| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
24 Feb 2003 : Column 17—continued
Polish Citizens (Deportation)
9. Bob Russell (Colchester): How many Polish citizens are due to be deported prior to the planned date for Poland's accession to membership of the European Union. [98765]
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Hilary Benn): The number of Polish citizens we remove will be determined principally by the number who are refused entry or are found to be here in breach of our immigration laws.
Bob Russell : From that answer, I suggest that the number will be very small. With Poland about to join the European Union, may I point out that it is a waste of time and money to uproot people who could legally return to this country in a year or two's time? In particular, why pick on a 63-year-old Polish-born widow, Mrs. Maria Puchrowicz, who lives in my constituency? Have we really got to the stage of deporting 63-year-old widows?
Hilary Benn: I am not aware of the case that the hon. Gentleman raises, although I will gladly look into it. The answer to his substantive point is that we need to maintain the integrity of the asylum system. He is not correct to assume that the number removed has been very small. Since April 2002, 848 failed Polish asylum seekers have been removed on scheduled flights. On 14 January, 34 were removed using a charter flight. About the same number again of non-asylum removals have occurred as a result of enforcement action. In addition, 8,700 Polish nationals were refused entry to the country in 2001 and subsequently removed.
Keith Vaz (Leicester, East): The Minister will know that our Government's position is much more honourable than that of the German Government as far as Polish citizenship is concerned once Poland joins the European Union. Given the pressure on the immigration and nationality directorate, which is obvious from questions asked by hon. Members on both sides of the House, surely it would be sensible, in view of the fact that Poland will join on 1 May next year, to hold back on the removals until it is a full member. Is that not the most sensible and cost-effective means of dealing with the problem?
Hilary Benn: I disagree with my hon. Friend for the simple reason that maintaining the integrity of the asylum system is the right approach for the reasons that I outlined, notwithstanding the fact that Poland will join the European Union on 1 May 2004.
Antisocial Behaviour
10. Mrs. Joan Humble (Blackpool, North and Fleetwood): What steps he is taking to tackle antisocial behaviour. [98766]
The Minister for Policing, Crime Reduction and Community Safety (
Mr. John Denham): We will shortly be publishing a White Paper on antisocial behaviour which will be followed by an antisocial behaviour Bill. That will build on existing measures to ensure that we have legislation in place to tackle antisocial behaviour. We have also established an antisocial behaviour unit in the Home Office to take the lead in ensuring that new and existing legislation is used to good effect.
Mrs. Humble : I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. He will be aware of the success achieved by Blackpool police in reducing the antisocial behaviour of young people by working closely with other agencies. When the individual support orders that are proposed in the Criminal Justice Bill are introduced, will he ensure that they lead to genuine collaborative work between the police and social services so that those young people do not reoffend?
Mr. Denham: I congratulate the police in Blackpool for their use of the interim antisocial behaviour orders. They have obtained seven since the new powers came into effect at the beginning of December. It is certainly true that we have not always had the support that we would have liked from social services departments up and down the country for antisocial behaviour orders. The new individual support order is designed to address the causes of a young person's offending behaviour and, for that reason, social services departments should become more active and more supportive of the measure.
Bob Spink (Castle Point): Why did the Government take away from police the power to remove unopened cans and bottles of alcohol from young people and children in public places? When will they reverse that decision?
Mr. Denham: It is important that the police have the power to remove such alcohol from young people. The Licensing Bill, which is before Parliament, will give them that right.
Unsolved Murders
12. Mr. John Robertson (Glasgow, Anniesland): If he will make a statement on police procedure for investigating unsolved murders in cases where the original conviction has been overturned. [98768]
The Minister for Policing, Crime Reduction and Community Safety (Mr. John Denham): The police will review the evidence available and any comments or findings made by the court in cases where convictions are overturned. As with other unsolved crimes, it is for the police to decide in individual cases whether the evidence justifies reopening the investigation.
John Robertson: I thank my hon. Friend for his answer. He will be aware of the case of one of my constituents, Robert Brown, who spent more than 25 years in jail for a murder he did not commit. He was finally released in November. He will also be aware of the case of Stefan Kiszko, who was released from prison in 1992 on the basis of an unsafe conviction. He had
served 16 years in prison. It has recently been announced that in that case the original murder is being reinvestigated due to new DNA evidence.Will my hon. Friend tell me why it is that in cases such as the Birmingham Six and the Guildford Four, and the case involving one of my constituents, the police failed to find the real perpetrators and were all too ready to see convicted the people who were charged?
Mr. Denham: We must take every miscarriage of justice extremely seriously. I think that in every instance
that my hon. Friend has mentioned, the cases were brought to court originally before the protections that now exist in the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. Those protections have been important. If there is a case, however old, where a conviction is overturned and it becomes possible for the police to reinvestigate, and the evidence is there to enable a reinvestigation, I would hope that the police would take that course. That must be a matter for the police to decide in the light of the evidence that is available to them.Business of the House
3.31 pm
The Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Robin Cook): Mr. Speaker, with permission, I should like to make a short business statement. The business for Wednesday 26 February 2003 will now be:
Debate on Iraq on a Government motion.
The business for Thursday 27 February will be consideration of a motion to approve the Third Report of the Committee on Standards and Privileges followed by consideration of motions relating to the Draft Social Security Benefits Up-rating Order 2003 and the draft guaranteed Minimum Pensions Increase Order 2003.
The debate on Welsh Affairs is provisionally planned for the week commencing 10 March and I hope to make an announcement on an alternative date for the debate on flood and coastal defence policy in due course.
I will of course make my usual business statement on Thursday.
Mr. Eric Forth (Bromley and Chislehurst): I am grateful for that statement. When will the text of the motion for Wednesday be available to the House?
Mr. Cook: The motion will be available during the course of the evening, when it will be tabled. It will, of course, be available to all hon. Members in the Order Paper for tomorrow. Given that we have just returned from a recess, there is no quicker way of getting it on the Order Paper. I understand the interest of the House in this matter. Perhaps I can help the House by saying that Wednesday's motion will confirm the commitment of the Government and the House to our strategy of handling the Iraq crisis through the United Nations. It will repeat our support for resolution 1441, which the House overwhelmingly endorsed on 25 November.
The motion will not be a trap. No Member need fear that support for it will be interpreted as support for any specific action. The House will have other opportunities in future to debate Iraq, and if necessary another specific opportunity to vote on military action.
Mr. Paul Tyler (North Cornwall): We warmly welcome this timely motion. We welcome also the assurance that the Leader of the House has just given us that the text of the motion will be available shortly. Further, we welcome the fact that this will be an opportunity not only for the House to debate in clear terms a substantive motion, but to vote in clear terms on that motion. We hope that there will be no fudge—no parliamentary subterfuge—so that we can see clearly that the House is representing considerable concern among the public at large at what is happening and what is being done in our name. We look to you, Mr. Speaker, to ensure that the division of opinion in the country can be fully reflected in the way in which the House votes on Wednesday night.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |