| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Richard Spring (West Suffolk) (Con): I thank the Foreign Secretary for allowing advance sight of his statement and the Command Paper. We are grateful to him for attempting to grasp an issue that is so important to the millions of Britons who travel abroad each year. Particularly in view of that, I welcome the month that has been set aside for consultation, as this directly affects our insurance and travel industries. Let me also express our appreciation to all the Foreign Office personnel and others who have contributed, and pay tribute to those—all too often unsung—who must make difficult assessments and decisions. I refer to our dedicated and professional consular staff abroad.
There is always a balance to be struck between giving adequate warning of risks to the travelling public and avoiding unnecessary anxiety, or damaging the travel industry and the economies of holiday or business destinations. Concern about the way in which travel advice is compiled and disseminated is especially relevant following Bali and Mombasa, after which the emphasis on safe travel took on a new meaning and a new importance. Advice must not be ambiguous, but it is equally important for it not to be so blunt as to cause unwarranted panic. We must not allow the destructive forces of terrorism an easy victory. After all, it is their aim to cause panic and instil fear, and disrupt the normal patterns of life. I am aware of the sheer volume of information that our intelligence services gather each day. Anything that improves that sifting process is to be welcomed.
Many in this House will know personally of what has become something of a rite of passage for so many young people; namely, to take off to the four corners of the earth during their gap year. Mobile telephone and e-mails are not always available to contact anxious parents, so great reliance is placed upon travel advice to warn or reassure them, particularly in the event of any terrorist threat or attack.
Although we are to have the consultation period, I wish to highlight a number of points for consideration. Before we move on to the issues arising out of terrorist threats, the whole House will be aware of the somewhat less-than-perfect behaviour by young Britons in certain Mediterranean resorts. The understandable reaction of
the local communities is to demand rigorous police action. Does the Secretary of State agree that websites should clearly indicate the extent of the draconian action now being undertaken by local police if excessive antisocial behaviour occurs?May I encourage those who draw up the FCO country websites to continue to clearly emphasise specific dangers such as road safety, health risks and crime, while highlighting particular cultural sensitivities and any lists of objects that may not be imported or exported?
Having today looked at the Foreign Office website, I ask the Foreign Secretary to agree that it is crucial that it be made graphically clear daily, on the front page of the travel advice section, which if any countries have had a change in their status recently. There are important insurance implications. Already, terrorist-related events are excluded from nearly all UK travel insurance policies, but given that UK travel insurance policies are also not valid in prescribed countries, the advice should contain much more explicit information, explaining that personal liability will occur in case of, for example, even personal injury when travelling within these countries. Does the Foreign Secretary agree that that must be marked clearly on the front page of the FCO travel advice website and in any supporting literature, stating that in these circumstances travel is entirely at one's own risk?
Has the Foreign Secretary been satisfied in his conversations with the Association of British Travel Agents and the travel industry that travel agents are, in practice, directing their clients to FCO travel advice where appropriate? Is he aware of just how anxious the travel industry is to have the clearest possible directions?
In the review, will the Foreign Secretary continue to look at the way in which other countries assess their travel advice? Will he work co-operatively with other Governments to ensure that there are no glaring disparities of view about terrorist threats and, where there are, seek to try to find ways to reconcile these differences, which in the past have been highlighted and can cause later recriminations?
Of course we will work with this review, study it closely and, as necessary, respond further to it. We shall never know how many lives it will save, but we will know all too well the consequences if we get it wrong.
Mr. Straw: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his constructive approach to the document. If we are to ensure that the advice has integrity and authority, it is crucial that it should not become a partisan matter; the tone of his remarks suggests that there is no danger of that. There may be differences of view, which is precisely why I came to the House today.
I am grateful also for the hon. Gentleman's tribute to our consular and other staff abroad, and to staff in the Foreign Office. There are difficult judgments to be made. Obviously, officials from the Joint Terrorism Assessment Centre, the Foreign Office and all Departments offer Ministers advice, but Ministers are responsible for the content of travel advice and are answerable to the House for it.
The hon. Gentleman asked me about the less-than-perfect behaviour of British teenagers abroad.
Mr. Spring: Not only teenagers.
Mr. Straw: And not only abroad, in my experience. From recollection, we give a lot of advice about the nature of local law enforcement, but I will check on that.
The hon. Gentleman suggests that the home page of the FCO website should make graphically clear whether the travel advice in respect of an individual country has been changed significantly in the recent past. That is a good idea which I will follow through; I will let him know if it is not possible for some reason. He suggested also that we add a rider about insurance on the home page. There is a limit to what can go on the home page but, in my judgment, of the two, it is more important to highlight the changes rather than to refer to insurance.
The hon. Gentleman asked about the practice in other countries, about which there is a passage in the document. We work closely with other countries, but it is important that we do not get into a situation where we substitute the lowest common denominator of other countries for our judgment. It is inevitable that if there is a terrorist outrage, relatives and friends of the victims will look to see whether it could have been avoided and at what other countries advised. I fully understand that. It is for each Government—in this case, for each Foreign Secretary—to make their own judgment, to have that judgment made public and to be answerable for it. I am seeking to provide a better and, to a degree, more scientific basis for the judgment to be made.
Mr. Stephen Pound (Ealing, North) (Lab): I welcome the advice, but within the fairly broad ambit of the review, will my right hon. Friend consider the circumstances of Kashmir? Enormous improvements have taken place in that beautiful country, which is now far more peaceful; yet the tourists and travellers whom it desperately needs do not visit because of the FCO travel advice. I do not need to remind my right hon. Friend of the immense improvements that have taken place, and of the work of Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee and President Musharraf. Will he consider the circumstances of a country that could benefit so much from a recasting of the FCO travel advice?
Mr. Straw: I understand my hon. Friend's point, and we have no interest in advising against travel except where we think the circumstances and evidence justify it. At the moment, we recommend against all travel to Jammu and Kashmir—on the Indian side of the line of control—except Ladakh via Manali, or by air to Leh. It is not the whole of the state; it is a substantial part of it. We all want the peace process to continue, therefore I will not say that we will have the advice changed. But I will ask for a further security assessment to be made of the current conditions in Jammu and Kashmir.
Sir Menzies Campbell (North-East Fife) (LD): I thank the Foreign Secretary for the statement and welcome the period of consultation that he announced. I have sympathy with the Foreign Office on the subject of travel advice because, to use a colloquialism, it is damned if it does and damned if it does not. That makes the crucial balance between danger and disruption to
which he referred in his statement all the more difficult to strike, not least because the risks to UK citizens may be of an entirely different degree in certain circumstances as compared with the risks to citizens of other countries, even within the EU. Does he agree that in order to strike that balance successfully, we need constant monitoring and informed, sensitive judgment from competent, qualified and experienced staff, not least because of the possible effect on personal insurance provisions that individuals may have taken out, but also because of the possible impact on fragile tourist economies?
Mr. Straw: The right hon. and learned Gentleman puts the dilemma facing us acutely and he is right that it is our duty to make these judgments. There has been a significant improvement in the overall assessment of intelligence, which now takes place within JTAC. It will never be perfect, but the quality of assessment is much better and is now regarded as something of a world leader. Of course we have to take into account the risks to UK citizens rather than to others, but we must not slide into the idea suggested by some—although not by the right hon. and learned Gentleman—that because we have been prominent in the so-called war against terrorism, we are more likely to be victims. It is very interesting that the German newspapers last Thursday were full of a story that received not a line in British newspapers, but which was of real significance. It was headline news there that the German President Rau had to cancel a state visit to Djibouti in Africa because of a specific threat to him and his entourage from al-Qaeda based terrorists. That led to interesting debate in Germany, which continues, on whether the Germans have been too complacent in believing that because they took a different view from us over Iraq, they have some sort of immunity.
Let us be clear: as far as those terrorists are concerned, no one has immunity who is not a fully signed-up adherent to their wholly distorted view of the world. Everyone else, including people of the Muslim faith as well as those of other faiths, is an apostate and heretic and, from their point of view, should be a victim.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman asked about constant monitoring. Yes, we carry that out, but we can always improve.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |