India: Citizenship (Amendment) Act 2019

Lord Brougham and Vaux Excerpts

Tuesday 25th February 2020 Grand Committee

[The Earl of Sandwich (CB)]

My Lords, I am most grateful for this opportunity and look forward to hearing from colleagues who have a close knowledge of the subject, and of course to the Minister.

Britain’s relationship with India started with the embassy of Sir Thomas Roe to the Mughal Emperor Jahangir in 1615. Much has happened in 400 years, and the UK has had to live down some of the atrocities of colonial rule since then. But today, nearly 73 years into independence, this country and India share many core values and traditions. This continuing—I think I can say “special”—relationship has drawn on our common language and our many human contacts through trade, business, diplomatic, cultural and aid activities. It also reflects the contribution to this country of a large number of Indian immigrant families. Many of our senior scientists, surgeons, judges and politicians have an Indian background. Over 100 candidates in the last election to the House of Commons came originally from the countries that constituted India before 1947. In short, as one who has lived and worked in India at various times, I believe that we in the UK are privileged to be so closely tied to a country with such a long history and character, enriched by so many traditions and religions. But we must not take this relationship for granted; indeed, we should cherish it.

Today I want to discuss specifically the state of India’s minorities. It is well known that Prime Minister Narendra Modi belongs to the majority Hindutva tradition. In 2001, he was Chief Minister of Gujarat when hundreds, mainly Muslims, died in a series of incidents. All this was overshadowed at the time by 9/11; nevertheless, in India it was a transformative event, resulting in Mr Modi’s exclusion from visiting the United States. Yet there is no doubt that Hindu nationalism, coinciding with these events and other atrocities since, has brought confidence to the business community and given Mr Modi’s BJP two election victories.

More recently, new legislation has discriminated against Muslims. First came the division of Jammu and Kashmir into two states, and their occupation by the Indian army. Then the Government decided to register everyone in Assam state. Local politicians there had complained of infiltration by millions of Muslims from Bangladesh, but a census of its 33 million people showed that fewer than 2 million had insufficient documentation. Mr Modi now seems determined, via a National Register of Citizens, to register the entire population of India in order to root out illegal immigrants, but he is meeting considerable opposition. The Citizenship (Amendment) Act 2019, which passed through the Lok Sabha in December, granted an amnesty to illegal immigrants from three neighbouring countries—Pakistan, Afghanistan and Bangladesh—but not to Muslims from those countries. Unsurprisingly, there have been riots and protests in New Delhi, Aligarh and all over the country, and not only from the Muslim community. Five states refuse to implement the law. The UN has criticised it at a high level. Euro MPs have called it the world’s “largest statelessness crisis”, and it is bound to come up during the Prime Minister’s forthcoming visit to Brussels.

This is why I am asking Her Majesty’s Government about the impact of the CAA both in India and in this country, especially regarding human rights and security. Human rights, since the days of William Hague and Jack Straw, have become a hallmark of our diplomacy, and in many countries we have established a regular dialogue. However, our relationship with India is so close that to my knowledge there has been no need for such a dialogue; India is not even on the FCO human rights list. But I will argue that there may be a need for one now.

Many years ago, the Indian writer Khushwant Singh wrote about the ancient rivalry between Hindu and Muslim as though it was endemic in Indian society, but he pointed to changing attitudes. The British, for example, favoured Hindus after the 1857 rebellion as assisting law and order under the Raj. But after independence and partition, when two new secular countries were created, the Foreign Office took a more neutral line, as in much of the Middle East, tending to uphold the stability of independent Arab states. However, the new India and Pakistan of Gandhi, Nehru, Jinnah and Patel, like the South Africa of Nelson Mandela later on, were to be democratic, multiracial and respectful of human rights and the rule of law. In India these rights were strongly protected at that time by the Congress Party. It is doubtful that any of those leaders would be satisfied with the situation today.

As we all know, security is of paramount concern throughout the world. In Europe we are witnessing fears of refugees and migrants, and Governments have had to adjust to popular feeling. We have had some violent attacks by terrorists in the UK. In India there is a lot of sensitivity to terrorism, especially coming from Pakistan, and there have been incidents that exacerbate that. Mr Modi may think that his new Act meets fears from all sides of India and that violence justifies stronger measures.

What does the FCO advise today? More than l million UK citizens visit India every year. Visitors are warned against travel to Kashmir, the Pakistan border, Assam and anywhere where there are demonstrations against the CAA. Our shared language and culture also mean that we share these fears of terrorism. The regular migration of families between our two countries suggests that there is more sensitivity to discrimination than ever within our Asian minorities. This hits the Muslim community hardest.

In foreign policy India has always had a distinct profile, namely neutrality. Ever since the Bandung conference of 1955, it has earned an international reputation as a leader of the Non-Aligned Movement, which began as an alternative to the power blocs of the Cold War. Surprisingly, the NAM still exists and acts as a home for countries of the south, although India has moved on and is now not only a nuclear power but a member of the BRIC group and, of course, a major player in the Commonwealth. Many developing countries respect India’s democratic model and its example of integrity and good governance.

Inequality and discrimination have characterised Hindu society all the way back to the Vedas, but a stronger impression remains with me from my own time in India: an honesty and openness, a true sense of liberty, a fundamental belief in justice, and good humour. I am an admirer of the late cartoonist RK Laxman, who managed to show up the many wrongs, absurdities and anomalies in Indian life.

It would be wrong to see the UK and India as equals, but the two countries have reached a high point of mutual respect and understanding. There are obvious differences in the size of the economies, their balance of trade and world status, but the two countries need each other. Brexit has given the UK a new opportunity to expand its trade with the subcontinent, although in my view too little attention is given to this, especially in the education sector. India has long complained of our immigration policy.

In the context of human rights, the UK can argue that India has a long way to go in reaching the UN’s sustainable development goals. These goals are built around the phrase “leaving no one behind”, and it seems obvious that a stable economy and well-integrated, well-governed society has a greater chance of reaching these goals. Mr Modi’s Government have a range of concerns about security, but must balance those against their responsibility to their own citizens. Even President Trump’s team have made a similar point this week.

Finally, it is not widely known that India is no longer eligible for our international development programmes, but extreme poverty persists in many states. Through NGOs and the churches, the UK has continued to support the very poorest communities, including Dalits, Adivasis and others. Can the Minister confirm that our aid programme will continue to prioritise these and other minorities? This has become a legitimate FCO question as well. Having heard me out, will the Government now urge Mr Modi to carry out a review of the CAA and its effect on Indian society?

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Brougham and Vaux) (Con)]

I remind noble Lords that the time for this debate is very short. Speeches are limited to six minutes, and noble Lords should keep an eye on the time on the screen.

Offensive Weapons Bill

Lord Brougham and Vaux Excerpts

Committee: 1st sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Monday 28th January 2019 Grand Committee

[Lord Lucas]

My Lords, as has been pointed out already, these are absolute offences in this Bill. Therefore, people ought to know what it takes to be guilty of that offence. The clause here states that,

“‘corrosive substance’” means a substance which is capable of burning human skin by corrosion”.

That is, of itself, a very loose definition. There are obvious substances that would fall under this, such as cement. Lots of builders get burned by cement every year; if it gets trapped against the skin for any length of time it can cause nasty burns that take a long time to heal, Wart cures, by and large, are designed to burn human skin. There is also a large collection of substances that will burn skin under relatively unusual circumstances, such as household bleach. Generally you would not be exposed to household bleach for a long time, but it would fall within the definition here because it will corrode human skin if you use it for long enough. We talked earlier about hydrogen peroxide, which will corrode human skin if it is hot enough.

We need something here that gives the people who are subject to this clause a clear idea of what is forbidden. My noble friend hinted earlier that there may be some testing kit. Great—but if there is a testing kit, there must be with it a very clear statement of what gets caught. When people are committing or are in danger of committing an absolute offence, they must know what conduct will put them in danger of that. If the Government want a looser definition, it should not be an absolute offence. I beg to move.

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Brougham and Vaux) (Con)]

I advise the Committee that if this amendment is agreed to, I cannot call Amendment 33.

[Baroness Hamwee]

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, is in the same territory as my noble friend and I. Like him, we seek to know how one objectively defines “corrosive substance”. His amendment asks what happens if the skin is particularly sensitive. I am not sure that there is such a thing as the “average human hand”, which he refers to in his amendment. I suspect that sensitivity may depend on age—whether one is young or old could affect vulnerability—as well as all sorts of other matters.

Our amendment proposes two points. The first refers to the testing method. That would not help the point, with which I have a great deal of sympathy, about knowing whether a substance falls within the definition but it enables us to ask about the status of the testing kits. The noble Earl has said that work on them is well under way. Can he tell us any more about them? Are they intended to work—as I understand it—like a breathalyser? It is enough to get you taken off for a second and different test, but does it start with a roadside test? As with a breathalyser, it may look as if you have failed it. Again, this is as I understand it; I do not have personal experience of going down to a police station and giving a blood test or a mouth-breath test. The point is about the process.

My second question is about the definition of the substance as one capable of burning human skin. Our amendment refers to eyes, since a lot of awful acid attacks have involved throwing acid into someone’s eyes. Are eyes “skin” for this purpose? We simply want to be sure that we have covered the ground here.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Ramsbotham]

My Lords—

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees]

Can you be very quick?

[Lord Ramsbotham]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in the debate on this amendment. I assure the Minister that this is not a matter of principle against short sentences. I have seen how ineffective they are. I know how ineffective they are, and I have been saying so for more than 20 years. It is not a question of principle; it is knowledge that they are ineffective. I fail to see why the Justice Secretary, who is against mandatory minimum sentences, is on one side saying one thing and then the Home Secretary is imposing yet more mandatory sentences on the other. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment, but I am sure we will return to it at a later stage.

Children and Families Bill

Lord Brougham and Vaux Excerpts

Monday 18th November 2013 Grand Committee

Relevant documents: 7th, 9th and 11th Reports from the Delegated Powers Committee and 3rd Report from the Joint Committee on Human Rights.

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Brougham and Vaux) (Con)]

My Lords, welcome to the 11th day of Committee on the Children and Families Bill. The noble Baroness, Lady Northover, wishes to say a word.

[Baroness Northover (LD)]

My Lords, with the Chairman’s leave, I would like to remind everyone taking part in Committee proceedings today and on Wednesday that these are our last two days in Committee. The usual channels and all those involved are committed to that objective. To that end, we have agreed to sit to target this evening and on Wednesday, if necessary sitting later than our usual rising time by half an hour or so. Today’s target is to complete Amendment 266AZZZA.

Health and Social Care Bill

Lord Brougham and Vaux Excerpts

Wednesday 16th November 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Northbourne]

My Lords, since I set down these amendments a good deal of water has passed under the bridge. Fortunately, that will enable me to be briefer than I otherwise would have been. The first and most important thing that happened was the excellent debate on Amendment 11 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins. I do not wish to reopen that debate this evening but I want to draw attention to two rather more fundamental matters in addition to what was mentioned in that debate.

The main one is what we mean by health. Do we believe, and do the Government believe, that health means simply freedom from illness or disability, physical or mental? Or do we believe that health can and should mean more than that? I dare say the noble Lord, Lord Layard, if he were in his place—he certainly spoke on Amendment 11—might have supported me in suggesting that health relates both to physical and mental well-being and that we should be doing much more to promote mental well-being, a subject on which the noble Lord, Lord Layard, has written an excellent book. I quote in this context the Childcare Act 2006, which defines well-being on page 1:

“In this Act ‘well-being’, in relation to children, means their well-being so far as relating to—

(a) physical and mental health and emotional well-being;”—

emotional well-being is an important one—

“(b) protection from harm and neglect;

(c) education, training and recreation;

(d) the contribution made by them to society;

(e) social and economic well-being”.

The important thing is physical, mental and emotional health and also such things as self-confidence and self-esteem. I should like to ask the Government to define what they mean by “health” in the Bill. I should also like to ask the Government to place more emphasis in this Bill on prevention—on services and policies to prevent a lack of health rather than focusing mainly, as the Bill does at the moment, on trying to repair the damage when things have gone wrong.

I am not sure whether technically I should withdraw those two amendments or whether I should do so at the end. I will now go on to Amendments 71ZAA, 72A and 97ZA. These amendments are intended to probe the Government’s intentions on two further issues which I consider to be very important. The first is my concern about whether the Bill will effectively and adequately address the health needs of children. That concern is also raised by the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, who unfortunately is not in his place, in an amendment which I support, Will it provide the services that children need? In that context, why does the Long Title of the Bill specifically refers to “adult social care services” but makes no mention of children’s care services?

My second concern relates to the role of parents in securing the physical and mental health of their children. I doubt whether this Bill shows enough concern for the role of parents, especially in the very early years, in promoting good mental and physical health for their children. The Bill’s emphasis seems to be more on clinical interventions to treat ill-health rather than on preventing it in the first place. Only last week, the NSPCC published new research showing that more than 20 per cent of babies born today have mothers who are either dependent on drugs or alcohol or who are subject to domestic violence. How will the Bill address that problem? Too many mothers and fathers today cannot give their children the care and education they need because they themselves have never experienced a happy, supportive home life. Today, we as a society have done very little to help those parents to help their children. How will the Bill help in that situation?

Recent research shows that the majority of a child’s brain development takes place in the last months of pregnancy and in the first two years after birth. This is the time when nearly all children spend most of their time in the care of a parent. Children are learning from their environment every hour of every day. The lessons they learn are often hard to dislodge. What they learn in those years is crucially important if they are going to progress smoothly and confidently into nursery school, reception class, primary and secondary school and on to a healthy adult life. Yet, as far as I can see, the Bill makes little or no mention of the preparation of parents for their important role in developing the physical, mental and emotional health of their child. Parental responsibility in that context ought to be deeply embedded in the Bill because healthy children grow up to be healthy adults who themselves are more likely to have healthy families. Research shows that, from the financial point of view, early intervention is extremely cost-effective. In the context of the Bill, what is the Government’s policy on preventing ill health? On that note, I should like to withdraw the amendment.

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Brougham and Vaux)]

The noble Lord cannot withdraw the amendment until he has moved it. The Question is whether Amendment 68AA shall be agreed to.