House of Commons
Monday 17 July 2006
The House met at half-past Two o’clock
Prayers
[Mr. Speaker in the Chair]
Oral Answers to Questions
Home Department
The Secretary of State was asked—
Asylum Seekers
Our aim is to maintain good community cohesion when dispersing asylum seekers, and the arrangements for placing asylum seekers within regions are now considered on a regular basis by a range of stakeholders.
I thank the Minister for that answer. We all know that, until April, it was the deliberate policy of the Home Office to ghettoise asylum seekers by means of the regional language list, to the cost of many areas including my own constituency. What assessment has the Minister made of the impact of the regional language list on assisting failed asylum seekers to avoid deportation?
The hon. Gentleman will know that the language list is no longer in operation. There are 11 dispersal regions around the country and, within those regions, about 60 different dispersal areas. Since 1999, when the Home Secretary took over responsibility for the support of asylum seekers from local authorities, it has become more and more important that decisions about dispersal between the different areas reflect the views of the local authorities in particular, but also of the police, the national health service and voluntary groups. That is exactly why those groups are in place. We will of course keep under review the way in which they work, but they represent a major step forward.
Will the Minister tell us why the national asylum support service’s regional language list for allocating asylum seekers to the regions was discontinued?
The answer is quite simple: it is important that a range of criteria be taken into account. Since 1999, when the Immigration and Asylum Act was passed, a particular premium was placed on the availability of accommodation, but other issues have to be taken into account, including the presence of other migrant communities and the availability of services. The various interested parties should therefore consider a range of factors when weighing up these decisions.
No matter what difficulties are involved with dispersal, they are as nothing compared with the difficulties that were being stored up before 1999 in places such as Dover, before we had a policy of dispersal. Is it not a fact that, as the number of new asylum seekers is reduced, so are the difficulties of dispersal?
My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. This issue is now much easier to address because the number of asylum applicants last year was 20 per cent. lower than in 1997, and in the first quarter of this year, the number of removals hit a record high. None of that has happened by accident. It has happened because we have pushed the right legislative measures through the House, and put through the right level of resources—both of which were opposed by some Members on different sides of the House.
May I refer my hon. Friend to the case of Mustafa Ismail, as asylum seeker who was convicted of attempted rape and who escaped from custody while being moved from Preston Crown court to a tribunal hearing in Manchester? I do not expect my hon. Friend to comment on the details of the case, but will he cause an inquiry to be held into the circumstances of the escape? Will he specifically ask why 24 hours elapsed before the public were allowed to know that the man, whom the police described as too dangerous to approach, had escaped?
I know that the House will forgive me if I do not comment in detail on the individual case that my hon. Friend has raised. This issue has been flagged up to me, however, and it is a matter of some concern. If my hon. Friend will permit me, I will write back to him with further details, once I am satisfied of them.
How many failed asylum seekers are there in this country who are awaiting deportation, and how many does the Minister expect to deport over the next two years?
I suspect that the hon. Gentleman will be aware that, since the phasing out of embarkation controls was undertaken in 1994, it has been difficult to determine precisely how many people have left the country. That is why we have to introduce plans to count everyone in and out of the country, and why we will persist with a tough but fair enforcement of the rules. I know that the Conservatives have either voted against or abstained from voting on key measures that we have put through, although I understand that their Front Bench is now developing a new philosophy on immigration that stands in marked contrast to the one that they put forward in 2005. I hope that they will now support some of the measures that we will propose in the coming months.
The best way to reduce the number of asylum seekers who are dispersed around the country is to ensure that the process of dealing with their applications is as speedy and efficient as possible. Since taking on his new responsibilities, the Minister has said that he wants to improve the situation at the immigration and nationality directorate. Bearing that in mind, will he tell the House what immediate steps he has taken to ensure that those applications are being processed, so that my constituents—and those of other right hon. and hon. Members—do not have to wait months or even years for a reply from the Home Office?
My hon. Friend will know that we have embarked on the roll-out of the new asylum model in many parts of the country, which will dramatically accelerate the pace at which decisions are made. That roll-out will be as rapid as possible, as the model is much more effective. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary will have a great deal more to say on that in the coming days.
If and when the Government come forward with sensible proposals on immigration, we would be happy to back them. Sadly, those opportunities have been pretty thin on the ground in recent years. The Minister is trying to evade the problem—as my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Mr. Jackson) said, the Government’s policy until April was to concentrate specific national groups of asylum seekers in certain towns, without proper local consultation. That policy could have been designed to cause unnecessary tension. Can he now assure the House that the new policy will mean genuine dispersal? Any repeat of the previous failure means that he runs the risk of deliberately creating new ghettos, which would be a disaster for both the asylum seekers and the host communities.
I welcome the positive spirit in which the hon. Gentleman has engaged in the debate. As I have said, it is right that decisions on dispersal between the 60-odd areas around the country are informed systematically by the views of local authorities, such as Peterborough city council, which, for example, has decided not to renew its contract for providing support. It is also important that the health service and police have a role in those decisions being taken in the right way.
Will my hon. Friend reconsider the 13-week period within which most asylum seekers think they will have their claims processed? We often get lots of complaints at surgeries, because asylum seekers think that the Government will give them an answer within 13 weeks, when we all know that that does not happen.
My hon. Friend shares a challenge that I have encountered all too frequently in my constituency. As I told my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East (Keith Vaz), however, it is vital that we accelerate the decision-making process in asylum cases, and that is exactly what our plans for the immigration and nationality directorate will set out to achieve.
Can we now have the figures for which my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Norfolk (Mr. Bellingham) asked?
The hon. Gentleman will know that if one cannot count people out of the country, it is theoretically impossible to know how many remain. Although my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary is imbued with many qualities, omniscience is not one of them. He might, of course, correct me on that in a few moments.
Heroin Addicts
As most heroin addicts lead chaotic, unstructured lives, they are not well represented in national surveys of drug use, so the best information that we have relates to those who are in contact with services. The mean age of individuals in treatment in England in 2004-05, with heroin recorded as the main drug of use, is 31.
In my constituency, among the 400 former addicts treated by GPs—80 per cent.—virtually all those under 30 receive treatment, as has been found in countries such as the Netherlands and Sweden. Can the Minister take a close look at how GP-led prescribing services have managed to get so many people into treatment? Will he also consider the add-on effect that virtually no young people or teenagers become heroin addicts, because the addict role models that they see are grisly old men?
I take on board what my hon. Friend says. The Government are working to ensure that comprehensive packages of support, not just in health but across the piece, are available to those who have come off drugs following treatment. As my hon. Friend does so much in his constituency in this regard, I am more than happy to meet him to discuss grisly old men further.
The Minister will know that probably tens of thousands of young people under 18 are heroin addicts. Given that anybody over 18 who is arrested for what is called a trigger offence, such as theft or burglary, is automatically put through a mandatory drugs test—which is a good thing—why does that requirement not apply to under-18s?
That is an interesting point, which I shall refer to those in the Home Office who are more directly involved in the policy than I am.
We should not run away with the notion that there has been an explosion in heroin use. All available evidence and data suggest that, sad though the position is, in terms of both age groups and the overall quantum the number of users is more or less the same. But the hon. Gentleman’s point about the role of under-18s in the criminal justice system is a fair one, which I will convey to my colleagues.
Will my hon. Friend liaise with health Ministers with a view to offering all heroin addicts in treatment voluntary screening for blood-borne diseases, especially hepatitis C?
As I said earlier, the Home Office implements a number of measures with a range of colleagues, including those in the health team. As this is a specifically health-related matter rather than a Home Office matter, I will refer it to our colleagues in the health team.
Most young heroin users start as solvent abusers, perhaps as glue-sniffers. Will the Minister take this opportunity to praise groups such as Solve It, which is based in my constituency and is doing its level best to encourage young people not to engage in solvent abuse?
The hon. Gentleman is right. All groups that try to dissuade young people from embarking on the path of solvent abuse and any subsequent abuse are indeed to be praised considerably, and I join the hon. Gentleman in congratulating the group in his constituency.
Sexual Offenders
We are committed to rebalancing the system to ensure that there is justice for all victims, including those who have suffered at the hands of sexual offenders. We are already introducing procedures to make it easier for victims of sexual crime to give evidence, we have already invested some £6.5 million in the rape crisis voluntary sector and sexual assault referral centres over the last three years, and we are working with the police and the Crown Prosecution Service to improve the investigation and prosecution of sexual crimes. We are also about to publish plans to rebalance the criminal justice system further in favour of the victim.
I am sure we are all pleased about the positive steps that are being taken, but I am also sure my right hon. Friend agrees that for the victim the ordeal does not end at trial. It is vital for all rape survivors, male and female, to be supported after trials: they must be helped to deal with the after-effects.
I was shocked by recent news that the number of rape crisis centres had halved since 1987. Will my right hon. Friend assure me, and all rape survivors, that the Government recognise the importance of providing that vital support, and will he take steps to deal with the funding aspect?
I agree that these are important matters. We are always willing to consider the distribution of funds. I believe that this year we are spending some £350,000 specifically on rape crisis centres. In total, we have spent about £6.5 million on the rape crisis voluntary sector and on sexual assault referral centres over the past three years. We are funding and encouraging other forms of assistance, not least general guidance for police investigations, specialist prosecutors in every CPS area and continual development of the sexual assault referral centre network, but we will of course consider whether we could be doing any more than that.
Given the public anxiety about serious sexual offenders, is the Home Secretary in a position to tell me whether all those who had committed serious sexual offences and were not considered for deportation were placed on the sex offenders register?
They certainly ought to have been. I am not in a position to guarantee that all of them were, but I will give a guarantee to the hon. Lady that I will go back and write to her immediately with a specific answer to her question.
Identity Theft
Identity fraud costs the UK economy at least £1.7 billion each year. We have set up a public-private sector work programme to tackle all aspects of that problem. Our plans for a national identity scheme will also provide people with a highly secure means of protecting their identity.
I am grateful for that answer and for the assistance that the Minister has given me with regard to my constituent, Rev Ted Spiller. In that case, the identity that was required to be supplied by the claimant on applying for redirection of mail was fraudulently used. I understand that she will be having discussions with the Royal Mail, but what precautions does her Department propose to prevent such fraudulent use and abuse of identity and to prevent the spread of identity theft?
I commend the hon. Lady for the work she has done on that issue both with the all-party group on identity fraud and on behalf of her constituent, who was the subject of attempted identity fraud. She will know that we have put extensive advice both on our website and in a leaflet that is available, which explains what to do to try to avoid being a victim, or what to do if you are a victim. On 7 June, we brought into force the offences in the Identity Cards Act 2006, which creates a new criminal offence of being in possession of or controlling false identity documents. Those offences will provide the police with additional means to disrupt the activities of organised criminals, terrorists and those supporting them. I understand that, following my meeting with the Royal Mail, it will contact her constituent to discuss those matters further and to learn from his experience.
A number of things are going on slightly behind the scenes to combat this dreadful crime, which costs the country a huge sum of money both in terms of the impact on our constituents and the cost to the law enforcement agencies. One of those good things is the get safe online website, which seeks to promote some of the basic steps that individuals and businesses should be taking. Will my hon. Friend look at such schemes and at ways in which they can be promoted more widely, for example, by television advertising, so that more people become aware of the important safeguards that they can put in place to protect their own identity?
I will indeed ensure that such actions are co-ordinated. My hon. Friend may find it helpful if I tell him that we have established a network of single points of contact for all police forces and a range of Government Departments and agencies that undertake identity fraud investigations and prosecutions. It is a growing crime. We take it very seriously indeed.
Can the Minister tell us whether she has any words of comfort for the half a dozen or so prominent and wealthy people who were all expecting to receive a new identity following publication of the new year’s honours list, but who now find that their proposed new identities have been grievously snatched away from them? Does she—
One of the most common forms of identity fraud at the moment is perpetrated many thousands of times a day when fraudsters send e-mails to people's inboxes asking them for details of their bank accounts. Many people fall for that phishing expedition. Will the Home Office consider investigating that much more closely, because I suspect that many people are too embarrassed to own up to the fact that they have fallen for that fraud?
The answer is definitely yes. We are aware of that matter and working on it. I am sure that my hon. Friend and the House are aware that identity management and identity cards are an essential component in the fight against identity fraud. Identity cards will allow financial institutions and other companies to carry out high-value, sensitive or personal transactions to confirm their customers’ identity with a high degree of assurance.
Of the earlier variant, scaled-down ID card, David Foord, mission critical director at the Office of Government Commerce, wrote on 8 June that it was driven
“by an arbitrary end date rather than reality”
and he concluded:
“We are setting ourselves up to fail.”
In the light of the continuing card chaos, can the Minister tell us in which year the Home Office will definitely introduce ID cards?
The hon. Gentleman is well aware that we have always made it clear that ID cards will be implemented incrementally. They will be phased in, starting with biometric residence permits for foreign nationals in 2008 and rolling out to UK nationals thereafter. The Government’s commitment is to their rapid introduction. I repeat—2008.
With 88 million personal data records stolen in the last year from Government computer systems in the United States, including 26.5 million army veterans’ records in a single theft, and with reports of civil servants in this country selling hundreds of thousands of records to organised criminals for tax credit fraud, does the Minister agree that holding so much personal information on one single ID card database will—far from dealing with identity theft—be an open invitation to criminals to commit even greater identity fraud?
The hon. Gentleman raises some interesting and important points. He will know that the most important aspect of procurement for ID cards and the ID register database is that we get it and the roll-out right, so that the ID store is safe. We are seeking to move to a procurement timetable. The hon. Gentleman will also know that we have undertaken extensive soundings of the market and received sound advice. I hope to be able to publish our findings shortly and they will give him the reassurance he requires, as well as reveal the widespread public support for the ID card system.
As we are talking about identity theft, I should stress that I am the other David Davis—[Laughter.]
In justifying ID cards, the Government claim that identity fraud costs the clearing banks in the UK Payments Association £504.8 million. The banks say that it costs them less than £37 million. Who is right?
One thing we do know is that ID fraud is a growing crime and a growing threat to the security of people’s identities. It costs the banks a great deal of money. The right hon. Gentleman might be forgetting—I hope that he is not ignoring—the issues of organised crime and terrorism. It is essential that we get an ID card system in place if we are to tackle those scourges that afflict our society. The challenge for the right hon. Gentleman is to tell us what policies he might have to deal with those problems.
I note that I did not get an answer. The Home Office has been accused of exaggerating what ID cards would save by the banks, the insurance companies and even by HM Revenue and Customs, part of their own Government. At best, the project will save little and cost a fortune, but the problem is even worse than that. ID cards are likely to make the problem of identity theft worse, not better—
Absolute rubbish.
Microsoft’s National Technology Office says that ID cards could “trigger massive identity fraud”, and one of the FBI’s leading identity fraud consultants said that the ID card could be replicated perfectly by criminals within six months—[Interruption.] I notice that Labour Back Benchers seem to think that they are more expert than Microsoft and the FBI. In order for the House to be sure, can the Minister guarantee that the ID card will be 100 per cent. secure against fraud—yes or no?
The right hon. Gentleman might next blame burglary on burglar alarms. It is a ridiculous contention. Can anybody say that anything is 100 per cent. secure? Opposition Members would have every reason to be sceptical if any Minister made such a claim. ID cards will be a crucial weapon in fighting terrorism, organised crime and identity fraud. The right hon. Gentleman will also know that the information on the card will be kept to a minimum—that which is required. It is biometrics that are so crucial and that will tie a person’s identity, meaning that, by testing the biometrics, we can know with absolute confidence that a person is who they say they are. The right hon. Gentleman needs to look again at what policies he has, or has not, for tackling this most serious matter. He will find that the identity cards programme is a valid and viable way forward, and one that the public of this country welcome and support.
Neighbourhood Wardens
Neighbourhood wardens can be a very important element of a neighbourhood policing plan. An evaluation of 84 warden schemes in 2003 found that they reduced the fear of crime and had a positive impact on the rates of crime.
I am grateful for that helpful reply. In Wrexham, neighbourhood wardens are important parts of community policing teams, along with community support officers and police officers. Local residents tell me that they particularly value neighbourhood wardens because of their close relationships with young people in their areas. Can my right hon. Friend assist me with any evidence that would support the proposal by the Liberal Democrat-led local authority to sack the neighbourhood wardens in Wrexham?
That is at one with the Liberal Democrats’ national position, which is to refuse to back every single measure that improves local police effectiveness and local antisocial behaviour campaigns. As ever, whether on local issues such as this or on their refusal to countenance the means necessary to combat terrorism and organised crime—on ID cards, for example, they share with the Conservative party a reluctance to back the necessary means to combat those things—the Liberal Democrats are always found wanting on the ground. They seem to want to will the ends, but never to will the means.
We welcome community wardens as part of the mix of neighbourhood policing teams, but rather than the Government providing ring-fenced funding for them, should not chief constables and local communities be able to decide the right balance of wardens, community support officers and police officers for their areas, particularly when the council tax payer now finances more than a fifth of police force spending, which is double the amount funded in 1997?
We are, of course, always prepared to look at giving more flexibility and devolving more control. However, it would help if the hon. Gentleman who asks for such flexibility were to support us when we put extra money into having a record number of police officers, or when we put extra money into supporting police community service, or when we put through antisocial behaviour orders, or when we do everything else necessary to supplement neighbourhood wardens in bringing real change in local communities. Once again, we have someone talking tough and voting soft on the Opposition Benches.
National Offender Management Service
We have today published a written ministerial statement reporting NOMS performance for 2005-06, showing that it has met 22 out of 33 national targets. While that shows significant reductions in prisoner escapes and self-inflicted deaths, it also shows that prisons and probation must do more, and better, to protect the public. The figures make the case for reform, and that is why we are undertaking a review of the criminal justice system to rebalance it back in favour of the victim. That will be published shortly.
Experiences of privatising routine areas of the criminal justice system, such as court escort, tagging and hostel management, have often been shambolic and ultra-expensive. If still in his post when the much delayed NOMS Bill is published next Session, will the Home Secretary ensure that the management of high-risk offenders who pose a risk to the public will not be transferred to a fragmented, profit-driven sector whose purposes make it unfit to deliver a crucial responsibility better handled by the national probation service?
As my hon. Friend may know, one of the failures in reaching targets was for management plans in high-risk cases to be completed in five working days. The target was 90 per cent. of cases, but the end-year result was 81 per cent. There has been an improvement since the 67 per cent. figure of last August; the figure in March was 88 per cent., so the trend is in the right direction, but I think that my hon. Friend would agree that from the point of view of the public, who want protection, it is still far short of what we regard as satisfactory. Of course, we will look at how we can improve NOMS, but part of that process will be opening up the service to contestability. We want to make sure that we get the best from the public sector in terms of value for money and effectiveness by using other than the public sector where that is appropriate.
Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that one of the most important performance criteria is the extent of useful out-of-cell activity for prisoners, particularly education and training for employment futures?
Yes, indeed. Prison is there to apply punishment and to protect the public, but it should also contribute to a diminution of offending, particularly through rehabilitation. I am delighted to tell the right hon. and learned Gentleman that one of the achievements of the past year, which is part of a balanced picture—I tried to stress that there have been shortcomings as well—is that offenders achieved 79,000 basic skills awards. Those are not peripheral skills; they can often contribute towards offenders making a useful contribution to their own lives as well as to society when they leave prison. Recently, I visited prisoners in Wandsworth who are taking part in plastering and bricklaying schemes there, in conjunction with a major private employer—Laing, the builder, which is providing places for them when they leave prison. Education at all levels, from trades to the academic sphere, is a good thing, not just because it benefits the prisoner, but because if it reduces reoffending and rehabilitates them in society, it helps to protect the public, alongside the protection and punishment that prisons distribute.
One easy way to be sure that there is no improvement in performance is constantly to destabilise a professional service. I am sure that my right hon. Friend is aware that constantly reiterating the idea that a private firm working for profit can automatically do better than people who have been professional for a long time is a way of ensuring that there is neither co-operation nor understanding.
Which is precisely why I have never said that anything or anyone automatically provides a better service. I am not ideologically driven to believe that the private sector is automatically better than the public, so I hope that my hon. Friend is not automatically driven to believe that the public sector is always better than the private.
Could the Home Secretary explain to his friends—his close friends all around him—the difference between contestability and privatisation?
Privatisation is the process of handing out a contract to the private sector. Contestability is a process of competition involving both the public and the private sectors. If I can help the hon. and learned Gentleman with any other semantics, I will do so.
My right hon. Friend will be aware that many Members on the Labour Benches are concerned about what he suggests. Going into the private sector is not a public good, private bad argument, but it must be about accountability. If we go into the private sector, whatever problems a company might create, the Government would get the blame regardless.
My experience is that if anything goes wrong in the Home Office in the public sector the Government get the blame, which is not necessarily wrong in most cases if strategic and policy decisions are involved—that is where the burden of responsibility should rest. Whether in terms of delivery by the public sector, by an agency at arm’s length to the public sector, but still part of the public sector framework, or by a private firm acting as a subcontractor, ultimately the split is between those who deliver operationally and those—the Government—who decide the policy and strategy. I do not really see that there is a huge and significant difference between the two.
Ports
The delivery of police protective services in England and Wales, including north Wales, is a matter for the chief police officer of the area concerned, in conjunction with the police authority. The delivery of these services is subject to national policing standards and inspection and is routinely assessed in that fashion.
As the Minister will no doubt be aware, the port of Holyhead is the third busiest passenger port in the country and the principal point of entry to north Wales from overseas. Will he therefore please explain why, against the background of a perceived protective services gap and an increased terrorist threat, the single counter-terrorism police grant, on which the north Wales police special branch rely, has been reduced from a notional sum in excess of £3.8 million last year to under £3.7 million this year? We are talking about a reduction of £113,000.
The hon. Gentleman will know—if he does not I am happy to meet him to talk in detail about it—that that is not the only source of counter-terrorism funding for our ports and other aspects of protective services. The future disbursal of that and other such streams are a matter that we currently have under discussion. However, I take his points, and through him, the points made constantly by the North Wales police authority and the chief constable, that there is a real issue in terms of protective services at those sea ports—not least at Holyhead, as he indicates. If he wants to secure a meeting with me to discuss the matter further—perhaps with my hon. Friend the Member for Ynys Môn (Albert Owen)—I am more than happy to take part.
Am I the only one to be astonished that partygoers were able to steal a trawler from a port in north Wales to return to Dublin? They were found 12 hours later steaming in the opposite direction, past Anglesey. That raises the question of what the police are doing to make sure that people are not thieving trawlers and other sea-going vessels. How many boats were stolen from around the coast of Britain last year and how many were recovered?
The strict answer to my hon. Friend’s first question is, no, he is not the only one who is astonished by such activities. I apologise but I do not have information to hand on his wider points, which I take seriously. I shall write to him in due course on the specifics in relation to north Wales, our ports more widely, and the theft and recovery of said vessels.
Immigration and Nationality Directorate
The review of the immigration and nationality directorate is looking at how we can improve IND’s performance as an organisation overall. The report will be published before the parliamentary recess.
In the light of the so-called sex-for-visas scandal that was exposed by The Observer not long ago, does the Minister agree that it takes enormous courage for victims to expose such wrongdoing; and will he tell the House what actions have been taken against the officials concerned?
The precise investigation to which the hon. Gentleman alludes is still ongoing and so I will not comment in detail on it now. He is right to make a broader point. We understand that IND staff are at risk of corruption, because individuals who do not qualify to remain in the UK may seek to do so fraudulently, and it does indeed require some courage for people such as the individual in question to raise the alarm, but that is exactly why we take the issue of counter-fraud so seriously and why we will continue to bear down on any allegations that we receive.
Some 10 weeks ago the private sector provider of the immigration handling facility at Heathrow airport offered me and two Front-Bench colleagues, my hon. Friends the Members for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Clegg) and for Hornsey and Wood Green (Lynne Featherstone), an opportunity to visit their facilities at first hand. Since that time and after tortuous communication with Group 4 Securicor, the IND and the Minister’s office, we are no nearer to finalising that visit. Since the Home Office and its various branches appear to find it so difficult to arrange such a simple visit, can the Minister really be surprised that it is struggling so badly to do the really complicated things, such as protecting our borders and dealing effectively with immigration?
The hon. Gentleman’s information is different from mine. I had understood that that visit had been given not just a green light, but a glowing welcome. If that has not been extended so far, I will personally ensure that it is done when I get back this afternoon.
Sex Abuse Cases
Since the Home Affairs Committee report in 2002, much has been done to improve the way in which investigations of historical child abuse are carried out. In particular, guidance from the Association of Chief Police Officers and the Crown Prosecution Service has been developed to reflect lessons learned from the original investigations, which took place in the late 1990s and early 2000s. The details are in the latest update of our response to the report, which was published in May 2006 and can be found in the House Library.
I am grateful to the Minister for the encouraging response to the Home Affairs Committee’s recommendations. Will the Home Office now address the 100 or so men—they are mostly in their twilight years—who were almost certainly innocent of crimes for which they were framed, for want of a better word, owing to the police methods on which the Committee made recommendations? Will the Minister work with the Criminal Cases Review Commission to speed up the cases of the men, who are almost certainly in prison for crimes that they did not commit?
I am glad that the hon. Gentleman is in the Chamber. I was a little worried that he was not here earlier, so I am glad to see him.
I am glad to acknowledge the work that the hon. Gentleman did on the Home Affairs Committee in 2002. Indeed, he remains a member of the Committee, so he will know of the work that has gone on. We are concerned about getting the balance right between ensuring that convictions are safe and making sure that people who are guilty are convicted. He will be interested to know that 30 per cent. of the people who came forward pleaded guilty after initially saying that they were not responsible. We are confident that the systems that are in place through ACPO and the CPS are providing the right results, and I am happy to work with the hon. Gentleman and the Committee on the future success of the project.
Neighbourhood Policing
Earlier this year, we published research evidence that showed that neighbourhood policing could deliver significant improvements in crime reduction, perceptions of crime and antisocial behaviour, feelings of safety, and public confidence in the police. In the trial sites, the research found that the reduction in the number of victims of crime was twice as high, and public confidence in the police increased by five times as much, in wards with neighbourhood policing activity compared with similar wards without.
I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Is he aware that there have been substantial reductions in crime in my constituency, which are largely a result of the investment by Lancashire police in neighbourhood policing? The force has devolved budgets down to basic command units and ensured that there is proper co-ordination through community beat managers. Will my hon. Friend ensure that that sort of good practice is spread around the whole country so that all neighbourhoods can benefit?
I strongly endorse what my hon. Friend says. I have met the Lancashire force over the past number of weeks for various reasons, including neighbourhood policing. I plan to go up there in September to see exactly what is happening in detail. My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Getting as much down to the locality as possible, invoking BCUs, and working closely with local councils through crime and disorder reduction partnerships and other schemes are central to the real force—when it works it can be incredibly powerful—of neighbourhood policing. I congratulate the Lancashire constabulary on what it has done.
The recruitment of community support officers in north Oxfordshire is going rather slowly and I suspect that that is because of concerns about their long-term funding. Although the numbers of community support officers in many places look excellent on paper, the recruitment does not always follow the numbers. Will the Minister and the Department monitor how police forces are doing on recruiting and retaining these invaluable officers?
We are monitoring recruitment. The hon. Gentleman makes an entirely fair point about some areas having difficulty with recruitment. We have some 6,300 people now and the numbers are growing, but as the Home Secretary said earlier, quite what the configuration in each area is, or should be, is entirely a matter for the local constabulary. We are committed to ensuring that the right numbers are in place over the coming year. We continue to monitor the situation because the matter has been raised by several forces.
My hon. Friend mentioned recent meetings with Lancashire police. Does he agree that the effectiveness of neighbourhood policing schemes would not have been affected had Lancashire police merged with Cumbria police, as both police authorities and most MPs in both counties supported? Does he share my regret that a voluntary merger was not possible following his meeting last week? Will he agree to meet me to discuss the matter further?
I certainly agree that it is a matter of regret that we were not able to get the Lancashire and Cumbria voluntary merger under way. We do not resile from the position from which we started and which was endorsed by the O’Connor report that, ultimately, for many forces in many areas mergers will be the way to go forward. We said at the last Home Office questions on 19 June that we stepped away from enforced mergers, but I take the point that Lancashire and Cumbria, working together in a voluntary merged relationship, would do much to enhance policing in the area, including filling the gaps at level 2. We would have boosted Cumbria’s ability to get neighbourhood policing in place up to Lancashire’s level, as suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, North and Fleetwood (Mrs. Humble). Part of the reason for going up in September is to talk to both Lancashire and Cumbria about how, following last Monday’s meeting, we can take things forward. If we do not resile from the notion that mergers are the answer for many forces, we certainly do not resile from the notion that there remain serious gaps up and down the country in level 2 provision which need filling.
On the subject of police mergers, the Minister will be aware that many communities, including those in Beverley and Holderness, feel that neighbourhood policing would be undermined by forced mergers and the costs of that. What is the Minister’s assessment of that cost and the impact that it would have on front-line policing in areas such as mine?
Without rehearsing all the arguments about mergers and the report from the inspectorate, I can tell the hon. Gentleman that those in his constituency who suggested that were entirely wrong. They were no doubt misled by him—in his constituency, not in the House, of course; I would not suggest that at all. We still think that sorting out the gaps at level 2—in terms of serious organised crime and counter-terrorism—as indicated in the report would enhance neighbourhood policing rather than otherwise, because every time a significant inquiry or investment of time were needed due to a major incident, the abstraction of neighbourhood policing would not be the very first thing to happen, as is still the case.
Terrorism Act
The Government undertook a public consultation on the code of practice in connection with the detention of terrorist suspects for a maximum of 28 days. During the parliamentary term and recess, Home Office Ministers visited towns and other places throughout the country. In addition, the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation, Lord Carlile, has been asked to consider the impact of the Terrorism Act 2006 on community and race equality issues.
I thank the Home Secretary for that response. I understand that a number of Home Office working groups were set up last summer to discuss matters of community cohesion and ways forward. Despite the fact that I have a very large Muslim and Asian community in my constituency, none of my community was included in those working groups. If we do something similar again, could we look at representation across the country, to ensure that all communities feel that they are represented on such working groups?
Yes, I understand my hon. Friend’s point. Obviously, I was not involved in the make-up, but even if I had been, I must tell her that it is often impossible to ensure that every constituency is represented. Last year, two Home Office Ministers visited nine cities and towns with significant Muslim populations, where they held workshops and entered discussions. I hope that during the coming recess Home Office Ministers will repeat that experience, and perhaps we can see whether it is possible to have an engagement in my hon. Friend’s constituency.
Asylum Seekers
The Government are firmly committed to preventing illegal migrant working and the misuse of our asylum system by those seeking financial advantage rather than protection. We have significantly reduced the number of unfounded asylum claims, increased removals of refused applicants and strengthened controls on illegal working. Our strategy also involves increasing enforcement, encouraging compliance by business and developing joint working between relevant agencies.
I thank the Minister for his reply, but does he agree that that practice puts vulnerable people at the mercy of gangmasters, and undermines wages and working practices for legitimate employees? It is crucial that we target unscrupulous employers who are prepared to exploit such people for their own financial ends, so will he make it a high priority for his Department to target and deal with them?
My hon. Friend’s analysis is right. As he will know, in 2004 we widened the number of documents that have to be checked. In the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002, we proposed penalties for employers who knowingly employ workers illegally. My hon. Friend will be interested to know that those offences can be tried either way, and the maximum sentence is up to two years in prison or an unlimited fine. We proposed, too, to introduce biometric identity cards for foreign nationals, so that it is easier for employers to check what rights workers have. The measure does not stand on its own—it is part of a package—as we intend to pass the right laws in the House and put the right resources into the hands of the immigration and nationality directorate and relevant agencies.
Notwithstanding the reply from the Minister of State to the hon. Member for West Bromwich, West (Mr. Bailey), and at the risk of sparking controversy, may I suggest that one way of tackling illegal working by asylum seekers is to increase the scope to make it legal? Given that there are thousands of asylum seekers in the UK who are qualified doctors, dentists and scientists as well as other professionals, does it not make sense to take a slightly more relaxed view and change the law so that those people can use their skills and earn a living for the benefit of the country?
The hon. Gentleman always brings intelligence and insight to our debates, and I very much hope that it will be taken fully into account in the review that the hon. Member for Ashford (Damian Green) is leading on behalf of his party. Under a concession that was updated some years ago, it is possible for asylum seekers to apply for the ability to work after 12 months. In the meantime, it is right that controls remain in place so we do not offer the wrong incentives to attract people to the UK.
National Insurance
Colleagues in the Department for Work and Pensions consulted the Home Office on the decision to strengthen arrangements for issuing national insurance numbers, and we welcomed that approach. In addition, IND officials have been fully engaged in detailed discussions on this matter with their counterparts in DWP on the practical arrangements.
Can the Minister tell the House how many national insurance numbers were issued to individuals who may be working here illegally, and how much tax the Treasury collected from them?
I have already commented on the omniscience, and the limits of it, of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and myself. As the hon. Gentleman will know, that information is not available, but it is important that we continue to bear down on illegal working, which is why, in 2004, we tightened the number of documents to which employers must refer when they employ people. We will continue to introduce measures to increase penalties on employers who employ people illegally. It is unfortunate that the Opposition abstained from a decision on those measures. I was leafing through my back copies of—
Order. I suggest that the Minister drop the hon. Member for Windsor (Adam Afriyie) a note.
Essex Police
May I say what a delight it is to see the hon. Gentleman in his place, given that he was not there for the past 58 minutes? Surprisingly few is the immediate answer. I have had the great pleasure of meeting Lord Hanningfield, the leader of Essex county council, to discuss the matter. He was not terribly happy with it. Tomorrow or Wednesday I have the great delight of meeting a series of Essex MPs, including, no doubt, the hon. Gentleman.
May I reassure the Minister that in Essex the proposal was disliked root and branch? In view of the confusion that was spread by the comments of his right hon. Friend the Prime Minister last Wednesday, can the Minister confirm, for the sake of clarity, that if a police force such as Essex does not want to merge, it now may not have to merge at all?
Let me give the hon. Gentleman the starting point for clarity. The orders that were tabled with an intent to enforce the mergers have been withdrawn. I cannot give him clarity on the second point, because we have said clearly to all forces throughout the country, “Show us how you will fill very real gaps in level 2 provision.” I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is confident that Essex can do that and show how it can co-operate with other police authorities in that regard, but not merge. I look forward with interest to our meeting this week and to the forthcoming proposals for the eastern region.
Middle East
With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement on developments in the middle east. I welcome the opportunity to update the House on British activity and policy.
The United Kingdom is gravely concerned by the escalating crisis in Lebanon. Not only does it pose a serious threat to the relationship between the Israeli and Lebanese Governments, but it threatens the wider security of the region and is causing huge harm to the civilian populations, with casualties mounting on both sides. We offer our condolences to the Governments of Lebanon and Israel for the losses that they have suffered and to the families of all those affected.
The United Kingdom is committed to helping resolve the crisis. The Prime Minister has spoken to Lebanese Prime Minister Fuad Siniora and the Foreign Secretary has spoken to the Israeli Foreign Minister, Tzipi Livni. We appreciate the pressures that both Governments are under at this very difficult time, but both have a responsibility to help to end the crisis. Our priority must be to create conditions to allow a ceasefire and to explore quickly how the international community might facilitate a peaceful, diplomatic resolution guaranteed, perhaps, by the deployment of an international force into the area.
Ultimately, the only way to achieve a sustainable solution to the situation in both Gaza and Lebanon is to address the root causes. That means getting back to a state where negotiations can resume on the basis of the Quartet road map. With that objective in mind, the Prime Minister is discussing the crisis with his G8 counterparts at the G8 summit in St. Petersburg. The European Union high representative, Javier Solana, and a UN team representing Secretary-General Kofi Annan have been in Beirut today. We fully support their efforts to broker an end to the conflict and we are also offering both teams logistical assistance on the ground. We are urging all involved parties to do all they can to address the crisis and to prevent the situation from worsening.
We reiterate our call for the urgent release of the kidnapped Israeli soldiers and for an end to attacks on Israeli towns and cities. We urge all those countries with influence over Hezbollah to play their part. We are very concerned about the role of Syria and Iran. Through their support for Hezbollah, they are encouraging extremism, threatening the stability of the region, and putting peace in the middle east further out of reach.
Israel has every right to act in self-defence, but we and the international community have urged it to act in proportionate and measured ways—to conform to international law, to avoid civilian death and suffering and to refrain from acts that destabilise the Lebanese Government. Disproportionate action only escalates an already dangerous situation.
The crisis also underscores the need for the full and sustainable implementation of Security Council resolution 1559, including the importance of the Government of Lebanon exercising their full authority throughout Lebanese territory. That means being able to control the area between Beirut and the Israeli border, which is cursed by militias, such as Hezbollah, whose political masters reside in Damascus and Tehran.
Our most pressing concern in this crisis is the welfare and safety of the thousands of British nationals in Lebanon. We are working day and night with our EU and other international partners towards a properly organised and above all safe arrangement to help British nationals and others for whom we have consular responsibility and who want to leave Lebanon.
We are working closely with the Ministry of Defence on how to help those British nationals who want to leave to do so safely and the House should not underestimate the scale of the task or the numbers involved. The Royal Navy destroyers, York and Gloucester, are now offshore and other vessels, including HMS Illustrious and HMS Bulwark, are heading towards the eastern Mediterranean. A rapid deployment team from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office has arrived in Beirut to assist British nationals together with a military reconnaissance team, which will carry out detailed planning for a possible evacuation.
We judge that departure by sea is the safest and most practical option for British nationals wishing to leave. We are already using British helicopters to transport some of the more vulnerable British nationals to Cyprus. For example, this morning we were able to use UK helicopters, which brought in the rapid deployment team and EU High Representative Solana, to help about 40 of the most vulnerable British nationals to leave.
For the moment, we are advising British nationals in Lebanon to stay put, to exercise caution, to keep in touch with the embassy and to heed local advice. British nationals in Lebanon have been informed that they should listen to the BBC and other English language broadcasts. Our embassy in Beirut is advising British nationals in Lebanon who want to leave to get ready for departure at short notice, including by having travel documents in order.
We also have deep concerns about the situation in Gaza. The escalation in violence since the 25 June attack at the Kerem Shalom crossing has caused great suffering on both sides and mounting casualties. We reiterate our call for the immediate and unconditional release of Corporal Shalit. We also condemn the continued rocket attacks from Gaza on Israeli towns. We have called on the Palestinian Authority to prevent all terrorist attacks, including these rocket attacks, and to work for the release of Corporal Shalit, and we welcome the work President Abbas is doing to achieve that.
Let me repeat that, although we recognise Israel’s right to defend itself and to secure the release of Corporal Shalit, we insist that its actions should be proportionate and in accordance with international law, as we, the G8, and the EU have made clear. We continue to have serious concerns regarding the humanitarian situation in Gaza. Israeli military actions have targeted key roads and bridges and damaged the Palestinian civilian infrastructure. We continue to urge Israel to take action to allow the full provision of basic services to the Palestinian people. We welcome the agreement to open the Rafah crossing on 18 July and hope that all those stuck on the Egyptian side of the crossing will be able to enter Gaza. Such cases should be resolved as quickly as possible through negotiations. The EU mission at Rafah has played a key role in bringing the sides together and continues to perform an important function under difficult circumstances. We have also made some humanitarian support available to those who have been stuck at the border.
We continue to have concerns about the detention of members of the Palestinian Government and legislature on 29 June. Those detained should be accorded their full legal rights and either be charged or released. We fully support Egyptian efforts to mediate between Israel, the Palestinian Authority and the militias currently holding Corporal Shalit, and we have offered our assistance. Egypt plays a key role in the peace process, and we will continue to work with it. We have also pressed Syria to use its influence on Hamas. I can assure the House that the United Kingdom will continue to work to resolve this crisis.
We need an urgent end to the current crisis, although we know, of course, that real peace can come only through a lasting settlement. As the Prime Minister made clear in St. Petersburg, our priority must be to create the conditions for an early resumption of negotiations. The events that we have witnessed around Israel’s borders over the past few days have reaffirmed the great urgency of constructing a lasting settlement and the perils of assuming that there is somehow a military solution to this historic conflict. Negotiation is the only viable way to move the peace process forward.
Our goal remains a negotiated two-state solution achieved through the road map. We must all find a way to work through the current crisis to get back on to that track.
I thank the Minister for advance sight of his statement. We join him in offering condolences to the Governments of Lebanon and Israel, and to President Abbas, for the losses that they have suffered, and to the families of those affected.
We are all extremely concerned by these events. The crisis has entered into a new and gravely dangerous phase. What appeared to be a local and contained Israeli-Palestinian confrontation risks becoming a regional conflict. As the Minister said, our first concern is for the welfare and safety of British nationals in Lebanon and Israel. We welcome his statement that the Government are acting to protect British citizens in the area. What number of British citizens and those with dual nationality reside in Lebanon, how many of them applied for evacuation and how many people do the Government envisage having to move to safety?
We welcome the news that two Royal Navy vessels are now off the coast of Lebanon and that two others have been despatched. Can the Minister confirm when the order was originally given for the ships to leave for the Mediterranean?
According to the Foreign Office document, “Information for British nationals in Lebanon”, dated yesterday, it is not currently safe for people to try to leave Lebanon. What representations have been made to the Government of Israel to ensure that the lives of British citizens will not be in danger during an evacuation programme? What advice have the Government given to UK citizens in Israel—stay put, or leave?
I understand that the UN Secretary-General’s mission is in the region and due to brief the Security Council on Thursday. What support have the Government offered to that mission beyond the logistical support that the Minister mentioned? What are its aims and what action do the Government anticipate from the Security Council?
The G8 statement calls for the “creation of the conditions” that could lead to a cessation of violence. Those include the release of the Israeli hostages, the end of rocket attacks on Israel, the withdrawal of Israeli troops from Gaza and the release of Palestinian parliamentarians. Is it realistic to expect that those conditions can be fulfilled in the absence of a ceasefire and in the context of a rapidly escalating conflict?
What role does the Minister see for diplomacy, particularly with countries such as Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Jordan, to put pressure on Hezbollah and to mediate in the release of the captured Israeli soldiers in Lebanon and in Gaza?
The Prime Minister and the UN Secretary-General have called for an international force to be deployed into southern Lebanon to halt the bloodshed. What discussions have the Government had with the Lebanese Government regarding those proposals? When does the Minister envisage that force being deployed—before or after hostilities have ceased? Would this plan involve a commitment of British troops?
The welfare of innocent civilians caught in the fighting is of great concern to everybody. What representations have the Government made to the Israeli Government about the need to avoid civilian causalities and the destruction of infrastructure in the operations in Gaza and in Lebanon? There are reports of Iran and Syria providing Hezbollah with weaponry that is being used to attack Israel, as the Minister mentioned. What representations have been made to those two countries to test their willingness to bring pressure to bear on Hezbollah?
We note the Government’s concerns about the humanitarian situation in Gaza. The G8 has called for an “immediate expansion” of the temporary international mechanism for the delivery of aid to the Palestinians. Will the Minister explain what is envisaged here? What impact is the situation in Gaza expected to have on the delivery of aid and what support is being given urgently to address the humanitarian crisis in the Gaza strip and to speed up the delivery of food and medicine?
It is imperative that we find a route to the resumption of dialogue between all sides. In particular, it is crucial that the dialogue between Palestinian and Israeli political officials resume as soon as possible and that there be a return to negotiations on the basis of a two-state solution, as the Minister said.
In Lebanon, it is imperative that resolution 1559 be enforced, above all in respect of the disbanding and disarmament of all militias, including Hezbollah. What steps will be taken to achieve that and to reinforce the authority of the Lebanese Government in the south of the country? I understand that, later this week, the Government intend to proscribe the military wing of Hezbollah. Will the Minister confirm that that will take place and whether the Government have considered proscribing the political arm of Hezbollah as well?
The middle east is an issue of the utmost importance to international peace and security. The current crisis is likely to have an impact well beyond Lebanon and Gaza. We ought to be very careful that the conflict raging in the middle east does not adversely affect our joint diplomatic efforts to resolve the Iranian nuclear issue and our military presence in Iraq, particularly in the south where Iranian influence remains considerable.
In the last two or three months, we have had a series of debates in Westminster Hall about various aspects of the middle east: Iran’s nuclear programme, the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, global terrorism and Israel. Many hon. Members on both sides of the House pressed the Government to hold a debate on the middle east in Government time to explain Government policy on the middle east across the board. I urge the Government to reflect on that and to take urgent action.
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his supportive comments; his questions are extremely relevant and germane to the current crisis. At the start of the crisis, 3,500 British families were registered in Lebanon and we have subsequently registered an additional 2,000 individuals, bringing the overall total to approximately 12,000 British nationals. There are also approximately 10,000 dual nationals. We have agreements with Commonwealth states, which means that we have some responsibilities there, too. When we take those numbers into account, the figures become very large. I have heard the situation described graphically in the sense that, if we had to evacuate the numbers that I have just mentioned, it would be the biggest evacuation since Dunkirk.
Directly to answer the hon. Gentleman’s question, the welfare and safety of those British nationals is our prime consideration. Four more ships are being dispatched to the eastern Mediterranean and we have made it clear that, in the meantime and as we have been doing up to now, we are putting plans in place to ensure that we get those people away as safely as possible. We have to arrange meeting places and provide transport to take people to the port safely and we have to ensure that the port itself is secured. I know that the Ministry of Defence and its professionals on the ground are carrying out those tasks right now.
The hon. Gentleman asked about the UN mission. At the moment, it is an exploratory mission. I know that the people involved wanted to get in and see the situation for themselves. We have helped them to get there and will no doubt help them to get away, too. The hon. Gentleman is right that we will negotiate closely with the mission about all manner of support that we may be able to offer to help take that work forward.
The hon. Gentleman is right to highlight the importance of Egypt, Saudi Arabia and some other Gulf states in helping to mediate in this crisis. We are meeting them on a daily basis, and we are certainly seeking their help; they have great experience of situations such as the current one, and we need their help now. We are meeting the Lebanese Government on a daily basis. Our ambassador, James Watt, has been working very hard on that front, and my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has spoken to the Prime Minister of Lebanon.
As for any force that might go in, I want to say very clearly that we do not envisage any British soldiers or other service personnel being part of that. This situation affects the whole world. Everyone is ready to become vocal about securing a middle east peace settlement and there are many nations that must put their armed forces where their rhetoric has been until now.
We have urged Iran and Syria time and again not to supply arms to Hezbollah, or to any other militia in the area. We are very disturbed that the rejectionist groups in Palestine and Hezbollah in southern Lebanon are being armed—with very sophisticated weapons—by Governments and agencies from outside the area. We have been pressing both Iran and Syria on the seriousness of that, and we will continue to do so. It is an issue that affects them as much as it affects any other country in the area, and that development is a very dangerous ploy.
I understand that, later this week, the Secretary of State for International Development will give a detailed update on the delivery of aid to Gaza, and also perhaps a greater explanation of the temporary international mechanism to try to ensure that basic humanitarian aid is given to Gaza.
We are helping the Lebanese Government to explain how it might be possible for them to extend their remit down to the border, should we get a resolution to this conflict. The United Nations security resolution is in place and the peacekeeping force—whatever title it has—will help to do that. The hon. Gentleman is right that that is central. I am sure that he will also be glad to know that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House informs me that we proscribed the military wing of Hezbollah in 2000.
People across the world continue to be sickened and appalled by events in the middle east. We echo the Minister’s condolences and share his concerns about the plight of United Kingdom citizens and others. Amidst all the complexities of the region, the kidnapping of the Israeli soldiers must continue to be condemned as the trigger of the crisis. They must be returned unharmed and nobody should deny Israel its right of self-defence. However, the military response is disproportionate and amounts to collective punishment of the people in Lebanon and the occupied territory, in contravention of the Geneva conventions and in breach of international law.
We are now far adrift of the road map. As hundreds die and thousands flee the conflict, will there now be a sustained high-level mission of all the parties to the Quartet to broker the necessary ceasefires and to plot the necessary short-term route to peace? Will the Minister clarify whether the United Kingdom has committed armed forces to the proposed UN mission, what any terms of engagement might be and where they would come from?
What provision is being made for the growing humanitarian crises arising from the Israeli incursions? Have we not now moved beyond the need for a temporary international mechanism to a requirement for urgent humanitarian aid? On the worrying plight of UK citizens, can we be assured that, as additional needs are identified, sufficient military and consular resources will be made available to those on the ground?
I welcome the hon. Gentleman’s initial comments. We are certainly ensuring that there our ambassador in Beirut has everything that he requires to facilitate the possible evacuation of what could be tens of thousands of people. I spoke to him a few minutes before I came to the Chamber and he is satisfied that he has all the resources that he requires. He is also working closely with the commander of our forces that have been sent there by the Ministry of Defence.
I understand the hon. Gentleman’s concerns about the need for proportionality, and I tried to cover that point in my statement. The Quartet will be expected to intensify its efforts and, as members of the EU, we will of course press very hard for that to happen. We believe that the Quartet is the most potent group to take the peace process forward, and we will continue to press for that. I repeat, in case the hon. Gentleman did not hear me say it when I made my statement, that there will be no British troops as part of the UN peace-keeping mission.
rose—
Order. May I remind Back Benchers that there should be only one supplementary question to the Minister?
I welcome this balanced statement. My hon. Friend referred to the importance of reopening the Rafah crossing. The American Secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice, played a key role in bringing about the Rafah agreement last December. Is there any sign that the US Administration are prepared to become more actively involved in finding a solution to the present crises?
Yes, the United States Administration are as worried about their nationals in the area as we are about ours. I understand that they are hoping to begin their own evacuation in a few days’ time. We are certainly talking to them and I understand that they are now talking to all the countries involved. I fully expect them, as part of the Quartet, to step up their efforts to find a resolution to the Palestinian problem as well.
Is it necessary for the Minister to sound more equivocal than the Saudi Arabians in holding Hezbollah solely responsible for the present crisis? Is he aware that, in an unprecedented statement, the Saudi Arabians have said:
“The Kingdom views that it is time that these elements”—
Hezbollah—
“alone bear the full responsibility of these irresponsible acts and shoulder the burden of ending the crisis they have created.”
If the Saudis can say that, why cannot the British Government?
I am sorry that the right hon. and learned Gentleman does not think that I have made a strong enough statement on Hezbollah. We have condemned Hezbollah and its tactics for many years, and will continue to do so. I am glad that the Saudi Government have made what for them is a brave statement on this matter, and I hope that it will represent a lead for many other countries in the Gulf and the middle east in general.
Does the Minister agree that the fundamental reason why people in Gaza and south Lebanon are willing to use violence is that there is no political route to justice? Does he also agree that the road map is collapsing, and that Israel is in breach of it by expanding its borders with settlements surrounding Jerusalem? If we do not take action, there will be unending violence in the middle east, causing great danger and suffering throughout the region and a threat to the world economy.
I do not know exactly what my right hon. Friend means by “take action”. We have played a very full part in trying to draw the sides together. There can only be one way out of this. There cannot be a military solution; there must be a properly negotiated solution. Neither name calling nor apportioning blame to this or that side has ever succeeded in the past, and I doubt that it will do so in the future.
While accepting totally the need for Israel to defend itself against terrorism, I should like to ask the Minister to call upon our Israeli friends to avoid any further attacks on non-Hezbollah Lebanese citizens and non-Hezbollah interests such as the airport. Otherwise, is there not a danger that the impotence of the Lebanese Government to protect their own non-Hezbollah citizens will lead those citizens to look outside Lebanon for protection? That could severely exacerbate the crisis?
Those are wise words, and I very much agree with the right hon. and learned Gentleman.
In relation to what my hon. Friend said, how far is it likely that Israel can be persuaded that while it has a right to defend itself, which no one disputes—at least in this House and generally among the western democracies—the manner of its response is unacceptable and has caused untold suffering and many deaths including those of children? Is not it also important to recognise that the present conflict is playing into the hands of the extremists on both sides—those who do not want any recognition of Israel, regardless of circumstances, and those in Israel who have no wish whatever to give up post-1967 territory?
My hon. Friend makes a fair point, but it is difficult to see with whom Israel is supposed to negotiate. The conflict has not arisen as a consequence of one nation invading another. It is a consequence of Hezbollah, a terrorist organisation, with its militias in the south, Fatah with its militias, and Hamas with its militias, killing and kidnapping the soldiers of a sovereign state. In those circumstances, it is difficult to negotiate and impossible to set the rules of engagement. Where I agree with my hon. Friend is that we must impress on the Israelis the international rules of conflict. When civilians are killed and the terrible phrase “collateral damage” is used to describe what is seen as a legitimate attack, the impression given across the middle east and the world is not a good one. I am sure that the Israelis must have got that message, but we will continue to give it.
While totally condemning the terrorist activities of Hamas and Hezbollah, it is important that Israel’s response should not only be proportionate but be seen to be proportionate. In so far as it is disproportionate, it leads people outside to use the phrase,
“A plague o’ both your houses!”
and it looks like the same kind of terrorism to which it is meant to respond. Will the Government assure the House that they are putting all pressure on the United States, which, after all, is the key to a solution, to be insistent that Israel act proportionately, in her interests as well as those of the whole world?
Yes. Again, that is wise advice. On every occasion, we have tried to impress on the Americans that, whatever we do, we must not fuel the attraction of terrorists in that area, because all too often, that attraction exists. In meetings in Bradford last Wednesday, I kept hearing the phrase, “our martyrs”. It is extraordinarily worrying if young, university-educated people in this country refer to those murderers who strap explosives around themselves and blow innocent people to pieces in a café in Haifa or any other city in Israel as martyrs.
Will my hon. Friend recognise that while the killing by rockets and other means of innocent Israeli civilians, and the kidnapping of Israeli soldiers, are vile terrorist crimes to be condemned, the Israeli military action against Lebanon, the killing of its citizens and the disruption of its fragile democracy are grave breaches of international law? Will he accept that unless a way is found to take a grip on this crisis, it could escalate into a global military, economic and political crisis?
We certainly understand the gravity of the situation, as does Kofi Annan and the G8, which has made it clear that a cessation of violence is essential and must be brought about sooner rather than later. My right hon. Friend is right—if weapons and fighters arrive from other areas, and the conflict is seen as some kind of holy jihad, we have problems. Bringing the conflict to a conclusion is the imperative. I have tried to make clear in answers to questions from other right hon. and hon. Members that all the actions that the Israeli state takes should be proportionate.
May I associate my party with the Minister’s earlier words of condolence? I condemn the kidnap of the Israeli soldiers and support calls for their immediate return. I also condemn what many believe to be disproportionate retaliation by the state of Israel. I welcome the deployment of the Royal Navy to the area to facilitate any evacuation, but what will happen to husbands, wives or children of United Kingdom citizens who are not themselves British passport-holders?
We have consular responsibility for dual nationals who wish to leave and whose lives are in danger. We will of course attempt to evacuate everyone who wants to be evacuated in those circumstances. The situation is difficult, because there are a number of agreements between us and other Commonwealth states under which we must look after many of their citizens too. The figures may become very high, but the hon. Gentleman can be absolutely assured that the Royal Navy has the professional expertise and skills to evacuate large numbers of people. We hope that it does not happen—we hope that people will get through the crisis and, most important of all, that we will be able to bring some peace to southern Lebanon that will obviate the need for a mass evacuation—but if it has to happen, we will be prepared.
While we would all condemn the kidnapping of both Israeli soldiers and Palestinian Ministers, the response of the Israeli Government has not been disproportionate; it has been an outrage. Can my hon. Friend assure us that when our Prime Minister talks to the Americans, his interlocutors understand that—as was said by my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Sir Gerald Kaufman)—the world faces a crisis of enormous import? The whole world could be dragged into something so tragic that we would regret every moment at which we had not taken action. Are the American Government bringing pressure to bear on the Israeli Government to end the violence?
I have tried to make clear that we recognise the gravity of the situation, and that we have tried to impress on all sides the need for proportionality and a cessation of violence. My hon. Friend knows the history better than most Members. He is aware of the feeling of Israelis, as well as Palestinians, about their own safety, the integrity of their borders and—I say this in no uncertain terms—the vital need for a two-state solution. If we take our eye off that ball, I am afraid we will enter into decades of conflict.
Given that these events were deliberately initiated by Hezbollah through the not entirely trivial actions of attacking and killing Israeli soldiers, kidnapping Israeli soldiers and raining missiles down on Israeli towns and cities, and given that Hezbollah is supported by Syria and Iran, will the Minister bring every possible form of pressure—and consequences, if necessary—to bear on Iran and Syria to end their support for terrorism and their support for the rejection of any possible just peace in the middle east?
Yes indeed. That is very good advice to the Government, and we certainly accept it.
My hon. Friend has been very clear in his condemnation of Hezbollah’s actions, and I doubt that he would find any Member on either side of the House who did not also condemn those actions without qualification. However, there is a good deal of concern about the fact that some of the language used is far from equitable. To attack power stations, to kill more than 100 civilians and to talk about taking Lebanon back 20 years is not merely disproportionate: it is immoral, it is illegal and it is unacceptable.
Will my hon. Friend unequivocally support the call from the Prime Minister of Lebanon for an immediate ceasefire on both sides? If he wants Lebanon to adhere to United Nations Security Council resolution 1559, will he also seek Israel’s adherence to resolution 242?
I agree with my hon. Friend that the language must be equitable and constructive, and I do not see any value in destroying power stations, bridges and so on. In the interim there is the possibility for the Lebanese Government to be helped to extend their remit to the Israeli border. That has to be an immediate priority. On the question of the implementation of some of the security resolutions, we have to be realistic and aim immediately to try to end this conflict and to bring about a peace in which negotiations properly can take place and people can feel safe again. On that I agree with him entirely.
Does the Minister agree that firing more than 1,000 missiles into Israel over the past four weeks is tantamount to a declaration of war with Israel and that any Prime Minister of any country would defend his people in those circumstances?
I doubt if anyone could argue with that. Shortly before I came into this Chamber, I heard that a missile fired by Hezbollah apparently has hit an apartment block and that it has collapsed. We do not know what the casualties are, but it is a serious escalation of the situation.
Can the Minister tell me how negotiations with our European colleagues will be taken forward? Some newspapers have reported today that Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice wished the European states to be represented by Javier Solana. That will be difficult as there is no agreement between the Germans, the French and the British on how to proceed, is there?
We are co-ordinating our activities closely with our EU partners on all matters at the moment, from trying to make some diplomatic breakthrough to making sure that all our citizens are evacuated safely if they wish to be taken from Lebanon. We have received a lot of co-operation on that front and we in turn will offer what co-operation we can to other EU states.
Is there any evidence at all that the Governments of Syria, Iran and Israel are listening to the calm and moderate language used this afternoon by the Minister? Have their ambassadors been summoned to the Foreign Office, so that he can explain these things to them?
We have not summoned them formally or informally to the Foreign Office since the crisis began. I fear we have been too busy to do that, but it is a very good point and I will take it back to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State.
Palestinian and Israeli women members of the International Women’s Commission for a Just and Sustainable Palestinian-Israeli Peace met last Thursday and issued a statement rejecting the use of force and urgently requesting that the Quartet intervene to stop the fighting. They also pointed out that civilians are the ones paying the price daily for the cycle of retaliation and counter-retaliation. Given that women in the middle east have for many years kept discussions going across political divides, does my hon. Friend agree that, as IWC members state, this appears to be the last chance for sanity and a return to the political process?
I am very glad to hear that the movement is taking a strong and positive role. Every voice, as my hon. Friend puts it, for sanity and peace should make itself heard right now.
Given how important it is to get people round the table before many more thousands are killed and murdered, is there not a danger that with an EU initiative, a Quartet initiative and a UN initiative, those initiatives individually will lack clarity and authority? Is not there a case, given all the interests of different powers in the middle east, for the UN to have all our support and to be the main force for trying to get people round the table, backed by whatever force the world can muster?
Yes, the right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. It should be conducted through the UN. The three-person UN delegation that we helped to get into Beirut has a pretty good idea now of what the situation is like on the ground there. I know that Kofi Annan is involved in trying to negotiate some way through this, if only to bring a temporary cessation of violence. We will give him all the support we can, but the right hon. Gentleman is right to stress that any initiative must be properly co-ordinated, and that we must have some coherence to our approach.
No one in this House in any way supports kidnapping or the firing of rockets into Israel, but does my hon. Friend accept that collective punishment is clearly against international law and has been regularly and routinely used by Israel over the years? It is being used again now in Lebanon, with the bombing of infrastructure and targeted assassinations from the air that inevitably cause civilian casualties, as the Israelis know when they do it. Those are not the actions of a responsible Government. In comparing the actions of Hezbollah and Israel, let us remember that Israel is a Government and a state, not an organisation like Hezbollah. One expects any state that claims to be a democracy and is a member of the UN to abide by international law.
We certainly expect Israel to abide by international law and we are totally opposed to collective punishment. My hon. Friend is right in recalling the history of relationships between Israel and its neighbours since the second world war. There is a great difference now. Hezbollah recognises no international law and targets civilians directly. Hamas’s terrorist elements murder civilians directly. That is the way in which terrorists operate. It is difficult, as we have found in this country to our great pain, to understand how such an enemy operates, and it is still more difficult to erect defences against such attacks. That is not to excuse collective punishment, as my hon. Friend puts it, but we must also try to understand that there are some very unscrupulous organisations around that operate across frontiers, owe allegiance to no one and are prepared to use any murderous techniques they care to invent to achieve their ends. That is a very difficult enemy with which to negotiate.
With the crisis pushing oil prices to $80 a barrel—and potentially to more than $100, if Iran is more directly involved—and causing great stress to the world economy and to the poorest countries in particular, can the Minister tell me whether the British Government are taking any action to secure the release of strategic stocks to stabilise the situation?
No, I cannot tell the hon. Gentleman that at the moment. I know that he is a great expert on the oil industry and I will try to find out for him. I will probably have to whisper the answer to him privately, because if such information reached the market we would see a rapid shift in the price of oil.
My hon. Friend has mentioned several times the need to return to the road map once this current crisis is over. In that context, may I draw his attention to the fact that among everything else the Israeli Government are continuing to construct the illegal wall on Palestinian territory and are annexing yet more land in the west bank around Hebron? Will he also make representations to the Israeli Government that they must stop creating facts on the ground, because that will mean that the two-state solution will be dead in the water, to the detriment of Israel and the Palestinians?
My hon. Friend is right. There can be no justification for constructing the barrier that has been built on Palestinian land. Nor can the Israeli Government annex Palestinian land and claim some sort of spurious legality for it. We have raised that point with the Israelis time and again, and we will continue to raise it with them. I have been there and seen it for myself and it is causing enormous hardship for many people, Palestinians and other dwellers in, for example, Jerusalem. If Israel is to come out of this situation with any credibility, it is vital that it is seen to be fair and to abide by international law in the construction of the barrier, and to stop the annexation of Palestinian land.
It was incredibly touching on a visit to Beirut in April to see how much progress has been made in rebuilding the state after the ejection of the Syrians. Does the Minister accept that the Beirut Government face exactly the same problems in trying to disarm Hezbollah as the Government whom we support in Baghdad have with militias there? For Israel to trash the state of Lebanon will do nothing at all for Israel’s long-term security. The target needs to be Hezbollah, not civilians or Lebanese infrastructure.
I agree broadly with the hon. Gentleman. We were all hopeful that moves towards real democracy and the move out from Lebanon of the Syrians—at least, the Syrian Army—boded very well. There was a good opportunity there for a lasting peace and for a strong Lebanese Government, which is precisely what was needed. The destruction of infrastructure and deaths of civilians will do nothing to strengthen that opportunity for the future, and we should say so very clearly.
The hon. Gentleman is right to draw parallels with sectarian militias in Baghdad and other places; any democratic Government face a terrible dilemma over how far they can go to try to rope militias in, and for the Lebanese Government that will be a huge task. I hope that they will be helped by an international peacekeeping force with the teeth to do something about Hezbollah.
Following on directly from those comments, I draw the Minister’s attention to a parliamentary answer that he gave in March, in which he mentioned the British Government’s support for Lebanese political, economic and security reform, which I welcome. Is not the influence of Hezbollah in Lebanon a major destabilising force? As the right hon. and learned Member for Kensington and Chelsea (Sir Malcolm Rifkind) said, it is the principal reason for the escalation in violence during the last 10 days or so. Further to the Minister’s statement, what work will he do to ensure that the Lebanese Government and others undermine, weaken and ostracise Hezbollah within Lebanon?
My hon. Friend is quite right: Hezbollah is the major destabilising influence. He will know that there were many hopes that Hezbollah would recognise that it would have a good deal of democratic support if it converted itself into a strictly democratic, legal party. It has had MPs elected and has at least one Minister in the Government, and one would have hoped that would be enough for it. It was not enough, and Hezbollah simply could not ditch the habits of a lifetime of forming militias, killing people and targeting innocent civilians. That means, of course, that it has a hand in destabilising Lebanon as well as relationships between Lebanon and Israel. We all have to work to counteract that influence, because it is pernicious.
The Minister’s statement has been extremely balanced, as have his answers, for which I am very grateful. Does he agree that the calls on Israel to show restraint are recognised by Israel, which has shown enormous restraint over many months of having rockets fired into its territory? Three Israeli soldiers are still being held hostage: what is Israel meant to do about those soldiers? Is it meant to negotiate? If it does, will not that simply encourage more hostage-taking?
That is a real dilemma, and we know about that dilemma from our experience in Iraq. What do a Government do? Do they start to play the game of hostage-taking and prisoner swaps and so on? There may be a mutually agreed solution down that path, but I cannot see it myself right now, and I think that the right hon. Gentleman is quite right to say that we have to urge restraint on all sides. It is difficult to urge restraint, however, on an organisation which, at its heart, has the aim of the destruction of a country. It is not easy to do.
There have been reports over the weekend that longer-range missiles used by Hezbollah have been supplied either by Syria or Iran. Is that the case? If it is, does my hon. Friend recognise that from an Israeli point of view it is one thing to be attacked by a terrorist organisation but to be attacked by two sovereign states in the region could provoke a completely different reaction, which poses grave danger to the whole middle east?
We certainly recognise from our experiences in Basra that countries outside Iraq, Lebanon, Israel and Palestine are prepared to lend and give their technology to the destruction of those whom they perceive to be their enemies. I do not want to inflame the situation further, but somebody is giving some very sophisticated missiles to some very unscrupulous people. In the end, that will do no good to Iran and Syria, any more that it will do Lebanon or the Palestinian people any good. We have to do what we can to stop that flow of weapons and try to persuade people that in the end they will kill innocent people and any hopes of peace in the future.
Given that Hezbollah would probably not have been able to proceed in the kidnapping and killing of Israeli soldiers without the green light from Iran, have Ministers considered the possibility that Iran may have given that permission with a view to diverting the world’s attention from the crisis over its own nuclear programme? What guarantees can the Government give the House that they will not allow themselves to be diverted in that way?
We will certainly not be diverted from our examination of the Iranian nuclear programme. We are good members of the International Atomic Energy Agency and support entirely the UN’s approach. We are absolutely determined to do what we can to stop the proliferation of nuclear weapons, whether in the middle east or anywhere else.
Yesterday evening, I spoke with the mother and grandfather of a young man who is trapped in north Beirut. Their anxiety for his well-being is compounded by the fact that he apparently cannot make contact with our embassy and that they believe that other foreign nationals can be evacuated from Lebanon. Can my hon. Friend spell out the exact status of our embassy? Is it actually open, and are other countries having the same difficulties in evacuating their countrymen?
I can assure my hon. Friend that our embassy is not only open but has been working flat out throughout the crisis. If he wants to approach me afterwards, I will certainly go through the situation in detail. Like many Members, I have experienced a number of crises across the world and I have rarely seen a set of our representatives—our diplomats abroad—work harder than those in the embassy in Beirut. I hope that my hon. Friend realises the scale of the problem; it is absolutely enormous and is taking place when missiles and aircraft are flying around and bombs are going off. Our diplomats are carrying out a very brave act and doing it very well, and I do not think that anybody is further advanced than us in getting our people out, but it will take a lot of organising. The last thing we want to do is to put our people in danger by persuading them to leave places where they are relatively safe. We cannot do that, which is why we have to negotiate carefully to make sure that our ships and buses are safe and that they will not be targeted and blown up—whether by Hezbollah or the Israelis. Our primary task is to make sure that our people are safe and that is what we are focusing on at the moment.
Will the hon. Gentleman impress on his Israeli interlocutors the fact that many of us who are friends of Israel believe that the action being undertaken by the Israeli Government is disproportionate and not compatible with the standards that we expect of a civilised Government? Furthermore, it is not likely to enhance their long-term security and will damage their reputation in the eyes of the world.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman is right to raise this issue. I have tried to make it clear to the House that we expect proportionate action, not disproportionate action. I agree entirely with him: disproportionate action, where it takes place, will do nothing other than cause greater resentment and probably greater opposition to the cause of Israel.
Everyone who has spoken in the House today has quite rightly condemned all the violence in the region and all the killing that is going on. The Minister himself has acknowledged that Israel’s actions in Lebanon are disproportionate and illegal, and are killing a large number of civilians. In view of Israel’s illegal activity, is he prepared to propose any kind of sanction against Israel, such as suspension of the EU trade agreement, which has within it a requirement in relation to human rights law and international law being adhered to? Will he also say the same to the United States? It has it within its power to put real pressure on Israel to cease this illegal activity.
No, this is not the time to start dusting off theories that I have heard over the past 30 years about how we can sort this problem out. We have to try to bring a cessation to the immediate violence and try to make people safe. Let us start negotiations from there.
Points of Order
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You will remember that, nearly two weeks ago, I raised a point of order with you about an unanswered question from the Home Office. That unanswered question related to the number of unanswered questions from the Home Office. It was a named day question, the date in question being 5 June. I received a response that the Home Office would answer as soon as possible—[Interruption.]
Order. May I say to the hon. Member for Milton Keynes, South-West (Dr. Starkey) that I am trying to listen to a point of order? It is a distraction when she speaks so loudly.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. As I was saying, the holding answer said that an answer would come as soon as possible. That was on 5 June. I raised a point of order with you exactly a month later about whether an answer would be forthcoming. I would be grateful to know whether there has been any progress on this matter, given that the recess is looming.
I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising the point of order. I was getting a bit worried myself, in case I got a holding reply—but I can inform him that the good news is that since I came into the Chamber, an answer has arrived. As soon as I leave here, I will read the answer and I will share it with him. I hope that that is helpful to him.
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You have been very clear in the past about the duty of Government not to release information publicly before it has appropriately come to the House. I have not given you prior notice of what I am going to say, so I apologise, because you may want to reflect on this. You could reflect on whether you could issue the same sort of warning to agencies of Government. The particular case that I have in mind occurred today. The Crown Prosecution Service’s Director of Public Prosecutions was due to make an important announcement at 12 o’clock about the prosecution or otherwise of police officers in relation to the shooting at Stockwell, but it was clear that there had been a leak of his intended announcement beforehand. I wonder whether you could take the time to reflect on that. If you were able to help the House by making sure that that sort of announcement was also protected—so that it could be made by the appropriate officer rather than announced in the press beforehand—that would be much appreciated.
I sympathise with the hon. Gentleman, but my feeling is that the Crown Prosecution Service is an independent organisation, and operates in a different situation from that of a Minister of the Crown.
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Further to the point of order raised by my hon. Friend the Member for South-West Hertfordshire (Mr. Gauke) about ministerial non-answers, you will remember the advice that you gave me a few days ago in relation to a question that I had asked the Secretary of State for Defence. I asked whether he was informed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer about the Chancellor’s proposed announcement on the future of Trident before the Chancellor made his Mansion house speech. The answer was:
“I have regular discussions with the Chancellor of the Exchequer on a range of issues.”—[Official Report, 5 July 2006; Vol. 448, c. 1107W.]
You advised that I should table another question. In pursuance of your advice, I did so, asking whether in the course of those regular discussions the Chancellor of the Exchequer had informed the Secretary of State for Defence of the content relating to the future of Trident in the Chancellor’s Mansion house speech before that speech was made. The reply was:
“I have nothing further to add to the reply I gave the hon. Member on 5 July”.—[Official Report, 11 July 2006; Vol. 448, c. 1798W.]
I wanted you to know the seriousness with which Ministers take your strictures on these matters.
I knew that I was giving the hon. Gentleman good advice, but he must try and try again.
Orders of the Day
Compensation Bill [Lords]
As amended in the Standing Committee, considered.
New Clause 13
Mesothelioma: damages
‘(1) This section applies where—
(a) a person (“the responsible person”) has negligently or in breach of statutory duty caused or permitted another person (“the victim”) to be exposed to asbestos,
(b) the victim has contracted mesothelioma as a result of exposure to asbestos,
(c) because of the nature of mesothelioma and the state of medical science, it is not possible to determine with certainty whether it was the exposure mentioned in paragraph (a) or another exposure which caused the victim to become ill, and
(d) the responsible person is liable in tort, by virtue of the exposure mentioned in paragraph (a), in connection with damage caused to the victim by the disease (whether by reason of having materially increased a risk or for any other reason).
(2) The responsible person shall be liable—
(a) in respect of the whole of the damage caused to the victim by the disease (irrespective of whether the victim was also exposed to asbestos—
(i) other than by the responsible person, whether or not in circumstances in which another person has liability in tort, or
(ii) by the responsible person in circumstances in which he has no liability in tort), and
(b) jointly and severally with any other responsible person.
(3) Subsection (2) does not prevent—
(a) one responsible person from claiming a contribution from another, or
(b) a finding of contributory negligence.
(4) In determining the extent of contributions of different responsible persons in accordance with subsection (3)(a), a court shall have regard to the relative lengths of the periods of exposure for which each was responsible; but this subsection shall not apply—
(a) if or to the extent that responsible persons agree to apportion responsibility amongst themselves on some other basis, or
(b) if or to the extent that the court thinks that another basis for determining contributions is more appropriate in the circumstances of a particular case.
(5) In subsection (1) the reference to causing or permitting a person to be exposed to asbestos includes a reference to failing to protect a person from exposure to asbestos.
(6) In the application of this section to Scotland—
(a) a reference to tort shall be taken as a reference to delict, and
(b) a reference to a court shall be taken to include a reference to a jury.
(7) The Treasury may make regulations about the provision of compensation to a responsible person where—
(a) he claims, or would claim, a contribution from another responsible person in accordance with subsection (3)(a), but
(b) he is unable or likely to be unable to obtain the contribution, because an insurer of the other responsible person is unable or likely to be unable to satisfy the claim for a contribution.
(8) The regulations may, in particular—
(a) replicate or apply (with or without modification) a provision of the Financial Services Compensation Scheme;
(b) replicate or apply (with or without modification) a transitional compensation provision;
(c) provide for a specified person to assess and pay compensation;
(d) provide for expenses incurred (including the payment of compensation) to be met out of levies collected in accordance with section 213(3)(b) of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (c. 8) (the Financial Services Compensation Scheme);
(e) modify the effect of a transitional compensation provision;
(f) enable the Financial Services Authority to amend the Financial Services Compensation Scheme;
(g) modify the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 in its application to an amendment pursuant to paragraph (f);
(h) make, or require the making of, provision for the making of a claim by a responsible person for compensation whether or not he has already satisfied claims in tort against him;
(i) make, or require the making of, provision which has effect in relation to claims for contributions made on or after the date on which this Act is passed.
(9) Provision made by virtue of subsection (8)(a) shall cease to have effect when the Financial Services Compensation Scheme is amended by the Financial Services Authority by virtue of subsection (8)(f).
(10) In subsections (7) and (8)—
(a) a reference to a responsible person includes a reference to an insurer of a responsible person, and
(b) “transitional compensation provision” means a provision of an enactment which is made under the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 and—
(i) preserves the effect of the Policyholders Protection Act 1975 (c. 75), or
(ii) applies the Financial Services Compensation Scheme in relation to matters arising before its establishment.
(11) Regulations under subsection (7)—
(a) may include consequential or incidental provision,
(b) may make provision which has effect generally or only in relation to specified cases or circumstances,
(c) may make different provision for different cases or circumstances,
(d) shall be made by statutory instrument, and
(e) may not be made unless a draft has been laid before and approved by resolution of each House of Parliament.’.—[Bridget Prentice.]
Brought up, and read the First time.
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
New clause 6—Mesothelioma Compensation Board—
‘(1) The Secretary of State may by regulations establish a body known as the Mesothelioma Compensation Board.
(2) Regulations made under this section shall make provision as to the functions and powers of the Board.’.
New clause 7—Asymptomatic chemical exposure—
‘The lodging in the body of a chemical or substance which may cause injury as a consequence of negligence or breach of statutory duty, shall give rise to a cause of action whether or not the lodging has caused symptoms at the time the action is commenced or brought to trial.’.
New clause 8—Disapplication of Crown Proceedings Acts—
‘The Crown Proceedings Act 1947 and the Crown Proceedings (Armed Forces) Act 1987 shall not provide a defence to a claim brought after the Act came into force, in respect of injury caused by exposure to chemicals or substances occurring before that date but which did not manifest symptoms in the claimant until after that date.’.
Government amendments Nos. 7 to 10.
I am delighted to be introducing new clause 13 and related Government amendments Nos. 7 to 10, which, I believe, will make a real difference to sufferers of mesothelioma and their families who have been, or would have been, affected by the recent House of Lords judgment in the case of Barker v. Corus.
The Minister rightly talks about her pleasure in moving the new clause. That pleasure is widely felt, certainly among Members on the Labour Benches, because many of our constituents have a real interest in what she is about to say. I thank her.
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his intervention, especially because I want to ensure that I make it clear throughout my speech how grateful I am to my right hon. and hon. Friends for the campaigning that they have done on this issue and the pressure that they have put on me, and the Government as a whole, to ensure that we would consider new clause 13 and the Government amendments today. I agree that the measures are important to many hon. Members, and they are especially important to the families and constituents whom they represent.
Of course we welcome the new clause and amendments. However, how would the Minister respond to a letter that I have received from the solicitor who acted for the Department of Trade and Industry when it instigated the litigation that resulted in the House of Lords decision in Barker v. Corus? The solicitor writes:
“It appears that the same government for which I was acting in what was then considered to be in the public interest has now apparently decided, following a clamour of protest, to legislate to reverse the decision which it itself sought.”
Will the hon. Lady explain which Minister decided to take the case of Barker v. Corus forward? How much did it cost, and why have the Government got into this mess?
I am disappointed that the hon. Gentleman is trying to make juvenile points—[Interruption.] If he is prepared to listen, I will explain to him one of the simple things about cases in both the Court of Appeal and the House of Lords. Cases are given the title of the person taking the action and the person defending the action. The hon. Gentleman will see that no Government name appears in the case of Barker v. Corus as either the appellant or the defendant. The case was taken by the families against Corus. He should stop trying to make silly interventions and allow us to take a historic decision today that will change the lives of people who are suffering because of a horrible disease.
If I may, I would like to get past the first sentence of my speech. I will give way again shortly.
Let me outline the situation. In the 2002 case of Fairchild v. Glenhaven Funeral Services, the House of Lords decided that a person who had contracted mesothelioma after wrongful exposure to asbestos—
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for the Minister to misrepresent the position, albeit no doubt inadvertently? It was British Shipbuilders (Hydrodynamics) Ltd that took the case to the House of Lords, funded by the Department of Trade and Industry. I have quoted from a letter from the solicitor—
Order. That is a matter for debate, rather than a point of order for the Chair.
In the 2002 case of Fairchild, the House of Lords decided that someone who had contracted mesothelioma after wrongful exposure to asbestos at different times by more than one negligent employer could sue any of them, notwithstanding the fact that he could not prove which exposure had caused the disease, because all had materially contributed to the risk of his contracting that disease. Fairchild did not resolve whether liability should be joint and several, although it was presumed by the parties that that would be the rule, and that was the approach taken in practice. However, in Barker v. Corus, the House of Lords decided that, instead, the damages were to be apportioned among those responsible for the wrongful exposure according to their relative degree of contribution to the chance of the person contracting the disease.
That decision did not impose a limit on the damages that could be recovered from those responsible for the exposure to asbestos, but it did mean that the risk of any of them being insolvent and unable to pay the appropriate share would fall on the claimant, and that in practice the claimant would have to trace all relevant defendants, as far as that was possible, before liability could be apportioned and full compensation paid, or alternatively to issue multiple claims to recover damages on a piecemeal basis.
I fear that the Minister has missed one important part of the argument in the Barker case: it extended liability to cover cases where part of the exposure was caused by the claimant himself. Is not there a danger that the law will go back to its state before Barker if the new clause is passed?
In one sense the law will go back to before Barker—to Fairchild, which represents the position that we wish to put people in. As I said at the beginning, although Fairchild did not in itself determine joint and several liability, in practice that is what happened, and that is what we want to achieve.
I am grateful to the Minister for giving way again, because this is a very important point. There are two aspects of Barker. One was in favour of the claimant, by expanding the scope of the Fairchild ruling; the other was the imposition of proportionate several liability instead of joint and several liability. If we return to Fairchild completely, the liability rule will contract and fewer people will gain damages in the first place.
I do not accept the hon. Gentleman’s version of what will happen as a result of the amendments. If he will allow me to go through the rest of the outline of why and how we are doing this, with a bit of luck it will all become clearer.
The practical effects of the decision, which the Law Lords were not asked to consider, would be that claims could take much longer to be concluded and would be much more difficult and time-consuming for claimants, when they and their families are already under considerable pain and stress. That is why we are taking action today to reverse the effects of the Barker judgment and to help claimants suffering from this terrible disease to receive the compensation to which they are entitled as soon as possible.
May I too congratulate my hon. Friend on this important step? Although she is absolutely right to emphasise that the decision is fair to the claimants, it is also logical medically. I know of no doctor who believes that it is even remotely sensible to try to apportion the responsibility or the causality among different former employers. The Barker decision was treated with total incredulity by the medical profession, who of course must deal with the consequences of the outrageous actions of the asbestos purveyors of the past.
My hon. Friend makes a very important point. That is why we have tabled the amendments. The very fact that a single fibre of asbestos is enough for someone to contract this horrible disease makes it very difficult medically to decide directly where that might have happened.
I should make it clear that the amendments are just part of what the Government are doing. Together with colleagues in the Department for Work and Pensions, we are working with the Association of British Insurers, the Association of Personal Injury Lawyers and the TUC urgently to identify ways of speeding up the settlement of mesothelioma claims. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions has already indicated that he will be making a statement about that work before the recess. I thank the ABI, APIL and the TUC for the helpful and constructive discussions that we had when formulating the amendments.
Those of us who last week heard the Minister for Employment and Welfare Reform make a commitment to providing a statement before the recess were encouraged. Will the Under-Secretary underline the importance of taking swift action? Sadly, people who contract mesothelioma may have no more than a year or 18 months between the moment when they know that they have contracted the illness and dying, so it is important that the Government move swiftly, and that the system is swift to administer. Does my hon. Friend agree?
I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend, and I hope later to reassure him that we are making sure that that happens. It is all very well our introducing the amendments, but if people who are suffering had to wait an extended time to receive their compensation, much of what we are doing today would be undermined, so my hon. Friend is right to make that point.
I, too, thank the Minister for the speedy way in which she has responded to this problem, which dominated Second Reading. She mentioned the ABI, and I am grateful for the changes that the Government have implemented. The new clause is complex, and amends, for example, the financial services compensation scheme. Can she give the House the assurance that all claimants will receive full compensation? If all those responsible were insolvent, there would be a loophole, and a gap in provision. That requires a great deal of attention, so it would be helpful to all of us if she gave that assurance. Finally, I endorse the point about speed, which is particularly important, given that the rules committee has to draw up a new framework to ensure that compensation is made speedily. That process has, in the past, been protracted, and that would not be appropriate in the circumstances.
The hon. Gentleman makes a fair point. Officials are working on that issue, virtually as we speak. He is right about the effect on the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000, and indeed on the Policyholders Protection Act 1997. We are not changing liability under that scheme, but we will make sure that people are properly covered and that FSMA, as it is affectionately known, is used properly. Work on that is going on now. Later, I hope to show that people can receive compensation even before the regulations are made, and that the money can be drawn back later by the people who pay it. I hope that I have given the hon. Gentleman reassurance.
I want to deal with the detail of the amendments, and I hope that the explanatory note that has been provided will be of assistance. New clause 13 provides that where a person
“has negligently or in breach of statutory duty caused or permitted another person…to be exposed to asbestos,”
and
“the victim has contracted mesothelioma as a result”,
the negligent person will be jointly and severally liable. That will enable the claimant to recover full compensation from any responsible person, and will also apply to claims made by the claimant’s estate or dependants when the claimant has not made or resolved a claim prior to his death.
I, too, congratulate the Minister and her officials on the manner in which they took the Bill through the House, and on ensuring that it will apply to Scotland throughout the period in question. The issue is extremely important, so does the Minister share my disappointment that Members from the Scottish National party do not see fit to be in the Chamber, even though the issue affects so many Scots?
My hon. Friend points out the absence of SNP Members, but it does not surprise me, as they rarely come to the Chamber when something of such importance to many of their constituents is being debated. I am not surprised—disappointed, perhaps, but I may be too old and cynical even to be disappointed any more.
With reference to Scotland, I am grateful to our colleagues in the Scottish Executive who worked extremely hard in a very short time to agree the Sewel motion, which will allow the provision to apply to Scotland. I put on record my thanks to them for taking on board the issues that we raised with them, despite the fact that we did not necessarily have every t crossed and every i dotted.
The provision will apply regardless of where the exposure took place. I am aware that some concerns have been expressed that this may extend the principle contained in Fairchild. I do not believe that this is the case. Although the case of Fairchild related to a workplace exposure, the principle contained in the House of Lords judgment was not restricted to such cases. To restrict the provision to workplace exposure would mean that some of the claimants affected by Barker would be left in exactly the same difficulties as they are now suffering, and that different claimants would be treated in different ways purely because of where the exposure occurred. That cannot be right.