage
The March issue of the NewsLetter of the Ven Chao Khun Bhavanaviteht (Luangpor Khemadhammo) OBE is at www.foresthermitage.org.uk/nlmar09.pdf.
One of the matters referred to in the News and Musings is the extraordinary saga of the Buddhist Adviser to the Armed Forces, and the Endorsing Authority (EA) which was established to monitor this operation. The Ministry of Defence appointed Mr Ron Maddox as Adviser some years ago, and when he didn't like the agenda for an EA meeting, he wrote letters to the majority of the members purporting to dismiss them. The Minister, Kevan Jones MP, upheld this arbitrary action, saying that the appointment pf members of the EA was a matter for the Buddhist communities, though Mr Maddox hadn't consulted any of them. The representative organiation of the Buddhist Sangha (the body of monks) wrote protesting about the decision, but their views have been ignored by the Minister. The text of my latest letter (dated March 15) to the Minister follows, and awaits a response:
Thank you for your letter of February 27, ref D/Min(Veterans)/KJ MC00598/2009, about the Endorsing Authority for the Buddhist Prison Chaplaincy. Will you please let me have the names of the persons on the EA which has been appointed by Mr Ron Maddox, and how you reached the opinion that they represent a broad spectrum of Buddhist traditions – other than being assured of this by Mr Maddox himself?
You say that the appointment of Mr Maddox was made on the advice of the Buddhist Society, of which Mr Maddox was an official at the time. The Buddhist Society doesn’t ‘represent a broad spectrum of Buddhist traditions’ but has been run by a small inner circle for some years. Perhaps that helps to account for its declining membership and other internal problems. I used to be a member of the Society but discontinued my membership some years ago, after Christmas Humphreys died.
You now repeat, as you have said several times already, that the provision of a Religious Endorsing Authority is a matter for the Buddhist communities to agree on There was a working EA, and by your own logic there ought to have been consultation when Mr Maddox decided to write to the majority of its members purporting to dismiss them. Why did you not then say to Mr Maddox, as you keep reiterating to me, that the EA is a matter for the Buddhist communities? I agree with you, it shouldn’t be for one autocrat to decide or suddenly alter the composition of the EA, without any consultation whatsoever.
Equally, by the principle you say you are following, the appointment of Mr Maddox should be a matter for periodic consultation with the Buddhist communities. You haven’t responded to my challenging the permanence of this appointment, and I ask you to address that point now.
In the meanwhile, as I said in my last letter, since we have made no progress through private correspondence, I agreed with the Ven Khemadhammo Mahathera that your letter be made available to a wider circle of the Buddhist communities, and to this end he has placed your letter on his blog, accompanied by the attached comment. I am considering whether any additional means of disseminating the problem are needed, so that you may know whether ‘the Buddhist communities’ think there has been adequate consultation, either on the appointment of Mr Maddox as Buddhist Adviser t the Armed Forces, or his purported dismissal of members of the Endorsing Authority. In the meanwhile, I venture to hope that your letter of February 27 wasn’t your last word on the subject, and that you will now heed the advice we have been trying to offer, which I respectfully suggest is more representative than the advice your officials have taken so far.
One of the matters referred to in the News and Musings is the extraordinary saga of the Buddhist Adviser to the Armed Forces, and the Endorsing Authority (EA) which was established to monitor this operation. The Ministry of Defence appointed Mr Ron Maddox as Adviser some years ago, and when he didn't like the agenda for an EA meeting, he wrote letters to the majority of the members purporting to dismiss them. The Minister, Kevan Jones MP, upheld this arbitrary action, saying that the appointment pf members of the EA was a matter for the Buddhist communities, though Mr Maddox hadn't consulted any of them. The representative organiation of the Buddhist Sangha (the body of monks) wrote protesting about the decision, but their views have been ignored by the Minister. The text of my latest letter (dated March 15) to the Minister follows, and awaits a response:
Thank you for your letter of February 27, ref D/Min(Veterans)/KJ MC00598/2009, about the Endorsing Authority for the Buddhist Prison Chaplaincy. Will you please let me have the names of the persons on the EA which has been appointed by Mr Ron Maddox, and how you reached the opinion that they represent a broad spectrum of Buddhist traditions – other than being assured of this by Mr Maddox himself?
You say that the appointment of Mr Maddox was made on the advice of the Buddhist Society, of which Mr Maddox was an official at the time. The Buddhist Society doesn’t ‘represent a broad spectrum of Buddhist traditions’ but has been run by a small inner circle for some years. Perhaps that helps to account for its declining membership and other internal problems. I used to be a member of the Society but discontinued my membership some years ago, after Christmas Humphreys died.
You now repeat, as you have said several times already, that the provision of a Religious Endorsing Authority is a matter for the Buddhist communities to agree on There was a working EA, and by your own logic there ought to have been consultation when Mr Maddox decided to write to the majority of its members purporting to dismiss them. Why did you not then say to Mr Maddox, as you keep reiterating to me, that the EA is a matter for the Buddhist communities? I agree with you, it shouldn’t be for one autocrat to decide or suddenly alter the composition of the EA, without any consultation whatsoever.
Equally, by the principle you say you are following, the appointment of Mr Maddox should be a matter for periodic consultation with the Buddhist communities. You haven’t responded to my challenging the permanence of this appointment, and I ask you to address that point now.
In the meanwhile, as I said in my last letter, since we have made no progress through private correspondence, I agreed with the Ven Khemadhammo Mahathera that your letter be made available to a wider circle of the Buddhist communities, and to this end he has placed your letter on his blog, accompanied by the attached comment. I am considering whether any additional means of disseminating the problem are needed, so that you may know whether ‘the Buddhist communities’ think there has been adequate consultation, either on the appointment of Mr Maddox as Buddhist Adviser t the Armed Forces, or his purported dismissal of members of the Endorsing Authority. In the meanwhile, I venture to hope that your letter of February 27 wasn’t your last word on the subject, and that you will now heed the advice we have been trying to offer, which I respectfully suggest is more representative than the advice your officials have taken so far.
Sunday, March 29, 2009
Towton
Today is the 548th anniversary of the battle of Towton, fought in a snowstorm near the village of Towton in Yorkshire. The victor was Edward IV, then just short of 19 years old, and having only inherited the claim of his father Richard Duke of York to the throne 3 months earlier. That might be a cause for celebration, except that two Hothams, father and son, lost their lives on the Lancastrian side. It was estimated that 28,000 men died that day, the largest ever loss of life in a battle fought on English soil, see www.towton.org.uk/
Saturday, March 28, 2009
This week
Borders Bill Report stage was the main activity in the last week. Apart from the debate on the floor of the House on Wednesday, there were several meetings offline with the Government and the Conservative opposition. With the Tories, we (the LibDems) agreed to vote on transitional protection for some migrants already in the system when the citizenship clauses come into effect, but there are still flaws that will have to be addressed in the Commons. We didn't get as far as the concessions on minors and British National (Overseas) citizens, already agreed with the Government, and these will now be dealt with next Wednesday, together with some further improvements we have now suggested. Other controversial citizenship debates will be on the our proposal that the rights to citizenship of the Chagos Islanders and their children should be restored to what they would have been if they hadn't been kicked out of their homeland by our Government in 1969 to make way for an American base, and our attempt to delete the good character test the Government want to impose of 85 year old Hong Kong war wives or widows who apply for British citizenship. There may only be one eligible person still alive, which makes it all the more ridiculous.
One more ping-pong game with JW last weekend to be aded to the score: one all, making the cumulative total 98-92.
One more ping-pong game with JW last weekend to be aded to the score: one all, making the cumulative total 98-92.
Friday, March 20, 2009
Ping-pong
Today with a bit of sunshine and both of us at home in the daytime, was the first game of ping-pong with John William since my birthday last September. We played two games and I won the first 21-17. JW won he second after a hard fought battle which went back and forth at deuce for many rounds before I finally made a mistake. Cumulative score 97-91 to me.
Missed an appointment at the haematology department at King's this morning, a regular check to make sure there's no return of the lung cancer that was removed almost three years ago. Its very annoying to miss any appointment, and particularly when it means that it wastes the time of perhaps several highly qualified professionals as in this case. New appointment made for April 24, and various reminders created.
Missed an appointment at the haematology department at King's this morning, a regular check to make sure there's no return of the lung cancer that was removed almost three years ago. Its very annoying to miss any appointment, and particularly when it means that it wastes the time of perhaps several highly qualified professionals as in this case. New appointment made for April 24, and various reminders created.
Diary
Monday: Rosaline Costa and friends to lunch and general discussion of the situation in Bangladesh. Afterwards, intervened in a question on Zimbabwe [www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200809/ldhansrd/text/90316-0001.htm#0903167000525].
Tuesday: Lunch with Mike Steele and Siphewe Hlope, who runs a charity looking after orphans in Swaziland. Because of the HIV/AIDS epidemic in this poor country, and the lack of an effective national ARV programme, there are large numbers of orphans, and Ms Hlope helps them in the community. We talked about a project to fund an orphanage where the children could be given basic education as well as food and lodging, and the Silbury Fund is meeting soon to consider a proposal to award Ms Hlope the Silbury Prize to kick start the idea. Peter Hain, the chairman of the trustees, joined us for part of the discussion.
Later, I joined in Shirley Williams' Question on the UK's complicity in acts of torture [www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200809/ldhansrd/text/90317-0002.htm#09031759000289]. There is a steadily growing volume of evidence, and the Government are gradually being compelled to own up.
After that, a well-attended meeting organised by ABColombia to discuss the UK's policy in Colombia, at which Minister Gilliam Merron MP spoke. I buttonholed her afterwards about email correspondence from Colombia dealing with inititives by campesinos to peacefully organise against the paramilitaries and guerrillas who are constantly encroaching on their lands. There is no registration of land titles in the rural areas, and the UK is trying to help frame the necessary laws.
Then, a meeting to discuss Clause 52 of the Borders etc Bill, which controversially transfers jurisdiction over immigration case judicial review applications from the High Court to the 'Upper Tribunal', where they might be dealt with by a judge of lesser status and experience.
Wednesday, meeting with Minister Bill Brett to look at the amendments for Report stage of the Borders etc Bill. He is writing us a letter which may help to speed the proceedings up, to the extent that we can agree on certain matters we had argued at Committee stage.
Thursday, my own Question on the treatment of destitute asylum seekers, a scandal which has been highlighted repeatedly - most recently in a report which details graphic interviews with some of the victims. There are probably about 200,000 'legacy cases' of ancient failed asylum seekers, and the Government admits they won't all be reviewed until July 2011. Meanwhile they live a twilight existence on the edges of society, some of them working illegally for shamefully low wages.
Later, a meeting with Olivier Bancoult, Leader of the Chagos Refugees Group. They are backing our amendments to the Borders Bill, to give British citizenship to the islanders who would have been entitled to it if the Government hadn't evicted them from their homeland.
Tuesday: Lunch with Mike Steele and Siphewe Hlope, who runs a charity looking after orphans in Swaziland. Because of the HIV/AIDS epidemic in this poor country, and the lack of an effective national ARV programme, there are large numbers of orphans, and Ms Hlope helps them in the community. We talked about a project to fund an orphanage where the children could be given basic education as well as food and lodging, and the Silbury Fund is meeting soon to consider a proposal to award Ms Hlope the Silbury Prize to kick start the idea. Peter Hain, the chairman of the trustees, joined us for part of the discussion.
Later, I joined in Shirley Williams' Question on the UK's complicity in acts of torture [www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200809/ldhansrd/text/90317-0002.htm#09031759000289]. There is a steadily growing volume of evidence, and the Government are gradually being compelled to own up.
After that, a well-attended meeting organised by ABColombia to discuss the UK's policy in Colombia, at which Minister Gilliam Merron MP spoke. I buttonholed her afterwards about email correspondence from Colombia dealing with inititives by campesinos to peacefully organise against the paramilitaries and guerrillas who are constantly encroaching on their lands. There is no registration of land titles in the rural areas, and the UK is trying to help frame the necessary laws.
Then, a meeting to discuss Clause 52 of the Borders etc Bill, which controversially transfers jurisdiction over immigration case judicial review applications from the High Court to the 'Upper Tribunal', where they might be dealt with by a judge of lesser status and experience.
Wednesday, meeting with Minister Bill Brett to look at the amendments for Report stage of the Borders etc Bill. He is writing us a letter which may help to speed the proceedings up, to the extent that we can agree on certain matters we had argued at Committee stage.
Thursday, my own Question on the treatment of destitute asylum seekers, a scandal which has been highlighted repeatedly - most recently in a report which details graphic interviews with some of the victims. There are probably about 200,000 'legacy cases' of ancient failed asylum seekers, and the Government admits they won't all be reviewed until July 2011. Meanwhile they live a twilight existence on the edges of society, some of them working illegally for shamefully low wages.
Later, a meeting with Olivier Bancoult, Leader of the Chagos Refugees Group. They are backing our amendments to the Borders Bill, to give British citizenship to the islanders who would have been entitled to it if the Government hadn't evicted them from their homeland.
Saturday, March 14, 2009
Events this week
Tuesday was the fourth last day on Committee of the Borders, Citizenshp & Immigration Bill. For the few who are interested in the process rather than the outcome, it begins at www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200809/ldhansrd/text/90310-0012.htm#090310145000274.
Maybe it doesn't look as though we got what we were asking for, but on Friday we had a very useful meeting with officials on our citizenship amendments, and next week there is a further meeting with the Minister, to see if we can agree on some issues before the first day on Report, March 25.
Wednesday Lindsay and I went to the second annual Orpington Circle dinner at the National Liberal Club. This is a great initiative by Paul Hunt, the Club Chairman, to raise funds to fight by-elections, and already it has given worthwhile support to candidates in six by-elections. Charles Kennedy was the excellent maon speaker; I proposed the health of candidates past and future, and David Chigey proposed the vote of thanks, all under the benign chairmanship of Tom McNally, our leader in the Lords.
There were a lot of old friends there including veterans of the 1962 campaign, and on of them suggested that it would be fun at the next dinner, to have a table with any memorabilia that could be collected of March 14, 1962, 47 years ago today. I'm going to ransack my ancient files to see what can dig up.
Thursday I had an interesting meeting to discuss the situation of Buddhist monasteries in the Chittagong Hill Tracts of Bangladesh. It would be good to see what could be done to help them financially, and I'm thinking about that.
Maybe it doesn't look as though we got what we were asking for, but on Friday we had a very useful meeting with officials on our citizenship amendments, and next week there is a further meeting with the Minister, to see if we can agree on some issues before the first day on Report, March 25.
Wednesday Lindsay and I went to the second annual Orpington Circle dinner at the National Liberal Club. This is a great initiative by Paul Hunt, the Club Chairman, to raise funds to fight by-elections, and already it has given worthwhile support to candidates in six by-elections. Charles Kennedy was the excellent maon speaker; I proposed the health of candidates past and future, and David Chigey proposed the vote of thanks, all under the benign chairmanship of Tom McNally, our leader in the Lords.
There were a lot of old friends there including veterans of the 1962 campaign, and on of them suggested that it would be fun at the next dinner, to have a table with any memorabilia that could be collected of March 14, 1962, 47 years ago today. I'm going to ransack my ancient files to see what can dig up.
Thursday I had an interesting meeting to discuss the situation of Buddhist monasteries in the Chittagong Hill Tracts of Bangladesh. It would be good to see what could be done to help them financially, and I'm thinking about that.
Letter in South China Morning Post
Britain must resolve issue of stateless people
Updated on Mar 14, 2009
We refer to the report regarding the amendment to the Borders, Citizenship and Immigration Bill to give BN(O)s an entitlement to register as British citizens ("Britain debates citizenship for BN(O) holders", March 9).
The amendment inserts British Nationals (Overseas) into section 4B of the British Nationality Act 1981. That provision to obtain full British citizenship requires applicants to hold no nationality other than British nationality. The amendment will not, as was claimed, affect the 3.5 million BN(O)s who are Chinese citizens.
The amendment would cover only BN(O)s from the ethnic minorities who are not properly catered for by the British Nationality (Hong Kong) Act 1997.
In the debate, it was reiterated that Britain has made people de facto stateless and reneged on firm commitments made to them for their children to have a nationality. In February 1997, the home secretary announced that the solely British ethnic minorities would be allowed "to apply for registration as British citizens, giving them right of abode in the United Kingdom, after 30 June 1997". The prime minister subsequently confirmed this adding that they were potentially stateless and that they would now have a nationality.
Referring to the ethnic minorities, the present lord high chancellor and secretary of state for justice said in February 1997 that "A BN(O) passport carries with it the right of abode nowhere. The claim that this amounts to British nationality is pure sophistry. Common sense and common humanity demand that we give these people full British citizenship."
British law penalises BN(O)s seeking British citizenship by imposing stricter requirements on them compared to people who failed to get a BN(O) passport and became British Overseas citizens.
The amendment would remove that penalty. It will also equalise the position of BN(O) parents whose children born after the handover can acquire British citizenship but who cannot register as British citizens themselves. As Lord Hylton said during the debate, "statelessness is a very severe disability". Britain must set the position right and accept its nationals who are de facto stateless. In 2002 we did this for British Overseas citizens, British subjects and British protected persons (including those from Hong Kong). BN(O)s were excluded because they were supposedly "adequately catered for". However, there are BN(O)s who hold no other nationality yet cannot register for British citizenship.
Lord Avebury, Tameem A. Ebrahim, London
Copyright © 2009 South China Morning Post Publishers Ltd. All right reserved
Updated on Mar 14, 2009
We refer to the report regarding the amendment to the Borders, Citizenship and Immigration Bill to give BN(O)s an entitlement to register as British citizens ("Britain debates citizenship for BN(O) holders", March 9).
The amendment inserts British Nationals (Overseas) into section 4B of the British Nationality Act 1981. That provision to obtain full British citizenship requires applicants to hold no nationality other than British nationality. The amendment will not, as was claimed, affect the 3.5 million BN(O)s who are Chinese citizens.
The amendment would cover only BN(O)s from the ethnic minorities who are not properly catered for by the British Nationality (Hong Kong) Act 1997.
In the debate, it was reiterated that Britain has made people de facto stateless and reneged on firm commitments made to them for their children to have a nationality. In February 1997, the home secretary announced that the solely British ethnic minorities would be allowed "to apply for registration as British citizens, giving them right of abode in the United Kingdom, after 30 June 1997". The prime minister subsequently confirmed this adding that they were potentially stateless and that they would now have a nationality.
Referring to the ethnic minorities, the present lord high chancellor and secretary of state for justice said in February 1997 that "A BN(O) passport carries with it the right of abode nowhere. The claim that this amounts to British nationality is pure sophistry. Common sense and common humanity demand that we give these people full British citizenship."
British law penalises BN(O)s seeking British citizenship by imposing stricter requirements on them compared to people who failed to get a BN(O) passport and became British Overseas citizens.
The amendment would remove that penalty. It will also equalise the position of BN(O) parents whose children born after the handover can acquire British citizenship but who cannot register as British citizens themselves. As Lord Hylton said during the debate, "statelessness is a very severe disability". Britain must set the position right and accept its nationals who are de facto stateless. In 2002 we did this for British Overseas citizens, British subjects and British protected persons (including those from Hong Kong). BN(O)s were excluded because they were supposedly "adequately catered for". However, there are BN(O)s who hold no other nationality yet cannot register for British citizenship.
Lord Avebury, Tameem A. Ebrahim, London
Copyright © 2009 South China Morning Post Publishers Ltd. All right reserved
Thursday, March 12, 2009
Orpington Circle Dinner
The picture is of the guests at the National Liberal Club last night, for the Second annual Dinner of the Orpington Circle, whose raison d'etere is ti support LibDem candidates at by-elections. From left to right, the Rt Hon Charles Kennedy MP, who was the principal speaker; Lord (David) Chidgey, who thanked the hosts on behalf of the guests; the Rev Paul Hunt, Chairman of the Club, me (I proposed the health of 'Liberal, SDP and LibDem by-election candidates, past, present and future'; Baroness (Lindsay) Northover; The Rt Hon Lord (Tom) Mcnally, Leader of the LibvDems in the Lords, and Baroness (Susan) Garden. It was a jolly evening with a lot of old friends, some of them veterans of the 1962 by-election!
Monday, March 09, 2009
South China Morning Post
The SCMP today reports the debate we had last week on Hong King British National (Overseas) citizens, but on the front page may have added to the confusion that I know already exists, by suggesting that 3.5 million people might benefit from our amendment to the Borders, Citizenship and Immigration Bill. We are talking about the BN(O)s who don't have any other citizenship, so we're not including the ethnic Chinese BN(O)s, who almost in every case became Chinese at the time of the handover.
I'm waiting for the call from Lord Brett's office about the meeting he promised last Wednesday, to discuss all our amendments dealing with citizenship, with the inference that the Government would accept all or some of them. The offer was unfortunately a little ambiguous, so I wrote to the Minister after last Wednesday's sitting in the hope of clearing up any possible misunderstandings beforehand:
From Lord Avebury
020-7274 4617
ericavebury@gmail.com
ericavebury.blogspot.com
March 5, 2009
Dear Bill,
You very kindly offered to discuss our amendments to Part 2 of the Borders etc Bill, in your reply to the first amendment yesterday, on the Ilois, and we were happy to accept this. However, so that there can be no misunderstanding about the basis of our discussions, I thought it would be as well if I reiterated what I had already said on the floor of the Committee, that we don’t believe that the changes we consider essential can be achieved by the exercise of discretion under S 3(1) of the1981 Act, but only by amendments to primary legislation. This must have been clear to the Government before you made the offer yesterday, particularly from what I said on the second day of Committee, amendment 608, extract attached for ease of reference . So I’m assuming that we will be able to review the various amendments we tabled to Part 2, with the expectation of either getting them approved at Report, or of the Government tabling their own amendments to achieve equivalent results.
I’m sure there is no need to recapitulate all the points made on Part 2, but you will be aware that most of them were tabled on the advice of ILPA, and I attach a copy of a helpful note from their General Secretary Ms Alison Harvey summarising the issues, which we understand has also been copied to your officials.
For good measure I also attach a note on the meeting of the Chagos APPG with Gillian Merron MP, Under-Secretary of State, the timing of which unfortunately clashed with the Chagos amendment. The formation of this Group demonstrates that there is widespread concern about the Government’s obligations to the Chagossians, and the citizenship provisions we proposed in our amendment are better than no bread!
The Lord Brett,
Government Whips Office,
House of Lords,
London SW1A 0PW
C The Lord West of Spithead GCB DSC
I'm waiting for the call from Lord Brett's office about the meeting he promised last Wednesday, to discuss all our amendments dealing with citizenship, with the inference that the Government would accept all or some of them. The offer was unfortunately a little ambiguous, so I wrote to the Minister after last Wednesday's sitting in the hope of clearing up any possible misunderstandings beforehand:
From Lord Avebury
020-7274 4617
ericavebury@gmail.com
ericavebury.blogspot.com
March 5, 2009
Dear Bill,
You very kindly offered to discuss our amendments to Part 2 of the Borders etc Bill, in your reply to the first amendment yesterday, on the Ilois, and we were happy to accept this. However, so that there can be no misunderstanding about the basis of our discussions, I thought it would be as well if I reiterated what I had already said on the floor of the Committee, that we don’t believe that the changes we consider essential can be achieved by the exercise of discretion under S 3(1) of the1981 Act, but only by amendments to primary legislation. This must have been clear to the Government before you made the offer yesterday, particularly from what I said on the second day of Committee, amendment 608, extract attached for ease of reference . So I’m assuming that we will be able to review the various amendments we tabled to Part 2, with the expectation of either getting them approved at Report, or of the Government tabling their own amendments to achieve equivalent results.
I’m sure there is no need to recapitulate all the points made on Part 2, but you will be aware that most of them were tabled on the advice of ILPA, and I attach a copy of a helpful note from their General Secretary Ms Alison Harvey summarising the issues, which we understand has also been copied to your officials.
For good measure I also attach a note on the meeting of the Chagos APPG with Gillian Merron MP, Under-Secretary of State, the timing of which unfortunately clashed with the Chagos amendment. The formation of this Group demonstrates that there is widespread concern about the Government’s obligations to the Chagossians, and the citizenship provisions we proposed in our amendment are better than no bread!
The Lord Brett,
Government Whips Office,
House of Lords,
London SW1A 0PW
C The Lord West of Spithead GCB DSC
Thursday, March 05, 2009
Update
There hasn't been much time to enter stuff on the blog since returning from Bangladesh the Monday before last, with three days Committee on Borders, Citizenship and Immigration, but anybody who is interested in the arcane mysteriesof the law on these subjects can find the debates in Hansard:
www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200809/ldhansrd/text/90225-0002.htm#09022571000369
www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200809/ldhansrd/text/90302-0002.htm#0903028000443
www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200809/ldhansrd/text/90304-0002.htm#09030469000370
A correspondent with three law degrees said she had followed the first day on Committee and couldn't make head or tail of what was being discussed, and how on earth could practitioners, still less persons subject to immigration control, be expected to understand the legislation. The Government say that one of their objectives is to simplify the law on nationality and immigration, but in fact with every new Bill and the dozens of statutory instruments and codes of guidance, it is being made steadily more complex and abstruse. Worse, because so much is being done by Orders which can only be rejected or accepted, and by these codes which aren't subject to any oversight by either the Commons or Lords, Parliamentary control is being steadily whittled away.
Yesterday, the Government had wanted to complete the Committee stage on the Bill, but the Tories declined to continue after the amendment being discussed at 22.oo was disposed of. We are meant to work what is laughingly called 'family friendly hours' these days, and the unwritten definition includes finishing at around 22.00. But when we did rise at 22.10 last night three were only three or four groups of amendments left, and they could easily have been covered in less than an hour if the Tories hadn't been so keen to go home.
Personally, I would have been happy to continue, though I had started the working day with EU Select Committee at 10.30 in the morning.
The Sub-Committee I'm on is dealing with money laundering, and we were taking evidence from the Law Society, the British Bankers Association and the Chartered Accountants. Obviously there is a lot of it about,with tens of thousands of 'Suspicious Activities Reports' being made annually. This imposes significant burdens on professionals and their clients, and it isn't easy to say whether the process is cost-effective, or whether a better methodology for detecting crimes involving money transfers, including terrorist offences, could be devised.
This morning I attended the urology outpatients at King's to have an internal bladder scan, as part of the investigation of my enlarged prostate, a very common problem with men over a certain age. I would have been able to post a photograph of the inside of my bladder, but Lindsay has confiscated the pictures. I'm working on getting it back so watch this space. Next step is an ultrasound scan, also destined for the blog, and when it happens I'll be careful not to leave the picture lying around. Anyway, the bottom line from this test today was that there was nothing to worry about.
www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200809/ldhansrd/text/90225-0002.htm#09022571000369
www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200809/ldhansrd/text/90302-0002.htm#0903028000443
www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200809/ldhansrd/text/90304-0002.htm#09030469000370
A correspondent with three law degrees said she had followed the first day on Committee and couldn't make head or tail of what was being discussed, and how on earth could practitioners, still less persons subject to immigration control, be expected to understand the legislation. The Government say that one of their objectives is to simplify the law on nationality and immigration, but in fact with every new Bill and the dozens of statutory instruments and codes of guidance, it is being made steadily more complex and abstruse. Worse, because so much is being done by Orders which can only be rejected or accepted, and by these codes which aren't subject to any oversight by either the Commons or Lords, Parliamentary control is being steadily whittled away.
Yesterday, the Government had wanted to complete the Committee stage on the Bill, but the Tories declined to continue after the amendment being discussed at 22.oo was disposed of. We are meant to work what is laughingly called 'family friendly hours' these days, and the unwritten definition includes finishing at around 22.00. But when we did rise at 22.10 last night three were only three or four groups of amendments left, and they could easily have been covered in less than an hour if the Tories hadn't been so keen to go home.
Personally, I would have been happy to continue, though I had started the working day with EU Select Committee at 10.30 in the morning.
The Sub-Committee I'm on is dealing with money laundering, and we were taking evidence from the Law Society, the British Bankers Association and the Chartered Accountants. Obviously there is a lot of it about,with tens of thousands of 'Suspicious Activities Reports' being made annually. This imposes significant burdens on professionals and their clients, and it isn't easy to say whether the process is cost-effective, or whether a better methodology for detecting crimes involving money transfers, including terrorist offences, could be devised.
This morning I attended the urology outpatients at King's to have an internal bladder scan, as part of the investigation of my enlarged prostate, a very common problem with men over a certain age. I would have been able to post a photograph of the inside of my bladder, but Lindsay has confiscated the pictures. I'm working on getting it back so watch this space. Next step is an ultrasound scan, also destined for the blog, and when it happens I'll be careful not to leave the picture lying around. Anyway, the bottom line from this test today was that there was nothing to worry about.
Tuesday, March 03, 2009
Friday, February 27, 2009
Dinner for octogenarians
Dinner last night for the four LibDem peers who got to 80 in the last year, a terrific occasion with lots of friends and colleagues, and our Leader in the Lords, Tom McNally, as an urbane and witty master of ceremonies. The other ancients are Bill Ridgers, Dick Taverne and Geoff Tordoff. We're only a little on the wrong side of the average age of the Lords, now 69, and as I always say, 'old' is ten years older than me.
Thursday, February 26, 2009
Moanoghar, February 22, 2009
Moanoghar was founded in 1974 in Rangapani, Rangmati Hill Tracts by a group of socially engaged Buddhist monks and laypersons, to provide shelter and education to children in distress and misery, victims from the construction of the Kaptai hydro-electric dam in 1960s and the liberation war in 1971. It continues to provide shelter, foods, clothes, general and vocational education and primary health care to about 600 indigenous poor, orphan and destitute children of CHT. Its message of tolerance, compassion and mutual understanding reflects the traditions and heritage of the CHT and its indigenous people.
Tuesday, February 24, 2009
Bangladesh visit last week
Chittagong Hill Tracts International Commission
Bangladesh Secretariat: 10/11, Iqbal Road, Mohammadpur, Dhaka 1207
chtcomm@gmail.com
www.chtcommission.org
Embargoed until: 12pm, 22 February 2009
THE CHITTAGONG HILL TRACTS COMMISSION
CONCLUDES SECOND MISSION
February 16-22, 2009
PRESS RELEASE
The CHT Commission, re-constituted in 2008, has today concluded its second mission in Bangladesh. This mission has focused on engaging the Government to include concrete and time-bound actions for the full implementation of the CHT Accord of 1997 in its work programme, and to address ongoing human rights concerns in the CHT.
Accordingly the Mission held high-level meetings with the Prime Minister and concerned Ministers, the Attorney General, the Army Chief and the National Human Rights Commission. It also met Members of Parliament, political party and civil society representatives and interviewed victims of human rights violations among the Hill peoples.
The Commission is putting forward preliminary recommendations to the Government for immediate consideration, focused upon enhancing the powers of the civil administration in the CHT, protecting human rights and ensuring access to justice in the CHT, activating the Land Commission and addressing the issue of voluntary relocation of settlers from the CHT. More detailed reports and recommendations will be issued as the Commission continues with its work.
BACKGROUND
On 31 May and 1 June, 2008, at a meeting of experts in Copenhagen, Denmark, it was decided to re-establish the Chittagong Hill Tracts Commission (CHTC) in view of the situation in the Chittagong Hill Tracts, Bangladesh with the following mandate:
"To promote respect for human rights, democracy and restoration of civil and judicial rights in the CHT in Bangladesh, including examination of the implementation of the CHT Accord of 1997. The CHT Commission will build on the work by the first CHT Commission (1990-2001)."
The Commission was then re-constituted with twelve members from Bangladesh and abroad, and is co-chaired by Lord Eric Avebury (United Kingdom), Ms. Sultana Kamal (Bangladesh) and Dr. Ida Nicolaisen (Denmark).
The re-constituted Commission held its first visit to Bangladesh from 6–14 August, 2008, with the aim of becoming familiar with the situation in the CHT, holding initial meetings with concerned parties and seeking their input into possible actions to be taken and recommendations to be made by the Commission. It also directly receivedcomplaints on land and human rights violations in the CHT.
The Commission carried out its second visit from 16-22 February, 2009, following the holding of parliamentary elections in December 2008, and a pledge made by the new Government, led by the Awami League, to fully implement the CHT Accord.[1] The objective of this mission was first and foremost to inform the newly elected government about the Commission’s concerns and urge it to take concrete and time-bound measures for the full implementation of the Accord, and to address ongoing human rights violations in the CHT on an urgent basis.
Commission members attended meetings with the Prime Minister and newly appointed Ministers (Foreign Affairs, Law Justice and Parliamentary Affairs, Food and Disaster Management, Local Government and Rural Development, Industries, CHT Affairs), the Chief of Army Staff, the Attorney General, the National Human Rights Commission, representatives of political parties, UN Agencies, and civil society members including journalists, lawyers and academics. They also conducted field visits to Khagrachari and Rangamati distiicts interviewing and holding discussions with both Paharis and Bengalis, including victims of human rights violations and forcible land grabbing. [For the full list, see Annex 1.]
RECOMMENDATIONS
Enhancing powers of the civil administration
The CHT Commission agrees with the Government that the problems of the CHT are primarily political in nature and therefore demand political rather than military solutions.
Functions now undertaken, exceptionally, by the miliary, which are normally performed by civilian agencies such as development projects and any other activities not requiring specific military skills, should be transferred to the civil administration and to institutions set up by the Peace Accord.
The Commission is concerned about the scope and ambit of Operation Uttoron, currently ongoing in the CHT, not being publicly available or known. The executive order authorising this Operation reportedly confers on the military rights to intervene in civil matters beyond their proper jurisdiction. We therefore cal on the Government to publicise the text of the order for public scrutiny and review the executive order judiociously in the public interest.
While some reduction in the military forces stationed in the CHT occured immediately after the signing of the Accord, the Commission would like to see the phased withdrawal of troops as mentioned in the Accord to be completed within a declared timeframe, as soon as is logistically feasible.
The Commission notes the Government's call to end impunity and assert due process and recommends that in the same spirit the issue of impunity for human rights violations in the CHT should be addressed by holding investigations into these incidents, and where sufficient evidence exists, bringing those responsible to trial.
Human Rights and Access to Justice
Considering the prevalence of violence against women in the CHT, as in the rest of the country, the Commission recommends that priority be given to activating the Nari o Shishu Nirjaton Domon (Suppression of Violence against Women and Children) Tribunals in every district of the CHT. There also need to be steps taken to activate government legal services in the region, and to develop an effective public information and education program so that victims and witnesses of human rights and crimes, in particular violence against women, areable to access legal remedies.
In view of the announcement that the Government will review vexatious cases, the Commission would urge that such review is conducted by an impartial and accountable body, and further that effective redress and reparations are made available to the affected persons.
Participation in Decision Making and Elections
In order to promote participation of indigenous peoples in decision making,measures need to be taken so that institutions such as HDCs effectively represent them. Measures therefore need to be takento ensure that HDC elections are held as soon as possible.Once the process described in the above paragraph on land has been completed, elections to the Hill District Councils should be held immediately. In the meanwhile, the representative character of the Hill District Councils couldbe improved by co-opting members of the smaller ethnic minorities in the area.
Compatibility of Legislation and Accord
The Government should review the compatibility of existing laws and procedures with the Accord
The Land Commission
There is a backlog of land related problems in the CHT such as the failure to record titles to land allotted to indigenous peoples, implement the provisions for resettlement and rehabilitation of repatriated Pahari refugees, cancel illegally occupied lands and unnecessary land acquistions involving forcible eviction of the Hill peoples. The Land Commission was proposed by the Peace Accord to resolve these disputes and its functioning is a critical precondition for the implementation of other aspects of the peace treaty such as the survey and updating of land records and proper compilation of the Hill District Councils' voter lists, all of which would contribute to the attainment of peace and stability in the region.
The Government of Bangladesh should activate the Land Disputes Resolution Commission and provide it with the necessary means to resolve land disputes with effectiveness and justice, as stipulated in the 1997 Accord.
It should also commission an immmediate pilot study by independent consultants, in one Upazila of each of the three Hill Districts, to determine the nature and extent of disputed titles, and the resources of logistics and manpower needed for the full-scale operation.
Voluntary Relocation of Bengali Settlers to the Plains
During the field visit of the CHT Commission, many Bengali settlers expressed their desire to leave their miserable living conditions and return to the plains districts, particularly if given conducive assistance by the government. The voluntary withdrawal of a section of the settlers would simultaneously reduce population pressure in the CHT and release the occupied lands of the Hill peoples, contributing critically to the peace and stability of the region.
The Commission therefore urges the government to undertake a viable process of voluntary relocation of Bengali settlers from the CHT to the plains, which protects their dignity and facilitates their proper rehabilitation, making use of a judicious blend of incentives and disincentives. The extent to which settlers would be receptive to such an approach should be pilot tested, as part of the pilot survey in three Upazilas mentioned above.
The settlers willing to undertake voluntary relocation should be provided with free rations for three years at their new location, with additional support in terms of cash grants, employment and training opportunities and transportation. This offer of assistance should be initially made available for a limited period such as one year, with the possibility of further extension. In parallel, the unduly prolonged provision of free rations to Bengali settlers in the CHT should be phased out with due notice, within a year or two. No new facilities and material incentives should be provided to Bengali settlers or new migrants in the CHT by the Government and all such existing arrangements should be discontinued for those not taking up the offer of voluntary relocation and deciding to stay on in the CHT. Restitution of illegally occupied lands of the Hill peoples by Land Commission would provide immense encouragement to the process of voluntary relocation, while releasing resources for their resettlement activities.
The post of Minister for the CHT should be upgraded to full Miniserial status.
The Government of Bangladesh is urged to withdraw its reservations against internationally agreed treaties and conventions for public welfare including ICCPR, ICESCR, CERD, CEDAW, CAT and CRC.
Annex 1:
CHT Commission's Second Visit: 16-22 February 2009
LIST OF MEETINGS
• Sheikh Hasina Wazed, Prime Minister
• Dr. Dipu Moni, Minister, Ministry of Foreign Affairs
• Dr. Abdur Razzaque, Minister, Ministry of Food and Disaster Management
• Mr. Rezaul Karim Hira, Minister, Ministry of Land
• Mr. Dipankar Talukdar, State Minister, Ministry of Chittagong Hill Tracts Affairs
• Barrister Shafiq Ahmed, Minister, Ministry of Law, Justice and Parliamentary Affairs
• Mr. Syed Ashraful Islam, Minister, Ministry of LGRD
• Mr. Dilip Barua , Minister, Ministry of Industry
• General Moyeen U. Ahmed, Chief of the Bangladesh Army
• Mr. Mahbubey Alam, Attorney General
• National Human Rights Commission
• Members of Parliament
• Political parties
o Bangladesh Nationalist Party
o Parbotto Chottogram Jono Shonghoti Shomiti (PCJSS)
o United Peoples' Democratic Front(UPDF)
o Workers' Party
• Journalists
• Civil Society
• Donor Agencies
• UNDP
• European Commission
________________________________________
[1] The Delegation of the Commission on the Second Mission, comprised Lord Eric Avebury and Ms. Sultana Kamal (Co-Chairs); Dr. Shapan Adnan, Ms Sara Hossain and Professor Hideaki Uemura (Members); Dr. Meghna Guhathakurta (Advisor); Ms Yuko Shiba (Ressource Person); Ms. Christina Nilsson, Coordinator, Ms. Shirin Lira, and Ms. Midori Matsuda (Secretariat).
Bangladesh Secretariat: 10/11, Iqbal Road, Mohammadpur, Dhaka 1207
chtcomm@gmail.com
www.chtcommission.org
Embargoed until: 12pm, 22 February 2009
THE CHITTAGONG HILL TRACTS COMMISSION
CONCLUDES SECOND MISSION
February 16-22, 2009
PRESS RELEASE
The CHT Commission, re-constituted in 2008, has today concluded its second mission in Bangladesh. This mission has focused on engaging the Government to include concrete and time-bound actions for the full implementation of the CHT Accord of 1997 in its work programme, and to address ongoing human rights concerns in the CHT.
Accordingly the Mission held high-level meetings with the Prime Minister and concerned Ministers, the Attorney General, the Army Chief and the National Human Rights Commission. It also met Members of Parliament, political party and civil society representatives and interviewed victims of human rights violations among the Hill peoples.
The Commission is putting forward preliminary recommendations to the Government for immediate consideration, focused upon enhancing the powers of the civil administration in the CHT, protecting human rights and ensuring access to justice in the CHT, activating the Land Commission and addressing the issue of voluntary relocation of settlers from the CHT. More detailed reports and recommendations will be issued as the Commission continues with its work.
BACKGROUND
On 31 May and 1 June, 2008, at a meeting of experts in Copenhagen, Denmark, it was decided to re-establish the Chittagong Hill Tracts Commission (CHTC) in view of the situation in the Chittagong Hill Tracts, Bangladesh with the following mandate:
"To promote respect for human rights, democracy and restoration of civil and judicial rights in the CHT in Bangladesh, including examination of the implementation of the CHT Accord of 1997. The CHT Commission will build on the work by the first CHT Commission (1990-2001)."
The Commission was then re-constituted with twelve members from Bangladesh and abroad, and is co-chaired by Lord Eric Avebury (United Kingdom), Ms. Sultana Kamal (Bangladesh) and Dr. Ida Nicolaisen (Denmark).
The re-constituted Commission held its first visit to Bangladesh from 6–14 August, 2008, with the aim of becoming familiar with the situation in the CHT, holding initial meetings with concerned parties and seeking their input into possible actions to be taken and recommendations to be made by the Commission. It also directly receivedcomplaints on land and human rights violations in the CHT.
The Commission carried out its second visit from 16-22 February, 2009, following the holding of parliamentary elections in December 2008, and a pledge made by the new Government, led by the Awami League, to fully implement the CHT Accord.[1] The objective of this mission was first and foremost to inform the newly elected government about the Commission’s concerns and urge it to take concrete and time-bound measures for the full implementation of the Accord, and to address ongoing human rights violations in the CHT on an urgent basis.
Commission members attended meetings with the Prime Minister and newly appointed Ministers (Foreign Affairs, Law Justice and Parliamentary Affairs, Food and Disaster Management, Local Government and Rural Development, Industries, CHT Affairs), the Chief of Army Staff, the Attorney General, the National Human Rights Commission, representatives of political parties, UN Agencies, and civil society members including journalists, lawyers and academics. They also conducted field visits to Khagrachari and Rangamati distiicts interviewing and holding discussions with both Paharis and Bengalis, including victims of human rights violations and forcible land grabbing. [For the full list, see Annex 1.]
RECOMMENDATIONS
Enhancing powers of the civil administration
The CHT Commission agrees with the Government that the problems of the CHT are primarily political in nature and therefore demand political rather than military solutions.
Functions now undertaken, exceptionally, by the miliary, which are normally performed by civilian agencies such as development projects and any other activities not requiring specific military skills, should be transferred to the civil administration and to institutions set up by the Peace Accord.
The Commission is concerned about the scope and ambit of Operation Uttoron, currently ongoing in the CHT, not being publicly available or known. The executive order authorising this Operation reportedly confers on the military rights to intervene in civil matters beyond their proper jurisdiction. We therefore cal on the Government to publicise the text of the order for public scrutiny and review the executive order judiociously in the public interest.
While some reduction in the military forces stationed in the CHT occured immediately after the signing of the Accord, the Commission would like to see the phased withdrawal of troops as mentioned in the Accord to be completed within a declared timeframe, as soon as is logistically feasible.
The Commission notes the Government's call to end impunity and assert due process and recommends that in the same spirit the issue of impunity for human rights violations in the CHT should be addressed by holding investigations into these incidents, and where sufficient evidence exists, bringing those responsible to trial.
Human Rights and Access to Justice
Considering the prevalence of violence against women in the CHT, as in the rest of the country, the Commission recommends that priority be given to activating the Nari o Shishu Nirjaton Domon (Suppression of Violence against Women and Children) Tribunals in every district of the CHT. There also need to be steps taken to activate government legal services in the region, and to develop an effective public information and education program so that victims and witnesses of human rights and crimes, in particular violence against women, areable to access legal remedies.
In view of the announcement that the Government will review vexatious cases, the Commission would urge that such review is conducted by an impartial and accountable body, and further that effective redress and reparations are made available to the affected persons.
Participation in Decision Making and Elections
In order to promote participation of indigenous peoples in decision making,measures need to be taken so that institutions such as HDCs effectively represent them. Measures therefore need to be takento ensure that HDC elections are held as soon as possible.Once the process described in the above paragraph on land has been completed, elections to the Hill District Councils should be held immediately. In the meanwhile, the representative character of the Hill District Councils couldbe improved by co-opting members of the smaller ethnic minorities in the area.
Compatibility of Legislation and Accord
The Government should review the compatibility of existing laws and procedures with the Accord
The Land Commission
There is a backlog of land related problems in the CHT such as the failure to record titles to land allotted to indigenous peoples, implement the provisions for resettlement and rehabilitation of repatriated Pahari refugees, cancel illegally occupied lands and unnecessary land acquistions involving forcible eviction of the Hill peoples. The Land Commission was proposed by the Peace Accord to resolve these disputes and its functioning is a critical precondition for the implementation of other aspects of the peace treaty such as the survey and updating of land records and proper compilation of the Hill District Councils' voter lists, all of which would contribute to the attainment of peace and stability in the region.
The Government of Bangladesh should activate the Land Disputes Resolution Commission and provide it with the necessary means to resolve land disputes with effectiveness and justice, as stipulated in the 1997 Accord.
It should also commission an immmediate pilot study by independent consultants, in one Upazila of each of the three Hill Districts, to determine the nature and extent of disputed titles, and the resources of logistics and manpower needed for the full-scale operation.
Voluntary Relocation of Bengali Settlers to the Plains
During the field visit of the CHT Commission, many Bengali settlers expressed their desire to leave their miserable living conditions and return to the plains districts, particularly if given conducive assistance by the government. The voluntary withdrawal of a section of the settlers would simultaneously reduce population pressure in the CHT and release the occupied lands of the Hill peoples, contributing critically to the peace and stability of the region.
The Commission therefore urges the government to undertake a viable process of voluntary relocation of Bengali settlers from the CHT to the plains, which protects their dignity and facilitates their proper rehabilitation, making use of a judicious blend of incentives and disincentives. The extent to which settlers would be receptive to such an approach should be pilot tested, as part of the pilot survey in three Upazilas mentioned above.
The settlers willing to undertake voluntary relocation should be provided with free rations for three years at their new location, with additional support in terms of cash grants, employment and training opportunities and transportation. This offer of assistance should be initially made available for a limited period such as one year, with the possibility of further extension. In parallel, the unduly prolonged provision of free rations to Bengali settlers in the CHT should be phased out with due notice, within a year or two. No new facilities and material incentives should be provided to Bengali settlers or new migrants in the CHT by the Government and all such existing arrangements should be discontinued for those not taking up the offer of voluntary relocation and deciding to stay on in the CHT. Restitution of illegally occupied lands of the Hill peoples by Land Commission would provide immense encouragement to the process of voluntary relocation, while releasing resources for their resettlement activities.
The post of Minister for the CHT should be upgraded to full Miniserial status.
The Government of Bangladesh is urged to withdraw its reservations against internationally agreed treaties and conventions for public welfare including ICCPR, ICESCR, CERD, CEDAW, CAT and CRC.
Annex 1:
CHT Commission's Second Visit: 16-22 February 2009
LIST OF MEETINGS
• Sheikh Hasina Wazed, Prime Minister
• Dr. Dipu Moni, Minister, Ministry of Foreign Affairs
• Dr. Abdur Razzaque, Minister, Ministry of Food and Disaster Management
• Mr. Rezaul Karim Hira, Minister, Ministry of Land
• Mr. Dipankar Talukdar, State Minister, Ministry of Chittagong Hill Tracts Affairs
• Barrister Shafiq Ahmed, Minister, Ministry of Law, Justice and Parliamentary Affairs
• Mr. Syed Ashraful Islam, Minister, Ministry of LGRD
• Mr. Dilip Barua , Minister, Ministry of Industry
• General Moyeen U. Ahmed, Chief of the Bangladesh Army
• Mr. Mahbubey Alam, Attorney General
• National Human Rights Commission
• Members of Parliament
• Political parties
o Bangladesh Nationalist Party
o Parbotto Chottogram Jono Shonghoti Shomiti (PCJSS)
o United Peoples' Democratic Front(UPDF)
o Workers' Party
• Journalists
• Civil Society
• Donor Agencies
• UNDP
• European Commission
________________________________________
[1] The Delegation of the Commission on the Second Mission, comprised Lord Eric Avebury and Ms. Sultana Kamal (Co-Chairs); Dr. Shapan Adnan, Ms Sara Hossain and Professor Hideaki Uemura (Members); Dr. Meghna Guhathakurta (Advisor); Ms Yuko Shiba (Ressource Person); Ms. Christina Nilsson, Coordinator, Ms. Shirin Lira, and Ms. Midori Matsuda (Secretariat).
Friday, February 13, 2009
Thursday, February 12, 2009
Thursday evening
Monday - Vicky Corpuz from the Philippines to lunch, discussion on indigenous peoples. Chaired and spoke at meeting to commemorate the martyrdom of Maqbool Butt in Kashmir. Meeting on Borders Bill strategy.
Tuesday Question on the DRC
Wednesday Ursula to lunch. Veey slow service, so we couldn't even finish our main course before I had to leave for the wekly Party meeting at 14.00. Fielded Questions on Sudan and Zimbabwe, then spoke onsecond reading of Borders Bill, which finished at 21.30.
Thursday, fielded Question on Sri Lanka. Matthew Laclair, the 18-year old New Yorker who reported a teacher at his school for preaching creationism in lessons supposed to be about US history, came to dinner. He was a star guest at the National Secular Society last week.
Tuesday Question on the DRC
Wednesday Ursula to lunch. Veey slow service, so we couldn't even finish our main course before I had to leave for the wekly Party meeting at 14.00. Fielded Questions on Sudan and Zimbabwe, then spoke onsecond reading of Borders Bill, which finished at 21.30.
Thursday, fielded Question on Sri Lanka. Matthew Laclair, the 18-year old New Yorker who reported a teacher at his school for preaching creationism in lessons supposed to be about US history, came to dinner. He was a star guest at the National Secular Society last week.
Tuesday, February 10, 2009
Saturday, February 07, 2009
Big freeze
The worst snowfall for 18 years at the start of the week, many parts of the country seized up, and even London without buses, some roads blocked.
Monday, I asked a question about the risks of alcohol to pregnant women. There is a great deal of public information about the harmful effects of smoking, but relatively little on alcohol, even in hospitals and GPs' surgeries.
Tuesday, I got in a supplementary about President Obama's offer of help to Pakistan in combatting extremism, asking whether we had made any similar offer and if we were coordinating with the Americans.
Wednesday, I asked a supplementary to Lindsay Northover's question on Zimbabwe:
Lord Avebury: My Lords, it was depressing that the Minister had to explain yet again to the participants at the AU meeting the actual meaning of sanctions. Did the participants understand that Mugabe himself is the main cause of the bankruptcy and universal starvation of the people of Zimbabwe? In any AU fallback plan that may become necessary as a result of the failure of the SADC initiative, will the first priority be to remove Mr Mugabe from office?
Lord Malloch-Brown: My Lords, when you are trying to make the current plan work, you do not want to undermine it by immediately discussing hypothetical alternatives should it fail. Again, our emphasis should be on making this work. The AU summiteers called for sanctions to be lifted because they believe that they interfere with humanitarian support to Zimbabwe. As the noble Lord observes, I explained to them again that the sanctions are targeted only at individuals and the corporate entities that are controlled by those individuals; they are not aimed against the people of Zimbabwe. Indeed, Britain is the second most generous humanitarian donor to that country, and I suspect that we will be putting in even more resources for humanitarian assistance by routes that we can control, due to the growing crisis.
Thursday, I had an endoscopy at King's first thing, a procedure I had intended to have photographed, but Lindsay's camera battery unfortunately needed recharging. You lie on your side, a hollow tube is stuck down your throat, and a device is poked through the tube to look at the oesophagus, stomach and duodenum, and to snip buts off for biopsies. Some people have anaesthetic for the procedure, but this means yo have to stay at the hospital for hours afterwards. I cycled to the hospital and back, in time to get to Parliament by 11.00, though not to speak for once!
In the late afternoon I was back at King's for a kidney and prostate scan. Although I had drunk a litre of water before the procedure s instructed, it hadn't reached my bladder, so the radiologist only got pictures of the kidneys, which he said were fine.
Today, Saturday, we attended the National Secular Society event at which Evan Harris MP and me were made joint Secularists of the Year for the work on abolition of blasphemy last year. The award was presented by Richard Dawkins, whose brilliant TV filf on Darwin is now available on DVD. The entertainment was a dramatic reconstruction of the famous debate bewteen Huxley and Bishop 'Soapy Sam' Wilberforce in which the Bishop asked Huxley whether it was through his grandmother or his grandfather that he was descended from the apes. There are several versions of the riposte, but the one recorded by Hooker, who was oresent, was that he would rather have an ape as a grandparent than a man highle endowed by nature and possessed of great means and influence, and yet employs these faculties and that influence for the purpose of introducing ridicule into a scientific discussion. Hooker and my grandfather Sir John Lubbock spoke later in the debate 'with great force', according to Huxley. In the reconstruction, the part of Soapy Sam was played by Terry Sanderson, President of the NSS,and he was impressively unctuous!
In my speech of thanks to the NSS I said they might think it incongruous that the London Borough of Bromley was celebrating the bicentenary of Darwin's birth with a service in the parish church of Downe, where the vicar had anathematised the Origin. My grandfather, who was Darwin's next door neighbour and staunch disciple, stopped attending church in Downe, though he still went to church in Farborough, the next door village, and when Darwin died Sir John was instrumental in getting him a state burial in Westminster Abbey.
Monday, I asked a question about the risks of alcohol to pregnant women. There is a great deal of public information about the harmful effects of smoking, but relatively little on alcohol, even in hospitals and GPs' surgeries.
Tuesday, I got in a supplementary about President Obama's offer of help to Pakistan in combatting extremism, asking whether we had made any similar offer and if we were coordinating with the Americans.
Wednesday, I asked a supplementary to Lindsay Northover's question on Zimbabwe:
Lord Avebury: My Lords, it was depressing that the Minister had to explain yet again to the participants at the AU meeting the actual meaning of sanctions. Did the participants understand that Mugabe himself is the main cause of the bankruptcy and universal starvation of the people of Zimbabwe? In any AU fallback plan that may become necessary as a result of the failure of the SADC initiative, will the first priority be to remove Mr Mugabe from office?
Lord Malloch-Brown: My Lords, when you are trying to make the current plan work, you do not want to undermine it by immediately discussing hypothetical alternatives should it fail. Again, our emphasis should be on making this work. The AU summiteers called for sanctions to be lifted because they believe that they interfere with humanitarian support to Zimbabwe. As the noble Lord observes, I explained to them again that the sanctions are targeted only at individuals and the corporate entities that are controlled by those individuals; they are not aimed against the people of Zimbabwe. Indeed, Britain is the second most generous humanitarian donor to that country, and I suspect that we will be putting in even more resources for humanitarian assistance by routes that we can control, due to the growing crisis.
Thursday, I had an endoscopy at King's first thing, a procedure I had intended to have photographed, but Lindsay's camera battery unfortunately needed recharging. You lie on your side, a hollow tube is stuck down your throat, and a device is poked through the tube to look at the oesophagus, stomach and duodenum, and to snip buts off for biopsies. Some people have anaesthetic for the procedure, but this means yo have to stay at the hospital for hours afterwards. I cycled to the hospital and back, in time to get to Parliament by 11.00, though not to speak for once!
In the late afternoon I was back at King's for a kidney and prostate scan. Although I had drunk a litre of water before the procedure s instructed, it hadn't reached my bladder, so the radiologist only got pictures of the kidneys, which he said were fine.
Today, Saturday, we attended the National Secular Society event at which Evan Harris MP and me were made joint Secularists of the Year for the work on abolition of blasphemy last year. The award was presented by Richard Dawkins, whose brilliant TV filf on Darwin is now available on DVD. The entertainment was a dramatic reconstruction of the famous debate bewteen Huxley and Bishop 'Soapy Sam' Wilberforce in which the Bishop asked Huxley whether it was through his grandmother or his grandfather that he was descended from the apes. There are several versions of the riposte, but the one recorded by Hooker, who was oresent, was that he would rather have an ape as a grandparent than a man highle endowed by nature and possessed of great means and influence, and yet employs these faculties and that influence for the purpose of introducing ridicule into a scientific discussion. Hooker and my grandfather Sir John Lubbock spoke later in the debate 'with great force', according to Huxley. In the reconstruction, the part of Soapy Sam was played by Terry Sanderson, President of the NSS,and he was impressively unctuous!
In my speech of thanks to the NSS I said they might think it incongruous that the London Borough of Bromley was celebrating the bicentenary of Darwin's birth with a service in the parish church of Downe, where the vicar had anathematised the Origin. My grandfather, who was Darwin's next door neighbour and staunch disciple, stopped attending church in Downe, though he still went to church in Farborough, the next door village, and when Darwin died Sir John was instrumental in getting him a state burial in Westminster Abbey.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)