| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Egypt
11. Mr. Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield): What recent discussions he has had with the Government of Egypt concerning the treatment of Christians in Egypt. [112879]
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Peter Hain): When my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary visited Cairo in January, he discussed inter-faith issues with members of the Government, including President Mubarak. We were concerned to hear reports of violence in early January in upper Egypt. The Egyptian authorities have pledged to carry out a thorough investigation.
Mr. Sheerman: My hon. Friend will be pleased to know that that will be greatly welcomed by the Christian community in this country, but is he aware that the conservative estimates are that, last year, tens of thousands of Christians were killed for their faith? Is he further aware that in not only Egypt, but Indonesia and Pakistan, there are real concerns about the use of blasphemy laws to imprison and to torture Christian prisoners? Will he stand up time and again not only for pluralism, but for religious tolerance in all those countries?
Mr. Hain: Indeed I will. I am happy to acknowledge and pay tribute to my hon. Friend's close and dedicated interest in the matter. Britain has a proud record, having a multi-faith, multi-cultural, multi-ethnic society. We press that as a model for the rest of the world. We criticise, condemn and ask for an end to any attacks on Christians throughout the world, just as we do any attacks on members of other faiths.
Mr. Francis Maude (Horsham): Was the treatment of the Coptic Christians discussed during the visits to Egypt last October and this February by Lord Levy? Is the Foreign Office told what he gets up to in his role as the Prime Minister's personal special envoy? While the Minister is at it, will he confirm that No. 10 has taken over responsibility for policy on the middle east, the United States, Russia and the European Union? Does he recall that, on one of the Foreign Secretary's earlier forays in the middle east, The Jerusalem Post asked:
- with a diplomat like Cook by his side, how can Blair fail to loom as a giant statesman?
Mr. Hain: On that performance, the right hon. Gentleman will be shadow Foreign Secretary for as short a time as his predecessor. Is he really suggesting that the Prime Minister should not take an interest in those international issues and support the Foreign Secretary's work?
Every fair-minded citizen will condemn outright the grubby and pathetic little campaign being waged by the Opposition in certain sections of the media against Lord Levy. He travels as the Prime Minister's envoy--on his behalf--representing interests, whether economic or others, in all parts of the middle east, from Morocco to Damascus. For example, when he spoke to the Syrian Government, he was instrumental in starting the negotiations between Syria and the Israelis. He should be applauded for that, not condemned. As he travels at his own expense and in his own time, the House should be grateful for his work and for the fact that Britain's interests are being represented through him, with the Prime Minister's agreement. He reports regularly to the Foreign Secretary and to Ministers such as me. It is time that the right hon. Gentleman stopped the snivelling little campaign against Lord Levy.
Intergovernmental Conference
13. Mr. Owen Paterson (North Shropshire): Which items Her Majesty's Government have ruled out for an extension of qualified majority voting at the intergovernmental conference; and if he will make a statement. [112881]
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Keith Vaz): The Government have made it clear on a number of occasions, in the House and in our White Paper on the intergovernmental conference, that we shall consider the possible extension of qualified majority voting on a case-by-case basis. When it is in Britain's interests to support QMV, we shall do so. However, when key national interests are at stake--such as treaty changes, border controls, social security, taxation, own resources and defence--we shall insist on retaining unanimity.
Mr. Paterson: Will the Government refuse to sign any treaty that extends QMV to cover any sphere of British taxation?
Cameroon
14. Mr. David Chaytor (Bury, North): If he will make a statement on human rights in Cameroon. [112882]
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Peter Hain): Cameroon's recent human rights record has been poor, and Cameroon has made little progress towards fulfilling the commitments on human rights and governance made on joining the Commonwealth in 1995.
Mr. Chaytor: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. May I draw his attention particularly to the case of members of the Southern Cameroon National Council who were arrested on 8-9 January, in the south-west province? Will he make specific representations to the Government of Cameroon on the fate of those SCNC members? Does he share the view
expressed in the report by the United Nations Commission on Human Rights on the routine use of torture in the central prison in Yaounde?
Mr. Hain: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that issue--in which he has taken a close interest, and which we raise with the Cameroon Government. The Cameroon Government's human rights record is very poor. There is widespread use of torture and detention without charge. A special Government unit, the Brigade Anti-Gang, is responsible for hundreds of extra-judicial killings in the north--where there should have been another trial of 76 north-west detainees, who have been detained without charge for two years, and of whom seven have died in detention. That is completely unacceptable, and the Cameroon Government must honour their obligations to their citizens and--as a Commonwealth member--to the Harare declaration.
Mr. John Bercow (Buckingham): Given that twice in two years Cameroon has come bottom of the Transparency International corruption perception index, how has the hon. Gentleman satisfied himself that no British financial assistance to Cameroon has been in any way misappropriated or contributed to the abuse of human rights?
Mr. Hain: We have satisfied ourselves to the greatest possible extent on the matter. However, if the hon. Gentleman has any evidence to the contrary on it, I should be very pleased to hear it. We have also taken a very tough line within the Commonwealth. At the meeting of the Commonwealth ministerial action group in New York, which I attended, I pressed for a Commonwealth mission to go to Cameroon to make an assessment for itself. Cameroon entered into certain obligations when it joined the Commonwealth in 1995, but it is not honouring those obligations. Its continued membership of the councils of the Commonwealth is therefore in question.
Iraq
17. Mr. Tam Dalyell (Linlithgow): If he will investigate the reasons for the recent resignations of (a) Hans von Sponeck and (b) Jutta Burghardt from UN agencies involved in Iraq. [112885]
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Peter Hain): No. We are looking forward to the appointment of replacements who will channel their efforts into getting the best out of the United Nations humanitarian programme, as improved and enlarged by Security Council resolution 1284
Mr. Dalyell: On sanctions, who did Kofi Annan support--von Sponeck and Burghardt, his own officials, or the British or American Governments?
Mr. Hain: On sanctions, Kofi Annan supported the policy of the United Nations, which is articulated in the new Security Council resolution 1284--on which Britain led in securing its passage through the Security Council. The resolution provides for extra humanitarian relief by lifting the limits on oil for food. It also provides for the suspension of sanctions if Saddam Hussein agrees to an arms inspection regime going in.
I respect my hon. Friend's interest and close involvement in the Iraqi situation--he deserves credit for that--but I find it most difficult to comprehend what alternative is being proposed by the critics of sanctions. Would they, by lifting sanctions, allow Saddam Hussein the freedom to attack neighbours--as he did in the cases of Iran and Kuwait; to attack the Kurds in the north and the Shi'ites in the south; and to continue to attack his own citizens? He has a dreadful, tyrannical record. I have yet to hear a coherent alternative to sanctions, although we must all be concerned about the humanitarian suffering that the United Nations' new resolution is designed to deal with.
Dangerous People with Severe Personality Disorder
3.30 pm
Mr. John Heppell (Nottingham, East): I beg to move,
- That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the law with respect to the assessment and detention of dangerous people with severe personality disorder.
The Bill is not a panacea. It would not deal with everyone with a personality disorder. Some of them present a very low risk, and some no risk at all, to the general public. It would not deal with all paedophiles, although a small proportion of the people whom it would affect may be paedophiles. It would deal only with a small minority of people, but at present the risk that they pose to the public is not dealt with adequately and attempts to treat them are insufficient.
Every day, psychiatrists, psychologists and other clinical specialists, as well as police, probation officers and social workers, make life-and-death decisions about how much risk individuals present to the public and whether that risk has reduced enough to allow them into the community. Those who make the decisions are trying to protect the rights of the individual and the community. The Bill would not change that. Such decisions still have to be made. I recognise that the decisions are not always clear cut and that those who make them are in a no-win situation. Inevitably, sometimes they get it wrong. Often they are criticised for taking someone's liberty away when the risk is low. More often, they are criticised--usually with the benefit of hindsight--for releasing someone into the community who offends or reoffends. I do not want to join in that criticism. I recognise that for every case that goes tragically wrong in a blaze of media attention, there are hundreds in which we have got the balance right and the correct decision has been made. The aim of the Bill is to make it possible for a small number of people to be detained under a similar process when, after a proper assessment, they are shown to be a serious danger to the public.
I am proposing the legislation not because of a morbid interest in the subject or as a theoretical exercise, but because the problem exists and to ignore it and do nothing is not an option. Last year I was faced with the prospect of a special unit being set up in Nottingham prison in my constituency to house paedophiles. My immediate reaction was hostile, as was that of the local press and people in the area. The story was not an example of good communications by those involved. News about the unit leaked out before there had been any consultation, including with me.
Because people were not aware of all the facts, many invented their own. Dozens of rumours began to circulate. Because I did not know the truth, I could not squash those rumours. At one stage I was told that 30 paedophiles were coming to the area, some of whom would be resident, while others would visit on a daily basis. I was told that a door would be built in the prison and they would have keys so that they could go in and out as they wanted. It was all nonsense being peddled as truth, but I found it impossible to undo later much of the damage that was done at that time. Many local residents were whipped up into a fury. Without the full facts, that was understandable, but even when we had the facts many questions were left unanswered.
Initially, it was planned to house three dangerous offenders. In the end, only two bedsits were constructed. Two notorious paedophiles are now in occupancy away from the community. Initially I was not thrilled at the prospect. I met my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, Ministers, civil servants and experts in dealing with such offenders. Only then did I realise that the alternative to having them housed inside the prison behind five locked doors, with closed-circuit television cameras and 24-hour surveillance, was for them to go out into the community. Admittedly, that may not have been in Nottingham, but it would be somewhere in the community where they would have much more opportunity to reoffend. I was told that those people would reoffend: not that it was possible or probable, but that it was certain. Everybody agreed on that--the police, the probation service, the psychiatrists and the psychologists.
Unfortunately, as the law stands, if someone is dangerous and a psychiatrist says that they can be treated, they can be held somewhere secure for that treatment. However, if someone is dangerous but a psychiatrist says that they cannot be treated, it is deemed that they cannot be held anywhere. That is not quite as daft as it sounds, and I appreciate why that is the case. Nevertheless, one does not need to be the Lord Chancellor to recognise that, in many circumstances, that is unacceptable.
The six months that the paedophiles have been in Nottingham prison have been a great success. I acknowledge that there has been no incident during that time, and that no child has been at risk. I am sure that children would have been at risk had those people been out in the community. However, that is not a long-term solution, which must involve new legislation and new resources. The Bill is an attempt to develop that long-term solution and to take the first tentative steps towards it.
This is a complex area of law that requires careful legislation. To remove someone's liberty without trial is not a course of action that anyone should contemplate without careful consideration. Unlike some sections of the media, I do not condemn the Government for not introducing legislation. The last thing we need is a knee-jerk reaction to the problem. It was right and proper that, before legislation was embarked upon, there should have been proper consultation with all the relevant agencies. I have used opinion B in the Government's consultation document as the basis of the Bill.
I see the Bill as a practical solution to a real, not theoretical, problem. I am grateful to the agencies which have contacted me and offered advice and constructive criticism: the Royal College of Nursing, the Royal College of Psychiatrists, MIND and Liberty have all given good advice on the pitfalls of legislation. I have said to
all of them that I see the difficulties and the problems. I recognise that it is important that we get the Bill right and, with careful deliberation, we can get it right. I am determined to press ahead unless someone can furnish me with a real alternative.
Many people were upset when I would not demonstrate against the Government putting two paedophiles in Nottingham prison. The reason for that was not pressure from the Home Secretary, or any other Minister. I was under no pressure--there are no votes in the House on these issues, and no whip is applied. There was not a party line for me to follow. The reason why I would not join others in condemning the proposals was simple: I could think of no real alternative that did not put children at risk. I still think that I was right, and I am in a similar position now in that I see no real alternative to the Bill.
Some of my constituents have offered solutions ranging from marooning those individuals on a desert island to drowning them. The most common solution put forward was the one that seems to be the standard solution proposed to almost every problem--I refer, of course, to chopping off their goolies. I apologise if that is unparliamentary language, Madam Speaker, but that is how it is often put to me. That is not a real option, and we can see that it is neither practical nor possible within the law--and, as has been said, it does not work.
Today, coincidentally, the Select Committee on Home Affairs has published its report on managing dangerous people with severe personality disorders. Some may not believe it, but that is a coincidence. If anyone believes that I have enough influence to persuade the Whips to give me a ten-minute rule Bill spot on the day that the Select Committee produces a report that proposes the same conclusions as my Bill, they must think that I have the same reputation as Machiavelli.
The Bill would provide a good option for dangerous people with severe personality disorders. It would offer them more than they are offered at present and would also offer protection to the public.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |