THE PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES
OFFICIAL REPORT
IN THE SECOND SESSION OF THE FIFTY-SECOND PARLIAMENT OF THE
UNITED KINGDOM OF GREAT BRITAIN AND NORTHERN IRELAND
[WHICH OPENED 7 MAY 1997]
FORTY-EIGHTH YEAR OF THE REIGN OF
HER MAJESTY QUEEN ELIZABETH II
SIXTH SERIES
VOLUME 335
THIRTEENTH VOLUME OF SESSION 1998-99
House of Commons
Monday 12 July 1999
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[Madam Speaker in the Chair]
Oral Answers to Questions
HOME DEPARTMENT
The Secretary of State was asked--
Tagging
1. Mr. Desmond Swayne (New Forest, West): How many prisoners have been released as part of the Government's tagging initiative; and what proportion has reoffended. [89210]
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. George Howarth): According to the latest figures, as of 7 July 7,226 prisoners had been placed on home detention curfew since the scheme commenced. Of this total, fewer than 1 per cent had been charged with fresh offences committed while on curfew.
Mr. Swayne: Can releasing a prisoner who has served only six weeks of a custodial sentence of six months be described as being "tough on crime, tough on the causes of crime"?
Mr. Howarth: According to important early indications, the home detention curfew is a success. More
than 95 per cent. of those who have been discharged have completed their curfews successfully, or are still complying with them. The question that the hon. Gentleman needs to ask himself is this: can he suggest an alternative scheme that would produce comparable results? I suspect not--in which case, this scheme is a success. It is a qualified success at this stage, and we are still keeping an eye on it; but it is better for people to be released into the community under supervision, with some chance of modifying their offending behaviour, than for them simply to be let out with no such prospect.
Mr. Paul Flynn (Newport, West): As my hon. Friend says, the scheme has been a great success. One of its unexpected advantages is that there is now a surplus of places in open prisons. Would it not be a good idea to convert one of those prisons into a hostel for women prisoners, who normally pose a very low risk, so that they could lead more or less normal lives and have their young children with them? That would be a humane act.
Perhaps we could also follow the example of other countries, and allow a period of about a fortnight before young women with children need enter prison. That arrangement has been very successful elsewhere.
Mr. Howarth:
My hon. Friend's suggestion is, in fact, being considered. If there is any surplus capacity in the prison estate, some of it might well be suitable for women offenders.
Miss Ann Widdecombe (Maidstone and The Weald):
The Minister will be aware of the story that appeared over the weekend--[Interruption.] It concerned a massive security leak--which is not a subject for frivolity--relating to prisoner records at Belmarsh. Among those whose details were leaked were prisoners who had been released early, including Patrick Magee.
Is it the case that, when Magee's release was authorised, the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and the Home Secretary were fully aware of the contents of the records, and of the threats that Magee was alleged to have made, which appear in those computer records?
Mr. Howarth:
My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has ordered an inquiry into the leaking of the documents. As far as we know, however, it was not Patrick Magee who was named in them.
Miss Widdecombe:
This question, then, remains. There was a terrorist, even allowing for the fact that the report was inaccurate about who it was, and his threats about what he would do on his release are fully detailed in the records. Were those threats known and taken into account when the decision to release that person was made?
Mr. Howarth:
For reasons that the right hon. Lady, as a former prisons Minister, will understand, it would be inappropriate for me to answer that question from the Dispatch Box today. We will, however, ensure that the full facts are given to her in the form of a letter from my right hon. Friend in due course.
2. Mr. John Wilkinson (Ruislip-Northwood):
What estimate he has made of the compensation to be paid by his Department to British holidaymakers who are unable to travel abroad in 1999-2000 owing to the non-return of their passport by the Passport Agency. [89211]
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Mike O'Brien):
Compensation payments average about £260. Between April and July, there have been 132 cases in which compensation claims have been received relating to missed travel dates.
Mr. Wilkinson:
Is the Minister in any way changing his attitude? He will recall that, on the morning of 29 June, he told the British public over the airwaves that the crisis was all their fault: it was all their fault for panicking. By the afternoon of that day, the Home Secretary was saying at the Dispatch Box that he would pay compensation--and rightly so--to all whose holidays had been wrecked, and to business men who could not meet due travel dates.
Does the Minister think that the figure he has given represents genuinely fair compensation? Is £260 sufficient compensation for a wrecked holiday, or for the unquantifiable business lost by business men who could not meet their travel dates?
Mr. O'Brien:
We always consider compensation claims in full.
The hon. Gentleman referred to what I was alleged to have said. He completely traduced what I said. I said no such thing; I did not blame everyone for what had happened. Ministers have always made it clear that they accept ministerial responsibility for what happened in the Passport Agency, and we have not sought to duck that responsibility.
Let me try to set the compensation issue in context. The agency has made compensation payments for many years. In the last financial year, it made 70 compensation payments. In 1997-98, it made 50 and, in 1996-97, it dealt with 88 compensation claims. It normally identifies the cost within a budget of 2p on the cost of a passport worth £21, which, in total, raises about £100,000. In terms of the claims that we have met so far, we are not even nearing that figure; therefore, the compensation claims that we will meet will be dealt with properly. They will be considered according to the normal arrangements, as they have been for many years. We will seek to ensure that, so far as we can, we continue to meet 99.99 per cent. of travel dates that people ask to us meet.
Mr. Ben Bradshaw (Exeter):
Could not the recent situation have been eased and future time wasting and bureaucracy avoided if we abandoned our rather idiosyncratic adherence to the requirement for passports for travel between this country and fellow European Union member states?
Mr. O'Brien:
My hon. Friend will know that protecting our border controls was safeguarded as a fundamental principle by the Prime Minister at Amsterdam. We intend to ensure that we maintain border controls.
Mr. Richard Allan (Sheffield, Hallam):
The Minister must be aware that the public would be very angry if they found that they had to pay the full costs of this year's chaos at the Passport Agency without the contractors paying serious penalties. Therefore, does he agree that it is in the public interest for there to be full disclosure of any penalties that are paid by Siemens Business Systems in respect of its part in the Passport Agency problems? If such agreements are covered by commercial confidentiality, will he approach Siemens to ask it to forgo that confidentiality for the wider public interest?
Mr. O'Brien:
The summary business case is already a public document and we are placing it in the Library of the House. Any compensation payments will be dealt with in the normal way.
Mr. Dennis Skinner (Bolsover):
Why is it that there are computers that are run by Government--when the Tories were in and now under the present Government at the Passport Agency--that seemingly do not work, yet, throughout the ages, there has always been one computer that works immaculately. We should use it every time for these purposes: the one that is used by Inland Revenue. When money is drawn in, the computer works. When money is paid out, for example, by the Benefits Agency and Passport Agency, it does not work. Why does my hon. Friend not take my advice and say stuff it to Siemens?
Mr. O'Brien:
My hon. Friend will be pleased to know that we are having frank and full discussions with Siemens.
Miss Ann Widdecombe (Maidstone and The Weald):
What are the current turnaround times for passports and when will the backlog be cleared?
Mr. O'Brien:
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will make a statement on that point in answer to
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |