| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Human Rights Act 1998
7. Ms Candy Atherton (Falmouth and Camborne): What discussions he has had with the magistracy about the implementation of the Human Rights Act 1998. [126124]
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Jack Straw): Lay and stipendiary magistrates have been closely involved in preparations for implementing the Human Rights Act 1998. They have contributed to the programme of seminars and working groups that the Government have organised to ensure that the courts are ready for 2 October, and have been actively involved in devising and delivering, as well as receiving, the nationwide training organised by the Judicial Studies Board. I know that my colleagues in the Lord Chancellor's Department regularly discuss with the magistracy issues about implementation of the Act.
Ms Atherton: I thank my right hon. Friend. Is he confident that, in both urban and rural areas, the Act will be implemented well by magistrates, the police and the probation service? Is he confident that they have the right training programmes in place to ensure full implementation of the Act?
Mr. Straw: We have invested a considerable amount of money, time and effort with the magistrates, the police and the probation service to ensure that everyone involved in the criminal justice system is properly apprised of the requirements of the Act when it comes into force on 2 October, but I respectfully remind my hon. Friend that we have been subject to the convention for more than 50 years, so an awful lot of what it contains will not be new to any of the criminal justice agencies.
Mr. Edward Garnier (Harborough): Having been on a Judicial Studies Board course on the Human Rights Act, I can tell the House how good that course was. I have heard from magistrates in my area that they have much benefited from the course that they have been on. However, what concerns me is that Ministers seem to be woefully ignorant of the terms of the Act. Is the Home Office making arrangements for Ministers to attend courses, so that they can learn about their own legislation?
Mr. Straw: I would require more details to answer that question. Home Office Ministers are pretty well apprised of the terms of the convention. We do our best to observe it, but I am glad to learn from the hon. and learned Gentleman, who played quite a role in the passage of the Human Rights Bill, that there continues to be support for that important measure on the Conservative Benches; it was welcomed by Conservative Front Benchers on Third Reading.
Mr. Patrick Hall (Bedford): I understand that, in publicising the Human Rights Act, my right hon. Friend plans to hold a competition for schools looking for creative ways of giving expression to the rights and responsibilities within the Act. Will he join me in congratulating a firm in my constituency, Crayola, on its
work with children to promote creativity, positive self-expression and problem solving through today's launch of the first ever national colouring week?
Mr. Straw: On balance, having thought about the question, I think that the answer is yes. I should like to congratulate my hon. Friend, his constituents and Crayola, whose products I used at school with such astonishing effect.
Mr. Nick Hawkins (Surrey Heath): Although the Home Secretary is right to say that there has been a lot of all-party support for the Act, what we have repeatedly questioned is whether the Government's estimates of the costs in taxpayers' money of the implementation of the Act are accurate. In the light of further indications that far more cases relying on the Act will be brought before the courts, have the Government massively increased their estimate of the costs in taxpayers' money of implementation?
Mr. Straw: I am glad to have that further reminder of the constructive role that the Conservative Opposition took in the passage of the Bill and of the way in which the then shadow Attorney-General, the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Sir N. Lyell), wished it well from the Opposition Front Bench and advised his colleagues not to vote against it--indeed, he advised them to support it on Third Reading. It is possible that the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins) has been going on and on about the cost of the measure. It is the first time that I have heard him raise it. I do not recall such matters being raised to any degree during the passage of the Bill. By definition, we cannot exactly predict the behaviour either of defendants or, more particularly, of the courts. However, there have certainly been no major revisions of the estimates that we previously made public.
Regulation of Investigatory Powers Bill
8. Mr. John M. Taylor (Solihull): What estimate he has made of the cost to internet service providers of complying with the provisions of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Bill. [126126]
The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Charles Clarke): The Government have estimated that the cost to internet service providers of complying with the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Bill will not exceed £20 million in aggregate over the first four years' operation. I am satisfied that the requirements that we have in mind will be consistent with comparable countries. I should also draw to the hon. Gentleman's attention the fact that Parliament will have a further chance to scrutinise the detailed technical proposals before the requirements come into force and before any costs are incurred.
Mr. Taylor: What does the Minister have to say in response to the British Chambers of Commerce report that the Bill will cost the economy £46 billion? [Laughter.] Yes, £46 billion. Will he give an outright commitment that the Bill will not drive British business out of the United Kingdom?
Mr. Clarke: My short answer is that that is total nonsense, as I have told the British Chambers of
Commerce. I point out to the hon. Gentleman that on our website, we go through the BCC figures; they are nonsense. We also do not accept the charge that e-commerce will be driven out of the country, although I emphasise that we have entered very close dialogue with the industry to try to ensure full agreement. A requirement for the Act to work effectively will be close working with business. We are extremely conscious of that at every level.
Mr. Andrew Miller (Ellesmere Port and Neston): Does my hon. Friend agree that people who oppose the Bill are playing right into the hands of some of the most evil criminals on this planet? Are not charges already imposed in countries such as the United States, Canada, Australia, Sweden and France for internet service providers in this field?
Mr. Clarke: I half agree with my hon. Friend. He is right to identify the benefits to crime of the way in which the internet can operate and we need to contest it. Examples of his point are clear. In 1996-97, through using such surveillance, there were 1,200 arrests, and the seizure of drugs with a street value of more than £600 million and of more than 450 firearms. I only half agree with my hon. Friend because although some people are motivated in the way that he described, some are partners in dialogue--I mentioned business in this context--who are worried about the process, and it is incumbent on us as a Government to work closely with them. I do not impugn their motives, although I impugn the motives of some of those who have made some of the arguments.
Jackie Ballard (Taunton): Given the worries about which the Minister has just spoken, and the increasing concerns of Members of both Houses of Parliament and ordinary, law-abiding citizens who use the internet, will he tell us what changes he intends to make to the Bill?
Mr. Clarke: We are looking at two or three specific changes. The first is to make explicit issues on cost, of the kind with which I dealt in answer to the hon. Member for Solihull (Mr. Taylor). The second is to consider definitions of certain aspects of collection of communications data about which questions have been raised. My noble Friend the Under-Secretary commented on that last week. The third is to make more explicit in the Bill the fact that we are principally requiring plain text rather than any encryption key in order to get the data that we want, about which there has been some concern. A number of those points will arise during the third day's consideration of the Bill in Committee in the other place.
Asylum Seekers (Housing)
9. Mr. Peter L. Pike (Burnley): If he will make a statement on the problems being experienced with housing asylum seekers in the areas to which they are being dispersed. [126127]
The Minister of State, Home Office (Mrs. Barbara Roche): The arrangements for dispersing asylum seekers are working well. As of 9 June, 2,650 asylum seekers had been dispersed to national asylum support service
accommodation around the country. All accommodation has to meet strict criteria and is inspected on our behalf by independent property surveyors.
Mr. Pike: Is my hon. Friend absolutely certain that there have been all necessary discussions with local authorities and health authorities on arrangements for receiving dispersed asylum seekers? Is she absolutely certain that cowboy landlords are not charging exorbitant rents for appalling properties--despite what she has said about accommodation?
Mrs. Roche: I know of my hon. Friend's concerns in these matters and that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has met his council leader and officers and, indeed, written to him. I am confident that we ensure that all the proper procedures are in place for inspection and consultation. However, I shall keep a close eye on the matter and, if a specific meeting is needed, I shall be delighted to arrange it.
Sir Teddy Taylor (Rochford and Southend, East): Will the Minister clarify the circular dated today which the Home Secretary sent to all Members of Parliament? It states, in paragraph 3:
- A central feature of the new . . . arrangements involves . . . dispersal . . . from London and the South East,
- Our policy is to disperse away from London and Kent.
Mrs. Roche: I understand entirely the hon. Gentleman's points. I was delighted to undertake my visit to his constituency and I found it useful. We are dispersing those who seek asylum away from hard-pressed areas in London and the south-east, and the areas to which people are currently being dispersed are concentrated in the north-west, the north-east and Scotland.
Mr. Jim Marshall (Leicester, South): May I urge my hon. Friend to keep a close eye on the workings of the national asylum support service? It recently entered into an agreement to provide accommodation on one hotel site in Leicester for 400 people, but the local authority was not informed at an early stage. Will she ensure that there is adequate dialogue between NASS and local authorities, so that they are able to provide the services needed to support those 400 new people in Leicester?
Mrs. Roche: I understand my hon. Friend's points. I assure him that I hold regular meetings with NASS. Not only do we make sure that local authorities are informed through the regional consortium--that is why we encourage local authorities to sign contracts with us--but we notify health authorities as well.
Mr. Owen Paterson (North Shropshire): How many asylum seekers disappear while on dispersal?
Mrs. Roche: The hon. Gentleman is confused. Dispersal relates to when asylum seekers make application to NASS
because they are destitute. The system replaces the shambolic arrangements left by the previous Government. The hon. Gentleman is talking about temporary admission, but that is completely different.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |