| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
British Passports
8. Mr. Soley: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the design of British passports. [25044]
- The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (
Mr. Timothy Kirkhope): The current new-style British passport, introduced from 1988, is in a common format that has been agreed throughout the European Union.
An internal review in 1995 found that the current design and security features provide adequate protection against fraud, but that is being examined again and consideration is being given to replacing the holder's photograph with a printed digitised image when the current printing equipment is replaced in 1998.
Mr. Soley:
So when people renew their passports, they will, at the Minister's insistence, no longer be able to obtain a traditional British-style passport but must have what is called a "European Community passport". Is the Minister proud of that?
Mr. Kirkhope:
I am somewhat surprised by the hon. Gentleman's remarks. The passport that is held by British nationals is quite clearly a British, not a European, passport. On its front cover, it bears this country's coat of arms and the clear and unequivocal statement that it is a passport of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. I give the hon. Gentleman an assurance that we intend it to remain that way--but I am not so sure that Opposition Front Benchers, with their Euro-enthusiasm, could provide the same guarantee.
Mr. Garnier:
My hon. Friend is correct: the problem is not the design of the British passport, but designs on the British passport. Will my hon. Friend renew the fight to ensure that border controls and the sanctity of passports generally are upheld?
Mr. Kirkhope:
I am sure that we can give that confirmation. However, the Opposition are apparently unable to do that. If we received more support from the Opposition in our determination in that regard, we would be in a much better position.
9. Mr. Mullin:
To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has for regulating the private security industry; and if he will make a statement. [25045]
Mr. Maclean:
We are still considering the case for regulating the private security industry.
Mr. Mullin:
Has the Minister noticed that Lowther Construction, a company based in his constituency, has been employing an armed robber as a security guard--or at least it was until he was arrested on charges of supplying heroin? When will the Minister overcome his obsession with deregulation and do what all sensible people of all political persuasions both in and outside the industry are begging him to do: start regulating the private security industry?
Mr. Maclean:
The hon. Gentleman and his party are very keen on regulation and more regulation, but they have not thought out the details and there is no blueprint for how it should be done.
Mr. Maclean:
That is the Opposition's response to all regulation issues: they do not care about the details or the effect on criminal law or the industry; they would simply regulate and hope for the best.
The Home Affairs Committee has produced a very thoughtful report to which we are giving careful consideration. We have accepted many of its recommendations and we are working on the details of our White Paper on criminal record checks, which will address many of the problems in the industry. When we have formed our conclusions, we shall announce our proposals for the private security industry--whatever they may be.
Mr. Michael:
Why does the Minister appear so unwilling to regulate the crooks? Does he realise that the experience of my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin) is not unique? What has the Minister to say about the experience of the police? For example, a police superintendent told me about a man with 23 pages of convictions on the police national computer who is running a private security firm. The police, the Labour party and the private security industry want statutory regulation of the industry. Why will not the Home Secretary bring in legislation to protect the public, instead of continuing to act as the villain's friend?
Mr. Maclean:
It will not surprise the House to know that I anticipated that the hon. Gentleman might end with that jibe, so before coming to the House I looked up the Labour party's voting record--not on regulation, but on Bills to deal with people who have been convicted of crime. In 1988, Labour voted against the power to increase from two years to 10 the penalty for cruelty to children. Labour voted against penalties for hard drugs. Labour voted against the maximum penalty for taking a gun to crime. Labour voted against every prevention of terrorism Act until this year. Labour voted against many parts of the last criminal justice Bill and sabotaged others. We will produce our proposals for the private security industry in due course, but we will not take lessons from the Opposition when over the past 15 years they have voted against every measure that would have locked up more criminals.
10. Mr. Gordon Prentice:
To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make it his policy to give reasons for refusing United Kingdom citizenship applications where the applicant has been lawfully resident in the United Kingdom for over 20 years, has no criminal record and has met all the duties and obligations which fall to be met by a person resident in the United Kingdom. [25046]
Mr. Kirkhope:
No. Section 44(2) of the British Nationality Act 1981 expressly relieves the Secretary of State from giving reasons in such cases where the decision is at his discretion.
Mr. Prentice:
Why will the Minister not give reasons for the refusal of British citizenship to the Fayed brothers,
Mr. Kirkhope:
Under schedule 1 to the 1981 Act, certain requirements must be met for approval to be given to citizenship. Some are objective matters and some are subjective, subject to discretion. Mr. Justice Judge's pronouncement, to which the hon. Gentleman referred, made it clear that the British Government have always acted lawfully in respect of the matters that the hon. Gentleman mentioned. The judge found as a matter of law that there was no obligation either to give reasons or to invite representations, and that the Home Office in no way acted unlawfully.
Mr. Ashby:
Having received a pretty shabby letter from Mohammed Al Fayed, I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister agrees that he is not fit for British citizenship. People who are fit for British citizenship include children born in Germany of parents serving in the British forces. Why are such children subject to such an onerous burden of proof in obtaining a British passport?
Mr. Kirkhope:
I thank my hon. Friend for that. I will be pleased to look into that matter and reply to him. I remind the House that we take British nationality extremely seriously. It is a very special status, not to be conferred in a flippant or easy manner--as suggested by the Labour party.
11. Mr. Benton:
To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how much he plans to increase the revenue finance for police forces in England and Wales in each of the next three years in order to increase by 5,000 the number of police officers. [25047]
Mr. Maclean:
Police authorities will receive an extra £20 million this financial year, £60 million more in 1997-98 and £100 million more in 1998-99. That will enable them to recruit 5,000 additional police constables over that period.
Mr. Benton:
Is the Minister aware of the early-day motion tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Garston (Mr. Loyden), drawing attention to the increasing level of violence and use of firearms on Merseyside? Is he also aware that under the constraints imposed by the Government, Merseyside fire authority--this year, not in three years' time--will have to reduce its officer numbers by 130? How will the Merseyside authority cope with the increased levels of crime? Will the Minister put the elderly people and other vulnerable groups on Merseyside at ease with some statement of comfort, and will he agree to meet a delegation from the Merseyside police authority?
Mr. Maclean:
People on Merseyside might be put more at ease if the authority did not waste hundreds of
Mr. Dunn:
Is the Minister satisfied that the police establishment of the county of Kent is sufficient to deal with all the manifestations of the channel tunnel rail link, in view of the huge increase in traffic moving through the county from the north to the coast and from there to Europe?
Mr. Maclean:
Yes, I am. We no longer set establishments, but in view of the generous funding that all forces, including Kent, have received and the success that Kent police have had in tackling all aspects of crime, I am satisfied that Kent's excellent chief constable will be able to deploy the resources that we have given him in the most effective way to tackle any problems arising from the channel tunnel and any other problems of crime in his county.
Mr. Barnes:
When will sufficient resources be given to the police in Derbyshire so that they can secure the return of their certificate of competence? Why is that force still suffering as a result of a past policy of civilianisation when that policy is now recommended by the Home Office?
Mr. Maclean:
I will tell the House what Derbyshire is suffering from: it is suffering from a legacy of Labour control in Derbyshire in the mid-1980s--from Bookbinder and hostile Labour councillors who hated the police and did everything to do them down. Derbyshire's success is improving because the Tory Government have given more money to Derbyshire than its Labour council in the 1980s took away from it. Derbyshire will get about 5 per cent. more this year. It has had generous capital funding and if Labour councillors in the past had shown some respect for their county force, it would not have its problems.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |