| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Human Rights
Mr. Derek Twigg: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when the Government expects to announce the outcome of its review of international human rights instruments. [75118]
Mr. Straw: I am placing in the Library a summary of the conclusions of the review.
On 27 January, I signed the Sixth Protocol to the European Convention on Human Rights. We shall also ratify the Second Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, without any reservation to preserve the use of the death penalty in wartime.
We shall ratify International Labour Organisation Convention 111 on discrimination in employment.
We intend to ratify the Seventh Protocol to the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) as soon as Parliament removes inconsistencies in our family law provisions. We will seek a suitable opportunity to propose those changes. We are also considering whether legislation is necessary to enable the United Kingdom to ratify the Fourth Protocol to the ECHR.
We shall look again at the rights of individual petition under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the United Nationals Convention Against Torture and the Union Nations Convention on the Elimination of
3 Mar 1999 : Column: 757
Racial Discrimination once the Human Rights Act has been fully implemented. We have looked closely at the merits of adopting these additional rights, but have also taken in account the impact on the vital work of preparing for and implementing the Human Rights Act 1998. This is a major piece of legislation that demonstrates our commitment to the advancement of human rights.
Ms Corston:
To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has for reviewing the future role of the Fire Service College. [75119]
Mr. Straw:
The Government are committed to securing best value for money through regular and systematic reviews of the services which its agencies provide and how these are delivered.
In view of the continuing poor financial performance as a trading fund of the Fire Service College at Moreton in Marsh, I have decided to commission an immediate prior options review. This will consider the College's present and future role in helping meet the requirements for central training in the fire service. The review will evaluate the performance of the Agency and will also re-appraise the prior options considered before the College was established as a trading fund, taking account of developments since that time. Should Ministers agree that agency status remains the most appropriate option, the review will bring forward recommendations for future development and funding including any necessary revisions to the College's Framework Document.
The review will be conducted by officials from the man Home Office working, among others, with Her Majesty's Fire Service Inspectorate. Views are welcomed from all interested parties. The review is expected to report in the summer.
Mr. Maclean:
To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the annual cost of providing full police protection to an individual whose life has been threatened. [74477]
Mr. Straw:
It is not the practice to publish this information as it provides an indication of the level of protection being provided.
Mr. Gerrard:
To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the countries currently considered to be in upheaval for the purpose of determining asylum claims. [73889]
Mr. Mike O'Brien:
There is no country or territory currently subject to a declaration of upheaval under the Social Security (Persons from Abroad) Miscellaneous Amendments Regulations 1996. Declarations were made in respect of Sierra Leone on 1 July 1997 and the Democratic Republic of Congo on 17 May 1998. These expired after three months.
The purpose of such declarations is to ensure that people who find themselves in the United Kingdom at the point when there is a change of circumstances in their home country, of the kind envisaged in the Regulations,
3 Mar 1999 : Column: 758
are not disadvantaged in terms of access to income support and related benefits if they make an in-country asylum application with reasonable promptness. Three months is the period considered to be reasonable for this purpose. A declaration of upheaval does not, in itself, carry any implication for the determination of asylum applications from the country or territory concerned. The need for this procedure would cease to exist under the scheme of support for asylum seekers contained in Park VI of the Immigration and Asylum Bill.
Mr. Stinchcombe:
To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many asylum seekers under the age of 18 years are currently detained. [73782]
Mr. Mike O'Brien:
At 14.00 on 1 March 1999 there were 2 people who are 17 years of age in detention; awaiting removal to Belgium in the near future. Another person in detention is claiming to be 17 years old but his age is in dispute.
Mr. Stinchcombe:
To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if he will make a statement on the criteria for the detention of asylum seekers in Her Majesty's prisons; [73778]
Mr. Mike O'Brien:
No one is detained solely because they are an asylum seeker. Detention is authorised only in accordance with powers set out in the Immigration Act 1971 as they apply to inadmissible passengers, illegal entrants or stowaways, people subject to deportation action or on grounds of national security.
The principle criterion for detention is whether a person will comply with conditions attached to the grant of temporary admission or release. So far as possible, people are detained in discrete accommodation in Immigration Service Detention Centres or designated prison accommodation at Haslar or Rochester. But there are a few held in other establishments for reasons of geography, security or control.
The exceptions may be those convicted prisoners subject to deportation action who may continue to be held in prisons at the conclusion of their sentence awaiting the activation of the deportation order.
Mr. Stinchcombe:
To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many asylum seekers have been detained for over six months (a) in Her Majesty's prisons and (b) elsewhere. [73780]
Mr. Mike O'Brien:
The available information relates to the snapshot of asylum seekers detained solely under Immigration Act powers as at 29 January 1999 for in-country applicants and 1 February 1999 for port applicants. 116 such persons were recorded as having been detained continuously for at least six months. The breakdown between those detained in prisons and those in other places of detention is available only at disproportionate cost.
Mr. Wigley:
To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the position of Her Majesty's Government with regard to the provisions of Article 22 of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child on protection for children seeking asylum. [74307]
3 Mar 1999 : Column: 759
Mr. Mike O'Brien:
The effect of Article 22 of the United Nation Convention on the Rights of the Child is to confer on refugee and asylum seeking children all the rights set out in that Convention. The comprehensive provision in United Kingdom law for the care and protection of children applies in full to children who have been recognised as refugees in this country and to those who have sought asylum here, but whose claim has not been determined. Although the United Kingdom has entered a reservation which makes it clear that nothing in the Convention is interpreted as affecting the operation of our immigration and nationality legislation, our law is entirely consistent with the thrust of the Convention.
Mr. Maclean:
To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the (a) names and (b) job titles of his Department's officials who read the Macpherson report prior to the oral statement of 26 February 1999, Official Report, columns 660-70, by the Minister of State. [74449]
Mr. Straw:
In relation to the period before the publication of the Report, it would not be in the interests of the investigation now under way of the leak of parts of the Report to give these details. After publication, the Report was widely available, including on the Internet, and would have been seen by a large number of Home Office officials.
Mr. Peter Bottomley:
To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what response he made to the Metropolitan Police following their alerting of the Stephen Lawrence Inquiry to the unintended publication of sensitive information; [74421]
(3) if he was first contacted by (a) the Metropolitan Police or (b) the Stephen Lawrence Inquiry as to the existence of information intended to be kept in confidence which was contained in the Stephen Lawrence Inquiry report before the report was published. [74417]
Mr. Straw:
Appendix 11 of the report into the Stephen Lawrence Inquiry contained detailed information which should have been kept in confidence. The Home Office was alerted to that at about 10.45am on 25 February by the Inquiry staff. They had been contacted by the Metropolitan Police. We immediately stopped further distribution of the Appendices volume. The Metropolitan Police urgently carried out risk assessments on those individuals affected and appropriate protection measures have been put in place. The police have established a 24 hour incident room in Eltham Police Station and Home Office liaison officer is posted there to assist local Members of Parliament.
Mr. Peter Bottomley:
To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on his Department's policy in alerting independent judicial inquiries to the existence of information, which is intended to be kept in confidence, in a report which is to be published. [74423]
3 Mar 1999 : Column: 760
Mr. Grieve:
To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what powers he had to inform the Stephen Lawrence Inquiry of the existence of the names and addresses of informants in Appendix 11 prior to publication of the inquiry report; [74424]
Mr. Straw:
The responsibility for determining the content of the report of a judicial inquiry, including any decision to publish supporting material by way of appendices, falls to the Chairman and members of the Inquiry. My Department can advise, when requested, whether material should be withheld on security or other grounds.
In the case of the Stephen Lawrence Inquiry, I undertook at the outset to publish the report of the Inquiry in full. Sir William Macpherson of Cluny has already said that he takes full responsibility for the original mistaken inclusion of an unredacted version of Appendix 11 in the report. Like Sir William, I am very sorry that the mistake was made. The copies of the report which are now on sale do not contain the original Appendix 11.
Mr. Butterfill:
To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps he took upon receipt of the report of the Stephen Lawrence Inquiry to ensure (a) the security of witnesses and (b) that any future (i) investigations and (ii) prosecutions would not be prejudiced by its publication. [74416]
Mr. Straw:
The Inquiry was an independent judicial inquiry established under the Police Act. The contents of the Report were entirely a matter for the Inquiry, as its chairman has made clear.
Mr. Forth:
To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when the final report on the Lawrence Inquiry was first received by his Department. [74413]
Mr. Straw:
Sir William Macpherson delivered the Report to me on the evening of Monday 15 February.
Mr. Forth:
To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department which officials in his Department were (a) responsible for liaising with the Lawrence Inquiry and (b) seconded to the Inquiry. [74415]
Mr. Straw:
The Secretary to the Stephen Lawrence Inquiry on secondment from the Home Office, was Stephen Wells. Further details of the staffing of the Inquiry secretariat are given in paragraphs 3.28 and 3.30 of the Report.
Responsibility in the Home Office for liaison with the Inquiry rested within the Operational Policing Policy Unit. The Head of Unit, as listed in the Civil Service Year Book, is Paul Pugh. He has been assisted by Patricia McFarlane who has responsibility for Police Community Relations within the Operational Policing Policy Unit. Other officials have assisted as part of their normal responsibilities.
3 Mar 1999 : Column: 761
Mr. Forth:
To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the (a) Ministers and (b) officials in his Department who read the report of the Lawrence Inquiry between the time it was first received by his Department and its publication. [74414]
Mr. Straw:
It would not be in the interests of the investigation now under way into the leak of parts of the Report to give these details.
Mr. Grieve:
To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on his duties in respect of public interest immunity on the protection of the identity of informants in criminal investigations (a) in general and (b) in the case of informants named in Appendix 11 of the Stephen Lawrence report. [74426]
Mr. Straw:
The question of public interest immunity arises in litigation, where it operates in appropriate circumstances to override the normal obligations of disclosure between the parties to the litigation. It does not arise outside legal proceedings.
The right hon. and learned Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Sir N. Lyell), as Attorney-General, informed the House of the new approach to public interest immunity of the Government then in office in a statement made on 18 December 1996. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Aberavon (Mr. Morris) informed the House on 11 July 1997, Official Report, column 616, that the present Government would follow the same approach to public interest immunity. Under that approach the question of public interest immunity is considered on an individual case basis. Public interest immunity is asserted by the Government only where Ministers believe that disclosure of the information in question would cause real damage to the public interest.
I do not normally have a role in criminal investigations or prosecutions, which fall to the police and the Crown Prosecution Service respectively. The assertion of public interest immunity in a prosecution would normally be the responsibility of the Crown Prosecution Service.
Mr. Grieve:
To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department for what reasons his Department received a copy of the Stephen Lawrence report prior to its publication. [74427]
Mr. Straw:
Sir William Macpherson delivered the Report to me so that my Department could arrange its printing and presentation to Parliament.
Mr. Maclean:
To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what procedures the Macpherson Inquiry team used to vet all documents submitted prior to publication of their report; [74480]
(3) what criteria the Macpherson Inquiry adopted to determine which documents should be published and which should not; [74476]
(4) how many documents submitted to the Macpherson Inquiry were not published, and how many pages the documents contained. [74479]
Mr. Straw:
I understand from the Inquiry that the seven documents taken from the evidence which were included for publication in the Appendices to the Report
3 Mar 1999 : Column: 762
were chosen on the basis that they were subject to discussion in the body of the Report and that they had a wider general interest. The documents were approved and proof read by the Chairman, his Advisers and his administrative staff. All these documents had been in the public domain, in either complete or redacted form during the public hearings of the Inquiry.
The Inquiry received about 30,000 documents containing a total of over 80,000 pages for Part 1 of its work. Many of these documents were duplicates because copies were submitted by more than one part to the Inquiry. About one third of the total was distributed to the parties of the Inquiry, subject to any redactions which the Inquiry considered necessary. Any redactions were agreed between the party submitting the document, the Inquiry's legal team and the Metropolitan police where necessary. This was done where confidentiality was clearly an issue or on the basis of a risk assessment.
Mr. Maclean:
To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department from which divisions of his Department he received submissions on the Macpherson report prior to the oral statement by the Minister of State on 26 February 1999, Official Report, columns 660-61. [74483]
Mr. Straw:
It is not the practice to discuss the advice given to Ministers by officials.
Mr. Maclean:
To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the (a) written and (b) oral contacts (i) he and (ii) his officials had with the Macpherson inquiry team from its inception to the receipt of the report by his Department. [74482]
Mr. Straw:
My officials had numerous contacts with the Inquiry team throughout the relevant period, including in relation to the provision of Home Office evidence to the Inquiry. As for myself, I met Sir William Macpherson on several occasions, notably at the start and the end of the inquiry process.
Mr. Maclean:
To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps he will take to ensure the removal of sensitive parts of the Macpherson report appendices from the Internet. [74485]
Mr. Straw:
The full report from the Stephen Lawrence Inquiry and its appendices appeared on The Stationery Office's Official Publications website on the day the report was published. The entire volume containing all the appendices was immediately removed when the Home Office was alerted to the publication of sensitive material in Appendix 11 on 25 February.
Mr. Maclean:
To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will meet the costs of (a) relocation and (b) changing identity for those informants who were named by the Macpherson report. [74487]
Mr. Straw:
Witness protection in London is the responsibility of the Metropolitan Police. I will be discussing the costs of this operation with the Metropolitan Police Commissioner.
Mr. Maclean:
To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what external legal advice he has taken on the liability of his Department for civil damages in the event of claims from informants whose names were published by the Macpherson Inquiry. [74486]
3 Mar 1999 : Column: 763
Mr. Straw:
I shall continue to obtain Counsel's opinion as and when necessary for the effective functioning of the Department.
Mr. Maclean:
To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the (a) written and (b) oral contacts (i) he and (ii) his officials had with the Macpherson Inquiry team between receipt of the Inquiry Report in his Department and the oral statement by the Minister of State on 26 February 1999, Official Report, columns 660-61. [74481]
Mr. Straw:
I met the Inquiry team on 15 February to take receipt of their Report. My officials had numerous contacts with the Inquiry team after that date to discuss the arrangements for publication. I spoke to Sir William Macpherson on 25 February to discuss with him the background to the contents of Appendix 11.
Mr. Maclean:
To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the (a) names and (b) job titles of his Department's officials who (i) were seconded to the Macpherson Inquiry, (ii) assisted the Inquiry and (iii) monitored the progress of the Inquiry for his Department, indicating the dates they were engaged for each of the above purposes. [74484]
Mr. Straw:
The Secretary to the Stephen Lawrence Inquiry, on secondment from the Home Office, was Stephen Wells. Further details of the staffing of the Inquiry secretariat are given in paragraphs 3.28 and 3.30 of the Report.
Responsibility in the Home Office for liaison with the Inquiry rested within the Operational Policing Policy Unit. The Head of Unit is Paul Pugh. He has been assisted by Patricia McFarlane who has responsibility for Police Community Relations within the Operational Policing Policy Unit. Mr. Pugh gave oral evidence to the Inquiry on behalf of the Home Office. Other officials have assisted as part of their normal responsibilities.
Mr. Maclean:
To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what reports he has received to date from the permanent secretary in his Department on the leaking of the Macpherson report. [74475]
Mr. Straw:
The permanent secretary will inform me of the outcome of the leak investigation in due course; I will inform the House of its conclusions.
(2) what are the criteria for the administrative detention of asylum seekers who have not been (a) tried or (b) convicted of a criminal offence. [73779]
(2) when (a) he and (b) ministers in his Department learned of the inclusion of sensitive information in the Stephen Lawrence Inquiry report; [74422]
(2) if he will make a statement on his powers in respect of removing the names and addresses prior to publication of the informants listed in Appendix 11 of the Stephen Lawrence report. [74425]
(2) how many documents were not published by the Macpherson Inquiry on the basis of their sensitivity; [74478]
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |